61306 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 / Notices

ACTION: Notice of meeting and

opportunity for collaboration.

SUMMARY: The Office of Information

Technologies in the U.S. Department of

Commerce’s International Trade

Administration will conduct a public

meeting on Wednesday, November 8,

2000 at 9 a.m., in room 3407, Herbert C.

Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

The purpose of the meeting is to

introduce to U.S. information

technology (IT) suppliers the IT

Management Planning Tool, a new

product for developing IT markets

overseas, and to explore ways to

collaborate in disseminating this

product to potential users. Seating is

limited. Those planning on attending

the meeting should inform the Office of

Information Technologies by October

27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: TuTrang Phan or Raymond Cho in the

Office of Information Technologies at

202–482–0571 (phone), 202–482–3002

(fax), or by e-mail at

ExportIT@ita.doc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office

of Information Technologies in the U.S.

Department of Commerce’s International

Trade Administration will conduct a

public meeting on Wednesday,

November 8, 2000 at 9 a.m., in room

3407, Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th

and Constitution Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20230. The purpose of

the meeting is to introduce to U.S.

information technology (IT) suppliers a

new approach to IT market development

overseas and explore ways to

collaborate in this effort. There will be

a demonstration and discussion of the

IT Management Planning Tool, which

was created to serve as a market

stimulator for U.S. suppliers to generate

demand for their IT products and

services overseas. The IT Tool is a

software application which helps

management of businesses and

government agencies assess their

current IT usage and plan for future IT

investments that can improve their

operations. Because the IT Tool is

intended for overseas audiences, the

contents of the Tool will be localized

and translated into several languages,

including Spanish, Portuguese, Russian,

Simplified Chinese, and Traditional

Chinese. U.S. information technology

suppliers and service providers

interested in partnering with the U.S.

Department of Commerce in this unique

overseas market development effort

should attend the meeting.

The meeting is open to the public,

however, seating in room 3407 is

limited and is available on a first come,

first served basis. Those planning on

attending the meeting should inform the

Office of Information Technologies by

October 27, 2000. To request further

information concerning the meeting or

to request a copy of the Information

Technology Planning Tool, contact TuTrang Phan or Raymond Cho in the

Office of Information Technologies at

202–482–0571 by phone, 202–482–3002

by fax, or by e-mail at

ExportIT@ita.doc.gov.

Dated: October 12, 2000.

John E. McPhee,

Director, Office of Information Technologies.

[FR Doc. 00–26659 Filed 10–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 091400A]

Marine Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of photography permit

no. 986-1592-00.

SUMMARY: Pandion Enterprises, P.O. Box

545, Summerland, California 93067,

[Permit Holder: Bruce Reitherman], has

been issued a permit to take by Level B

harassment one species, elephant

seal(Mirounga angustirostris), of nonthreatened, non-endangered marine

mammals for purposes of commercial

photography.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related

documents are available for review

upon written request or by appointment

in the following offices:

Permits Division, Office of Protected

Resources, NMFS,1315 East-West

Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring,

MD 20910 (301/713-2289); and

Regional Administrator, Southwest

Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean

Boulevard, Long Beach, California

90802-4213, (562/980-4000).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

9, 2000, notice was published in the

Federal Register(65 FR 48679) that the

above-named applicant had submitted a

request for a permit to take one species

of marine mammals by Level B

harassment during the course of

commercial photographic activities in

Piedras Blancas and Ano Nuevo,

California. The requested permit has

been issued, under the authority of

§104(c)(6) of the Marine Mammal

Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16

U.S.C. 1361 et seq.).

Dated: October 5, 2000.

Ann D. Terbush,

Chief, Permits and Documentation Division,

Office of Protected Resources, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–26655 Filed 10–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

United States Patent and Trademark

Office

RIN 0651–AB25

Request for Comments on Preliminary

Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and

Foreign Judgments in Civil and

Commercial Matters

AGENCY: United States Patent and

Trademark Office, Commerce.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Hague Conference on

Private International Law is negotiating

a convention designed to create

common jurisdiction rules for

international civil and commercial cases

and to provide for international

recognition and enforcement of

judgments issued under these rules. A

Diplomatic Conference to conclude

these negotiations is scheduled to begin

in June 2001, with a final session

sometime in early 2002. The United

States Patent and Trademark Office

(USPTO) is seeking views of the public

on this effort and the consequent

potential changes to United States law

and practice.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

on or before December 1, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to offer

written comments should address those

comments to Director of the United

States Patent and Trademark Office, Box

4, United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Washington, DC 20231, marked

to the attention of Elizabeth Shaw.

Comments may also be submitted by

facsimile transmission to (703) 305–

7575 or by electronic mail through the

Internet to elizabeth.shaw2@uspto.gov.

All comments will be maintained for

public inspection in Room 902 of

Crystal Park II, 2121 Crystal Drive,

Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Lucas by telephone at (703)

305–9300; by facsimile at (703) 305–

8885; by electronic mail to

jennifer.lucas@uspto.gov; or by mail

marked to the attention of Jennifer

Lucas, Attorney-Advisor, addressed to

Director of the United States Patent and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 / Notices 61307

Trademark Office, Box 4, Washington,

DC 20231.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Hague Conference on Private

International Law is in the process of

negotiating a new convention on

jurisdiction and the recognition and

enforcement of foreign judgments in

civil and commercial matters. The draft

convention would create jurisdictional

rules governing international lawsuits

and provide for recognition and

enforcement of judgments by the courts

of Member States. Member States would

be required to recognize and enforce

judgments covered by the Convention if

the jurisdiction in the court rendering

the judgment were founded on one of

the bases of jurisdiction required by the

Convention.

Discussions began in 1992, at the

request of the United States. The

impetus behind the request was to gain

recognition and enforcement of U.S.

judgments in other countries. While

U.S. courts generally recognize and

enforce judgments from other countries,

U.S. judgments do not always receive

the same treatment abroad.

The Hague Conference is planning a

two-part Diplomatic Conference to

finalize the draft convention. The first

session would take place in June 2001,

followed by a second session in late

2001 or early 2002.

The text of the proposed convention

and other documents relating to the

proposal are available via the Hague

Conference’s web site at http://

www.hcch.net/e/workprog/jdgm.html.

Brief Summary of Draft Convention

The draft convention would create

three categories of jurisdiction: (1)

required bases for jurisdiction (generally

Articles 3–16); (2) prohibited bases for

jurisdiction (Article 18); and (3)

everything else not covered by (1) or (2)

(Article 17).

Articles 3–16 set out jurisdictional

rules for specific types of actions that

the courts in Contracting States must

provide, and from which any resulting

judgment may gain the benefits of the

recognition and enforcement provisions

of the Convention.

Article 12 creates exclusive

jurisdiction for certain actions that

‘‘have as their object’’ the registration,

validity, nullity, and possibly

revocation or infringement of patents,

trademarks, or other similar rights

required to be deposited or registered, in

the courts of the country in which the

deposit or registration has been applied

for or has occurred. Copyrights are

excluded from the exclusive jurisdiction

rule; however, actions concerning

copyrights could fall under the other

non-exclusive required jurisdictional

provisions.

Specifically, Article 12 provides:

‘‘4. In proceedings which have as their

object the registration, validity, [or] nullity [,

or revocation or infringement] of patents,

trade marks, designs or other similar rights

required to be deposited or registered, the

courts of the Contracting State in which the

deposit or registration has been applied for,

has taken place or, under the terms of an

international convention, is deemed to have

taken place, have exclusive jurisdiction. This

shall not apply to copyright or any

neighboring rights, even though registration

or deposit of such rights is possible.

[5. In relation to proceedings which have

as their object the infringement of patents,

the preceding paragraph does not exclude the

jurisdiction of any other court under the

Convention or under the national law of a

Contracting State.]

[6. The previous paragraphs shall not apply

when the matters referred to therein arise as

incidental questions.]’’

The brackets identify potential

language alternatives to be considered

and discussed in detail during the

Diplomatic Conference.

Article 4 provides that parties may

enter into agreements designating a

choice of court; however, such

agreements shall be without effect if

they conflict with the provisions of

Article 12. In addition, Article 5, which

confers jurisdiction on a court when the

defendant proceeds on the merits

without contesting jurisdiction, is

subject to Article 12 as well.

Article 10 defines jurisdictional rules

for tort actions. This provision would

cover copyright infringement

proceedings. It also could apply to

patent and trademark infringement

proceedings if the bracketed language in

Article 12(4) is not approved. Article 10

provides for jurisdiction either in the

State in which the act or omission

causing injury occurred, or the State in

which the injury arose so long as the

injury in that State was reasonably

foreseeable. Article 10(4) would limit

available damages, where jurisdiction is

founded on the place of injury, to the

damage suffered in the place the suit is

filed unless that is also the plaintiff’s

habitual residence.

Article 18 defines grounds of

jurisdiction that are prohibited in

Contracting States. Article 18(1) would

place a general limitation on the

exercise of jurisdiction based on the

absence of a ‘‘substantial connection

between that State and the dispute.’’

Article 18(2)(e) is of particular interest

to U.S. litigants because it states that

jurisdiction cannot be based solely on

the fact that the defendant carries on

commercial or other activities in that

State, except where the dispute is

directly related to those activities. This

provision would prohibit the exercise of

general ‘‘doing business’’ jurisdiction as

currently recognized under U.S. law.

Article 18(2) also would prohibit the

exercise of ‘‘tag’’ jurisdiction in a court

based on service upon the defendant in

the State.

Everything that does not fall under

either of these categories is included in

the ‘‘gray area’’ as defined in Article 17.

With some exceptions, countries can

continue to act as they normally do

under their national law; however,

judgments resulting from actions

covered by this provision will not get

the benefits of recognition and

enforcement under the Convention.

Chapter III provides rules for the

recognition and enforcement of

judgments based on a ground of

jurisdiction provided for in Articles 3–

16.

Current U.S. Jurisdictional Law

U.S. courts must have both personal

jurisdiction over the parties and subject

matter jurisdiction over the case before

a court can act on a dispute.

I. Personal Jurisdiction

Generally, in order to exercise

personal jurisdiction over a nonresident

defendant, district courts interpret the

long-arm statute of the state in which

they reside, as restricted by the

limitations imposed by the due process

clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Courts first apply the state long-arm

statute, which defines what types of

conduct would bring a nonresident

defendant within the boundaries of the

court’s reach. Activities that can create

jurisdiction under most long-arm

statutes include transacting business,

committing a tortious act within the

forum, or committing a tortious act

outside the forum that has an effect

within the forum.

Once the court finds that the exercise

of jurisdiction over the nonresident

defendant is consistent with the

relevant long-arm statute, the court then

must determine whether the due

process requirements are satisfied. The

due process rule of the U.S. Constitution

requires that a nonresident defendant

have ‘‘minimum contacts with [the

forum] such that the maintenance of the

suit does not offend ‘traditional notions

of fair play and substantial justice.’ ’’

International Shoe Co. v. Washington,

326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting

Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463

(1940)). In evaluating whether minimum

contacts have been established in a

given case, the courts ask if a

61308 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 / Notices

nonresident defendant, through his

conduct and connection with the forum,

‘‘purposefully avails itself of the

privilege of conducting activities within

the forum state, thus invoking the

benefits and protections of its laws.’’

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471

U.S. 462, 475 (1985) (quoting Hanson v.

Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)).

A court must establish that it has

either general or specific jurisdiction

over a defendant before it can proceed

with an action against the defendant.

General jurisdiction is personal

jurisdiction exercised over a defendant

when the cause of action is unrelated to

the defendant’s contacts, but the

defendant has sufficient contacts with

the forum. Specific jurisdiction arises

out of, or is related to, the defendant’s

contacts with the forum. See

Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v.

Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984).

General jurisdiction has been found

where the defendant was engaging in

‘‘continuous and systematic [though

unrelated to the cause of action]

business.’’ Perkins v. Benguet

Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437,

438 (1952). To assert specific

jurisdiction, a court is required to find

that the defendant purposefully directed

activities at residents in the forum, the

claim arose out of those activities, and

the assertion of personal jurisdiction is

fair and reasonable. See Burger King,

471 U.S. at 471–76.

Courts are cautious in exercise of

jurisdiction over foreign defendants. See

Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior

Court, 480 U.S. 102, 114 (1987) (holding

‘‘unique burdens placed upon one who

must defend oneself in a foreign legal

system should have significant weight

in assessing the reasonableness of

stretching the long arm of personal

jurisdiction over national borders.’’).

Considered critical to due process

analysis is whether the foreseeability

exhibited by defendant’s conduct and

its connections with the forum State

demonstrate that the defendant would

reasonably anticipate being brought into

the forum court. See World-Wide

Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S.

286, 297–298 (1980).

With respect to Internet-related cases,

the law of personal jurisdiction is in

flux. The traditional minimum contacts

approach has been used to determine

whether a court has jurisdiction over a

non-resident defendant in Internetrelated intellectual property disputes. In

such cases, the courts have looked to a

variety of factors, including but not

limited to the level of interactivity of the

Web site; whether the tortious act was

committed in state or out-of-state with

impact in the state; the number of hits

on the Web site; or the foreseeability of

use by forum residents. See, e.g.,

Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130

F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997); Zippo Mfg. Co.

v. Zippo Dot Com, 952 F. Supp. 1119

(W.D. Pa. 1997); Eskofot A/S v. E.I. Du

Pont De Nemours & Co., 872 F. Supp.

81 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal district courts have

jurisdiction over civil actions involving

patents, trademarks and copyrights

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1338(a), which

provides: ‘‘The district courts shall have

original jurisdiction of any civil action

arising under any Act of Congress

relating to patents, * * * copyrights

and trademarks. Such jurisdiction shall

be exclusive of the courts of the states

in patent * * * and copyright cases.’’

A. Patents

As mentioned above, federal courts

have exclusive jurisdiction over all suits

‘‘arising under any Act of Congress

relating to patents.’’ This includes all

patent validity and infringement

actions. Jurisdiction under this section

extends ‘‘only to those cases in which

a well-pleaded complaint establishes

either that federal patent law creates the

cause of action or that the plaintiff’s

right to relief necessarily depends on

resolution of a substantial question of

federal patent law.’’ Christianson v. Colt

Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S.

800, 809 (1988).

B. Trademarks

Actions involving trademark

infringement under the Lanham Act can

be heard in either state or federal courts

in the United States. However, most

trademark actions arising out of the

Lanham Act take place in federal court.

Federal district courts have subject

matter jurisdiction over all actions

arising under the Lanham Act pursuant

to § 39 of that Act, 15 U.S.C. 1121, as

well as 28 U.S.C. 1338(a).

Section 14 of the Lanham Act creates

an administrative proceeding within the

USPTO where a party can petition to

cancel a registered trademark. 15 U.S.C.

1064. Federal courts have concurrent

jurisdiction with the USPTO to hear

proceedings to cancel a mark, so long as

the challenge arises from an existing

trademark-related proceeding, as a

result of § 37 of the Lanham Act. 15

U.S.C. 1119. Section 37 provides that a

court may order the cancellation of a

trademark registration ‘‘[i]n any action

involving a registered trademark.’’ This

section, however, does not create an

independent ground for exercising

jurisdiction over an action—the court

must have subject matter jurisdiction

based on another ground before

considering cancellation of a registered

trademark. See 5 J. Thomas McCarthy,

McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair

Competition, § 30:110, pp. 30–186–88

(4th ed. 2000).

C. Copyrights

Federal courts have exclusive

jurisdiction over actions based on the

Copyright Act, including copyright

infringement proceedings. 28 U.S.C.

1338(a).

Issues for Public Comment

The USPTO is interested in assessing

support for or opposition to the effort to

negotiate a convention on jurisdiction

and enforcement of judgments and in

obtaining comments on the proposed

convention as it relates to intellectual

property. Interested members of the

public are invited to present written

comments on any issues they believe to

be relevant to protection of intellectual

property or any aspect of the proposed

convention as it relates to intellectual

property. Comments also are welcome

on the following specific issues:

1. What are your experiences in

having judgments involving intellectual

property from one jurisdiction

recognized in a foreign court?

2. Have you had different experiences

in having those judgments recognized in

U.S. courts?

3. Are uniform rules for international

enforcement of judgments desirable?

4. Do you support or oppose the

United States becoming party to a

jurisdiction/enforcement of judgments

convention?

5. What would be the benefits or

drawbacks of the United States

becoming a party to the proposed Hague

convention?

6. Would the elimination of tag or

general ‘‘doing business’’ jurisdiction

have any impact on intellectual

property owners’ ability to protect their

rights either domestically or

internationally?

7. What other changes to U.S. law

would be needed to implement the

proposed convention? Please identify

any drawbacks and/or advantages to

such changes.

8. What effect, if any, could this

Convention have on other international

intellectual property obligations,

including, but not limited to, the

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of

Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the

Paris Convention, and the Berne

Convention?

9. What effect, if any, could this

Convention have on the enforcement of

intellectual property with respect to the

Internet?

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 / Notices 61309

10. Would application of Article 10

change existing jurisdictional principles

as applied to intellectual property

infringement actions? If yes, please

describe any changes in detail and

provide any relevant legal authority.

11. Would the limitation of

worldwide damages in Article 10(4)

have any significant impact in cases

involving worldwide infringement of

trademark or other intellectual property

rights?

12. With respect to Article 12(4),

under what circumstances would

application of this subsection change

existing jurisdictional principles, with

and without the bracketed language

included? Please describe any changes

in detail and provide any relevant legal

authority.

13. What effect, if any, would Article

12(4) have on trademark owners seeking

to litigate rights related to registered

versus common law marks?

14. Is exclusive jurisdiction needed

for infringement and/or validity actions

involving patents, trademarks, and/or

copyrights?

15. What changes, if any, should be

made to the proposed Convention?

Please describe any changes in detail

and provide any relevant legal

authorities that support such

suggestions.

16. Please identify any other potential

concerns or advantages raised by the

proposed convention.

In your response, please include the

following: (1) clearly identify the matter

being addressed; (2) provide examples,

where appropriate, of the matter being

addressed; (3) identify any relevant legal

authorities applicable to the matter

being addressed; and (4) provide

suggestions regarding how the matter

should be addressed by the United

States.

Dated: October 11, 2000.

Q. Todd Dickinson,

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual

Property and Director of the United States

Patent and Trademark Office.

[FR Doc. 00–26634 Filed 10–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P

COMMITTEE FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE

AGREEMENTS

Announcement of Import Restraint

Limits for Certain Cotton, Wool, ManMade Fiber, Silk Blend and Other

Vegetable Fiber Textile Products

Produced or Manufactured in Bahrain

October 11, 2000.

AGENCY: Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements

(CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the

Commissioner of Customs establishing

limits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy

Unger, International Trade Specialist,

Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S.

Department of Commerce, (202) 482–

4212. For information on the quota

status of these limits, refer to the Quota

Status Reports posted on the bulletin

boards of each Customs port, call (202)

927–5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs

website at http://

www.customs.ustreas.gov. For

information on embargoes and quota reopenings, call (202) 482–3715.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority: Section 204 of the Agricultural

Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854);

Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as

amended.

The import restraint limits for textile

products, produced or manufactured in

Bahrain and exported during the period

January 1, 2001 through December 31,

2001 are based on limits notified to the

Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to

the Uruguay Round Agreement on

Textiles and Clothing (ATC).

In the letter published below, the

Chairman of CITA directs the

Commissioner of Customs to establish

the limits for the 2001 period.

A description of the textile and

apparel categories in terms of HTS

numbers is available in the

CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel

Categories with the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (see

Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982,

published on December 22, 1999).

Information regarding the 2001

CORRELATION will be published in the

Federal Register at a later date.

Richard B. Steinkamp,

Acting Chairman, Committee for the

Implementation of Textile Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of Textile

Agreements

October 11, 2000.

Commissioner of Customs,

Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC

20229.

Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to section

204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as

amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order

11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and the

Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and

Clothing (ATC), you are directed to prohibit,

effective on January 1, 2001, entry into the

United States for consumption and

withdrawal from warehouse for consumption

of cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk blend

and other vegetable fiber textile products in

the following categories, produced or

manufactured in Bahrain and exported

during the twelve-month period beginning on

January 1, 2001 and extending through

December 31, 2001, in excess of the following

levels of restraint:

Category Twelve-month restraint limit

Group I

237, 239pt. 1,

331–336,

338, 339,

340–342,

345, 347,

348, 350–

352,

359pt. 2,

431, 433–

436, 438,

440, 442–

448,

459pt. 3,

631, 633–

636, 638,

639, 640–

647, 648,

649, 650–

652,

659pt. 4,

831, 833–

836, 838,

840, 842–

847, 850–

852, 858

and 859pt. 5,

as a group.

56,846,705 square meters

equivalent.

Sublevels in

Group I

338/339 .......... 789,896 dozen.

340/640 .......... 378,978 dozen of which not

more than 284,233 dozen

shall be in Categories

340–Y/640–Y6.

1 Category 239pt.: only HTS number

6209.20.5040 (diapers). 2 Category 359pt.: all HTS numbers except

6406.99.1550. 3 Category 459pt.: all HTS numbers except

6405.20.6030, 6405.20.6060, 6405.20.6090,

6406.99.1505 and 6406.99.1560. 4 Category 659pt.: all HTS numbers except

6406.99.1510 and 6406.99.1540. 5 Category 859pt.: only HTS numbers

6115.19.8040, 6117.10.6020, 6212.10.5030,

6212.10.9040, 6212.20.0030, 6212.30.0030,

6212.90.0090, 6214.10.2000 and

6214.90.0090. 6 Category 340–Y: only HTS numbers

6205.20.2015, 6205.20.2020, 6205.20.2046,

6205.20.2050 and 6205.20.2060; Category

640–Y: only HTS numbers 6205.30.2010,

6205.30.2020, 6205.30.2050 and

6205.30.2060.