69600 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Notices

in this dispute: H.E. Mr. Wade

Armstrong, Chairman; Mr. Franc ̧ois

Dessemontet, Member; and Mr. Armand

de Mestral, Member. This appointment

was made pursuant to Article 8.7 of the

WTO Dispute Settlement

Understanding. Under normal

circumstances, the panel, which will

hold its meetings in Geneva,

Switzerland, is expected to issue a

report detailing its findings and

recommendations within six to nine

months after it is established. USTR

solicited comments from the public on

the issues in this dispute in a Federal

Register notice dated August 1, 2000 (65

FR 46999); those comments are on file

at USTR and need not be resubmitted in

reponse to this notice.

Major Issues Raised and Legal Basis of

the Complaint

In is request for the establishment of

a panel, the EC alleges that three

substantive provisions of section 211 are

inconsistent with the TRIPs Agreement:

1. The EC alleges that Section

211(a)(1) limits the right to register or

renew trademarks, trade-names or

commercial names at the United States

Patent and Trademark Office, in

violation of TRIPs Article 2.1, in

conjunction with Article 6 quinquies

A(1) of the Paris Convention for the

Protection of Industrial Property (1967)

(‘‘Paris Convention’’), and TRIPs Article

15.1. The EC alleges that Section

211(a)(1) does this by, in the case of

trademarks, trade-names and

commercial names that are substantially

similar to trademarks, trade-names, or

commercial names associated with

businesses confiscated without

compensation by the Cuban

government, requiring the consent of the

original owner or his successor-ininterest of the trademark, trade-name, or

commercial name.

2. The EC alleges that Section

211(a)(2)—by providing that U.S. courts

shall not recognize, enforce, or

otherwise validate common law or

registration rights asserted by

designated nationals or their successors

in interest in trademarks, trade-names

and commercial names that are

substantially similar to trademarks,

trade-names, or commercial names

associated with businesses confiscated

without compensation by the Cuban

government—violates TRIPs Art. 2.1, in

conjunction with Articles 6 bis (1) and

8 of the Paris Convention, and TRIPs

Article 16.1 (which require WTO

Members to provide protection for wellknown trademarks and for trade names).

The EC also alleges that Section

211(a)(2) violates the TRIPs enforcement

provisions, such as TRIPs Article 42,

and the most favored nation and

national treatment provisions of the

TRIPs Agreement (TRIPs Articles 3.1,

2.1 (in conjunction with Article 2(1) of

the Paris Convention), and 4).

3. Finally, the EC allegs that Section

211(b)—by providing that U.S. courts

shall not recognize, enforce, or

otherwise validate treaty rights asserted

by designated nations or their

successors in interest in trademarks,

trade-names and commercial names that

are substantially similar to trademarks,

trade-names, or commercial names

associated with businesses confiscated

without compensation by the Cuban

government (unless the original owner

consents)—violates TRIPs Art. 2.1, in

conjunction with Articles 6 bis (1) and

8 of the Paris Convention (requiring

protection of well-known trademarks

and of trade-names) and TRIPs Articles

3.1, 4, 16.1, and 42 (provisions

concerning most favored nation

treatment, national treatment, trademark

rights conferred, and fair and equitable

enforcement procedures).

Public Comment: Requirements for

Submissions

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments concerning

the issues raised in this dispute or other

matters related to this dispute.

Comments must be in English and

provided in fifteen copies to Sandy

McKinzy at the address provided above.

A person requesting that information

contained in a comment submitted by

that person be treated as confidential

business information must certify that

such information is business

confidential and would not customarily

be released to the public by the

submitting person. Confidential

business information must be clearly

marked ‘‘BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL’’

in a contrasting color ink at the top of

each page of each copy.

Information or advice contained in a

comment submitted, other than business

confidential information, may be

determined by USTR to be confidential

in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of

the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.

2155(g)(2)). If the submitting person

believes that information or advice may

qualify as such, the submitting person—

(1) Must so designate the information

or advice;

(2) Must clearly mark the material as

‘‘SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE’’ in a

contrasting color ink at the top of each

page of each copy; and

(3) Is encouraged to provide a nonconfidential summary of the

information or advice.

Pursuant to section 127(e) of the

URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will

maintain a file on this dispute

settlement proceeding, accessible to the

public, in the USTR Reading Room:

Room 101, Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street,

NW., Washington, D.C. 20508. The

public file will include a listing of any

comments received by USTR from the

public with respect to the proceeding,

the U.S. submissions to the panel in the

proceeding, the submissions, or nonconfidential summaries of submissions,

to the panel received from other parties

in the dispute, as well as the report of

the dispute settlement panel, and, if

applicable, the report of the Appellate

Body. An appointment to review the

public file (Docket WTO/DS–176,

‘‘Section 211’’) may be made by calling

Brenda Webb, (202) 395–6186. The

Reading Room is open to the public

from 9:30 a.m. to 12 noon and 1 p.m.

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

A. Jane Bradley,

Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for

Monitoring and Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 00–29482 Filed 11–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[USCG 2000–8252]

Collection of Information Under

Review by Office of Management and

Budget (OMB): OMB Control Numbers

2115–0012 and 2115–0518

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the

Coast Guard intends to seek the

approval of OMB for the renewal of two

Information Collection Requests (ICRs).

The ICRs comprise (1) U.S. Coast Guard

Academy—Preliminary Application and

Supplemental Forms and (2)

International Oil Pollution Prevention

Certificate. Before submitting the ICRs

to OMB, the Coast Guard is requesting

comments on the items described

below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast

Guard on or before January 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to

the Docket Management System (DMS)

[USCG 2000–8252], U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT), room PL–401,

400 Seventh Street SW., Washington,

DC 20590–0001, or deliver them to room

PL–401, located on the Plaza Level of

the Nassif Building at the same address

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Notices 69601

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The telephone number is 202–366–

9329.

The DMS maintains these public

docket for this requests. Comments will

become part of this docket and will be

available for inspection or copying in

room PL–401, located on the Plaza Level

of the Nassif Building at the above

address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. You may also access this

docket on the Internet at http://

dms.dot.gov. 

Copies of the complete ICRs are

available through this docket on the

Internet at http://dms.dot.gov and also

from Commandant (G–CIM–2), U.S.

Coast Guard Headquarters, room 6106

(Attn: Barbara Davis), 2100 Second

Street SW., Washington, DC 20593–

0001. The telephone number is 202–

267–2326.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara Davis, Office of Information

Management, 202–267–2326, for

questions on these documents; or

Dorothy Beard, Chief, Documentary

Services Division, U.S. Department of

Transportation, 202–366–9330, for

questions on the docket.

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to submit written

comments. Persons submitting

comments should include their names

and addresses, identify this document

[USCG 2000–8252], and give the reason

for the comments. Please submit all

comments and attachments in an

unbound format no larger than 81⁄2 by

11 inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing. Persons wanting

acknowledgment of receipt of comments

should enclose stamped, self-addressed

postcards or envelopes.

Information Collection Request

1. Title: U.S. Coast Guard Academy—

Preliminary Application and

Supplemental Forms.

OMB Control Number: 2115–0012.

Summary: Any person who wishes to

compete for an appointment as a Coast

Guard Cadet must fill out a Preliminary

Application and Supplemental Forms.

Need: 14 U.S.C. 211 authorizes the

Superintendent of the U.S. Coast Guard

Academy to ensure that qualified people

have every opportunity to compete for

appointments as cadets.

Respondents: Men and women

between the ages of 17 and 22.

Frequency: As needed.

Burden Estimate: The estimated

burden is 6,640 hours annually.

2. Title: International Oil Pollution

Prevention Certificate.

OMB Control Number: 2115–0518.

Summary: The information collected

aids in the prevention of pollution from

ships. An International Oil Pollution

Prevention Certificate and other records

serve to verify vessels’ compliance with

certain international and domestic rules

on shipping.

Need: 33 U.S.C. 1901–1915 require

that domestic rules implement

MARPOL 73/78.

Respondents: Owners and operators

of vessels.

Frequency: On occasion and every

five years.

Burden Estimate: The estimated

burden is 6,858 hours annually.

Dated: November 7, 2000.

S.A. Richardson,

Acting, Director of Information and

Technology.

[FR Doc. 00–29422 Filed 11–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

High Density Traffic Airports; Slot

Allocation and Transfer Method

ACTION: Statement of policy.

SUMMARY: This action explains the

adoption and implementation of a

temporary policy regarding the

minimum slot usage requirement for

slots and slot exemptions at LaGuardia

Airport for the winter season. A recent

increase in the total number of

operations at the airport, largely as a

result of recently enacted legislation

liberalizing access to slot-controlled

airports, has had a significant

operational impact at the airport. This

policy will assist carriers in addressing

operational issues by allowing limited

flexibility of the slot usage requirement.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective upon

publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lorelei D. Peter, Office of the Chief

Counsel, AGC–230, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;

telephone number 202–267–3073.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 5, 2000, the ‘‘Wendell H

Ford Aviation Investment and Reform

act of the 21st Century’’ (‘‘AIR 21’’) was

enacted. Section 231 of AIR 21

significantly amends 49 U.S.C. § 41714

and created 49 U.S.C. §§ 41716, 41717,

and 41718. These provisions enable air

carriers meeting specified criteria to

obtain new slot exemptions at New

York’s LaGuardia Airport (LaGuardia)

and John F. Kennedy International

Airport (JFK); Chicago’s O’Hare

International Airport (O’Hare); and

Washington, DC’s Ronald Reagan

Washington National Airport (National).

As a result of this legislation, the

Department of Transportation

(Department) issued eight orders

establishing procedures for the

processing of various applications. This

policy statement addresses operations at

LaGuardia as authorized under Order

2000–4–11 (LaGuardia—Exemptions for

air service to small and nonhub

airports—limited to aircraft with a

seating capacity of less than 71) and

Order 2000–4–10 (LaGuardia—

Exemptions for new entrant and limited

incumbent air carriers).

Specifically, Order 2000–4–11

implements 49 U.S.C. 41716(a), which

provides in pertinent part that

exemptions must be granted to any

airline using Stage 3 aircraft with less

than 71 seats that proposes to provide

nonstop service between LaGuardia and

an airport that was designated as a small

hub or nonhub in 1997 under certain

conditions. The exemption must be

granted if: (1) The airline was not

providing such nonstop service between

the small hub or nonhub and LaGuardia

Airport during the week of November 1,

1999; (2) the proposed service between

the small hub or nonhub and LaGuardia,

exceeds the number of flights provided

between such airports during the week

of November 1, 1999; or (3) if the air

transportation pursuant to the

exemption would be provided with a

regional jet as replacement of turboprop

service that was being provided during

the week of November 1, 1999.

According to AIR–21 and the

Department’s Orders, air carriers

meeting the statutory tests delineated

above automatically receive blanket

approval for slot exemptions, provided

that they certify in accordance with 14

CFR 302.4(b) that they meet each and

every one of the statutory criteria. The

certification should state the

communities and airport to be served,

that the community was designated a

small hub or nonhub as of 1997, that the

aircraft used to provide the service have

fewer than 71 seats, that the aircraft are

Stage 3 compliant, and the planned

effective dates. Carriers must also certify

that the proposed service represents

new service, additional frequencies, or

regional jet service that has been

upgraded from turboprop service when

compared to service of the week of

November 1, 1999. In addition, carriers

must state the number of slot