70886 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Notices

Dated: November 21, 2000.

David L. Evans,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Oceanic

and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration.

Dated: November 21, 2000

William W. Fox, Jr.,

Director, Office of Science and Technology,

National Marine Fisheries Service, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–30219 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–KA–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

United States Patent and Trademark

Office

RIN 0651–AB28

Request for Comments on Basic

Proposals for an Instrument on the

Protection of Audiovisual

Performances to be Considered by the

WIPO Diplomatic Conference

AGENCY: United States Patent and

Trademark Office, Commerce.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: The World Intellectual

Property Organization (WIPO) will

convene a Diplomatic Conference on the

Protection of Audiovisual Performances,

in Geneva, Switzerland, during

December 7–20, 2000. Two Basic

Proposals will form the basis for the

negotiations: the Basic Proposal for the

Substantive Provisions of an Instrument

on the Protection of Audiovisual

Performances to be Considered by the

Diplomatic Conference (document

IAVP/DC/3), which was prepared by the

Chairman of the Standing Committee on

Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), is

available on the WIPO website at http:/

/www.wipo.int. The Basic Proposal for

Administrative and Final Provisions of

the Instrument (document IAVP/DC/4),

prepared by the International Bureau of

WIPO, is also available on the WIPO

website. The United States Patent and

Trademark Office (‘‘USPTO’’), in

cooperation with the United States

Copyright Office and the United States

Department of State, is seeking views of

the public on this effort and any

consequent potential changes to United

States law and practice. Comments

received will be shared among the

relevant agencies.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

on or before December 6, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to offer

written comments should address those

comments to the 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 elizebeth.shaw2@uspto.gov.

All comments will be maintained for

public inspection in Room 902 of

Crystal Park II, 2121 Crystal Drive,

Arlington, Virginia. The relevant

negotiating documents may be found at

the WIPO website: http://wipo.int/news/

en/index.html?wipolcontentlframe=/

news/en/conferences.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda S. Lourie by telephone at (703)

305–9300; by facsimile at (703) 305–

8885; by electronic mail to

linda.lourie@uspto.gov; or by mail

addressed to the Director of the United

States Patent and Trademark Office, Box

4, Washington, DC 20231, marked to the

attention of Linda S. Lourie, AttorneyAdvisor.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

WIPO will convene a Diplomatic

Conference on the Protection of

Audiovisual Performances in Geneva,

Switzerland, during December 7–20,

2000. Two Basic Proposals will form the

basis for the negotiations. The Basic

Proposal for the Substantive Provisions

of an Instrument on the Protection of

Audiovisual Performances, which will

be considered by the Diplomatic

Conference (document IAVP/DC/3), was

prepared by the Chairman of the SCCR.

The Basic Proposal for Administrative

and Final Provisions of the Instrument

(document IAVP/DC/4) was prepared by

the International Bureau of WIPO. The

texts of both the Basic Proposal for the

Substantive Provisions and the Basic

Proposal for Administrative and Final

Provisions, along with other documents

relating to the forthcoming Diplomatic

Conference, are available on the WIPO

website.

The issues considered under the Basic

Proposal for the Substantive Provisions

were initially considered within the

framework of the 1996 Diplomatic

Conference on Certain Copyright and

Neighboring Rights Questions, which

concluded with the signing of the WIPO

Copyright Treaty (‘‘WCT’’) and the

WIPO Performances and Phonograms

Treaty (‘‘WPPT’’). However, at that time,

no international consensus developed to

provide for protection for audiovisual

performances and the decision was

taken by the Diplomatic Conference to

postpone consideration of this issue for

further discussion by the Standing

Committee on Copyright and

Neighboring Rights. During the

consideration over the past four years of

existing national and regional

legislation concerning audiovisual

performances and information on the de

facto situation, including contractual

practice, the United States has put

forward a number of proposals to

advance the protection of performers of

audiovisual works in line with current

U.S. practice; many of these proposals

have found their way into the Basic

Proposal. Various proposals have been

submitted by other WIPO members,

including Korea, the Group of African

States, Canada, the United Republic of

Tanzania and Japan. The European

Community also submitted proposals on

behalf of its member states. In light of

the extensive study of the issues, the

present Diplomatic Conference is now

being convened.

The United States position reflects the

broad private sector consensus that has

developed among performers unions,

motion picture producers and other

affected groups. Four provisions, in

particular, are of primary importance for

U.S. interests in light of current industry

practices, namely those pertaining to

national treatment, moral rights, the

transfer of rights from the performer to

the producer and the broadcast and

communication to the public right. The

Basic Proposal addresses each of these

issues (Articles 4, 5, 11 and 12,

respectively).

Brief Summary of the Basic Proposals

The Basic Proposal for the

Substantive Provisions of an Instrument

on the Protection of Audiovisual

Performances would update the

international norms on the rights offered

to audiovisual performers, compliment

our existing international obligations

and further our policy of strong

intellectual property protection.

Essentially, the Instrument has four

objectives, namely: (1) To develop and

maintain the protection of rights of

performers in their audiovisual

performances in a manner as effective

and uniform as possible, consistent with

the goal of facilitating the exploitation

of audiovisual works in the global

marketplace, (2) to introduce new

international rules in order to provide

adequate solutions to the questions

raised by economic, cultural and

technological developments, (3) to offer

responses to the challenges of digital

technology and (4) to provide a balance

between the rights of audiovisual

peformers and the larger public interest,

particularly education, research and

access to information.

To achieve these objectives, the

Instrument will include:

• An exclusive right of reproduction

for performers in respect of their

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Notices 70887

performances fixed in audiovisual

fixations, with a related provision on

exceptions (corresponding to the

WPPT);

• The recognition of a right of

distribution for performers

(corresponding to the WPPT);

• The provision allowing Contracting

Parties to determine conditions for the

territorial effect of the exhaustion;

• An exclusive right for performers to

authorize the making available of their

performances fixed in audiovisual

fixations, by wire or wireless means, in

an interactive, on-demand system

consistent with the equivalent right

provided under the WPPT;

• An exclusive right of rental for

performers where commercial rental has

led to widespread copying that

‘‘materially impairs’’ the performers’

exclusive right of reproductions (this is

the same ‘‘material impairment test’’ as

found in the TRIPs Agreement and the

WCT with respect to authors of

cinematographic works);

• ‘‘Moral rights’’ for performers,

including the right to claim to be

identified as the performer of his or her

performances, except where omission is

dictated by the manner of the use of the

performance, and the right to object to

distortions, mutilations or other

modifications of their performances that

would be prejudicial to their reputations

(performers would not be able to object

to modifications that are consistent with

the normal exploitation of a

performance);

• Exclusive rights of performers to

authorize the broadcasting and

communication to the public of their

performances fixed in audiovisual

fixations or a right to equitable

remuneration for such uses, consistent

with the WPPT;

• A mechanism to ensure that the

rights necessary to exploit the film can

be effectively secured by the producers;

• A 50-year term of protection for the

rights of performers (corresponding to

the WPPT); and

• The relevant definitions

(‘‘audiovisual fixation,’’ ‘‘broadcasting,’’

and ‘‘communication to the public’’)

adapted to the requirements of digital

technology.

The Instrument may also include:

• An obligation to provide adequate

legal protection and effective legal

remedies against the circumvention of

effective technological measures that are

used by performers to protect their

rights, such as was provided for in the

WPPT;

• An obligation to make unlawful the

removal and alteration of electronic

rights-management information without

authority, as well as the related acts of

distribution, importation for

distribution and communication to the

public, such as was provided for in the

WPPT; and

• An obligation to provide for

effective enforcement measures

necessary to protect the rights granted

under this Basic Proposal

(corresponding to the WPPT, the Berne

Convention and the TRIPs Agreement).

The Basic Proposal presents two

alternatives for national treatment: a

broad national treatment approach that

obliges Contracting Parties to grant

national treatment to nationals of other

Contracting Parties (a Contracting Party

may limit the protection beyond that

which is provided for under this Basic

Proposal to nationals of other

Contracting States on a reciprocal basis);

and a narrower one that corresponds to

the WPPT. The second provision would

provide for national treatment only in

respect of the exclusive rights

specifically granted in the Basic

Proposal and any right to equitable

remuneration where such a right is

offered in lieu of the right of

authorization for broadcasting and

communication to the public.

No reservations are allowed under the

Basic Proposal. However, the Basic

Proposal gives members the option of

providing protection to fixed

performances in existence at the time of

the entry into force of the Instrument

and to all performances, whether or not

fixed, that occur after the entry into

force of the Instrument.

To set forth terms on the formal

matters, the Basic Proposal for the

Administrative and Final Provisions

contains specific Administrative

Provisions relating to the administration

and implementation of the Basic

Proposal. The first issue for

consideration by the Diplomatic

Conference will be whether this Basic

Proposal shall be a self-standing Treaty

or a Protocol to the WPPT. One of the

implications for this distinction is

whether a member State can be a

Contracting Party of the present

Instrument without being a member of

the WPPT, a Treaty which has not yet

entered into force (to date, only 16 of

the necessary 30 ratifications or

accessions have been deposited with the

Director General of WIPO). The other

alternative offered provides for a

separate Assembly where the

Instrument becomes a self-standing

Treaty.

With either alternative, any

intergovernmental organization, such as

the European Community, may

participate in the vote, in place of its

member States, with a number of votes

equal to the number of its member

States party to the Instrument; no

intergovernmental organization is

permitted to vote if any of its member

States votes for itself.

Issues for Public Comment

The USPTO, in cooperation with the

United States Copyright Office and the

United States Department of State, is

interested in assessing support for the

effort to negotiate an Instrument for the

Protection of Audiovisual Performances.

Interested members of the public are

invited to present written comments on

any issues they believe to be relevant to

protection of audiovisual performances

or any aspects of the proposed Basic

Proposal. Comments are particularly

welcome on the following specific

issues:

1. What relationship would you wish

to see the proposal Instrument have to

the WPPT?

2. What effect, if any, would the

designation of the proposed Instrument

as a self-standing Treaty, as opposed to

a Protocol to the WPPT, have on current

U.S. or international practices?

3. The Basic Proposal presents two

alternatives for determining National

Treatment, namely the obligation to

grant national treatment for exclusive

rights, rights of remuneration, and

additional rights, which may be limited

by reciprocity, as well as a more limited

national treatment rule such as appears

in the WPPT. Which alternative would

be preferable in light of current U.S. and

international practice?

4. What changes in current practices,

including collective bargaining

agreements, and broadcasting

agreements, would be needed in light of

the proposal on broadcasting rights,

whether an exclusive right or right of

remuneration?

5. The Basic Proposal presents four

alternatives for determining the

relationship between performers and

producers, including a presumption of

transfer from the performer to the

producer, the entitlement by the

producer to exercise the exclusive rights

of authorization, a conflict of laws

approach, and silence on the issue. In

your experience, what would be the

relative benefits/disadvantages you

would expect in each of these

situations? What would be the most

predictable and fair solution?

6. The Basic Proposal does not

mandate the protection for fixed

performances that exist at the time of

the entry into force of the Instrument

but does permit Member States to do so.

In your experience, what benefits or

disadvantages would you foresee in

allowing for such protection of preexisting works?

70888 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 28, 2000 / Notices

7. How should the issue of moral

rights be treated, both in relation to

current and future industry practices

and past fixed performances not

protected by this Instrument? Should

they be waivable or transferable? Has

the Basic Proposal addressed concerns

adequately? Would any additional

language be helpful in clarifying U.S.

current practices?

8. One mechanism for indicating a

consensus in the WCT and WPPT where

treaty language was not appropriate was

the Agreed Statement. What, if any,

Agreed Statements would be desirable

to use to augment the Basic Proposal?

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, if possible, 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: November 22, 2000.

Q. Todd Dickinson,

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual

Property and Director of the United States

Patent and Trademark Office.

[FR Doc. 00–30331 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–16–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Final Environmental Assessment (EA)

and Finding of No Significant Impact

(FNSI) for BRAC 95 Disposal and

Reuse of East Fort Baker, California

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: In accordance with Public

Law 101–510 (as amended), and the

Defense Base Closure and Realignment

Act of 1990, the Defense Base Closure

and Realignment Commission

recommended the closure of East Fort

Baker, California.

The Final EA evaluates the

environmental impacts of the disposal

and subsequent reuse of the 91-acre

installation. Enactment of the Golden

Gate National Recreation Area Act

(Public Law 92–589) requiring that,

when the Department of Defense

determined that it no longer had a need

for East Fort Baker, the property would

transfer to the jurisdiction of the

Secretary of the Interior. Disposal of

East Fort Baker to the Secretary of the

Interior will allow the property to be

reused in accordance with the National

Park Service’s Proposed Plan. Pursuant

to the National Environmental Policy

Act, the National Park Service prepared

a final environmental impact statement

(EIS) that examined and analyzed the

environmental impacts of the Proposed

Plan and its alternatives. This final EIS

has been incorporated by reference into

the Army’s disposal and reuse EA. The

only other alternative examined by the

Army was the no action alternative.

Under the no action alternative, the

Army would not dispose of property,

but would maintain it in a caretaker

status for an indefinite period. Based on

the environmental analysis documented

in the EA, the Army has determined that

the proposed disposal action would

have no significant direct, indirect or

cumulative impact on the natural or

human environment.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before December 28, 2000.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the EA may be

obtained by writing to Mr. Jerry Fuentes,

Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District,

Environmental Resources Branch, 1325

J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Jerry Fuentes at (916) 557–7730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice

of Intent (NOI) declaring the Army’s

intent to prepare an EA for the closure

of East Fort Baker was published in the

Federal Register on September 22, 1995

(60 FR 49264).

The Final EA and FNSI are available

for review at the Marin County Free

Library, Marin County Civic Center, San

Rafael, CA 94903 and the Sausalito

Public Library, 420 Litho, Sausalito, CA

94965.

Dated: November 20, 2000.

Raymond J. Fatz,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Environment, Safety and Occupational

Health), OASA (I&E).

[FR Doc. 00–30180 Filed 11–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

AGENCY: Department of Education.

SUMMARY: The Acting Leader,

Regulatory Information Management

Group, Office of the Chief Information

Officer invites comments on the

submission for OMB review as required

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on or before

December 28, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Attention: Lauren Wittenberg, Acting

Desk Officer, Department of Education,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New

Executive Office Building, Washington,

DC 20503 or should be electronically

mailed to the internet address

LaurenlWittenberg@omb.eop.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires

that the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) provide interested

Federal agencies and the public an early

opportunity to comment on information

collection requests. OMB may amend or

waive the requirement for public

consultation to the extent that public

participation in the approval process

would defeat the purpose of the

information collection, violate State or

Federal law, or substantially interfere

with any agency’s ability to perform its

statutory obligations. The Acting

Leader, Regulatory Information

Management Group, Office of the Chief

Information Officer, publishes that

notice containing proposed information

collection requests prior to submission

of these requests to OMB. Each

proposed information collection,

grouped by office, contains the

following: (1) Type of review requested,

e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or

reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of

the collection; (4) Description of the

need for, and proposed use of, the

information; (5) Respondents and

frequency of collection; and (6)

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping

burden. OMB invites public comment.

Dated: November 21, 2000.

William Burrow,

Acting Leader, Regulatory Information

Management, Office of the Chief Information

Officer.

Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services

Type of Review: New.

Title: National Longitudinal

Transition Study-2 (NLTS–2) Survey

Package.

Frequency: One time.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households; Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour

Burden:

Responses: 18,977

Burden Hours: 7,843

Abstract: NLTS2 will provide

nationally representative information

about youth with disabilities in

secondary school and in transition to

adult life, including their

characteristics, programs and services

and achievements in multiple domains