10604 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Notices

Dated: February 27, 1997.

Don Christensen,

Associate Administrator for Investment.

[FR Doc. 97–5601 Filed 3–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/DS–16]

WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding

Regarding European Communities’

Tariff Treatment of Some Computer

Equipment

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 127(b)(1)

of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)), the

Office of the United States Trade

Representative (USTR) is providing

notice that the United States has

requested the establishment of a dispute

settlement panel under the Agreement

Establishing the World Trade

Organization (WTO), to examine tariff

increases by the European Communities

(EC) and its member States on certain

local area network (LAN) equipment

and personal computers (PCs) with

multimedia capacity. More specifically,

the United States has requested the

establishment of a panel to determine

whether the EC has acted inconsistently

with its obligations under Article II of

the General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) in that the EC

and its member States have increased

tariffs above rates bound during the

Uruguay Round for (1) LAN adapter

cards, (2) other LAN equipment and (3)

PCs with multimedia capability

(including PCs with CD–ROM drives

and cards enabling television reception.)

USTR also invites written comments

from the public concerning the issues

raised in the dispute.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any

comments received during the course of

the dispute settlement proceedings,

comments should be submitted on or

before April 2, 1997, to be assured of

timely consideration by USTR in

preparing its first written submission to

the panel.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted to Ileana Falticeni, Office of

Monitoring and Enforcement, Room

501, Attn: EC LAN Dispute, Office of the

U.S. Trade Representative, 600 17th

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrea Casson, Attorney, 202–395–

3582 or Matthew Rohde, Director for

Customs Affairs, 202–395–3063, Office

of the U.S. Trade Representative, 600

17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC

20508.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 11, 1997, the United States

requested establishment of a WTO

dispute settlement panel to examine

whether the following measures are

inconsistent with the EC’s obligations

under Article II of the GATT 1994: (1)

Regulation No. (EC) 1165/95, which

reclassifies certain LAN adapter cards

from category 8471, ‘‘automatic data

processing machines and units thereof,’’

to category 8517, ‘‘telecommunications

apparatus;’’ (2) the actions of customs

authorities in EC member States in

reclassifying and increasing tariffs on

imports of all types of LAN

equipment—including hubs, in-line

repeaters, converters concentrators,

bridges and routers; and (3) the actions

of customs authorities in EC member

States in reclassifying and increasing

tariffs on imports of PCs with

multimedia capacity.

The WTO Dispute Settlement Body

(DSB) considered the U.S. request at its

meeting on February 25, at which time

a panel was established. Members of the

panel are currently being selected.

Under normal circumstances, the panel

would be expected to issue a report

detailing its findings and

recommendations within six to nine

months after it is established.

Major Issues Raised by the United

States and Legal Basis of Complaint

In its schedule of tariff concessions

under the GATT 1994, the EC and its

member States have agreed to a bound

tariff rate for automatic data processing

(ADP) equipment and units, staged from

the base rate of 4.4 percent ad valorem

in 1995 to 2.5 percent ad valorem in

1999. The EC’s adoption in June 1995 of

the regulation reclassifying certain LAN

adapter cards from the ADP category to

the category for telecommunications

apparatus resulted in an increase in

tariffs on imports of such products to

rates above the bound rate for ADP

equipment.

In addition, since 1995, customs

authorities in EC member States,

including but not limited to those in the

United Kingdom and Ireland, have

reclassified all other types of LAN

equipment from the ADP category to the

telecommunications category,

increasing the tariffs on these products

above the bound ADP rate. Also,

customs authorities in EC member

States, particularly those in the United

Kingdom, have reclassified certain PCs

with multimedia capacity, formerly

dutiable under the ADP category, to the

‘‘video apparatus’’ or ‘‘television’’

categories, dutiable at rates above the

bound rate for ADP equipment.

Article II of the GATT 1994 provides

that each WTO Member shall afford the

trade of other WTO Members treatment

that is no less favorable than that

provided for in the importing Member’s

schedule of tariff concessions, and that

imports shall be not be subject to duties

in excess of those provided for in that

schedule. The United States contends

that, in reclassifying imports of LAN

equipment and multimedia PCs, the EC

and its member States have increased

duties on these products above the

bound rates, and have afforded products

imported from the United States

treatment less favorable than that

provided for in the EC schedule. In the

view of the United States, these actions

are inconsistent with the EC’s

obligations under Article II of the GATT

1994.

Public Comment: Requirements for

Submissions

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments concerning

the issues raised in the dispute.

Comments must be in English and

provided in fifteen copies. 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 commenter.

Confidential business information must

be clearly marked ‘‘BUSINESS

CONFIDENTIAL’’ in a contrasting color

ink at the top of each page of each copy.

A person requesting that information

or advice contained in a comment

submitted by that person, other than

business confidential information, be

treated as confidential in accordance

with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act

of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155)—

(1) Must so designate that 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, 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, N.W., Washington DC

20508. The public file will include a

listing of any comments received by

USTR from the public with respect to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 1997 / Notices 10605

1This pooling authority was approved in Finance

Docket No. 27590 (Sub-No.2), TTX Company,

Et.Al.—Application For Approval of the Pooling of

Car Service With Respect to Flat Cars, served

August 31, 1994.

the proceeding; the U.S. submissions to

the panel in the proceeding; the

submissions, or non-confidential

summaries of submissions, to the panel

received from other participants 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–16–EC

LAN) may be made by calling Brenda

Webb, (202) 395–6186. The USTR

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.

Irving Williamson,

Acting General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 97–5569 Filed 3–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 27590 (Sub–No.2)]

TTX Co., et al.—Application for

Approval of the Pooling of Car Service

With Respect to Flat Cars

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board,

DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request for comments.

SUMMARY: In this proceeding, the

Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)

provided for the monitoring of TTX

Company (TTX) during the 10-year term

of its pooling extension. The Board now

proposes to reopen this proceeding to

take comments from interested parties

on whether any of TTX’s activities

require any action or particular

oversight on the Board’s part at this

time.

DATES: Comments are due on May 6,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments (an original

and 10 copies) referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 27590 (Sub-No.2) to: Surface

Transportation Board, Office of the

Secretary, Case Control Branch, 1925 K.

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. Two copies of all filings should be

sent separately to the Board’s Office of

Compliance and Enforcement, at the

above address, Suite 780.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melvin F. Clemens, Jr., (202) 927–5500.

[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202)

927–5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 1994

decision approving a 10-year extension

of TTX’s pooling authority,1 the ICC

required its Office of Compliance and

Enforcement (OCE) to monitor TTX’s

operations and to report on any

problems at the end of the third and

seventh years. Pursuant to the ICC

Termination Act of 1995, Public Law

104–88, 109 Stat. 803 (1995) (ICCTA),

effective January 1, 1996, the ICC was

abolished; a number of its functions

were eliminated; and its remaining rail

and certain non-rail functions were

transferred to the Surface

Transportation Board (Board), newly

established under ICCTA.

Because the authority over TTX’s

pooling arrangement was transferred to

the Board under ICCTA, the Board is

now responsible for monitoring TTX’s

activities. To carry out that

responsibility, the Board requests

comments on whether any of TTX’s

activities require any action or

particular oversight on the Board’s part

at this time. Any commenter wishing to

express a concern about any of TTX’s

activities should fully describe the

activity, the Concern, and the type of

Board action that the commenter

believes is appropriate. The comments

will be reviewed by OCE, and, based on

the issues raised, the Board will

determine whether any further action is

appropriate.

Request for Comments

We invite comments on these matters.

We encourage any commenter that has

the necessary technical wherewithal to

submit its comments as computer data

on a 3.5-inch floppy diskette formatted

for WordPerfect 7.0, or formatted so that

it can be readily converted into

WordPerfect 7.0. Any such diskette

submission (one diskette will be

sufficient) should be in addition to the

written submission (an original and 10

copies for the Board and two copies for

OCE).

Environment

This action will not significantly

affect either the quality of the human

environment or the conservation of

energy resources.

It is ordered:

1. Applicants, shippers, and other

interested parties may file comments

with the Board, as described above, on

whether any of TTX’s activities require

any action or particular oversight on the

Board’s part at this time.

2. Comments are due May 6, 1997.

3. This decision is being served on all

parties appearing on the service list in

Finance Docket No. 27590 (Sub-No.2).

4. This decision is effective on the

date of service.

Decided: February 26, 1997.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice

Chairman Owen.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–5685 Filed 3–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

Office of the Secretary

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping

Requirements; Agency Information

Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act 1995 (44 USC

Chapter 35), this notice announces that

the Information Collection Request (ICR)

abstracted below has been forwarded to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and comment. The

ICR describes the nature of the

information collection and its expected

burden. The Federal Register Notice

with a 60-day comment period soliciting

comments on the following collection of

information was published on

November 22, 1996 [FR 61, page 59483].

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before April 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Peter Chandler, Office of Motor

Carrier Research and Standards, (202)

366–4009, Federal Highway

Administration, Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA)

Title: Time Records.

OMB Number: 2125–0196.

Affected Public: Commercial Motor

Vehicle Drivers (CMV).

Abstract: The Secretary has adopted

regulations that establish hours of

service (HOS) limitations for CMV

drivers. Time records generally used by

motor carriers are time cards or time

sheets. Time records may be used in

lieu of records of duty status by drivers

who operate within a 100 air-mile

radius of their normal work reporting

location, 49 CFR 395.1(e). Time records

must show: (1) The time the driver

reports for duty each day; (2) The total

number of hours the driver is on duty

each day; (3) The time the driver is

released from duty each day; and (4)

The total time on duty for the preceding

7 days (for drivers used intermittently or