23062 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Bureau of Oceans and International

Environmental and Scientific Affairs

[Public Notice 3656]

30-Day Notice of Information

Collection; Form DS–2031, Shrimp

Exporter’s/Importer’s Declaration;

OMB #1405–0095

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of State has

submitted the following information

collection request to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

approval in accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Comments should be submitted to OMB

within 30 days of the publication of this

notice.

The following summarizes the

information collection proposal

submitted to OMB:

Type of Request: Collection approval.

Originating Office: OES/OMC.

Title of Information Collection:

Shrimp Importer’s/Exporter’s

Declaration.

Frequency: 10,000.

Form Number: DS–2031.

Respondents: Shrimp exporters and

importers.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

3,000.

Average Hours Per Response: 10

minutes.

Total Estimated Burden: 1,667 hours.

Comments

Public comments are being solicited

to permit the agency to:

• Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility.

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

collection, including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used.

• Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected.

• Minimize the reporting burden on

those who are to respond, including

through the use of automated collection

techniques or other forms of technology.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Copies of the proposed information

collection and supporting documents

may be obtained from David Hogan,

Office of Marine Conservation, rm.

5806, U.S. Department of State,

Washington, DC 20520, ph 202–647–

2335. Public comments and questions

should be directed to the State

Department Desk Officer, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), Washington, DC 20530, (202)

395–3897.

Dated: April 10, 2001.

David A. Balton,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Fisheries and Oceans, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 01–11416 Filed 5–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–09–U

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3655]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported

for Exhibition Determinations:

‘‘Rediscovering Caesarea Philippi, the

Ancient City of Pan or The Banias’’

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

SUMMARY: On December 26, 2000, Notice

was published on page 81555 of the

Federal Register (Volume 65, Number

248) by the Department of State

pursuant to Pub. L. 89–259 relating to

the exhibit ‘‘Rediscovering Caesarea

Philippi, the Ancient City of Pan or The

Banias.’’ The referenced Notice is

corrected as follows: In the SUMMARY

after ‘‘May 5, 2001,’’ add the following

additional venue: ‘‘and at the Averett

College, Danville, Virginia, from on or

about August 15, 2001, to on or about

December 31, 2001, is in the national

interest.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information, including a list of

exhibit objects, contact Carol Epstein,

Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal

Adviser, U.S. Department of State

(telephone: 202/619–6981). The address

is U.S. Department of State, SA–44; 301

4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington,

DC 20547–0001.

Dated: April 30, 2001.

Helena Kane Finn,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational

and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 01–11415 Filed 5–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–08–U

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Annual Report on Discrimination in

Foreign Government Procurement

Pursuant to Executive Order 13116

(‘‘Title VII’’)

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the United States Trade Representative

(‘‘USTR’’) has submitted the annual

report on discrimination in foreign

government procurement, published

herein, to the Committees on Finance

and on Governmental Affairs of the

United States Senate and the

Committees on Ways and Means and on

Government Reform and Oversight of

the United States House of

Representatives, pursuant to Executive

Order No. 13116 of March 31, 1999.

DATES: The report was submitted on

April 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Me ́lida Hodgson, Associate General

Counsel, Office of the US Trade

Representative, 600 17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20508, 202–395–3582.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of

the USTR report is as follows:

Annual Report on Discrimination in Foreign

Government Procurement

April 30, 2001.

I. Introduction

A longstanding objective of U.S. trade

policy has been to open opportunities for

U.S. suppliers to compete on a level playing

field for foreign government contracts. The

first major breakthrough in this area was the

1979 conclusion of the Government

Procurement Agreement (GPA), followed by

the ten-fold expansion of that Agreement

during the Uruguay Round negotiations that

led to the creation of the World Trade

Organization (WTO). The WTO estimates

that, under the GPA, the United States and

the 26 other GPA Parties provide their

suppliers with non-discriminatory access to

government tendering procedures worth

more that $300 billion annually. In 1995,

Mexico agreed to provide comparable access

to its government procurement markets

under the North American Free Trade

Agreement (NAFTA).

The Administration continues to push for

the reciprocal removal of discriminatory

government procurement practices in a wide

range of multilateral, regional and bilateral

fora. As a result of our efforts, the 34

countries of North, South and Central

America that are participating in negotiations

to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas

(FTAA) have agreed that the FTAA will

provide for openness and transparency of

government procurement processes and nondiscrimination in tendering procedures

within a scope to be negotiated. The

Administration is also urging the early

conclusion of an Agreement on Transparency

in Government Procurement that would

apply to all 140 Members of the WTO.

Within the Asia-Pacific Economic

Cooperation (APEC) forum, the United States

and other economies in the region are

pushing for concrete steps that will build on

the progress APEC has made in developing

non-binding principles on government

procurement.

The ‘‘Title VII’’ process, initially

established under Title VII of the Omnibus

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Notices 23063

Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988

(‘‘Title VII’’), as amended, provides a vehicle

for identifying priorities for international

negotiations that may address discriminatory

foreign government procurement practices

and for monitoring and enforcing existing

international agreements. After the Title VII

legislation expired in 1996, the process was

re-instituted by Executive Order 13116 on

March 31, 1999.

II. Summary

The Executive Order mandates that the

United States Trade Representative (‘‘USTR’’)

submit a report to the Congressional

committees of jurisdiction within 30 days of

the submission of the National Trade

Estimate Report for the years 1999, 2000, and

2001, and publish these reports in the

Federal Register. This is the third of the

three annual reports required by the

Executive Order.

USTR’s 1992 identification of the European

Union (‘‘EU’’) for discriminatory

procurement practices applied by

government-owned telecommunications

entities in certain member states, as well as

the resulting sanctions, remains outstanding.

There are no other outstanding Title VII

identifications.

As in previous years, however, this report

describes a number of foreign procurement

practices that are of significant concern to

U.S. exporters and that the United States is

monitoring closely. Those practices,

discussed in detail below, are:

• Japan: Various discriminatory practices

relating to procurement for public works.

• Taiwan: Certain discriminatory practices

and procedural barriers.

• Canada: Provincial governments’

discriminatory procurement practices.

• Germany: Exclusion of certain suppliers

affected by discriminatory ‘‘sect filters.’’

The United States is working actively in a

range of bilateral and multilateral fora to

resolve these issues. As a result of recent

bilateral consultations with Germany, this

report announces that our concerns relating

to the use of ‘‘sect filters’’ appear to have

been resolved.

III. Provisions of the Executive Order

Under Executive Order 13116, USTR is

required to submit to the Congress each year

a report identifying foreign countries that:

(1) have failed to comply with their

obligations under the WTO Agreement on

Government Procurement (‘‘GPA’’), Chapter

10 of the North American Free Trade

Agreement, or other agreements relating to

government procurement to which that

country and the United States are parties; or

(2) maintain, in government procurement,

a significant pattern or practice of

discrimination against U.S. products or

services which results in identifiable harm to

U.S. businesses, when those countries’

products or services are acquired in

significant amounts by the U.S. Government.

If any country is identified under one or

both of these criteria, the Executive Order

requires USTR to initiate an investigation

under section 302 of the Trade Act of 1974.

If the matter is not resolved within 90 days

of the submission of the report and USTR

determines that the rights of the United

States under an international procurement

agreement are being violated or that a

significant pattern or practice of

discrimination exists, the Executive Order

permits USTR, inter alia, to initiate formal

dispute settlement proceedings under

relevant international agreements or

withdraw any waivers of U.S. purchasing

requirements that have been granted to the

discriminating foreign country.

International dispute settlement

procedures are available to address

discriminatory government procurement

practices covered by the WTO Government

Procurement Agreement (GPA) and the North

American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Under authority provided in the Trade

Agreements Act of 1979, as amended, the

United States waives domestic purchasing

requirements for countries that are Parties to

the GPA and the NAFTA, for certain

Caribbean Basin Initiative countries; and for

countries included on the United Nations’

list of ‘‘least developed countries.’’

IV. Identification of Specific Discriminatory

Foreign Procurement Practices

EU—Telecommunications: In 1992, USTR

identified EU telecommunications entities

that have ‘‘special and exclusive rights’’ in

certain member state markets as engaging in

discriminatory procurement practices. Those

entities were required to apply

discriminatory practices under the 1990 EU

‘‘Utilities Directive.’’ After bilateral

negotiations did not resolve this issue, the

United States imposed sanctions in May

1993. Those sanctions remain in place today.

In 1999, the European Commission

informed the United States that it considered

telecommunications operators in most EU

member states to be no longer bound by the

procurement requirements in the Utilities

Directive, and requested that the United

States remove the sanctions imposed in 1993.

The Administration has asked the

Commission for clarification of the legal

requirements currently in effect in the EU

and what further steps the Commission is

taking to revise Utilities Directive

requirements. Once agencies have evaluated

the information received from the

Commission, the Administration will review

the overall market access conditions in the

EU telecommunications market, with a view

toward deciding whether the 1993 sanctions

are still warranted.

In developing this report, USTR has given

careful consideration to a wide range of

views and information, including the

recommendations of other executive agencies

and U.S. embassies and consulates overseas,

private sector responses to USTR’s request

for comments for this year’s Title VII report

(published in the Federal Register on

February 28, 2001), and information on

foreign government procurement practices

reported in the 2001 National Trade

Estimates Report.

On the basis of this information, and after

consultation with other agencies, USTR has

determined that no practices meet the criteria

for Title VII identification this year. As in

previous years, however, there remain a

number of foreign government procurement

practices of concern which the

Administration is pursuing in bilateral and

multilateral fora, or that require continued

monitoring and study.

V. Other Foreign Government Procurement

Practices of Concern to the United States

Japan—Public Works

U.S. companies are well-known around the

world for their excellence in design/

consulting and construction. Yet the U.S.

share of Japan’s $300 billion public works

market was only $50 million in 1999 (the

most recent year for which data are

available).

The United States has repeatedly expressed

concern to Japan that Japanese procuring

entities continue to engage in discriminatory

procurement practices that impede American

design/consulting and construction

companies from participating in Japan’s

public works sector. These practices include:

failure to address rampant bid-rigging;

unreasonable restrictions on the formation of

joint ventures, including the three-company

joint venture rule; the use of discriminatory

qualification and evaluation criteria; and the

structuring of individual procurements so

they fall below thresholds established in

international agreements.

The United States is seriously

disappointed by the lack of progress in

addressing these practices, and also is

concerned that Japan has repeatedly refused

the U.S.’s request to continue regular

bilateral consultations since the consultative

mechanism set forth in the 1994 U.S.-Japan

Public Works Agreement expired last year.

The United States will continue to monitor

Japan’s public works sector and urges Japan

to take immediate, concrete steps to address

these concerns, strengthen the integrity of its

system for procurement of public works, and

eliminate discriminatory practices which

prevent U.S. suppliers and workers from

participating in this market.

Taiwan—Discriminatory Practices and

Procedural Barriers: Taiwan is in the process

of acceding to the World Trade Organization

(WTO), and has committed to join the WTO

Government Procurement Agreement (GPA)

as soon as it enters the WTO. Taiwan’s

accession to the GPA will allow U.S.

exporters to compete on a level playing field

for major projects worth billions of dollars,

including in the power generation, transport,

environmental, and other infrastructure

sectors.

The 2000 Title VII report noted a number

of U.S. concerns with existing discriminatory

practices and other barriers to Taiwan’s

government procurement market. As a result

of ongoing bilateral consultations intended to

clarify the terms of Taiwan’s GPA accession

and address other bilateral concerns,

significant progress has been made on these

issues. However, the United States continues

to have serious concerns relating to the

following:

• restrictions on the ability of suppliers to

joint tender, based on market considerations;

• the need for appropriate and predictable

contract provisions relating to contingent

liabilities, consistent with international

norms.

23064 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Notices

The Administration continues to urge the

Taiwan authorities to take concrete steps to

bring these practices into conformity with

GPA requirements and ensure that they do

not constitute an unnecessary barrier to fair

and open competition in Taiwan’s

government procurement market.

Canada—Provincial Government

Restrictions: A number of Canadian

provinces apply price preferences and other

significant restrictions that discriminate

against U.S. suppliers interested in bidding

on provincial government procurement

contracts. To date, the Administration has

identified particular concerns with respect to

procurement restrictions applied by the

provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British

Colombia. The Administration is concerned

that the application of such restrictions may

result in a significant imbalance of bilateral

market access opportunities in government

procurement. Canada is the only GPA Party

that has yet to open its sub-Federal

procurement markets. Working closely with

interested U.S. states, the Administration

continues to urge Canada to bring provincial

governments and other government-owned

entities within the scope of NAFTA and GPA

procurement rules.

Germany—‘‘Sect Filters’’: In September

1998, the German Ministry of Economics

promulgated a ‘‘protection clause’’

(commonly referred to as a ‘‘sect filter’’)

meant to be incorporated into government

contracts for certain training and

consultation services. Among other elements,

the clause would have prohibited firms from

bidding on German government contracts if

they have employees that attend or

participate in Scientology seminars.

Following the promulgation of this

‘‘protection clause,’’ the United States

expressed concern in bilateral consultations

and in the 2000 Title VII report about the

clause’s potentially discriminatory effects on

government procurement. In subsequent

consultations with German government and

industry representatives, the Administration

urged Germany to rescind the sect filter

requirements.

In response, the German government has

revised its ‘‘protection clause’’ in a manner

that no longer prohibits firms from

competing for government contracts on the

basis of the affiliation of its management or

employees with the Church of Scientology.

This decision represents significant progress

in addressing U.S. concerns relating to the

use of ‘‘sect filters.’’ The Administration will

continue to monitor the implementation of

the revised policy to ensure that U.S. firms

and workers are not discriminated against in

procurement by German Federal and subFederal governments.

A. Jane Bradley,

Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for

Monitoring and Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 01–11354 Filed 5–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–P

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Report on Trade Expansion Priorities

Pursuant to Executive Order 13116

(‘‘Super 301’’)

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The United States Trade

Representative (USTR) is providing

notice that it submitted the report on

U.S. trade expansion priorities

published herein to the Committee on

Finance of the United States Senate and

Committee on Ways and Means of the

United States House of Representatives

pursuant to the provisions (commonly

referred to as ‘‘Super 301’’) set forth in

Executive Order No. 13116 of March 31,

1999.

DATES: The report was submitted on

April 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Demetrios Marantis, Associate General

Counsel, Office of the U.S. Trade

Representative, 600 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20508, 202–395–9626.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of

the USTR report is as follows.

Identification of Trade Expansion Priorities

Pursuant to Executive Order 13116: April 30,

2001

The Bush Administration has an ambitious

trade agenda, reflecting the importance

President Bush assigns to trade. This is an

opportune moment to reassert America’s

leadership in setting trade policy and to

build a post-Cold War world on the

cornerstones of freedom, security, democratic

values, open trade, and free markets.

The Office of the United States Trade

Representative (USTR) submits this ‘‘Super

301’’ report pursuant to Executive Order

13116 of March 31, 1999. This report sets

forth U.S. trade expansion priorities for 2001.

The Administration intends to expand trade

on multiple fronts, through negotiation of

new agreements and by ensuring that existing

agreements are fully implemented by U.S.

trading partners. At the same time, the

Administration intends to ensure that

Americans are able to reap the benefits of

market-opening agreements by resolving

problems that confront U.S. exporters. The

USTR prepared this report in close

consultation with U.S. Government agencies

on the basis of the 2001 Trade Policy Agenda,

the 2001 NTE Report, public comments

submitted to USTR, and information received

from U.S. Embassies abroad.

I. Trade Expansion Priorities for 2001

President Bush spoke at the recent Summit

of the Americas in Quebec City about the

benefits of trade: ‘‘Free and open trade

creates new jobs and new income. It lifts the

lives of all our people, applying the power

of markets to the needs of the poor. It spurs

the process of economic and legal reform.

And open trade reinforces the habit of liberty

that sustains democracy over the long haul.’’

Trade policy is the bridge between the

President’s international and domestic

agendas. As the former governor of a major

border state, President Bush has seen that the

free exchange of goods and services sparks

economic growth, opportunity, dynamism,

fresh ideas, and democratic values.

To fulfill the President’s vision, the Office

of the U.S. Trade Representative sets forth

the following two trade expansion priorities

for 2001: (1) Reestablish a bipartisan

consensus on free trade and (2) move on

multiple fronts to expand trade.

A. Reestablishing a Bipartisan Consensus on

Free Trade

The United States faces key decisions

about the future course of our trade policy.

Just as the World War II generation forged a

bipartisan consensus that sustained

successful trade expansion throughout the

Cold War, we must build a new consensus

to promote open markets for trade in the

decades to come.

There have been some encouraging

developments in the area of open trade in the

past year. Congress enhanced the Caribbean

Basin Initiative, passed the African Growth

and Opportunity Act, and enacted legislation

to grant permanent normal trading relations

to China. More recently, the United States

and the European Union (EU) have reached

an agreement to resolve the long-standing

dispute over bananas, and the United States

and Chile have pledged to complete

negotiations on a free trade agreement by the

end of the year. On April 22, President Bush

and the leaders of 33 other nations in the

Western Hemisphere signed a declaration at

the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City

pledging their support for completing the

negotiations on a Free Trade Area of the

Americas (FTAA) no later than January 2005.

The FTAA will be the world’s largest free

trade area, representing 800 million people.

There has also been encouraging progress

recently on resolving a number of trade

disputes through the World Trade

Organization (WTO) and the North American

Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Greece has

moved to counter the piracy of U.S. films and

television programs, Mexico has agreed to

allow dry beans from the United States to be

imported in a more timely and predictable

manner, and India has lifted its restrictions

on U.S. agricultural, textile, and industrial

products.

But there also have been setbacks. When

the House of Representatives voted in 1998

to deny the President trade negotiation

authority, it marked the first time the

Congress had ever rejected granting this

authority. And the failure to launch the

global trade talks in Seattle in December 1999

handed a high-profile victory to the

opponents of free trade, global competition,

and economic opportunity.

The history books recount the economic,

political, and indeed national dangers of a

breakdown in America’s trade policy. For the

first 150 years of the United States, there

were contentious Congressional debates over

tariff bills, some even leading to movements

for Nullification and Secession. Then the