6826 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Notices

2 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

3 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 4 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

stocks, or (iii) any index and basket

information, for trading or any other

purpose. It further states that the

Exchange, its affiliates, Index Licensors,

and Administrators make no express or

implied warranties and disclaim all

warranties of merchantability or fitness

for a particular purpose or use, with

respect to any such basket, index, or

information.

The Exchange also proposes to adopt

new Commentary .01 to PSE Rule 7.13.

This Commentary would provide that,

for the purposes of PSE Rule 7.13,

‘‘Index Licensor or (and) Administrator’’

includes any person who: (a) licenses to

the Exchange the right to use (i) an

index that is the basis for determining

the inclusion and relative representation

of a basket’s component stocks or (ii)

any trademark or service mark

associated with such an index; (b)

collects, calculates, compiles, reports

and/or maintains such an index, or

index and basket information relating to

such an index; (c) provides facilities for

the dissemination of index and basket

information; and/or (d) is responsible

for any of the activities described above.

In addition, the Exchange proposes to

adopt new Commentary .02 to PSE Rule

7.13, which would provide that, for the

purposes of PSE Rule 7.13, ‘‘index and

basket information’’ includes (a)

information relating to the inclusion

and relative representation of stocks in

an index from which a basket is derived,

such an index’s values, a basket’s

component stocks, the weighted

summation of the bids or offers of a

basket’s component stocks, and basket

and component stock last sale and

quotation information and (b) other

information relating to a basket or its

index.

The purpose of the rule change

proposal is to clarify existing PSE Rule

7.13 and to expand it with regard to

potential Exchange liability and with

regard to Index Licensors and

Administrators. The Exchange notes

that the text of proposed PSE Rule 7.13

and Commentaries .01 and .02 is

substantially similar to New York Stock

Exchange Rule 813.

2. Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes the proposed

rule change is consistent with Section

6(b) 2 of the Act in general and furthers

the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 3 in

particular in that it is designed to

facilitate transactions in securities and

to promote just and equitable principles

of trade.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange believes the proposed

rule change will impose no burden on

competition that is not necessary or

appropriate in furtherance of the

purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants, or Others

The Exchange has neither solicited

nor received written comments.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

Within 35 days of the publication of

this notice in the Federal Register or

within such longer period (i) as the

Commission may designate up to 90

days of such date if it finds such longer

period to be appropriate and publishes

its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to

which the self-regulatory organization

consents, the Commission will:

(A) by order approve the proposed

rule change, or

(B) institute proceedings to determine

whether the proposed rule change

should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing.

Persons making written submissions

should file six copies thereof with the

Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of the

submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements

with respect to the proposed rule

change that are filed with the

Commission, and all written

communications relating to the

proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than

those that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 552, will be

available for inspection and copying at

the Commission’s Public Reference

Section, 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 10549. Also, copies of

such filing will be available for

inspection and copying at the principal

office of the PSE. All submissions

should refer to File No. SR–PSE–97–01

and should be submitted by March 6,

1997.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.4

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–3624 Filed 2–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/D–11]

WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding

Regarding Patent Protection in India

for Pharmaceuticals and Agricultural

Chemicals

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 India’s

failure to make patent protection

available for inventions as specified in

Article 27 of the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property

Rights (TRIPS), or provide systems that

conform to obligations of the TRIPS

Agreement regarding the acceptance of

applications and the grant of exclusive

marketing rights. More specifically, the

United States has requested the

establishment of a panel to determine

whether India’s legal regime is

inconsistent with the obligations of the

TRIPS Agreement, including but not

necessarily limited to Articles 27, 65

and 70. 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 March 3, 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: India Mailbox Dispute, Office

of the U.S. Trade Representative, 600

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

20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Robertson, Associate General

Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,

Office of the U.S Trade Representative,

600 17th Street, N.W. Washington, DC

20508 (202) 395–6800.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Notices 6827

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 10, 1996, the United States

requested establishment of a WTO

dispute settlement panel to examine

whether India’s legal regime is

inconsistent with the obligations of the

TRIPS Agreement. The WTO dispute

Settlement Body (DSB) considered the

U.S. request at its meeting on November

20, 1996, at which time a panel was

established. Very recently, three

panelists were chosen to hear the

dispute: Professor Thomas Cottier of the

University of Berne in Switzerland, Mr.

Yanyong Phuangrach of the Ministry of

Commerce in Thailand, and Mr. Doug

Chester of the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs and Trade in Australia. The first

meeting of panelists is scheduled to take

place on February 19, 1997. 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

The TRIPS Agreement requires all

WTO Members to grant patents for the

subject matter specified in Article 27 of

the Agreement. Article 70.8 of the

TRIPS Agreement provides that where a

Member takes advantage of the

transitional provisions under the

Agreement and does not make product

patent protection available for

pharmaceutical and agricultural

chemical inventions as of the date of

entry into force of the WTO Agreement

(i.e., January 1, 1995), that Member must

implement measures to permit

Members’ nationals to file patent

applications drawn to such inventions

on or after that January 1, 1995. When

the Member fully implements the

product patent provisions of TRIPS

Agreement Article 27, these

applications must be examined

according to the criteria for patentability

set forth in the Agreement, based on the

earliest effective filing date claimed for

the application. Patents granted on these

applications must enjoy the term and

rights mandated by the TRIPS

Agreement.

The TRIPS Agreement further requires

Members subject to the obligations of

Article 70.8 to provide exclusive

marketing rights to those persons who

have filed an application under the

interim filing procedures, provided that

the product covered by the invention

has been granted marketing approval in

the Member providing this transitional

protection and another Member, and a

patent has been granted on the

invention in another Member.

The legal regime in India currently

does not make patent protection

available for inventions as specified in

Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement, or

provide systems that conform to

obligations of the TRIPS Agreement

regarding the acceptance of applications

and the grant of exclusive marketing

rights. As a result, India’s legal regime

appears to be inconsistent with the

obligations of the TRIPS Agreement,

including but not necessarily limited to

Articles 27, 65 and 70.

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

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 the 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/D–11, ‘‘U.S.-

India: Mailbox’’), 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.

A. Jane Bradley,

Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for

Monitoring and Enforcement.

[FR Doc. 97–3546 Filed 2–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

[Docket No. WTO/D–15]

WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding:

Practices of the Government of Turkey

Regarding the Imposition of a

Discriminatory Tax on Box Office

Revenues

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

whether Turkey’s imposition of a tax on

box office revenues from the showing of

foreign films, but not on the revenues

from the showing of domestic films, is

inconsistent with Turkey’s obligations

under Article III of the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994

(GATT 1994). 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 March 3, 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: Turkey Film Tax Dispute,

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,

600 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC

20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Robertson, Associate General

Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,

600 17th Street, N.W. Washington, DC

20508, (202) 395–6800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Turkey’s

Law on Municipal Revenues (Law No.

2464) imposes a 25% municipality tax

on box office revenues generated from

the showing of foreign films, but not the