Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 1998 / Notices 1139

27See Amendment No. 1, supra note 3.

28 15 U.S.C. §§ 78f(b)(5) and 78s(b)(2).

29 15 U.S.C. § 78s(b)(2).

30 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

letter, sales literature, or other similar

communication (rather than any

communication) which is generally

distributed or made available to

customers or the public in order to make

NYSE Rule 472(a) consistent with NYSE

Rule 342, as amended. In addition, the

Commission believes that the NYSE’s

proposal to amend NYSE Rule 472(b) to

provide that research reports must be

approved in advance by a supervisory

analyst will clarify NYSE Rule 472(b)

and ensure that broker-dealers review

research reports in accordance with

NYSE Rule 472(b). The Commission

believes that amendment NYSE Rule

472(c) to provide that the names of

persons who prepared and who

reviewed and approved

communications with the public must

be readily ascertainable from the

retained records, and that the retained

records must be readily available to the

NYSE, will clarify the NYSE’s rule and

facilitate examination of broker-dealers.

Finally, the Commission believes that

it is reasonable for the NYSE to amend

NYSE Rule 440 to indicate that

members must preserve books and

records as required under SEC Rule

17a–3 and comply with the

recordkeeping format, medium and

retention period specified in SEC Rule

17a–4 27 in order to clarify the

recordkeeping requirements applicable

to broker-dealers.

The Commission finds good cause for

approving Amendment Nos. 2 and 3

prior to the thirtieth day after the date

of publication of notice of filing thereof

in the Federal Register. Amendment

No. 2 is designed to protect investors by

requiring broker-dealers to continue to

review all non-electronic incoming

communications directed to registered

representatives. Amendment No. 3

strengthens the NYSE’s proposal by

incorporating the Information Memo

into the Exchange’s proposal. As

discussed more fully above, the

Information Memo provides additional

requirements and guidelines for brokerdealers’ supervisory policies.

Accordingly, the Commission believes

that granting accelerated approval of

Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 is appropriate

and consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and

19(b)(2) of the Act.28

V. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed

Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

Within 35 days of the date of

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 reason for so finding or (ii)

as to which the self-regulatory

organization consents, the Commission

will:

(a) by order approve such proposed

rule change, or

(b) institute proceedings to determine

whether the proposed rule change

should be disapproved.

VI. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written date, views and

arguments concerning Amendment Nos.

2 and 3. 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. Copies of such filing

will also be available for inspection and

copying at the principal office of the

NYSE. All submissions should refer to

the file number SR–NYSE–96–26 and

should be submitted by January 29,

1998.

VII. Conclusion

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,29 that the

proposed rule change (SR–NYSE–96–

26), as amended, is approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.30

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–422 Filed 1–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC);

Request for Comments Concerning

Compliance With Telecommunications

Trade Agreements

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice of Request for Public

Comments.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 1377 of

the Omnibus Trade and

Competitiveness Act of 1988, (19 U.S.C.

§ 3107), the Office of the United States

Trade Representative (USTR) seeks

comments on the operation and

effectiveness of telecommunications

trade agreements with Japan, Canada,

Mexico, Korea, and Taiwan and on

implementation of the World Trade

Organization (WTO) Basic

Telecommunications Agreement (the

Fourth Protocol to the WTO General

Agreement on Trade in Services).

Section 1377 requires USTR to conduct

an annual review of

telecommunications trade agreements

and to determine whether any country

is not in compliance with the terms of

such agreements or otherwise denies

‘‘mutually advantageous market

opportunities’’ to U.S.

telecommunications products and

services. The USTR will conclude the

review on March 31, 1997.

DATES: Submissions must be received on

or before February 6, 1997 with respect

to telecommunications trade agreements

with Japan, Canada, Mexico, Korea, and

Taiwan, and on or before February 16,

1997 with respect to the WTO Basic

Telecommunications Agreement.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be

submitted to the Executive Secretary,

Trade Policy Staff Committee, Office of

the United States Trade Representative,

600 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jonathan McHale (202–395–5656),

Office of Industry or Joanna McIntosh

(202–395–7203), Office of the General

Counsel, Office of the U.S. Trade

Representative, 600 17th Street, NW,

Washington, D.C. 20508.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

1377 of the Omnibus Trade and

Competitiveness Act of 1988, (19 U.S.C.

§ 3107), requires USTR to review

annually the operation and effectiveness

of all trade agreements regarding

telecommunications products and

services that are in force with respect to

the United States. The purpose of the

review is to determine whether any act,

policy or practice of a country that has

entered into a telecommunications trade

agreement is not in compliance with the

terms of such agreement, or otherwise

denies to U.S. firms, within the context

of the terms of such agreements,

mutually advantageous market

opportunities.

Specifically, for the current review,

USTR seeks information on whether:
1140 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 1998 / Notices

(1) Japan, Canada, Mexico, Korea, and

Taiwan have failed to comply with their

commitments under bilateral

agreements or the North American Free

Trade Agreement (NAFTA);

(2) Any WTO member countries that

have accepted the WTO Basic

Telecommunications Agreement have

failed to take steps to ensure compliance

with commitments that will take effect

when this agreement enters into force;

(3) Any of these countries otherwise

have denied, within the context of the

terms of these agreements, mutually

advantageous market opportunities to

U.S. firms; and

(4) Levels of trade conform with the

levels that would be expected based on

these agreements.

In addition, the USTR seeks relevant

information on the underlying

competitiveness of U.S. providers of

telecommunications products and

services.

Japan—Bilateral Procurement

Agreement

The United States has two

telecommunications procurement

agreements with the Government of

Japan. The first, the Nippon Telegraph

and Telephone (NTT) agreement, is

designed to ensure that the majority

government-owned, dominant

telecommunications provider in Japan

employs open, non-discriminatory and

transparent procedures in procuring

telecommunications products. On

September 30, 1997 this agreement was

extended and improved. NTT agreed to

improve its procurement procedures by

providing greater transparency,

additional procurement data, better

access to technical information, and a

stronger commitment to international

standards.

The second procurement agreement is

the 1994 U.S.-Japan Public Sector

Procurement Agreement on

Telecommunications Products and

Services. Under this agreement, Japan

introduced procedures addressing;

enhanced participation by foreign

suppliers in pre-solicitation

development and specification-drafting

for large-scale telecommunications

procurements; transparent and nondiscriminatory award criteria that

include greatest overall value for

procurement decisions; decreased sole

sourcing; and the establishment of an

effective bid protest mechanism. Based

on provisions of the Public Sector

Procurement agreement, Japan agreed in

March 1997 to issue a new tender for a

major telecommunications system being

procured by the National Police Agency.

This procurement, which has not yet

been awarded, is being monitored

closely to ensure that it is transparent

and non-discriminatory.

The USTR seeks information

regarding any difficulties that U.S.

telecommunications product and

service providers are encountering

selling in Japan under the terms of these

two telecommunications procurement

agreements. Specifically, we seek

evidence of practices such as: favoring

traditional suppliers despite

competitive foreign alternatives; failing

to provide adequate access to necessary

technical information; using nontransparent criteria to evaluate

proposals and bids and award

procurements; and relying on

proprietary standards where

international standards exist.

Japan—Additional

Telecommunications Trade Agreements

The United States has a number of

additional telecommunications trade

agreements with Japan, including

commitments made under the Market

Opening Sector Specific (MOSS)

process from 1985 to 1988, and a series

of agreements on: international valueadded network services (IVANS) (1990–

91); open government procurement of

all satellites, except for government

research and development (R&D)

satellites (1990); network channel

terminating equipment (NCTE) (1990);

and cellular and third-party radio

systems (1989).

The USTR seeks information

regarding any difficulties that U.S.

telecommunications product and

service providers are encountering

selling in Japan based on noncompliance with these agreements.

Canada and Mexico

Several chapters of the NAFTA

include market liberalization

commitments that benefit trade in the

telecommunications sector: Chapter

11—investment; Chapter 12—services;

and Chapter 13—telecommunication.

Chapter 13 includes commitments

relating to access to and use of public

telecommunications networks,

conditions for providing enhanced

services, equipment approval processes

and associated telecommunications

standards issues, and general

competitive safeguards. The NAFTA

also requires tariff reductions for

telecommunications equipment.

The USTR’s March 31, 1996 review

found Mexico to be in non-compliance

regarding its obligation to accept test

data for product safety of

telecommunications products. On April

18, 1997, the U.S. and Mexico

concluded an agreement to permit U.S.

laboratories to establish relationships

with counterpart Mexican laboratories

for the purpose of testing

telecommunications products to

Mexican product safety requirements.

From January 1, 1998, broader

conformity assessment obligations

under the NAFTA will come into effect

and U.S. laboratories and certification

bodies will be eligible to apply for

accreditation to test (and in some cases

certify) telecommunications equipment

to Mexican standards—for product

safety, terminal attachment, and other

mandatory and voluntary standards.

The USTR seeks information

regarding any difficulties that U.S.

telecommunications product and

service providers are encountering

selling in Canada or Mexico based on

noncompliance with the NAFTA, and,

in particular, any difficulties with

Mexico relating to testing and

certification of telecommunications

products and accreditation of test labs

and certification bodies.

Korea

The United States has agreements

with Korea to address barriers to U.S.

telecommunications product and

services providers in the areas of

protection of intellectual property rights

(IPR), type approval of

telecommunications equipment,

transparent standard-setting processes

and non-discriminatory access to the

government-owned Korea

Telecommunications’s procurement of

telecommunications products.

On August 11, 1997, the USTR

revoked Korea’s identification as a

priority foreign country under Section

1374 of the Omnibus Trade and

Competitiveness Act of 1998, which had

been in place since July 1996. USTR

concluded that Korea had taken

adequate steps to address market access

barriers, which included Korean

Government interference with

procurement by private

telecommunications service providers,

lack of liberalization of foreign

investment in telecommunications

service providers, discriminatory and

non-transparent licensing and

regulation of telecommunications

service providers, ineffective

competition policies for

telecommunications service providers,

high tariffs on telecommunications and

information technology products, and

discriminatory customs procedures for

such products.

The USTR seeks information

regarding any difficulties that U.S.

telecommunications product and

service providers are encountering

selling in Korea based on
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 1998 / Notices 1141

noncompliance with these

commitments.

Taiwan

In July 1996, the American Institute in

Taiwan, on behalf of the Office of the

United States Trade Representative,

concluded an agreement with the

Taiwan authorities on the licensing and

provision of wireless services through

the establishment of a competitive,

transparent and fair wireless market in

Taiwan.

Specifically, the Directorate General

of Telecommunication (DGT) and the

Taipei Economic and Cultural

Representative Office confirmed that:

the telecommunication regulatory

function and telecommunications

service provider function have been

entirely separated: DGT would initiate

procedures to remove the profit cap and

draft a new formula for tariff schedules;

interconnection agreements between

wireless operators and Chunghwa

Telecommunications Co. (CUT) would

be cost-based, transparent, unbundled

and non-discriminatory and that the

terms of such agreements publicly

available; DGT would not permit crosssubsidization between CUT’s fixed-line

and wireless operations; DGT would

relax the debt/equity ratio for wireless

bidders and not restrict a bidder from

obtaining all three regional licenses,

subject to the policy that an island-wide

licensee is not eligible for a regional

license; and DGT would remove

unauthorized spectrum users. DGT also

agreed to review foreign ownership

limitations.

The USTR seeks information

regarding any difficulties the U.S.

telecommunications service providers

are encountering to provide wireless

services in Taiwan based on

noncompliance with these

commitments.

WTO Basic Telecommunications

Agreement

On February 15, 1997, seventy

parties—69 territorial entities and the

EU—committed to opening up their

markets for basic telecommunications

services by concluding the WTO Basic

Telecommunications Agreement. So far,

55 WTO member countries which are

parties to the agreement have accepted

the agreement and the remaining fifteen

have given their assurances that they

intend to complete their acceptances of

the agreement as soon as possible.

The agreement encompasses

commitments in three main areas:

market access, investment, and procompetitive regulatory principles. For

countries making full commitments,

market access commitments open the

local, long-distance and international

service markets through any means of

network technology, either on a

facilities basis or through resale of

existing network capacity. Investment

commitments ensure that companies

can acquire, establish or hold a

significant stake in telecommunications

companies. The pro-competitive

regulatory principles, incorporated in

WTO Members’ schedules, commit

members to establish a regulatory body

independent of any carrier; to guarantee

that former monopolies will provide

interconnection to their networks at

non-discriminatory, cost-oriented

prices; to maintain measures to prevent

anti-competitive practices such as crosssubsidization; and to mandate

transparency of government regulations

and licensing. Some members have

staged implementation of these

commitments over several years.

Summaries of each member’s

commitments are available on the WTO

web site, at www.wto.org.

The Basic Telecom Agreement was to

enter into force on January 1, 1998.

However, since fifteen signatories to the

agreement have not yet offered their

final acceptances, WTO members will

meet in January to decide on the date of

entry into force of this agreement.

The USTR seeks information on

whether any parties to this agreement

have not made the necessary legislative

or regulatory changes to satisfy the

commitments that will come into effect

in 1998 under the agreement, or are

permitting practices in their markets

inconsistent with these commitments.

Public Comment: Requirements for

Submissions

Comments must be in English and

provided in 15 copies to: Gloria Blue,

Executive Secretary, Trade Policy Staff

Committee, Office of the U.S. Trade

Representative, 600 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20508. Comments,

except for business confidential

information, will be available for public

inspection by appointment in the USTR

Reading Room, Room 101, Monday

through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00

noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. For an

appointment, call Brenda Webb at 202–

395–6186.

Business confidential information

will be subject to the requirements of 15

CFR 2003.6. Any business confidential

information must be clearly marked as

such on the cover letter or page and

each succeeding page, and must be

accompanied by a non-confidential

summary thereof. The nonconfidential

summary will be placed in the file that

is open to public inspection.

Gordana Earp,

Acting Assistant United States Trade

Representative for Industry.

[FR Doc. 98–206 Filed 1–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[CGD 97–024]

National Preparedness for Response

Exercise Program (PREP)

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments on PREP

triennial exercise schedule for 1998,

1999, and 2000.

SUMMARY: Coast Guard, the

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), the Research and Special

Programs Administration (RSPA) and

the Minerals Management Service

(MMS), in concert with the states, the

oil industry and concerned citizens,

developed the Preparedness for

Response Exercise Program (PREP). This

notice announces the PREP triennial

cycle, 1998–2000, requests comments

from the public, and requests industry

participants to volunteer for scheduled

PREP area exercises.

DATES: Comments are due at Coast

Guard Headquarters no later than March

1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to:

Ms. Karen Sahatjian, US Coast Guard,

Office of Response, (G–MOR–2), 2100

2nd Street SW, Washington, DC 20593.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For general information regarding the

PREP program and the schedule, contact

Ms. Karen Sahatjian, Marine Safety and

Environmental Protection Directorate,

Office of Response, (G–MOR–2), (202)

267–2850.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following information describes how to

obtain copies of documents available to

the public. The PREP Area exercise

schedule and exercise design manual

are available on the internet at http://

www.dot.gov/dotinfo/uscg/hq/g-m/

gmhome.htm (see oil response). To

obtain a hard copy of the exercise

design manual, contact Ms. Melanie

Barber at the Research and Special

Programs Administration, Office of

Pipeline Safety, at (202)366–4560. The

1994 PREP Guidelines and Training

Elements are available at no cost by

writing or faxing the TASC Dept

Warehouse, 3341 Q 75th Avenue,

Landover, MD 20785, fax: 301–386–