Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 100 /Tuesday, May 26, 1998 / Notices 28543

f. Requirements for personal

protection involved in transportation of

cargoes containing toxic substances in

oil tankers.

g. Review of existing ships’ safety

standards: amendment to SOLAS

regulations VII/9 and VII/12.

h. Review of specifications for crude

oil washing systems.

i. Revision of chapter 8 of the IBC

Code in the light of the revised SOLAS

regulation II–2/59.

j. Evaluation of safety and pollution

hazards of chemicals and preparation of

consequential amendments.

In addition, a supplemental meeting,

to discuss the possible revision of the

environmental hazard evaluation and

categorization mechanism of the IBC

Code, will be held at 9:30 AM on

Monday, June 15, 1998 in Room 1103,

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100

Second Street, S.W., Washington, DC

20593–0001. The purpose of this

meeting will be to discuss the

ramifications of going from a five

pollution category system to a three

pollution category system and,

specifically, to determine how this

change might affect the chemical

shipping industry.

Members of the public may attend

both meetings up to the seating capacity

of the rooms. Interested persons may

seek information by writing:

Commander K.S. Cook, U.S. Coast

Guard (G–MSO–3), 2100 Second Street,

S.W., Washington, DC 20593–0001 or by

calling (202) 267–1577.

Dated: May 14, 1998.

Stephen M. Miller,

Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating

Committee.

[FR Doc. 98–13840 Filed 5–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–07–M

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Tennessee

Valley Authority (Meeting No. 1504).

TIME AND DATE: 9 a.m. (CDT), May 27,

1998.

PLACE: TVA Allen Fossil Plant

Assembly Room, 2574 Plant Road,

Memphis, Tennessee.

STATUS: Open.

Agenda

Approval of minutes of meeting held

on April 8, 1998.

New Business

C—Energy

C1. Delegation of authority to the

Senior Vice President, Procurement, or

a designated representative, to enter into

a uranium procurement contract with

Global Nuclear Services and Supply

Limited.

B—Purchase Award

B1. Supplement to Contract No.

97BYC–142392–001 with BTG, Inc., for

personal computers, software, and

related accessories.

E—Real Property Transactions

E1. Grant of a permanent easement to

the City of Tupelo, Mississippi, affecting

1.49 acres in Lee County, Mississippi

(Tract No. XTPCSC–7H), for the

relocation of Brooks Road to

accommodate the location of TVA’s new

Customer Service Center.

E2. Rescission of March 31, 1993,

resolution directing payment of

$398,217 annually to the City of

Knoxville as mitigation payments

associated with the purchase of the

Knoxville TVA Office complex.

E3. Deed modification of certain deed

provisions affecting approximately 0.22

acre of former TVA land on Watts Bar

Lake (Tract No. XWBR–142) in Rhea

County, Tennessee.

E4. Grant of a permanent easement to

the City of Decatur, Alabama, for a

waterline easement affecting 1.52 acres

of land on Wheeler Lake in Morgan

County, Alabama (Tract No. XTWR–

107U).

E5. Sale of noncommercial,

nonexclusive permanent easements to

Hubert Helton and Steve Watson for

construction and maintenance of

recreational water-use facilities affecting

a total of 0.29 acre of Tellico Lake

shoreline in Monroe County, Tennessee

(Tract Nos. XTELR–201RE and XTELR–

202RE).

E6. Abandonment of certain easement

rights affecting 0.7 acre of former TVA

land on Norris Lake in Claiborne

County, Tennessee (Tract No. XNR–

468), to allow the property owner to

construct a bridge and road to provide

access to another section of currently

inaccessible property.

Information Items

1. Approval of two 19-year

commercial recreation leases at Possum

Creek and Sale Creek recreation areas

and amendments to the Chickamauga

Reservoir Land Management Plan.

2. Approval of a 19-year commercial

recreation lease and amendment to the

reservoir plan for Agency Creek

Recreation Area in Meigs County,

Tennessee, and amendment to the

Chickamauga Reservoir Land

Management Plan.

3. Approval of a grant of easement to

Greeneville Light and Power System

affecting approximately 0.75 acre of

TVA land on Nolichucky Lake in

Greene County, Tennessee (Tract No.

XTNOR–5SS).

4. Approval of a 19-year commercial

recreation lease to Greenlee

Campground, R.V. & Marine at Fall

Creek Recreation Area on Cherokee Lake

in Hamblen County, Tennessee.

5. Approval to file condemnation

cases: The affected transmission lines

are Oneida-McCreary, McCreary County,

Kentucky; Tiptonville Switching

Station, Tiptonville, Tennessee; ColbertTupelo primary tap to Belmont,

Belmont, Mississippi; New AlbanyHolly Springs tap to Martintown, Union

County, Mississippi; Pickwick DamMemphis tap to Moscow, Fayette

County, Tennessee; New Albany-Holly

Springs tap to Martintown; and an

access road to TVA’s Martintown,

Tennessee, substation site, Union

County, Mississippi.

6. Approval to file condemnation

cases. The affected transmission lines

are Freeport-Miller tap to Mitchell’s

Corner, DeSoto County, Mississippi and

Wolf Creek-Summer Shade tap to West

Tompkinsville, Monroe County,

Kentucky.

7. Approval of the sale of an easement

for municipal governmental purposes to

the City of Tupelo, Mississippi, affecting

3.07 acres of TVA’s Tupelo Line Crew

Headquarters property in Tupelo,

Mississippi (Tract No. XTLCH–1E).

For more information: Please call

TVA Public Relations at (423) 632–6000,

Knoxville, Tennessee. Information is

also available at TVA’s Washington

Office (202) 898–2999.

Dated: May 20, 1998.

Edward S. Christenbury,

General Counsel and Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–13951 Filed 5–21–98; 11:36 am]

BILLING CODE 8120–08–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Trade Policy Staff Committee: Request

for Comments Concerning Review of

the World Trade Organization Dispute

Settlement Understanding

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Office of the U.S. Trade

Representative (USTR) is soliciting

public comments on the United States

position in the upcoming review of the

Understanding on Rules and Procedures

Governing the Settlement of Disputes

(Dispute Settlement Understanding, or

DSU) under the World Trade

Organization (WTO) Agreement. The
28544 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 100 /Tuesday, May 26, 1998 / Notices

DSU provides the rules for settlement of

disputes concerning rights and

obligations under the Uruguay Round

agreements administered by the WTO.

Interested persons are invited to submit

their comments by June 25, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amelia Porges, Senior Counsel for

Dispute Settlement, Office of the USTR,

(202) 395–7305, or William Kane,

Associate General Counsel, Office of the

USTR, (202) 395–6800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DSU

provides a mechanism for the settlement

of disputes between the governments

which are members of the WTO,

concerning rights and obligations under

the Uruguay Round agreements. A panel

of neutral experts conducts each dispute

settlement proceeding and issues a

report, which is considered by the

Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in

which representatives of all WTO

members participate. The DSB must

adopt all panel reports within 60 days

after they are circulated, unless one of

the parties to the dispute notifies the

DSB that it will appeal the decision (or

the DSB decides by consensus to reject

the report). Appeals are heard by the

WTO Appellate Body (AB), which also

issues a report. The DSB must adopt an

appellate body report within 30 days

after circulation (unless there is a

consensus not to do so).

When it finds a measure is

inconsistent with one of the covered

agreements, a panel or the AB must

recommend that the government

concerned bring that measure into

conformity with the agreement. At a

DSB meeting held within 30 days after

the panel or AB report is adopted, that

government must state its compliance

plans. The ‘‘reasonable period’’ for

compliance can be determined by

obtaining DSB approval of a time period

proposed by that government, or by

agreement between the disputing

parties, or by binding arbitration. If a

government does not comply with the

recommendation to bring a measure into

conformity with its WTO obligations, it

must negotiate with the complaining

government(s) on compensation, and

the negotiations must start by the end of

the ‘‘reasonable period’’. If there is no

agreement on compensation by 20 days

after the end of the ‘‘reasonable period’’,

a complaining government may ask the

DSB to authorize it to suspend trade

benefits with respect to the noncomplying party. By 30 days after the

end of the ‘‘reasonable period’’, the DSB

must grant such a request to suspend

benefits (unless there is consensus

otherwise). Such a suspension must be

equivalent to the benefits the defending

country is impairing by its WTOinconsistent actions.

A Decision of trade ministers agreed

on April 15, 1994, at the conclusion of

the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade

negotiations, invites the WTO

Ministerial Conference to complete a

‘‘full review’’ of WTO dispute

settlement rules and procedures within

four years after the entry into force of

the WTO Agreement and ‘‘to take a

decision on the occasion of its first

meeting after the completion of the

review, whether to continue, modify or

terminate’’ those rules and procedures.

Under the WTO Agreement, this work

may be carried out by the WTO’s

General Council. Discussions have

begun on the organization of the review.

A principal objective of the United

States in the WTO, including in this

review, is to enhance the openness and

transparency of WTO meetings,

decisions and dispute settlement

proceedings.

Detailed information on the WTO and

dispute settlement is available on the

Internet at http://www.ustr.gov/reports/

tpa/1998/iv.pdf; the text of the DSU is

available on the Internet at

http:www.wto.org/wto/dispute/

dsu.htm.

Interested persons are invited to

submit their comments on whether the

WTO should continue, modify or

terminate the DSU; on specific

modifications which should be made to

WTO dispute settlement rules and

procedures; and on specific policies

which the United States should pursue

in this review. Comments should be

filed no later than June 25, 1998.

Comments must be in English and

provided in 20 copies to Gloria Blue,

Executive Secretary, Trade Policy Staff

Committee, Office of the United States

Trade Representative, Room 501, 600

17th Street, Washington, DC 20508.

Commenters are requested to submit

only non-confidential information and

not to submit business confidential

information. Non-confidential

information received 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

on 202–395–6186.

Frederick L. Montgomery,

Chairman, Trade Policy Staff Committee.

[FR Doc. 98–13880 Filed 5–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Initiation of Section 302 Investigation

and Request for Public Comment:

Mexican Practices Affecting High

Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)

AGENCY: Office of the United States

Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice of initiation of

investigation and request for comments.

SUMMARY: The United States Trade

Representative (USTR) has initiated a

Section 301 investigation with respect

to certain acts, policies and practices of

the Government of Mexico that affect

access to the Mexican market for High

Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). The USTR

invites written comments from the

public on the matters being investigated

and the determinations to be made at

the end of that investigation.

DATES: This investigation was initiated

on May 15, 1998. Written comments

from the public are due on or before

noon on Friday, June 19, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Office of the United States

Trade Representative, 600 17th Street

NW., Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Melle, Senior Director, North

American Affairs, (202) 395–3412 or

Audrey Winter, Associate General

Counsel, (202) 395–7305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

2, 1998, the Corn Refiners Association,

Inc., filed a petition pursuant to section

302(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as

amended, (the Trade Act) (19 U.S.C.

2411) alleging that certain acts, policies

and practices of the Government of

Mexico affecting HFCS are

unreasonable, deny fair and equitable

market opportunities for U.S. exporters

of HFCS and are actionable under

section 301. In particular, the petition

alleges the following: In September

1997, with the support and

encouragement of the Government of

Mexico, representatives of the Mexican

sugar industry and the Mexican soft

drink bottling industry entered into an

agreement to limit the soft drink

industry’s consumption of HFCS. The

purpose and effect of this agreement are

to restrict both the volume of HFCS

imports from the United States and the

manufacture of HFCS by the U.S.

companies that have made investments

in Mexican production facilities. In

exchange for the soft drink industry’s

limitation of HFCS consumption, the

Mexican sugar industry agreed to

supply sugar to the soft drink bottlers at

discounted, below-market prices. The

Government of Mexico is actively