5574 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 

included a description of its 

membership criteria. 

The regulations require, under 

criterion 83.7(e), that a petitioner submit 

a complete list of its membership. In 

this instance, the petitioner has 

identified its most current certified list 

as not complete. It submitted two lists, 

the certified membership list and a list 

of the ‘‘Unenrolled Schaghticoke 

Community.’’ This FD acknowledges the 

tribe as defined by the STN’s 2003 

membership list, 273 members, and its 

additional list of 42 individuals, 

identified by the STN as part of its 

community and meeting its membership 

requirements. Together these two lists 

comprise the STN’s base membership 

roll and its present membership for 

Federal purposes. 

The STN provided sufficient evidence 

to show that all 273 individuals on the 

September 28, 2003, certified 

membership list and the 42 individuals 

listed on the September 28, 2003, 

amendment to the constitution who are 

‘‘unenrolled tribal community 

members’’ descend from the historical 

tribe. 

One hundred percent of the STN 

membership descends from the 

historical Schaghticoke tribe. Therefore 

the conclusion in the PF that the STN 

meets criterion 83.7(e) is confirmed. 

No members of the STN are known to 

be dually enrolled with any federally 

acknowledged American Indian tribe. 

Neither the petitioner nor any of the 

interested parties addressed this 

criterion. Therefore, the conclusion in 

the PF that the STN meets criterion 

83.7(f) is confirmed. 

There has been no Federal 

termination legislation in regard to the 

STN. Neither the STN nor any 

interested parties addressed this 

criterion. Therefore, the conclusion in 

the PF that the STN meets criterion 

83.7(g) is confirmed. 

The Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, as 

defined by its 2003 membership list and 

its 2003 list of unenrolled community 

members meets all of the criteria for 

Federal acknowledgment as a tribe 

stated in 25 CFR 83.7 and, therefore, 

meets the requirements to be 

acknowledged as tribe with a 

government-to-government relationship 

with the United States. 

This determination is final and will 

become effective May 5, 2004, unless a 

request for reconsideration is filed 

before the Interior Board of Indian 

Appeals (IBIA) pursuant to 25 CFR 

83.11 or unless any party or amici in the 

litigation files for Administrative 

Procedures Act (APA) review with the 

district court. In addition, the court 

approved negotiated agreement calls for 

negotiation as to whether a request for 

reconsideration may be filed before the 

IBIA or whether judicial review under 

the APA is the only review. The ongoing negotiation will continue until no 

later than 30 days after publication of 

this Notice. This negotiation may 

impact the ability of interested parties, 

whether parties to the litigation or not, 

to seek reconsideration before IBIA. 

Inquiries by interested parties 

concerning the availability of the IBIA 

review should be directed to the Office 

of the Solicitor, Branch of Tribal 

Government and Alaska, 202–208–6526, 

Attention: Scott Keep or Barbara Coen.

Dated: January 29, 2004. 

Aurene M. Martin, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian 

Affairs.

[FR Doc. 04–2532 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–4J–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Special Trustee for 

American Indians 

Notice of Availability of Draft ‘‘To-Be’’

Trust Business Model for Public 

Comment

AGENCY: Office of the Special Trustee for 

American Indians; Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability of draft 

‘‘To-Be’’ trust business model for public 

comment. 

SUMMARY: This action notifies the public 

of the availability of the draft ‘‘To-Be’’

trust business model for public 

comment from the date of this 

publication to March 31, 2004. 

For a number of years, the Department 

of the Interior (DOI) has been working 

on several projects to reform and 

improve the management of Indian 

fiduciary trust assets. The most 

comprehensive reform effort currently 

underway is the development of the 

‘‘To-Be’’ Trust Model, which will 

reengineer the way DOI bureaus and 

offices perform their trust 

responsibilities and, ultimately, 

improve services provided to trust 

beneficiaries. 

Reengineering is necessary, 

particularly in response to some of the 

challenges facing DOI in its 

administration of the trust. These 

challenges include: 

• Individual Indians, Tribes, and 

Congress who have, for some time, 

expressed dissatisfaction with the trust 

management services provided by DOI; 

• Multiple and often duplicative 

processes that are used to manage land 

and natural resource assets, track 

ownership, manage accounts and 

distribute funds; 

• The expectations of beneficiaries 

and employees that may exceed the 

Indian Trust mandate or capability of 

the Trustee to deliver; 

• The number of fractionated 

interests in land assets, which are 

growing at an exponential rate, and the 

number of IIM accounts that must be 

managed, that have overwhelmed and 

excessively complicated the existing 

manual and automated processes and 

systems. 

With this daunting array of 

challenges, the need for changing the 

way DOI delivers trust products and 

services is evident. DOI senior 

leadership has led the way by 

developing a plan titled The 

Comprehensive Trust Management 

(CTM) Plan, which defines and 

describes the strategic direction of trust 

reform and clearly articulates DOI’s 

commitment to fulfilling its trust 

responsibilities. Toward this end, a 

team of DOI and tribal representatives 

worked extensively to document the 

DOI performance of current fiduciary 

trust business practices nationwide, 

which are reported in the ‘‘As-Is’’

Report. The information contained in 

the ‘‘As-Is’’ Report is the foundation for 

the recommendations for reengineered 

business process that appear within the 

‘‘To-Be’’ Model. Standardization of 

fiduciary trust business processes and 

modernization of systems to meet 

customer, accounting, and operational 

requirements is needed. 

During the period of November 2003 

to January 2004, meetings were held to 

provide stakeholders’ information 

relative to the progress made to date on 

the draft ‘‘To-Be’’ trust business model. 

The meetings were also intended to 

solicit comments and recommendations 

for improving the draft ‘‘To-Be’’ trust 

business model. This comment period 

follows the conclusion of those 

informational meetings.

DATES: All comments are due by March 

31, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Submit any written 

comments on the ‘‘To-Be’’ draft business 

model to D. Jeff Lords, Acting Deputy 

Special Trustee—Trust Accountability, 

Office of the Special Trustee for 

American Indians, 4400 Masthead NE., 

Albuquerque, NM 87109. Submissions 

by facsimile should be sent to 505/816–

1360.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. 

Jeff Lords, Acting Deputy Special 

Trustee—Trust Accountability, Office of 

the Special Trustee for American 

Indians, 4400 Masthead NE., 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2004 / Notices 5575

Albuquerque, NM 87109; telephone 

505/816–1313.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

action notifies the public of a review 

and comment period for the draft ‘‘ToBe’’ trust business model from the date 

of publication to March 31, 2004. The 

draft ‘‘To-Be’’ trust business model is 

available by accessing http://

www.ost.doi.gov. If you do not have 

internet access, a copy of the draft ‘‘ToBe’’ trust business model is available on 

Compact Disk (CD) format. For a copy 

of the CD please write to: Office of the 

Special Trustee for American Indians, 

Trust Program Management Center, 

4400 Masthead NE., Albuquerque, NM 

87109, or call 505/816–1313. 

Individual respondents may request 

confidentiality. If you wish us to 

withhold your name, street address, and 

other contact information (such as fax or 

phone number) from public review or 

from disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment. We will honor your request to 

the extent allowable by law. We will 

make available for public inspection in 

their entirety all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with the authority delegated 

by the Secretary of the Interior to the 

Special Trustee for American Indians by 

209 DM 11.

Dated: January 30, 2004. 

Ross Swimmer, 

Special Trustee for American Indians, Office 

of the Special Trustee for American Indians.

[FR Doc. 04–2407 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–2W–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–494] 

Certain Automotive Measuring 

Devices,Products Containing Same, 

and Bezels for Such Devices; Notice of 

Commission Decision Not To Review 

an Initial Determination Extending the 

Target Date for Completion of the 

Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review the initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

issued by the presiding administrative 

law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on January 7, 2004, 

extending the target date for completion 

of the above-captioned investigation to 

January 20, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3115. Copies of the ALJ’s ID and all 

other nonconfidential documents filed 

in connection with this investigation are 

or will be available for inspection 

during official business hours (8:45 a.m. 

to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–2000. Hearing-impaired persons are 

advised that information on this matter 

can be obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 

205–1810. General information 

concerning the Commission may also be 

obtained by accessing its Internet server 

(http://www.usitc.gov). The public 

record for this investigation may be 

viewed on the Commission’s electronic 

docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission issued a notice of 

investigation dated June 16, 2003, 

naming Auto Meter Products, Inc. 

(‘‘Auto Meter’’) of Sycamore, Illinois, as 

the complainant and several companies 

as respondents. On June 20, 2003, the 

notice of investigation was published in 

the Federal Register. 68 FR 37023. The 

complaint alleges violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the 

importation and sale of certain 

automotive measuring devices, products 

containing same, and bezels for such 

devices, by reason of infringement of 

U.S. Registered Trademark Nos. 

1,732,643 and 1,497,472, and U.S. 

Supplemental Register No. 1,903908, 

and infringement of the complainant’s 

trade address. Subsequently, seven more 

firms were added as respondents based 

on two separate motions filed by Auto 

Meter. 

On December 16, 2003, Auto Meter 

filed a motion to extend the target date 

for completion of the investigation and 

to modify procedural schedule. On 

December 23, 2003, respondents 

American Products, Inc., Equus 

products, Inc., GR Motorsports, Inc. (d/

b/a Matrix GR Motorsports) and Hiper 

Industries, Inc. (d/b/a R–1 Racing 

Sports) filed an opposition to Auto 

Meter’s motion. On December 24, 2003, 

respondent Blitz North America, Inc., 

filed a joinder to the above opposition. 

On December 30, 2003, Auto Meter filed 

a motion for leave to reply, and a reply. 

On January 7, 2004, the ALJ issued an 

ID (Order No. 15) extending the target 

date for completion of this investigation 

from August 20, 2004, to January 20, 

2005. No party petitioned for review of 

the ID. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

section 210.42 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42).

Issued: February 2, 2004.

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–2409 Filed 2–4–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

Notice is hereby given that on January 

27, 2004, a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States v. A–L Processors, f.k.a. 

Atlas-Lederer Co., et al., Civil Action 

No. C–3–91–309, was lodged with the 

United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Ohio. 

In this action United States seeks the 

reimbursement of response costs in 

connection with the United Scrap Lead 

Superfund Site in Troy, Miami County, 

Ohio (‘‘the Site’’) pursuant to the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.

The Consent Decree resolves the United 

States’ claims against Defendants 

Broadway Iron & Metal, Barker Junk 

Company, Inc., Moyers Auto Wrecking, 

and U.S. Waste materials, for response 

costs incurred as a result of the release 

or threatened release of hazardous 

substances at the Site. Two of these 

settlements are ‘‘ability-to-pay’’

settlements based on financial analyses 

conducted by the Department’s 

Antitrust Corporate Finance Unit. All of 

the settling Defendants made de 

minimis contributions of waste to the 

Site. The four settling parties 

collectively will pay the United States 

$137,499.18. The United States’

remaining outstanding costs exceed 

$9,000,000 and are being sought from 

the remaining defendants in this case. 

The Consent Decree also resolves the 

United Scrap Lead Respondent Group’s 

(‘‘Respondent Group’’) CERCLA claims 

against the same parties for response 

costs incurred by the Respondent Group