Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2001 / Notices 28543

participate in the forum and provide

their views on the issues discussed

below as well as others they wish to

raise. Considerations such as technical

and funding constraints may limit the

Commission’s ability to implement

some of the features that may be

suggested at the forum, but the agency

plans to take all such views into account

in determining whether and how to

permit electronic filing and to provide

other facilities for doing docket-related

business with the Commission

electronically.

The Commission wants any document

management system it may implement

to benefit users inside and outside the

agency. Permitting electronic filing

would serve no purpose if document

filers did not choose to file

electronically. Consistent with the

GPEA, the Commission does not intend

to require electronic filing. The

Commission encourages attendees to

provide their views on what system

features would be helpful to them. For

example, some document formats may

be easier to use than others. Moreover,

some documents, such as papers drafted

by the submitter, may be easier to file

electronically than others, such as

appendices containing material from

reference works in hard copy. Further,

how deadlines are set for electronic

filing may affect a filer’s decision to

choose between paper and electronic

filing.

A particularly relevant topic for the

forum would be the potential technical

difficulties that may arise in connection

with electronic filing. For example, the

software that removes confidential

business information from the public

versions of paper filings may not suffice

for an electronic filing. Also, various

circumstances may result in a failure to

connect to the agency’s website,

delaying or preventing filing. To aid in

such a discussion, the Commission

encourages participants in the forum to

bring technical staff familiar with the

computer systems of participants’

organizations.

The Commission is also interested in

attendees’ comments on how to change

the filing process. Currently, filers

generally must submit an original and

fourteen paper copies of a document.

Electronic filing would present the

agency with a number of options for

how to proceed with respect to that

requirement. The Commission could

remove entirely the requirement for

submitting paper copies. That would

mean that Commission personnel either

would forgo the use of paper copies or

would incur staff time and printing

costs making copies for their use.

Alternatively, the agency could

continue, over the long or short term, to

require a number of paper copies.

Moreover, the Commission could permit

filers to submit certain documents

electronically while other types of

document would continue to be filed in

paper form. In addition, for those

documents that eventually would be

fileable electronically, electronic filing

could be phased in over time so that

initially parties could file some

documents electronically, but other

documents might continue in paper

form.

The Secretary to the Commission will

preside at the forum, assisted by agency

staff who are members of the agency’s

Document Imaging Oversight

Committee. The forum will be open to

the public. However, to seek an

opportunity to make an initial

statement, no longer than five minutes

in length, a person must submit a

request to do so by the deadline for

requests set out above. A person who

attends the forum without having

submitted such a request will be given

an opportunity to make a statement as

time permits. A person may submit

written comments on the issues raised

in this notice by the deadline for written

comments set out above whether or not

he or she files a request or attends the

forum.

Issued: May 17, 2001.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–12885 Filed 5–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant to The Comprehensive

Environmental Response

Compensation and Liability Act

(‘‘CERCLA’’)

Notice is hereby given that a proposed

consent decree in United States v.

Agway Inc., et al. Civ. No. 3:01cv0637

NAM/GLS, was lodged on May 1, 2001

with the United States District Court for

the Northern District of New York. The

Consent Decree concerns hazardous

waste contamination at the Tr-Cities

Barrel Superfund Site (the ‘‘Site’’),

located in the Town of Fenton, Broome

County, New York. The Consent Decree

would resolve the liability for

reimbursement of response costs

incurred by the United States in

connection with the Site as to fortythree potentially responsible parties

against whom the United States filed a

complaint on behalf of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(‘‘EPA’’). The Consent Decree also

requires the settling defendants to

perform the Remedial Design/Remedial

Action (‘‘RD/RA’’) as set forth in the

Record of Decision issued by EPA on

March 31, 2000.

The Department of Justice will

receive, for a period of thirty (30) days

from the date of this publication,

comments relating to the proposed

consent decree. Comments should be

addressed to the Assistant Attorney

General, Environment and Natural

Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S.

Department of Justice, Washington, DC

20044–7611, and should refer to United

States v. Agway Inc., et al., DOJ Ref.

#90–11–3–1514/1.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the office of the United

States Attorney for the District of New

Jersey, 231 Foley U.S. Courthouse, 445

Broadway, Albany, NY 12207 (contact

Assistant United States Attorney James

Woods); and the Region II Office of the

Environmental Protection Agency, 290

Broadway, New York, New York 10007–

1866 (contact Assistant Regional

Counsel, Michael Mintzer). A copy of

the proposed consent decree may be

obtained by mail from the Consent

Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611,

Washington, DC 20044–7611. In

requesting a copy please refer to the

referenced case and enclose a check in

the amount of $29.00 (25 cents per page

reproduction costs) for the Consent

Decree without Appendices, or in the

amount of $61.50 for the Consent Decree

with all Appendices, payable to the

Consent Decree Library.

Ronald Gluck,

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental

Enforcement Section, Environmental and

Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 01–13027 Filed 5–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant to the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act

In accordance with the policy of the

Department of Justice, notice is hereby

given that a proposed consent decree in

The United States of America v. The

Atlantic Richfield Company, the

Atlantic Richfield Company v. The

United States of America Civ. Nos.

1:99–CV–1743 and 5:98–CV–2645, was

lodged with the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Oh8io,

on May 4, 2001. The United States

brought an action against Defendant, the

28544 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2001 / Notices

Atlantic Richfield Company (‘‘ARCO’’)

pursuant to Section 107 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (CERCLA) for, inter alia,

reimbursement of costs incurred and to

be incurred, by the United States in

connection with response actions at the

Alsco Anaconda Superfund Site (‘‘Site’’)

in Gnadenhutten, Ohio. ARCO has

implemented a remedial action that the

United States Environmental Protection

Agency selected for the Site and

asserted claims pursuant to Section

106(b) of CERCLA to recover certain of

its response costs from the Hazardous

Substance Superfund.

Under the proposed decree, ARCO

will pay $1,135,000 in satisfaction of the

United States’ claims against it. The

proposed decree also provides for

dismissal with prejudice of ARCO’s

claims against the United States for

reimbursement of certain costs ARCO

incurred in connection with response

actions it performed at the Site.

The Department of Justice will receive

comments relating to the proposed

consent decree for a period of 30 days

from the date of this publication.

Comments should be addressed to the

Assistant Attorney General of the

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, Department of Justice,

Washington, DC 20530. All comments

should refer to United States v. The

Atlantic Richfield Company, D.J. Ref.

90–11–3–488B.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the office of the United

States Attorney for the Northern District

of Ohio, 1800 Bank One Center, 600

Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio

44114–2600; and at the Region V office

of the Environmental Protection

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604–3590. A copy of

the proposed consent decree may be

obtained in person or by mail from the

Department of Justice Consent Decree

Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC

20044–7611. In requesting a copy,

please enclose a check in the amount of

$5.25 (25 cents per page reproduction

costs) payable to the Consent Decree

Library. When requesting a copy, please

refer to United States v. The Atlantic

Richfield Company. D.J. Ref. 90–11–3–

488B.

William D. Brighton,

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement

Section, Environment and Natural Resources

Division.

[FR Doc. 01–13028 Filed 5–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant to the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act

(‘‘RCRA’’)

Pursuant to Departmental policy, 28

CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a

proposed consent decree (‘‘Decree’’) in

United States v. Raymond T. James and

Rattan Investment Co., Inc., Civ. No.

1999/145, was lodged on May 7, 2001

with the United States District Court for

the District of the Virgin Islands.

In this action, the United States

sought civil penalties and injunctive

relief, alleging that the operator of a gas

station popularly known as ‘‘Charlie’s

Gas Station,’’ located in Christiansted,

St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, violated

provisions of the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (‘‘RCRA’’), 42 U.S.C.

6901–6992k. More particularly, the

United States alleged that the operators

of Charlie’s Gas Station failed to employ

the release detection methods required

for the underground storage tanks

(USTs) at the facility under federal

regulations applicable to USTs set forth

at 40 CFR Part 280, Subpart D, and

failed to respond to various information

requests sent to them by EPA under the

authority of Sections 3007(a) and

9005(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6927(a),

6991d(a). The Decree would resolve the

liability of the defendants, Raymond T.

James and Rattan Investment Co., Inc.,

for the alleged violations. The Decree

requires the defendants to come into

compliance with UST regulations by

permanently closing the USTs at

Charlie’s Gas Station (which have been

temporarily closed since December 22,

1998) within sixty days after entry of the

Decree, which closure will entail

cleaning and emptying the USTs,

performing a site assessment within five

days thereafter to determine whether

there is any contamination at the

facility, and , if such contamination is

found, implementing corrective action.

The Decree further requires the

defendants to pay a civil penalty of

$6,000.

The Department of Justice will

receive, for a period of thirty (30) days

from the date of this publication,

comments relating to the Decree.

Comments should be addressed to the

Assistant Attorney General,

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S.

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

20044–7611, and should refer to United

States v. Raymond T. James and Rattan

Investment Co., Inc., DOJ Ref. #90–7–1–

06362.

The Decree may be examined at the

office of the United States Attorney for

the District of the Virgin Islands, 1108

King St., Suite 201, St. Croix, U.S.V.I.

00820–4951 (contact Assistant United

States Attorney Ernest F. Batenga); and

the Region II Office of the

Environmental Protection Agency, 290

Broadway, New York, New York,

10007–1866 (contact Assistant Regional

Counsel Donna DeCostanzo). A copy of

the Decree may be obtained by mail

from the Consent Decree Library, P.O.

Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044–

7611. In requesting a copy please refer

to the referenced case and enclose a

check in the amount of $6.25 (25 cents

per page reproduction costs), payable to

the Consent Decree Library.

Ronald G. Gluck,

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement

Section, Environment and Natural Resources

Division.

[FR Doc. 01–13025 Filed 5–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act

In accordance with Department of

Justice policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is

hereby given that a proposed consent

decree in the action entitled United

States of America v. Shell Oil Company

and Motiva Enterprises LLC, Civil

Action No. 3:01CV00093 RNC (D.

Conn.), was lodged on April 27, 2001

with the United States District Court for

the District of Connecticut. The

proposed consent decree resolves claims

of the United States, on behalf of the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

under Sections 111 and 112 of the Clean

Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411 and 7412, its

implementing federal regulations, and

the Connecticut State Implementation

Plan, against defendants Shell Oil

Company and Motiva Enterprises LLC.

These claims are for injunctive relief

and civil penalties arising from

defendants’ alleged violations of the

Clean Air Act, its implementing

regulations, and the State

Implementation Plan in connection with

their operation of a bulk gasoline

terminal located within the Towns of

Bridgeport and Stratford, Connecticut.

Under the terms of the proposed

consent decree, the defendants: (1) Will

pay a civil penalty of $390,155 to the

United States; (2) will purchase and

permanently retire twenty-two tons

worth of nitrogen oxide emission

reduction credits during ozone season,

to be purchased in either Connecticut,

Massachusetts, New York, or Rhode