68086 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Notices 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses.

Overview of this Information 

Collection: 

(1) Type of Information Collection:

Extension of a Currently Approved 

Collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection:

Methamphetamine Project, Final Update 

Report (FUR). 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Justice sponsoring the 

collection: Form Number: None. U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services 

(COPS). 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Law Enforcement 

Agencies or Government entities that 

are recipients of COPS 

Methamphetamine grants. Other: 

Universities and Private Non-Profit 

Agencies. Abstract: The information 

collected will be used by the COPS 

Office to determine grantee’s progress 

toward grant implementation and for 

compliance monitoring efforts. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: There will be an estimated 100 

annual responses from grantees. The 

estimated amount of time required for 

the average respondent to respond is 3 

hours. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: The estimated total public 

burden associated with the collection is 

325 hours annually. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Brenda Dyer, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, 

Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20530.

Dated: November 3, 2005. 

Brenda Dyer, 

Department Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice.

[FR Doc. 05–22273 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–AT–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Subcommittees of the Interagency 

ADR Working Group Steering 

Committee

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice soliciting public 

comment on three documents created by 

subcommittees of the Interagency ADR 

Working Group Steering Committee. 

The Steering Committee invites all 

interested individuals or organizations 

to submit comments on these 

documents for its consideration before 

they are posted in final form. 

SUMMARY: This notice solicits public 

comment on three documents created by 

subcommittees of the Interagency ADR 

Working Group Steering Committee 

(‘‘Steering Committee’’), a group of 

federal subject matter experts. The first 

document, ‘‘Protecting the 

Confidentiality of Dispute Resolution 

Proceedings: A Guide for Federal 

Workplace ADR Program 

Administrators’’ (‘‘Confidentiality 

Guide’’), provides practical guidance to 

program administrators on the 

application of the confidentiality 

provisions of the Administrative 

Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 (‘‘the 

ADR Act’’ 5 U.S.C. 574) to federal 

workplace dispute resolution programs. 

The other two documents 

(‘‘Supplementation and Annotation 

documents’’), consist of: (1) ‘‘A Guide 

for Federal Employee Mediators,’’ a 

supplementation and annotation of the 

2005 Model Standards of Conduct for 

Mediators issued by the American 

Arbitration Association (‘‘AAA’’), 

American Bar Association (‘‘ABA’’), and 

the Association for Conflict Resolution 

(‘‘ACR’’), for use by federal employee 

mediators; and (2) ‘‘A Guide for Federal 

Employee Ombuds,’’ a supplementation 

and annotation of the Standards for the 

Establishment and Operations of 

Ombuds Offices issued on February 9, 

2004 by the ABA, prepared by the 

Steering Committee in conjunction with 

the Coalition for Federal Ombudsmen 

(‘‘CFO’’) for use by federal employee 

ombuds. Complete versions of each of 

the three documents can be found at 

http://www.adr.gov/draftguides.html or 

may be requested in hard copy from 

Hon. Richard C. Walters at 202–273–

6747. 

The Steering Committee invites all 

interested individuals or organizations 

to submit comments on these 

documents for its consideration before 

they are posted in final form.

DATES: All comments must be 

postmarked or emailed by 30 days from 

the date of this notice, in order to 

receive consideration.

ADDRESSES: Please address all 

comments to Hon. Richard C. Walters, 

Administrative Judge, U.S. Department 

of Veterans Affairs Board of Contract 

Appeals (09), 810 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20420 and sent 

by e-mail to Rich.Walters@va.gov. 

Electronic transmission is preferred to 

ensure full distribution.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority: The Administrative 

Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 (ADR 

Act), 5 U.S.C. Sections 571–584, 

requires each Federal agency to promote 

the use of ADR and calls for the 

establishment of an interagency 

committee to assist agencies in the use 

of ADR. Under this Act, a Presidential 

Memorandum, dated May 1, 1998, 

created the Interagency ADR Working 

Group, chaired by the Attorney General, 

to ‘‘facilitate, encourage, and provide 

coordination’’ for Federal agencies. In 

the Memorandum, the President 

charged the Working Group with 

assisting agencies with training in ‘‘how 

to use alternative means of dispute 

resolution’’. The three documents are 

designed to serve this goal. 

Executive Overview of the 

Confidentiality Guide: This document, 

directed primarily toward managers of 

federal ADR programs, describes in 

practical, non-legal terms, the nature 

and limits of confidentiality in federal 

ADR proceedings. This document 

extends the guidance issued by the 

Federal ADR Council, Report on the 

Reasonable Expectations of 

Confidentiality Under the 

Administrative Dispute Resolution Act 

of 1996, 5 FR 83085, December 29, 2000 

(‘‘the 2000 ADR Guidance’’), which may 

be found at http://www.adr.gov/pdf/

confid.pdf, the IADRWG website. This 

guide is designed to be used in concert 

with the confidentiality provisions of 

the ADR Act as well as agency 

confidentiality policies and guidance. 

This Confidentiality Guide contains 

information to assist the program 

manager in taking the steps necessary to 

assure that both internal and external 

neutrals understand the confidentiality 

provisions that apply to federal ADR 

programs and that parties are adequately 

informed of these provisions. While the 

Confidentiality Guide is aimed 

primarily at federal workplace disputes, 

it should be valuable to all dispute 

resolution professionals in the 

government and private sector. 

Each chapter of the Confidentiality 

Guide includes a description and 

discussion of the issues, a legal analysis, 

and questions and answers related to 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 9, 2005 / Notices 68087

confidentiality as it pertains to an aspect 

of a federal workplace ADR program. 

The first chapter discusses issues 

applicable throughout a dispute 

resolution proceeding. This chapter 

covers the various stages—before, 

during, and after the actual dispute 

resolution session—of a dispute 

resolution proceeding. The remaining 

five chapters discuss particular issues 

regarding confidentiality—i.e., 

confidentiality agreements, recordkeeping, program evaluation, access 

requests, and non-party participants. 

Executive Overview of the Guide for 

Federal Employee Mediators: This 

document builds upon the 2005 Model 

Standards of Conduct for Mediators 

(‘‘Model Standards’’) issued by a joint 

committee of three major nationwide 

dispute resolution organizations, the 

AAA, ABA and ACR in order to 

establish for federal employee mediators 

ethical standards of conduct tailored to 

mediation practice within the federal 

government. It sets out the Model 

Standards in their entirety and 

accompanies those standards with 

Federal Guidance Notes that provide 

practical guidance for federal employee 

mediators. In particular, Federal 

Guidance Notes are appended to the 

Model Standards for ‘‘Impartiality,’’

‘‘Conflicts of Interest,’’

‘‘Confidentiality,’’ ‘‘Quality of the 

Process,’’ ‘‘Advertising and 

Solicitation,’’ and ‘‘Fees and Other 

Charges.’’

Executive Overview of the Guide for 

Federal Employee Ombuds: This 

document builds upon the February 9, 

2004 ABA Standards for the 

Establishment and Operations of 

Ombuds Offices (‘‘Ombuds Standards’’) 

issued by the ABA in order to establish 

for federal employee ombuds standards 

of conduct tailored to federal ombuds 

practice. It sets out the Ombuds 

Standards in their entirety and 

accompanies those standards with 

Federal Guidance Notes that provide 

practical guidance for federal employee 

ombuds. In particular, Federal Guidance 

Notes are appended to the Ombuds 

Standards for ‘‘Establishment and 

Operations,’’ ‘‘Independence, 

Impartiality and Confidentiality,’’

‘‘Limitations on the Ombuds’

Authority,’’ ‘‘Notice,’’ and ‘‘Executive 

Ombuds.’’

Linda A. Cinciotta, 

Director, Office of Dispute Resolution.

[FR Doc. 05–22349 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–EC–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent 

Decree 

In accordance with Departmental 

Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby 

given that a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States v. California Olive Ranch,

(E.D. Cal.) 2:05–cv–02205–LKK–PAN, 

was lodged with the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of 

California on November 2, 2005. 

This proposed Consent Decree 

concerns a complaint filed by the 

United States against California Olive 

Ranch pursuant to section 309(b) and 

(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 

1319(b) and (d), to obtain injunctive 

relief from and impose civil penalties 

against the Defendant for violating the 

Clean Water Act by discharging 

pollutants without a permit into the 

waters of the United States. The 

proposed Consent Decree resolves these 

allegations by requiring Defendant to 

mitigate the environmental impacts by 

purchasing mitigation credits at the 

Dove Ridge Conservation Bank and to 

pay a civil penalty. 

The Department of Justice will accept 

written comments relating to this 

proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) 

days from the date of publication of this 

Notice. Please address comments to 

Pamela S. Tonglao, Trial Attorney, 

United States Department of Justice, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, P.O. Box 23986, Washington, 

DC 20026–3986 and refer to United 

States v. California Olive Ranch, (E.D. 

Cal.), 2:05–cv–02205–LKK–PAN, DJ 

#90–5–1–1–17457. 

The proposed Consent Decree may be 

viewed at http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/

open.html.

Stephen Samuels, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Defense 

Section, Environment & Natural Resources 

Division.

[FR Doc. 05–22361 Filed 11–8–05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Water Act 

Notice is hereby give that on October 

31, 2005, a proposed consent decree in 

United States and the State of Indiana

v. Town of Newburgh, Civil Action No. 

3:05–CV–199–RLY–WGH, was lodged 

with the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Indiana. 

In this action, the United States and 

the State of Indiana sought injunctive 

relief and civil penalties under section 

309(b) and (d) of the Clean Water Act 

(‘‘the Act’’), 33 U.S.C. 1319(b) and (d), 

against the Town of Newburgh, Indiana, 

for violations of section 301 of the Act, 

33 U.S.C. 1311, and the terms and 

conditions of the Town of Newburgh’s 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (‘‘NPDES’’) permits 

at the Town of Newburgh’s wastewater 

treatment plant and throughout its 

sewer collection system. The Complaint 

alleges that the Town of Newburgh 

violated the Clean Water Act and its 

applicable NPDES permits by failing to 

comply with effluent limitations in its 

permits, discharging wastewater and 

raw sewage through unpermitted point 

sources, and failing to monitor specified 

parameters at the frequency required by 

its applicable NPDES permit. 

The proposed Clean Water Act 

consent decree provides for injunctive 

relief consisting primarily of the Town 

of Newburgh’s implementation of a 

written capacity, management, 

operation, and maintenance (‘‘CMOM’’) 

plan for the sewer collection system that 

the Town of Newburgh owns or over 

which the Town of Newburgh has 

operational control; the approved 

CMOM plan is attached to the proposed 

consent decree as Appendix A. In 

addition, the proposed consent decree 

acknowledges that the Town of 

Newburgh has addressed alleged 

effluent limitation and sanitary sewer 

overflow violations of its NPDES 

permits through the completion of 

several construction projects: (a) the 

elimination of Outfall 011 to Cypress 

Creek; (b) the major upgrade of the 

wastwater treatment plant’s capacity 

from 2.3 million gallons per (‘‘MGD’’) to 

4.6 MGD; (c) the provision of alternate 

power supply to the No. 5 (Triple 

Crown) and No. 8 (Old Plant) Lift 

Stations; (d) replacement of pumps and 

controls at the Old Plant Lift Station; (e) 

the construction of an new 18 inch 

gravity sewer connected to the Old Plant 

Lift Station; and (f) the closing and 

sealing of Outfall 009. In addition, the 

Town of Newburgh will pay a civil 

penalty of $56,000 to resolve the claims 

in the Complaint. 

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 and Indiana v. Town of 

Newburgh, DOJ Ref. #90–5–1–1–06644. 

The proposed consent decree may be 

examined at the office of the United