18852 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Notices

requiring advice under section 131 of

the Trade Act are enacted by Congress

prior to completion of the Commission’s

report, the USTR indicated in the

request letter that he will request that

the advice with respect to U.S. tariffs be

converted to a report under section 131.

If trade agreement negotiating and

legislative procedures requiring advice

under section 131 of the Trade Act are

enacted by Congress after the report is

completed, the request letter indicated

that the Commission will be requested

to provide such advice under section

131.

Public Hearing

A public hearing in connection with

the investigation will be held at the U.S.

International Trade Commission

Building, 500 E Street SW, Washington,

DC, beginning at 9:30 a.m. on July 19,

1995, and continuing, as required, on

July 20. All persons shall have the right

to appear, by counsel or in person, to

present information and to be heard.

Requests to appear at the public hearing

should be filed with the Secretary,

United States International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street SW,

Washington, DC 20436, no later than

5:15 p.m., July 7, 1995. Any prehearing

briefs (original and 14 copies) should be

filed not later than 5:15 p.m., July 10,

1995; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs or statements is 5:15 p.m.,

July 25, 1995.

In the event that, as of the close of

business on July 7, 1995, no witnesses

are scheduled to appear at the hearing,

the hearing will be cancelled. Any

person interested in attending the

hearing as an observer or nonparticipant may call the Secretary to the

Commission (202–205–2000) after July

7, 1995, to determine whether the

hearing will be held.

Because the Commission expects to

provide detailed advice on narrowly

defined industries and product lines,

testimony and briefs should focus on

specific industries and products rather

than broad issues of trade policy. In the

context of specific industries and

products, the Commission is interested

in receiving information on existing

nontariff barriers to trade with Chile.

Requests to appear at the hearings

must contain the following information:

a. A description of the article or

articles on which testimony will be

presented, including, if possible, the

item number or numbers in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (1995) covering the article

or articles.

b. The name and organization of the

witness or witnesses who will testify,

and the name, address, telephone

number, and organization of the person

filing the request.

c. A statement indicating whether the

testimony to be presented will be on

behalf of importers, domestic producers,

consumers, or other interests.

Written Submissions

In lieu of or in addition to

participating in the hearing, interested

parties are invited to submit written

statements concerning the matters to be

addressed by the Commission in its

report on this investigation. Commercial

or financial information that a submitter

desires the Commission to treat as

confidential must be submitted on

separate sheets of paper, each clearly

marked ‘‘Confidential Business

Information’’ at the top. All submissions

requesting confidential treatment must

conform with the requirements of

§ 201.6 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.6).

Because the Commission intends to

use the information collected in the

course of the section 332 investigation

in the section 131(b) investigation,

should one be requested, the

Commission requests that all such

requests for confidential treatment filed

in connection with the section 332

investigation contain the following

consent statement: ‘‘I consent to the use

of this confidential business information

by the Commission in preparing its

advice to the President on this matter

under section 131(b) of the Trade Act of

1974.’’ Submissions requesting

confidential treatment not containing

this consent statement will be returned

to the submitter. Any grant of

confidential treatment to information

received in the section 332 investigation

would continue to apply to such

information if it is used in the section

131(b) investigation.

All written submissions, except for

confidential business information, will

be made available in the Office of the

Secretary to the Commission for

inspection by interested parties. To be

assured of consideration by the

Commission, written statements relating

to the Commission’s report should be

submitted to the Commission at the

earliest practical date and should be

received no later than the close of

business on July 25, 1995. All

submissions should be addressed to the

Secretary, United States International

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,

Washington, DC 20436.

Persons with mobility impairments

who will need special assistance in

gaining access to the Commission

should contact the Office of the

Secretary at 202–205–2000.

Issued: April 7, 1995.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9088 Filed 4–12–95; 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

In accordance with Departmental

policy, 28 CFR 50.7, and 42 U.S.C.

9622(d)(2), notice is hereby given that a

proposed Consent Decree in United

States of America v. Bayard Mining

Corp., Mining Remedial Recovery Corp.,

and VIACOM International Inc., Civil

Action No. 95–285–MVLFG, was lodged

on March 21, 1995 with the United

States District Court for the District of

New Mexico. Contemporaneously with

the lodging of the consent decree, the

United States filed a civil action under

Sections 106 and 107 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980, as amended (‘‘CERCLA’’),

42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, for injunctive

relief to abate an imminent and

substantial endangerment to the public

health and welfare or the environment

due to the release or threatened release

of hazardous substances from a facility,

and for recovery of response costs that

have been and will be incurred by the

United States in response to releases or

threatened releases of hazardous

substances from the same facility,

known as the Cleveland Mill Superfund

site, located in Grant County, New

Mexico. Under the proposed Consent

Decree, Settling Defendants will

conduct or finance 100% of the

remedial design and remedial action at

the Site; pay 100% of past and future

costs; and pay for damages to natural

resources at the Site.

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 of the Environment and Natural

Resources Division, Department of

Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin

Station, Washington, D.C. 20044.

Comments should refer to United States

of America v. Bayard Mining Corp.,

Mining Remedial Recovery Corp., and

VIACOM International Inc., DOJ Ref.

#90–11–3–1171.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the office of the United

States Attorney, 625 Silver, SW, Suite
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 71 / Thursday, April 13, 1995 / Notices 18853

1The Miami repository will be physically housed

at DEA facilities; nevertheless, management and

oversight—including the physical security of the

system—will be the responsibility of USMS

personnel. When appropriate, the ‘‘system location’’

will be revised to include additional repositories.

2 Initially, these records will include only those

of the Department of Justice (DOJ) law enforcement

components. However, at such time as other

Continued

400 Albuquerque, New Mexico; the

Region VI Office of the Environmental

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas; and at the Consent Decree

Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor,

Washington, DC 20005, (202) 624–0892.

A copy of the proposed Consent Decree

may be obtained in person or by mail

from the Consent Decree Library.

In requesting a copy, please enclose a

check in the amount of $21.25 (25 cents

per page reproduction cost) payable to

the ‘‘Consent Decree Library.’’

Joel M. Gross,

Acting Chief, Environmental Enforcement

Section, Environment and Natural Resources

Division.

[FR Doc. 95–9106 Filed 4–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant to the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

Notice is hereby given that a proposed

partial consent decree in United States

v. Pierce, Civil Action No. 83–CV–1623,

was lodged on March 29, 1995 with the

United States District Court for the

Northern District of New York.

The complaint in the Pierce action

was filed pursuant to the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

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

to recover costs incurred by the United

States in taking response actions in

connection with the first operable unit

cleanup at the York Oil Superfund Site

located in Moira, Franklin County, New

York (‘‘Site’’).

The proposed Consent Decree

embodies an agreement by defendant

Aluminum Company of America

(‘‘Alcoa’’) to design and implement a

remedy selected for the first operable

unit at the Site involving the cleanup of

contaminated soils and groundwater.

Alcoa has also agreed to perform the

subsequent operation and maintenance

for this remedial work, and to reimburse

EPA for 40% of the first $400,000 of

EPA’s oversight and periodic review

costs. Alcoa has also agreed to pay

$1,907,259 towards EPA’s past costs at

the Site.

The proposed Consent Decree

includes an agreement by certain federal

agencies (the Department of the Army,

the Department of the Air Force, the

Department of Transportation, and the

U.S. Postal Service) to pay for 35% of

the cost of the remedy and of the cost

of operation and maintenance, and to

reimburse EPA for 35% of the first

$400,000 of EPA’s oversight and

periodic review costs. The federal

agencies have also agreed to pay

$1,668,852 toward EPA’s past costs at

the Site.

The proposed Consent Decree

includes an agreement by sixteen

additional potentially responsible

parties at the Site to pay for

approximately 9% of the cost of the

remedy and of the operation and

maintenance, and to pay $428,881.31

toward EPA’s past costs at the Site. The

proposed Consent Decree also includes

an agreement by the EPA Hazardous

Substance Superfund to pay for 16.11%

of the cost of the remedy.

The proposed Consent Decree

includes a covenant not to sue by the

United States under Sections 106 and

107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and

9607, and under Section 7003 of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (‘‘RCRA’’), 42 U.S.C. § 6973.

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 for the Environment and

Natural Resources Division, Department

of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and

should refer to United States v. Pierce,

DOJ Ref. #90–5–2–1–585. Commenters

may request an opportunity for a public

meeting in the affected area, in

accordance with Section 7003(d) of

RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973(d).

The proposed Consent Decree may be

examined at the Region 2 Office of the

Environmental Protection Agency, 290

Broadway, New York, NY 10278, at the

U.S. Attorney’s Office, 100 South

Clinton Street, Syracuse, NY, and at the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street,

N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C.

20005, (202) 624–0892. A copy of the

proposed consent decree may be

obtained in person or by mail from the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street,

N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C.

20005. In requesting a copy please refer

to the referenced case and enclose a

check in the amount of $61.25 (25 cents

per page reproduction costs), payable to

the Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,

Acting Chief, Environmental Enforcement

Section, Environment and Natural Resources

Division.

[FR Doc. 95–9107 Filed 4–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

[AAG/A Order No. 98–95]

Privacy Act of 1974; New System of

Records

Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5

U.S.C. 552a), notice is given that the

United States Marshals Service,

Department of Justice (DOJ), proposes to

establish a new system of records

entitled ‘‘Joint Automated Booking

Stations, Justice/USM–014.’’

Title 5 U.S.C. 552a(e) (4) and (11)

provide that the public be provided a

30-day period in which to comment on

the new routine uses of a system of

records. The Office of Management and

Budget (OMB), which has oversight

responsibility under the Act, requires

that it be given a 40-day period in which

to review the new system.

Therefore, please submit any

comments by May 15, 1995. The public,

OMB, and the Congress are invited to

send written comments to Patricia E.

Neely, Systems Policy Staff, Justice

Management Division, Department of

Justice, Washington, DC 20503 (Room

850, WCTR Building).

A description of the system of records

is provided below. In accordance with

5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DOJ has provided a

report on the proposed new system to

OMB and the Congress.

Dated: March 30, 1995.

Stephen R. Colgate,

Assistant Attorney General for

Administration.

USM–014

SYSTEM NAME:

Joint Automated Booking Stations

(JABS), USM–014

SYSTEM LOCATION:

U.S. Marshals Service (USMS)

headquarters, 600 Army Navy Drive,

Arlington, Va. 22202–4210; and regional

office of the Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) at 6320 NW 2nd

Avenue, North Miami Beach, FL 33167.1

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE

SYSTEM:

Alleged criminal offenders who have

been arrested and booked.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

Records may include certain generic

or ‘‘common’’ data elements which have

been collected by an arresting Federal,

State, or local agency and booked by

that agency at its automated booking

station (ABS), or booked by an agency

on behalf of another agency which

performed the arrest.2 Such common