Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 1996 / Notices 22073

9607, incurred by the United States in

connection with response actions taken

at the Maryland Sand, Gravel and Stone

Superfund Site (‘‘Site’’) located in

Elkton, Maryland. As part of its

complaint, the United States sought

recovery of costs from, inter alia, A&S

Manufacturing Company, Schering

Corporation and Westinghouse Electric.

In turn, these parties sought

contribution from, inter alia, E.R.

Squibb & Sons and Martin Alexander.

The first consent decree is between

the United States, A&S Manufacturing

and Martin Alexander. This decree

requires these parties to pay to the

United States $105,000 in

reimbursement of past response costs

associated with Operable Units I and II

of the Maryland Sand Site. The

settlement is based on a demonstration

by A&S Manufacturing of its inability to

reimburse the United States for any

additional response costs. Under the

terms of the decree, the United States

has specifically reserved its right to seek

further relief from A&S and Alexander

for any future claims not specifically

addressed in the decree. The decree also

contains a reopener provision that

allows the United States and any party

that has paid past response costs as

defined in the decree to seek further

reimbursement from A&S or Alexander

should either of them obtain insurance

coverage for such claims.

The second decree is between the

United States, Schering Corporation,

Westinghouse Electric Company, Inc.,

and E.R. Squibbs & Sons, Inc. Under the

terms of this decree Schering

Corporation will pay $1,942,084,

Westinghouse will pay $577,916 and

E.R. Squibb will pay $50,000 in

reimbursement of the United States’

response costs. Under the terms of the

decree, the United States has

specifically reserved its right to seek

further relief from these parties for any

future claims not specifically addressed

in the decree.

The consent decrees include a

covenant not to sue by the United States

under Sections 106 and 107 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

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

and under Section 7003 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act

(‘‘RCRA’’), 42 U.S.C. 6973 for past

response costs.

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, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin

Station, Washington, D.C. 20044, and

should refer to United States v.

Maryland Sand, Gravel & Stone

Company, et al., DOJ Ref. #90–11–2–

225A. Commenters may request an

opportunity for a public meeting in the

affected area, in accordance with

Section 7003(d) of RCRA.

The proposed consent decrees may be

examined at the Office of the United

States Attorney, District of Maryland,

U.S. Courthouse, 101 Lombard Street,

Baltimore, Md. 21201; Region III Office

of the Environmental Protection

Agency, 841 Chestnut Street,

Philadelphia, Pa.; 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

decrees may be obtained in person or by

mail from the Consent Decree Library at

the address listed above. In requesting a

copy, please refer to the referenced case

and number, and enclose a check in the

amount of $9.00 (25 cents per page

reproduction costs), payable to the

Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,

Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environment and Natural Resource Division.

[FR Doc. 96–11802 Filed 5–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice of Lodging of Settlement

Agreement Under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act and

Section 7003(D) of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act

Notice is hereby given that a proposed

Settlement Agreement and Stipulated

Order for Abandonment in In re Tonolli

Corporation, Civil Action No. 5–86–

00065, was lodged on March 6, 1996

with the United States Bankruptcy

Court for the Middle District of

Pennsylvania. The action arises out of

the Tonolli Corporation Superfund Site

in Nesquehoning, Pennsylvania, and

resolves a dispute between the United

States and one of Tonolli’s creditors,

Meridian Bank/Meridian Bancorp

(‘‘Meridian’’), regarding which party

had a priority security interest in the

Tonolli property. Under the terms of the

settlement, Meridian is assigning to EPA

its security interest in the property of

the Tonolli estate, giving the United

States a priority security interest in this

property. In exchange, the United States

covenants not to sue Meridian under the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

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

and Section 7003 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

42 U.S.C. 6973. The proposed

settlement also provides that Meridian

will be entitled to contribution

protection to the extent provided in

Section 113(f)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.

9613(f)(2).

The Department of Justice will

receive, for a period of thirty (30) days

from the date of this publication,

comments relating to the proposed

settlement. If requested, the Department

will also provide a public meeting in the

affected area, pursuant to Section

7003(d) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973(d).

Comments and requests 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 In re Tonolli

Corporation, DOJ Ref. 90–7–2–174C.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined and copied at the Office of the

United States Attorney, Middle District

of Pennsylvania, Middle District of

Pennsylvania, Federal Building, Suite

1162, 228 Walnut Street, Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania 17108; the Region III

Office of the Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Regional Counsel, 841

Chestnut Building, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19107; and at the Consent

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

Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005. A copy

of the proposed settlement may be

obtained in person or by mail from the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street,

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

20005, 202–624–0892. In requesting a

copy, please refer to the referenced case

(In re Tonolli Corp., DOJ Case No. 90–

7–2–174C) and enclose a check in the

amount of $3.75 (25 cents per page

reproduction costs), payable to the

Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,

Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement

Section, Environment and Natural Resources

Division.

[FR Doc. 96–11803 Filed 5–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant To The Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act

In accordance with Departmental

policy, 28 C.F.R. § 50.7, notice is hereby

given that a proposed consent decree in

United States v. Young Refining

Company, Civil Action No. 1–96–CV–

1002–JEC, was lodged on April 25,

1996, with the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Georgia. The consent decree settles a

claim brought under Section 107(a) of

the Comprehensive Environmental
22074 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 1996 / Notices

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), for

response costs incurred by the United

States at the Basket Creek Drum

Disposal site (the ‘‘Basket Creek site’’) in

Douglasville, Georgia. Under the

proposed consent decree, Young

Refining will pay $51,000 to the United

States in reimbursement of response

costs incurred by the Environmental

Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) in

connection with the Basket Creek site.

Although the actual removal of

hazardous substances from the Basket

Creek Site was conducted by ChemNuclear Systems, Inc., EPA has incurred

costs in excess of $475,000 in

connection with the Basket Creek 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 for the Environment and

Natural Resources Division, Department

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

should refer to United States v. Young

Refining Company, DOJ Ref. # 90–11–2–

755.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the office of the United

States Attorney, Richard Russell Federal

Building, Suite 1800, 75 Spring Street,

S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30335; the Region

4 Office of the Environmental Protection

Agency, 345 Courtland Ave., N.E.,

Atlanta, Georgia 30307; 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 $4.25 (25 cents

per page reproduction costs), payable to

the Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environment and Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 96–11801 Filed 5–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Antitrust Division

Proposed Termination of Judgment

Notice is hereby given that defendant,

Southern Forest Products Association

(‘‘SFPA’’), has filed with the United

States District Court for the Eastern

District of Louisiana a motion to

terminate the Judgment in United States

v. Southern Pine Ass’n, et al., Civil

Action No. 275, and that the Department

of Justice (‘‘Department’’), in a

stipulation also filed with the Court, has

tentatively consented to termination of

the Judgment but has reserved the right

to withdraw its consent pending receipt

of public comments. The complaint in

this case (filed February 21, 1940)

alleged that the Southern Pine

Association (‘‘SPA’’) and its lumber

company members had fixed prices,

curtailed output, enforced an agreed

policy of distribution and excluded

others from engaging in trade and

commerce.

On February 21, 1940, a Judgment

was entered against the SPA and its

members which inter alia created the

SOUTHERN PINE INSPECTION

BUREAU (‘‘SPIB’’) as a separate entity

to perform lumber grading and

standards activities. The Judgment also

enjoined the defendants from carrying

out statistical activities related to prices,

limiting production, and attempting to

control distribution. In 1969, the

Judgment was amended to allow SPIB to

incorporate in Louisiana as a non-profit

corporation and in 1993 the Judgment

was amended to make certain technical

changes in the way SPIB conducts its

business. In 1970, the name of the SPA

became the SFPA.

The Department has filed with the

court a memorandum setting forth the

reasons why the Government believes

that termination of the Judgment would

serve the public interest. Copies of

SFPA’s motion papers, the stipulation

containing the Government’s consent,

the Government’s memorandum and all

further papers filed with the court in

connection with this motion will be

available for inspection at the Legal

Procedure Unit of the Antitrust

Division, Room 215 North, Liberty

Place, Washington, D.C. 20530, and at

the Office of the Clerk of the United

States District Court for the Eastern

District of Louisiana, 500 Camp Street,

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130. Copies

of any of these materials may be

obtained from the Antitrust Division

upon request and payment of the

copying fee set by Department of Justice

regulations.

Interested persons may submit

comments regarding the proposed

termination of the decree to the

Government. Such comments must be

received by the Division within sixty

(60) days and will be filed with the

court by the Government. Comments

should be addressed to Christopher S.

Crook, Acting Chief, San Francisco

Office, Antitrust Division, Department

of Justice, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box

36046, San Francisco, California 94102

(Telephone: (415) 436–6660).

Rebecca P. Dick,

Deputy Director of Operations.

[FR Doc. 96–11797 Filed 5–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research Act of 1984—

Enterprise Computer Telephony Forum

Notice is hereby given that, on

February 20, 1996, pursuant to Section

6(a) of the National Cooperative

Research and Production Act of 1993,

15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), the

Enterprise Computer Telephony Forum

(‘‘ECTF’’) has filed written notifications

simultaneously with the Attorney

General and the Federal Trade

Commission disclosing (1) the identities

of the parties and (2) the nature and

objectives of the venture. The

notifications were filed for the purpose

of invoking the Act’s provisions limiting

the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to

actual damages under specified

circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b)

of the Act, the identities of the parties

are: Analogic Corporation, Peabody,

MA; Amteva, Glen Allen, VA; Apple

Computers, Cupertino, CA; Aspect

Telecommunications, San Jose, CA;

AT&T Network Systems, Glen Allen,

VA; Bellcore, Red Bank, NJ; Brooktrout

Technology, Needham, MA; Centrigram

Communications, San Jose, CA; Cintech

Tele-Management Database Network

Services, Cincinnati, OH; CSETL,

Torino, ITALY; Database Network

Systems, Minnetonka, MN; Dialogic

Corporation, Parsippany, NJ; Dinatel

Corporation, San Jose, CA; Digital

Equipment Corporation, Merrimack, NJ;

Ericsson Business Networks AB,

Stockholm, SWEDEN; Fujitsu Limited,

Kawasaki, JAPAN; Hewlett-Packard

Company, Cupertino, CA; IBM

Corporation, San Jose, CA; InterVoice,

Dallas, TX; Mitel Corporation, Kanata,

CANADA; Motorola, Inc., Schaumburg,

IL; Natural MicroSystems Corp., Natick,

MA; Networks Unlimited AG,

Dusseldorf, GERMANY; Nortel,

Nashville, TN; Novell, Inc., San Jose,

CA; Periphonics, Bohemia, NY;

Rockwell International, Downers Grove,

IL; Siemens AG, Munich, GERMANY;

Unimax, Minneapolis, MN; and

Voicetek Corporation, Howell, NJ.

ECTF is a California nonprofit mutual

benefit membership corporation which

has been established to conduct joint

research and development in the area of

interoperable implementation

specifications in the field of computer

telephony integration (CTI). ECTF is

dedicated to promoting the acceptance