29424 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 112 / Monday, June 10, 1996 / Notices

management of argali in Kyrgyzstan,

Mongolia, or Tajikistan has changed

since the original classification of these

populations in June 23, 1992 (57 FR

28014), the Service continues to

consider these populations as

threatened. Except for the recent report

by Fedosenko on argali in the Pamirs

region in Tajikistan, the Service has

received little additional information on

the status and management of argali in

these countries since the 1993 report

funded by the Service. Thus, the Service

is requesting additional and updated

information from the Governments of

Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Mongolia

and from individuals and organizations

knowledgeable about the status and

management of the argali in these three

range countries.

Information Solicited

The Service can only issue a

threatened species permit for the import

of argali trophies when it finds that the

activity will enhance the propagation or

survival of the species. So the Service

solicits information on the status of

argali populations in Kyrgyzstan,

Mongolia, and Tajikistan, including: (1)

Whether the population in each country

is sufficiently large, viable, and

adequately protected to sustain sport

hunting, (2) whether the regulating

authorities in these range countries

recognize these argali populations as a

valuable resource and have the legal and

practical means to manage these argali

populations, including examples of any

recent management initiatives, and (3)

whether the regulating authorities can

ensure that the exported trophy has in

fact been legally taken from the

specified population. In addition, the

Service seeks information on how any

funds derived from the involved sport

hunt or any contributions made directly

by the applicant and/or the outfitter

have been applied to argali

conservation, including specific

examples.

Information received will be

considered in developing the Service’s

findings for future permit applications

for the import of sport-hunted argali

trophies. In the meantime, the Service

continues to process applications and

make its decisions on existing

information.

Dated: May 30, 1996.

John G. Rogers,

Acting Director.

[FR Doc. 96–14377 Filed 6–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

Bureau of Land Management

Lower Snake River District Resource

Advisory Council; Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management—

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Lower Snake River

District Resource Advisory Council will

meet at the district office to discuss

options for applying terms and

conditions for improving riparian areas

to livestock grazing permits and leases.

DATES: Tuesday, June 18, 1996. The

meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and a

public comment period will begin at

9:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The Lower Snake River

District Office is located at 3948

Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barry Rose, Lower Snake River District

Office (208–384–3393).

Dated: June 4, 1996.

Barry Rose,

Public Affairs Specialist.

[FR Doc. 96–14551 Filed 6–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[USITC SE–96–11]

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United

States International Trade Commission.

TIME AND DATE: June 18, 1996 at 9:30

a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street S.W.,

Washington, DC 20436.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Agenda for future meeting

2. Minutes

3. Ratification List

4. Inv. No. 731–TA–739 (Final) (Clad Steel

Plate from Japan)—briefing and vote.

5. Inv. No. 731–TA–732–733 (Final) (Circular

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from

Romania and South Africa)—briefing and

vote.

6. Outstanding action jackets: None.

In accordance with Commission

policy, subject matter listed above, not

disposed of at the scheduled meeting,

may be carried over to the agenda of the

following meeting.

By order of the Commission:

Issued: June 6, 1996

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–14749 Filed 6–6–96; 1:05 pm]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of the Deputy Attorney General

Office of Tribal Justice; Policy on

Indian Sovereignty

AGENCY: Office of Tribal Justice,

Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice publishes the

‘‘Department of Justice Policy on Indian

Sovereignty and Government-toGovernment Relations.’’ The Polcy

reaffirms both the Department’s

recognition of the sovereign status of

federally recognized Indian tribes and

the Department’s adherence to

government-to-government relations

with federally recognized Indian tribes.

The Policy also contains a directive to

all components of the Department of

Justice to inform attorneys of the

responsibilities enumerated in the

policy and to make all reasonable efforts

to ensure that component activities

conform to its terms. The Policy also

directs Department of Justice

component heads to appoint a contact

person to work with the Office of Tribal

Justice to address Indian issues within

each component.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Herbert A. Becker, Director, Office of

Tribal Justice, Room 1509, Main

Building, Department of Justice.

Telephone: (202) 514–8812. FAX: (202)

514–9078.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Attached

is a copy of the ‘‘Department of Justice

Policy on Indian Sovereignty and

Government-to-Government Relations

with Indian Tribes,’’ which the Attorney

General signed on June 1, 1995.

Dated: June 3, 1996.

Herbert A. Becker,

Director, Office of Tribal Justice.

Office of the Attorney General

Washington, DC 20530

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POLICY ON

INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY AND

GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT

RELATIONS WITH INDIAN TRIBES

Purpose

To reaffirm the Department’s recognition of

the sovereign status of federally recognized

Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations

and to reaffirm adherence to the principles of

government-to-government relations; to

inform Department personnel, other federal

agencies, federally recognized Indian tribes,

and the public of the Department’s working

relationships with federally recognized

Indian tribes; and to guide the Department in

its work in the field of Indian affairs.

I. Introduction

From its earliest days, the United States

has recognized the sovereign status of Indian
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 112 / Monday, June 10, 1996 / Notices 29425

tribes as ‘‘domestic dependent nations.’’

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.)

1, 17 (1831). Our Constitution recognize

Indian sovereignty by classing Indian treaties

among the ‘‘supreme Law of the land, ’’ and

establishes Indian affairs as a unique area of

federal concern. In early Indian treaties, the

United States pledged to ‘‘protect’’ Indian

tribes, thereby establishing one of the bases

for the federal trust responsibility in our

government-to-government relations with

Indian tribes. These principles continue to

guide our national policy towards Indian

tribes.

A. The Executive Memorandum on

Government-to-Government Relations

Between the United States and Indian Tribes

On April 29, 1994, at an historic meeting

with the heads of tribal governments,

President Clinton reaffirmed the United

States’ ‘‘unique legal relationship with Native

American tribal governments’’ and issued a

directive to all executive departments and

agencies of the Federal Government that:

As executive departments and agencies

undertake activities affecting Native

American tribal rights or trust resources,

such activities should be implemented in a

knowledgeable, sensitive manner respectful

of tribal sovereignty.

President Clinton’s directive requires that

in all activities relating to or affecting the

government or treaty rights of Indian tribes,

the executive branch shall:

(1) Operate within a government-togovernment relationship with federally

recognized Indian tribes;

(2) Consult, to the greatest extent

practicable and permitted by law, with

Indian tribal governments before taking

actions that affect federally recognized Indian

tribes;

(3) Assess the impact of agency activities

on tribal trust resources and assure that tribal

interests are considered before the activities

are undertaken;

(4) Remove procedural impediments to

working directly with tribal governments on

activities that affect trust property or

governmental rights of the tribes; and

(5) Work cooperatively with other agencies

to accomplish these goals established by the

President.

The Department of Justice is reviewing

programs and procedures to ensure that we

adhere to principles of respect for Indian

tribal governments and honor our Nation’s

trust responsibility to Indian tribes. Within

the Department, the Office of Tribal Justice

has been formed to coordinate policy towards

Indian tribes both within the Department and

with other agencies of the Federal

Government, and to assist Indian tribes as

domestic dependent nations within the

federal system.

B. Federal Indian Self-Determination Policy

President Clinton’s executive

memorandum builds on the firmly

established federal policy of selfdetermination for Indian tribes. Working

together with Congress, previous Presidents

affirmed the fundamental policy of federal

respect for tribal self-government. President

Johnson recognized ‘‘the right of the first

Americans * * * to freedom of choice and

self-determination.’’ President Nixon strongly

encouraged ‘‘self-determination’’ among the

Indian people. President Reagan pledged ‘‘to

pursue the policy of self-government’’ for

Indian tribes and reaffirmed ‘‘the

government-to-government basis’’ for dealing

with Indian tribes. President Bush recognized

that the Federal Government’s ‘‘efforts to

increase tribal self-governance have brought

a renewed sense of pride and empowerment

to this country’s native peoples.’’

II. Principles of Indian Sovereignty and the

Trust Responsibility

Though generalizations are difficult, a few

basic principles provide important guidance

in the field of Indian affairs: (1) the

Constitution vests Congress with plenary

power over Indian affairs; (2) Indian tribes

retain important sovereign powers over

‘‘their members and their territory,’’ subject

to the plenary power of Congress; and (3) the

United States has a trust responsibility to

Indian tribes, which guides and limits the

Federal Government in dealings with Indian

tribes. Thus, federal and tribal law generally

have primacy over Indian affairs in Indian

country, except where Congress has provided

otherwise.

III. Department of Justice Recognition of

Indian Sovereignty and the Federal Trust

Responsibility

The Department resolves that the following

principles will guide its interactions with the

Indian tribes.

A. The Sovereignty of Indian Tribes

The Department recognizes that Indian

tribes as domestic dependent nations retain

sovereign powers, except as divested by the

United States, and further recognizes that the

United States has the authority to restore

federal recognition of Indian sovereignty in

order to strengthen tribal self-governance.

The Department shall be guided by

principles of respect for Indian tribes and

their sovereign authority and the United

States’ trust responsibility in the many ways

in which the Department takes action on

matters affecting Indian tribes. For example,

the Department reviews proposed legislation,

administers funds that are available to tribes

to build their capacity to address crime and

crime-related problems in Indian country,

and in conjunction with the Bureau of Indian

Affairs and tribal police, provides essential

law enforcement in Indian country. The

Department represents the United States, in

coordination with other federal agencies, in

litigation brought for the benefit of Indian

tribes and individuals, as well as in litigation

by Indian tribes or individuals against the

United States or its agencies. In litigation as

in other matters, the Department may take

actions and positions affecting Indian tribes

with which one or more tribes may disagree.

In all situations, the Department will carry

out its responsibilities consistent with the

law and this policy statement.

B. Government-to-Government Relationships

with Indian Tribes

In accord with the status of Indian tribes

as domestic dependent nations, the

Department is committed to operating on the

basis of government-to-government relations

with Indian tribes.

Consistent with federal law and other

Departmental duties, the Department will

consult with tribal leaders in its decisions

that relate to or affect the sovereignty, rights,

resources or lands of Indian tribes. Each

component will conduct such consultation in

light of its mission. In addition, the

Department has initiated national and

regional listening conferences and has

created the Office of Tribal Justice to improve

communications with Indian tribes. In the

Offices of the United States Attorneys with

substantial areas of Indian country within

their purview, the Department encourages

designation of Assistant U.S. Attorneys to

serve as tribal liaisons.

In order to fulfill its mission, the

Department of Justice endeavors to forge

strong partnerships between the Indian tribal

governments and the Department. These

partnerships will enable the Department to

better serve the needs of Indian tribes, Indian

people, and the public at large.

C. Self-Determination and Self-Governance

The Department is committed to

strengthening and assisting Indian tribal

governments in their development and to

promoting Indian self-governance. Consistent

with federal law and Departmental

responsibilities, the Department will consult

with tribal governments concerning law

enforcement priorities in Indian country,

support duly recognized tribal governments,

defend the lawful exercise of tribal

governmental powers in coordination with

the Department of the Interior and other

federal agencies, investigate government

corruption when necessary, and support and

assist Indian tribes in the development of

their law enforcement systems, tribal courts,

and traditional justice systems.

D. Trust Responsibility

The Department acknowledges the federal

trust responsibility arising from Indian

treaties, statutes, executive orders, and the

historical relations between the United States

and Indian tribes. In a broad sense, the trust

responsibility relates to the United States’

unique legal and political relationship with

Indian tribes. Congress, with plenary power

over Indian affairs, plays a primary role in

defining the trust responsibility, and

Congress recently declared that the trust

responsibility ‘‘includes the protection of the

sovereignty of each tribal government.’’ 25

U.S.C. 3601.

The term ‘‘trust responsibility’’ is also used

in a narrower sense to define the precise legal

duties of the United States in managing

property and resources of Indian tribes and,

at times, of individual Indians.

The trust responsibility, in both senses,

will guide the Department in litigation,

enforcement, policymaking and proposals for

legislation affecting Indian country, when

appropriate to the circumstances. As used in

its narrower sense, the federal trust

responsibility may be justifiable in some

circumstances, while in its broader sense the

definition and implementation of the trust

responsibility is committed to Congress and

the Executive Branch.
29426 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 112 / Monday, June 10, 1996 / Notices

E. Protection of Civil Rights

Federal law prohibits discrimination based

on race or national origin by the federal, state

and local governments, or individuals against

American Indians in such areas as voting,

education, housing, credit, public

accommodations and facilities, employment,

and in certain federally funded programs and

facilities. Various federal criminal civil rights

statutes also preserve personal liberties and

safety. The existence of the federal trust

responsibility towards Indian tribes does not

diminish the obligation of state and local

governments to respect the civil rights of

Indian people.

Through the Indian Civil Rights Act,

Congress selectively has derived essential

civil rights protections from the Bill of Rights

and applied them to Indian tribes. 25 U.S.C.

§ 1301. The Indian Civil Rights Act is to be

interpreted with respect for Indian

sovereignty. The primary responsibility for

enforcement of the Act is invested in the

tribal courts and other tribal fora. In the

criminal law context, federal courts have

authority to decide habeas corpus petitions

after tribal remedies are exhausted.

The Department of Justice is fully

committed to safeguarding the constitutional

and statutory rights of American Indians, as

well as all other Americans.

F. Protection of Tribal Religion and Culture

The mandate to protect religious liberty is

deeply rooted in this Nation’s constitutional

heritage. The Department seeks to ensure that

American Indians are protected in the

observance of their faiths. Decisions

regarding the activities of the Department

that have the potential to substantially

interfere with the exercise of Indian religions

will be guided by the First Amendment of the

United States Constitution, as well as by

statutes which protect the exercise of religion

such as the Religious Freedom Restoration

Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom

Act, the Native American Graves Protection

and Repatriation Act, and the National

Historic Preservation Act.

The Department also recognizes the

significant federal interest in aiding tribes in

the preservation of their tribal customs and

traditions. In performing its duties in Indian

country, the department will respect and

seek to preserve tribal cultures.

IV. Directive to all Components of the

Department of Justice

The principles set out here must be

interpreted by each component of the

Department of Justice in light of its respective

mission. Therefore, each component head

shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure

that the component’s activities are consistent

with the above sovereignty and trust

principles. The component heads shall

circulate this policy to all attorneys in

Department to inform them of their

responsibilities. Where the activities and

internal procedures of the components can be

reformed to ensure greater consistency with

this Policy, the component head shall

undertake to do so. If tensions arise between

these principles and other principles which

guide the component in carrying out its

mission, components will develop, as

necessary, a mechanism for resolving such

tensions to ensure that tribal interests are

given due consideration. Finally, component

heads will appoint a contact person to work

with the Office of Tribal Justice in addressing

Indian issues within the component.

V. Disclaimer

This policy is intended only to improve the

internal management of the Department and

is not intended to create any right

enforceable in any cause of action by any

party against the United States, its agencies,

officers, or any person.

Dated: June 1, 1995.

Janet Reno,

Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 96–14513 Filed 6–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decrees

in Action To Recover Past Costs Under

the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act

In accordance with Departmental

Policy, 28 CFR § 50.7, 38 FR 19029,

notice is hereby given that two Consent

Decrees in United States v. Cassidy, et

al., Civil Action No. 94–CV–71787–DT,

were lodged with the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of

Michigan on May 30, 1996.

The Consent Decrees resolve claims

brought by the United States pursuant to

the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., against

Detrex Corp., Ford Motor Co., General

Motors Corp., PVS-Nolwood Chemicals,

Inc., Tronex Chemical Co., Van Waters

& Rogers, Inc., Ethone-OMI, Inc., Henkel

Corp., Chrysler Corp., General Electric

Co., and Carboloy, Inc. The complaint

alleges that the United States incurred

response costs in connection with a

release or threatened release of

hazardous substances from sites

operated by the ABC Barrel and Drum

Company at 14290 Birwood St. and 102

W. Lantz St. in Detroit, Wayne County,

Michigan. The complaint alleges that

the defendants were liable for such costs

as persons who arranged for the

disposal of hazardous substances at the

sites.

One of the Consent Decrees requires

Detrex Corp., Ford Motor Co., General

Motors Corp., PVS-Nolwood Chemicals,

Inc., Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., EthoneOMI, Inc., Henkel Corp., Chrysler Corp.,

General Electric Co., and Carboloy, Inc.

to pay $2,550,000 to the EPA Hazardous

Substances Superfund to settle the

claims asserted against them. Under this

Decree, the United States also covenants

not to sue and provides contribution

protection to three third party

defendants who settled with the

defendants for a total of $32,638: Martin

Marietta Magnesia Specialties, Inc.,

McKesson Corp., and Union Carbide

Corp. The Decree also restricts the

contribution rights of the settling

defendants and settling third parties.

The second Consent Decree that was

lodged requires Tronex Chemical

Company to pay $20,000, plus interest,

in four installments to the EPA

Hazardous Substance Superfund to

settle the claims asserted against it in

the Complaint.

The Department of Justice will receive

for thirty (30) days from the date of

publication of this notice written

comments relating to the Consent

Decrees. Comments should be addressed

to the Assistant Attorney General,

Environment and Natural Resources

Division, Department of Justice,

Washington, D.C. 20530, and should

refer to United States v. Cassidy, et al.,

DOJ Ref. No. 90–11–3–1060.

The Consent Decrees may be

examined at the Office of the United

States Attorney, Eastern District of

Michigan, 211 W. Fort St., Suite 2300,

Detroit, Michigan; at the Region V Office

of the Environmental Protection

Agency, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago,

Illinois; and at the Consent Decree

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

Washington, D.C., (202) 624–0892. A

copy of the proposed Consent Decrees

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 payable to the Consent Decree

Library in the amount of $10.75 ($.25

cents per page reproduction costs) for

the Consent Decree requiring the

$2,550,000 payment, and/or, $5.75 for

the Consent Decree involving Tronex

Chemical Company. Please specify

precisely which Decree is being

requested.

Bruce S. Gelber,

Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement

Section, Environment and Natural Resources

Division.

[FR Doc. 96–14472 Filed 6–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant to the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act, (42

U.S.C. 9601–9675)

Notice is hereby given that a proposed

consent decree in United States v. David

B. Fisher, et al., Civil Action No. S92–

00636M, was lodged on May 22, 1996

with the United States District Court for