Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 127 / Monday, July 1, 1996 / Notices 33943

non-Indians, be considered civil in

nature rather than criminal.

(h) Severability

(1) If a court of competent jurisdiction

finds any provision of this Ordinance to

be invalid or illegal under applicable

Federal or Tribal law, such provision

shall be severed from this Ordinance

and the remainder of this Ordinance

shall remain in full force and effect.

(i) Consistency With State Law

(1) The Confederated Tribes of Grand

Ronde agrees to perform in the same

manner as any other Oregon business

entity for the purpose of liquor licensing

and regulations, including but not

limited to licensing, compliance with

the regulations of the Oregon Liquor

Control Commission, maintenance of

liquor liability insurance, as more

specifically set forth in a certain

‘‘Memorandum of Understanding

Governing Liquor Licensing and

Regulation,’’ negotiated under the

approved terms of the Tribal/State

Compact for the regulation of Class III

gaming, entered into between The

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde

and the State of Oregon, which is

incorporated as if specifically set forth

herein, as it may be amended from time

to time.

(j) Effective Date

(1) This Ordinance shall be effective

upon publication in the Federal

Register after approval by the Secretary

of the Interior or his designee.

Dated: June 25, 1996.

Ada E. Deer,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 96–16635 Filed 6–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337–TA–378]

Certain Asian-Style Kamaboko Fish

Cakes; Notice of Commission

Determinations Not To Review Two

Initial Determinations Finding a

Violation of Section 337 and Two

Respondents in Default, and of the

Schedule for Filing Written

Submissions on Remedy, the Public

Interest, and Bonding

AGENCY: International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. International Trade

Commission has determined not to

review two initial determinations (IDs)

issued in Order No. 15 on May 21, 1996,

by the presiding administrative law

judge (ALJ) in the above-captioned

investigation. The first found a violation

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930

in the importation and sale of certain

Asian-style kamaboko fish cakes and the

second found two respondents in

default.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay

H. Reiziss, Esq., Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone 202–

205–3116. Copies of the nonconfidential

versions of the IDs and all other

nonconfidential documents filed in

connection with this investigation are or

will be available for inspection during

official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15

p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, 500 E

Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436,

telephone 202–205–2000. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that

information on the matter can be

obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission instituted this investigation

on September 12, 1995, based on a

complaint filed by Yamasa Enterprises

of Los Angles, California. 60 Fed Reg.

48722. The following six firms were

names as respondents: Yamasa

Kamaboko Co., Ltd. (YKCL); Alpha

Oriental Foods, Inc. (Alpha); N.A. Sales,

Inc.; New Japan Food Corp.; Rhee

Brothers, Inc.; and Rokko Trading Co.,

Inc. Respondents N.A. Sales and Rokko

Trading Co. were subsequently

terminated from the investigation on the

basis of a settlement agreement.

Respondent Alpha is believed to have

gone out of business.

On May 21, 1996, the presiding ALJ

issued Order No. 15 which included

two IDs. In one ID the ALJ granted

complainant’s motion for summary

determination on each substantive issue

in the investigation. In the other ID the

ALJ granted complainant’s motion that

respondents New Japan Food Corp. and

Rhee Brothers be found in default.

Respondent YKCL filed a petition for

review of the IDs, and complainant and

the Commission investigative attorney

filed oppositions to YKCL’s petition. On

June 6, 1996, the ALJ also issued a

recommended determination on the

issues of remedy and bonding.

In connection with final disposition

of this investigation, the Commission

may issue (1) an order that could result

in the exclusion of the subject articles

from entry into the United States, and/

or (2) cease and desist orders that could

result in respondents New Japan Food

Corp. and Rhee Brothers being required

to cease and desist from engaging in

unfair acts in the importation and sale

of such articles. Accordingly, the

Commission is interested in receiving

written submissions that address the

form of remedy, if any, that should be

ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an

article from entry into the United States

for purposes other than entry for

consumption, the party should so

indicate and provide information

establishing that activities involving

other types of entry either are adversely

affecting it or are likely to do so. For

background, see the Commission

Opinion, In the Matter of Certain

Devices for Connecting Computers via

Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360.

If the Commission contemplates some

form of remedy, it must consider the

effects of that remedy upon the public

interest. The factors the Commission

will consider include the effect that an

exclusion order and/or cease and desist

orders would have on (1) the public

health and welfare, (2) competitive

conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S.

production of articles that are like or

directly competitive with those that are

subject to investigation, and (4) U.S.

consumers. The Commission is

therefore interested in receiving written

submissions that address the

aforementioned public interest factors

in the context of this investigation.

If the Commission orders some form

of remedy, the President has 60 days to

approve or disapprove the

Commission’s action. During this

period, the subject articles would be

entitled to enter the United States under

a bond, in an amount determined by the

Commission and prescribed by the

Secretary of the Treasury. The

Commission is therefore interested in

receiving submissions concerning the

amount of the bond that should be

imposed, if remedial orders are issued.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: The parties to the

investigation, interested government

agencies, and any other interested

persons are encouraged to file written

submissions on the issues of remedy,

the public interest, and bonding. Such

submissions should address the June 6,

1996, recommended determination by

the ALJ. Complainant and the

Commission investigative attorney are

also requested to submit proposed

remedial orders for the Commission’s

consideration. The written submissions

and proposed remedial orders must be

filed no later than the close of business

on July 15, 1996. Reply submissions

must be filed no later than the close of
33944 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 127 / Monday, July 1, 1996 / Notices

business on July 8, 1996. No further

submissions will be permitted unless

otherwise ordered by the Commission.

Persons filing written submissions

must file the original document and 14

true copies thereof with the Office of the

Secretary on or before the deadlines

stated above. Any person desiring to

submit a document (or portion thereof)

to the Commission in confidence must

request confidential treatment unless

the information has already been

granted such treatment during the

proceedings. All such requests should

be directed to the Secretary of the

Commission and must include a full

statement of the reasons why the

Commission should grant such

treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents

for which confidential treatment is

granted by the Commission will be

treated accordingly. All nonconfidential

written submissions will be available for

public inspection at the Office of the

Secretary.

This action is taken under the

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),

and rules 210.42 and 210.50 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (19 CFR §§ 210.42 and

210.50).

Issued: June 21, 1996.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–16613 Filed 6–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant to the Comprehensive

Environmental Response

Compensation and Liability Act of

1980, as Amended

Notice is hereby given that a proposed

consent decree in the action entitled

United States v. A & N Cleaners &

Launderers, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.

89–6865 (S.D.N.Y.), was lodged on June

20, 1996, with the United States District

Court for the Southern District of New

York. The proposed consent decree

resolves the United States’ claims under

the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

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

on behalf of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) and the U.S.

Department of the Interior (‘‘DOI’’),

against the defendants—A & N Cleaners

& Launderers, Inc.; Ben Forcucci;

Marine Midland Bank, N.A.; Jordan W.

Berkman; John A. Petrillo; Joseph Curto;

and Mario Curot—for response costs

incurred and to be incurred in

connection with the Brewster Well Field

Superfund Site (‘‘Site’’) in Putnam

County, New York, and for damages for

injury to, destruction of, or loss of

natural resources as a result of the

release of hazardous substances at or

from the Site. Under the proposed

consent decree, the United States and its

co-plaintiff the State of New York will

receive $2.3 million from the defendants

in reimbursement of response costs. The

United States will also receive $20,000

from defendants as damages for injury

to, or destruction or loss of, natural

resources, to be spent only for natural

resources restoration and

reimbursement of assessment costs

incurred by the natural resource

trustees.

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. In addition, since the

United States is further providing

defendants with a covenant not to sue

under the Resources Conservation &

Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq, the

United States will also provide an

opportunity for a public meeting in the

affected area, if requested within the

thirty (30) day public comment period.

See 42 U.S.C. § 6973(d). Any comments

and/or request for a public meeting

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. A & N Cleaners & Launderers, Inc.,

et al., Civil Action No. 89–6865, DOJ

Ref. Number 90–11–2–311.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the Office of the United

States Attorney, 100 Church Street, 19th

Floor, New York, New York 10007; the

Region II Office of the Environmental

Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New

York, New York 10278; and 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, NW., 4th

Floor, Washington, DC 20005. In

requesting a copy, please refer to the

referenced case and enclose a check in

the amount of $9.25 (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. 96–16707 Filed 6–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Membership of the 1996 Senior

Executive Service Performance Review

Boards

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice of Department of

Justice’s 1996 Senior Executive Service

Performance Review Boards.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the requirements

of 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the Department of

Justice announces the membership of its

Senior Executive Service (SES)

Performance Review Boards (PRBs). The

purpose of the PRBs is to provide fair

and impartial review of SES

performance appraisals and bonus

recommendations. The PRBs will make

recommendations to the Deputy

Attorney General regarding the final

performance ratings to be assigned and

SES bonuses to be awarded.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Henry Romero, Director, Personnel

Staff, Justice Management Division,

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

20530; (202) 514–6788.

Valerie M. Willis,

Executive Secretary, Senior Executive

Resources Board.

Department of Justice, 1996 Senior

Executive Service Performance Review

Board Members

Antitrust Division

John F. Greaney, Chief, Computers and

Finance Section

Mary Jean Moltenbrey, Chief, Civil Task

Force

Civil Division

David J. Anderson, Director, Federal

Programs Branch

James G. Bruen, Jr., Special Litigation

Counsel, Commercial Litigation

Branch

John L. Euler, Deputy Director, Torts

Branch

Civil Rights Division

Katherine A. Baldwin, Chief,

Employment Litigation Section

David K. Flynn, Chief, Appellate

Section

Criminal Division

Joshua R. Hochberg, Deputy Chief for

Litigation, Public Integrity Section

Eli H. Rosenbaum, Director, Office of

Special Investigations

Jan M. Stromsem, Director, International

Criminal Investigative Training

Assistance Program

Environment and Natural Resources

Division

Bruce S. Gelber, Principal Deputy Chief,

Environmental Enforcement Section