10774 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2012 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun is not 

participating in this review. 

3The Commission has found the response 

submitted by Globe Metallurgical Inc. to be 

individually adequate. Comments from other 

interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 

207.62(d)(2)). 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–472 (Third 

Review)] 

Silicon Metal From China; Scheduling 

of an Expedited Five-Year Review 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of an expedited 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty order on silicon metal from China 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of material injury within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. For 

further information concerning the 

conduct of this review and rules of 

general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: February 6, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barbara Elkins (202–205–2250), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. 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. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On February 6, 2012, 

the Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (76 

FR 67476, November 1, 2011) of the 

subject five-year review was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.2

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the review will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on 

March 1, 2012, and made available to 

persons on the Administrative 

Protective Order service list for this 

review. A public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,3 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before March 

6, 2012 and may not contain new factual 

information. Any person that is neither 

a party to the five-year review nor an 

interested party may submit a brief 

written statement (which shall not 

contain any new factual information) 

pertinent to the review by March 6, 

2012. However, should the Department 

of Commerce extend the time limit for 

its completion of the final results of its 

review, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. Please be aware that the 

Commission’s rules with respect to 

electronic filing have been amended. 

The amendments took effect on 

November 7, 2011. See 76 FR 61937 

(Oct. 6, 2011) and the newly revised 

Commission’s Handbook on E–Filing, 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

Also, in accordance with sections 

201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s 

rules, each document filed by a party to 

the review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the review you do not 

need to serve your response). The 

Secretary will not accept a document for 

filing without a certificate of service. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 17, 2012. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4197 Filed 2–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

Notice is hereby given that on 

February 14, 2012, the United States 

lodged a proposed Consent Decree with 

Defendants Bradley Mining Company 

(‘‘BMC’’) and Frederick Bradley, Trustee 

for the Worthen Bradley Family Trust 

(‘‘Bradley Trust’’), in United States v. 

Bradley Mining Company, et al., Civil 

Action No. 3:08–CV–03968 TEH (N.D. 

Cal.), with respect to the Sulphur Bank 

Mercury Mine Superfund Site in Lake 

County, California (‘‘Sulphur Bank 

Site’’), and with Defendant BMC in a 

consolidated case, United States v. 

Bradley Mining Company, Civil Action 

No. 3:08–CV–05501 TEH (N.D. Cal.), 

with respect to the Stibnite Mine Site in 

Valley County, Idaho (‘‘Stibnite Mine 

Site’’). 

The proposed Consent Decree 

resolves the following claims: (1) on 

August 19, 2008, the United States, on 

behalf of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’), filed a complaint under 

section 107 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9607, against 

BMC and Bradley Trust, seeking 

recovery of response costs incurred by 

EPA related to releases of hazardous 

substances at the Sulphur Bank Site; 

and (2) on September 26, 2008, the 

United States, on behalf of EPA and the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service (‘‘Forest Service’’), filed a 

complaint under CERCLA section 107 

against BMC seeking recovery of 

response costs incurred by EPA and the 

Forest Service related to the releases of 

hazardous substances at the Stibnite 

Mine Site. The proposed Consent 

Decree also resolves claims in the 

Sulphur Bank case brought by the Elem 

Tribe against BMC, the Bradley Trust, 

and the United States for cost recovery 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 2012 / Notices 10775 

1For purposes of this Complaint, we define the 

Ragged Mountain Area as covering roughly a region 

encompassed by the Townships 10S through 12S 

and Ranges 89W through 91W, as designated by the 

Public Land Survey System, comprising portions of 

Delta, Gunnison, Mesa and Pitkin Counties. 

under CERCLA section 107(a) as well as 

damages for injury to, destruction of, or 

loss of natural resources related to the 

Sulphur Bank Site and the costs of any 

natural resource damage assessments 

under CERCLA section 107(a)(4)(c). 

Finally, the Consent Decree resolves 

counterclaims against the United States 

brought by BMC and Bradley Trust in 

the Sulphur Bank case and by BMC in 

the Stibnite Mine case. 

Financial information provided by the 

Settling Defendants indicated an 

inability to pay. However, pursuant to 

the proposed Consent Decree, the 

United States will receive a payment of 

$505,000 from BMC’s insurer, a 

percentage of future insurance 

recoveries and future income, and the 

proceeds from the future sale of parcels 

of land. In addition, Defendant Bradley 

Trust will transfer property to the Elem 

Tribe. In exchange, the proposed 

Consent Decree provides Bradley Trust 

with a covenant not to sue and 

contribution protection for the Sulphur 

Bank Site, and provides BMC with a 

covenant not to sue and contribution 

protection for the Sulphur Bank Site, 

the Stibnite Mine Site, and five 

additional mining sites: the Mt. Diablo 

Mercury Mine in Contra Costa County, 

California; the Springfield Scheelite 

Mine in Valley County, Idaho; the IMA 

Mine in Lemhi County, Idaho; the Bretz 

Mine in Malheur County, Oregon; and 

the Opalite Mine in Malheur County, 

Oregon. Finally, settling federal 

agencies will pay $7.2 million for EPA’s 

response costs at the Sulphur Bank Site 

and will receive a covenant not to sue 

and contribution protection for the 

Sulphur Bank Site and the Stibnite 

Mine Site. 

The Department of Justice will 

receive, for a period of thirty (30) days 

from the date of this publication, 

comments relating to the Consent 

Decree. Comments should be addressed 

to the Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and either emailed to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States v. Bradley Mining Company, et 

al., D.J. Ref. 90–11–3–07593. 

The Consent Decree may be examined 

at U.S. EPA Region IX at 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California 94105. 

During the public comment period, the 

Consent Decree may also be examined 

on the following Department of Justice 

Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

Consent Decree may also be obtained by 

mail from the Consent Decree Library, 

P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611 or 

by faxing or emailing a request to 

‘‘Consent Decree Copy’’ 

(EESCDCopy.ENRD@usdoj.gov), fax no. 

(202) 514–0097, phone confirmation 

number (202) 514–5271. In requesting a 

copy from the Consent Decree Library, 

please enclose a check in the amount of 

$17.75 (without appendices) or $32.50 

(with appendices) (25 cents per page 

reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. 

Treasury or, if by email or fax, forward 

a check in that amount to the Consent 

Decree Library at the stated address. 

Henry Friedman, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4114 Filed 2–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

United States v. SG Interests I LTD., et 

al.; Proposed Final Judgment and 

Competitive Impact Statement 

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the 

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 

15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed 

Final Judgment, Stipulation and 

Competitive Impact Statement have 

been filed with the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Colorado in United States of America v. 

SG Interests I, Ltd. et al., Civil Action 

No. 12–CV–00395–RPM–MEH. On 

February 15, 2012, the United States 

filed a civil antitrust Complaint alleging 

that the SG Interests I Ltd. and SG 

Interests VII Ltd. (SGI) and Gunnison 

Energy Corporation (GEC) agreed to 

jointly bid for natural gas leases in the 

Ragged Mountain Area of Western 

Colorado, which were auctioned by the 

United States Department of the 

Interior’s Bureau of Land Management 

in February and May 2005, thereby 

violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 

15 U.S.C. 1. The proposed Final 

Judgment, filed the same day as the 

Complaint, requires SGI and GEC to 

each pay $275,000 to the United States 

to settle the antitrust action and a 

related qui tam case also filed in United 

States District Court for the District of 

Colorado, United States of America ex 

rel. Anthony B. Gale v. Gunnison Energy 

Corporation, Civil Action No. 09–CV– 

02471–RBJ–KLM. 

Copies of the Complaint, proposed 

Final Judgment and Competitive Impact 

Statement are available for inspection at 

the Department of Justice, Antitrust 

Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 

450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 1010, 

Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202– 

514–2481), on the Department of 

Justice’s Web site at http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/atr, and at the Office of 

the Clerk of the United States District 

Court for the District of Colorado. 

Copies of these materials may be 

obtained from the Antitrust Division 

upon request and payment of the 

copying fee set by Department of Justice 

regulations. 

Public comment is invited within 60 

days of the date of this notice. Such 

comments, and responses thereto, will 

be published in the Federal Register 

and filed with the Court. Comments 

should be directed to William H. 

Stallings, Chief, Transportation, Energy 

and Agriculture Section, Antitrust 

Division, Department of Justice, 450 

Fifth Street NW., Suite 8000, 

Washington, DC 20530, (telephone: 

202–514–9323). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Director of Civil Enforcement. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF 

COLORADO 

Civil Action No. No. 12–cv–00395–RPM– 

MEH 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 450 

5th Street NW., Suite 8000, Washington, DC 

20530, Plaintiff, v. SG INTERESTS I, LTD., 

SG INTERESTS VII, LTD., 2 Houston Center, 

909 Fannin, Suite 2600, Houston, TX 77010, 

and GUNNISON ENERGY CORPORATION, 

1801 Broadway, Suite 1200, Denver, CO 

80202, Defendants. 

COMPLAINT 

The United States of America, acting under 

the direction of the Attorney General of the 

United States, brings this civil antitrust 

action under Section 4 of the Sherman Act, 

as amended, 15 U.S.C. 4, and Section 4A of 

the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 15a, 

to obtain equitable and legal remedies against 

Defendants Gunnison Energy Corporation 

(‘‘GEC’’), and SG Interests I, Ltd. and SG 

Interests VII, Ltd. (collectively, ‘‘SGI’’) for 

their violation of Section 1 of the Sherman 

Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1. 

Prior to 2005, GEC and SGI were separately 

engaged in exploration and development of 

natural gas resources in the Ragged Mountain 

Area (or ‘‘RMA’’) of Western Colorado.1

Recognizing that they would be the primary 

competitors to acquire three natural gas 

leases for exploration and development on 

federal lands in the RMA that were to be 

auctioned by the Bureau of Land 

Management (‘‘BLM’’) in February 2005, GEC 

and SGI executed a Memorandum of 

Understanding (the ‘‘MOU’’) on the eve of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES