15124 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 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. 

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by ABC Coke, Erie Coke, Tonawanda 

Coke Corporation, and Walter Coke Co. to be 

individually adequate. Comments from other 

interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 

207.62(d)(2)). 

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 March 5, 2012, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (76 

FR 74810, December 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. 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the review will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on April 

2, 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,2 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 April 5, 

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 April 5, 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 Fed. Reg. 

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. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the 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 BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determination.—The Commission has 

determined to exercise its authority to 

extend the review period by up to 90 

days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

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: March 8, 2012. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

WORK SCHEDULE 

Investigation No. 731–TA–891 (Second 

Review) 

FOUNDRY COKE FROM CHINA 

Staff Assigned 

Investigator ..................................................................................................................................................................................... Angela Newell (708–5409). 

Commodity-Industry Analyst ........................................................................................................................................................ Cynthia Foreso (205–3348). 

Attorney .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Charles St. Charles (205–2782). 

Supervisory Investigator ................................................................................................................................................................ Elizabeth Haines (205–3200). 

DATE 

Institution .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... December 1, 2011. 

Report to the Commission: 

Draft to Supervisory Investigator ........................................................................................................................................................................ March 16, 2012. 

Draft to Senior Review ........................................................................................................................................................................................ March 26. 

To the Commission .............................................................................................................................................................................................. April 2. 

Comments of Parties due1: ......................................................................................................................................................................................... April 5. 

Legal issues memorandum to the Commission ......................................................................................................................................................... May 10. 

Briefing and vote (suggested date) ............................................................................................................................................................................. May 16. 

Determination and views to Commerce ..................................................................................................................................................................... May 29, 2012. 

1 If comments contain business proprietary information, a nonbusiness proprietary version is due the following business day. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6065 Filed 3–13–12; 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 21, 2012, a proposed Consent 

Decree in United States v. FMC 

Corporation, Civil Action No. 2:11-cv00699 (‘‘FMC’’) was lodged with the 

United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Alabama. 

In FMC, the United States of America 

(‘‘United States’’), on behalf of the 

Administrator of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’), filed a complaint pursuant to 

Section 107 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980, as amended (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 

U.S.C. 9607, seeking reimbursement of 

response costs incurred between 2005 

and 2007 stemming from an EPA 

emergency removal action cleaning up 

hazardous substances at the 

Performance Advantage Superfund Site 

in Coosa County, Alabama. In response, 

FMC filed a counterclaim against the 

United States. 

The proposed Consent Decree 

resolves all claims and counterclaims in 

this action. Under the Consent Decree, 

Defendant FMC will pay a total of 

$300,000, plus interest, to the EPA’s 

Hazardous Substance Superfund, and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2012 / Notices 15125 

the United States will cause to be 

transferred a total of $71,000 from the 

Judgment Fund at the United States 

Treasury to the EPA Hazardous 

Substance Superfund. 

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, 

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 this 

case: United States v. FMC Corporation, 

Civil Action No. 2:11–cv–00699, D.J. 

Ref. 90–11–2–09066/1. 

During the public comment period, 

the Consent Decree may be examined on 

the following Department of Justice Web 

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

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

proposed 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 no. 

(202) 514–5271. In requesting a copy 

from the Consent Decree Library, please 

enclose a check 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, in 

the following amount (25 cents per page 

reproduction cost): $6.50 for the 

Consent Decree (with Exhibit A—Site 

Map). 

Henry S. Friedman, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6066 Filed 3–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Second Consent 

Decree Under the Clean Air Act 

Notice is hereby given that on March 

6, 2012, a proposed Second Consent 

Decree in United States and the State of 

Kansas v. Coffeyville Resources Refining 

& Marketing, LLC et. al., 04-cv-01064 (D. 

Kan. 2004), was lodged with the United 

States Court for the District of Kansas. 

On June 13, 2004, the Court entered 

a Consent Decree in this action (Docket 

No. 8) that required Defendant 

Coffeyville Resources Refining & 

Marketing, L.L.C. (‘‘CRRM’’) to install 

certain air pollution controls to reduce 

emissions of oxides, sulfur dioxide and 

particulate matter at its oil refinery 

located in Coffeyville, Kansas. Under 

the proposed Second Consent Decree 

the United States and State grant CRRM 

an extension on installation of some of 

these controls. And CRRM has agreed to 

implement new and upgraded pollution 

controls; to comply with more stringent 

emission limits, and to follow more 

aggressive leak-detection and repair 

practices. These measures will reduce 

CRRM’s emission of various nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

volatile organic compounds, particulate 

matter, carbon monoxide, and other 

pollutants that affect air quality. CRRM 

will also pay approximately $970,000 in 

civil penalties under the Clean Air Act, 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act, and the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the Second 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 and State of Kansas v. Coffeyville 

Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC et. 

al., 04-cv-01064 (D. Kan. 2004), D.J. Ref. 

90–5–1–2–07459/1. 

During the public comment period, 

the Second 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 

Second 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. If requesting a 

copy from the Consent Decree Library 

by mail, please enclose a check in the 

amount of $52.25 (25 cents per page 

reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. 

Treasury or, if requesting by email or 

fax, forward a check in that amount to 

the Consent Decree Library at the 

address given above. 

Robert E. Maher, Jr., 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6044 Filed 3–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

United States v. Morgan Stanley; 

Public Comments and Response on 

Proposed Final Judgment 

Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures 

and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), 

the United States hereby publishes 

below the comments received on the 

proposed Final Judgment in United 

States v. Morgan Stanley, Civil Action 

No. 1:11–CV–06875–WHP, which were 

filed in the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of New York on 

March 6, 2012, together with the 

response of the United States to the 

comments. 

Copies of the comments and the 

response are available for inspection at 

the Department of Justice Antitrust 

Division, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 

1010, Washington, DC 20530 

(telephone: 202–514–2481), on the 

Department of Justice’s Web site at 

http://www.justice.gov/atr, and at the 

Office of the Clerk of the United States 

District Court for the Southern District 

of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New 

York, New York 10007. Copies of any of 

these materials may be obtained upon 

request and payment of a copying fee. 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Director of Civil Enforcement. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN 

DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, v. MORGAN STANLEY, 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No.: 11–civ–6875 WHP 

Hon. William Pauley III 

RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF UNITED 

STATES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON 

THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT 

Pursuant to the requirements of the 

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 16(b)–(h) (‘‘Tunney Act’’), 

the United States files the public 

comments concerning the proposed 

Final Judgment in this case and the 

United States’ response to those 

comments. After careful consideration, 

the United States continues to believe 

that the relief sought in the proposed 

Final Judgment will provide an effective 

and appropriate remedy for the antitrust 

violation alleged in the Complaint. The 

United States will move the Court for 

entry of the proposed Final Judgment 

after the public comments and this 

Response have been published in the 

Federal Register, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

§ 16(d). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES