64076 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices

6Wisconsin Central should submit a list of such

properties within 30 days.

The Comments

In response to our notice, we received

comments only from ACHP and from

the Minnesota and Michigan SHPOs.

ACHP expresses disappointment that it

and the Commission were not able to

work out some kind of programmatic

agreement. ACHP maintains that it

would be premature to remove the

condition without requiring that the

Commission and the Wisconsin Central

demonstrate that they have made a good

faith effort to reach a programmatic

agreement.

The Michigan SHPO argues that

removal of the historic preservation

condition now would nullify the

Commission’s compliance with the

National Historic Preservation Act, and

that the agency should continue to

attempt to reach a suitable

programmatic agreement. The

Minnesota SHPO is concerned that there

is at least one historic property on the

20-mile segment of the Wisconsin

Central that is in Minnesota that may be

adversely affected by the proposal.

Discussion and Conclusions

Eight years have now passed since

Wisconsin Central acquired these

properties. No comment has been filed

challenging our assertion that from this

point forward, Wisconsin Central’s sale

or demolition of properties should no

longer be considered to be the result of

the original purchase from the Soo.

Rather, because of the passage of time,

these decisions more appropriately are

considered to be the normal result of the

carrier’s continuing ownership and

management of these properties. If this

transaction were to take place today, we

would impose a historic condition only

with regard to particular properties that

the carrier identifies at the outset that it

contemplates selling or altering. Thus, it

would be unfair to continue to impose

a greater burden on Wisconsin Central

than we would now impose on other

railroads.

There would be no point in entering

into a programmatic or a memorandum

of agreement now, nor do we believe

that continuing the condition is

necessary for compliance with NHPA.

SEA and Wisconsin Central have

already undertaken the historic

preservation process for every property

that the carrier has altered or disposed

of since these properties were acquired.

That should cover all of the properties

that are affected by the sale. Future

property dispositions, with the

exception set forth in the following

paragraph, will not be deemed to result

from the sale.

Accordingly, we are reopening this

proceeding and modifying the condition

to require completion of the historic

review process only with regard to

specific properties for which that

process is already underway or of which

the carrier has already informed SEA

that it plans to dispose.6 The disposal or

alteration of other properties is outside

the scope of this proceeding.

This action will not significantly

affect either the quality of the human

environment or the conservation of

energy resources. This proposal should

not have any adverse impact on small

entities.

Decided: December 1, 1995.

By the Commission, Chairman Morgan,

Vice Chairman Owen, and Commissioner

Simmons.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–30240 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act

In accordance with Departmental

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

given that a proposed Consent Decree in

United States versus WheelingPittsburgh Steel Corp., Civil Action No.

93–0195W (N.D.WVA), was lodged on

December 6, 1995, with the United

States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia. The decree

addresses the violations of WheelingPittsburgh (‘‘Wheeling-Pitt’’), at its

Follansbee Coke Plant in Follansbee,

West Virginia, of the West Virginia State

Implementation Plan (‘‘SIP’’), enforced

pursuant to Section 113 of the Clean Air

Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413, and certain

reporting requirements contained in the

National Emission Standard for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (‘‘NESHAP’’)

for Benzene Emissions from Coke ByProduct Recovery Plants, 40 C.F.R. Part

61, Subpart L. Wheeling-Pitt violated

the SIP by combusting coke oven gas

which had not been desulfurized (as a

result of unplanned outages at the

Follansbee furnace by-product recovery

plant, where hydrogen sulfide is

stripped from coke oven gas during

normal operations), by allowing raw

coke oven gas to be emitted (‘‘vented’’)

into the ambient air during two

emergencies caused by elevated gas

pressure within coke oven batteries, and

by occasional failures to comply with

the SIP’s pushing standards.

Under the proposed Consent Decree,

Wheeling-Pitt will pay a civil penalty of

$700,000 and has agreed to detailed

injunctive provisions. Wheeling-Pitt has

abated all of the SIP violations. As to the

SIP’s desulfurization requirements, the

Decree requires that, within 45 days of

entry of the Decree, Wheeling-Pitt must

have demonstrated full compliance with

the SIP for seven consecutive days.

Further, if the continuous emissions

monitor (‘‘CEM’’) used to measure

compliance with the desulfurization

standards should malfunction, and is

out of service for two consecutive hours,

then Wheeling-Pitt must use a backup

CEM, or, failing that, must measure and

report certain parameters of the

desulfurization process so that EPA may

gauge Wheeling-Pitt’s compliance. The

Decree contains, in addition,

requirements for Wheeling-Pitt to

install, and properly operate and

maintain, a new hydrogen sulfide

scrubber and CEM at the recovery plant.

Finally, to ensure that the recovery

plant is operated and maintained

adequately, the Decree contains detailed

requirements regarding preventative

maintenance, spare parts inventories,

and standard operating procedures.

As to pushing, Wheeling-Pitt must,

within 45 days of entry of the Decree,

demonstrate compliance with the SIP’s

pushing standard for five consecutive

days. Further, the company must

continue to monitor its pushing

operations weekly until it has produced

twelve consecutive weeks of data

showing 100% compliance. To correct

its violations of the SIP’s pushing

standards, Wheeling-Pitt has installed a

number of improvements, including

tighter boot seals at the top of the coke

battery wall and a modified hood for the

quench car. To abate its venting

violations, Wheeling-Pitt has installed

flares at its coke batteries, as now

required under the Coke Oven Battery

NESHAP.

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 versus

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., DOJ

Ref. #90–5–2–1–1868.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the office of the United

States Attorney, 1100 Main Street, Suite

200, Wheeling, West Virginia 26003; the

Region III Office of the Environmental

Protection Agency, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices 64077

1As the deadline for public comments has

expired, any future letters received by the Justice

Department will be treated as citizen letters and

will not be filed with the Court.

19107; and at the Consent Decree

Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor,

Washington, DC 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 $12.75 (25

cents per page reproduction costs),

payable to the Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,

Acting Section Chief, Environmental

Enforcement Section, Environment and

Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 95–30395 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Antitrust Division

United States v. American Bar

Association, Civ. No. 95–1211 (CR)

(D.D.C.); Supplemental Response of

the United States to Two Additional

Public Comments Concerning the

Proposed Final Judgment

Pursuant to Section 2(d) of the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,

15 U.S.C. 16(d), the United States

publishes below two additional written

comments received on the proposed

Final Judgment in United States v.

American Bar Association, Civil Action

No. 95–1211 (CR), United States District

Court for the District of Columbia,

together with its response thereto.

Copies of the written comments and

the response are available for inspection

and copying in Room 3235 of the

Antitrust Division, United States

Department of Justice, Tenth Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20530 (telephone 202/

514–2481) and the inspection at the

Office of the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the District of

Columbia, Room 1825A, United States

Courthouse, Third Street & Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001.

Rebecca P. Dick,

Deputy Director of Operations.

United States’ Supplemental Response

to Two Additional Public Comments

The United States is filing this

Supplemental Response to respond to

letters from law professors Marina

Angel and Leslie Espinoza to the

Attorney General about the proposed

Final Judgment. The Antitrust

Division’s notice under the Antitrust

Procedures and Penalties Act (‘‘APPA’’)

directed that public comments be sent

to John F. Greaney, Chief, Computers

and Finance Section, Department of

Justice, Antitrust Division. Because

Professors Angel and Espinoza sent

their letters to the Attorney General

instead of Mr. Greaney, we had not

received those letters when we filed our

‘‘Response To Public Comments’’ on

October 27. Since the Government’s

Response states that it will treat as

timely all comments received up to the

time of filing that response, we provide

this Supplemental Response to these

two letters from law faculty.1

The Government has carefully

reviewed the letters from Professors

Angel and Espinoza. Entry of the

proposed Final Judgment remains in the

public interest.

1. Professor Marina Angel (Exhibit 1)

Professor Angel is under the

impression that the Antitrust Division

seeks to eliminate enforcement of the

American Bar Association’s (‘‘ABA’’)

antidiscrimination accreditation

standards. ABA Accreditation standards

211–213, dealing with discrimination,

are not affected by the proposed Final

Judgment. Nor is the enforcement of

those standards. Law schools will

continue to maintain faculty salary

records. Accreditation inspection teams

may review these records to investigate

discrimination complaints. The

proposed Final Judgment prevents the

ABA, but not other organizations, from

collecting and disseminating salary

data. Additionally, site inspection teams

may not compare salary levels at one

law school with those at another, since

the Complaint alleges that this had been

done to raise salaries illegally, but may

review the records of the inspected

school to resolve discrimination

allegations.

2. Professor Leslie G. Espinoza (Exhibit

2)

Professor Espinoza is concerned that

the consent decree would prevent the

Society of American Law Teachers from

collecting salary data from law schools

that may be used to determine if salary

levels are discriminatory. The consent

decree is not intended to relax the

ABA’s antidiscrimination accreditation

standards, and it will not have that

effect. The Society of American Law

Teachers procures salary data from law

school deans that may be used to

ascertain whether salary levels are

discriminatory. While the ABA will no

longer be permitted to collect and

disseminate faculty salary data and to

use it in the accreditation process to

increase faculty salaries, law schools

will continue to maintain salary data

and other organizations may collect it.

In this regard, we realize that

organizations, such as the American

Association of University Professors,

have collected and published faculty

salary data for many years. While the

ABA may not collect and use salary data

to raise general salary levels,

accreditation inspection teams may

fully investigate allegations of

discrimination at a law school,

including allegations of discriminatory

salaries, and may review salary records

at that law school to resolve the

discrimination allegations.

Conclusion

The ABA used the accreditation

process to fix and raise faculty salaries.

They collected extensive salary data and

used it to pressure schools to raise their

salaries to an artificial level. The

consent decree is narrowly tailored to

prevent such illegal collusion in the

future. It does not affect the ABA’s

enforcement of antidiscrimination

accreditation standards.

Dated: November 3, 1995.

Respectfully submitted,

Anne K. Bingaman,

Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust

Division.

John F. Greaney,

D. Bruce Pearson,

Jessica N. Cohen,

James J. Tierney,

Molly L. DeBusschere,

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division,

Computers and Finance Section, Judiciary

Center Building, 555 Fourth Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20001, 202/307–6122.

Temple University, School of Law

1719 N. Broad Street (055–00), A

Commonwealth University, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19122, (215) 204–7861, Fax:

(215) 204–1185

October 16, 1995.

The Honorable Janet Reno,

Attorney General, Department of Justice, R.

4400, Tenth and Constitution Avenue,

N.W., Washington, DC 20530, FAX 202–

514–4371

Dear Attorney General Reno: I was shocked

to learn that the Justice Department is

seeking to eliminate enforcement of the

antidiscrimination Accreditation Standards

of the ABA.

I didn’t substantially financially support

the election of President Clinton to have you

destroy what limited antidiscrimination

protection law school faculty, staff and

students currently enjoy.

I suggest you explain your

antidiscrimination position to your Antitrust

Division.