42140 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Notices 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

of Federal funds within the Dump Creek 

project. The land will remain open to 

discretionary uses. 

Salmon National Forest 

Boise Meridian 

T. 23 N., R. 20 E., 

Secs. 12, 13, and 24. 

Beginning at USLM No. 4, Eureka Mining 

District, said Monument No. 4 being more 

particularly located in the unsurveyed 

NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 Section 24. From point of 

beginning, North 4°32′52′′ East 5061.93 feet 

to Corner No. 1, the True Point of Beginning, 

said Corner being identical with Corner No. 

1 Lemhi Gold Placer, as shown on Moose 

Creek Hydraulic Placer Mineral Survey Plat 

No. 3057. Thence North 0°01′ West, 4109.7 

feet along the west line of Lemhi Gold Placer 

to a point at the intersection of line 1–2 of 

Rocky Mountain Placer, MS No. 1867, which 

point lies North 58°56′ West, 58.1 feet from 

Corner No. 1 of MS No. 1867 and said point 

being Corner No. 2 of herein described lands; 

Thence North 58°56′ West, along line 1–2 of 

MS No. 1867 for a distance of 817.35 feet to 

Corner No. 3; Thence South 0°01′ East, 

4529.24 feet to Corner No. 4; Thence South 

8°33′ East, 1877.1 feet to Corner No. 5; 

Thence South 89°49′ East, 883 feet to Corner 

No. 6, said Corner No. 6 being identical with 

Corner No. 4 of Moose Creek Hydraulic 

Placer MS 3057; Thence North 8°33′ West, 

1877.1 feet along the west line of said Moose 

Creek Hydraulic Placer to Corner No. 7 said 

Corner No. 7 being identical with Corner No. 

5 of MS No. 3057; Thence North 89°49′ West, 

183 feet to Corner No. 1, the True Point of 

Beginning. 

The area described aggregates 107.02 acres 

in Lemhi County. 

2. The withdrawal made by this order 

does not alter the applicability of the 

general land laws governing the use of 

National Forest System land under 

lease, license, or permit, or governing 

the disposal of their mineral or 

vegetative resources other than under 

the mining laws. 

3. This withdrawal will expire 20 

years from the effective date of this 

order unless, as a result of a review 

conducted before the expiration date 

pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) the Secretary 

determines that the withdrawal shall be 

extended. 

Dated: July 9, 2018. 

Joseph R. Balash, 

Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17870 Filed 8–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–489 and 731– 

TA–1201 (Review)] 

Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From 

China; Determination 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject five-year reviews, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 

determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 

1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that revocation of the 

countervailing and antidumping duty 

orders on drawn stainless steel sinks 

from China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to an industry in the United 

States within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. 

Background 

The Commission, pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), 

instituted these reviews on March 1, 

2018 (83 FR 8887) and determined on 

June 4, 2018 that it would conduct 

expedited reviews (83 FR 30193, June 

27, 2018). 

The Commission made these 

determinations pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It 

completed and filed its determinations 

in these reviews on August 14, 2018. 

The views of the Commission are 

contained in USITC Publication 4810 

(August 2018), entitled Drawn Stainless 

Steel Sinks from China: Investigation 

Nos. 701–TA–489 and 731–TA–1201 

(Review). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 15, 2018. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17868 Filed 8–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

Summary of Commission Practice 

Relating to Administrative Protective 

Orders 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Summary of Commission 

practice relating to administrative 

protective orders. 

SUMMARY: Since February 1991, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has published in the 

Federal Register reports on the status of 

its practice with respect to violations of 

its administrative protective orders 

(‘‘APOs’’) under title VII of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, in response to a direction 

contained in the Conference Report to 

the Customs and Trade Act of 1990. 

Over time, the Commission has added to 

its report discussions of APO breaches 

in Commission proceedings other than 

under title VII and violations of the 

Commission’s rules including the rule 

on bracketing business proprietary 

information (‘‘BPI’’) (the ‘‘24-hour 

rule’’). This notice provides a summary 

of breach investigations (APOB 

investigations) completed during 

calendar year 2017. This summary 

addresses an APOB investigation related 

to a proceeding under title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930. The Commission 

intends that this report inform 

representatives of parties to Commission 

proceedings as to some specific types of 

APO breaches encountered by the 

Commission and the corresponding 

types of actions the Commission has 

taken. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Traud, Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

telephone (202) 205–3427. Hearing 

impaired individuals are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal at (202) 

205–1810. General information 

concerning the Commission can also be 

obtained by accessing its website 

(https://www.usitc.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Representatives of parties to 

investigations or other proceedings 

conducted under title VII of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, the North American Free Trade 

Agreement (NAFTA) Article 1904.13, 

and safeguard-related provisions such as 

section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974, 

may enter into APOs that permit them, 

under strict conditions, to obtain access 

to BPI (title VII) and confidential 

business information (‘‘CBI’’) 

(safeguard-related provisions and 

section 337) of other parties or nonparties. See, e.g., 19 U.S.C. 1677f; 19 

CFR 207.7; 19 U.S.C. 1337(n); 19 CFR 

210.5, 210.34; 19 U.S.C. 2252(i); 19 CFR 

206.17; 19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)(7)(A); and 19 

CFR 207.100, et. seq. The discussion 

below describes an APO breach 

investigation that the Commission has 

completed during calendar year 2017, 

including a description of actions taken 

in response to this breach. 

Since 1991, the Commission has 

published annually a summary of its 

actions in response to violations of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Notices 42141 

Commission APOs and rule violations. 

See 56 FR 4846 (February 6, 1991); 57 

FR 12335 (April 9, 1992); 58 FR 21991 

(April 26, 1993); 59 FR 16834 (April 8, 

1994); 60 FR 24880 (May 10, 1995); 61 

FR 21203 (May 9, 1996); 62 FR 13164 

(March 19, 1997); 63 FR 25064 (May 6, 

1998); 64 FR 23355 (April 30, 1999); 65 

FR 30434 (May 11, 2000); 66 FR 27685 

(May 18, 2001); 67 FR 39425 (June 7, 

2002); 68 FR 28256 (May 23, 2003); 69 

FR 29972 (May 26, 2004); 70 FR 42382 

(July 22, 2005); 71 FR 39355 (July 12, 

2006); 72 FR 50119 (August 30, 2007); 

73 FR 51843 (September 5, 2008); 74 FR 

54071 (October 21, 2009); 75 FR 66127 

(October 27, 2010), 76 FR 78945 

(December 20, 2011), 77 FR 76518 

(December 28, 2012), 78 FR 79481 

(December 30, 2013), 80 FR 1664 

(January 13, 2015), 81 FR 17200 (March 

28, 2016), and 82 FR 29322 (June 28, 

2017). This report does not provide an 

exhaustive list of conduct that will be 

deemed to be a breach of the 

Commission’s APOs. APO breach 

inquiries are considered on a case-bycase basis. 

As part of the effort to educate 

practitioners about the Commission’s 

current APO practice, the Commission 

Secretary issued in March 2005 a fourth 

edition of An Introduction to 

Administrative Protective Order Practice 

in Import Injury Investigations (Pub. No. 

3755). This document is available upon 

request from the Office of the Secretary, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 

20436, tel. (202) 205–2000 and on the 

Commission’s website at http://

www.usitc.gov. 

I. In General 

A. Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Investigations 

The current APO form for 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

investigations, which was revised in 

March 2005, requires the applicant to 

swear that he or she will: 

(1) Not divulge any of the BPI 

disclosed under this APO or otherwise 

obtained in this investigation and not 

otherwise available to him or her, to any 

person other than— 

(i) Personnel of the Commission 

concerned with the investigation, 

(ii) The person or agency from whom 

the BPI was obtained, 

(iii) A person whose application for 

disclosure of BPI under this APO has 

been granted by the Secretary, and 

(iv) Other persons, such as paralegals 

and clerical staff, who (a) are employed 

or supervised by and under the 

direction and control of the authorized 

applicant or another authorized 

applicant in the same firm whose 

application has been granted; (b) have a 

need thereof in connection with the 

investigation; (c) are not involved in 

competitive decision making for an 

interested party which is a party to the 

investigation; and (d) have signed the 

acknowledgment for clerical personnel 

in the form attached hereto (the 

authorized applicant shall also sign 

such acknowledgment and will be 

deemed responsible for such persons’ 

compliance with this APO); 

(2) Use such BPI solely for the 

purposes of the above-captioned 

Commission investigation or for judicial 

or binational panel review of such 

Commission investigation; 

(3) Not consult with any person not 

described in paragraph (1) concerning 

BPI disclosed under this APO or 

otherwise obtained in this investigation 

without first having received the written 

consent of the Secretary and the party 

or the representative of the party from 

whom such BPI was obtained; 

(4) Whenever materials e.g., 

documents, computer disks, etc. 

containing such BPI are not being used, 

store such material in a locked file 

cabinet, vault, safe, or other suitable 

container (N.B.: Storage of BPI on socalled hard disk computer media is to 

be avoided, because mere erasure of 

data from such media may not 

irrecoverably destroy the BPI and may 

result in violation of paragraph C of this 

APO); 

(5) Serve all materials containing BPI 

disclosed under this APO as directed by 

the Secretary and pursuant to section 

207.7(f) of the Commission’s rules; 

(6) Transmit each document 

containing BPI disclosed under this 

APO: 

(i) With a cover sheet identifying the 

document as containing BPI, 

(ii) with all BPI enclosed in brackets 

and each page warning that the 

document contains BPI, 

(iii) if the document is to be filed by 

a deadline, with each page marked 

‘‘Bracketing of BPI not final for one 

business day after date of filing,’’ and 

(iv) if by mail, within two envelopes, 

the inner one sealed and marked 

‘‘Business Proprietary Information—To 

be opened only by [name of recipient]’’, 

and the outer one sealed and not 

marked as containing BPI; 

(7) Comply with the provision of this 

APO and section 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules; 

(8) Make true and accurate 

representations in the authorized 

applicant’s application and promptly 

notify the Secretary of any changes that 

occur after the submission of the 

application and that affect the 

representations made in the application 

(e.g., change in personnel assigned to 

the investigation); 

(9) Report promptly and confirm in 

writing to the Secretary any possible 

breach of this APO; and 

(10) Acknowledge that breach of this 

APO may subject the authorized 

applicant and other persons to such 

sanctions or other actions as the 

Commission deems appropriate, 

including the administrative sanctions 

and actions set out in this APO. 

The APO form for antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations also 

provides for the return or destruction of 

the BPI obtained under the APO on the 

order of the Secretary, at the conclusion 

of the investigation, or at the completion 

of Judicial Review. The BPI disclosed to 

an authorized applicant under an APO 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigation generally may remain in 

the applicant’s possession during the 

final phase of the investigation. 

The APO further provides that breach 

of an APO may subject an applicant to: 

(1) Disbarment from practice in any 

capacity before the Commission along 

with such person’s partners, associates, 

employer, and employees, for up to 

seven years following publication of a 

determination that the order has been 

breached; 

(2) Referral to the United States 

Attorney; 

(3) In the case of an attorney, 

accountant, or other professional, 

referral to the ethics panel of the 

appropriate professional association; 

(4) Such other administrative 

sanctions as the Commission determines 

to be appropriate, including public 

release of, or striking from the record 

any information or briefs submitted by, 

or on behalf of, such person or the party 

he represents; denial of further access to 

business proprietary information in the 

current or any future investigations 

before the Commission, and issuance of 

a public or private letter of reprimand; 

and 

(5) Such other actions, including but 

not limited to, a warning letter, as the 

Commission determines to be 

appropriate. 

APOs in safeguard investigations 

contain similar though not identical 

provisions. 

B. Section 337 Investigations 

The APOs in section 337 

investigations differ from those in title 

VII investigations as there is no set form 

and provisions may differ depending on 

the investigation and the presiding 

administrative law judge. However, in 

practice, the provisions are often quite 

similar. Any person seeking access to 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
42142 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Notices 

1Procedures for inquiries to determine whether a 

prohibited act such as a breach has occurred and 

for imposing sanctions for violation of the 

provisions of a protective order issued during 

NAFTA panel or committee proceedings are set out 

in 19 CFR 207.100–207.120. Those investigations 

are initially conducted by the Commission’s Office 

of Unfair Import Investigations. 

CBI during a section 337 investigation 

(including outside counsel for parties to 

the investigation, secretarial and 

support personnel assisting such 

counsel, and technical experts and their 

staff who are employed for the purposes 

of the investigation) is required to read 

the APO, agree to its terms by letter filed 

with the Secretary of the Commission 

indicating that he or she agrees to be 

bound by the terms of the Order, agree 

not to reveal CBI to anyone other than 

another person permitted access by the 

Order, and agree to utilize the CBI solely 

for the purposes of that investigation. 

In general, an APO in a section 337 

investigation will define what kind of 

information is CBI and direct how CBI 

is to be designated and protected. The 

APO will state which persons will have 

access to the CBI and which of those 

persons must sign onto the APO. The 

APO will provide instructions on how 

CBI is to be maintained and protected 

by labeling documents and filing 

transcripts under seal. It will provide 

protections for the suppliers of CBI by 

notifying them of a Freedom of 

Information Act request for the CBI and 

providing a procedure for the supplier 

to take action to prevent the release of 

the information. There are provisions 

for disputing the designation of CBI and 

a procedure for resolving such disputes. 

Under the APO, suppliers of CBI are 

given the opportunity to object to the 

release of the CBI to a proposed expert. 

The APO requires a person who 

discloses CBI, other than in a manner 

authorized by the APO, to provide all 

pertinent facts to the supplier of the CBI 

and to the administrative law judge and 

to make every effort to prevent further 

disclosure. The APO requires all parties 

to the APO to either return to the 

suppliers or destroy the originals and all 

copies of the CBI obtained during the 

investigation. 

The Commission’s regulations 

provide for certain sanctions to be 

imposed if the APO is violated by a 

person subject to its restrictions. The 

names of the persons being investigated 

for violating an APO are kept 

confidential unless the sanction 

imposed is a public letter of reprimand. 

19 CFR 210.34(c)(1). The possible 

sanctions are: 

(1) An official reprimand by the 

Commission. 

(2) Disqualification from or limitation 

of further participation in a pending 

investigation. 

(3) Temporary or permanent 

disqualification from practicing in any 

capacity before the Commission 

pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15(a). 

(4) Referral of the facts underlying the 

violation to the appropriate licensing 

authority in the jurisdiction in which 

the individual is licensed to practice. 

(5) Making adverse inferences and 

rulings against a party involved in the 

violation of the APO or such other 

action that may be appropriate. 19 CFR 

210.34(c)(3). 

Commission employees are not 

signatories to the Commission’s APOs 

and do not obtain access to BPI or CBI 

through APO procedures. Consequently, 

they are not subject to the requirements 

of the APO with respect to the handling 

of CBI and BPI. However, Commission 

employees are subject to strict statutory 

and regulatory constraints concerning 

BPI and CBI, and face potentially severe 

penalties for noncompliance. See 18 

U.S.C. 1905; title 5, U.S. Code; and 

Commission personnel policies 

implementing the statutes. Although the 

Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) limits the 

Commission’s authority to disclose any 

personnel action against agency 

employees, this should not lead the 

public to conclude that no such actions 

have been taken. 

II. Investigations of Alleged APO 

Breaches 

Upon finding evidence of an APO 

breach or receiving information that 

there is a reason to believe one has 

occurred, the Commission Secretary 

notifies relevant offices in the agency 

that an APO breach investigation has 

commenced and that an APO breach 

investigation file has been opened. 

Upon receiving notification from the 

Secretary, the Office of the General 

Counsel (‘‘OGC’’) prepares a letter of 

inquiry to be sent to the possible 

breacher over the Secretary’s signature 

to ascertain the facts and obtain the 

possible breacher’s views on whether a 

breach has occurred.1 If, after reviewing 

the response and other relevant 

information, the Commission 

determines that a breach has occurred, 

the Commission often issues a second 

letter asking the breacher to address the 

questions of mitigating circumstances 

and possible sanctions or other actions. 

The Commission then determines what 

action to take in response to the breach. 

In some cases, the Commission 

determines that, although a breach has 

occurred, sanctions are not warranted, 

and therefore finds it unnecessary to 

issue a second letter concerning what 

sanctions might be appropriate. Instead, 

it issues a warning letter to the 

individual. A warning letter is not 

considered to be a sanction. However, a 

warning letter is considered in a 

subsequent APO breach investigation. 

Sanctions for APO violations serve 

three basic interests: (a) Preserving the 

confidence of submitters of BPI/CBI that 

the Commission is a reliable protector of 

BPI/CBI; (b) disciplining breachers; and 

(c) deterring future violations. As the 

Conference Report to the Omnibus 

Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 

observed, ‘‘[T]he effective enforcement 

of limited disclosure under 

administrative protective order depends 

in part on the extent to which private 

parties have confidence that there are 

effective sanctions against violation.’’ 

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 

1st Sess. 623 (1988). 

The Commission has worked to 

develop consistent jurisprudence, not 

only in determining whether a breach 

has occurred, but also in selecting an 

appropriate response. In determining 

the appropriate response, the 

Commission generally considers 

mitigating factors such as the 

unintentional nature of the breach, the 

lack of prior breaches committed by the 

breaching party, the corrective measures 

taken by the breaching party, and the 

promptness with which the breaching 

party reported the violation to the 

Commission. The Commission also 

considers aggravating circumstances, 

especially whether persons not under 

the APO actually read the BPI/CBI. The 

Commission considers whether there 

have been prior breaches by the same 

person or persons in other 

investigations and multiple breaches by 

the same person or persons in the same 

investigation. 

The Commission’s rules permit an 

economist or consultant to obtain access 

to BPI/CBI under the APO in a title VII 

or safeguard investigation if the 

economist or consultant is under the 

direction and control of an attorney 

under the APO, or if the economist or 

consultant appears regularly before the 

Commission and represents an 

interested party who is a party to the 

investigation. 19 CFR 207.7(a)(3)(B) and 

(C); 19 CFR 206.17(a)(3)(B) and (C). 

Economists and consultants who obtain 

access to BPI/CBI under the APO under 

the direction and control of an attorney 

nonetheless remain individually 

responsible for complying with the 

APO. In appropriate circumstances, for 

example, an economist under the 

direction and control of an attorney may 

be held responsible for a breach of the 

APO by failing to redact APO 

information from a document that is 

subsequently filed with the Commission 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Notices 42143 

and served as a public document. This 

is so even though the attorney 

exercising direction or control over the 

economist or consultant may also be 

held responsible for the breach of the 

APO. In section 337 investigations, 

technical experts and their staff who are 

employed for the purposes of the 

investigation are required to sign onto 

the APO and agree to comply with its 

provisions. 

The records of Commission 

investigations of alleged APO breaches 

in antidumping and countervailing duty 

cases, section 337 investigations, and 

safeguard investigations are not publicly 

available and are exempt from 

disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. See 19 

U.S.C. 1677f(g), 19 U.S.C. 1333(h), 19 

CFR 210.34(c). 

The two types of breaches most 

frequently investigated by the 

Commission involve the APO’s 

prohibition on the dissemination of BPI 

or CBI to unauthorized persons and the 

APO’s requirement that the materials 

received under the APO be returned or 

destroyed and that a certificate be filed 

indicating which action was taken after 

the termination of the investigation or 

any subsequent appeals of the 

Commission’s determination. The 

dissemination of BPI/CBI usually occurs 

as the result of failure to delete BPI/CBI 

from public versions of documents filed 

with the Commission or transmission of 

proprietary versions of documents to 

unauthorized recipients. Other breaches 

have included the failure to bracket 

properly BPI/CBI in proprietary 

documents filed with the Commission, 

the failure to report immediately known 

violations of an APO, and the failure to 

adequately supervise non-lawyers in the 

handling of BPI/CBI. 

Occasionally, the Commission 

conducts APOB investigations that 

involve members of a law firm or 

consultants working with a firm who 

were granted access to APO materials by 

the firm although they were not APO 

signatories. In many of these cases, the 

firm and the person using the BPI/CBI 

mistakenly believed an APO application 

had been filed for that person. The 

Commission determined in all of these 

cases that the person who was a nonsignatory, and therefore did not agree to 

be bound by the APO, could not be 

found to have breached the APO. Action 

could be taken against these persons, 

however, under Commission rule 201.15 

(19 CFR 201.15) for good cause shown. 

In all cases in which action was taken, 

the Commission decided that the nonsignatory was a person who appeared 

regularly before the Commission and 

was aware of the requirements and 

limitations related to APO access and 

should have verified his or her APO 

status before obtaining access to and 

using the BPI/CBI. The Commission 

notes that section 201.15 may also be 

available to issue sanctions to attorneys 

or agents in different factual 

circumstances in which they did not 

technically breach the APO, but when 

their actions or inactions did not 

demonstrate diligent care of the APO 

materials even though they appeared 

regularly before the Commission and 

were aware of the importance the 

Commission placed on the care of APO 

materials. 

Counsel participating in Commission 

investigations have reported to the 

Commission potential breaches 

involving the electronic transmission of 

public versions of documents. In these 

cases, the document transmitted appears 

to be a public document with BPI or CBI 

omitted from brackets. However, the 

confidential information is actually 

retrievable by manipulating codes in 

software. The Commission has found 

that the electronic transmission of a 

public document containing BPI or CBI 

in a recoverable form was a breach of 

the APO. 

Counsel have been cautioned to be 

certain that each authorized applicant 

files within 60 days of the completion 

of an import injury investigation or at 

the conclusion of judicial or binational 

review of the Commission’s 

determination a certificate that to his or 

her knowledge and belief all copies of 

BPI/CBI have been returned or 

destroyed and no copies of such 

material have been made available to 

any person to whom disclosure was not 

specifically authorized. This 

requirement applies to each attorney, 

consultant, or expert in a firm who has 

been granted access to BPI/CBI. One 

firm-wide certificate is insufficient. 

Attorneys who are signatories to the 

APO representing clients in a section 

337 investigation should inform the 

administrative law judge and the 

Commission’s secretary if there are any 

changes to the information that was 

provided in the application for access to 

the CBI. This is similar to the 

requirement to update an applicant’s 

information in title VII investigations. 

In addition, attorneys who are 

signatories to the APO representing 

clients in a section 337 investigation 

should send a notice to the Commission 

if they stop participating in the 

investigation or the subsequent appeal 

of the Commission’s determination. The 

notice should inform the Commission 

about the disposition of CBI obtained 

under the APO that was in their 

possession or they could be held 

responsible for any failure of their 

former firm to return or destroy the CBI 

in an appropriate manner. 

III. Specific APO Breach Investigations 

Case 1. The Commission determined 

that an attorney representing a party in 

a title VII investigation breached an 

APO when he failed to adequately 

supervise an employee who (1) made 

BPI available to unauthorized persons 

(both on CDs and on EDIS) and (2) failed 

to properly label CDs as containing BPI. 

The attorney, an APO signatory, 

represented a party in a title VII 

investigation. The attorney supervised 

an employee (who was not an APO 

signatory) in preparing, filing, and 

serving the public version of a 

prehearing brief, but did not instruct 

that employee regarding the format in 

which the public version of the brief 

was to be filed and served. The hard 

copy of the brief had been redacted of 

BPI. In preparing the electronic version 

of the public version of the brief, the 

employee separately prepared the 

narrative and exhibits portions of the 

brief and then then electronically 

combined those two portions. The 

exhibits portion was prepared by 

manually scanning the redacted hard 

copy of the exhibits. However, the 

narrative portion was prepared by using 

Microsoft Word functionality and then 

converting the redacted document to a 

.pdf format, a process that made BPI 

available in the metadata. After 

combining the two portions, the 

employee filed the document on EDIS 

and also saved the file to CDs, which 

were not labeled as containing BPI. The 

CDs were then served on the parties on 

the Commission’s public service list for 

the investigation, which included six 

persons who were not authorized to 

receive BPI. Thereafter, the attorney was 

informed by counsel for another party 

that the public version of the brief 

contained BPI in the metadata of the 

electronic version of the document. 

Personnel at the firm immediately 

contacted the Commission’s Secretary’s 

office and each recipient of the public 

version of the prehearing brief, and 

asked them to destroy all electronic 

versions of that document. The brief 

was available on EDIS for approximately 

six days before its removal. 

The attorney, who is responsible for 

the employee’s compliance with the 

APO, breached the APO because, (1) 

even though the filing and service of the 

public version of the prehearing brief 

may not have resulted in the actual 

disclosure of BPI to unauthorized 

persons, BPI was made available to 

unauthorized persons, and (2) the CDs 

that were served on the parties on the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
42144 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 161 / Monday, August 20, 2018 / Notices 

1Finding of Fact 40 and, presumably, 

Respondent’s first exception concern the 2006 

inspection. 

Commission’s public service list were 

not labeled as containing BPI. 

In determining the appropriate action 

in response to the breach, the 

Commission considered mitigating 

factors, including that (1) the breach 

was unintentional and due to a 

technical oversight; (2) the attorney had 

not been found to have breached an 

APO over the past two years; (3) the 

attorney took immediate corrective 

measures upon learning of the 

disclosure by immediately contacting 

the Secretary’s Office and the recipients 

of the brief; and (4) the attorney 

promptly reported the violation to the 

Commission. The Commission 

determined that no aggravating factors 

were present. The Commission issued a 

private warning letter to the attorney. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 14, 2018. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17848 Filed 8–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—National Fire Protection 

Association 

Notice is hereby given that, on July 

31, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 

National Cooperative Research and 

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), National Fire 

Protection Association (‘‘NFPA’’) has 

filed written notifications 

simultaneously with the Attorney 

General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing additions or 

changes to its standards development 

activities. The notifications were filed 

for the purpose of extending the Act’s 

provisions limiting the recovery of 

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages 

under specified circumstances. 

Specifically, NFPA has provided an 

updated and current list of its standards 

development activities, related technical 

committee and conformity assessment 

activities. Information concerning NFPA 

regulations, technical committees, 

current standards, standards 

development and conformity 

assessment activities are publicly 

available at nfpa.org. 

On September 20, 2004, NFPA filed 

its original notification pursuant to 

Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department 

of Justice published a notice in the 

Federal Register pursuant to Section 

6(b) of the Act on October 21, 2004 (69 

FR 61869). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on May 8, 2018. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on May 25, 2018 (83 FR 24348). 

Suzanne Morris 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit, 

Antitrust Division. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17899 Filed 8–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—National Spectrum 

Consortium 

Notice is hereby given that, on August 

3, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 

National Cooperative Research and 

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), National Spectrum 

Consortium (‘‘NSC’’) has filed written 

notifications simultaneously with the 

Attorney General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing changes in its 

membership. The notifications were 

filed for the purpose of extending the 

Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of 

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages 

under specified circumstances. 

Specifically, Numerati Partners, LLC, 

New York, NY; Avionics Test & 

Analysis Corporation, Niceville, FL; 

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA; 

Science Applications International 

Corporation (SAIC), Reston, VA; 

Southern Research, Birmingham, AL; 

Parsons Government Services Inc., 

Pasadena, CA; Dell Federal Systems, 

L.P., Round Rock, TX; Sentar, Inc., 

Huntsville, AL; SCI Technology, Inc., 

Huntsville, AL; Pacific Star 

Communications, Inc., Portland, OR; 

COMINT Consulting LLC, Golden, CO; 

C6I Services Corp., Chesterfield, NJ; 

Comtech EF Data, Tempe, AZ; Vision 

Engineering Solutions, Inc., Merritt 

Island, FL; Vision Engineering 

Solutions, Inc., Merritt Island, FL; 

Comtech Mobile Datacom Corporation, 

Germantown, MD,; and EFW, Inc., Fort 

Worth, TX, have been added as parties 

to this venture. 

Also, Fibertek, Inc., Herndon, VA; and 

University of Nevada, Reno, VA, have 

withdrawn as parties to this venture. 

No other changes have been made in 

either the membership or planned 

activity of the group research project. 

Membership in this group research 

project remains open, and NSC intends 

to file additional written notifications 

disclosing all changes in membership. 

On May 24, 2014, NSC filed its 

original notification pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the Act. The Department of 

Justice published a notice in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on November 4, 2014 (72 FR 65424). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on May 14, 2018. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on June 19, 2018 (83 FR 28449). 

Suzanne Morris, 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit 

Antitrust Division. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17900 Filed 8–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Houston Maintenance Clinic; Decision 

and Order 

On September 30, 2016, 

Administrative Law Judge Charles Wm. 

Dorman (hereinafter, ALJ) issued 

Recommended Rulings, Findings of 

Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision 

(hereinafter, R.D.). Only Houston 

Maintenance Clinic (hereinafter, 

Respondent) filed exceptions 

(hereinafter, Resp. Exceptions), and its 

filing was timely. Having reviewed the 

entire record, including Resp. 

Exceptions, and modified the ALJ’s 

R.D., I adopt the modified R.D. and find 

that none of Resp. Exceptions has merit. 

Respondent’s First Exception 

Respondent’s first exception states 

that R.D. ‘‘Finding of Fact 40 should be 

amended to include the first sentence in 

. . . [Respondent’s owner’s] letter, GE 

27[,] that states as follows[,] ‘The facility 

has kept a systematic ongoing accurate 

daily dispensing record as required by 

title 21 C.F.R. 1304.03.’ ’’ 1 Resp. 

Exceptions, at 1. The support 

Respondent provided for this exception 

is that, ‘‘The daily dosing records . . . 

are required and these were kept 

without disruption.’’ Id. 

First, R.D. Finding of Fact 30, citing 

GE–27, already states that, ‘‘Around the 

time of the [2006] inspection, . . . 

[Respondent] kept ongoing, systematic 

daily dispensing records’’ [footnote 

omitted]. Thus, much of the content of 

the sentence that Respondent’s first 

exception proposes is already found in 

Finding of Fact 30. Only the assertions 

that Respondent ‘‘has kept . . . 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES