Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 173 / Friday, September 5, 2008 / Notices 51849 

same as previous service lists. The 

attorney noticed the mistake when she 

reviewed the service lists of the other 

parties. She immediately telephoned the 

firm that mistakenly received the final 

comments to ask that they return or 

destroy the brief, then followed up to 

confirm that the firm had destroyed the 

brief before any unauthorized person 

reviewed it. 

The Commission determined that 

both the lead attorney and her legal 

secretary violated the terms of the APO 

because disclosure of BPI to 

unauthorized persons, regardless of 

whether those persons viewed the BPI, 

constitutes an APO breach. However, 

the Commission determined not to 

initiate the second phase of the APO 

breach investigation because of a variety 

of mitigating circumstances that made 

issuing a warning letter the most 

appropriate response to the breach. 

These mitigating circumstances 

included the attorney’s prompt remedial 

action, her curing of the breach before 

unauthorized persons viewed the BPI, 

and her prompt report of the incident to 

the Commission. Furthermore, the 

attorney’s breach was unintentional and 

was her first breach within the past two 

years. Finally, the firm adopted a new 

procedure where the lead attorney 

personally checks the service list against 

the most current service list on the 

Commission’s Web site to ensure that a 

similar breach does not occur in the 

future. 

There were three investigations in 

which no breach was found: 

Case 1: The Commission determined 

that two attorneys and an economic 

consultant did not breach the APO 

when, in their final comments, they 

failed to bracket certain information that 

had been identified by the Office of the 

Secretary as BPI. The Commission also 

found that the same individuals did not 

breach the APO when they failed to 

redact certain information contained in 

brackets in the public version of the 

final comments filed with the 

Commission. 

The Commission found that the two 

sets of information in question were 

publicly available and the failure to 

bracket and to redact did not constitute 

breaches. The information that was 

contained in brackets but was not 

redacted in the public version of the 

final comments was information that 

was derived from a subscription service 

report that was maintained as 

confidential in the Commission’s staff 

report. In this case, however, prior to 

the issuance of the staff report, the law 

firm in question and another party had 

filed the same subscription service 

report with the Commission. Thus, the 

information was publicly available and 

independently available to the law firm 

in question, and the information that 

was not bracketed in the confidential 

version of the final comments was made 

publicly available in the Commission’s 

final staff report. 

Case 2: The Commission determined 

that three attorneys did not breach the 

APO because unbracketed information 

in a prehearing brief, identified by 

Commission staff as confidential, was 

not BPI. 

The information in the prehearing 

brief that initially appeared to be BPI 

were two unbracketed unit values. The 

unbracketed information provided 

percentage changes in average unit 

values as opposed to actual unit values, 

which were not disclosed. The 

Commission determined that disclosure 

of the unbracketed numbers did not 

reveal the BPI of any specific company. 

The bracketed average unit values were 

calculated using the BPI for more than 

three companies, and the identity of 

specific respondents was not disclosed 

publicly. Furthermore, it was unclear 

precisely what data were used to 

calculate the unit values. Therefore, it 

was impossible to back out the actual 

numbers or information of any 

individual company. 

Case 3: The Commission determined 

that attorneys did not breach the APO 

by inadvertently serving a confidential 

version of a motion on counsel for a law 

firm not included in the APO. 

Although the motion was designated 

‘‘Confidential,’’ the motion did not 

contain CBI. The purportedly 

confidential material in the motion 

consisted of a series of quotes from the 

confidential version of the Commission 

opinion. At the time of the motion’s 

filing, no public version of the opinion 

was available, which led attorneys at the 

firm in question to designate the motion 

as ‘‘Confidential’’ out of an abundance 

of caution. However, a review of the 

confidential and public versions of the 

Commission opinion revealed that 

although the confidential version of the 

opinion did contain CBI, the material 

quoted in the motion did not include 

confidential information. The law firm 

in question also took prompt remedial 

measures to request the destruction of 

all copies of the motion and modified 

their policies for service in the 

investigation to ensure APO 

compliance. 

As no CBI was disclosed, the 

Commission found no breach of the 

APO, but did caution the attorneys 

involved to be more careful in handling 

material designated as confidential. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 29, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–20540 Filed 9–4–08; 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 of 

1980 

Notice is hereby given that on August 

21, 2008, a Complaint was filed and a 

proposed Consent Decree was lodged 

with the United States District Court for 

the District of New Jersey in United 

States of America v. Air Products and 

Chemicals, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:08- 

cv-04216. 

In this action the United States seeks 

reimbursement of response costs 

incurred by EPA for response actions at 

the Chemsol, Inc. Superfund Site 

(‘‘Site’’) in Piscataway Township, 

Middlesex County, New Jersey, and 

performance of studies and response 

work at the Site consistent with the 

National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 

300, pursuant to Sections 106 and 107 

of the Comprehensive Environmental, 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607 

(‘‘CERCLA’’). The Consent Decree 

provides that the new settlors will 

financially contribute to and perform 

work at the Site together with a group 

of potentially responsible parties that 

resolved their liability to the United 

States in 2000 in a Consent Decree. The 

value of this settlement is estimated at 

approximately $3.1 million, of which 

$380.170.83 will be paid to EPA for 

unreimbursed response costs, and 

$95,747.14 will be paid to the State of 

New Jersey for the State’s Natural 

Resource Damages caused by the release 

of hazardous substances at the 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 e-mailed 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. Air Products and Chemicals, et 

al., D.J. Ref. 90–11–3–06104/3. 

The Consent Decree may be examined 

at the Office of the United States 

Attorney, Federal Building, 7th Floor, 

970 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

51850 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 173 / Friday, September 5, 2008 / Notices 

* In this instance, the urban area stretches further 

than one county so applicants operating in one or 

both counties are permissible. 

and at U.S. EPA Region 2, 290 

Broadway, New York, NY 100078. 

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, D.C. 20044–7611 or 

by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia 

Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), 

fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone 

confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In 

requesting a copy from the Consent 

Decree Library, please enclose a check 

in the amount of $ 66.50 (25 cents per 

page reproduction cost) payable to the 

U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, 

forward a check in that amount to the 

Consent Decree Library at the stated 

address. 

Ronald G. Gluck, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E8–20536 Filed 9–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—Open Mobile Alliance 

Notice is hereby given that, on July 

25, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 

National Cooperative Research and 

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

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), the Open Mobile 

Alliance (‘‘OMA’’) 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, Beijing InfoThunder 

Technology Ltd., XiCheng District, 

Beijing, PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF 

CHINA; InfoComm Development 

Authority of Singapore, SINGAPORE; 

Nil Holdings, Inc., Reston, VA; 

Semiconductores Investigacion Y 

Diseno S.A., Madrid, SPAIN; Simartis 

Telecom SRL, Bucharest, ROMANIA; 

Ubipart Ltd., Helsinki, FINLAND; and 

WINIT Inc., Daejeon, REPUBLIC OF 

KOREA, have been added as parties to 

this venture. Also, Reigncom Ltd., 

Gangnamngu, Seoul, REPUBLIC OF 

KOREA has withdrawn as a party 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 OMA intends 

to file additional written notifications 

disclosing all changes in membership. 

On March 18, 1998, OMA 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 December 31, 1998 (63 FR 

72333). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on April 25, 2008. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on June 27, 2008 (73 FR 36569). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E8–20566 Filed 9–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Notice of Availability of Funds and 

Solicitation for Grant Applications 

(SGA) for Prisoner Re-entry Initiative 

Grants 

Announcement Type: Notice for 

Solicitation for Grant Applications. 

Funding Opportunity Number: SGA/ 

DFA PY–08–03. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance (CFDA) Number: 17.261. 

Key Dates: The closing date for receipt 

of applications under this 

announcement is (OGCM will insert; 

approximately 60 days). Applications 

must be received no later than 4 p.m. 

(Eastern Time). Application and 

Submission information is explained in 

detail in Section IV of this SGA. 

SUMMARY: The President’s Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) seeks to strengthen 

urban communities characterized by 

large numbers of returning prisoners 

through an employment-centered 

program that incorporates mentoring, 

job training, and other comprehensive 

transitional services. This program is a 

joint effort of the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) and the Department of Labor 

(DOL) designed to reduce recidivism by 

helping inmates find work when they 

return to their communities, as part of 

an effort to build a life in the 

community for everyone. This spring, 

DOJ awarded PRI grants to 19 State 

correctional agencies to provide prerelease services to prisoners returning to 

one targeted county within the State. 

Under this solicitation, DOL will be 

awarding grants to faith-based and 

community organizations (FBCOs) to 

provide post-release services primarily 

to the prisoners provided pre-release 

services under the DOJ grant in urban 

communities within the target counties. 

This competition is limited to FBCOs 

operating within the target county(ies) 

identified in each DOJ grant. The 

following is the list of target counties 

that received a DOJ PRI grant this 

spring: 

1. Jefferson County, AL 

2. Maricopa County, AZ 

3. Los Angeles County, CA 

4. Denver County, CO 

5. Fairfield County, CT 

6. New Castle County, DE 

7. Cook County, IL 

8. Allen County, IN 

9. Caddo and Bossier Parishes, LA * 

10. Baltimore County, MD 

11. Genessee County, MI 

12. Greene County, MO 

13. Clarke County, NV 

14. Mercer County, NJ 

15. Erie County, NY 

16. Tulsa County, OK 

17. Philadelphia County, PA 

18. Davidson County, TN 

19. Milwaukee, WI 

DOL expects that each of the 19 

awardees will serve at least 100 

returning prisoners during the first year 

of this initiative. FBCOs applying for 

these grants will identify as part of their 

application the need in the community 

that they plan to serve; their plan for 

serving released prisoners; and their 

partnerships with the criminal justice 

system, local Workforce Investment 

Board, housing authority, and mental 

health and substance abuse treatment 

providers. 

ADDRESSES: Mailed applications must be 

addressed to the U.S. Department of 

Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration, Division of Federal 

Assistance, Attention: Jeannette 

Flowers, Reference SGA/DFA PY 08–03, 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 

N–4716, Washington, DC 20210. 

Telefacsimile (FAX) applications will 

not be accepted. Information about 

applying online can be found in Section 

IV (C) of this document. Applicants are 

advised that mail delivery in the 

Washington area may be delayed due to 

mail decontamination procedures. Hand 

delivered proposals will be received at 

the above address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES