Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Notices 66131 

investigation suggests that the BPI was 

not viewed by unauthorized persons. 

Case 6: The Commission found that 

two attorneys breached the APO when 

they submitted a postconference brief 

comparing the prices of various firms’ 

imports. The attorneys deliberately 

declined to bracket a passage providing 

a description of the degree by which 

prices reported by one importer were 

lower than those reported by other 

importers, on the grounds that 

Commission Rule 201.6(a)(1) allows 

parties to make ‘‘nonnumerical 

characterization’’ of trends in public 

submissions. In the Federal Register 

notice of final rulemaking for section 

201.6(a)(1), the preamble stated that any 

discussion of the degree or absolute 

level of a decline or increase was not a 

‘‘nonnumerical characterization.’’ The 

Commission concluded that, although 

the phrases were not literally numerical, 

they conveyed as much specificity as a 

strictly numerical characterization. 

Accordingly, the Commission found 

that the information in question was BPI 

and that it should have been bracketed. 

The attorneys argued that the BPI was 

information they acquired from their 

client and not from the questionnaire 

responses that had been cited in the 

brief. To support their argument, they 

cited exhibits that were included with 

the brief. The Commission found that 

these exhibits did not support their 

allegations that the information came 

from their client. The Commission 

issued private letters of reprimand to 

both attorneys. 

There were two mitigating factors. 

Neither attorney had been found to have 

breached an APO in the two years the 

Commission typically considers for 

determining sanctions. In addition, the 

record showed that the attorneys had 

responded promptly to the request by 

the Commission’s staff to provide a 

replacement page for the page 

containing the unbracketed BPI, 

although the Commission’s Dockets staff 

never actually received it. 

There were also several aggravating 

factors. First, the Commission found 

that the breach was not inadvertent. The 

attorneys were aware of Commission 

rule 201.6(a)(1), but they made either no 

effort or an inadequate effort to ascertain 

the Commission’s published 

interpretation of the regulation, 

notwithstanding the fact that it was 

readily available, easily located, and 

expressly addressed the question of 

whether the information should be 

treated as BPI. Instead they adopted 

their own interpretation of the 

regulation without consulting the 

Commission’s staff. Thus, they made a 

conscious decision not to bracket 

material that was BPI. 

Second, the Commission presumed 

that an individual not subject to the 

APO read the unbracketed BPI in the 

public version of the brief. The brief was 

sent to counsel for the opposing side, 

who was not subject to the APO. The 

replacement page was not sent to him 

until the next day. The attorneys did not 

address whether the counsel had 

viewed the BPI even after being 

specifically asked by the Commission’s 

Secretary. In the absence of any contrary 

representation by the attorneys, the 

Commission presumed that opposing 

counsel read the brief, including the 

BPI, at the time he received it. 

Third, the breach was discovered by 

the Commission’s staff. In addition, 

although the attorneys initially provided 

the replacement page promptly, they 

did not respond to the second request 

for a replacement page, which was 

necessitated by the fact that Dockets 

staff did not receive the original 

replacement page. The attorneys did 

respond to the third request. 

APO Breach Investigation in Which No 

Breach Was Found 

Case 1: Counsel for respondents in a 

title VII investigation transmitted to 

their clients copies of a draft public 

version of a prehearing brief. The draft 

brief contained information that had 

been derived from information in the 

Commission’s prehearing report. In the 

report, the information was treated as 

BPI and was bracketed. The 

Commission determined that counsel 

did not breach the APO because at the 

time the brief was prepared, the 

substance of the material in the draft 

prehearing brief was available in the 

public domain. 

Rules Violations 

Case 1: The Commission found that 

an attorney violated 19 CFR 207.3(b) by 

serving a postconference brief in a title 

VII investigation by first-class mail. The 

Commission issued a warning letter. 

There were two mitigating factors: 

(1) Rhis was the attorney’s first rules 

violation within the prior two years 

generally examined by the Commission 

for purposes of determining sanctions, 

and (2) the violation was unintentional. 

Investigation in Which No Rules 

Violation Was Found 

Case 1: An associate and lead attorney 

filed an in camera hearing request in a 

title VII five year review which did not 

meet the content requirements of 19 

CFR 207.24(d), was not timely filed, and 

did not provide good cause for the 

untimeliness as required under 19 CFR 

201.14 and 207.24(d). It was also 

improperly served contrary to 19 CFR 

207.3(b). The attorneys filed a second 

letter seeking leave to file an untimely 

request and providing the subjects to be 

covered during the in camera session. 

This letter did not provide the time 

necessary to cover the subjects and was 

also improperly filed. Consequently, the 

Commission rejected the request for the 

in camera session as untimely. After 

consideration of the attorneys’ 

responses in this rules violation 

investigation, the Commission 

determined that they failed to exercise 

due diligence in filing the two 

submissions, but decided not to 

sanction them. This decision was 

reached after giving consideration to the 

facts that their actions were not 

intentional and that no party was 

prejudiced by their actions. In addition, 

this was the associate’s first appearance 

before the Commission. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 21, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27172 Filed 10–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[CPCLO Order No. 005–2010] 

Privacy Act of 1974; System of 

Records 

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of a Modification of a 

System of Records. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 

1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation (FBI), Department of 

Justice, proposes to modify an existing 

system of records entitled ‘‘Data 

Integration and Visualization System,’’ 

JUSTICE/FBI–021, which describes the 

Data Integration and Visualization 

System (DIVS), to revise the System 

Location section to clarify locations 

where the records may be directly 

accessed and by whom the records may 

be directly accessed. A new sentence 

has been added at the end of the System 

Location section to reflect this 

information. This system notice was last 

published on August 31, 2010 (75 FR 

53342). 

DATES: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552a(e)(4) and (11), the public is given 

a 30-day period in which to comment. 

Therefore, please submit any comments 

by November 26, 2010. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
66132 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Notices 

ADDRESSES: The public, OMB, and 

Congress are invited to submit any 

comments to the Department of Justice, 

ATTN: Privacy Analyst, Office of 

Privacy and Civil Liberties, Department 

of Justice, National Place Building, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 940, 

Washington, DC 20530–0001, or by 

facsimile at 202–307–0693. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Page, Assistant General Counsel, 

Privacy and Civil Liberties Unit, Office 

of the General Counsel, FBI, 

Washington, DC 20530–0001, telephone 

202–324–3000. 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a (r), 

the Department has provided a report to 

OMB and the Congress on the modified 

system of records. 

Dated: October 4, 2010. 

Nancy C. Libin, 

Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer. 

JUSTICE/FBI–021 

SYSTEM NAME: 

Data Integration and Visualization 

System. 

* * * * * 

SYSTEM LOCATION: 

[Revise the previously published 

System Location by adding a new 

sentence at the end of the paragraph.] 

Records may be maintained at any 

location at which the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) operates or at which 

FBI operations are supported, including: 

J. Edgar Hoover Building, 935 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20535–0001; FBI Academy and FBI 

Laboratory, Quantico, VA 22135; FBI 

Criminal Justice Information Services 

(CJIS) Division, 1000 Custer Hollow Rd., 

Clarksburg, WV 26306; and FBI field 

offices, legal attaches, information 

technology centers, and other 

components listed on the FBI’s Internet 

Web site, http://www.fbi.gov. Some or 

all system information may also be 

duplicated at other locations for 

purposes of system backup, emergency 

preparedness, and/or continuity of 

operations. Additionally, appropriate 

offices/employees within the 

Department of Justice that have an 

official need to know the information 

contained in DIVS in order to perform 

their duties, may also be granted direct 

access to DIVS. Further, employees in 

other government agencies who are 

under FBI supervision, in offices where 

FBI operations are supported, and who 

have an official need to know the 

information contained in DIVS in order 

to perform their duties may also be 

granted direct access to DIVS. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–27101 Filed 10–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives 

[OMB Number 1140–0074] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comments Requested 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: List of 

Responsible Persons. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives (ATF), will be 

submitting the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

The proposed information collection is 

published to obtain comments from the 

public and affected agencies. Comments 

are encouraged and will be accepted for 

‘‘sixty days’’ until December 27, 2010. 

This process is conducted in accordance 

with 5 CFR 1320.10. 

If you have comments especially on 

the estimated public burden or 

associated response time, suggestions, 

or need a copy of the proposed 

information collection instrument with 

instructions or additional information, 

please contact William Miller, Chief, 

Explosives Industry Programs Branch, 

Room 6E405, 99 New York Avenue, NE., 

Washington, DC 20226. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

information are encouraged. Your 

comments should address one or more 

of the following four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Extension of a currently approved 

collection. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: List 

of Responsible Persons. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Justice sponsoring the 

collection: Form Number: None. Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Individuals or 

households. Other: Business or otherprofit. All persons holding ATF 

explosives licenses or permits must 

report any change in responsible 

persons or employees authorized to 

possess explosive materials to ATF. 

Such report must be submitted within 

30 days of the change and must include 

appropriate identifying information for 

each responsible person. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: It is estimated that 50,000 

respondents will take 1 hour to 

complete the report. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: There are an estimated 

100,000 annual total burden hours 

associated with this collection. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Lynn Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning 

Staff, Justice Management Division, 

Department of Justice, Two Constitution 

Square, Room 2E–502, 145 N Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: October 21, 2010. 

Lynn Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27113 Filed 10–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES