1668 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Notices 

Commission that it will take extra 

caution to prevent a similar occurrence 

in the future and will not rely on the 

representations of co-counsel regarding 

the confidential nature of documents. 

The Commission also issued warning 

letters to the remaining five attorneys at 

the third law firm who were not 

signatories to the original APO and who 

had signed the complaint in the new 

unrelated investigation. Two of the five 

attorneys participated in filing the 

complaint. The Commission stated that 

the actions of the two attorneys directly 

led to the disclosure of CBI, which was 

clearly marked as such, by including the 

CBI as public exhibits to a complaint in 

a Commission investigation unrelated to 

the original section 337 investigation. In 

issuing warning letters, the Commission 

noted the same mitigating factors 

mentioned above with regard to the lead 

attorney in the third firm who received 

a private letter of reprimand. 

Case 2: The Commission determined 

that two attorneys breached the APO by 

filing a confidential version of an initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) containing CBI, as 

part of the public appendix to a brief in 

district court litigation. The filing was 

made through the district court’s 

electronic-case-filing (‘‘ECF’’) system. 

The confidential version of the ID was 

filed by a paralegal at the law firm 

under the supervision of the two 

attorneys, both of whom had subscribed 

to the APO. The law firm later 

discovered the disclosure and notified 

the opposing party. The CBI was 

publicly available for six weeks. The 

law firm requested the district court to 

restrict access to the electronic filing 

and the district court complied. The 

district court notified the law firm that 

the court did not track access to ECF 

documents and could not determine 

who, if anyone had accessed the ID 

electronically. The law firm conducted 

an inquiry into whether any of the 

employees of the party it represented in 

the district court litigation had accessed 

the ID. The opposing party also 

conducted an inquiry into whether any 

of its employees had accessed the ID. 

From these inquires, the law firm is not 

aware of any unauthorized access to the 

CBI. 

The Commission took into 

consideration the following mitigating 

factors: The breach was inadvertent; 

neither the attorneys at issue nor the 

law firm as a whole have breached a 

Commission APO in the past; the law 

firm discovered its own breach and took 

prompt steps to try to cure the breach; 

and the law firm implemented actions 

to improve internal procedures to make 

this type of breach less likely in the 

future. The Commission noted, 

however, that the law firm was not able 

to demonstrate whether anyone 

improperly accessed the CBI while it 

was publicly available so the 

Commission presumes public access to 

the confidential documents. Thus, in 

accordance with past Commission 

practice, the Commission issued private 

letters of reprimand to the two 

attorneys. 

Case 3: The Commission determined 

that an attorney breached an APO by 

filing public versions of certain 

documents, which contained the CBI of 

the opposing party. 

Counsel for the opposing party 

contacted the Secretary to the 

Commission to notify the Secretary that 

public versions of certain documents, 

specifically the public versions of a 

response to a petition for review and 

summary of the response, filed by the 

attorney in question contained CBI. The 

Secretary’s office promptly removed the 

CBI documents from the public record. 

The attorney subsequently re-filed the 

public version documents without the 

CBI. An audit trail for the CBI 

documents showed that the documents 

were accessed by a non-party to the 

investigation. 

The Commission issued a private 

letter of reprimand to the attorney for 

the APO breach. The Commission noted 

as mitigating factors that once the 

attorney was notified that the public 

version of the documents contained CBI 

the attorney moved quickly to cure the 

disclosure, the disclosure of the CBI was 

inadvertent, the attorney has not been 

involved in any alleged APO breach in 

the past two years, and the attorney had 

the ALJ’s instruction not to over-redact 

in mind while preparing the public 

versions of the brief. However, the 

Commission points out that the 

aggravating factors were that the breach 

was discovered by opposing counsel 

and not the alleged breaching attorney, 

unauthorized persons accessed the CBI 

at issue, and the attorney acted 

unilaterally in deciding that certain 

information did not constitute CBI 

without seeking guidance from the 

Commission. 

Case 4: The Commission determined 

that the lead attorney and the lead 

attorney’s law firm did not breach the 

APO when documents containing CBI 

were stolen from the locked car trunk of 

a paralegal employed by the law firm. 

The law firm had internal practices 

and procedures regarding the protection 

of CBI governed by an APO including 

policies regarding the maintenance and 

transport of CBI. In some cases, the law 

firm did let its personnel perform work 

at home involving CBI as long as they 

used and kept the CBI in a locked 

facility, which could not be accessed by 

others. The paralegal had such an 

arrangement in his home. 

The provisions of the APO did not 

specifically prohibit the transport of 

documents containing CBI to a home 

office or require personal custody and 

maintenance of the CBI in a locked 

facility of the home office after such 

transport. The lead attorney promptly 

notified the proper authorities after 

learning of the theft. 

The Commission issued a letter to the 

lead attorney notifying the attorney that 

the Commission does not consider the 

law firm or lead attorney to have 

breached the APO, but the letter does 

recommend that the law firm review its 

procedures regarding the protection of 

CBI, and the law firm’s enforcement of 

such procedures. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 7, 2015. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00299 Filed 1–12–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1103–0102] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed eCollection 

eComments Requested; Extension 

With Change, of a Previously 

Approved Collection COPS Office 

Progress Report 

AGENCY: Community Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS) Office, Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: 30-Day notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice 

(DOJ), Community Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS) Office, 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. 

This proposed information collection 

was previously published in the Federal 

Register at 79 FR 66405, November 7, 

2014, allowing for a 60 day comment 

period. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for an additional days 

until February 12, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have additional 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 13, 2015 / Notices 1669 

additional information, please contact 

Kimberly J. Brummett, Program 

Specialist, Community Oriented 

Policing Services (COPS) Office, 145 N 

Street NE., Washington, DC 20530 

(phone: 202–353–9769). Written 

comments and/or suggestions can also 

be directed to the Office of Management 

and Budget, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Attention 

Department of Justice Desk Officer, 

Washington, DC 20530 or sent to OIRA_

submissions@omb.eop.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 

agency’s 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/or 

—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. The Title of the Form/Collection: 

COPS Office Progress Report. 

3. The agency form number: N/A. 

4. Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: 

Under the Violent Crime and Control 

Act of 1994, the U.S. Department of 

Justice COPS Office would require the 

completion of the COPS Progress Report 

by recipients of COPS hiring and nonhiring grants. Grant recipients must 

complete this report in order to inform 

COPS of their activities with their 

awarded grant funding. 

5. An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: An estimated 1,200 grantees 

will be required to submit an active 

progress report each quarter. The 

estimated range of burden for 

respondents is expected to be between 

20 minutes to 25 minutes for each 

quarterly completion. 

6. An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: 

The estimated public burden 

associated with this collection is 2000 

hours. It is estimated that respondents 

will take up to 25 minutes each quarter 

to complete the quarterly progress 

report. The burden hours for collecting 

respondent data sum to 2000 hours 

(1200 respondents × .4167 hours × 4 

times annually = 2000 hours). 

If additional information is required 

contact: Jerri Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Two Constitution 

Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: January 7, 2015. 

Jerri Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00274 Filed 1–12–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–AT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Consent Decree Under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act 

On January 7, 2015, the Department of 

Justice lodged a proposed Consent 

Decree with the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of 

Indiana in the lawsuit entitled United 

States v. ARG Corporation, Civil Action 

No. 10–cv–311. 

In August 2010, the United States 

filed suit against ARG Corporation 

(‘‘ARG’’) and Norbert Toubes under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’) for the recovery of 

response costs incurred at the South 

Bend Lathe Superfund Site (the ‘‘Site’’), 

in South Bend, Indiana. The Consent 

Decree resolves ARG’s and Mr. Toubes’ 

CERCLA liability for past response costs 

at the Site for a total of $500,000. ARG 

and Mr. Toubes are required to pay 

$250,000 on February 1, 2015 and 

$250,000 on August 1, 2015. 

The publication of this notice opens 

a period for public comment on the 

Consent Decree. Comments should be 

addressed to the Assistant Attorney 

General, Environment and Natural 

Resources Division, and should refer to 

United States v. ARG Corporation, D.J. 

Ref. No. 90–11–3–09441. All comments 

must be submitted no later than thirty 

(30) days after the publication date of 

this notice. Comments may be 

submitted either by email or by mail: 

To submit 

comments: Send them to: 

By e-mail ...... pubcomment-ees.enrd@

usdoj.gov 

By mail ......... Assistant Attorney General, 

U.S. DOJ–ENRD, P.O. Box 

7611, Washington, DC 

20044–7611. 

During the public comment period, 

the proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined and downloaded at this 

Justice Department Web site: http://

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_

Decrees.html. We will provide a paper 

copy of the proposed Consent Decree 

upon written request and payment of 

reproduction costs. Please mail your 

request and payment to: Consent Decree 

Library, U.S. DOJ–ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, 

Washington, DC 20044–7611. 

Please enclose a check or money order 

for $4.25 (25 cents per page 

reproduction cost) payable to the United 

States Treasury. 

Randall M. Stone, 

Acting Assistant Section Chief, 

Environmental Enforcement Section, 

Environment and Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00275 Filed 1–12–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice (14–132)] 

Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive 

License 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to grant 

exclusive license. 

SUMMARY: This notice is issued in 

accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 

CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby gives 

notice of its intent to grant an exclusive 

license in the United States to practice 

the inventions described and claimed in 

USPN 6,133,036, Preservation of Liquid 

Biological Samples, NASA Case No. 

MSC–22616–2 and USPN 6,716,392, 

Preservation of Liquid Biological 

Samples, NASA Case No. MSC–22616– 

3 to Coated Preservative Products, LLC, 

having its principal place of business in 

Warner Robins, GA. The patent rights in 

these inventions have been assigned to 

the United States of America as 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES