Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Notices 75301

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

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19

CFR § 207.2(f)).

from Ukraine: Investigation No. 731–

TA–894 (Preliminary).

Issued: November 27, 2000.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–30672 Filed 11–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigations Nos. AA1921–197 (Review),

701–TA–231, 319–320, 322, 325–328, 340,

342, and 348–350 (Review), and 731–TA–

573–576, 578, 582–587, 604, 607–608, 612,

and 614–618 (Review)]

Certain Carbon Steel Products From

Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,

Finland, France, Germany, Japan,

Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland,

Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and

United Kingdom

Determinations

On the basis of the record 1 developed

in the subject five-year reviews, the

United States International Trade

Commission determines, pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930

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

revocation of the countervailing duty

orders and antidumping duty orders on

the following certain carbon steel

products from the specified countries

would likely lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time:

Country

Cut-tolength

plate

Corrosionresistant

Australia .......... 731–TA–612

Belgium ........... 701–TA–

319

731–TA–

573

Brazil ............... 701–TA–

320

731–TA–

574

Canada ............ 731–TA–614

Finland ............. 731–TA–

576

France ............. 701–TA–348

731–TA–615

Germany .......... 701–TA–

322

731–TA–

578

701–TA–

349 2

731–TA–

616 2

Japan ............... 731–TA–617

Korea ............... 701–TA–350

731–TA–618

Country

Cut-tolength

plate

Corrosionresistant

Mexico ............. 701–TA–

325

731–TA–

582

Poland ............. 731–TA–

583

Romania .......... 731–TA–

584

Spain ............... 701–TA–

326

731–TA–

585

Sweden ........... 701–TA–

327

731–TA–

586

Taiwan ............. AA1921–

197 2

United Kingdom 701–TA–

328 3

731–TA–

587 3

2 Commissioner Askey dissenting.

3 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner

Askey dissenting.

The Commission determines that

revocation of the countervailing duty

orders and antidumping duty orders on

the following certain carbon steel

products from the specified countries

would not be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United

States within a reasonably foreseeable

time:

Country

Cut-tolength

plate

Corrosionresistant

Canada ............ 731–TA–

575

Germany .......... 701–TA–

340 4

731–TA–

604 4

Korea ............... 701–TA–

342 4

731–TA–

607 4

Netherlands ..... 731–TA–

608 4

Sweden ........... 701–TA–231

4 Commissioners Bragg and Miller

dissenting.

Background

The Commission instituted these

reviews on September 1, 1999 (64 FR

47862) and determined on December 3,

1999, that it would conduct full reviews

(64 FR 71494, December 21, 1999).

Notice of the scheduling of the

Commission’s reviews and of public

hearings to be held in connection

therewith was given by posting copies

of the notice in the Office of the

Secretary, U.S. International Trade

Commission, Washington, DC, and by

publishing the notice in the Federal

Register on April 18, 2000 (65 FR

20833). The hearings were held in

Washington, DC, on September 12, 13,

and 15, 2000, and all persons who

requested the opportunity were

permitted to appear in person or by

counsel.

The Commission transmitted its

determinations in these investigations to

the Secretary of Commerce on

November 21, 2000. The views of the

Commission are contained in USITC

Publication 3364 (November 2000),

entitled Certain Carbon Steel Products

from Australia, Belgium, Brazil,

Canada, Finland, France, Germany,

Japan, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands,

Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden,

Taiwan, and United Kingdom:

Investigations Nos. AA1921–197

(Review), 701–TA–231, 319–320, 322,

325–328, 340, 342, and 348–350

(Review), and 731–TA–573–576, 578,

582–587, 604, 607–608, 612, and 614–

618 (Review).

Issued: November 27, 2000.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–30673 Filed 11–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

Sanction for Breaches of Commission

Protective Order

AGENCY: International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Sanction for breaches of

Commission protective order.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the

sanction imposed by the Commission

for breaches of the administrative

protective order (‘‘APO’’) issued in

Crawfish Tail Meat From China, Inv.

No. 731–TA–752 (Final). The

Commission found that Steven B. Lehat,

Esq., and Surjit P. Soni, Esq., breached

the APO by (1) delegating primary

responsibility for APO compliance to a

junior attorney and then failing to

provide appropriate supervision of that

attorney, which resulted in two APO

breaches, (2) repeatedly failing to

remedy obvious flaws in their firm’s

procedures for protecting business

proprietary information (‘‘BPI’’) released

to the firm under APO, and (3) failing

to certify to the return or destruction of

the BPI obtained under the APO. As a

sanction, the Commission is issuing this

public reprimand and barring them from

access to BPI for a period of six months

75302 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Notices

from the date of publication of this

notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carol McCue Verratti, Esq., Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. International

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–

205–3088. 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 Internet server

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

connection with the Crawfish

investigation, Messrs. Lehat, Soni, and

several other attorneys filed

applications for APOs with the

Commission. In the applications, they

swore (i) not to disclose without written

permission any of the information

obtained under the APO except to

certain enumerated categories of

approved persons, (ii) to serve all

materials containing BPI disclosed

under the APO as directed by the

Secretary, and (iii) to otherwise comply

with the terms of the APO and the

Commission’s regulations regarding

access to BPI. They also acknowledged

in the APO that violation of the APO

may subject them, and their firm, to

debarment from practice before the

Commission, referral to the U.S.

Attorney or appropriate professional

association, or ‘‘such other

administrative sanctions determined to

be appropriate * * * .’’ The

Commission granted their applications.

The firm had little experience with

practice before the Commission. Early in

the investigation, one of the firm’s

attorneys breached the APO by releasing

BPI obtained from the Commission to

the Commerce Department. Commerce

personnel were not authorized to have

access to such materials under the

Commission APO. As a result, the firm

decided to place Mr. Soni and Mr. Lehat

in charge of the investigation. They

delegated primary responsibility for

APO compliance to a junior attorney.

Mr. Soni and Mr. Lehat each deny that

they had responsibility for supervising

the junior attorney.

After finalizing the prehearing brief,

the junior attorney mistakenly served it

on individuals who were not subject to

the APO. Those copies of the brief were

retrieved before any unauthorized

person saw the BPI. The junior attorney

was admonished to be more careful, but

the firm did not make any additional

effective changes in its procedures for

protecting BPI from public release. In

finalizing the public version of the posthearing brief, the junior attorney failed

to redact BPI from one page. Again,

copies of the erroneous public version

were retrieved before any unauthorized

person saw the BPI. In both instances,

the breaches were inadvertent and the

attorneys made prompt efforts to

prevent the dissemination of BPI to the

public.

Both Mr. Soni and Mr. Lehat argued

that they should bear limited blame for

the breaches because they either did not

supervise the junior attorney’s

compliance with APO compliance or

were not present during the finalization

of the briefs. This argument evinces a

failure to understand that their

noninvolvement is the problem, not an

exculpation. By remaining removed,

they effectively left the junior attorney

with the ultimate responsibility for

protecting BPI. Such a delegation might

be reasonable if made to a junior

attorney who had extensive experience

with Commission practice or to a senior

attorney who had a longer experience

with the general practice of law, but the

junior attorney in this case had neither.

Therefore, the Commission found that

Mr. Soni and Mr. Lehat breached their

obligation to take reasonable steps to

prevent the release of BPI at the time of

the prehearing brief. They committed a

second, more egregious breach in

continuing to allow the junior attorney

to operate unsupervised in the

preparation of the post-hearing brief

when they knew that the junior

attorney’s inexperience had already

resulted in one breach. They committed

an additional breach in failing to

remedy the problems with the firm’s

APO compliance procedures that were

exposed by the earlier breaches. Finally,

Mr. Soni and Mr. Lehat again breached

the APO by failing to certify to the

return or destruction of the BPI obtained

under the APO. This breach came about,

in part, by the reliance on the same

inexperienced junior attorney to prepare

and transmit the certifications without

appropriate supervision.

The breaches outlined above show a

serious disregard for the protection of

BPI that ‘‘rise[s] to the level of willful

misbehavior or gross negligence

characteristic of investigations where

the Commission has issued public

letters of reprimand.’’ Summary of

Commission Practice Relating to

Administrative Protective Orders, 62 FR

13164, 13167 (Case 8). The Commission

did not place great weight on the fact

that none of the breaches resulted in a

widespread dissemination of sensitive

information, since it viewed that

circumstance as purely fortuitous. See

Investigations Relating to Potential

Breaches of Administrative Protective

Orders, Sanctions Imposed for Actual

Violations, 56 FR 4846, 4849 (Case 5).

In light of the foregoing, the

Commission determined to issue Mr.

Lehat and Mr. Soni this public

reprimand and to bar them from access

to BPI for six months, starting with date

of the publication of this notice in the

Federal Register. In addition, the

Commission will require that the next

application, if any, that Mr. Lehat or Mr.

Soni files with the Commission for

access to materials released under APO

must be accompanied by a detailed

description of the procedures of his firm

for protecting APO materials.

Steven B. Lehat and Surjit P. Soni are

reprimanded for (1) delegating primary

responsibility for APO compliance to a

junior attorney and then failing to

provide appropriate supervision of that

attorney, which resulted in two APO

breaches, (2) failing to remedy obvious

flaws in procedures for protecting BPI

released to the firm under APO, and (3)

failing to certify to the return or

destruction of the BPI obtained under

the APO. They are also barred from

access to BPI for six months, starting

with the date of publication of this

notice in the Federal Register.

The authority for this action is

conferred by section 777(c)(1)(B) of the

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.

1677f(c)(1)(B)) and by section 207.7(d)

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice

and Procedure (19 CFR 207.7(d)).

Issued: November 27, 2000.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–30671 Filed 11–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigations Nos. 701–TA–355 (Review)

and 731–TA–659–660 (Review)]

Grain-Oriented Silicon Electrical Steel

From Italy and Japan

AGENCY: International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Revised schedule for full fiveyear reviews concerning the

countervailing duty and antidumping

duty orders on grain-oriented silicon

electrical steel from Italy and Japan.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Taylor (202–708–4101), Office of

Investigations, U.S. International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain