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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Notices 75303

information on this matter by contacting

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility

impairments who will need special

assistance in gaining access to the

Commission should contact the Office

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000.

General information concerning the

Commission may also be obtained by

accessing its internet server (http://

www.usitc.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

10, 2000, the Commission established a

schedule for the conduct of the subject

full five-year reviews (Federal Register

65 FR 50004, August 16, 2000). On

November 16, 2000, the Commission

received a request from a party to the

full five-year reviews to postpone the

hearing date. The Commission,

therefore, is revising its schedule to

make the appropriate adjustments in the

scheduling of these reviews.

The Commission’s new schedule for

these reviews is as follows: the hearing

will be held at the U.S. International

Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m.

on January 11, 2001; the deadline for

filing posthearing briefs is January 19,

2001; the Commission will make its

final release of information to parties on

February 6, 2001; and final party

comments are due on February 8, 2001.

Authority: These reviews are being

conducted under authority of title VII of the

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published

pursuant to section 207.62 of the

Commission’s rules.

Issued: November 28, 2000.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–30675 Filed 11–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337–TA–434]

In the Matter of Certain Magnetic

Resonance Injection Systems and

Components Thereof; Notice of

Decision to Extend the Deadline for

Determining Whether To Review an

Initial Determination Granting a Motion

for Summary Determination of

Invalidity

AGENCY: International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. International Trade

Commission has determined to extend

the deadline for determining whether to

review an initial determination (ID)

(Order No. 16) issued by the presiding

administrative law judge (ALJ) in the

above-captioned investigation until 30

days after it has ruled on a motion filed

by complainant to stay the investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean

Jackson, Esq., Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)

205–3104. Hearing-impaired persons are

advised that information on this matter

can be obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. General information

concerning the Commission may also be

obtained by accessing its Internet server

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission instituted this investigation

on May 26, 2000, based on a complaint

filed by Medrad, Inc. of Indianola,

Pennsylvania. The complaint alleged a

violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based on

infringement of U.S. Letters Patent Re.

36,648, (the ‘648 patent) owned by

complainant. The respondents named in

the investigation are Nemoto Kyorindo

Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan; LiebelFlarshiem Co. of Cincinnati Ohio; and

Mallinckrodt Inc., of Hazelwood, Mo. 65

FR 34231. On September 26, 2000, the

ALJ issued an ID finding the ‘648 patent

invalid due to certain omissions that

occurred during patent reissue

proceedings at the U.S. Patent and

Trademark Office. On request of the

parties, the ALJ suspended the

procedural schedule of the investigation

while the ID was before the

Commission. Petitions for review of the

ID were filed on October 6, 2000, by

complainant and by the Commission

investigative attorney. Responses were

filed on October 19, 2000. On October

16, 2000, the Commission determined to

extend the date for determining whether

to review the ID until December 6, 2000.

65 FR 63096 (October 20, 2000). On

November 17, 2000, complainant

Medrad filed a motion to stay the

investigation pending completion of

reissue proceedings before the U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office. Medrad

argued that the reissue proceedings

would rectify the defect found by the

ALJ.

This action is taken under the

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and section

210.42(h)(3) of the Commission of

Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR

210.42(h)(3).

Copies of the nonconfidential version

of the ID and all other nonconfidential

documents filed in connection with this

investigation are or will be available for

inspection during official business

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the

Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, 500 E

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,

telephone 202–205–2000. Copies of

these documents may also be

downloaded from the Commission’s

Internet server at (http://www.usitc.gov).

Hearing impaired persons are advised

that information on this matter can be

obtained by contacting the Commission

TDD terminal on 202–205–1810.

Issued: November 27, 2000.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–30674 Filed 11–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Criminal Division; Agency Information

Collection Activities: Proposed

Collection; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice of information collection

under review: extension of a currently

approved collection: foreign agents

registration act form (registration

statement) as required by rule 200(b) of

the act.

The Department of Justice, Criminal

Division, has submitted the following

information collection request to the

Office of Management and Budget for

review and clearance in accordance

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995. This proposed information

collection is published to obtain

comments from the public and affected

agencies. Comments are encouraged and

will be accepted until January 30, 2001.

Request written comments and

suggestions from the public and affected

agencies concerning the proposed

collection of information. Your

comments should address one or more

of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

collection of information, including the

validity of the methodology and

assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,