24880 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices

Management Officer, Renee Poehls,

(202) 736–4743, M/AS/ISS Room 930B,

N.S., Washington, D.C. 20523.

Date Submitted: April 11, 1995

Submitting Agency: U.S. Agency for

International Development

OMB Number: OMB 0412–0546

Form Number: AID 1550–12

Type of Submission: Renewal

Title: Request for shipment of

commodities for Foreign Distribution

(Foreign Government)

Purpose: An USAID Title III form is

needed by which the specific needs of

the recipient country can be

communicated to U.S. Department of

Agriculture by USAID. The form will

be used to request food commodities

for approved P.L. 480 Title III country

programs overseas and to furnish

procurement instruction and other

pertinent information necessary to

ship these commodities to destination

ports.

Annual Reporting Burden:

Respondents: 13

Annual responses: 55

Annual burden hours: 60

Reviewer: Jeffery Hill (202) 395–7340,

Office of Management and Budget,

Room 3201, New Executive Office

Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.

Dated: May 1, 1995.

Genease E. Pettigrew,

Chief, Information Support Services Division

Office of Administrative Service Bureau of

Management.

[FR Doc. 95–11523 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6116–01–M

Public Information Collection

Requirements Submitted to OMB for

Review

The U.S. Agency for International

Development (USAID) submitted the

following public information collection

requirements to OMB for review and

clearance under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35). Comments regarding these

information collections should be

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed at

the end of the entry. Comments may

also be addressed to, and copies of the

submissions obtained from the Records

Management Officer, Renee Poehls,

(202) 736–4743, M/AS/ISS Room 930B,

N.S., Washington, D.C. 20523.

Date Submitted: April 11, 1995

Submitting Agency: U.S. Agency for

International Development

OMB Number: OMB 0412–0545

Form Number: AID 1550–04

Type of Submission: Renewal

Title: Request for shipment of

commodities for Foreign Distribution

(Foreign Government)

Purpose: Public Law 480 states that the

President may utilize nonprofit

voluntary agencies (PVOs) registered

with and approved by the USAID in

furnishing food commodities to needy

persons outside the Untied States.

The USAID Form No. 1550–4 is an

instrument by which the PVOs

communicate their specific needs in

this regard to the U.S. Government.

This form is used by eligible PVOs to

request food commodities for

approved country programs overseas

and to furnish delivery instructions

and other information necessary to

ship these commodities to destination

ports.

Annual Reporting Burden:

Respondents: 19,

Annual responses: 1,311;

Annual burden hours: 120 (est.)

Reviewer: Jeffery Hill (202) 395–7340,

Office of Management and Budget,

Room 3201, New Executive Office

Building, Washington, D.C. 20503

Dated: May 1, 1995.

Genease E. Pettigrew,

Chief, Information Support Services Division,

Office of Administrative Service, Bureau of

Management.

[FR Doc. 95–11524 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6116–01–M

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

International Trade Commission,

Investigations Relating to Potential

Breaches of Administrative Protective

Orders, Sanctions Imposed for Actual

Violations

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Summary of Commission

practice relating to administrative

protective orders.

SUMMARY: This notice provides a

summary by the International Trade

Commission (Commission) of its

investigations of (1) breaches of

administrative protective orders (APOs)

issued in connection with investigations

under Title VII and Section 337 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, and (2) certain

violations of the Commission’s rules.

This notice is intended to inform the

public of the Commission’s experience

with APO breaches. The Commission

also intends that this notice will educate

and alert representatives of parties to

Commission proceedings as to some

specific types of APO breaches

encountered by the Commission. This

notice is illustrative only and does not

limit the Commission’s rules or

standard APO. The notice does not

provide an exclusive list of conduct that

will be deemed to be a breach of the

Commission’s APOs, and does not

indicate how the Commission will rule

in future cases.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth C. Rose, Esq., Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. International

Trade Commission, telephone 202–205–

3113.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

discussion below illustrates APO breach

investigations that the Commission has

completed including a description of

actions taken in response to breaches.

The discussion covers breach

investigations completed during 1994

with respect to antidumping and

countervailing duty cases. Also

discussed are the Commission’s

investigations completed during 1994 of

possible violations of Commission rule

207.3, commonly known as the ‘‘one

day rule.’’ In the interest of providing as

much information to practitioners as

possible on APO practice, this notice

also discusses breach investigations

completed during 1994 with respect to

investigations under section 337 of the

Tariff Act of 1930.

The Commission periodically reports

a summary of its actions in response to

violations of Commission APOs in an

effort to educate those obtaining access

to business proprietary information

(BPI) under an APO of the common

problems encountered in handling BPI

and confidential business information

(CBI). This is the fifth notice of its kind,

the previous ones having been

published at 56 FR 4846 (Feb. 6, 1991),

57 FR 12335 (Apr. 9, 1992), 58 FR 21991

(Apr. 26, 1993), and 59 FR 16834 (Apr.

8, 1994). The Commission intends to

publish summaries at least annually,

and more frequently as appropriate.

As part of the effort to educate

practitioners about APO practice, the

Commission’s Secretary issued in

September 1991 An Introduction to

Administrative Protective Order

Practice in Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Investigations. This

document is available upon request

from the Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, 500 E

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20436,

telephone 202–205–2000.

I. Title VII Administrative Protective

Orders

A. In General

APOs are issued in Commission

investigations under Title VII of the

Tariff Act of 1930 to provide access to

BPI to certain party representatives

under conditions designed to protect the

confidentiality of such information. The
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices 24881

Commission is required to disclose

under APO to the authorized

representatives of interested parties who

are parties to an investigation BPI

collected by the Commission in the

course of such investigations. 19 U.S.C.

1677f. The Commission has

implemented procedures governing this

disclosure, which is accomplished

under an APO issued by the Secretary

to the Commission. 19 CFR 207.7. An

important provision of the

Commission’s rules relating to APOs is

the ‘‘one day rule’’ that provides parties

with an extra day in which to file the

public version of certain submissions

containing BPI. 19 CFR 207.3. The one

day rule, which also permits correction

of the bracketing of BPI during that extra

day, was intended to reduce the

incidence of APO breaches caused by

inadequate bracketing and improper

placement of BPI. The Commission

urges parties to make use of the rule.

The Commission Secretary provides

BPI only to ‘‘authorized applicants’’

who agree to be bound by the terms and

conditions of an APO. The Commission

is currently revising its standard APO

forms for antidumping and

countervailing duty investigations to

reflect recent regulatory changes and

Commission practice. The Commission

has also created a new APO form for use

in section 201 investigations. The

standard APO form for antidumping and

countervailing duty investigations

issued by the Commission in 1994

required the applicant to swear that he

or she would:

(1) Not divulge any of the BPI

obtained under the APO and not

otherwise available to him, to any

person other than

(i) Personnel of the Commission

concerned with the investigation,

(ii) The person or agency from whom

the BPI was obtained,

(iii) A person whose application for

disclosure of BPI under the APO has

been granted by the Secretary, and

(iv) Other persons, such as paralegals

and clerical staff, who (a) are employed

or supervised by and under the

direction and control of the authorized

applicant or another authorized

applicant in the same firm whose

application has been granted; (b) have a

need thereof in connection with the

investigation; (c) are not involved in

competitive decision-making for an

interested party which is a party to the

investigation; and (d) have submitted to

the Secretary a signed Acknowledgment

for Clerical Personnel in the form

attached hereto (the authorized

applicant shall also sign such

acknowledgment and will be deemed

responsible for such persons’

compliance with the APO);

(2) Use such BPI solely for the

purposes of the above-captioned

Commission investigation or for judicial

or binational panel review of such

Commission investigation;

(3) Not consult with any person not

described in paragraph (1) concerning

BPI disclosed under the APO without

first having received the written consent

of the Secretary and the party or the

attorney of the party from whom such

BPI was obtained;

(4) Whenever materials (e.g.,

documents, computer disks, etc.)

containing such BPI are not being used,

store such material in a locked file

cabinet, vault, safe, or other suitable

container (N.B.: storage of BPI on socalled hard disk computer media is to

be avoided, because mere erasure of

data from such media may not

irrecoverably destroy the BPI and may

result in violation of paragraph C of the

APO);

(5) Serve all materials containing BPI

disclosed under the APO as directed by

the Secretary and pursuant to section

207.7(f) of the Commission’s rules;

(6) Transmit each document

containing BPI disclosed under the

APO:

(i) with a cover sheet identifying the

document as containing BPI,

(ii) with all BPI enclosed in brackets

and each page warning that the

document contains BPI,

(iii) if the document is to be filed by

a deadline, with each page marked

‘‘Bracketing of BPI not final for one

business day after date of filing,’’ and

(iv) if by mail, within two envelopes,

the inner one sealed and marked

‘‘Business Proprietary Information—To

be opened only by [name of recipient]’’,

and the outer one sealed and not

marked as containing BPI;

(7) Comply with the provisions of the

APO and section 207.7 of the

Commission’s rules;

(8) Make true and accurate

representations in the authorized

applicant’s application and promptly

notify the Secretary of any changes that

occur after the submission of the

application and that affect the

representations made in the application

(e.g., change in personnel assigned to

the investigation);

(9) Report promptly and confirm in

writing to the Secretary any possible

breach of the APO; and

(10) Acknowledge that breach of the

APO may subject the authorized

applicant and other persons to such

sanctions as the Commission deems

appropriate, including the

administrative sanctions set out in the

APO.

The APO further provides that breach

of the protective order may subject an

applicant to:

(1) Disbarment from practice in any

capacity before the Commission along

with such person’s partners, associates,

employer, and employees, for up to

seven years following publication of a

determination that the order has been

breached;

(2) Referral to the United States

Attorney;

(3) In the case of an attorney,

accountant, or other professional,

referral to the ethics panel of the

appropriate professional association;

and

(4) Such other administrative

sanctions as the Commission determines

to be appropriate, including public

release of or striking from the record any

information or briefs submitted by, or

on behalf of, the offender or the party

represented by the offender, and denial

of further access to business proprietary

information in the current or any future

investigations before the Commission.

In addition, as noted in its December 28,

1994 Notice of Final Rulemaking (59 FR

66719, 66720–21), the Commission may

take actions other than sanctions, such

as the issuance of letters of warning.

Commission employees are not

signatories to the Commission’s APOs

and do not obtain access to BPI through

the APO procedure. Consequently, they

are not subject to the APOs’

requirements with respect to the

handling of BPI. However, Commission

employees are subject to strict statutory

and regulatory constraints concerning

BPI, and face potentially severe

penalties for noncompliance. See 18

U.S.C. 1905; Title 5, U.S. Code; and

Commission personnel policies

implementing the statutes. Although the

Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) limits the

Commission’s authority to disclose any

personnel action against agency

employees, this should not lead the

public to conclude that no such actions

have been taken; during 1994, such

action was taken.

B. Investigations of Alleged APO

Breaches

In an antidumping or countervailing

duty investigation, the investigation of

an alleged APO breach generally

proceeds as follows. The Secretary,

acting under delegated authority, issues

to the alleged breacher a letter of inquiry

to ascertain the alleged breacher’s views

on whether a breach has occurred. If,

based on the response made to such a

letter of inquiry, the Commission

determines that a breach has occurred,
24882 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices

the Commission often issues a second

letter asking the breacher to address the

questions of mitigating circumstances

and possible sanctions or other actions.

The Commission then determines what

action to take in response to the breach.

However, in some cases, the

Commission has determined that

although a breach has occurred

sanctions are not warranted, and

therefore has found it unnecessary to

issue a second letter concerning what

sanctions might be appropriate, and has

waived the rule requiring issuance of

the second letter. The Commission’s

December 28, 1994 Notice of Final

Rulemaking formally codifies this

procedure. See 59 FR 66719, 66721. The

Commission retains sole authority to

make final determinations regarding the

existence of a breach and the

appropriate action to be taken if a

breach has occurred.

The records of Commission

investigations of alleged APO breaches

in antidumping and countervailing duty

cases are not publicly available and are

exempt from disclosure under the

Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.

552. Section 135(b) of the Customs and

Trade Act of 1990, 19 U.S.C. 1677f(g).

The breach most frequently

investigated by the Commission

involves the APO’s prohibition on the

dissemination of BPI to unauthorized

persons. Such dissemination usually

occurs as the result of failure to delete

BPI from public versions of documents

filed with the Commission or of

transmission of proprietary versions of

documents to unauthorized recipients.

Other breaches have involved: the

failure to properly bracket BPI in

proprietary documents filed with the

Commission; the failure to immediately

report known violations of an APO; and

the failure to adequately supervise nonlegal personnel in the handling of BPI

in certain circumstances.

Sanctions for APO violations serve

two basic interests: (a) Preserving the

confidence of submitters of BPI in the

Commission as a reliable protector of

BPI, and (b) disciplining breachers and

deterring future violations. As the

Conference Report to the Omnibus

Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988

observed, ‘‘the effective enforcement of

limited disclosure under administrative

protective order depends in part on the

extent to which private parties have

confidence that there are effective

sanctions against violation.’’ H.R. Conf.

Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 623

(1988).

The Commission has worked to

develop consistent jurisprudence, not

only in determining whether a breach

has occurred, but also in selecting an

appropriate response. In determining

the appropriate response, the

Commission generally considers

mitigating factors such as whether the

breach was unintentional, lack of prior

breaches committed by the breaching

party, the corrective measures taken by

the breaching party, the promptness

with which the breaching party reported

the violation to the Commission, and

any relevant circumstances peculiar to

the situation. The Commission also

considers aggravating circumstances,

especially whether persons not under

the APO actually read the BPI.

The Commission notes that

Commission rules permit economists or

consultants to obtain access to BPI

under the APO under the direction and

control of an attorney under the APO, or

upon their own responsibility, if the

economist or consultant appears

regularly before the Commission and

represents an interested party who is a

party to the investigation. See 19 C.F.R.

207.7(a)(3) (B) and (C). The Commission

cautions that economists or consultants

who obtain access to BPI under the APO

under the direction and control of an

attorney nonetheless remain

individually responsible for complying

with the APO. In appropriate

circumstances, for example, an

economist under the direction and

control of an attorney may be held

responsible for a breach of the APO by

failing to redact APO information from

a document that is subsequently filed

with the Commission and served as a

public document. This is so even

though the attorney exercising direction

or control over the economist or

consultant may also be held responsible

for the breach of the APO.

C. Specific Investigations in Which

Breaches Were Found

The following case studies are

presented to educate users about the

types of APO breaches found by the

Commission and the sanctions imposed

and other actions taken by the

Commission. In addition, the case

studies discuss the factors considered

by the Commission as mitigating the

sanctions imposed in particular

instances. The Commission has not

included some of the specific facts in

the descriptions of investigations where

disclosure could reveal the identity of a

particular breacher. Thus, in some

cases, apparent inconsistencies in the

facts set forth in this notice result from

the Commission’s inability to disclose

particular facts more fully.

The following discussion covers the 8

instances in which breaches of APOs in

antidumping and countervailing duty

investigations were found in 1994:

Case 1: An attorney (1) failed to redact

BPI in the public version of a brief, and

(2) subsequently served that version on

persons not subject to the APO. The

public version of the brief filed with the

Commission was placed in the public

file and was signed out and reviewed by

a person not subject to the APO. The

failure to redact the BPI from the brief

was not discovered by the attorney but

was found by the Secretary to the

Commission. After being notified,

counsel retrieved copies of the

document containing the confidential

information and sent replacement pages

to the Commission. The Commission

found that the attorney had breached

the APO, but that mitigating

circumstances existed because the

attorney had committed no prior

breaches and the breaches were

unintentional. The attorney was given a

private letter of reprimand.

Case 2: An attorney failed to redact

BPI in the public version of a brief. The

Commission was informed of the

incident the next day and the attorney

filed corrected pages of the brief with

the Commission. The public version of

the brief was immediately removed from

the Commission files. No one other than

the Commission staff had seen the

public version. The defective public

version of the brief was only sent to the

attorneys subject to the APO and was

recovered without being disseminated

to anyone not subject to the protective

order. The Commission found that the

attorney had breached the APO, but did

not sanction the attorney because of the

following mitigating circumstances: the

breach was not intentional; the attorney

had committed no prior breaches; when

notified of the defective brief the

attorney promptly retrieved the

defective documents so no BPI was

actually released to any unauthorized

persons; and the firm immediately

revised and strengthened its previously

established procedures for safeguarding

against the unintentional release of BPI.

Two colleagues were found not to have

breached, because they were not

directly involved in the preparation of

the public version of the brief. The

breaching attorney received a warning

letter.

Case 3: An attorney filed with the

Commission and served upon parties a

copy of the public version of a brief in

which certain bracketed BPI was not

deleted and other BPI was neither

bracketed nor deleted. The public

version of the brief filed with the

Commission was placed in the public

file and was signed out and reviewed by

persons not subject to the APO. The

failure to redact the BPI from the brief

was brought to the attorney’s attention
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices 24883

by the Secretary of the Commission. The

Commission found that a breach of the

APO had occurred, but that mitigating

circumstances existed because the

breaches were unintentional, the

attorney had not previously been

charged by the Commission with an

APO violation, and the attorney acted

promptly to mitigate the breach when

notified by the Commission that the

breach had occurred. However,

aggravating circumstances included the

fact that members of the public actually

reviewed the improperly redacted

documents on several occasions, the

breach was not discovered by the

attorney or by the attorney’s firm, but by

the Commission, and the attorney

appeared not to have reviewed the work

of a paralegal who created the public

version of the brief. With respect to this

last item, we note that the Commission

has no specific requirement that

attorneys review the work of paralegals,

but attorneys are held responsible for

APO breaches by their staff who are

APO signatories. The attorney was given

a private letter of reprimand.

Case 4: An attorney served the public

version of a brief on persons on the

public service list and filed it with the

Commission. However, BPI was

contained in an appendix to the brief.

The public version of the brief was not

placed in the Commission’s public files

and the copies of the brief that were

served on attorneys on the public

service list were destroyed before

dissemination to the attorneys’ clients.

The Commission found that a breach

had occurred, but mitigating

circumstances were found in that the

attorney had committed no prior APO

violation, the attorney took immediate

steps to ‘‘cure’’ the breach by seeking

the removal of the brief from the

Commission’s public file before it could

be reviewed by members of the public

(although the brief had not yet been

placed in the public file), and the

attorney notified other counsel

participating in the investigations of the

problem before they released the

information to their clients. The

breaching attorney was not sanctioned

but received a warning letter.

Case 5: An attorney filed the public

version of a brief in which bracketed

BPI was not redacted. The brief was

filed with the Commission and served

on persons on the public service list,

several of whom were not signatories to

the APO. The attorney learned of the

error that same day and immediately

retrieved all copies of the defective

public version of the brief from the

parties on whom it had been served.

The brief was retrieved before it was

viewed by any non-signatories to the

APO. The brief was never placed in the

Commission’s public file. The

Commission found that the attorney had

breached the APO, but decided not to

sanction the attorney because of

mitigating circumstances including that

the breach was inadvertent, the attorney

had never been sanctioned by the

Commission in the past for APO

breaches, immediate steps were taken to

mitigate any harm arising from the

breach, and no non-APO signatories

viewed the confidential information.

The breaching attorney received a

warning letter. Three colleagues were

found not to have breached the APO

because they did not participate in the

preparation of the public version of the

brief.

Case 6: A paralegal assigned to

remove bracketed BPI from the public

version of a brief failed to do so, and the

brief was submitted to the Commission,

and served on a signatory to the APO.

The error was discovered and reported

to the Commission before the brief was

placed in the public file. The

Commission found that two attorneys

responsible for supervising the paralegal

breached the APO, but that there were

mitigating circumstances including the

facts the breach was inadvertent, none

of the persons involved had been

previously sanctioned by the

Commission for APO breaches, steps

were taken to mitigate any harm arising

from the breach, and no BPI was

disclosed. The attorneys were not

sanctioned, but received warning letters.

Two colleagues were found not to have

breached the APO because they were

not directly involved with the

production of the document in question.

Case 7: Two attorneys served the

business proprietary version of a brief

on a non-APO signatory due to an error

in the certificate of service. Two nonAPO signatories actually viewed the

defective brief before the attorneys

could retrieve it. In a related incident,

three attorneys also disclosed

information in the public version of a

brief from which BPI could be derived,

but retrieved it before service was

complete. That brief also was filed with

the Commission’s Secretary, but had not

yet been placed in the public file when

the attorneys reported the incident. The

Commission found breaches in both

incidents, but determined not to

sanction the attorneys. Mitigating

circumstances included the facts that

the breaches were unintentional, none

of the attorneys involved had been

previously sanctioned by the

Commission for an APO breach, the

attorneys promptly reported both

breaches to the Commission and took

immediate action to mitigate the

breaches, and no non-APO signatories

viewed the brief in the second incident.

The attorneys received warning letters.

Case 8: Two attorneys mistakenly

served replacement pages containing

BPI for the confidential version of a

brief on an attorney at another law firm.

Neither the law firm to which the APO

material was sent, nor any of its

attorneys, was included in the APO

service list. The attorneys waited several

days to inform the Commission of the

breach. The Commission found that a

breach had occurred, but that mitigating

circumstances included the following:

the breach was unintentional; the

attorneys had no prior APO sanctions;

prompt and effective measures were

taken to minimize any harm resulting

from the breach; and the firm conducted

more training of its personnel and

instituted new procedures to guard

against future breaches. Aggravating

circumstances included the fact that

non-APO signatories of the law firm that

received the misdirected copies viewed

the information. The breaching

attorneys received private letters of

reprimand.

D. Investigations Involving the ‘‘One

Day Rule’’

During 1994, the Commission

completed the following investigations

of changes to briefs that were not in

compliance with the one day rule. The

Commission found no violations in

these investigations. The reasons for

finding no violation include:

(1) Attorneys representing two parties

in the same investigation made and

submitted substantive corrections to

their briefs along with bracketing

corrections. The attorneys were found

not to be in violation because a

representative of the Commission had

suggested that the corrections be made

and there was a misunderstanding as to

the appropriate means to make such

changes; and

(2) An attorney submitted bracketing

changes to a brief in one letter and

correction of a typographical error in the

brief in a separate letter. The

Commission determined that because

the correction was filed separately, and

not along with the bracketing changes,

there was no violation of the one day

rule.

E. Investigations in Which No Breach

Was Found

During 1994, the Commission

completed 4 additional investigations in

which no breach was found. The

reasons for a finding of no breach

included:

(1) The information allegedly

mishandled was not BPI;
24884 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices

(2) Partially redacted BPI was largely

illegible; and

(3) The information allegedly

mishandled by the alleged breacher

consisted entirely of information

pertaining to the alleged breacher’s own

client.

II. Section 337 Administrative

Protective Orders

APOs are issued in section 337

investigations pursuant to the statute

and the Commission’s rules. 19 U.S.C.

§ 1337(n); 19 CFR 210.37. APO practice

in section 337 investigations differs in

important respects from APO practice in

title VII investigations. Notably, in the

section 337 context, it is the presiding

Administrative Law Judge rather than

the Secretary who issues the APO. The

terms of the APO may differ from case

to case. Further, the one day rule does

not apply.

In a section 337 investigation that is

no longer before the administrative law

judge but is before the Commission, the

investigation of an alleged APO breach

generally proceeds in the following

manner. The Secretary issues a letter of

inquiry to ascertain the alleged

breacher’s views on whether a breach

has occurred. If, based on the response

made to such a letter of inquiry, the

Commission determines that a breach

has occurred, the Commission issues a

second letter asking the breacher to

address the questions of mitigating

circumstances and possible sanctions or

other actions. The Commission then

determines what action to take in

response to the breach. The Commission

retains sole authority to make final

determinations regarding the existence

of a breach and the appropriate action

to be taken if a breach has occurred.

In section 337 investigations that are

before the presiding Administrative Law

Judge, it is the judge who presides over

the inquiry into any alleged APO

breaches.

Breaches have involved the

unauthorized dissemination of CBI; the

use of CBI for purposes other than the

section 337 investigation; and the

failure to return or destroy CBI in a

timely manner. The following is a

summary of the one case in which a

breach of the APO in a section 337

investigation was found in 1994:

Case 9: An attorney failed to destroy

CBI in a timely manner after the

termination of the investigation and

after the determination was no longer

appealable. The Commission

determined that the attorney had

breached the APO after written and oral

requests by the supplier for return of the

information were denied. Mitigating

circumstances included the facts that

this was the first APO breach by the

attorney, and that while the attorney

failed to return or destroy the CBI, no

CBI was disclosed. The attorney

received a private letter of reprimand.

Issued: May 2, 1995.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11492 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

[Investigation 332–362]

U.S.-Africa Trade Flows and Effects of

the Uruguay Round Agreements and

U.S. Trade and Development Policy

AGENCY: United States International

Trade Commission.

ACTION: Institution of investigation and

request for written submissions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1995.

SUMMARY: Following receipt on March

31, 1995, of a request from the United

States Trade Representative (USTR), the

Commission instituted investigation No.

332–362, U.S.-Africa Trade Flows and

Effects of the Uruguay Round

Agreements and U.S. Trade and

Development Policy. The USTR letter

also requested that the Commission

prepare its first annual report under this

investigation not later than November

15, 1995, and provide an update of the

report annually thereafter for a period of

4 years.

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy

Jabara, Office of Industries (202–205–

3309) or Jean Harman, Office of

Industries (292–205–3313), or William

Gearhart, Office of the General Counsel

(202–205–3091) for information on legal

aspects. The media should contact

Margaret O’Laughlin, Office of Public

Affairs (202–205–1819). Hearing

impaired individuals are advised that

information on this matter can be

obtained by contacting the TDD

terminal on (202–205–1810).

Background: The USTR, in his letter

dated March 30, 1995, requested that

the Commission, pursuant to section

332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. 1332(g), conduct an investigation

to provide the President a report

containing the following:

1. A profile of the structure of U.S.-

Africa trade flows over the 1990–94

period in the following major sectors:

agriculture, forest products, textiles and

apparel, energy, chemicals, minerals

and metals, machinery and equipment,

electronics technology, miscellaneous

manufactures and services;

2. A summary of U.S. Government

trade and development programs (e.g.,

investments, trade finance, trade

facilitation, trade promotion, foreign

development assistance, etc.) in Africa,

including dollar amounts on an annual

basis, during the 1990–94 period;

3. A summary of the literature and

private sector views relevant to

assessing the impact of the Uruguay

Round Agreements on developing

countries and Africa in particular; and

4. An assessment of any effects of the

Uruguay Round Agreements, and of U.S.

trade and development policy for

Africa, on U.S.-Africa trade flows.

As requested by the USTR, the

Commission will limit its study to the

following countries in Sub-Saharan

Africa: Angola, Benin, Botswana,

Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape

Verde, Central African Republic, Chad,

Comoros, Congo, Coˆte d’Ivoire, Djibouti,

Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia,

Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, GuineaBissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia,

Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania,

Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia,

Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and

Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra

Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan,

Swaziland, Togo, Tanzania, Uganda,

Zaire, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

The USTR letter notes that section

134 of the Uruguay Round Agreements

Act (URAA), P.L. 103–465, directs the

President to develop a comprehensive

trade and development policy for the

countries of Africa. The President is also

to report to the Congress annually over

the next 5 years on the steps taken to

carry out that mandate. The Statement

of Administrative Action that was

approved by the Congress with the

URAA states that the President will

direct the International Trade

Commission to submit within 12

months following enactment of the

URAA into law, and annually for the 4

years thereafter, a report providing (1)

an analysis of U.S.-Africa trade flows,

and (2) an assessment of any effects of

the Uruguay Round Agreements, and of

U.S. trade and development policy for

Africa, on such trade flows.

The USTR letter states that as part of

its trade and development policy for

Africa, the Administration will be

examining all measures that will foster

economic development in Africa

through increased trade and sustained

economic reforms. The USTR asks the

Commission in its report to provide, to

the extent practicable, any readily

available information on the role of

regional integration in Africa’s trade and

development and on Africa’s progress in

implementing economic reforms.

Public Hearing: A public hearing in

connection with the investigation will

be held at the U.S. International Trade