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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Notices 24885

Commission Building, 500 E Street SW,

Washington, DC, beginning at 9:30 a.m.

on July 25, 1995. All persons shall have

the right to appear, by counsel or in

person, to present information and to be

heard. Requests to appear at the public

hearing should be filed with the

Secretary, United States International

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW,

Washington, DC 20436, no later than

5:15 p.m., July 13, 1995. Any prehearing

briefs (original and 14 copies) should be

filed not later than 5:15 p.m., July 13,

1995; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs or statements is 5:15 p.m.,

August 1, 1995.

In the event that, as of the close of

business on July 13, 1995, no witnesses

are scheduled to appear at the hearing,

the hearing will be cancelled. Any

person interested in attending the

hearing as an observer or nonparticipant may call the Secretary to the

Commission (202–205–2000) after July

13, 1995, to determine whether the

hearing will be held.

Written Submissions: In lieu of or in

addition to participating in the hearing,

interested parties are invited to submit

written statements concerning the

matters to be addressed by the

Commission in its report on this

investigation. Commercial or financial

information that a submitter desires the

Commission to treat as confidential

must be submitted on separate sheets of

paper, each clearly marked

‘‘Confidential Business Information’’ at

the top. All submissions requesting

confidential treatment must conform

with the requirements of § 201.6 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (19 CFR 201.6). All written

submissions, except for confidential

business information, will be made

available in the Office of the Secretary

of persons in the Office of the Secretary

to the Commission. To be assured of

consideration by the Commission,

written statements relating to the

Commission’s report should be

submitted at the earliest practical date

and should be received no later than

August 1, 1995. All submissions should

be addressed to the Secretary, United

States International Trade Commission,

500 E Street SW, Washington, DC

20436.

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.

Issued: May 5, 1995.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11493 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

[Investigation No. 337–TA–373]

Certain Low-Power Computer Hard

Disk Drive Systems and Products

Containing Same; Notice of

Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Institution of investigation

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a

complaint was filed with the U.S.

International Trade Commission on

April 4, 1995, under section 337 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19

U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Conner

Peripherals, Inc., 3081 Zanker Road, San

Jose, California 95134–2128. A

supplement to the complaint was filed

on April 27, 1995. The complaint as

supplemented alleges a violation of

section 337 in the importation into the

United States, the sale for importation,

and the sale within the United States

after importation of certain low-power

computer hard disk drive systems and

products containing same by reason of

infringement of claims 1, 2, 7, 20–24,

and 30 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,402,200.

The complaint further alleges that there

exists an industry in the United States

as required by subsection (a)(2) of

section 337.

The complainant requests that the

Commission institute an investigation

and, after a hearing, issue a permanent

exclusion order and a permanent cease

and desist order.

ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for

any confidential information contained

therein, is 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, S.W., Room

112, Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone

202–205–1802. Hearing-impaired

individuals are advised that information

on this matter can be obtained by

contacting the Commission’s TDD

terminal on 202–205–1810.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Smith R. Brittingham IV, Esq., Office of

Unfair Import Investigations, U.S.

International Trade Commission,

telephone 202–205–2576.

Authority: The authority for institution of

this investigation is contained in section 337

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and

in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Final

Rules of Practice and Procedure, 59 FR

39020, 39043 (August 1, 1994).

Scope of Investigation: Having

considered the complaint, the U.S.

International Trade Commission, on

May 1, 1995, ordered that—

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended, an investigation be instituted

to determine whether there is a

violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of

section 337 in the importation into the

United States, the sale for importation,

or the sale within the United States after

importation of certain low-power

computer hard disk drive systems or

products containing same by reason of

infringement of claims 1, 2, 7, 20–24, or

30 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,402,200, and

whether there exists an industry in the

United States as required by subsection

(a)(2) of section 337.

(2) For the purpose of the

investigation so instituted, the following

are hereby named as parties upon which

this notice of investigation shall be

served:

(a) The complainant is—Conner

Peripherals, Inc.

3081 Zanker Road, San Jose, California

95134–2128 (b) The respondent is the

following company alleged to be in

violation of section 337, and is the

party upon which the complaint is to

be served:

International Business Machines

Corporation, 1 Old Orchard Road,

Armonk, New York 10504

(c) Smith R. Brittingham IV, Esq.,

Office of Unfair Import Investigations,

U.S. International Trade Commission,

500 E Street, S.W., Room 401–M,

Washington, D.C. 20436, who shall be

the Commission investigative attorney,

party to this investigation; and

(3) For the investigation so instituted,

Janet D. Saxon, Chief Administrative

Law Judge, U.S. International Trade

Commission, shall designate the

presiding Administrative Law Judge.

Responses to the complaint and the

notice of investigation must be

submitted by the named respondent in

accordance with section 210.13 of the

Commission’s Final Rules of Practice

and Procedure, 59 FR 39020, 39045

(August 1, 1994). Pursuant to 19 CFR

201.16(d) and section 210.13(a) of the

Commission’s Final Rules, 59 FR at

39045, such responses will be

considered by the Commission if

received not later than 20 days after the

date of service of the complaint.

Extensions of time for submitting

responses to the complaint and notice of

investigation will not be granted unless

good cause therefor is shown.