Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices 27689

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

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19

CFR 207.2(f)).

Commission issued a warning letter to

each of these attorneys.

The more senior of the two attorneys

directed the second attorney, a junior

associate, to prepare a certificate of

service for the BPI version of the final

comments. The associate mistakenly

retrieved a prior public certificate of

service from his computer and changed

pertinent dates and headings, but did

not verify or modify the names on the

list. He presented the certificate of

service as the BPI version to the senior

attorney who then directed others to

copy the BPI version of the final

comments and serve it on the parties on

the certificate of service.

The senior attorney discovered the

mistake the following day when

preparing to file the public version of

the final comments. He immediately

investigated the matter and took action

to retrieve the document from the firm

that had been served but was not on the

APO. He was able to retrieve the

document in the unopened, sealed

envelope. The non-signatory who had

received it declined to open the

envelope because its markings showed

it contained BPI. The senior attorney

also immediately informed the

Commission Secretary of the error.

The Secretary sent letters of inquiry to

the three attorneys whose names were

on the Final Comments. After receiving

the initial response to these letters, the

Secretary sent a letter of inquiry to the

junior associate who was involved. The

Commission received affidavits from the

four attorneys and seven other

personnel subject to the APO. The

responses indicated that the one senior

attorney and the associate were the only

ones involved in the service of the final

comments. The responses also provided

a description of new procedures that

were being implemented to avoid a

similar breach in the future.

Based on the information provided,

the Commission determined that the

senior attorney and the associate were

both responsible for the breach. The

senior attorney admitted that the junior

attorney was inexperienced and should

have been supervised more closely. The

Commission determined that the other

two senior attorneys did not breach the

APO because they were not involved in

the service of the final comments. The

Commission sent them letters informing

them of that fact. In deciding to issue

warning letters to the senior attorney

and the associate, the Commission

considered that neither attorney had

prior breaches, the breach was

unintentional, prompt action was taken

to remedy the breach, and no nonsignatory actually read the document.

Case 8: In a five year review

investigation, a law firm filed the public

version of a prehearing brief that

contained BPI which had been

bracketed but not redacted. The BPI was

contained in two footnotes in the text of

the brief and in a chart in the economic

analysis portion of the brief. The public

version of the brief had been prepared

by an attorney. A economic consultant

working with the firm prepared the

public version of the economic analysis.

In addition, two other attorneys

reviewed the brief and another

economic consultant reviewed the

economic analysis portion of the brief.

The Commission determined that all

three attorneys and the two consultants

breached the APO and issued warning

letters to each of them.

One of the attorneys who had

reviewed the brief discovered the breach

the morning after it had been filed. He

immediately contacted the economic

consultants, opposing counsel, and the

Commission Secretary. The opposing

counsel had forwarded the document to

three of his clients. However, he was

able to retrieve the documents in

unopened envelopes and then return the

unredacted pages to the attorneys who

had filed the brief. Thus, the three nonsignatories to whom the brief was sent

did not read the BPI.

The Secretary initially sent letters of

inquiry to the two attorneys whose

names were on the brief and to a third

attorney who had signed the certificate

of service. The Secretary also sent a

letter of inquiry to all of the economic

consultants working for the firm who

had signed the APO. The lead attorney

responded to the letters of inquiry and

enclosed affidavits from the APO

signatories. The response indicated that

the firm will continue its procedure of

having two attorneys review a public

document for BPI, but will make every

effort to conduct the review the day

before it is scheduled for filing so a

more thorough review is possible.

In deciding to issue warning letters to

the three attorneys and the two

consultants involved in this breach, the

Commission considered the facts that

this was the only breach in which they

had been involved over the previous

several year period, that the breach was

unintentional, and that prompt action

was taken to remedy the breach.

IV. Investigation in Which No Breach

Was Found

During 2000, the Commission

completed one investigation in which

no breach was found. A law firm filed

the public version of the pre-hearing

brief and failed to redact bracketed

information. One of the attorneys in the

firm discovered the error, notified the

Commission, and retrieved the

document from the parties on whom it

had been served. The information on the

record does not indicate that any nonsignatory read the unredacted

information. The Commission Secretary

sent letters of inquiry to three attorneys

at the firm. Two of the attorneys

responded in a letter and attached

affidavits from the three attorneys and

four other employees at the firm who

had worked on the matter. The response

presented the argument that the

unredacted information was not BPI and

the attorneys attached pages from the

staff report and the Commission’s report

that contained public numbers the

attorneys had used to derive the

unredacted information. Based on the

information provided by the firm and

research that included discussions with

the drafters of the two reports about

what the information could reveal, the

Commission determined that the

information was aggregated data that

would not reveal information about an

individual company and, therefore, it

was not BPI. The Commission therefore

informed the involved persons that

there was no breach of the APO.

Issued: May 14, 2001.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–12496 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigations Nos. 731–TA–888–890

(Final)]

Stainless Steel Angle From Japan,

Korea, and Spain

Determinations

On the basis of the record 1 developed

in the subject investigations, the United

States International Trade Commission

determines, pursuant to section 735(b)

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

1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in

the United States is materially injured

by reason of imports from Japan, Korea,

and Spain of stainless steel angle,

provided for in subheading 7222.40.30

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States, that have been found

by the Department of Commerce to be

sold in the United States at less than fair

value (LTFV).

27690 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices

Background

The Commission instituted these

investigations effective August 18, 2000,

following receipt of a petition filed with

the Commission and Commerce by

Slater Steels Corp., Specialty Alloys

Division, Fort Wayne, IN, and the

United Steelworkers of America, AFL–

CIO/CLC, Pittsburgh, PA. The final

phase of the investigations was

scheduled by the Commission following

notification of preliminary

determinations by Commerce that

imports of stainless steel angle from

Japan, Korea, and Spain were being sold

at LTFV within the meaning of section

733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)).

Notice of the scheduling of the

Commission’s investigations and of a

public hearing 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 of January 26, 2001 (66 FR

7942). The hearing was held in

Washington, DC, on March 27, 2001,

and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in

person or by counsel.

The Commission transmitted its

determination in these investigations to

the Secretary of Commerce on May 11,

2001. The views of the Commission are

contained in USITC Publication 3421

(May 2001), entitled Stainless Steel

Angle from Japan, Korea, and Spain:

Investigations Nos. 731–TA–888–890

(Final).

Issued: May 14, 2001.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–12497 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Notice of Determination Regarding

Eligibility To Apply for Worker

Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA

Transitional Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the

Department of Labor herein presents

summaries of determinations regarding

eligibility to apply for trade adjustment

assistance for workers (TA–W) issued

during the period of April, 2001.

In order for an affirmative

determination to be made and a

certification of eligibility to apply for

worker adjustment assistance to be

issued, each of the group eligibility

requirements of Section 222 of the Act

must be met.

(1) That a significant number or proportion

of the workers in the workers’ firm or an

appropriate subdivision thereof, have become

totally or partially separated,

(2) That sales or production, or both, of the

firm of subdivision have decreased

absolutely, and

(3) That increases of imports of articles like

or directly competitive with articles

produced by the firm or appropriate

subdivision have contributed importantly to

the separations, or threat thereof, and to the

absolute decline in sales or production.

Negative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

In each of the following cases the

investigation revealed that criterion (3)

has not been met. A survey of customers

indicated that increased imports did not

contribute importantly to worker

separations at the firm.

TA–W–38,834; Reptron Manufacturing

Service, Gaylord, MI

TA–W–38,844; Discwax Corp., Stanley,

NC

TA–W–39,069; Rosboro Lumber Co., Mill

B, Springfield, OR

TA–W–38,684; Ashley Leigh Enterprises,

Inc., Hillsville, VA

TA–W–38,879; Hastings Manufacturing

Co., Hastings, MI

TA–W–38,908; Electronic Circuits and

Design Co., Sebring, OH

TA–W–38,796; Electronic Corp.,

Edingburg, TX

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

Increases imports did not contribute

importantly to worker separation at the

firm

TA–W–38,687; Outboard Maring Corp.

(OMC), Lebanon, MO

TA–W–38,574; Outboard Marine Corp.,

Lowe Aluminum Boats Div.,

Syracuse, IN

TA–W–39,051; Pleasant River Lumber

Co., Dover Foxcroft, ME

TA–W–38,797; Lehigh Coal and

Navigation Co., Tomaqua, PA

TA–W–38,750; Porex Technologies,

College Point, NY

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

TA–W–39,141; Textile Sales & Repair,

Inc., Gastonia, NC

TA–W–38,849; BI–Comp, Inc., York, PA

TA–W–39,138; Small Woodland

Services, Inc., Eagle Point, OR

TA–W–39,035; Precision Twist Drill Co.,

Sandvik Div., Crystal Lake, IL

The investigation revealed that

criteria (2) has not been met. Sales or

production did not decline during the

relevant period as required for

certification.

TA–W–38,821; Donohue Industries, A

subsidiary of Abitibi Consolidated,

Sheldon Mill, Sheldon, TX

Affirmative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

The following certifications have been

issued; the date following the company

name and location of each

determination references the impact

date for all workers of such

determination.

TA–W–38,811; Universal Furniture

Limited, Morristown, TN: March 10,

2000.

TA–W–38,945; Avaya, Inc., Formerly

Known as Lucent Technologies,

Shreveport, LA: March 15, 2000.

TA–W–39,038; Woodbury Apparel

Group, Woodbury, TN: March 29,

200.

TA–W–38,761; Snuffy’s Pet Products,

Inc., McConnellsburg, PA: February

12, 2000.

TA–W–38,759; GST Steel Co., Kansas

City, MO: February 12, 2000.

TA–W–38,572; Outboard Maine Corp.

(OMC), Calhoun, GA: January 4,

2000.

TA–W–38,564 & A, B; Outboard Maine

Corp.

TA–W–38,606; Outboard Marine Corp.

(OMC), Andrews, NC, Burnsville,

NC and Spruce Pine, NC: January 5,

2000.

TA–W–38,606; Outboard Marine Corp.

(OMC), Beloit, WI: January 10, 2000.

TA–W–38,772; Hedstrom Corp., Alma,

GA: March 5, 2000.

TA–W–38,838; Centec Roll Corp., Div. of

Whemco Corp., Bethlehem, PA:

February 22, 2000.

TA–W–39,003; Cajun Bag and Supply

Corp., Rayne, LA: March 23, 2000.

TA–W–39,063; Grove U.S. LLC, Shady

Grove, PA: March 28, 2000.

TA–W–38,565; Outboard Marine Corp.

(OMC), Waukegan, IL: January 5,

2000.

TA–W–38,685; Hendrickson-Spring,

Chicago, Chicago, IL: January 31,

2000.

TA–W–38,985 & A, B & C; Dunbrooke

Industries, Inc., Orange City, IA,

Hawarden, IA, Marcus, IA and Rock

Rapids, IA: March 23, 2000.

TA–W–38,976; Cummins, Inc., Cummins

Power Generation, St. Peter, MN:

March 20, 2000.

TA–W–38,688; Cooper Tools/Nicholson

Saw, Greenville, MS: February 5,

2000.

TA–W–38,006; American Steel

Foundries, ASK-Keystone, Inc., East

Chicago, IN: March 22, 2000.