Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices 27685

problems to be addressed, and

objectives for the Program. BDAC

provides a forum to help ensure public

participation, and will review reports

and other materials prepared by

CALFED staff. BDAC has established a

subcommittee called the Ecosystem

Roundtable to provide input on annual

workplans to implement ecosystem

restoration projects and programs.

Minutes of the meeting will be

maintained by the Program, Suite 1155,

1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA

95814, and will be available for public

inspection during regular business

hours, Monday through Friday within

30 days following the meeting.

Dated: May 11, 2001.

Lowell F. Ploss,

Deputy Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region.

[FR Doc. 01–12604 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–94–M

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

Summary of Commission Practice

Relating to Administrative Protective

Orders

AGENCY: International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Summary of Commission

practice relating to administrative

protective orders.

SUMMARY: Since February 1991, the U.S.

International Trade Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) has issued an annual

report on the status of its practice with

respect to violations of its

administrative protective orders

(‘‘APOs’’) in investigations under Title

VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 in response

to a direction contained in the

Conference Report to the Customs and

Trade Act of 1990. Over time, the

Commission has added to its report

discussions of APO breaches in

Commission proceedings other than

Title VII and violations of the

Commission’s rule on bracketing

business proprietary information

(‘‘BPI’’)(the ‘‘24-hour rule’’), 19 CFR

207.3(c). This notice provides a

summary of investigations of breaches

in Title VII investigations completed

during calendar year 2000. There were

no completed investigations of breaches

for other Commission proceedings or for

24-hour rule violations during that

period. The Commission intends that

this report educate representatives of

parties to Commission proceedings as to

some specific types of APO breaches

encountered by the Commission and the

corresponding types of actions the

Commission has taken.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carol McCue Verratti, Esq., Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. International

Trade Commission, 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:

Representatives of parties to

investigations conducted under Title VII

of the Tariff Act of 1930 may enter into

APOs that permit them, under strict

conditions, to obtain access to BPI of

other parties. See 19 U.S.C. 1677f; 19

CFR 207.7. The discussion below

describes 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 calendar year 2000.

Since 1991, the Commission has

published annually a summary of its

actions in response to violations of

Commission APOs and the 24-hour rule.

See 56 FR 4846 (Feb. 6, 1991); 57 FR

12,335 (Apr. 9, 1992); 58 FR 21,991

(Apr. 26, 1993); 59 FR 16,834 (Apr. 8,

1994); 60 FR 24,880 (May 10, 1995); 61

FR 21,203 (May 9, 1996); 62 FR 13,164

(March 19, 1997); 63 FR 25064 (May 6,

1998); 64 FR 23355 (April 30, 1999); 65

FR 30434 (May 11, 2000). This report

does not provide an exhaustive list of

conduct that will be deemed to be a

breach of the Commission’s APOs. APO

breach inquiries are considered on a

case-by-case basis.

As part of the effort to educate

practitioners about the Commission’s

current APO practice, the Commission

Secretary issued in March 2001 a third

edition of An Introduction to

Administrative Protective Order Practice

in Import Injury Investigations (Pub. No.

3403). This document is available upon

request from the Office of the Secretary,

U.S. International Trade Commission,

500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC

20436, tel. (202) 205–2000.

I. In General

The current APO form for

antidumping and countervailing duty

investigations, which the Commission

has used since March 1995, requires the

applicant to swear that he or she will:

(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 this 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 decisionmaking for the

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 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 Commission

investigation [or for binational panel

review of such Commission

investigation or until superceded by a

judicial protective order in a judicial

review of the proceeding];

(3) Not consult with any person not

described in paragraph (1) concerning

BPI disclosed under this APO without

first having received the written consent

of the Secretary and the party or the

representative 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 this APO as directed by

the Secretary and pursuant to section

207.7(f) of the Commission’s rules;

(6) Transmit such document

containing BPI disclosed under this

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

27686 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices

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

and the outer one sealed and not

marked as containing BPI;

(7) Comply with the provision of this

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 or other actions as the

Commission deems appropriate

including the administrative sanctions

and actions set out in this APO. The

APO further provides that breach of a

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;

(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, such person or the party

he represents; denial of further access to

business proprietary information in the

current or any future investigations

before the Commission; and issuance of

a public or private letter of reprimand;

and

(5) Such other actions, including but

not limited to, a warning letter, as the

Commission determines to be

appropriate.

Commission employees are not

signatories to the Commission’s APOs

and do not obtain access to BPI through

APO procedures. Consequently, they are

not subject to the requirements of the

APO 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.

An important provision of the

Commission’s rules relating to BPI is the

‘‘24-hour’’ rule. This rule provides that

parties have one business day after the

deadline for filing documents

containing BPI to file a public version

of the document. The rule also permits

changes to the bracketing of information

in the proprietary version within this

one-day period. No changes—other than

changes in bracketing—may be made to

the proprietary version. The rule 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. If a party wishes

to make changes to a document other

than bracketing, such as typographical

changes or other corrections, the party

must ask for an extension of time to file

an amendment document pursuant to

section 201.14(b)(2) of the Commission’s

rules.

II. Investigations of Alleged APO

Breaches

Upon finding evidence of a breach or

receiving information that there is a

reason to believe one has occurred, the

Commission Secretary notifies relevant

offices in the agency that an APO breach

investigation file has been opened.

Upon receiving notification from the

Secretary, the Office of General Counsel

(OGC) begins to investigate the matter.

The OGC prepares a letter of inquiry to

be sent to the possible breacher over the

Secretary’s signature to ascertain the

possible breacher’s views on whether a

breach has occurred. If, after reviewing

the response and other relevant

information, the Commission

determines that a breach has occurred,

the Commission often issues a second

letter asking the breacher to address the

questions of mitigating or aggravating

circumstances and possible sanctions or

other actions. The Commission then

determines what action to take in

response to the breach. In some cases,

the Commission determines 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. Instead,

it issues a warning letter to the

individual. The Commission retains sole

authority to determine whether a breach

has occurred and, if so, the appropriate

action to be taken.

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, and 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

transmission of proprietary versions of

documents to unauthorized recipients.

Other breaches have included: the

failure to bracket properly BPI in

proprietary documents filed with the

Commission; the failure to report

immediately known violations of an

APO; and the failure to supervise

adequately non-legal personnel in the

handling of BPI.

Counsel participating in Title VII

investigations have reported to the

Commission potential breaches

involving the electronic transmission of

public versions of documents. In these

cases, the document transmitted appears

to be a public document with BPI

omitted from brackets. However, the BPI

is actually retrievable by manipulating

codes in software. The Commission has

recently completed an investigation of

such a breach that will be reported in

the annual Federal Register notice for

calendar year 2001. In that case, the

Commission found that the electronic

transmission of a public document

containing BPI in a recoverable form

was a breach of the APO.

The Commission advised in the

preamble to the notice of proposed

rulemaking in 1990 that it will permit

authorized applicants a certain amount

of discretion in choosing the most

appropriate method of safeguarding the

confidentiality of the BPI. However, the

Commission cautioned authorized

applicants that they would be held

responsible for safeguarding the

confidentiality of all BPI to which they

are granted access and warned

applicants about the potential hazards

of storage on hard disk. The caution in

that preamble is restated here:

[T]he Commission suggests that certain

safeguards would seem to be particularly

useful. When storing business proprietary

information on computer disks, for example,

storage on floppy disks rather than hard disks

is recommended, because deletion of

information from a hard disk does not

necessarily erase the information, which can

often be retrieved using a utilities program.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices 27687

Further, use of business proprietary

information on a computer with the

capability to communicate with users outside

the authorized applicant’s office incurs the

risk of unauthorized access to the

information through such communication. If

a computer malfunctions, all business

proprietary information should be erased

from the machine before it is removed from

the authorized applicant’s office for repair.

While no safeguard program will insulate an

authorized applicant from sanctions in the

event of a breach of the administrative

protective order, such a program may be a

mitigating factor. Preamble to notice of

proposed rulemaking, 55 FR 24,100, 21,103

(June 14, 1990).

In 2000, the Commission conducted

four investigations of instances in which

members of a law firm or consultants

working with a firm were granted access

to APO materials by the firm although

they were not APO signatories. In all

these cases, the firm and the person

using the BPI mistakenly believed an

APO application had been filed for that

person. The Commission has completed

three of these investigations to date and

determined in all three cases that the

person who was a non-signatory, and

therefore did not agree to be bound by

the APO, could not be found to have

breached the APO. These persons could

be sanctioned, however, under

Commission rule 201.15 (19 CFR

201.15) for good cause shown. In all

three cases, the Commission decided

that the non-signatory was a person who

appeared regularly before the

Commission and was aware of the

requirements and limitations related to

APO access and should have verified

their APO status before using the BPI. In

all three cases the Commission issued

warning letters because it was the first

time the persons in question were

subject to possible sanctions under

section 201.15 and there were no

aggravating circumstances. These

investigations will be individually

summarized in the Federal Register

notice summarizing cases completed in

2001.

Sanctions for APO violations serve

two basic interests: (a) preserving the

confidence of submitters of BPI that the

Commission is 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 the

unintentional nature of the breach, the

lack of prior breaches committed by the

breaching party, the corrective measures

taken by the breaching party, and the

promptness with which the breaching

party reported the violation to the

Commission. The Commission also

considers aggravating circumstances,

especially whether persons not under

the APO actually read the BPI. The

Commission considers whether there

are prior breaches by the same person or

persons in other investigations and

multiple breaches by the same person or

persons in the same investigation.

The Commission’s rules permit

economists or consultants to obtain

access to BPI under the APO if the

economist or consultant is under the

direction and control of an attorney

under the APO, or if the economist or

consultant appears regularly before the

Commission and represents an

interested party who is a party to the

investigation. 19 CFR 207.7(a)(3) (B) and

(C). Economists and 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.

III. Specific Investigations in Which

Breaches Were Found

The Commission presents the

following case studies to educate users

about the types of APO breaches found

by the Commission. The case studies

provide the factual background, the

actions taken by the Commission, and

the factors considered by the

Commission in determining the

appropriate actions. The Commission

has not included some of the specific

facts in the descriptions of

investigations where disclosure of such

facts 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.

Case 1: One associate attorney

breached an APO by failing to redact

BPI from the public version of his firm’s

Final Comments. Although the BPI was

aggregate data, it had been bracketed in

the Commission’s staff report because it

could be used with other publicly

available data to determine the market

share of one company. The BPI in the

confidential version of the firm’s Final

Comments was properly bracketed.

The Commission Secretary discovered

the breach. Letters of inquiry were sent

to three other attorneys in addition to

the associate because their names were

on the Final Comments. Responses to

the letters showed that the associate had

been responsible for the error and had

been the only attorney to sign the public

version of the Final Comments.

Therefore, the Commission determined

that the associate attorney had breached

the APO and the three other attorneys

had not. The Commission issued a

private letter of reprimand to the

associate because the record did not

clearly show that the BPI had not been

reviewed by a non-signatory.

Three parties on the public service

list, who were not signatories to the

APO, received the Final Comments. One

of these parties had forwarded the

document to three client officials, one of

whom had made copies. Although they

destroyed all copies of the page with the

BPI, their certifications did not state that

they had not reviewed the document.

In reaching its decision, the

Commission also considered that the

breach had been inadvertent and that

the associate made prompt efforts to

limit the possibility of disclosure to

persons not already under the APO.

This was the associate’s first breach of

an APO.

Cases 2, 3, and 4: A law firm, new to

Commission practice, became involved

in a series of breaches in one

investigation. Case 2 was a breach in

which one of the partners had submitted

BPI obtained under the Commission’s

APO to the Commerce Department.

Before that information was retrieved, it

had been read by individuals who were

non-signatories to the Commission’s

APO. Case 3 involved two breaches. The

first breach was caused by a junior

associate attorney serving the BPI

version of the prehearing brief on

parties who were not APO signatories.

In the second breach, the same associate

served the public version of the post

hearing brief while failing to redact one

instance of BPI. Case 4 was a breach in

which the law firm and the economic

consulting firm working with the law

27688 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices

firm on the investigation failed to file

certificates of destruction or return of

the BPI obtained under the APO.

The Commission found that all five of

the attorneys in the law firm breached

the APO. Two of the attorneys were

given public letters of reprimand with

six months suspension from access to

BPI. Three of the attorneys, including

the associate, were given private letters

of reprimand. For the final breach, the

economic consultants were issued

warning letters.

The Commission decided on the

sanctions it imposed after considering

the role of each of the attorneys in the

preparation of the prehearing and

posthearing briefs and the failure of the

partners and senior attorneys to

adequately supervise the junior

associate and to develop procedures for

the handling of BPI to avoid all of these

breaches.

The Commission found that the first

breach, sending Commission BPI to

Commerce, was the sole responsibility

of one attorney who is a partner

practicing for many years. The second

and third breaches involving the pre

hearing and post hearing briefs were the

responsibility of the associate, the lead

attorney, and a partner of the firm. The

lead attorney prepared the briefs with

the assistance of the associate and the

partner reviewed the documents. The

associate was given the sole

responsibility for proofreading, cite

checking, implementing final changes,

filing, and serving the documents. Both

the lead attorney and the partner were

issued a public letter of reprimand and

were suspended from access to BPI for

six months because they delegated

primary responsibility for APO

compliance to a junior attorney and

then failed to provide appropriate

supervision of that attorney, which

resulted in two APO breaches; they

repeatedly failed to remedy obvious

flaws in their firm’s procedures for

protecting BPI obtained under the APO;

and they failed to certify to the return

or destruction of the BPI obtained under

the APO. The associate was issued a

private letter of reprimand for serving a

prehearing brief containing BPI on

persons not covered by the APO, failing

to redact BPI from the public version of

the post-hearing brief, failing to remedy

flaws in the firm’s procedures for

protecting BPI, and failing to certify to

the return or destruction of the BPI

obtained under the APO. The

Commission noted that it reached its

decision after considering that the

associate was involved in multiple

breaches over a short period of time and

that the associate did not discover the

breaches. In deciding on a private letter

of reprimand, the Commission also

considered that the breaches appear to

have been inadvertent and that the

associate made prompt efforts to

minimize the public dissemination of

BPI.

The partner who transmitted

Commission BPI to Commerce was

issued a private letter of reprimand. The

Commission noted that breach and

found him also responsible for the third

breach involving the post hearing brief

because he failed to remedy flaws in his

firm’s procedures for protecting BPI. He

also failed to certify to the return or

destruction of the BPI obtained under

the APO.

The Commission issued a private

letter of reprimand to the fifth attorney,

also a partner. He was found responsible

for the third breach for failing to remedy

flaws in his firm’s procedures for

protecting BPI and by failing to certify

to the return or destruction of the BPI

obtained under the APO.

In the letters to the partners and lead

attorney the Commission explained that

it recognized the firm’s inexperience

with Commission practice. Although

such inexperience is a mitigating factor

for the first breach, that breach put the

firm on notice that the Commission’s

APO rules require a great deal of

attention. Inexperience does not excuse

the firm’s subsequent lack of attention

to APO compliance, particularly with

regard to the delegation of unsupervised

authority over APO matters to a junior

attorney, and the continued reliance on

that attorney after the attorney had

committed one breach. Therefore, the

Commission did not consider

inexperience after the first breach to be

a mitigating factor.

Case 5: A law firm legal assistant

provided the firm’s clients, who were

not signatories to the APO, with

redacted copies of the confidential

version of the pre-hearing brief, which

contained BPI that had been left on two

pages. The legal assistant had redacted

the confidential version of the brief

when the assistant was unable to locate

the firm’s public version of the prehearing brief.

The Commission Secretary sent letters

of inquiry to three attorneys who were

named on the brief. One attorney

responded with an affidavit that

indicated he had no knowledge and was

not involved in the breach. The

Commission determined that he was not

responsible for the breach. The lead

attorney responded by taking

responsibility for the breach and

providing the Commission with

information about the changed APO

procedures in the law firm. The lead

attorney was the attorney responsible

for maintaining APO compliance by

clerical employees, including legal

assistants, since he signed the clerical

acknowledgement as part of the firm’s

APO application. The third attorney was

the attorney who had directed the legal

assistant to provide the clients with

copies of the public version of the prehearing brief and was for that purpose

the immediate supervisor of the legal

assistant.

The Commission found the lead

attorney, the supervising attorney, and

the legal assistant to be responsible for

the breach and issued warning letters to

all three. The clients who received the

brief had not read it before the firm

retrieved the brief. In determining to

issue warning letters, the Commission

also considered the facts that neither the

attorneys nor the legal assistant had

breached an APO in the previous

several years, that the breach was

unintentional, and that prompt action

was taken to remedy the breach.

Case 6: A lead attorney served the BPI

version of a pre-hearing brief on a party

that was not on the APO. When filing

and serving the brief, the attorney had

mistakenly printed from his computer

and used the public service list. The

attorney realized his mistake in the

evening on the same day he served the

briefs. He contacted the recipient law

firm that was not a signatory to the APO

the next morning. The law firm

immediately returned the unopened

envelope containing the brief.

The Commission Secretary sent letters

of inquiry to the lead attorney and

another attorney whose name was also

on the brief. Those attorneys and four

other persons on the APO from the firm

sent affidavits in response. The response

also provided information on new

procedures that were developed at the

firm to prevent similar breaches in the

future. The responses indicated that

only the lead attorney participated in

the serving of the brief. The Commission

found that the lead attorney had

breached the APO and issued a warning

letter to him. The Commission informed

the other attorney who had received a

letter of inquiry of its decision that he

did not breach the APO.

In determining to issue a warning

letter to the lead attorney, the

Commission considered the facts that

the breach was unintentional, he had no

prior breaches, he took prompt action to

remedy the breach, and no nonsignatory of the APO actually read the

document.

Case 7: The Commission found two

attorneys responsible for a breach in

which they served the confidential

version of their Final Comments on a

firm that was not on the APO. The

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).