Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Notices 21203

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 8,887.

Status: Revision.

Contact: Bill Flood, HUD, (202) 708–

1640, ext. 4185; Joseph F. Lackey, Jr.,

OMB, (202) 395–7316.

Dated: April 24, 1996.

[FR Doc. 96–11550 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY–010–5101–00–K012, WYW–128830]

Notice of Availability of the Record of

Decision for the Express Pipeline

Project

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

SUMMARY: The Wyoming State Director

of the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) has issued a Record of Decision

(ROD) stating the BLM’s intent to grant

a right-of-way (ROW) and associated

temporary use permits across public

lands to Express Pipeline Inc., for the

construction, operation, and

maintenance of a 24-inch buried crude

oil pipeline from the Port of Wildhorse

on the U.S.-Canada border to Casper,

Wyoming.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD may be

reviewed at the following locations:

Lewistown District BLM Office, 80

Airport Road, (contact Robert Padilla,

Realty Specialist), Lewistown, Montana;

Worland District BLM Office, 101 South

23rd Street, (Don Ogaard, BLM Project

Manager) Worland, Wyoming; Casper

District BLM Office, 1701 East ‘‘E’’

Street, (Pat Moore, Realty Specialist),

Caper, Wyoming; Montana State

Department of Environmental Quality

(DEQ) (Art Compton) 1520 East 6th

Avenue, Helena, Montana, and county

and city libraries along the proposed

pipeline route.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A

copy of the ROD may be obtained from

the Bureau of Land Management,

Worland District Office, Attn: Don

Ogaard, BLM Project Manager, P.O. Box

119, Worland, Wyoming 82401–0119,

telephone (307) 347–5160.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Express

Pipeline, Inc. proposes to construct,

operate, and maintain a 24-inch

pipeline from Wild Horse (located on

the border between Montana and

Canada) to Casper, Wyoming, to

transport Canadian crude oil. On

February 23, 1996, the final

Environmental Impact Statement for the

project was issued a 30-day public

review period. The ROD was signed by

the Wyoming State Director on April 15,

1996. The BLM intends to issue a ROW

grant and associated temporary use

permits for the 97 miles of public land

that would be crossed on the 515-mile

route.

Construction activities would be

subject to a timing restriction designed

to protect big game winter range and

other wildlife habitat. The decision does

not affect any state or private lands

crossed by the proposed route, and does

not create any right or easement nor

establish eminent domain, across such

lands. The BLM will not issue a Notice

to Proceed with construction of the

public lands segments of the ROW until

an acceptable Plan of Development,

containing the detailed construction

standards, reclamation measures, and

emergency contingency plans, has been

submitted by Express Pipeline, Inc. and

approved by the BLM.

APPEALS: This decision may be appealed

to the Interior Board of Land Appeals,

Office of the Secretary, in accordance

with the regulations contained in 43

CFR Part 4, Subpart E. If you wish to

appeal, a Notice of Appeal must be filed

in the Wyoming State BLM Office, 5353

Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828,

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003–1828,

within 30 days from the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. The Notice of Appeal shall

state clearly and concisely why you

think the decision is in error. A copy of

the Notice of Appeal must be served,

within 15 days, on the Regional

Solicitor, Rocky Mountain Region; U.S.

Department of the Interior; 755 Parfet

Street, Suite 151; Lakewood, Colorado

80215. Within 30 days of the Notice of

Appeal, the appellant must file a

Statement of Reasons for the appeal.

Appellants wishing a stay of the

decision must file a Petition for Stay,

pursuant to 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart B,

and 43 CFR 2884.1, with the Notice of

Appeal.

Dated: May 3, 1996.

Alan R. Pierson,

Wyoming State Director.

[FR Doc. 96–11596 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–22–M

Bureau of Land Management

[MT–960–1990–00] Resource Advisory

Council Meeting, Butte, MT

AGENCY: Butte District Office, Bureau of

Land Management.

ACTION: Notice of Butte District Resource

Advisory Council Meeting, Butte,

Montana.

SUMMARY: The Council will convene at

9 a.m. on May 22, 1996, and will

continue through May 23, 1996, if all

business is not completed on the 22nd.

This is a regularly scheduled meeting;

issues to be discussed will be Access

(RS2477 and 393 Plan), Permit Security

and Livestock Grazing (other than

cattle). The meeting will be held in the

District Office Conference Room at 106

N. Parkmont.

The meeting is open to the public and

written comments may be given to the

Council. Oral comments may be

presented to the Council at 11 a.m. The

time allotted for oral comment may be

limited, depending on the number of

persons wishing to be heard.

Individuals who plan to attend and

need further information about the

meeting; or need special assistance,

such as sign language or other

reasonable accommodations, should

contact the Butte District, 106 North

Parkmont (P.O. Box 3388), Butte

Montana 59702; telephone 406–494–

5059.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim

Owings at the above address or

telephone number.

James R. Owings,

District Manager.

[FR Doc. 96–11543 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–DN–P

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 (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
21204 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Notices

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:

Cynthia P. Johnson, Esq., Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. International

Trade Commission, telephone 202–205–

3098.

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 1995

with respect to antidumping and

countervailing duty cases. Also

discussed are the Commission’s

investigations completed during 1995 of

possible violations of Commission rule

207.3, commonly known as the ‘‘24-

hour rule.’’

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 sixth notice of its kind,

the previous ones having been

published at 56 Fed. Reg. 4846 (Feb. 6,

1991), 57 Fed. Reg. 12335 (Apr. 9, 1992),

58 Fed. Reg. 21991 (Apr. 26, 1993), 59

Fed. Reg. 16834 (Apr. 8, 1994), and 60

Fed. Reg. 24880 (May 10, 1995). 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. A revision to the

handbook is currently pending and is

expected to be issued shortly. 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 certain

party representatives access to BPI

under conditions designed to protect the

confidentiality of such information. The

Commission is required to disclose

under APO BPI collected by the

Commission to authorized

representatives of interested parties who

are parties to 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 C.F.R. § 207.7.

An important provision of the

Commission’s rules relating to APOs is

the ‘‘24-hour rule’’ that provides parties

with an extra day in which to file the

public version of certain submissions

containing BPI. 19 C.F.R. § 207.3. The

24-hour rule, which 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

has revised 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 1995

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 decisionmaking for an

interested party which is a party to the

investigation; and (d) have submitted to

the Secretary a signed Acknowledgment

for Clerical Personnel (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. Breach of the protective order may

subject an applicant to:

(1) Disbarment from practice in any

capacity before the Commission along
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Notices 21205

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, 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.

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,

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. 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.

We note 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). We caution

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.

Case 1: Several economic consultants

misdelivered materials containing BPI

to persons who were not signatories to

the APO. The materials were returned

unopened. The Commission found that

a breach had occurred, but determined

not to sanction the economists. Instead,

the Commission issued a warning letter

to the economist who instructed another

to compile and distribute the materials,

and to the person who actually prepared

the materials. A third person, who

became involved only after the

misdeliveries were discovered, was not

found to have breached the APO.

Mitigating factors included the fact the

breach was unintentional, the persons

involved had not been previously found

to have breached an APO, that the
21206 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Notices

persons involved took immediate action

to remedy it by retrieving all copies, that

the Commission was immediately

informed of the incident, and that the

firm in question made changes in-house

to prevent a recurrence.

Case 2: Counsel for a party to the

investigation failed to bracket certain

BPI in the confidential version of an

attachment to a submission and also

failed to redact BPI data from the public

version of the submission. The

attachment, prepared by an outside

consultant who was a signatory to the

APO, contained unbracketed proprietary

data in the confidential version and

unredacted BPI in the public version of

the brief. Upon learning of the error,

counsel notified the Secretary’s office,

and arranged for the persons receiving

the unbracketed BPI to either destroy or

return the documents in question. All

copies of the defective briefs were either

returned or destroyed. The Commission

found the person who was responsible

for preparation of the final document to

have breached the APO. The

Commission determined not to sanction

the attorney, but rather sent a warning

letter. Mitigating factors included the

fact that the breach was inadvertent, the

person involved had not been associated

with any other APO breach inquiry, and

actions were taken immediately to

mitigate any harm resulting from the

breach. Moreover, the version of the

brief involved containing the BPI had

not been reviewed by anyone not on the

administrative protective order. The

consultant was found not to have

breached the APO because it was not

the consultant’s responsibility to

prepare the public version of the

document. Similarly, a colleague of the

attorney was found not to have been

involved in the preparation of the

public version of the document, and

therefore was not found responsible for

the breach.

Case 3: Several economic consultants

filed and served a public version of a

document that contained BPI in a

footnote in the document. Commission

staff discovered the breach. Although

the public version of the document had

been placed in the Commission public

files, it had not been reviewed by a

member of the public before discovery

of the breach. The Commission

determined that a breach had occurred,

and held the individuals responsible for

preparing the public version of the

submission and reviewing it for BPI

responsible for the breach. The

Commission did not sanction the

individuals, however, but instead sent

warning letters. Mitigating factors

included the fact that the breach was

inadvertent, none of the individuals

charged with the breach had breached

an APO previously, and the individuals

took immediate actions to mitigate any

harm arising from the breach in the

investigation, once they were informed

that it had occurred. The Commission

also considered the fact that although

the information was received by a

person not on the APO, the recipient

did not review the information, and it

was returned unread. The clerk who

prepared the document was not held

responsible for the breach, since the

individual’s activities appeared to be

clerical in nature, and did not appear to

involve reviewing the document to

ensure that all BPI had been deleted.

Additionally, a consultant whose name

appeared on the document was not held

responsible for the breach since the

individual was not involved in

preparing the public version of the

document or in reviewing the document

for BPI.

Case 4: An attorney failed to update

the APO service list and as a result,

improperly served copies of the

confidential version of a submission on

persons no longer subject to the APO.

The Commission determined that the

person responsible for improperly

serving the APO version of the

submission had breached the APO. The

Commission decided not to sanction the

attorney, but instead sent a warning

letter. Mitigating factors included the

fact that the breach was inadvertent,

that the individual responsible for the

breach had not previously breached an

APO, and that immediate action was

taken to mitigate any harm arising from

the breach. Finally, although the

document containing BPI was received

by non-APO signatories, the

Commission investigation revealed that

the document was not actually viewed

by anyone not on the APO. Two other

attorneys who were involved in the

Commission investigation were found

not to be responsible for the breach.

Case 5: An attorney filed and served

a public version of a document in which

the attorney failed to properly redact

information in brackets. The

Commission determined that the

attorney had breached the protective

order. The Commission did not sanction

the attorney, but instead issued a

warning letter. Mitigating circumstances

included the fact that the breach was

inadvertent, the individual had not

previously breached an APO, and the

individual discovered the breach and

took immediate actions to mitigate any

harm arising from the breach.

Additionally, the document was not

actually reviewed by anyone not on the

APO.

Case 6: Counsel filed a public version

of a document and inadvertently filed

with the Commission the master copy of

the public version consisting of

confidential pages with removable (and

not always opaque) redaction tape

covering the BPI. Commission staff

discovered the defect in the filing and

notified counsel prior to placement of

the document in the public file. The

Commission found an attorney and legal

secretary responsible for the breach. The

Commission determined to hold the

legal secretary responsible for the

breach because that individual was

directly responsible for placing the

copies of the public version of the

documents into the envelopes that were

delivered to the Commission. The

Commission did not sanction the

secretary, but instead issued a warning

letter. In deciding not to sanction the

secretary, the Commission took into

account the fact that the breach was

inadvertent, no BPI was disclosed to any

party not under an APO, and it was the

individual’s first breach. The

Commission also determined that the

attorney responsible for overall

supervision of the non-attorney staff,

and who signed the public version of

the brief that was filed, had breached

the APO. The Commission sent a private

letter of reprimand to the attorney

because it was the individual’s second

breach of an APO in a relatively short

period of time. A colleague was found

not to have breached the APO since the

individual was not in the office the day

that the breach occurred.

Case 7: Counsel for a party to the

investigation filed and served a public

version of a document in which counsel

failed to properly bracket and redact BPI

that appeared in a footnote. Upon

learning of the error, counsel

immediately arranged for the

individuals under the APO receiving the

unbracketed BPI to delete the

information before forwarding the

document to any person not on the

APO. Counsel also notified the

Commission and filed replacement

pages correcting the error. The

Commission determined that a breach

had occurred and held the individuals

responsible for preparation and review

of the document for confidential

information responsible for the breach.

The Commission did not sanction the

individuals, but instead issued warning

letters. Mitigating factors included the

fact that the breach was inadvertent, the

individuals had not previously breached

an APO, and immediate actions were

taken to mitigate any harm arising from

the breach. Further, the version of the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Notices 21207

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

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19

CFR § 207.2(f)).

2 Chairman Peter S. Watson not participating.

3 Commissioner Carol T. Crawford finds that

there is a reasonable indication that an industry in

the United States is materially injured by reason of

imports from China of certain brake drums that are

alleged to be sold in the United States at LTFV.

4 Chairman Peter S. Watson not participating.

5 Certain brake drums and certain brake rotors are

made of gray cast iron, may be finished,

semifinished, or unfinished, and range in diameter

from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and

in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41

kilograms). The subject products are for certain

motor vehicles (namely, automobiles, all-terrain

vehicles, vans and recreational vehicles under ‘‘one

ton and a half,’’ and light trucks designated as ‘‘one

ton and a half’’), and do not contain in the casting

a logo of an original equipment manufacturer that

produces vehicles sold in the United States. Brake

drums and brake rotors covered in these

investigations are not certified by OEM producers

of vehicles sold in the United States. The scope also

includes composite brake drums and rotors that are

made of gray cast iron which contain a steel plate,

but otherwise meet the above criteria.

document containing the BPI was not

viewed by anyone not on the APO.

D. Investigations Involving the ‘‘24-hour

Rule’’

During 1995, the Commission

completed five investigations of

apparent violations of the 24-hour rule,

set forth in 19 C.F.R. § 207.3. All of

these apparent violations of the

Commission’s rules involved changes to

a document other than bracketing and

deletion of BPI. The rule specifically

states that changes other than bracketing

and deletion of BPI are not permitted.

Practitioners should be aware that there

is no express provision in the

Commission rules that allows a party to

make corrections, other than bracketing

corrections, to a submission. If a party

wishes to make changes to a document

other than bracketing, such as

typographical changes or other

corrections, it must ask for an extension

of time to file an amended document

pursuant to rule 201.14(b)(2).

Case 1: Counsel filed a letter with the

Commission enclosing replacement

pages for the confidential version of

their submission and noting numerous

typographical errors in their

submission. Counsel added the changes

to the public version of their submission

during the 24-hour period allowed to

correct bracketing. Only one of the

changes involved bracketing or deletion

of business proprietary information.

Counsel did not request leave of the

Commission to make the non-bracketing

changes. The Commission determined

that the 24-hour rule had been violated.

Counsel was not sanctioned, but instead

all of the signatories on the document

were issued warning letters. The

Commission considered the fact that

counsel notified the Commission of the

changes in their cover letter and

replacement page; the changes were

relatively minor; and the attorneys

involved had no previous record of

violations of the 24-hour rule.

Case 2: Counsel filed a public version

of a document which contained

numerous changes to the wording in an

exhibit from the confidential version

filed the previous day. Counsel

explained that the reason for the change

was that a prior electronic draft of the

document was inadvertently used to

prepare the public version. The

Commission determined not to sanction

counsel, but instead issued warning

letters to lead counsel and the person

who transmitted the corrected pages. In

deciding to issue a warning instead of

a sanction, the Commission considered

the fact that the changes were relatively

minor, technical in nature and

seemingly inadvertent.

Case 3: Counsel for a party in an

investigation filed a public version of

the brief during the 24-hour period. Due

to the number of bracketing changes,

counsel refiled an entire confidential

brief rather than replacement pages. In

addition to changing brackets, counsel

included a table of contents, which was

not filed with the original confidential

brief. Counsel’s letter of transmittal

made no mention of the change, nor did

counsel seek permission to file the table

of contents. The Commission found that

the 24-hour rule had been violated. The

Commission did not sanction counsel,

but instead issued a warning letter. The

Commission considered the fact that the

addition of a table of contents to

counsel’s submission was only a minor

change, which was technical in nature

and seemingly inadvertent, and neither

added new information nor altered the

substance of the information provided.

Counsel was reminded, however, that

the 24-hour rule cannot be used to cure

defects in original filings.

Case 4: Counsel for a party to the

investigation filed a public version of a

brief during the 24-hour period which

contained additional words. Counsel

also filed replacement pages for the

confidential version of the document

which contained the same changes.

While counsel did point out the change

in its cover letter, counsel did not seek

leave of the Commission to make the

change. The Commission determined

that counsel had violated the 24-hour

rule. The Commission issued a warning

letter to the attorney who signed the

cover letter and who admitted

responsibility for the preparation of the

letter and changes to the document. In

determining not to sanction the

individual, the Commission considered

the fact that the change was only a

minor technical correction which did

not add any new information or alter the

substance of the information provided.

Additionally, the Commission

considered the fact that counsel, in its

letter, notified the Commission of the

change and its location, and therefore it

did not appear that counsel was

attempting to circumvent rule 207.3(c).

Case 5: Counsel for a party in the

investigation filed an errata sheet in

response to a Commission ruling

regarding BPI, attempting to delete a

word and replace it with a phrase. The

submission was rejected for filing by the

Secretary and was stricken from the

record. The Commission determined

that the 24-hour rule was violated but

that no further action was necessary.

Issued: May 1, 1996.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11520 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

[Investigation No. 731–TA–744

(Preliminary)]

Certain Brake Drums and Rotors From

China

Determinations

On the basis of the record 1 developed

in the subject investigation, the

Commission determines,2 pursuant to

section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930

(19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)), that there is a

reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States is threatened with

material injury by reason of imports

from China of certain brake drums that

are alleged to be sold in the United

States at less than fair value (LTFV).3

The Commission also determines,4

pursuant to section 733(a) of the Tariff

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)), that

there is a reasonable indication that an

industry in the United States is

materially injured by reason of imports

from China of certain brake rotors that

are alleged to be sold in the United

States at LTFV. Both certain brake

drums and brake rotors are provided for

in subheading 8708.39.50 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States.5

Background

On March 7, 1996, a petition was filed

with the Commission and the

Department of Commerce by the

Coalition for the Preservation of

American Brake Drum and Rotor