Proposed Changes to Administrative Protective Order Procedures in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, APO Application Form and Standard APO

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Proposed Changes to Administrative Protective Order Procedures in

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, APO Application Form

and Standard APO

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice and request for comment on proposed changes to

administrative protective order (APO) procedures in antidumping and

countervailing duty proceedings, APO application form and standard APO.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The International Trade Administration (ITA) of the Department

of Commerce is considering three significant changes in its APO

practice: (1) The adoption of a single revised application for an APO

containing all of the conditions the ITA will require concerning the

use and limited disclosure of hard copy and electronic APO information;

(2) the adoption of a single, standard APO to be placed on the record

of each case by the administering office, and (3) the issuance of an

approved APO list of signatories to the APO. The revised application

and APO respond to the concerns and requests of the Trade Bar that

regularly uses our APO procedures. Copies of the proposed revised

application for APO and the proposed standard APO are printed at the

end of this notice, and are available in the Central Records Unit.

Written comments will be considered before the ITA issues a final

decision regarding this matter, if received not later than 60 days

after publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 12, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Sebastian, for Investigations, at

(202) 482-3354, Maureen McPhillips, for Compliance, at (202) 482-3019,

or Andrew Lee Beller, Central Records Unit, Import Administration, at

(202) 482-1248.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

ITA's APO procedures apply to the vast quantity of proprietary

information ITA receives in the course of its administrative

antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) proceedings from

both foreign governments and companies, and the U.S. domestic industry.

The Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905, prevents a federal agency from

disclosing business proprietary information unless a specific exemption

is provided by statute. Section 777 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19

U.S.C. 1677a, however, provides an exemption for the ITA from the Trade

Secrets Act, and permits limited disclosure of business proprietary

information under an APO to representatives of parties to specific

proceedings for which the proprietary information was submitted. The

purpose of limited disclosure is to provide representatives with the

information necessary to fully represent the interests of the parties

in open and fair proceedings.

The ITA last revised its APO application, procedures, and relevant

regulations in 1989 in order to implement the provisions of The Omnibus

Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (the Omnibus Trade Act) affecting

access under APO. The Omnibus Trade Act broadened the scope of

disclosure of business proprietary information under APO, required

direct service of APO information on authorized parties, and

established statutory deadlines for the release of APO information.

Given the dramatic increase in the amount of information submitted in

ITA's proceedings, as well as in the increased desire for access to

electronic media, the 1989 APO application and procedures reflected

ITA's concerns that information in both hard copy and electronic form

be adequately protected.

Under these still current procedures, ITA's APO application and the

APO itself contain detailed restrictions on the use and distribution of

proprietary information. A party's representative submits an APO

application, and the ITA generally issues an APO to that

representative. Except for instances where a party is represented by

co-counsel, a party may have only one representative for each

proceeding. If a party wishes to have an additional representative, it

must operate through the single representative. Any time a party wishes

to add or change a representative, it must file an additional APO

application, and the ITA will issue an amended APO.

After 5 years of experience with the 1989 procedures, and after

consultation with the Bar Committee representing the International Law

Section of the District of Columbia Bar, the Section of International

Law and Practice of the American Bar Association, the International

Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association, and the Customs and

International Trade Bar Association (the Committee), we believe it is

time to reevaluate and revise our procedures. The Committee polled its

members on various issues. Through this cooperative effort, the ITA is

proposing changes that reduce the micromanagement of a representative's

handling of business proprietary information, allow for two independent

representatives to have APOs in a proceeding, and provide for the

issuance of a single APO on the record in each proceeding, rather than

the issuance of multiple APOs to each representative. We believe that

the proposed changes will provide for effective and practicable

protection of business proprietary information, expedite issuance of

APOs and APO amendments, and reduce the number of APO violations.

Proposed Changes

The proposed changes to the APO application and the procedures are

discussed below.

(1) Revised Application for APO

At the recommendation of the Committee, we propose removing overly

restrictive conditions in the application for APO and the APO itself,

while retaining the critical restrictions necessary to protect the APO

information. The proposed changes will streamline the process for both

the parties and the ITA. Under current procedures, ITA issues one APO

for proprietary information submitted on hard copy, and a different APO

for proprietary information submitted on electronic medium, the so-

called ``computer tape'' APO. The tape APO contains numerous additional

restrictions.

The proposed APO application incorporates three restrictions

concerning electronic data and eliminates additional conditions that

the ITA has traditionally placed in its computer tape APOs. The

significant changes to the APO application are set forth below.

Representation

The proposed APO application (Items 1 and 7) allows a party to the

proceeding to have two independent representatives. Item 7 of the

application defines a ``representative'' as an attorney or non-legal

specialist associated with a single firm, who is acting on behalf of

the party to the proceeding. Separate applications can be filed by

applicants from more than one law firm or non-legal specialist firm

acting on behalf of the party or parties to the proceeding. When an

interested party has representatives from two different firms, the lead

representative that will be the primary contact for the Department must

be identified. A ``lead'' representative must be designated either in

the transmittal letter to the ITA, or in the APO application, if more

than one representative is retained. A non-legal specialist may

function as the ``lead'' representative. The ITA does not wish to

consider authorizing more than two representatives (i.e., firms) on

behalf of a party as it may cause confusion and create difficulties in

administering the proceeding.

The current application for APO requires that an attorney assume

responsibility for a non-legal ``other representative'' if an attorney

has been retained to represent a party to the proceeding. The proposed

modification will allow a party greater flexibility in its choice of

representation and would allow a party to hire a second representative,

an economic consultant or ``other representative,'' separate from a law

firm. In addition, the ITA will only allow a non-legal representative

access to proprietary information if that representative has a

relatively active practice before the ITA, so that barring practice

before the ITA is an effective sanction in the event the representative

abuses the APO system. In this circumstance, the ITA will consider the

non-attorney applicant's established practice before the ITA and proven

reliability before granting the requested APO.

Word Processing Duplication of APO Application

The proposed APO application (Item 2) allows the applicant to

produce page 1, and the names of the representatives and their

affiliations (Items 29 and 30) on a word processing system to

facilitate the application process. To prevent unauthorized alteration

of the content of the substantive requirements contained in the

application, the main body of the application may only be photocopied

by the applicant.

Parties have requested that the ITA consider allowing the entire

application to be reproduced on the applicant's word processing system

to facilitate the application process. Based on prior practice we do

not find this acceptable because of the possibility of an inadvertent

error in the preparation of the application by the applicant, and

because ITA would be required to review every application to ensure it

was consistent with the standard form. In the past the ITA allowed

applicants to submit versions of the ITA's applications that had been

prepared on the applicants' own word processing system, and at times

found that applicants made significant changes. The increased review

time made it difficult for the ITA to issue APOs in a timely fashion.

To address the concerns of the Bar Committee's request, however, we

have revised the format of the application containing the terms and

conditions of disclosure, and are proposing that the sections of the

application that require typing from the representatives be reproduced

on the applicants' word processing system. Page 1 of the application

identifies the case and the segment of the proceeding in which access

to proprietary data is being sought. It also identifies the request as

the original application or an amended request. Items 29 and 30 require

the applicant's name, signature, date of application, firm, and the

identification of admission to a bar or court if an attorney, and any

professional associations for a non-attorney ``other representative''.

The main body of the application, however, may only be photocopied by

the applicant. In continuing to require that the main portion of the

application be photocopied only, and allowing page 1, and Items 29 and

30 to be reproduced on a word processing system, the ITA will limit the

time necessary for administrative review, and also facilitate the

application process for the applicant.

An alternative is to permit a representative to reproduce the

entire form on its word processing equipment, but certify that it is

identical to the ITA standard form, and agree that any if there are any

discrepancies, the parties are bound by the standard form. We invite

comments on these proposals.

Time Limits

The ITA is searching for a practice that will reduce the number of

untimely applications. In accordance with the current regulations, the

present application sets forth strict deadlines. Timeliness in

submitting an application for APO continues to be a major issue of

concern for the ITA and the applicant. The ITA does not wish to impair

a party's ability to fully represent its client. The ITA, however, must

impose an application deadline in order to properly administer the APO

function, and the earlier in the proceeding, the more efficient the

process for the ITA.

The proposed application changes the deadline as set forth in 19

CFR 353.34(b) or 355.34(b) to require that the application be filed

with the first written submission made by a party after it has retained

a representative, but in no event later than the date the case briefs

are due (Item 5). A written submission is any written correspondence by

a representative with the ITA in the course of an AD or CVD proceeding

on behalf of a party to the proceeding. The proposed change in this

area mandates a firm deadline, however it will allow greater

flexibility for a party to retain a representative at a later date in

the proceeding. The representative must apply for an APO with its first

written submission made on behalf of its client. Failure to apply at

that time would result in a subsequently filed application for APO

being denied as untimely. Applications filed after the date the case

briefs are due will not be approved.

Another alternative is to require parties to file a notice of

appearance, and to file the APO application with the notice of

appearance. The ITA also intends to remind parties in its notices of

initiation of a proceeding to file an early APO application. We invite

comment on these two proposals, as well as other suggestions on what

procedures the ITA can implement to obtain timely APO applications

early in proceedings.

Electronic Business Proprietary Information Defined

The proposed application defines the term ``electronic data'' to

include (1) proprietary data submitted by a party, generated by the

ITA, or entered by the recipient on computer tape, disk, diskette, or

any other electronic computer medium, and (2) all electronic work

products resulting from manipulation of this data, as transferred in

any form onto any other electronic computer medium, such as tape, disk,

diskette, Bernoulli cartridge, removable disk pack, etc. (Item 9 of the

proposed APO application).

The term ``electronic data'' has been defined in the ITA's current

``computer tape'' APOs. Because the ITA will no longer issue applicant-

specific ``computer tape'' APOs under the proposed system, the

definition has been moved to the application. The conditions that the

ITA will require for the routine use and protection of ``electronic

data'' will be in the application. The specific ``computer tape''

requirements to ensure protection of electronic information are

discussed below.

Request for Information

The proposed application requires all parties to obtain an APO

covering all business proprietary information submitted in the

proceeding, but allows the applicant the choice of receiving hard copy

information only, or hard copy and electronic information (Item 10 of

the proposed application). Furthermore, parties may waive the right to

be served with the business proprietary information of other parties in

which they have no interest.

The statute and regulations provide for the release of all business

proprietary information in a proceeding (19 U.S.C. 1677f(c)(1)(A) and

19 CFR Sec. 353.34 or 355.34). In practice, however, the ITA has not

always required parties to request all proprietary information, and has

allowed parties to request only the information they wanted to receive.

For administrative convenience, in the 1992 steel investigations the

ITA asked parties to request access to ``all business proprietary

information'' under APO. We have continued this practice in current

proceedings, and most parties are now routinely requesting access to

all proprietary information under APO. Furthermore, as in the steel

investigations, parties may waive the right to be served with the

business proprietary submissions of other respondents in which they

have no interest. Respondents' counsel will, however, be required to

accept submissions by petitioners that may contain business proprietary

information of several parties. The adoption of this practice will

allow parties to prepare only one APO version of business proprietary

documents and will not require the preparation of multiple APO-specific

versions for each party. Additionally, it will reduce the possibility

of APO violations because all parties subject to APO will have access

to all information. In order to ensure that parties are provided with a

means of identification for multiple source data in submissions, the

ITA will amend Secs. 353.32 and 355.32 of the Department of Commerce's

regulations to provide specific instruction concerning the

identification of this information. This will greatly assist all

parties in providing their clients with needed information to present

their case while minimizing the risk of inadvertent disclosure.

The APO application also provides the applicant with the choice of

receiving hard copy information only, or hard copy and electronic

information. Should the applicant choose to receive electronic

information, the applicant does not need to provide any additional

documentation to the ITA concerning this portion of the APO request.

The ITA will no longer require an explanation of the applicant's

computer system or the procedures that will be followed in working with

information in electronic form because the applicant will now be

required to establish its own procedures to ensure the protection of

APO information in electronic and hard copy form. The Bar Committee

emphasized that it was not necessary for the ITA to set forth specific

requirements/restrictions in the application or the APO because they

were unnecessary and overly restrictive, considering the experience

that has been gained by the Trade Bar in working with business

proprietary information subject to APO.

Internal Procedures

A primary area of concern noted by the Bar Committee is the ITA's

perceived micromanagement of the APO area. Under current APO practice,

specific procedures are mandated by the application and APO. In our

discussions, the Bar Committee frequently stressed the experience that

has been gained by the Trade Bar in working with business proprietary

information subject to APO. The Bar Committee emphasized that it was

not necessary for the ITA to set forth detailed requirements or

restrictions in the application or in the APO, such as the requirement

that the use of APO data be restricted to the business office premises,

the prohibition concerning the facsimile transmission of APO data, or

the requirement that an APO Log be maintained. In response to this

concern, we have removed these requirements and restrictions from the

proposed application, and now require the applicant to establish its

own internal procedures to protect the APO information, rather than

have the procedures mandated by ITA (Item 13 of the application). To

assist a party in establishing its own adequate internal procedures,

the ITA will maintain guidelines concerning general procedures for

protecting APO information and more specific suggestions concerning the

establishment of written office procedures. The quality of a party's

internal procedures will be taken into consideration by the ITA in an

APO violation investigation.

The major burden we are placing on parties is that they adopt

procedures to ensure that the applicant does not disclose any of the

APO information to anyone other than the submitter and other persons

authorized to have access to the information in accordance with the

requirements set forth in the DOC's regulations. We are continuing to

require that the applicant use the information solely for the segment

of the ITA proceeding in which it is submitted. Any other use of the

information, including its use before the International Trade

Commission in its proceeding, is a violation of the ITA's APO.

Protection of Electronic Business Proprietary Information

The proposed application prohibits the applicant from seeking

assistance from the ITA in handling or processing electronic data/

medium served on the applicant by a party other than the ITA (Item 14

of the application). In an effort to reduce the complexity of the

proposed standard APO, and to avoid any misconceptions on this matter,

we have included this condition from the ``computer tape'' APOs in the

proposed application.

The ITA is responsible for conducting its proceedings within

statutory deadlines and does not possess the capability of providing

instruction to parties who may be unfamiliar with computer processing.

Should a party experience difficulty in handling or processing

electronic data/media served on them pursuant to an APO, the party

should seek assistance from the provider of the information. The ITA,

of course, will provide appropriate assistance concerning electronic

information prepared and released by the ITA.

The proposed application requires the applicant to ensure that APO

information entered on computers will only be resident in the computer

at times when programs are actually being run, and will not be

accessible via modem or network (Items 15 and 16). These requirements

are also taken from the ``computer tape'' APOs.

The ITA's ``computer tape'' APOs have been a major area of concern

for the Trade Bar. Generally it is felt that the ITA has been overly

restrictive in its requirements concerning electronic data. The

standard ``computer tape'' requirements were developed in response to

the Court of International Trade's directive that the ITA craft an

administrative protective order specifically designed to provide a

heightened degree of protection necessary to protect sensitive

electronic data. In light of the experience we have now gained in

routinely releasing this information under APO, and in view of the

comments we have received from the Trade Bar, we have determined that

two conditions, as set forth in items 15 and 16 of the application, are

critical to the protection of this sensitive data. Electronic

information resident in a computer is most vulnerable. Therefore, we

believe that electronic data released under APO should only be resident

in a computer when it is actually being used (Item 15). At the time it

is resident in the computer and programs are actually being run, access

via modem or network must be rendered impossible (Item 16). Compliance

with these two conditions will prevent unauthorized access via

electronic means.

Certification Requirements

There are two separate certification requirements in the proposed

application. The first concerns the departure of a representative from

a firm, and the second concerns the transition from an ITA APO to a

judicial protective order. The proposed application requires the

applicant to certify to the ITA compliance with the terms of the APO

prior to departure from the applicant's current firm, and to submit a

new application if appropriate (Item 17). This procedure does not

change the established practice.

Although the current application requires an applicant to notify

the ITA if any of the facts in the application change, many parties are

not certain of the procedures that should be followed when an

individual subject to an APO leaves a firm prior to the completion of

the proceeding. Item 17 provides particular guidance to the applicant,

and sets forth within the application specific procedures to be

followed. Additionally, the proposed APO Guidelines outline the

preferred procedure for handling the transfer of APO information should

a change in representation occur during the course of a segment of a

proceeding.

The proposed application requires the applicant to certify to the

return or destruction of the APO information within ten business days

of the expiration of the time for filing for judicial or panel review

at the end of the case (Item 18). Failure to do so is a violation of

the APO. The ITA is making renewed efforts to ensure that this

important provision is strictly adhered to. The ITA is publishing

reminders in its Federal Register notices reminding parties about this

requirement. In the proposed application, we have significantly

increased from the two-day time limit required by the current

application. The current application requires that applicants certify

to the return or destruction of APO information within two business

days of the expiration of the time for filing for, or intervening in, a

judicial or panel review at the end of the case. The increase in time

to ten business days allows the applicant sufficient time to be

notified of a judicial or panel appeal. The ITA has routinely granted

extensions to this deadline when requested, and will adjust this

deadline for the convenience of the parties. The extended deadline is

reasonable, and does not compromise the security of the APO

information.

The proposed application requires the applicant to provide a copy

of the judicial protective order (JPO) to the appropriate ITA official

(Item 19). This will assist the ITA in tracking the certifications

required by Item 18 above. This item provides the ITA with an

additional safeguard to confirm that APO information is properly

protected at the conclusion of a case. The certification required by

Item 18, or a copy of a JPO required by this condition, will assist the

ITA in tracking the final disposition of materials released under APO.

The following items have not changed.

Items 3, 4 and 6 provide basic instructions for the filing and

service of the application, and refer the applicant to the appropriate

sections of the ITA regulations that pertain to the release of

proprietary information under APO. Items 20 through 25 require the

applicant to (1) acknowledge sanctions for the breach of the conditions

of the protective order, (2) inform the ITA if any of the facts in the

application change during the existence of the requested APO, (3)

affirm that all statements in the application are true, accurate, and

complete, (4) agree to be bound by the terms stated in the APO, (5)

assume responsibility for the violation of the APO by any employees of

the firm who are granted access to APO information, and (6) identify

the party represented. Items 26 and 27 require an attorney applicant or

non-attorney applicant to answer particular questions concerning any

other relationship the applicant may have with that party. Item 28

requires the identification and signatures of support staff and

reiterates the assumption of responsibility for any violation of the

protective order by those individuals.

(2) The Proposed Standard APO

We are proposing that a standard APO be placed on the record of

each segment of a proceeding shortly after the initiation notice is

published in the Federal Register. It should be understood that the

``standard APO'' will be specific to each segment of a proceeding,

thereby allowing for modifications, if necessary, to fit the specific

circumstances of different proceedings. Generally, however, the

standard APO is the version on which we are seeking comment. The ITA's

current practice is to issue one standard APO to all of the applicants

from the same firm; ``other representatives'' retained by the attorney

or non-attorney representative are listed on the same APO. The

placement of one APO on the record of each segment of the proceeding

would eliminate specific APOs for the separate parties and streamline

the administrative process.

The proposed APO contains the standard language that is already

used in ITA APOs, and requires the release of all business proprietary

information in a proceeding which the submitting party agrees to

release or the ITA determines to release, except for the information

noted below that is exempt from APO release in accordance with statute

and regulations: customer names in an investigation only (Section

135(b) of the Customs and Trade Act of 1990 specifically amended

Section 777 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677f) to prohibit the

release of customer names by Commerce during any investigation which

requires an injury determination by the International Trade Commission

until either an order is published as a result of the investigation or

the investigation is suspended or terminated.); privileged information;

classified information; and specific information of a type for which

the ITA determines there is a clear and compelling need to withhold

from disclosure.

The proposed APO sets forth three procedures regarding electronic

data. Procedures 1 and 2 are taken from the current ``computer tape''

APO. Procedure 1 requires direct service of electronic data on a party

authorized to receive information in this form and requires that the

electronic information submitted to the ITA be APO releasable in its

entirety. Procedure 2 requires the requesting party to pay the

submitter of the electronic data for copying costs and the medium if

the applicant requests access to information in electronic form.

Procedure 2 does not, however, set a recommended price structure for

the electronic data/medium. Although current ``computer tape'' APOs

suggest a price limit for the reproduction costs of a computer tape or

floppy disk/diskette, we do not believe that the ITA should be involved

in pricing materials over which we have no direct knowledge. The APO

requires the party requesting electronic data to pay all reasonable

costs incurred by the submitter of the data for the copying of its

electronic data released to the applicant. It states that reasonable

costs may include the cost of the electronic medium and the cost of

copying the complete proprietary version of the electronic data/medium

submitted to the ITA in APO releasable form. The APO further states

that the amount charged for copying the electronic data may not include

costs borne by the submitter of the electronic data in the creation of

the electronic data/medium submitted to the ITA for use in presenting

its case. Procedure 3 releases electronic data generated by the ITA

through established procedures. The ITA has not released its own

proceeding-specific computer programs and resulting output in

electronic form under APO on a routine basis. Procedures are now being

developed to provide for the release of this information when it is

requested. We have not required that all parties ask for release of

electronic data in order to limit proliferation of information in this

sensitive form.

(3) The Proposed APO Service List

The final change to ITA procedures implementing a streamlined APO

process is the issuance of an ITA APO Service List that contains the

names of the approved applicants. The ITA's current practice is to (1)

issue a specific standard APO to the representatives of a party from

the same firm or firms, (2) send a letter to parties to the proceeding

who are required to serve proprietary information as a result of the

APO being issued, and (3) amend the APO as requests for amendment are

submitted. The adoption of an APO Service List would provide a single

list designating all parties authorized to receive proprietary

information under the APO. As requests for amendment are received, the

APO Service List would be amended. The proposed APO list would be made

available to parties through the Central Records Unit, in Room B-099 of

the main Commerce building.

The adoption of this procedure would not, however, address the

responsibility of the ITA to provide the APO Service List to counsel

who are not located in the Washington, DC. area and parties who do not

have counsel and are, also, not located in the Washington, DC. area. In

the foreseeable future, the ITA intends to make the service list

available electronically, and parties can easily determine who is on

the service list. In the meantime, we welcome proposals on how out-of-

town parties can most efficiently receive timely notice of the service

list.

Unchanged APO Administrative Procedures

The filing requirements for APO applications will not be changed by

the adoption of the proposed procedures for APO. The ITA will continue

to approve or deny APOs within the established deadlines (19 CFR

353.34(b)(5) or 355.34(b)(5)). Should there be an objection to either

the issuance of an APO to a particular party, or an objection to the

release of particular information, the ITA will continue to address

these issues in a separate decision memorandum in accordance with 19

CFR 353.34(c) or 355.34(c).

Required Regulation Changes

Should the proposed APO Application and Standard APO be adopted, it

will be necessary to amend the following four sections of the ITA

Regulations accordingly:

(1) Sections 353.34(b) and 355.34(b) regarding the application

deadline;

(2) Sections 353.31 and 355.31 regarding the identification of

multiple source data;

(3) Sections 353.34(a) and 355.34(a) regarding customer names in an

investigation only; and

(4) Sections 353.32(a)(2) and 355.32(a)(2) to provide a means of

identification of customer names in an investigation only, such as

double bracketing ([[ ]]).

Additional Considerations

The Bar Committee requested that the ITA consider alternate means

of providing expedited treatment for APO approval. One proposal was to

allow one lead signatory to apply from each law firm or consulting firm

and to give that individual the authority and responsibility for

granting access to other professionals within the firm. We do not

believe that this is a workable procedure because it does not permit

any representative or the ITA to know who has access to APO material at

a given moment. Nor does it permit other parties to the proceeding an

opportunity to comment on the acceptability of the individual seeking

access under APO. While the ITA does not seek approval from parties

prior to the granting of an APO, the ITA does consider objections if

any are made. ITA regulations require that the application for APO be

served on all parties to the proceeding in order to notify all parties

of the APO request and to provide the opportunity for comment. If an

applicant needed expedited approval on a request for an amended APO,

approval could be obtained by the applicant from the parties whose

information would be disclosed under the APO prior to the submission of

the APO application, which would then preclude need for a comment

period.

Another proposal was to have the ITA approve a roster of members of

a representative's firm, and the lead representative could add any

member of the roster to its APO at any time. If a roster is approved by

the ITA, however, it might be just as easy to add all approved members

to the service list when they are approved. The ITA seeks comments on

these approaches and any other suggestions.

It was also suggested that the ITA provide ``APO Guidelines'' to

assist firms in handling business proprietary information released

under APO. The ITA will make ``APO Guidelines'' available, and will

also hold a public training session on implementation of the changes

that are adopted.

Finally, the Committee report addressed the problem of public

summaries at length but did not propose any solutions. The ITA is a

strong advocate of public summaries that a representative can use for a

constructive dialogue with his or her client. We invite proposals to

address the problems parties have in making public summaries of

proprietary information.

Comments

Written comments will be considered before the ITA issues a final

decision regarding this matter, if received not later than sixty

business days after publication of this notice. Address written

comments to Susan G. Esserman, Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration, and file (10) copies with the Central Records Unit,

room B-099, U.S. Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Comments should be addressed:

Attention: Notice of Proposed Changes to Administrative Protective

Order Procedures in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings.

Dated: October 4, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

TN12OC94.027

TN12OC94.028

TN12OC94.029

TN12OC94.030

TN12OC94.031

TN12OC94.032

TN12OC94.033

TN12OC94.034

TN12OC94.035

TN12OC94.036

TN12OC94.037

TN12OC94.038

TN12OC94.039

[FR Doc. 94-25222 Filed 10-11-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-C