21208 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Notices

6 The members of the Coalition for the

Preservation of American Brake Drum and Rotor

Aftermarket Manufacturers consist of Brake Parts,

Inc., McHenry, IL; Kinetic Parts Manufacturing,

Inc., Harbor City, CA; Iroquois Tool Systems, Inc.,

North East, PA; and Wagner Brake Corp., St. Louis,

MO.

Aftermarket Manufacturers,6 alleging

that industries in the United States are

materially injured or threatened with

material injury by reason of LTFV

imports of certain brake drums and

rotors from China. Accordingly,

effective March 7, 1996, the

Commission instituted antidumping

investigation No. 731–TA–744

(Preliminary). Notice of the institution

of the Commission’s investigation and

of a public conference to be held in

connection therewith was given by

posting copies of the notice in the Office

of the Secretary, U.S. International

Trade Commission, Washington, DC,

and by publishing the notice in the

Federal Register of March 15, 1996 (61

FR 10788). The conference was held in

Washington, DC, on March 28, 1996,

and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in

person or by counsel.

The Commission transmitted its

determinations in this investigation to

the Secretary of Commerce on April 22,

1996. The views of the Commission are

contained in USITC Publication 2957

(April 1996), entitled ‘‘Certain Brake

Drums and Rotors from China:

Investigation No.731–TA–744

(Preliminary).’’

By order of the Commission.

Issued: May 1, 1996.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11521 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

[Inv. No. 337–TA–374]

Certain Electrical Connectors and

Products Containing Same; Notice of

Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order

and Cease and Desist Order and

Termination of Investigation

AGENCY: International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. International Trade

Commission has issued a limited

exclusion order and a cease and desist

order to domestic respondent Foxconn

International, Inc. (‘‘Foxconn’’) in the

above-captioned investigation and

terminated the investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay

H. Reiziss, Esq., Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone 202–

205–3116.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

investigation was initiated by the

Commission on May 5, 1995, based on

a complaint, as supplemented, and a

motion for temporary relief filed by

AMP Incorporated and The Whitaker

Corporation (collectively

‘‘complainants’’). The following firms

were named as respondents: Berg

Electronics, Inc (‘‘Berg’’); Hon Hai

Precision Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hon

Hai’’); Foxconn International

(‘‘Foxconn’’); and Tekcon Electronics

Corp (‘‘Tekcon’’). The complaint alleged

that respondents have violated 19 U.S.C.

§ 1337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘section

337’’) by importing and selling certain

electrical connectors that infringe

claims 17, 18, 20, 21, and 23 of

complainants’ U.S. Letters Patent

5,383,792 (the ‘‘‘792 patent’’).

On February 9, 1996 the presiding

administrative law judge (ALJ) issued

his initial determination (ID)

terminating the investigation under

Commission rule 210.17 as to the sole

remaining respondent, Hon Hai

Precision, Ltd. (‘‘Hon Hai’’), based on a

violation of section 337 (in light of Hon

Hai’s failure to respond to a motion for

summary determination). Specifically,

the ALJ made the adverse determination

that Hon Hai is in violation of section

337, finding that (1) Hon Hai

manufactures electrical connectors

which infringe claims 17, 18, 20, 21,

and 23 of the patent in issue; (2) Hon

Hai imports into the United States, sells

for importation, or sells within the

United States after importation such

connectors; and (3) a domestic industry

exists with respect to the articles

protected by the patent in issue. In that

ID, the ALJ also found that, pursuant to

Commission rule 210.16(c), since

Foxconn was found to be in default,

Foxconn is presumed to violate section

337 by importing into the United States,

selling for importation, or selling within

the United States after importation

certain electrical connectors that

infringe claims 17, 18, 20, 21 or 23 of

the patent in issue. On February 9, 1996,

the ALJ also issued a recommended

determination addressing the

appropriate form of remedy and the

appropriate bond.

On March 13, 1996, the Commission

issued notice of its determination not to

review the ALJ’s final ID, thereby

finding a violation of section 337, and

requested written submissions on the

issues of remedy, the public interest,

and bonding. 61 Fed. Reg. 11221 (March

19, 1996). Submissions were received

from complainants and the Commission

investigative attorney. Respondents Hon

Hai and Foxconn did not file

submissions.

Having reviewed the record in this

investigation, including the written

submissions of the parties, the

Commission made its determinations on

the issues of remedy, the public interest,

and bonding. The Commission

determined that the appropriate form of

relief is a limited exclusion order

prohibiting the unlicensed importation

of infringing electrical connectors and

motherboards containing such electrical

connectors manufactured and/or

imported by Hon Hai or Foxconn. In

addition, the Commission issued a cease

and desist order directed to domestic

respondent Foxconn requiring that firm

to cease and desist from the following

activities in the United States:

importing, selling, marketing,

distributing, offering for sale, or

otherwise transferring (except for

exportation) in the United States

infringing imported electrical

connectors and motherboards

containing such electrical connectors.

The Commission also determined that

the public interest factors enumerated in

19 U.S.C. 1337 (d) and (f) do not

preclude the issuance of the limited

exclusion order and cease and desist

order, and that the bond during the

Presidential review period shall be in

the amount of twenty (20) percent of the

entered value of the imported electrical

connectors and $0.20 per imported

electrical connector on motherboards

containing such connectors. Finally,

because the Commission has terminated

this investigation, the Commission

determined to deny as moot counsel for

complainants’ motion for withdrawal of

appearance in this investigation.

This action is taken under the

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),

and section 210.50 of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR

210.50).

Copies of the Commission’s remedial

orders, the Commission opinion in

support thereof, and all other

nonconfidential documents filed in

connection with this investigation are or

will be available for inspection during

official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15

p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, 500 E

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436,

telephone 202–205–2000. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that

information on this matter can be

obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Notices 21209

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

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19

CFR § 207.2(f)).

2Chairman Peter Watson and Vice Chairman

Janet Nuzum dissenting.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: May 3, 1996.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11518 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

[Investigation No. 701–TA–367

(Preliminary)]

Certain Laminated Hardwood Flooring

From Canada

Determination

On the basis of the record 1 developed

in the subject investigation, the

Commission determines2, pursuant to

section 703(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930

(19 U.S.C. § 1671b(a)), that there is a

reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States is materially

injured or threatened with material

injury by reason of imports from Canada

of certain laminated hardwood flooring,

provided for in subheading 4421.90.98

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States, that are alleged to be

subsidized by the Government of

Canada.

Background

On March 7, 1996, a petition was filed

with the Commission and the

Department of Commerce by the Ad Hoc

Committee on Laminated Hardwood

Trailer Flooring (Anderson-Tully Co.

(Tully), Memphis, TN; Cloud Corp.

(Cloud), Harrison, AK; Havco Wood

Products, Inc. (Havco), Cape Girardeau,

MO; Industrial Hardwoods Products Inc.

(IHP), Redwing, MN; and Lewisohn

Sales Co. Inc. (Lewisohn), North Bergen,

NJ), alleging that an industry in the

United States is materially injured or

threatened with material injury by

reason of subsidized imports of

laminated hardwood flooring from

Canada. Accordingly, effective March 7,

1996, the Commission instituted

countervailing duty investigation No.

701–TA–367 (Preliminary).

Notice of the institution of the

Commission’s investigation and of a

public conference to be held in

connection therewith was given by

posting copies of the notice in the Office

of the Secretary, U.S. International

Trade Commission, Washington, DC,

and by publishing the notice in the

Federal Register of March 20, 1996 (61

FR 11430). The conference was held in

Washington, DC, on March 28, 1996,

and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in

person or by counsel.

The Commission transmitted its

determination in this investigation to

the Secretary of Commerce on April 22,

1996. The views of the Commission are

contained in USITC Publication 2956

(April 1996), entitled ‘‘Certain

Laminated Hardwood Flooring from

Canada: Investigation No. 701–TA–367

(Preliminary).’’

By order of the Commission.

Issued: April 30, 1996.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11522 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–U

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

AGENCY: United States International

Trade Commission.

ACTION: Agency proposal for the

collection of information submitted to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review; comment request.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the

Commission has submitted a proposal

for the collection of information to OMB

for review. The proposed information

collection is a ‘‘generic clearance’’

under which the Commission can issue

questionnaires for the following types of

statutory investigations: countervailing

duty, antidumping, escape clause,

NAFTA safeguard, market disruption,

and ‘‘interference with programs of the

USDA.’’ Comments concerning the

proposed information collection are

requested in accordance with 5 CFR

1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.10(a). Any

comments should be specific, indicating

which part of the questionnaires or

study plan are objectionable, describing

the problem in detail, and including

specific revisions or language changes.

DATES: To be assured of consideration,

comments should be submitted to OMB

on or before June 10, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments about the

proposal should be directed to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, New Executive Office Building,

Washington, DC 20503, Attention:

Victoria Baecher-Wassmer, Desk Officer

for U.S. International Trade

Commission. Copies of any comments

should be provided to Robert Rogowsky

(United States International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20436).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Copies of the proposed collection of

information and supporting

documentation may be obtained from

Debra Baker, (USITC, tel. no. 202–205–

3180).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

(1) The proposed information

collection consists of three forms,

namely the Sample Producers’, Sample

Importers’, and Sample Purchasers’

questionnaires. Each ‘‘sample’’ is an

aggregate of the information that is

likely to be collected in a series of

questionnaires issued under the generic

clearance.

(2) The types of items contained

within the sample questionnaires are

largely determined by statute. Actual

questions formulated for use in a

specific investigation depend upon such

factors as the nature of the industry, the

relevant issues, the ability of

respondents to supply the data, and the

availability of data from secondary

sources.

(3) The data collected through the

questionnaires issued under the generic

clearance are consolidated and form

much of the statistical base for the

Commission’s determinations in its

statutory investigations. Affirmative

Commission determinations in

countervailing duty and antidumping

investigations result in the imposition of

additional duties on imports entering

the United States. The data developed

in escape-clause, market disruption, and

interference-with-USDA-program

investigations (if the Commission finds

affirmatively) are used by the President/

U.S. Trade Representative to determine

the type of relief, if any, to be provided

to domestic industries.

(4) Likely respondents consist of

businesses or farms that produce,

import, or purchase products under

investigation. Estimated reporting

burden that will result from the

collection of information is presented

below.

Producers Importers Purchasers

Estimated average burden (hours) per response .............................................................................. 36.4 37.2 22.0

Proposed frequency of response ....................................................................................................... 1 1 1