dent on January 30, 1957,16 the Commission found (Commissioners Schreiber and Sutton dissenting) that escape-clause relief was warranted with respect to safety pins. The Commission also found that in order to prevent serious injury to the domestic industry concerned it was necessary that the duty on safety pins be increased to 35 percent ad valorem. Accordingly, the Commission recommended that the President modify the tariff concession that the United States had granted on safety pins in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

On March 29, 1957, the President asked the Commission to supply additional information on a number of points raised by its report on safety pins. The Commission transmitted its supplemental report to the President on September 30, 1957.17 Since the supplemental report contained information that revealed the operations of individual companies, and since the Commission is not authorized to disclose such information to the public, only that part of the report which did not contain such information was released for general distribution.

On November 29, 1957, the President announced that he had accepted the Commission's recommendation with respect to safety pins. By Proclamation 3212 of that date, effective after the close of business on December 30, 1957, he modified the concession on such pins in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade with a resultant increase in the rate of duty from 221⁄2 percent ad valorem to 35 percent ad valorem. Spring clothespins (fourth investigation)

In response to an application by the Clothespin Manufacturers of America, of Washington, D. C., and others, the Tariff Commission on January 2, 1957, instituted an escape-clause investigation of spring clothespins provided for in paragraph 412 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The Commission held a public hearing on May 7, 1957.

The Commission submitted a report on its investigation of spring clothespins to the President on September 10, 1957.18 In its report the Commission found (Commissioner Sutton dissenting) that escape-clause relief was warranted with respect to spring clothespins.1 The Commission also found that in order to remedy the serious injury to the domestic industry concerned it was necessary, for an indefinite period, to limit the quantity of spring clothespins that might be entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, to 650,000 gross a year.

16 U.S. Tariff Commission, Safety Pins: Report to the President on Escape-Clause Investigation No. 53. . ., 1957 [processed].

17 U.S. Tariff Commission, Safety Pins: Supplemental Report to the President on EscapeClause Investigation No. 53 . . ., 1957 [processed].

18 U.S. Tariff Commission, Spring Clothespins: Report to the President on Escape-Clause Investigation No. 57. . ., 1957 [processed].

19 Commissioner Jones did not participate in the hearing and findings in this investigation.

On November 9, 1957, the President announced that he concurred with. the finding of the majority of the Tariff Commission that the domestic spring-clothespin industry was entitled to relief under the terms of section 7 of the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951, as amended. He stated, however, that he did not find a sufficient justification for imposing the absolute quota that the majority of the Commission had recommended. Instead, by Proclamation 3211 of November 9, 1957, effective after the close of business on December 9, 1957, he withdrew the concession on such clothespins in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, with a resultant increase in the rate of duty from 10 cents per gross to 20 cents per gross.

Bicycles (third investigation)

On January 28, 1957, in response to an application by the Bicycle Manufacturers Association of America, of New York, N. Y., the Tariff Commission instituted a third escape-clause investigation of bicycles provided for in paragraph 371 of the Tariff Act of 1930.20 The Commission held a public hearing from April 9 to 11, 1957.

In this investigation, the report on which was issued on August 19, 1957, the Commission unanimously found that further escape-clause relief was not warranted with respect to the specified bicycles and that, accordingly, no sufficient reason existed for a recommendation to the President under the provisions of section 7 of the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951, as amended.

Nonwoven wool felts

On April 12, 1957, in response to an application by the American Felt Co., of Glenville, Conn., and others, the Tariff Commission instituted an escape-clause investigation of felts, not woven, wholly or in chief value of wool, provided for in paragraph 1112 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The Commission held a public hearing from July 23 to 25, 1957.

The Commission issued a report on its investigation of nonwoven wool felts on January 6, 1958.22 In its report the Commission unanimously found that escape-clause relief was not warranted with respect to the specified nonwoven wool felts and that, accordingly, no sufficient reason existed for a recommendation to the President under the provisions of section 7 of the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951, as amended.

20 The Commission had previously, on Mar. 14, 1955, recommended escape-clause relief with respect to bicycles. The President accepted the Commission's recommendation in part, and on Aug. 18, 1955, modified the concession on bicycles.

"U.S. Tariff Commission, Bicycles: Report on Escape-Clause Investigation No. 58 . . ., 1957 [processed].

"U.S. Tariff Commission, Nonwoven Wool Felts: Report on Escape-Clause Investigation No. 60 1958 [processed].

Stainless-steel table flatware

In response to an application by the Stainless Steel Flatware Manufacturers Association, of Englishtown, N. J., the Tariff Commission on April 18, 1957, instituted an escape-clause investigation of table knives, forks, and spoons, wholly of metal and in chief value of stainless steel, classifiable under paragraph 339 or paragraph 355 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The Commission held a public hearing from July 16 to 19, 1957.

In this investigation, a report on which was submitted to the President on January 10, 1958,23 the Commission unanimously found that the specified stainless-steel table flatware was being imported into the United States in such increased quantities, both actual and relative, as to cause serious injury to the domestic industry producing like products. The six members of the Commission divided three to three with respect to the remedy that was necessary. Commissioners Brossard, Schreiber, and Sutton recommended the withdrawal of the concessions granted in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade on the specified stainless-steel table flatware valued under $3.00 per dozen pieces. Commissioners Talbot, Jones, and Dowling recommended the withdrawal of the concessions on such stainless-steel table flatware regardless of value.

On March 7, 1958, the President announced that, in view of Japan's voluntary limitation of exports of stainless-steel table flatware to the United States, he was deferring action on the Commission's recommendation. He had decided that a full evaluation of Japan's voluntary limitation of shipments to the United States was necessary since this voluntary limitation signifies an important reduction in the volume of imports. He therefore requested the Commission to keep the matter under review, and to report to him as soon as practicable after December 31, 1958, with particular reference to the experience of the domestic industry in 1958, during which Japan's limitation on exports to the United States will have been in effect.

For the purpose of carrying out the President's request, the Commission on March 19, 1958, instituted a supplemental investigation of the stainless-steel table flatware covered in its original escape-clause investigation. On June 30, 1958, the close of the period covered by this report, the supplemental investigation was in process, but the public hearing had not yet been scheduled.

Umbrella frames

On April 25, 1957, in response to an application by the Umbrella Frame Association of America, Inc., of Philadelphia, Pa., and individual members thereof, the Tariff Commission instituted an escape-clause investigation of umbrella and parasol ribs and stretchers, wholly or in chief

23 U.S. Tariff Commission, Stainless-Steel Table Flatware: Report to the President on EscapeClause Investigation No. 61. 1958 [processed].

value of metal, in frames or otherwise, and tubes for umbrellas, wholly or partly finished, provided for in paragraph 342 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The Commission held a public hearing on July 30 and 31, 1957.

The Commission submitted a report on its investigation of umbrella frames to the President on January 14, 1958.24 In its report the Commission found (Commissioners Talbot and Jones dissenting) that escapeclause relief was warranted with respect to certain of the specified umbrella frames. The Commission also found that in order to remedy the serious injury to the domestic industry concerned it was necessary that the duty on such umbrella frames valued at $4 or less per dozen be increased from 30 percent ad valorem to 60 percent ad valorem.

On March 12, 1958, in identical letters to the chairmen of the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, the President noted some of the salient facts of the case and stated that although some clear interpretations could be drawn from the present record, the domestic producers and other parties should be given the opportunity to present further information before he made his final decision in this case, and that he was therefore requesting the Commission to submit to him a supplemental report, including data on the period ending March 31, 1958, and such other material as the Commissioners might deem appropriate.

For the purpose of carrying out the President's request, the Commission on March 19, 1958, instituted a supplemental investigation of the umbrella frames covered in its original escape-clause investigation. A public hearing in the supplemental investigation was held on May 27, 1958. On June 30, 1958, the close of the period covered by this report, the supplemental investigation was in process.

Clinical thermometers

In response to an application by the American Clinical Thermometer Guild, Inc., of New York, N. Y., the Tariff Commission on May 29, 1957, instituted an escape-clause investigation of clinical thermometers, finished or unfinished, classifiable under paragraph 218(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930. The Commission held a public hearing on September 4 and 5, 1957.

In this investigation, a report on which was submitted to the President on February 21, 1958,25 the Commission found (Commissioners Dowling and Jones dissenting) that escape-clause relief was warranted with respect to clinical thermometers. The Commission also found that in order to remedy the serious injury to the domestic industry concerned it was necessary to withdraw the concession on such thermometers.

24 U.S. Tariff Commission, Umbrella Frames: Report to the President on Escape-Clause Investigation No. 62 . . ., 1958 [processed].

U.S. Tariff Commission, Clinical Thermometers, Finished or Unfinished: Report to the President on Escape-Clause Investigation No. 63 . . ., 1958 [processed].

On April 21, 1958, the President announced that he had accepted the Commission's recommendation with respect to clinical thermometers. By Proclamation 3235 of April 21, 1958, effective after the close of business on May 21, 1958, he withdrew the concession on such thermometers. The concession rate of duty on clinical thermometers was 421⁄2 percent ad valorem. With the withdrawal of the concession, the original rate of duty provided in the Tariff Act of 1930-85 percent ad valorem—again became the effective rate.

Garlic (second investigation)

On July 12, 1957, in response to an application by the California Garlic Growers Association, of Gilroy, Calif., the Tariff Commission instituted a second escape-clause investigation of garlic, provided for in paragraph 770 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The Commission held a public hearing on December 3, 1957.

The Commission issued a report on its investigation of garlic on February 19, 1958.26 In its report the Commission unanimously found that escapeclause relief was not warranted with respect to garlic, and that therefore no sufficient reason existed for a recommendation to the President under section 7 of the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951, as amended. Lead and zinc (second investigation)

In response to an application by the Emergency Lead-Zinc Committee, of Washington, D.C., the Tariff Commission on October 4, 1957, instituted an escape-clause investigation of the articles provided for in paragraphs 391, 392 (except Babbitt metal, solder, lead in sheets, pipe, shot, glaziers' lead, and lead wire), 393, and 394 (except zinc dust and zinc in sheets) of the Tariff Act of 1930. The Commission held a public hearing from November 19 to 26, 1957.

In this investigation, a report on which was submitted to the President on April 24, 1958, the Commission unanimously found that escape-clause relief was warranted with respect to unmanufactured lead and zinc. The six members of the Commission divided evenly on the remedy that is necessary, and each group of three issued a separate statement in support of its finding of serious injury and its recommendations for remedying that injury.

Commissioners Brossard, Talbot, and Schreiber recommended the application of the maximum permissible rates of duty, as well as quantitative restrictions, on imports of unmanufactured lead and zinc. The increased duties they recommended are as follows: On lead-bearing ores, 1% cents

26 U.S. Tariff Commission, Garlic: Report on Escape-Clause Investigation No. 64 1958 [processed].

.

27 U.S. Tariff Commission, Lead and Zinc: Report to the President on Escape-Clause Investigation No. 65. . ., 1958 [processed].