U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4168 July 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Certain Steel Grating from China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-465 and 731-TA-1161 (Final)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

 Fred Ruggles, Investigator 

 Karen Taylor, Industry Analyst 

 Amelia Preece, Economist 

 Charles Yost, Accountant 

 Gracemary Roth-Roffy, Attorney 

 George Deyman, Supervisory Investigator 

Special assistance from

Lita David-Harris, Statistician 

Keysha Martinez, Intern 

Bridget Carr, Intern 

Sandra Wetzel, Intern
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4168 July 2010

Certain Steel Grating from China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-465 and 731-TA-1161 (Final)

CONTENTS

Page

Determinations ................................................................. 1

Views of the Commission ......................................................... 3

Part I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

U.S. market summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Summary data and data sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Previous and related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Nature and extent of subsidies and sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Manufacturing facilities and production employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market ................................ II-1

U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-2

Supply ................................................................... II-2

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-5

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5

Comparison of the U.S.-produced and imported CSG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-8

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-11

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-11

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-11

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-11

i
CONTENTS

Page

Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment ...................... III-1

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization ................................... III-2

U.S. producers’ shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3

Captive consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-3

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-6

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-6

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent consumption, and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

Negligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

U.S. imports by geographical markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

Part V: Pricing and related information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Raw material costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

Part VI: Financial experience of U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Operations on CSG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

Actual negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

Anticipated negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

ii
CONTENTS

Page

Part VII: Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries ............... VII-1

The industry in China .......................................................... VII-1

Information from the preliminary phase report .................................... VII-1

Information from the final phase of the investigations .............................. VII-2

U.S. inventories of CSG from China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-2

U.S. importers’ current orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-2

Antidumping investigations in third-country markets ................................. VII-2

Information on nonsubject countries .............................................. VII-2

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Hearing witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Nonsubject-country and aggregated price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Note.–Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be

published and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by

asterisks.

iii
 
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigations Nos. 701-TA-465 and 731-TA-1161 (Final)

CERTAIN STEEL GRATING FROM CHINA

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(B) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)) and (19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is

materially injured by reason of imports of certain steel grating from China, provided for in subheading

7308.90.70 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that the U.S. Department of

Commerce has determined are subsidized and sold in the United States at less than fair value.2

BACKGROUND

These investigations were instituted in response to a petition filed on May 29, 2009, by Alabama

Metal Industries, Birmingham, AL and Fisher & Ludlow, Wexford, PA. The final phase of the

investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by

Commerce that imports of certain steel gratings from China were being subsidized within the meaning of

section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1671b(b)) and dumped within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act

(19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigations

and of a public hearing 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 on February 25, 2010 (75 FR 8746). The hearing was held in Washington,

DC, on May 25, 2010, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person

or by counsel.

 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

 All six Commissioners voted in the affirmative. 

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we find that an industry in the

United States is materially injured by reason of imports of certain steel grating (“CSG”) from China that

the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) has found to be subsidized by the Government of

China and to be sold in the United States at less than fair value.

I. BACKGROUND

The petitions in these investigations were filed on May 29, 2009. The petitioners are domestic

producers Alabama Metal Industries Corp. of Birmingham, AL (“AMICO”) and Fisher & Ludlow, Inc. of

Wexford, PA (“Fisher”) (collectively, “Petitioners”). Petitioners filed prehearing and posthearing briefs

and appeared at the hearing. No producer, exporter, or importer of subject merchandise from China

participated at the hearing or filed a prehearing or posthearing brief. 

Staff report data on the domestic industry are based on questionnaire responses of five of seven

domestic producers that accounted for nearly all U.S. production of CSG in 2009.1

 U.S. imports from

China are based on official import statistics.2

 No Chinese producer and/or exporter of CSG responded to

the Commission’s questionnaire in these final phase investigations.3 4

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

A. In General

In determining whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with

material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”5

 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a [w]hole of a domestic like

product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”6

 In turn, the Tariff Act defines “domestic like

 1 Confidential Staff Report (“CR”) and Public Staff Report (“PR”) at III-1.

 2

 CR/PR at IV-1 and Table IV-2.

 3

 CR/PR at VII-1.

 4

 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in injury

investigations, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record

evidence as a whole in making its determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts

supplied by the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole,

and does not automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless

of the level of participation and the interpretations urged by participating parties, the Commission is obligated to

consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors and may not draw adverse inferences that render such

analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes determinations by weighing all of the available evidence

regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences

from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 5

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 6

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

3
product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses

with, the article subject to an investigation.”7

The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product(s) in an investigation is a factual

determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.8

 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.9

 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible domestic like products and disregards minor

variations.10 Although the Commission must accept Commerce’s determination as to the scope of the

imported merchandise that is subsidized or sold at less than fair value,11 the Commission determines what

domestic product is like the imported articles Commerce has identified.12

B. Product Description

The Department of Commerce defined the imported merchandise within the scope of the 

investigations as follows:

Certain steel grating, consisting of two or more pieces of steel, including load-bearing

pieces and cross pieces, joined by any assembly process, regardless of: (1) size or shape;

(2) method of manufacture; (3) metallurgy (carbon, alloy, or stainless); (4) the profile of

the bars; and (5) whether or not they are galvanized, painted, coated, clad or plated. Steel

grating is also commonly referred to as bar grating, although the components may consist

of steel other than bars, such as hot rolled sheet, plate, or wire rod. 

The scope excludes expanded metal grating, which is comprised of a single piece or coil of sheet

or thin plate steel that has been slit and expanded, and does not involve welding or joining of

 7 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

 8

 See, e.g., Cleo, Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v. Department of

Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455

(1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed.

Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts

of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of factors, including the following: (1) physical

characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions

of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where

appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1996).

 9

 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979).

 10 Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49; see also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979)

(Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion as to

permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article are

not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent

consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”).

 11 See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 34 Fed. Appx. 725, 730 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The ITC may not modify the

class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 688 F.

Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919 (1989).

 12 Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the Commission may find a

single like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298

n.1 (“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s [like product] determination.”); Torrington,

747 F. Supp. at 748-52 (affirming the Commission’s determination defining six like products in investigations in

which Commerce found five classes or kinds).

4
multiple pieces of steel. The scope also excludes plank type safety grating which is comprised of

a single piece or coil of sheet or thin plate steel, typically in thickness of 10 to 18 gauge, that has

been pierced and cold formed, and does not involve welding or joining of multiple pieces of

steel.13

CSG is a downstream steel product distinguished by two sets of components – the “bearing bars”

that extend across the length and the “crossbars” that transverse (typically perpendicular to) the bearing

bars to form a “panel.”14 CSG is designed to support and distribute the weight of objects, which is

achieved through varying dimensions and spacing of both the bearing bars and crossbars. As such, CSG

is used in environments that require not only light and air filtration but load bearing and load distribution

as well.15 CSG is available in various forms including “standard welded bar grating” (crossbars welded

across the tops of bearing bars), “press-locked steel grating” (notched bars), “swage-locked steel grating”

(crossbars passing through and swaged or crimped on each side of the bearing bars), and “riveted steel

grating” (pre-bent bars riveted between adjacent bearing bars).16

The majority of CSG is sold for private industrial and commercial applications including utility

plants, offshore oil platforms, and manufacturing facilities. Common end-uses include walkways,

mezzanines, catwalks, platforms for overhead signs, fire escapes, and stairways and flooring. CSG also

serves as decking and supports for heavy-duty applications such as motor-vehicle bridges, railway

rolling-stock flooring, drainage pit covers, boat-landing ramps, truck beds, and mooring docks.17 CSG is

commonly produced in accordance with American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) standards.18

C. Like Product Analysis

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, petitioners argued for a single domestic like

product coextensive with the scope of these investigations. In its preliminary phase determination, the

Commission considered whether the definition of the domestic like product should be expanded beyond

the scope to include other types of grating including expanded metal, safety plank grating, fiberglass

grating, and aluminium bar grating. The Commission found that although CSG may overlap with other

grating in certain light-weight applications, CSG’s physical characteristics differ from the other four types

of grating as only CSG can be used in heavy load-bearing applications. Noting that CSG had the same

channels of distribution as the other gratings, the Commission observed that expanded metal and CSG

were perceived to be distinct products and were manufactured using different processes and different

employees. Finally, the Commission found that CSG was priced higher than expanded metal and safety

plank grating and was priced lower than aluminum bar grating due to input costs. Based on these

differences, the Commission found a clear dividing line between CSG and other types of grating and

defined the domestic like product as CSG, coextensive with the scope of the investigations.19

 13 Certain Steel Grating from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value, 75 Fed. Reg. 32366 (June 8, 2010).

 14 CR at I-8, PR at I-6.

 15 Certain Steel Grating from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-465 and 731-TA-1161, USITC Pub. 4087 (July 2009)

(“USITC Pub. 4087”); CR at I-8, PR at I-6.

 16 CR at I-8, PR at I-6.

 17 CR/PR at II-1. 

 18 CR at I-8, I-15, II-9, II-12, PR at I-11-12, II-5, and II-9.

 19 USITC Pub. 4087 at 5-7.

5
In these final phase investigations, Petitioners maintain that the Commission should again define

the domestic like product as CSG coextensive with the scope in these investigations.20 The record

concerning criteria that the Commission examines in defining the domestic like product has not changed

materially since the preliminary determinations.21 Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preliminary

determinations, we define a single domestic like product as CSG, coextensive with Commerce’s scope.

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

A. In General

The domestic industry is defined as the domestic “[p]roducers as a whole of a domestic like

product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”22 In defining the domestic industry, the

Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic production of

the domestic like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant

market. Based on our definition of a single domestic like product, we define a single domestic industry

consisting of all domestic producers of CSG.

B. Whether to Include Fabricators in the Domestic Industry

 In the preliminary phase of the investigations, the Commission noted that the record indicated

that there were certain fabricators that further process CSG. The Commission stated that it would

examine whether these fabricators may be considered part of the domestic industry.23 Petitioners argue

that fabricators/distributors do not engage in sufficient production activity to be considered part of the

domestic industry.24 Questionnaires were sent to 26 firms believed to further process CSG produced by

another firm.25 In their responses, only one of these firms stated that it further processed CSG and it

provided very limited data relating to its operations.26 Given that we have such limited data on

fabricators/distributors, the issue of whether to include them within the domestic industry is essentially

moot.

C. Related Parties

We must determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from

the domestic industry as a related party pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). Subsection 1677(4)(B)

allows the Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry

producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves

 20 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 4.

 21 See generally CR at I-8-I-16, II-1, PR at I-6, I-12, and II-1.

 22 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 23 USITC Pub. 4087 at 7 n. 41.

 24 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 5-6.

 25 CR at III-2, PR at III-1. 

 26 CR at III-2, PR at III-1. *** Questionnaire Response. *** only provided data on its ***. 

6
importers.27 Exclusion of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts

presented in each investigation.28

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, Petitioners argued that *** should be excluded

from the domestic industry as a related party.29 30 The Commission found that two domestic producers,

*** and ***, qualified as related parties but concluded that circumstances did not warrant the exclusion of

either producer from the domestic industry.31 In the final phase of these investigations, Petitioners again

argue that the Commission should exclude *** from the domestic industry as a related party.32 

 ***. ***, ***, accounted for *** percent of domestic production in 2009.33 *** imported ***

kilograms (“kg”) of subject merchandise in 2007 and *** kg in 2008, but did not import any subject

merchandise in 2009.34 *** reported that it imported the subject merchandise from China in order to

***.35 In both years that it imported the subject merchandise, *** ratio of imports from China to

production was *** at *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008.36 *** also made significant capital

expenditures during the period of investigation, reporting that these expenditures were divided between

***.37 As such, it appears that *** primary interest is domestic production rather than importation. We

note, however, that ***.38 

It does not appear that *** derives a significant benefit from its importation of the subject

merchandise. Although ***, its operating income trends were similar to those of other domestic

 27 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 28 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to

exclude a related party include the following: (1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing

producer; (2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e., whether

the firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue

production and compete in the U.S. market; and (3) the position of the related producer vis-a-vis the rest of the

industry, i.e., whether inclusion or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry. See,

e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d 809

(Fed. Cir. 1993). The Commission has also considered the ratio of import shipments to U.S. production for related

producers and whether the primary interest of the related producer lies in domestic production or importation. These

latter two considerations were cited as appropriate factors in Allied Mineral Products, Inc. v. United States, 28 CIT

1861, 1865 (2004) (“The most significant factor considered by the Commission in making the ‘appropriate

circumstances’ determination is whether the domestic producer accrued a substantial benefit from its importation of

the subject merchandise.”); USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 12 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001) (“the

provision’s purpose is to exclude from the industry headcount domestic producers substantially benefitting from

their relationships with foreign exporters.”), aff’d, 34 Fed. Appx. 725 (Fed. Cir. 2002); S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong.

1st Sess. at 83 (1979) (“where a U.S. producer is related to a foreign exporter and the foreign exporter directs his

exports to the United States so as not to compete with his related U.S. producer, this should be a case where the ITC

would not consider the related U.S. producer to be a part of the domestic industry”).

 29 Confidential Preliminary Views at 17; Public Preliminary Views at 12.

 30 Commissioners Aranoff and Pinkert determined to exclude *** from the domestic industry in the preliminary

phase. 

 31 Confidential Preliminary Views at 15-17; Public Preliminary Views at 11-12.

 32 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 19.

 33 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 34 CR/PR at Table III-5.

 35 *** Questionnaire Response.

 36 CR/PR at Table III-5.

 37 CR at VI-14, PR at VI-3. *** capital expenditures increased from *** in 2007 to *** in 2007 and then

decreased to *** in 2009. CR/PR at Table VI-5. 

 38 CR/PR at Table III-1.

7
producers, decreasing overall from 2007 to 2009.39 40 Furthermore, as *** is the *** producer of CSG,

exclusion may skew the domestic industry’s data.

We therefore find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic

industry. 

***. *** is one of *** U.S. producers of CSG.41 It is unique among domestic producers in that

***. During the period of investigation, *** sold *** percent of its domestic production on the merchant

market.42 *** imports of subject merchandise increased from *** kg in 2007 to *** kg in 2008 but

decreased to *** kg in 2009.43 Its ratio of imports to production was at a *** level in 2007, *** percent. 

Its ratio of imports to production *** percent in 2008, but this ratio fell to *** percent with the reduction

of its imports and its increase of domestic production in 2009.44 We note that the decrease in *** imports

in 2009 may be attributable to the filing of this case and the *** level of inventories for its fabrication

operations, which totaled *** in 2009.45 Representatives of *** indicated that ***. According to its

representatives, the ***.46

According to ***, which had historically purchased CSG panels from domestic producers, it

imported subject merchandise because ***.47 Petitioners, however, counter that the reason that ***.48

We note that ***.49 Thus, *** exit from the market did not prevent *** from purchasing domestic

product in 2007 and most of 2008. 

*** capital expenditures were *** throughout the period of investigation and it was the ***. Its

capital expenditures were *** in 2007, *** in 2008 and *** in 200950 and its *** were *** in 2007, ***

in 2008, and *** in 2009.51 Although Petitioners argue that ***.52 We note that ***.53

 39 Consistent with her practice in past investigations and reviews, Commissioner Aranoff does not rely on

individual-company operating income margins, which reflect a domestic producer’s financial operations related to

production of the domestic like product, in assessing whether a related party has benefitted from importation of

subject merchandise. Rather, she determines whether to exclude a related party based principally on its ratio of

subject imports to domestic production and whether its primary interests lie in domestic production or importation. 

 40 Commissioner Pinkert has considered *** financial performance in these final phase investigations as a factor

in whether or not to exclude it from the domestic industry – he has done so because the Commission gathered data

on the company’s combined subject imports and domestic production operations as well as its domestic production

operations. CR/PR at Table VI-2; Table C-4; *** Questionnaire Response. He finds that the data show similar

operating margins for *** combined subject import/domestic operations and domestic operations, and thus do not

indicate that the company derived a substantial benefit from subject imports.

 41 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 42 CR/PR at Table VI-2; *** Questionnaire Response.

 43 CR/PR at Table III-5.

 44 CR/PR at Table III-5.

 45 *** Questionnaire Response.

 46 Edward Petronzio July 9, 2009 telephone interview with ***. 

 47 CR/PR at Table III-5 n.5.

 48 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief Ex. 1 at 8 n.16. 

 49 CR/PR at Table VI-2 n.2.

 50 CR/PR at Table VI-5 as revised by memorandum INV-HH-067 of June 22, 2010.

 51 CR/PR at Table VI-5.

 52 CR/PR at Table VI-5 as revised by memorandum INV-HH-067 of June 22, 2010. 

 53 CR/PR at Table III-1.

8
Although ***, its operating income and operating income trends were similar to those of other

domestic producers, decreasing from 2007 to 2009.54 55 56 Finally, *** accounted for *** percent of

domestic CSG production in 200957 and comparison of financial data of the U.S. industry including and

excluding *** shows ***.58 

On balance, Chairman Okun, Commissioner Aranoff, and Commissioner Pinkert find that, in

light of *** imports and its *** ratio of imports to domestic production, *** interest lies primarily in

importation rather than domestic production. Accordingly, they find that appropriate circumstances exist

to exclude *** from the domestic industry.59

Commissioner Pearson, Commissioner Lane, and Commissioner Williamson find that, given ***

capital and research and development expenditures, its interest lies primarily in domestic production

rather than importation. Additionally, the record does not indicate that *** derived a substantial financial

benefit from its importation as its operating income and operating margin trends are similar to those of the

other domestic producers. Finally, exclusion or inclusion of *** would not skew the data for the

domestic industry. Accordingly, Commissioner Pearson, Commissioner Lane, and Commissioner

Williamson do not find appropriate circumstances exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry. 

Based on the reasons discussed above and consistent with the Commission’s definition of the

domestic like product, Chairman Okun, Commissioner Aranoff, and Commissioner Pinkert define the

domestic industry as U.S. CSG producers ***. Commissioner Pearson, Commissioner Lane, and

Commissioner Williamson define the domestic industry as all U.S. producers of CSG.

 54 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 55 Consistent with her practice in past investigations and reviews, Commissioner Aranoff does not rely on

individual-company operating income margins, which reflect a domestic producer’s financial operations related to

production of the domestic like product, in assessing whether a related party has benefitted from importation of

subject merchandise. Rather, she determines whether to exclude a related party based principally on its ratio of

subject imports to domestic production and whether its primary interests lie in domestic production or importation. 

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, Commissioner Aranoff found that *** primary interest lay

in importation. In the final phase, *** did not provide the Commission with sufficient information to determine the

extent of its investment ***. Absent such information, Commissioner Aranoff does not find that *** primary

interest has returned from importation to domestic production. 

 56 Commissioner Pinkert has considered *** financial performance in these final phase investigations as a factor

in whether or not to exclude it from the domestic industry – he has done so because the Commission gathered data

on the company’s combined subject imports and domestic production operations as well as its domestic production

operations. CR/PR at Table VI-2; Table C-4; *** Questionnaire Response. He finds that the data show ***

operating margins for *** combined subject import/domestic operations than for its domestic operations alone. This

is, however, only a minor factor in his decision to exclude the company from the domestic industry. The

predominant factor is that its primary activity has shifted from domestic production to the importation of subject

merchandise. See n. 59.

 57 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 58 CR/PR at Tables C-1 and C-2.

 59 Commissioner Pinkert finds that *** historically purchased commodity-grade CSG from a domestic producer,

but switched to imports from China during the period of investigation. CR/PR at Table III-5, n. 5. He finds that ***

primary interest thus shifted from domestic production to the importation of subject merchandise, and he therefore

determines to exclude *** from the domestic industry. As *** shifted its focus from domestic production to

importation of subject merchandise, its capital expenditures related to domestic production fell ***; although those

expenditures increased in 2009, they did not return to 2007 levels. CR/PR at Table VI-5, as revised. 

9
IV. MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS FROM CHINA60 61

A. Legal Standards

In the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the Commission

determines whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material

injury by reason of the imports under investigation.62 In making this determination, the Commission must

consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices for the domestic like product, and their

impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in the context of U.S. production

operations.63 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or

unimportant.”64 In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject

imports, we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United

States.65 No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”66

Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether the domestic industry is

“materially injured by reason of” unfairly traded imports,67 it does not define the phrase “by reason of,”

indicating that this aspect of the injury analysis is left to the Commission’s reasonable exercise of its

discretion.68 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject imports and material injury to the

domestic industry, the Commission examines the facts of record that relate to the significance of the

volume and price effects of the subject imports and any impact of those imports on the condition of the

domestic industry. This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard must ensure that subject imports are

 60 As noted above, Chairman Okun, Commissioner Aranoff and Commissioner Pinkert have excluded *** from

the domestic industry, while Commissioner Pearson, Commissioner Lane, and Commissioner Williamson included

all U.S. producers within the domestic industry. All six Commissioners note that the trends for the domestic

industry with or without *** are similar. Where these Views refer to data pertaining to the domestic industry,

Chairman Okun, Commissioner Aranoff, and Commissioner Pinkert rely on data reported in the staff report at Table

C-2, which provides information for the domestic industry excluding ***, and Commissioner Pearson,

Commissioner Lane, and Commissioner Williamson rely on data reported in the staff report at Table C-1, which

provides information for the domestic industry including ***.

 61 In these investigations, subject imports accounted for substantially more than 3 percent of the volume of CSG

imported into the United States from all sources in the most recent 12-month period for which data are available

preceding the filing of the petition. CR at IV-6, PR at IV-3. Thus, we find that subject imports are not negligible

under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24).

 62 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b).

 63 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination” but shall “identify each {such} factor . . . and explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

 64 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 65 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 66 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 67 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(a), 1673d(a).

 68 Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484-85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he statute does not

‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’d, 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1996).

10
more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a sufficient causal, not merely a

temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.69

In many investigations, there are other economic factors at work, some or all of which may also

be having adverse effects on the domestic industry. Such economic factors might include non-subject

imports; changes in technology, demand, or consumer tastes; competition among domestic producers; or

management decisions by domestic producers. The legislative history explains that the Commission must

examine factors other than subject imports to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other factors to

the subject imports, thereby inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the

statutory material injury threshold.70 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.71 Nor does the

“by reason of” standard require that unfairly traded imports be the “principal” cause of injury or

contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors, such as non-subject

 69 The Federal Circuit, in addressing the causation standard of the statute, observed that “{a}s long as its effects

are not merely incidental, tangential, or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than fair value meets the causation

requirement.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This was further ratified in

Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the Federal Circuit, quoting

Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997), stated that “this court requires evidence in

the record ‘to show that the harm occurred “by reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a minimal or

tangential contribution to material harm caused by LTFV goods.’” See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States,

458 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed.

Cir. 2001).

 70 Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) on Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep.

103-316, Vol. I at 851-52 (1994) (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing

injury from other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (1979) (the Commission “will consider

information which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than less-than-fair-value imports.”); H.R. Rep.

96-317 at 47 (1979) (“in examining the overall injury being experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take

into account evidence presented to it which demonstrates that the harm attributed by the petitioner to the subsidized

or dumped imports is attributable to such other factors;” those factors include “the volume and prices of

nonsubsidized imports or imports sold at fair value, contraction in demand or changes in patterns of consumption,

trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in

technology and the export performance and productivity of the domestic industry”); accord Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at

877.

 71 SAA at 851-52 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by

unfair imports.”); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“{T}he

Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports ... . Rather, the

Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject

imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha de Chile AG v. United States, 180

F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“{t}he Commission is not required to isolate the effects of subject

imports from other factors contributing to injury” or make “bright-line distinctions” between the effects of subject

imports and other causes.); see also Softwood Lumber from Canada, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928

(Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 100-01 (Dec. 2003) (Commission recognized that “{i}f an alleged other factor is

found not to have or threaten to have injurious effects to the domestic industry, i.e., it is not an ‘other causal factor,’

then there is nothing to further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States,

132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the statute “does not suggest that an importer of LTFV goods can escape

countervailing duties by finding some tangential or minor cause unrelated to the LTFV goods that contributed to the

harmful effects on domestic market prices.”).

11
imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.72 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.73

Assessment of whether material injury to the domestic industry is “by reason of” subject imports

“does not require the Commission to address the causation issue in any particular way” as long as “the

injury to the domestic industry can reasonably be attributed to the subject imports” and the Commission

“ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”74 75 Indeed, the

Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid

adherence to a specific formula.”76

The Federal Circuit’s decisions in Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel all involved cases

where the relevant “other factor” was the presence in the market of significant volumes of pricecompetitive non-subject imports. The Commission interpreted the Federal Circuit’s guidance in Bratsk as

requiring it to apply a particular additional methodology following its finding of material injury in cases

involving commodity products and a significant market presence of price-competitive non-subject

imports.77 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether non-subject imports might have

replaced subject imports without any benefit to the U.S. industry. The Commission applied that specific

additional test in subsequent cases, including the Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad

and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

Mittal Steel clarifies that the Commission’s interpretation of Bratsk was too rigid and makes clear

that the Federal Circuit does not require the Commission to apply an additional test nor any one specific

methodology; instead, the court requires the Commission to have “evidence in the record” to “show that

the harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,” and requires that the Commission not attribute

 72 S. Rep. 96-249 at 74-75; H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47.

 73 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1381 (“an affirmative material-injury determination under the statute

requires no more than a substantial-factor showing. That is, the ‘dumping’ need not be the sole or principal cause of

injury.”).

 74 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877-78; see also id. at 873 (“While the Commission may not enter an affirmative

determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of’ subject imports, the

Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that determination ... {and has} broad

discretion with respect to its choice of methodology.”) citing United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d

1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and S. Rep. 96-249 at 75.

 75 Commissioner Pinkert does not join this paragraph or the following four paragraphs. He points out that the

Federal Circuit, in Bratsk, 444 F.3d 1369, and Mittal, held that the Commission is required, in certain circumstances

relating to present material injury, to undertake a particular kind of analysis of non-subject imports, albeit without

reliance upon presumptions or rigid formulas. Mittal explains as follows:

What Bratsk held is that “where commodity products are at issue and fairly traded, price-competitive, nonsubject imports are in the market,” the Commission would not fulfill its obligation to consider an important

aspect of the problem if it failed to consider whether non-subject or non-LTFV imports would have

replaced LTFV subject imports during the period of investigation without a continuing benefit to the

domestic industry. 444 F.3d at 1369. Under those circumstances, Bratsk requires the Commission to

consider whether replacement of the LTFV subject imports might have occurred during the period of

investigation, and it requires the Commission to provide an explanation of its conclusion with respect to

that factor.

542 F.3d at 878.

 76 Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at

879 (“Bratsk did not read into the antidumping statute a Procrustean formula for determining whether a domestic

injury was ‘by reason’ of subject imports.”).

 77 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875-79.

12
injury from non-subject imports or other factors to subject imports.78 Accordingly, we do not consider

ourselves required to apply the replacement/benefit test that was included in Commission opinions

subsequent to Bratsk.

The progression of Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel clarifies that, in cases involving

commodity products where price-competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the U.S.

market, the Court will require the Commission to give full consideration, with adequate explanation, to

non-attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.79 80

The question of whether the material injury threshold for subject imports is satisfied

notwithstanding any injury from other factors is factual, subject to review under the substantial evidence

standard.81 Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s

institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.82

 78 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 875-79 & n.2 (recognizing the

Commission’s alternative interpretation of Bratsk as a reminder to conduct a non-attribution analysis).

 79 Commissioner Lane also refers to her dissenting views in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip

from Brazil, China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1131 to 1134 (Final), USITC Pub.

4040 (Oct. 2008), for further discussion of Mittal Steel.

 80 To that end, after the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Bratsk, the Commission began to present published

information or send out information requests in final phase investigations to producers in non-subject countries that

accounted for substantial shares of U.S. imports of subject merchandise (if, in fact, there were large non-subject

import suppliers). In order to provide a more complete record for the Commission’s causation analysis, these

requests typically seek information on capacity, production, and shipments of the product under investigation in the

major source countries that export to the United States. The Commission plans to continue utilizing published or

requested information in final phase investigations in which there are substantial levels of non-subject imports.

 81 We provide in our respective discussions of volume, price effects, and impact a full analysis of other factors

alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry.

 82 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873; Nippon Steel Corp., 458 F.3d at 1350, citing U.S. Steel Group, 96 F.3d at 1357;

S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (“The determination of the ITC with respect to causation is ... complex and difficult, and is a

matter for the judgment of the ITC.”).

13
B. Captive Production83

We must assess whether the statutory captive production provision applies in these investigations,

and whether we consequently must focus our analysis on the merchant market when assessing market

share and factors affecting the financial performance of the domestic industry. We find that a significant

amount of domestic production of CSG is both captively consumed and is sold in the merchant market,84

and thus the threshold requirement is met. The record, however, indicates that CSG sold in the merchant

market is used in the production of the same downstream products for which CSG is captively

consumed.85 Accordingly, we find that the third criterion of the captive production provision is not

satisfied, and therefore the captive provision does not apply in these investigations.

C. Conditions of Competition

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis in the final phase of these

investigations. 

1. Demand Conditions

CSG is used in a variety of end-use applications. The majority of CSG is used in private

industrial and commercial applications including utility plants, offshore platforms, and manufacturing

facilities. Demand for CSG is derived from non-residential construction which includes the

manufacturing and power sectors.86

Apparent U.S. consumption of CSG increased from 176.8 million kg in 2007 to *** kg in 2008,

and then decreased to *** kg in 2009, an overall decrease of *** percent. Most of the decrease occurred

 83 As amended by the URAA, section 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iv) provides as follows:

(iv) CAPTIVE PRODUCTION -- If domestic producers internally transfer significant production

of the domestic like product for the production of a downstream article and sell significant

production of the domestic like product in the merchant market, and the Commission finds that –

(I) the domestic like product produced that is internally transferred for processing into

that downstream article does not enter the merchant market for the domestic like product, 

(II) the domestic like product is the predominant material input in the production of that

downstream article, and

(III) the production of the domestic like product sold in the merchant market is not

generally used in the production of that downstream article,

then the Commission, in determining market share and the factors affecting financial performance

set forth in clause (iii), shall focus primarily on the merchant market for the domestic like product.

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iv). The SAA indicates that where a domestic like product is transferred internally for the

production of another article coming within the definition of the domestic like product, such transfers do not

constitute internal transfers for the production of a “downstream article” for purposes of the captive production

provision. SAA at 853.

 84 The record indicates that during the period of investigation, captive consumption represented *** percent of the

volume of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. CR/PR at III-5. 

Commercial shipments accounted for *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments in 2007, *** percent in 2008

and *** percent in 2009. Transfers to related firms accounted for *** percent of U.S. producer’ U.S. shipments in

each year of the investigation period. CR/PR at Table III-3.

 85 CR at I-11, III-5, PR at I-8, III-5.

 86 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief Ex. 3 at 5. 

14
between 2008 and 2009 when consumption fell by *** percent.87 In most investigations, Commission

practice is to derive apparent U.S. consumption from the domestic shipments of U.S. producers and U.S.

importers. Apparent consumption based on domestic shipments of imports often provides a better

indicator of actual consumption than apparent consumption based simply on imports because it reflects

any change in importers’ inventories. In these investigations, however, usable questionnaire data were

received from only sixteen companies representing slightly less than half of total imports from China in

2009. Consequently, data for U.S. imports from China and nonsubject countries are compiled from

official Commerce statistics and the consumption data do not reflect any changes in inventories of subject

and nonsubject imports.88 

U.S. producers, importers and purchasers generally reported that demand had decreased or

fluctuated.89 Several purchasers also indicated that demand for CSG during the period of investigation

has been affected by, among other things, the influx of subject imports and the downturn in the economy. 

As noted above, the demand for CSG is derived from nonresidential construction, which includes the

manufacturing and power sectors. While residential construction is more immediately affected by

declines in the U.S. economy, nonresidential construction is a lagging indicator and “typically lags the

general economy by about 18 months.”90 A project may be funded to completion, rather than abandoned,

even though market demand for the construction may have waned.91 Although residential construction

declined during the period, the record shows that construction in manufacturing and power sectors

increased until the second half of 2009. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nonresidential

construction spending increased overall by 4.0 percent from 2007 to 2009. Specifically, nonresidential

spending increased by 9.9 percent from $650.2 billion in 2007 to $714.7 billion in 2008, and then

decreased by 5.4 percent to $676.2 billion in 2009.92

While nonresidential construction activity increased by nearly 10 percent from 2007 to 2008,

subject import volume increased by *** percent. The record indicates that a substantial proportion of the

subject imports entering the U.S. market during this time went into inventory. Inventory data are

incomplete due to limited questionnaire responses from importers and purchasers.93 U.S. importers’

reported end-of-period inventories of subject imports, which were already high in 2007 at *** kg,

increased by *** percent to *** kg in 2008. From 2008 to 2009, importers’ inventories of subject CSG

decreased by *** percent to *** kg.94 At the same time, changes in purchasers’ inventories appeared to

follow a similar trend. Although only 16 of 65 firms responded to the Commission’s purchaser

questionnaire, these 16 purchasers reported that subject imports comprised 8.0 percent (296,000 kgs) of

their total inventories at the end of 2007. By the end of 2008, subject imports as a share of purchasers’

total inventories had increased to 19.9 percent (667,000 kgs), then decreased to 6.6 percent (153,000 kgs)

at the end of 2009.95 The decline shown in apparent U.S. consumption from 2008 to 2009 generally

mirrors the decline in these inventories over the same period. As such, it appears that apparent U.S.

consumption data, which do not account for the inventory build-up and the subsequent drawdown of

inventories, overstate both the increase in demand in 2008 and the decrease in demand in 2009. 

Consequently, we find nonresidential construction spending levels to be the more reliable measure of

 87 CR/PR at Tables C-1 and C-2.

 88 CR/PR at IV-1.

 89 CR at II-7.

 90 FMI Construction Outlook, 1st Quarter 2010 Report at 3, contained in Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief Ex. 8. 

 91 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 12.

 92 Calculated from U.S. Census Bureau data contained in Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief Ex. 4.

 93 CR/PR at II-1, IV-1.

 94 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 95 Calculated from Purchaser Questionnaire Responses. 

15
CSG demand during the period of investigation. Thus, we find that demand for CSG was fairly strong

throughout the period and decreased only at a moderate rate at the end of the period.

2. Supply Conditions

The domestic industry was the largest source of supply in the U.S. market, accounting for roughly

*** of U.S. consumption by quantity over the period of investigation.96 The number of domestic

producers declined during the period of investigation with the exit of Leavitt in early 2009. Domestic

production capacity, which was greater than apparent U.S. consumption for each year of the period of

investigation, increased from 2007 to 2009.97 The domestic industry had considerable unused capacity

throughout the period of investigation as its capacity utilization rates declined steadily from 2007 to

2009.98 

Subject import volume, which was already sizeable in 2007, increased in 2008 before declining in

2009.99 Subject imports’ market share was 8.2 percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in

2009.100 The volume of nonsubject imports declined from 2007 to 2009.101 Nonsubject imports’ share of

the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption declined from 10.7 percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and

then increased *** to *** percent by quantity in 2009.102 The principal sources of nonsubject imports in

2009 were Canada, Taiwan, Mexico, and India.103 

As indicated above, U.S. importers’ inventories of imports from China were also a considerable

source of supply during the period of investigation.

3. Interchangeability 

The record indicates that there is a high degree of interchangeability between CSG from domestic

and other sources, and that price is an important consideration in purchasing decisions. While CSG is

sold in various tolerances and dimensions, as noted above, most CSG is produced to ANSI standards.104

Most producers, importers, and purchasers reported that nonsubject imports, subject imports, and the

domestic like product are “always” or “frequently” used interchangeably.105 Three of the four responding

producers reported that differences other than price are “sometimes” or “never” significant in sales of

 96 The market share for the domestic industry including all U.S. producers was 81.2 percent in 2007, *** percent

in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1. The market share for U.S. producers excluding *** was ***

percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-2.

 97 Production capacity for the domestic industry including all U.S. producers increased from 277.2 million kg in

2007 to 332.2 million kg in 2008, and decreased to 315.4 million kg in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1. Domestic

production capacity for the domestic industry excluding *** increased from *** kg in 2007 to *** kg in 2008, and

then decreased to *** kg in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-2.

 98 Capacity utilization rates for all U.S. producers decreased from 56.2 percent in 2007 to 46.8 percent in 2008,

and then to 37.3 percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1. Capacity utilization rates for U.S. producers excluding ***

decreased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008, and then to *** percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-2.

 99 CR/PR at Tables C-1 and C-2.

 100 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 101 CR/PR at Tables C-1 and C-2.

 102 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 103 CR at II-6, PR at II-4. 

 104 CR at I-8, I-15, II-9, II-12, PR at I-11-I-12, II-5, and II-9.

 105 CR/PR at Table II-5.

16
nonsubject imports, subject imports, and the domestic like product.106 Importers were more divided on

this issue. Half of the importers reported that differences other than price are “frequently” or

“sometimes” significant in the sales of subject imports and the domestic like product. Most importers

reported that differences other than price were “frequently” or “sometimes” significant with respect to

sales of the domestic like product or subject imports compared to nonsubject imports.107

4. Other Conditions

Almost all U.S. producers and importers reported that CSG is sold on a spot basis and that they

determine their prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis.108

Raw material costs are a significant part of the final cost of CSG, constituting 60 to 70 percent of

the total cost of CSG production.109 Raw material costs fluctuated during the period of investigation and

averaged $0.86 per kg in 2009.110 The principal raw materials for producing CSG include coils of hotrolled steel sheet and thin-gauge plate, or flat bars (merchant bars) and wire rods. Prices for hot-rolled

sheet/plate, wire rod, and merchant bars rose slightly in 2007 and then increased sharply in the first half

of 2008 but declined from the second half 2008 to the beginning of 2009, increasing thereafter.111 In May

of 2009 the prices of hot-rolled coil and wire rod were below prices in 2007, but by April 2010 hot-rolled

coil, merchant bar, and wire rod prices were again above prices in 2007.112

D. Volume of the Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume

of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to

production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”113

In absolute terms, the volume of subject imports increased from 14.4 million kg in 2007 to *** kg

in 2008, an increase of *** percent, far outpacing the increase in nonresidential construction activity for

the same period. From 2008 to 2009, the volume of subject imports declined by *** percent to *** kg.114

Subject imports’ market share by quantity increased from 8.2 percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and

then fell to *** percent in 2009.115 The decline in subject imports from 2008 to 2009 far exceeded the

decline in demand as nonresidential construction spending decreased by 5.4 percent for the same

period.116 

In contrast, domestic producers’ U.S. shipments increased only slightly from 2007 to 2008, and

then decreased sharply in 2009. Domestic producers’ market share decreased from 2007 to 2008, but

 106 CR/PR at Table II-6. 

 107 CR/PR at Table II-6.

 108 CR at V-3, PR at V-2.

 109 CR/PR at Table VI-3.

 110 CR/PR at Tables VI-1 and VI-3.

 111 CR/PR at Figure V-1; CR at VI-9-10.

 112 CR/PR at Figure V-1.

 113 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 114 CR/PR at Tables C-1 and C-2. The volume of subject imports may be understated. The staff report does not

include imports from *** because *** indicated that its imports were structural steel, not CSG. CR at IV-3, PR at

V-1. According to Petitioners, ***. See Petitioners’ Final Comments at 4 n.11.

 115 CR/PR at Tables C-1 and C-2. 

 116 CR/PR at Tables C-1 and C-2; Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at Ex. 4.

17
increased in 2009.117 Nonsubject import volume, on the other hand, decreased steadily from 2007 to

2009. Nonsubject market share decreased from 2007 to 2008, and increased by *** percentage points in

2009.118 119 

Although the volume of subject imports and market share decreased *** in 2009, the record

shows that the presence of subject imports in the U.S. market was more significant than the data on

import volume and market share in 2009 suggest. From 2007 to 2008, there was a large build-up of U.S.

importers’ inventories of subject imports. As noted above, purchasers also built up sizeable inventories of

subject imports from 2007 to 2009.120 These substantial inventories of CSG from China were worked off

in 2009, severely limiting the domestic industry’s ability to gain sales in the market place. This situation

was exacerbated by the continuing, albeit lower, volume of subject imports as domestic producers had to

compete with low-priced subject imports for fewer sales in the U.S. market in 2009 as well as with the

sale of the bulk of the inventory overhang. The record shows that, as inventories of subject imports were

used in 2009, domestic producers’ U.S. shipments by quantity declined by *** percent, far outpacing the

*** percent decline in nonresidential construction spending in that year.121

 Accordingly, we conclude that subject import volume is significant, both in absolute terms and

relative to consumption and production in the United States.

E. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

Section 771(C)(ii) of the Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of subject imports, 

the Commission shall consider whether – (I) there has been significant price underselling

by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the

United States, and (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses

 117 CR/PR at Tables C-1 and C-2.

 118 CR/PR at Tables C-1 and C-2.

 119 The ratio of subject imports to U.S. production of all U.S. producers increased from 9.3 percent in 2007 to ***

percent in 2008, and then decreased to *** percent in 2009. CR at IV-9, PR at IV-5. The ratio of subject imports to

U.S. production of U.S. producers excluding *** increased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008, and

then decreased to *** percent in 2009. CR at IV-9, PR at IV-5. 

 120 CR/PR at II-1 and Purchaser Questionnaire Responses. 

 121 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I), provides as follows:

{T}he Commission shall consider whether any change in the volume, price effects, or impact of

imports of the subject merchandise since the filing of the petition in an investigation ... is related

to the pendency of the investigation and, if so, the Commission may reduce the weight accorded to

the data for the period after the filing of the petition in making its determination of material injury,

threat of material injury, or material retardation of the establishment of an industry in the United

States. 

Accordingly, we have considered whether the volume of subject imports was affected by the filing of the

petition. The exact effect that the filing of the petition had on subject imports is masked in large measure by the

substantial inventories of subject imports sold throughout the supply chain in the U.S. market in 2009. There is

evidence in the record that the filing of the case has affected subject import volume. For example, in an article in a

steel trade publication, a Chinese producer indicated that his company’s exports to the United States had been

reduced in 2009 in response to rumors about a possible investigation. See Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at Ex. 14. 

Additionally, according to a purchaser of subject imports, ***, CSG producers reduced their shipments to the U.S.

market significantly as a result of these investigations. Accordingly, we find that subject import volume would have

been higher to some degree in late 2009 but for the filing of the petition.

18
prices to a significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.122

As noted above, the record indicates that there is a high degree of interchangeability between

CSG, regardless of the country of origin, and that price is an important consideration in purchasing

decisions.

The Commission collected quarterly pricing data for five pricing products. Usable pricing data

were provided by three domestic producers, accounting for 15.1 percent of the total value of domestic

producers’ U.S. commercial shipments during 2009, and six importers, accounting for 20.1 percent of the

total value of importers’ U.S. shipments of subject imports in that year.123 The record shows widespread

underselling by the subject imports throughout the period of investigation. Subject imports undersold the

domestic like product in 42 of 51 quarterly pricing comparisons by margins ranging from 4.8 percent to

48.7 percent.124 Moreover, the nine instances of overselling by subject imports (almost all relating to

***) occurred mostly in 2007,125 indicating that underselling intensified in 2008 as the volume and

market share of subject imports grew.126 Accordingly, we find subject import underselling of the

domestic like product to be significant.

This underselling has had a direct effect on the domestic industry’s level of production and sales,

as the domestic industry, rather than lowering its prices, sacrificed volume to maintain pricing. Because

the low-priced subject imports were in the most common gratings sizes, U.S. producers produced smaller

volumes of more specialized products that are more difficult and expensive to produce.127 As a result,

both domestic production and U.S. shipments fell significantly from 2007 to 2009. Although

nonresidential construction activity declined in 2009, both domestic production and U.S. shipments

declined at a far greater rate.128 Notably, ***, a U.S. producer that only produced the most common sizes

of CSG, reported that it *** due to the loss of *** sales to lower-priced imports.129 *** stated that ***.130

Thus, the effects of underselling manifest themselves predominantly in the lost volumes of domestic sales

rather than in direct effects on domestic prices.131 

We note, however, that available data indicate that domestic producers’ prices for five products

for which data were collected fluctuated but ended the period lower than at the beginning. Subject import

prices did not have a discernible pattern although they remained well below domestic producers’ prices

throughout the period of investigation. Domestic producers’ prices rose through the third quarter of 2008,

then steadily declined until the fourth quarter of 2009.132 Although the decline in domestic producers’

prices in 2009 can be attributed in part to decreases in demand and raw material costs, we find that subject

 122 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 123 CR at V-5, PR at V-4. 

 124 CR/PR at Table V-7.

 125 CR/PR at Table V-5.

 126 CR/PR at Tables V-I-5, C-1, and C-2.

 127 CR at VI-12, PR at VI-2.

 128 CR/PR at Tables C-1 and C-2.

 129 *** Questionnaire Response at 15. 

 130 *** Questionnaire Response at 15. 

 131 Commissioner Pearson and Commissioner Aranoff do not join the remainder of this section.

 132 CR/PR at Tables V-1-5.

19
imports contributed to this price depression.133 From 2008 to 2009, the domestic industry’s unit COGS

declined, but its average unit sales value declined at a faster rate.134 Additionally, there are anecdotal

reports of downward pressure on domestic producers’ prices due to the subject imports135 as well as

confirmed lost sales totaling $*** and lost revenues totaling $***.136 Notably, three of the purchasers

who disagreed with the lost sales or lost revenue allegations indicated that they had purchased the lower

priced Chinese product instead of the domestic product, but at either lower amounts or at a different time

period than was alleged.137 At the same time, three of the six purchasers that responded to the lost sales

and lost revenue allegations indicated that U.S. producers reduced their prices in order to compete with

the Chinese product.138 

For the foregoing reasons, we find that there has been significant underselling by the subject

imports, that this underselling led to lost sales throughout the period, and that subject imports depressed

domestic prices in 2009. We consequently determine that subject imports had significant adverse price

effects on the domestic industry.

F. Impact of the Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry139

Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Act provides that the Commission, in examining the impact of the

subject imports on the domestic industry, “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a

bearing on the state of the industry.”140 These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity

utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, profits, cash flow, return on investment,

ability to raise capital, research and development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor

is dispositive and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”141

We have examined the performance indicators in trade and financial data for the domestic

industry and find that subject imports had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. 

Although some indicators fluctuated, the domestic industry experienced overall declines in almost all

statutory performance indicators as a result of the substantial presence of subject imports throughout the

period of investigation. 

 133 We note that domestic prices generally followed the price trends of their steel inputs, but lower prices at the

end of the period were not simply the result of lower raw material costs. Indeed, the record shows that as domestic

producers’ COGS to net sales ratio increased from 2008 to 2009, average unit values fell. CR/PR at Table C-2.

 134 CR/PR at Tables C-1 and C-2.

 135 According to producer ***. *** Questionnaire Response at 36; *** similarly reported that ***. ***

Questionnaire Response at 37. *** also stated that ***. *** Questionnaire Response at IV-13.

 136 Calculated from CR/PR at Tables V-8 and V-9.

 137 CR at V-17-21, PR at V-7-8.

 138 CR at V-20-21, PR at V-7-8.

 139 In its final determinations of sales at LTFV, Commerce found the following weighted-average dumping

margins: 136.76 percent for named individual producers and exporters and 145.18 percent for all others. CR/PR at

Table I-2. In its final determination, Commerce found twelve subsidy programs to be countervailable. Commerce

found final net subsidy rates of 62.46 percent for Ningbo Jiulong Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and all others. 

CR/PR at Table I-1.

 140 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission

considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in

some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing

difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”)

 141 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-

TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3155 at 25 n.148 (Feb. 1999).

20
The domestic industry’s market share declined from 2007 to 2008 but then recovered *** in 2009

as the market share of subject imports declined.142 The domestic industry’s production remained

relatively flat from 2007 to 2008, but then decreased by over 24 percent from 2008 to 2009.143 Domestic

producers’ U.S. shipments increased very slightly from 2007 to 2008, but then declined by over 26

percent in 2009. Capacity utilization rates, which were already low in 2007, steadily declined from 2007

to 2009.144 Employment, wages, and hours worked increased from 2007 to 2008 but then declined in

2009. Productivity, however, steadily declined from 2007 to 2009.145 Additionally, as noted above, ***

was forced to *** as a result of subject imports.146

Due to the significant presence of aggressively priced subject imports, the domestic industry’s

financial indicators also deteriorated. The domestic industry’s net sales in terms of quantity increased

*** from 2007 to 2008, and then fell ***, while net sales in terms of value increased from 2007 to 2008,

but decreased *** in 2009.147 The domestic industry’s capital expenditures declined from 2007 to 2008,

but increased in 2009.148 At the same time, the domestic industry’s operating income increased *** from

2007 to 2008, but fell *** from 2008 to 2009.149 The domestic industry’s operating income margin

increased slightly from 2007 to 2008, but in 2009 was barely break-even.150 

 142 U.S. producers’ share of apparent U.S. consumption for all U.S. producers was 81.2 percent in 2007, ***

percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1. U.S. producers’ share of apparent U.S. consumption

excluding *** was *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-2.

 143 Production for all U.S. producers was 156 million kg in 2007 and 155 million kg in 2008, and then decreased

to 118 million kg in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1. Production for the domestic industry excluding *** was *** kg in

2007 and *** kg in 2008, and then decreased to *** kg in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-2.

 144 Capacity utilization rates for all U.S. producers declined from 56.2 percent in 2007 to 46.8 percent in 2008,

and 37.3 percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1. Capacity utilization rates for all U.S. producers excluding ***

declined from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-2.

 145 The number of workers for the domestic industry including all U.S. producers increased from 598 in 2007 to

626 in 2008, and then decreased to 518 in 2009. Wages paid increased from $26 million in 2007 to $28 million in

2008, and then decreased to $21 million in 2009. Productivity (kg per hour) decreased from 122.0 in 2007 to 116.4

in 2008, and to 108.5 in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1.

The number of workers for the domestic industry excluding *** increased from *** in 2007 to *** in 2008,

and then decreased to *** in 2009. Wages paid increased from *** in 2007 to *** in 2008, and then decreased to

*** in 2009. Productivity (kg per hour) decreased from *** in 2007 to *** in 2008, and to *** in 2009. CR/PR at

Table C-2.

 146 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 8; *** Questionnaire Response at III-16. 

 147 Net sales in terms of quantity for the domestic industry including all U.S. producers increased from *** kg in

2007 to *** kg in 2008, and then decreased to *** kg in 2009. Net sales in terms of value increased *** in 2007 to

*** in 2008, and then decreased to *** in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1.

Net sales in terms of quantity for the domestic industry excluding *** increased from *** kg in 2007 to

*** kg in 2008, and then decreased to *** in 2009. Net sales in terms of value increased from *** in 2007 to *** in

2008, and then decreased to *** in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 148 Capital expenditures for the domestic industry including all U.S. producers decreased from $7.6 million in

2007 to $3.1 million in 2008, and then increased to $6.3 million in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1 as revised by

memorandum INV-HH-067 of June 22, 2010.

Capital expenditures for the domestic industry excluding *** decreased from *** in 2007 to *** in 2008,

and then increased to *** in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-2 as revised by memorandum INV-HH-067 of June 22, 2010.

 149 CR/PR at Tables C-1 and C-2.

 150 Operating income for the domestic industry including all U.S. producers increased from $*** in 2007 to $***

in 2008, and then decreased to $*** in 2009. Operating income margins increased slightly from 12.2 percent in

2007 to 13.4 percent in 2008, and decreased to 2.9 percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1.

(continued...)

21
Based on all the foregoing trends, we find that there is a causal nexus between the subject imports

and the deteriorating condition of the domestic industry. This conclusion is based on the substantial

presence of, and increase in, subject import volume and market share from 2007 to 2008, driven by

pervasive subject import underselling. The adverse impact of subject imports continued into 2009. Even

though the absolute volume of subject imports declined ***, subject imports continued to injure the

domestic industry because importers and purchasers drew down their inventories of subject imports in

2009. 

We have considered whether there are other factors that may have had an impact on the domestic

industry. We recognize that while the decline in CSG demand in 2009 played a role in the domestic

industry’s condition for that year, the injurious effects of subject imports on the domestic industry

continued to be felt and worsened in 2009 primarily due to the large overhang of inventories held by

importers and purchasers. In contrast to the fairly moderate decline in nonresidential construction

spending from 2008 to 2009, the declines in the domestic industry’s trade and financial indicators were

precipitous. At most, the decline in demand in 2009 served simply to aggravate the adverse effects

caused by subject imports. In sum, we find that the decline in demand for CSG in 2009 does not sever the

causal link between subject imports and the injury suffered by the domestic industry, and we do not

attribute to subject imports the effects of any adverse demand conditions.

We have also considered the role of nonsubject imports in the market and find that material injury

suffered by the domestic industry cannot be attributed to nonsubject imports. Nonsubject imports’ share

of the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption declined from 10.7 percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008

and then increased *** to *** percent in 2009.151 Even though the market share of nonsubject imports

rose *** in 2009 as compared with 2008, nonsubject imports were not price competitive as the prices of

these imports mostly were higher than those of subject imports throughout the period of investigation.152

We have not attributed to subject imports any effects from nonsubject imports.

 150 (...continued)

Operating income for the domestic industry excluding *** increased from *** in 2007 to *** in 2008, and

then decreased to *** in 2009. Operating income margins increased *** from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in

2008, and decreased to *** percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-2. 

 151 CR at Table C-1.

 152 Commissioner Pinkert finds that the two triggering factors under Bratsk and Mittal are satisfied. First, he finds

that CSG is a commodity product. It is commonly produced to industry standards, and there is a high degree of

substitutability among shipments from domestic and other sources. Most producers and importers, as well a majority

of purchasers, report that nonsubject imports, subject imports, and the domestic like product are "always" or

"frequently" used interchangeably. CR at I-8, PR at I-6; CR/PR at Table II-5. CR at II-12, PR at II-9. Second, he

finds that price-competitive, nonsubject imports are a significant factor in the U.S. market. They collectively

accounted for *** percent or more of the market throughout the period under examination, and they undersold the

domestic like product in 63 of 80 price comparisons. CR/PR at Table IV-4; CR/PR at D-1, Appendix D. 

Although the record evidence is limited regarding whether nonsubject imports would have replaced the

subject imports had the latter exited the U.S. market during the period under examination, Commissioner Pinkert

assumes arguendo that they would have done so and finds that the domestic industry would nevertheless have

benefitted from the higher prices that would have resulted from the absence of subject imports. Collectively,

nonsubject imports oversold subject imports in 40 out of 67 price comparisons. CR/PR at D-3. Moreover, the

average unit values of nonsubject imports were higher than those of subject imports during the period under

examination except for 2009 (reflecting anomalous AUVs in the first six months of 2009). CR/PR at Table IV-2.

22
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we

find that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subject imports of CSG from

China that are sold in the United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the Government of China.

23
 
PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from petitions filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by Alabama

Metal Industries Corp., of Birmingham, AL (“AMICO”) and Fisher & Ludlow, Inc., of Wexford, PA

(“Fisher”) on May 29, 2009, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or

threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized and less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of

certain steel grating (“CSG”)1

 from China. Information relating to the background of the investigations is

provided below.2

Effective date Action

May 29, 2009 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission

investigations (74 FR 27049, June 5, 2009)

June 25, 2009 Commerce’s notices of initiation (74 FR 30273 (AD); 74 FR 30278 (CVD))

July 20, 2009 Commission’s preliminary determinations (74 FR 35204)

November 3, 2009 Commerce’s preliminary CVD determination (74 FR 56796); alignment of CVD

with final AD determination

January 6, 2010 Commerce’s preliminary AD determination (75 FR 847)

February 25, 2010 Commission’s notice of scheduling of final phase investigations (75 FR 8746)

May 26, 2010 Commission’s hearing1

June 8, 2010 Commerce’s final CVD determination (75 FR 32362, June 8, 2010);

Commerce’s final AD determination (75 FR 32366, June 8, 2010)

June 24, 2010 Commission’s vote

July 13, 2010 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

 1 App. B has a list of witnesses that appeared at the hearing.

 1 See the section entitled “The Subject Merchandise” in Part I of this report for a complete description of the

merchandise subject to these investigations.

 2 Federal Register notices since November 3, 2009, cited in the tabulation are presented in app. A.

I-1
STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in

making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission–

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II)

the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States

for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only

in the context of production operations within the United States; and . . .

may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of

imports.

Section 771(7)(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(c)) further provides that--

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission

shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any

increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production

or consumption in the United States is significant.

. . .

In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the

Commission shall consider whether . . . (I) there has been significant

price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the

price of domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of

imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph

(B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to

. . . 

(I) actual and potential declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (II)

factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative

effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to

raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects

on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping

investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping.

I-2
Organization of the Report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, subsidy and dumping

margins, and domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of

competition and other relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the

U.S. industry, including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Parts IV

and V present the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise, respectively. Part VI

presents information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. Part VII presents the statutory

requirements and information obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat

of material injury as well as information regarding nonsubject countries.

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

CSG is comprised of certain downstream steel products which are manufactured from multiple,

separate pieces of steel, including load-bearing pieces and cross pieces. These separate pieces are then

joined together by welding, riveting, swaging, or pressing. CSG serves in a wide range of heavy loadbearing applications including flooring, railroad car stand platforms, vehicle bridges, freight car flooring,

boat landing ramps, and catwalks. The product may also be used in applications that require less of a

load-bearing application such as pedestrian walkways, mezzanines, overhead sign platforms, and fire

escape platforms.3

 The leading U.S. producers of CSG are AMICO and IKG Industries (“IKG”), while

leading exporters of CSG from China to the United States include ***.4

 The leading U.S. importers of

CSG from China are ***.

Apparent U.S. consumption of CSG totaled approximately *** million kilograms ($*** million)

in 2009. Currently, six firms are known to produce CSG in the United States.5

 U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments of CSG totaled 108.4 million kilograms ($162.3 million) in 2009, and accounted for

*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. imports from

China totaled *** million kilograms ($*** million) in 2009 and accounted for *** percent of apparent

U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. imports from nonsubject sources totaled

11.2 million kilograms ($20.0 million) in 2009 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption by quantity and *** percent by value.

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in the investigations is presented in appendix C, table C-1. Table

C-2 presents data concerning the U.S. market, excluding *** from the domestic producers’ data, table C-3

presents data concerning U.S. producers that also fabricate/process CSG, and table C-4 presents data

concerning U.S. producers’ combined operations on their subject imports and domestic production of

CSG. Except as noted, U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of five firms that

accounted for the vast majority of U.S. production of CSG during 2009. U.S. imports are based on

official import statistics of Commerce.

 3 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 7. 

 4

 As identified by proprietary data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

 5

 AMICO; Fisher; Bailey Bridges, Inc. (“Bailey”); IKG Industries (“IKG”); MLP Steel, LLC; Laurel Steel

Division (“Laurel”); and Ohio Gratings. A seventh producer, Leavitt Tube Co., LLC (“Leavitt”), went out of

business ***. 

I-3
PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

CSG has not been the subject of any prior countervailing or antidumping duty investigations in

the United States.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV

Subsidies

On June 8, 2010, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final determination

of countervailable subsidies for producers and exporters of CSG from China.6

 Table I-1 presents

Commerce’s findings of subsidization of CSG in China.

Table I-1

CSG: Commerce’s final subsidy determination with respect to imports from China

Entity

Final countervailable subsidy

margin (percent ad valorem)

Ningbo Jiulong Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 62.46

All others 62.46

Source: 75 FR 32362, June 8, 2010.

Programs determined to be countervailable are as follows:

1. Government Provision of Hot–Rolled Steel for Less than Adequate Remuneration

2. Government Provision of Wire Rod for Less than Adequate Remuneration

3. Income Tax Credits for Domestically Owned Companies Purchasing Domestically Produced

Equipment

4. Government Provision of Electricity for Less than Adequate Remuneration

5. Other Grant Programs

a) Export Grant 2006, 2007, 2008

b) Jiulong Lake Town Grant 2008

c) Energy Saving Grant 2008

d) Foreign Trade Grant 2008

e) Famous Brand Grant 2008

f) Innovative Small- and Medium–Sized Enterprise Grant 2008

g) Water Fund Refund/Exemption 2008

h) Product Quality Grant

 6 Certain Steel Grating from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination, 75 FR 32362, June 8, 2010.

I-4
Sales at LTFV

On June 8, 2010, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final determination

of sales at LTFV with respect to imports from China.7

 Table I-2 presents Commerce’s dumping margins

with respect to imports of CSG from China.

Table I-2

CSG: Commerce’s final weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from China

Exporter Producer

Final dumping

margin (percent 

ad valorem)

Sinosteel Yantai Steel Grating Co., Ltd. Sinosteel Yantai Steel Grating Co., Ltd. 136.76

Ningbo Haitian International Co., Ltd. Ningbo Lihong Steel Grating Co., Ltd. 136.76

Yantai Xinke Steel Structure Co., Ltd. Yantai Xinke Steel Structure Co., Ltd. 136.76

All others 145.18

Source: 75 FR 32366, June 8, 2010.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations as follows:

Certain steel grating, consisting of two or more pieces of steel, including

loadbearing pieces and cross pieces, joined by any assembly process, regardless

of: (1) size or shape; (2) method of manufacture; (3) metallurgy (carbon, alloy,

or stainless); (4) the profile of the bars; and (5) whether or not they are

galvanized, painted, coated, clad or plated. Steel grating is also commonly

referred to as bar grating, although the components may consist of steel other

than bars, such as hot-rolled sheet, plate, or wire rod. 

The scope excludes expanded metal grating, which is comprised of a single piece

of coil of sheet or thin plate steel that has been slit and expanded, and does not

involve welding or joining of multiple pieces of steel. The scope also excludes

plank type safety grating which is comprised of a single piece or coil of sheet or

thin plate steel, typically in thickness of 10 to 18 gauge, that has been pierced and

cold formed, and does not involve welding or joining of multiple pieces of steel.8

 7 Certain Steel Grating From the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value, 75 FR 32366, June 8, 2010.

 8 Certain Steel Grating from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value, 75 FR 32366, June 8, 2010.

I-5
Tariff Treatment

Commerce indicated in its preliminary determinations that CSG is classifiable in the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 7308.90.70. Table I-3 presents current

tariff rates for CSG. As Table I-3 illustrates, imports of CSG from countries (including China) that enjoy

normal trade relations status enter the United States free of duty.

Table I-3

CSG: Tariff rates, 2010

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special2

Column

23

Rates (ad valorem)

7308

7308.90

7308.90.30

7308.90.60

7308.90.70

Structures (excluding prefabricated buildings of heading

9406) and parts of structures (for example, bridges and

bridge sections, lock gates, towers, lattice masts, roofs,

roofing frameworks, doors and windows and their frames

and thresholds for doors, shutters, balustrades, pillars and

columns) of iron or steel; plates, rods, angles, shapes,

sections, tubes and the like, prepared for use in structures,

of iron or steel:

 Other:

 Columns, pillars, posts, beams, girders and

 similar structural units:

 Not in part of alloy steel...................................

 Other................................................................

 Other:

 Steel grating....................................................

Free

Free

Free

20%

30%

45%

 1 Normal trade relations, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate, applicable to China.

 2

 Special rates not applicable when General rate is free.

 3

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations duty status.

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010).

THE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

CSG is a fabricated product distinguished by two sets of components– the “bearing bars” that

extend across the length and the “crossbars” that transverse (typically perpendicular to) the bearing bars

to form a “panel.” The dimensions and spacing of both the bearing bars and crossbars are designed for a

wide variety of load-bearing and load-distribution applications. CSG is available in various forms (figure

I-1) including “standard welded bar grating” with crossbars welded across the tops of the bearing bars,

“press-locked grating” with notched bearing bars and sometimes notched crossbars mechanically pressed

together, “swage-locked grating” characterized by crossbars passing through and swaged (crimped) on

each side of bearing bars, and “riveted grating” distinguished by reticulated (pre-bent) bars riveted

between adjacent bearing bars to enhance load-carrying capacity. Upper edges of the bearing bars can be

serrated for greater traction. Common end uses include walkways, mezzanines, and catwalks; platforms

for overhead signs, fire escapes, and railway rolling-stock stand platforms; and stairways and flooring. 

Decking and supports are heavier-duty applications for CSG, for example motor-vehicle bridges, railway

rolling-stock flooring, drainage pit covers, boat landing ramps, truck beds, running boards, and mooring

I-6
docks.9

 CSG is commonly produced to American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”)/National

Association of Architectural Metal Manufacturers (“NAAMM”) standards MBG 531-09 or MBG

532-09.10

Figure I-1

Certain steel grating: Standard welded bar grating, press-locked grating, swage-locked grating,

and riveted grating

Source: Reproduced with permission from Alabama Metal Industries Corp., Grating and Expanded

Metals, January 2008. 

 9 See “Bar Grating Video” on AMICO’s website at http://amico-grating.com/bar-grating-video.htm, retrieved

June 1, 2010. Standard-size CSG panels measure 3 feet wide by 24 feet long. ***.

 10 NAAMM, AANSI/NAAMM MBG 531-09 Metal Bar Grating Manual,” Metal Bar Grating Division, Glen

Ellyn, IL: NAAMM, December 10, 2009 and “ANSI/NAAMM MBG 532-09 Heavy-Duty Metal Bar Grating

Manual,” Metal Bar Grating Division, Glen Ellyn, IL: NAAMM, October 27, 2009.

I-7
Manufacturing Processes

Reportedly, the manufacturing technology for producing steel grating products is well-established

and dispersed worldwide.11 Production of CSG typically involves the following processing phases: 

(1) slitting and cutting of steel wound in coils, (2) forming of the bearing and crossbars into a panel, and

(3) finishing of the assembled panel. First, in the slitting and cutting phase, flat-rolled steel coils12 are

unrolled and then slit to width and cut to length for the bearing bars. Likewise, steel wire rod13 for the

crossbars is uncoiled, straightened, cut to length, and then mechanically twisted.14 Producers can also

purchase the bearing bars already pre-cut to size from either steel coil or steel flat bars, and the crossbars

pre-cut and pre-twisted from steel rods, albeit reportedly at a significant cost premium over the uncut steel

mill products bought in bulk.15 For the CSG to provide greater tread surface traction, the upper edges of

the individual bearing bars can be serrated in preparation for the forming phase.

Next, in the forming phase, CSG is assembled by either welding or cold pressing the pre-cut

bearing and crossbars into a panel. To form a panel by welding, a high-voltage electric welder heats the

same spot across the top of each bearing bar, and a separate press machine forces the crossbars onto the

heated bearing bars to complete the CSG panel. Reportedly, the majority of U.S. steel grating products is

produced by semi-automated forge-welding machinery (the “Newcor method of production”) that is ***. 

Forge welding generally produces *** panels per hour,16 and requires manual placement of the pre-cut

bearing bars into the spacing slots of a jig (“setter”) that holds them in place during welding and

pressing.17 Some U.S. facilities also utilize the more highly automated welding machinery developed by

Entwicklungs und Verwertungs GmbH (the “EVG method of production”). Starting with multiple coils

of cut-to-width strip, the EVG method results in higher output, reportedly *** panels per hour.18

Alternatively, CSG panels can be formed by various processes that do not require welding. For

press-locked grating products, the bearing bars and sometimes the crossbars are notched or slotted before

being hydraulically pressed together. Swage-locked grating products are formed by the crossbars being

driven through the bearing bars, and swaged along each side of the bearing bars to lock them in place. To

assemble riveted grating products, reticulated bars are riveted between the bearing bars.19

The assembled panels are inspected and tested for weld integrity, tensile strength, bearing-bar

alignment, and load tolerance. Finally, some CSG panels may be subject to various processes in the

finishing phase, including dip-coat (rather than spray) painting or electrolytic galvanizing for corrosion

 11 For example, Ningbo Jiulong Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd., located in China, descibes itself as “a

leading manufacturer specialized in producing press-welded steel grating” that owns “six International advanced

auto-pressed welding machines” (“Profile” http://www.jlgrating.com/about.asp).

 12 ANSI/NAAMM standards MBG 531-09 and MBG 532-09 specify that the steel for bearing bars shall conform

to ASTM A-1011/A-1011M Commercial Steel (Type B) for hot-rolled carbon steel coil and strip and ASTM A 36/A

36M for structural steel bars. ANSI/NAAMM MBG 531-09, p. 23; and MBG 532-09, p. 14.

 13 ANSI/NAAMM standards MBG 531-09 and MBG 532-09 specify that the steel for crossbars shall conform to

ASTM A-510/A-510M for carbon steel wire rod and coarse round wire. Ibid.

 14 Crossbars are twisted to enhance surface traction, facilitate assembly, and impart rigidity of the CSG. 

Conference transcript, pp. 76-77 (Rutter) and p. 77 (Smith).

 15 Petition, p. 8. ***. 

 16 Staff verification report, ***, report May 27, 2010.

 17 See “Bar Grating Video” on AMICO’s website at http://amico-grating.com/bar-grating-video.htm, retrieved

June 1, 2010.

 18 Staff verification report, ***, report May 27, 2010.

 19 See “Bar Grating Video” on AMICO’s website at http://amico-grating.com/bar-grating-video.htm, retrieved

June 1, 2010.

I-8
resistance.20 Fabrication, which covers a wide range of cutting, welding, and banding activities from the

simple cutting of a panel of steel grating to length to more complex operations such as cutting openings in

the grating for pipes to pass through the CSG, may also be done. Many gratings will require some

fabrication as the standard steel grating panel - 3' wide by 24' long - is not of the dimensions needed by

all end users. There are a variety of firms that fabricate steel grating. AMICO, as well as some other

manufacturers of grating, both makes and fabricates gratings. Steel service centers may also do some

fabrication, grating distributors fabricate, and steel processors may also do some grating fabrication. End

users may also do some fabrication of the purchased steel grating. Fabrication is generally done on

ungalvanized grating as the welding process on galvanized grating produces toxic fumes.21 Reportedly,

the majority of domestically produced CSG is sold ungalvanized for this reason.22

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

No domestic like product issues have been raised in these investigations, although certain other

types of grating can substitute for CSG. The petitioner proposes a single domestic like product – CSG –

coextensive with Commerce’s scope.23 No respondent interested parties commented on this issue. In the

preliminary phase of the investigations, the Commission defined the domestic like product as CSG

coextensive with the scopes of these investigations.24 The Commission’s decision regarding the

appropriate domestic product(s) that are “like” the subject imported product is based on a number of

factors including: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) common manufacturing facilities and

production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and producer perceptions; (5) channels of

distribution; and (6) price. Information regarding these factors is discussed below, except for channels of

distribution, which is discussed in Part II of this report.

Physical Characteristics and Uses

Several other types of fabricated products are also manufactured by producers of CSG, including

expanded metal of steel or aluminum, safety plank grating of steel or aluminum, and fiberglass grating. 

However, the petitioners note that these items are not considered suitable for the heavy load-bearing

applications that CSG can support.25 CSG is stronger at its mid-section point and can support loads up to

several hundred pounds more per square foot than either expanded metal or safety plank grating

(figure I-2). Further, CSG is suitable for motor vehicle traffic but both expanded metal and safety plank

grating are not.26 Also, unlike CSG that is assembled from separate pieces of steel,27 expanded metal28 is

recognizable as a single sheet of steel or aluminum that has been slit and pulled along one direction to 

 20 Ibid.

 21 ***.

 22 Conference transcript, p. 63 (Smith).

 23 Hearing transcript, p. 17 (Brightbill).

 24 Certain Steel Grating from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-465 and 731-TA-1161 (Preliminary), USITC

Publication 4087, July 2009, p. 7.

 25 Petition, p. 14; and conference transcript, p. 29 (Scott).

 26 Conference transcript, p. 31 (Scott).

 27 Conference transcript, p. 28 (Scott).

 28 Expanded metal of steel is classified under HTS subheading 7314.50.00. There is not a similar breakout for

expanded metal of aluminum in HTS chapter 76.

I-9
create an open lattice network. Hence, expanded metal is commonly utilized in enclosure, protective

(safety-guard), decorative, and filtration applications.29 Likewise, safety plank grating30 is characterized

as a long strip of steel or aluminum with a top surface shaped by punching of holes with serrated edges

and smooth edges folded over by cold forming. The major application of safety plank grating is to

provide a non-slip surface for light pedestrian traffic on work platforms, vehicle steps and running boards,

roof-top walkways, and stair treads.31

Figure I-2

Other metal grating: Expanded metal and safety plank grating

Source: Reproduced with permission from Alabama Metal Industries Corp., Grating and Expanded

Metals, January 2008. 

Fiberglass grating is available either as one-piece or as assembled panels. For grating panels,

fiberglass combines durability, corrosion resistance, fire retardancy, non-electrical conductivity, nonmagnetism, stability, and light weight. Slip-resistant flooring systems are the major end-use applications

 29 Conference transcript, pp. 29-30 (Scott).

 30 There is not a specific breakout in the HTS for safety plank grating, either of steel or aluminum. 

 31 Conference transcript, pp. 29-31 (Scott).

I-10
for fiberglass gratings, including work platforms, ramps, stair treads, trench covers, and catwalks in a

wide range of industries.32

Petitioners consider certain aluminum (e.g., press-locked swage-locked, and riveted) grating as

capable of being utilized in similar applications as CSG; however, because aluminum does not rust or

corrode easily, its use is typically limited to more caustic environments, such as wastewater treatment

facilities.33 Given the higher cost of aluminum compared to steel, aluminum grating is sold at higher

prices than steel grating.34 Aluminum bar grating is included, along with grating of carbon steel and

stainless steel, in ANSI/NAAMM standard MBG 531-09.35 However, aluminum grating is not covered

by ANSI/NAAMM standard MBG 532-09, which only includes CSG of carbon or stainless steels.36

Manufacturing Facilities and Production Employees

Expanded metal and safety plank grating may be produced in the same facilities as CSG. 

However, these products are manufactured on separate production equipment and typically by separate

groups of employees.37 Although steel and aluminum grating may be produced in the same facilities, the

production equipment and production employees are separate for each type of metal grating. Nor can

aluminum be welded, so forge welding and EVG equipment are not suitable for manufacturing aluminum

grating.38

Fiberglass grating is produced either as an one-piece molded panel or as pultruded-components

assembled into a panel. Molded fiberglass grating is manufactured by interweaving fiberglass strands

with thermosetting resins with the grating dimensions and surfaces shaped by molds.39 The first step in

manufacturing pultruded fiberglass grating is continuous molding of the bearing bars and cross rods, both

consisting of a fiberglass core, clad with glass matting, and finally clad with a synthetic surface material

that are pulled (pultruded) through a resin bath and a heated steel die that imparts and sets the final crosssectional shapes. Next, the pultruded fiberglass panel is assembled by mechanically pressing the cross

rods across the tops of the aligned bearing bars.40

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

According to the petitioners’ witness, CSG is viewed by customers as a different product than

either expanded metal or safety plank grating due to distinct manufacturing processes and different

applications. Further, the separate divisions and technical standards at NAAMM for CSG versus

expanded metal and safety plank grating41 reflect that producers and users consider these separate

 32 AMICO, “Fiberglass,” available at http://amico-grating.com/fiberglass.htm; and “Fiberglass Grating,”

available at http://amico-seasafe.com/fiberglass-grating.htm.

 33 Petition, pp. 14-15.

 34 Petition, p. 14.

 35 NAAMM, “ANSI/NAAMM MBG 531-09 Metal Bar Grating Manual.”

 36 NAAMM, “ANSI/NAAMM MBG 532-09 Heavy-Duty Metal Bar Grating Manual.”

 37 Petition, p. 15.

 38 Petition, p. 15.

 39 AMICO, “GatorGrate Open-molded Grating,” available at http://amico-seasafe.com/grate1.htm.

 40 AMICO, “GatorDeck Pultruded Grating,” available at http://amico-seasafe.com/deck1.htm.

 41 Safety plank grating is not among the products covered by NAAMM and no standard has been published by

NAAMM for this product. ***, telephone interview with Commission staff, June 26, 2009.

I-11
products.42 For example, a separate standard by the Expanded Metal Manufacturers Association

(EMMA) Division of NAAMM (EMMA 557-99) covers expanded metal of carbon steel, stainless steel,

and aluminum.43

A representative of one of the petitioners noted that ANSI/NAAMM standards are voluntary and

there is no certification process. Hence, both domestic and foreign producers, including those in China,

can claim that their CSG meets ANSI/NAAMM standards. As such, customers must rely on the

producer’s reputation that its product adheres to the specific dimensional and integrity standards.44 ***.45

Petitioner representatives indicated that there are no country-of-origin marking requirements for CSG, so

the domestic and imported products can appear similar enough to be almost indistinguishable due to lack

of markings.46

Price

Pricing data for five types of CSG are presented in Part V of this report. U.S. producers’ reported

average prices for those types of CSG ranged between $*** and $*** per square foot during January

2007-December 2009. In contrast, expanded-metal grating generally sells for $*** to $*** per square

foot.47

 42 Conference transcript, pp. 31-32 (Scott).

 43 NAAMM, “NAAMM Standard EMMA 557-99 Standards for Expanded Metal,” Expanded Metal

Manufacturers Association Division, Glen Ellyn, IL: NAAMM, 1999.

 44 Conference transcript, pp. 62-63 (Scott). There need not be third-party confirmation that material meets

ANSI/NAAMM standards. A manufacturer can run its own tests, measurements, etc., to determine if the steel meets

the standards. For example, in Commerce’s Certain Steel Grating from the People’s Republic of China antidumping

investigation, Commerce requested Ningbo Jiulong Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd., a steel grating manufacturer

in China, to supply mill test certificates for its steel inputs. A mill test certificate, issued by a steel mill, notes the

results of certain tests, measurements, etc., made on a certain batch of steel at the steel mill. It is not mandatory to

have third-party confirmation of mill certificates. Commerce determined that at least some of the submitted mill test

certificates were inaccurate. “When comparing the suppliers’ mill test certificates from our verification exhibits to

mill test certificates we obtained from CBP {Customs and Border Protection}, we found material mismatches. In its

response to the Department’s supplemental questionnaire, Ningbo Jiulong explained that Ningbo Jiulong creates its

own mill test certificates, but admitted that these mill test certificates are unreliable.” See Issues and Decision

Memorandum for the Final Determination, May 28, 2010, (A-570-947 Investigation Public Document IA/NME/4:

TEM) found on Commerce’s website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/prc-fr.htm. 

 45 ***.

 46 Conference transcript, pp. 41-42 (Rutter and Smith).

 47 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 10. 

I-12
PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

CSG has numerous end uses, including pedestrian walkways such as mezzanines, catwalks,

overhead sign platforms, fire escape platforms, railway rolling-stock stand platforms, stairways, and

flooring; and heavy-duty applications such as vehicle bridges, railway rolling-stock flooring, drainage pit

covers, boat landing ramps, truck beds, and mooring docks. 

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

Table II-1 presents information on channels of distribution for U.S. producers as well as for U.S.

importers of subject product from China and from nonsubject countries. U.S. product was sold more

frequently to distributors1

 than to end users in 2007 through 2009. Chinese product was sold mainly to

distributors in 2007 and 2008 but was sold mainly to end users in 2009. Imports from nonsubject

countries were mainly sold to end users in 2007 through 2009.

Table II-1

CSG: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments, by channels of distribution, 2007-09

Item

Period

2007 2008 2009

 Share of reported shipments (percent)

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of CSG to:

 Distributors 72.8 71.9 71.4

 End users 27.2 28.1 28.6

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of CSG from China to:

 Distributors 50.1 62.1 30.4

 End users 49.9 37.9 69.6

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of CSG from all other countries to: 

 Distributors 10.9 5.0 2.1

 End users 89.1 95.0 97.9

Note.–Data for domestic producers consist of only U.S. commercial shipments.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers

Purchaser questionnaires were sent to 65 firms, and 19 purchasers returned completed

questionnaires including 6 who were also importers (table II-2).2

 Purchasers include ***, and fabricator,

*** and fabricator, and ***, a distributor. Of the remaining 16 responding purchasers, 6 were

distributors, 3 were fabricators, 5 were both distributors and fabricators, 1 was a “***,” and 1 was an end

user. Eleven purchasers reported their end-of-year inventories. Reported inventories increased from

 1 Distributors may include converters who do not sell CSG in the form in which they purchase it. 

 2

 ***.

II-1
6.1 million kilograms in 2007 to 7.1 million in 2008, but then declined to 2.7 million in 2009. Most of

the change was the result of changes in inventories of imports from China.

Table II-2

CSG: Purchasers, type of firm, value of purchases, and sources

* * * * * * *

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

U.S. Supply

Based on available information, U.S. CSG producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced CSG to the U.S. market. The

main contributing factor to the high degree of responsiveness of supply is the availability of unused

capacity. 

Industry capacity

Overall U.S. capacity increased from 277.2 million kilograms in 2007 to 332.2 million kilograms

in 2008 and then declined to 315.4 million kilograms in 2009. Capacity utilization was low and

decreased from 56.2 percent in 2007 to 37.3 percent in 2009.

Three of the four responding U.S. producers reported changes in the product range, product mix,

or marketing of CSG since January 1, 2007. All three reported that increased imports from China caused

changes. One (***) reported loss of market share, sales, production, and employment; one (***) reported

that Chinese sales were concentrated in standard sizes that were sold in large amounts to large fabricators

and distributors at the expense of domestic CSG;3

 and one (***) reported more competition in the market. 

In contrast, none of the eight responding importers reported changes in product range, product mix, or

marketing of CSG since January 1, 2007. 

Alternative markets

Between January 2007 and December 2009, U.S. producers’ exports of CSG increased from

*** percent of their shipments in 2007 to *** percent in 2009. At these levels, U.S. producers may have

some ability to reduce exports as a means to increase supply in the United States.

Inventory levels

U.S. producers’ inventories as a ratio to their total shipments increased irregularly from

*** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2009. This level of inventories may allow some increase in

shipments from inventories.

 3 Petitioners reported that “China’s imports focused on the highest volume commodity grating product which are

the core of Petitioners’ businesses.” Conference transcript, p. 6 (Price).

II-2
Production alternatives

Three out of the five responding U.S. producers reported that they did not produce any other

products on the equipment used to produce CSG. The other two reported that they also produce

aluminum grating on the same equipment as CSG.

Subject Imports from China

No Chinese producers responded to the questionnaire in the final phase of the investigations.

Most of the information presented herein consists of responses from the preliminary phase of the

investigations, in which three Chinese producers, accounting for an estimated 6 percent of production of

CSG in China and 32 percent of exports of CSG to the United States in 2008, provided responses to the

Commission’s questionnaire.

Based on available information, Chinese producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of CSG to the U.S. market. The main

contributing factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are large increases in unused capacity

and the existence of large sales to alternative markets. 

Industry capacity

Reported Chinese capacity to produce CSG increased from *** kilograms in 2007 to ***

kilograms in 2008 and from *** kilograms in the first quarter of 2008 to *** kilograms in the first quarter

of 2009. Petitioners estimated that total Chinese capacity was over 2.0 million short tons or 1.8 billion

kilograms.4

 

Alternative markets

The responding Chinese producers’ exports to the United States increased from *** percent of

their total reported shipments in 2007 to *** percent in 2008, but decreased *** from *** percent in the

first quarter of 2008 to *** percent in the first quarter of 2009. These producers’ shipments of CSG to

the Chinese home market (including internal consumption) fell from *** percent of their total shipments

in 2007 to *** percent in 2008, but rose from *** percent in the first quarter of 2008 to *** percent in the

first quarter of 2009. These firms’ shipments to non-U.S., non-Chinese markets increased from ***

percent of their total shipments in 2007 to *** percent in 2008, and also increased from *** percent in the

first quarter of 2008 to *** percent in the first quarter of 2009.

Inventory levels

Inventories of the responding Chinese producers, as a ratio to their total shipments of CSG,

declined from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008, but increased from *** percent in the first

quarter of 2008 to *** percent in the first quarter of 2009.

Production alternatives

*** of the Chinese producers reported producing other products using the same equipment as

CSG. 

 4 Hearing transcript, pp. 30-31 (Brightbill), and petitioners’ posthearing brief, p. 12.

II-3
Nonsubject Imports

The United States has imported CSG from Canada, Taiwan, Mexico, and India, listed in

descending order based on 2009 volume. The two known Canadian producers are each related to a U.S.

producer. Imports from Canada decreased from 14.2 million kilograms in 2007 to 12.3 million kilograms

in 2008 and 8.6 million kilograms in 2009. Imports from all other nonsubject-country sources also

declined, from 4.7 million kilograms in 2007 to 2.8 million kilograms in 2008, to 2.6 million kilograms in

2009.

Demand

Based on available information, the overall demand for CSG is likely to change relatively little in

response to changes in price. The main contributing factors are the limited range of substitute products

and the small cost share of CSG in most of its ultimate end uses. However, some factors increase the

responsiveness of demand, including the existence of at least some substitutes.

Available data indicate that total apparent U.S. consumption of CSG increased from 176.8 million

kilograms in 2007 to *** million kilograms in 2008 and then decreased to *** million kilograms in 2009. 

The petitioners contend that apparent consumption does not reflect actual consumption because

much of the imports in 2008 ended up in inventories. Petitioners argue that a better indicator of demand

is the level of nonresidential construction in the manufacturing, power, transportation, and commercial

sectors.5

 According to petitioners, demand in these sectors held up until mid-2009 and then declined

significantly.6

 AMICO reported that its sales of nonsubject products have held up better in the downturn

than sales of CSG because its sales of CSG have been affected by the “dumped and subsidized” CSG.7

Petitioners report that U.S. inventories of Chinese CSG continue to reduce sales and prices in 2010.8

Demand Characteristics

Three of the 4 responding U.S. producers and 4 of the 10 responding importers reported that U.S.

demand had declined since January 2007. One U.S. producer and two importers reported that demand

had fluctuated, three importers reported that demand had increased, and one reported that demand was

unchanged. Firms that reported decreased demand cited the economic downturn; firms that reported

increased demand cited either new customers or increased demand in the oil and gas sector.

Purchasers that were end users were asked to report how demand for their end uses had changed

since 2007. Only three responded; two reported that demand had decreased and one that demand had

fluctuated.

Business Cycles

Petitioners reported that demand for CSG follows the overall business cycle, but that, unlike for

products used in residential construction, it does not follow an annual cycle.9

 Petitioners reported that

CSG is mainly used in projects lasting from two to four years and that, once started, projects are finished

 5 Hearing transcript, p. 18 (Brightbill).

 6

 Hearing transcript, p. 19 (Brightbill).

 7

 Hearing transcript, pp. 36-37 (Smith).

 8

 Hearing transcript, pp. 59-62, 79-81 (Kaplan, Rutter, Smith, Scott).

 9

 Conference transcript, p. 88 (Scott).

II-4
even if the economy has changed.10 Changes in demand for CSG thus lag behind the general economy.11

Spikes in demand occur when hurricanes hit areas where there are off-shore drilling platforms (e.g., the

Gulf of Mexico) because safety procedures require that steel grating stored on the platforms for repairs be

thrown into the Gulf when a hurricane approaches.12 Eight of the 18 responding purchasers reported that

CSG is subject to distinctive business cycles or conditions of competition including: low-priced imports

have affected demand; the influx of Chinese product has caused U.S. manufacturers to “pick and choose”

whom they supply; demand is related to booms in construction and construction seasonality; and 7-to-10

year cycles of demand.

Substitute Products

One of the three responding U.S. producers, two of the three responding importers, and 10 of

16 responding purchasers reported substitutes for CSG. Substitutes listed include wood flooring, metal

plates, aluminum grating, plank decking, resin/fiberglass grating, expanded metal grating, and checker

plate.13 All responding firms reported that the price of substitutes did not affect the price of CSG.

Cost Share

Two U.S. producers, three importers, and one purchaser estimated CSG’s share of the cost of one

or more downstream products. Cost shares ranged from less than 1 percent to 40 percent, with five of the

six firms reporting shares of 10 percent or less.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported CSG depends on such factors as

relative prices, quality (e.g., grade standards, reliability of supply, defect rates, etc.), and conditions of

sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, leadtimes between order and delivery dates, payment terms, product

services, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there is a relatively high degree of

substitutability between U.S. and Chinese products, particularly for commodity types and grades and for

galvanized product.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Table II-3 summarizes purchasers’ responses concerning the top three factors in their purchase 

decisions. Price was the most frequently reported first and second factor, although availability was very

close to price. Quality was the most frequently reported third factor.

Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 15 factors in their purchasing decisions (table

II-4). Factors reported by most purchasers to be very important were price (17 of 18 responding

purchasers); product consistency (16 purchasers); availability and reliability of supply (15 purchasers);

and delivery time and quality meets ANSI, NAAMM or ASTM standards (14 purchasers).

 10 Hearing transcript, p. 25 (Kaplan).

 11 Hearing transcript, p. 37 (Smith).

 12 ***. Conference transcript, p. 87 (Scott).

 13 Checker plate is a solid plate of steel with raised nubs to prevent slips; plank decking is also called safety plank

grating, which is made from a single thin plate of steel that is cut and expanded or pierced and punched. Conference

transcript, pp. 29, 58 (Scott, Rutter).

II-5
Table II-3

CSG: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Price 7 7 3

Availability 6 6 3

Quality 4 3 6

Traditional supplier/contract 1 1 1

Reliability 1 0 2

Delivery Time 0 1 1

Other1 013

 1 Other factors consisted of lead time for the second factor and credit, meeting industrial standards, and product

range for the third factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table II-4

CSG: Importance of purchasing factors, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Availability 15 3 0

Delivery terms 8 10 0

Delivery time 14 4 0

Discounts offered 9 6 3

Extension of credit 8 7 3

Minimum quantity requirements 4 7 7

Packaging 1 13 4

Price 17 1 0

Product range 8 9 1

Product consistency 16 2 0

Quality meets ANSI, NAAMM, or

ASTM standards 14 2 2

Quality exceeds industry standards 5 11 2

Reliability of supply 15 3 0

Technical support/service 5 8 5

U.S. transportation costs 4 11 3

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

II-6
Eight of 19 responding purchasers reported that they required that CSG meet ANSI, NAAMM, or

ASTM standards for all of their CSG purchases, and 1 reported requiring the meeting of standards for

some of its purchases. Four firms required certification or prequalification beyond ANSI, NAAMM, or

ASTM including: new vendor forms; quality audits; and requests that suppliers “substantially meet”

NAAMM/ANSI standards. Seven firms reported qualification times that ranged from 1 to 90 days, with

five of these reporting that qualification took 10 days or fewer. Firms were also asked what qualifications

were necessary for new suppliers. Eighteen purchasers reported requirements for new suppliers,

including quality, price, availability, reliability of the supplier, and delivery; the time required for new

supplier qualification ranged from 2 to 120 days, with an average of 23 days.

Purchasers were asked how frequently they were aware of the country of origin of the CSG they

purchased, how often they knew the manufacturer, and how often their buyers were interested in the

country of origin of the goods they supply; responses are shown below.

Purchaser/customer decision Always Usually Sometimes Never

Purchaser knows if product is U.S.-produced or imported 6 9 1 2

Purchaser knows producer 8 7 2 1

Purchaser’s customers know or are interested in country of

origin 1 6 10 0

Purchasers were also asked if they or their customers ever specifically order CSG from one

country in particular over other possible sources of supply. Eight of 18 responding purchasers responded

affirmatively. Seven purchasers reported that either they or some of their customers prefer/require U.S.-

produced product, and one reported that Italian product is preferred for certain types of architectural uses.

Asked if certain grades, forms, or types of CSG were only available from a single source,

15 purchasers reported “no” and 1 reported “yes,” that *** produced close mesh materials not produced

by others.

When asked how often they purchase the lowest-priced CSG, 1 of the purchasers responded

“always,” 11 responded “usually,” 5 responded “sometimes,” 2 responded “rarely,” and 1 responded

“never.” Purchasers were also asked if they purchased CSG from one source when a comparable but

lower-priced product was available from another source. The reasons provided by 17 purchasers for not

purchasing lowest-priced product included: lead time, availability, inventory control, reliability,

relationship, reputation, ease of buying, problem resolution, quality, domestic-only requirements, and

minimum-order requirements.

Lead Times

Lead times from inventories reported by U.S. producers ranged from 0 to 10 days, with three of

the four producers reporting 2 or 3 days. Three importers reported lead times from inventories ranging

from “up to 1 week” to 10 days. U.S. producers’ lead times from production ranged from 1 week to

6 months, with *** reporting lead times of 1 to 2 weeks, *** reporting lead times of ***, and ***

reporting *** months. Importers’ lead time from production in China was reported by six importers as

ranging from 3 weeks to 4 months, with three of these importers reporting lead times from 2 to 3 months.

II-7
Comparison of the U.S.-Produced and Imported CSG

Petitioners reported that most product is sold as meeting ANSI/NAAMM standards but that

suppliers may state that their product meets these standards even if it does not; it is difficult for purchasers

to test the product to determine if it actually meets these standards.14 In addition, petitioners reported that

Chinese product was sometimes underweight, with the bars not as thick as reported in the specifications.15

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced CSG can generally be used in the same applications

as imports, U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and U.S. purchasers were asked whether the products can

“always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably (table II-5). All four

responding U.S. producers, most responding purchasers, and most responding importers reported that

U.S. product can always or frequently be used interchangeably with product from China and product from

nonsubject countries. Most producers, all importers, and most purchasers reported that Chinese CSG can

always or frequently be used interchangeably with CSG from nonsubject countries. Explanations firms

gave for limited interchangeability were that imported product was sometimes made using the metric

measuring system (not the imperial system used in the United States), resulting in different standard sizes,

and that certain projects require domestic content.

Table II-5

CSG: Perceived interchangeability between product produced in the United States and in other

countries, by country pairs

Country pair

Number of U.S. 

producers reporting

Number of U.S.

importers reporting

Number of U.S.

purchasers reporting

AFSNAFSNA F S N

 U.S. vs. China 3 1 0 0 3 5 1 0 5 7 3 0

 U.S. vs. nonsubject

 countries 310022001600

 China vs. nonsubject

 countries 211022002450

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Producers, importers, and purchasers were requested to provide information regarding the

significance of differences other than price for domestic, subject, and nonsubject CSG (table II-6). Two

of the four responding U.S. producers reported that there are never differences other than price for all

country pairs. Half or more of the responding importers reported that there are sometimes or frequently

differences other than price for each pair, while most purchasers reported that there are either sometimes

or never differences. Reported differences included the domestic producers’ refusal to sell at market

prices; domestic producers cut off some potential purchasers; differences between product produced to

the imperial vs. the metric system; tariffs; labor costs; and imports may not conform to NAAMM or

ASTM standards.

 14 Conference transcript, p. 62 (Scott).

 15 Conference transcript, p. 59 (Scott).

II-8
Table II-6

CSG: Perceived importance of differences in factors other than price between product produced

in the United States and in other countries, by country pairs

Country pair

Number of U.S. 

producers reporting

Number of U.S.

importers reporting

Number of U.S.

purchasers reporting

AFSNAFSNA F S N

 U.S. vs. China 101223123244

 U.S. vs. nonsubject

 countries 101201211232

 China vs. nonsubject

 countries 002201210131

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked to compare domestically-produced CSG and CSG produced in China and

nonsubject countries with respect to 15 different attributes (table II-7). Of the 15 firms that compared

U.S. and Chinese product, a plurality reported that the products were comparable for five factors. For

availability, delivery time, extension of credit, minimum quantity requirements, reliability of supply, and

technical support/service, most responding purchasers reported that the U.S. product was superior; for

product range and delivery terms, equal numbers reported that the U.S. product was superior and that the

Chinese and U.S. products were comparable; for price, the majority reported that the U.S. product was

inferior (i.e., higher in price); and for discounts offered, five purchasers reported that U.S. product was

superior, four that U.S. and Chinese product were comparable, and three reported that U.S. product was

inferior. 

Six firms compared U.S. and nonsubject products on the 15 factors. For eight factors, the

majority reported that U.S. and nonsubject-country CSG are comparable. For availability, delivery time,

and reliability of supply, three each reported that U.S. CSG is superior and that U.S. and nonsubject

products are comparable. For extension of credit and minimum quantity requirements, three reported that

U.S. and nonsubject products are comparable; two reported that the U.S. product is superior; and one

reported that the U.S. product is inferior. For lowest price, three reported that U.S. and nonsubject

products are comparable; two that reported the U.S. product is inferior (i.e., higher in price); and one

reported that the U.S. product is superior (i.e., lower in price). For discounts offered, two purchasers each

reported that the U.S. product is superior; comparable; and inferior to nonsubject CSG.

Three firms compared Chinese CSG to nonsubject CSG on the 15 factors. The majority reported

that they are comparable for all factors except for lowest price, for which the majority reported that

Chinese product is superior (i.e., lower in price). 

II-9
Table II-7

CSG: Comparisons between U.S.-produced, subject Chinese, and nonsubject-country products,

as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

U.S. vs. China

U.S. vs.

nonsubject

China vs.

nonsubject

S C I SC I SC I

Availability 10 4 1 330030

Delivery terms 7 7 1 2 4 0 0 3 0

Delivery time 10 3 2 3 3 0 0 3 0

Discounts offered 5 4 3 222030

Extension of credit 8 4 2 2 3 1 0 3 0

Minimum quantity requirements 8 6 1 231021

Packaging 4 10 1 1 4 1 1 2 0

Lowest price1

 2 3 10 1 3 2 2 1 0

Product range 7 7 0 240030

Product consistency 4 11 0 060030

Quality meets ANSI, NAAMM, or ASTM

standards 3 10 1 150030

Quality exceeds industry standards 4 9 1 240030

Reliability of supply 10 4 1 330030

Technical support/service 8 6 1 240021

U.S. transportation costs 6 7 0 140030

 1 A rating of superior means that the price is generally lower. For example, if a firm reports “U.S. superior,” this

means that it rates the U.S. price generally lower than the other country’s price.

Note.–S = Superior, C = Comparable, I = Inferior.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

As seen in table II-8, 13 of the 18 responding purchasers reported that domestically-produced

CSG “always” meets minimum quality specifications. Five of the 11 responding purchasers reported that

the Chinese CSG always meets minimum quality specifications.

II-10
Table II-8

CSG: Ability to meet minimum quality specifications, by source

Country

Number of firms reporting1

Always Usually Sometimes Never

 United States 13 4 1 0

 China 5510

 Canada 2200

 All others1210

 1

 Purchasers were asked how often domestically-produced or imported CSG meets minimum quality

specifications for their own or their customers’ uses.

Source: Compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses elasticity estimates; parties are encouraged to comment on these estimates

and should do so as an attachment to their prehearing or posthearing briefs.

U.S. Supply Elasticity16

The domestic supply elasticity for CSG measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by U.S.

producers to changes in the U.S. market price of CSG. The elasticity of domestic supply depends on

several factors including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which producers can alter capacity,

producers’ ability to shift to production of other products, the existence of inventories, and the availability

of alternate markets for U.S.-produced CSG. Analysis of these factors earlier indicates that the U.S.

industry is likely to be able to greatly increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market; an estimate in

the range of 3 to 6 is suggested. 

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for CSG measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded to

a change in the U.S. market price of CSG. This estimate depends on factors discussed earlier such as the

existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as well as the component share of

the CSG in the production of any downstream products. Based on the available information, the

aggregate demand for CSG is likely to be inelastic; a range of -0.5 to -1.0 is suggested. 

Substitution Elasticity17

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products. Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

(e.g., chemistry, appearance, etc.) and conditions of sale (e.g., availability, sales

 16 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

 17 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change.

II-11
terms/discounts/promotions, etc.). Based on available information, the elasticity of substitution between

U.S.-produced CSG and imported CSG is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.

II-12
PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§

1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the alleged subsidies and margins of dumping was presented

earlier in this report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is

presented in Parts IV and V. Information on the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or

Part VI and (except as noted) is based on the questionnaire responses of five firms that accounted for the

vast majority of U.S. production of CSG during 2009.

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to the seven firms identified in the petitions as

U.S. producers of CSG: AMICO, Fisher, Bailey, IKG, Laurel, Ohio Gratings, and Leavitt. Of these, five

provided useable data and the remaining two provided no response.1

 Of the domestic producers that

provided useable data, petitioners AMICO and Fisher combined for *** percent of U.S. production in

2009. A third domestic producer, IKG, accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. production in

2009. Presented in table III-1 is a list of domestic producers of CSG, each company’s position on the

petition,2

 production location(s), related and/or affiliated firms, and shares of reported production of CSG

in 2009.

As indicated in table III-1, three U.S. producers are related to nonsubject foreign producers of

CSG and none are related to U.S. importers of the subject merchandise.3

 In addition, as discussed in

greater detail below, three U.S. producers *** directly import CSG and one (***) purchases CSG from a

domestic producer.

The Commission also sent questionnaires to 26 firms that were thought to further process CSG

produced by another firm; one *** firm, ***, responded in the affirmative, but provided only limited

data. Of the five responding CSG producers, one, ***, responded that it “further processes certain steel

grating produced by another firm” (question I-8 of the producer’s questionnaire). Presented below are its

answers to questions regarding further processing:

1. The source and extent of your firm’s capital investment. ***

2. The technical expertise involved in your U.S. processing activities. ***.

3. The value added (in percent) added by your firm to the product in the United States. ***.

4. The number of your employees involved in processing the product in 2009. ***.

5. The quantity and type of any parts or materials you sourced in the United States. ***.

6. Any other costs or activities in the United States directly leading to further processing of

certain steel grating. ***.

 1 The Commission did not receive responses from Bailey or Laurel, both of which produce relatively small

amounts of CSG. Bailey produced *** kilograms of CSG in 2008 and Laurel produced *** kilograms; together,

they accounted for less than *** percent of domestic production in that year. Both entities concentrate on heavier

duty grating (primarily for bridge applications). Both Bailey and Laurel have indicated publicly that they support the

filing of the petitions on behalf of the domestic industry. Petitioners’ June 9, 2009 response to Commerce’s June 4,

2009 supplemental questionnaire, exhs. 5 and 6. 

 2

 In addition to those producers who have indicated support for the petition, on June 15, 2009 the United Steel,

Paper, Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union AFL-CIO

(“USW”) filed a letter in support of the petitions. Also, a USW representative testified at the Commission’s June 19,

2009 conference. 

 3

 AMICO and Fisher are related to producers in Canada. IKG is related to a producer in Mexico.

III-1
Table III-1

CSG: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, related and/or affiliated

firms, and shares of 2009 reported U.S. production

Firm

Position on

petition

U.S. production

location(s)

Related and/or affiliated

firms

Share of

2009

production

(percent)

AMICO Petitioner

Birmingham, AL

Dayton, TX

Orem, UT

Bourbonnais, IL

Gibralter Industries1

AMICO Canada2 ***

Fisher Petitioner

Wexford, PA

Saegertown, PA

Litchfield, IL

Nucor1

Fisher & Ludlow, Ltd.2 ***

IKG ***

Channelview, TX

Leeds, AL

Sand Springs, OK

Garrett, IN

Harsco Industries1

Electroforjados Nacionales3 ***

Leavitt4

 *** Jackson, MS

MKK USA Inc.

Sumitomo Corp. ***

Ohio Gratings ***

Canton, OH

Linden, UT

Meiser Bartley Gratings5

Interstate Gratings5 ***

 1 Parent company.

 2

 Sister company and producer in Canada.

 3

 Subsidiary and producer in Mexico.

 4 Leavitt no longer produces CSG. It is jointly owned by MKK USA Inc. (60 percent) and Sumitomo Corp. of

America (40 percent).

 5 Subsidiary.

Note.–Because of rounding, shares may not total to 100.0 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for CSG are presented in table

III-2. U.S. producers’ capacity greatly exceeded apparent U.S. consumption of CSG in each period for

which data were collected. Between 2007 and 2009, total reported U.S. capacity increased by

13.8 percent. U.S. production of CSG decreased from 155.7 million kilograms in 2007 to 117.7 million

kilograms in 2009. Capacity utilization decreased by 18.8 percentage points between 2007 and 2009.

The domestic producers were asked to report any changes in the character of their operations or

organization relating to the production of CSG since January 1, 2007. ***. Two U.S. producers (***)

reported the production of products other than CSG on the same equipment and machinery and using the

same production and related workers employed in the production of CSG.4

 4 *** reported using *** percent of its equipment and workers to produce CSG; *** reported using *** percent of

its equipment and *** percent of its workers to produce CSG. Alternative products produced using the same

production resources consisted of ***.

III-2
Table III-2

CSG: U.S. producers’ production capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2007-09, JanuaryJune 2009, and July-December 2009 

Item

Calendar year 2009

2007 2008 2009 Jan.-June July-Dec.

Capacity (kilograms) 277,153 332,185 315,447 161,167 154,280

Production (kilograms) 155,678 155,506 117,738 59,002 58,736

Capacity utilization (percent) 56.2 46.8 37.3 36.6 38.1

Note.--Most firms reported capacity (production capabilities) based on operating 40-168 hours per week and 50-52

weeks per year.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

As detailed in table III-3, the volume of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of CSG decreased by

24.4 percent between 2007 and 2009. The value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of CSG followed the

same trend, decreasing by 26.0 percent between 2007 and 2009. Three producers (***) reported internal

consumption during the period and one producer reported transfers of CSG to related firms.5

 Three firms

reported export shipments.6

Captive Consumption

Section 771(7)(C)(iv) of the Act states that–

If domestic producers internally transfer significant production of the domestic like product for

the production of a downstream article and sell significant production of the domestic like

product in the merchant market, and the Commission finds that–

(I) the domestic like product produced that is internally transferred for processing into that

 downstream article does not enter the merchant market for the domestic like product,

(II) the domestic like product is the predominant material input in the production of that

downstream article, and

(III) the production of the domestic like product sold in the merchant market is not

generally used in the production of that downstream article, then the Commission, in

determining market share and the factors affecting financial performance . . ., shall focus

primarily on the merchant market for the domestic like product.7

 5 *** reported transfers at market value to ***, which subsequently took over marketing rights. The transferred

grating had minimal processed inputs from sources other than *** before it was sold to a third party. *** domestic

producer questionnaire response, question II-10.

 6

 *** reported exporting to Canada. *** reported exporting to Canada and Germany.

 7

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iv).

III-3
Table III-3

CSG: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

Item

Calendar year 2009

2007 2008 2009 Jan.-June July-Dec.

Quantity (1,000 kgs)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 143,493 146,790 108,443 55,539 52,904

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 219,397 262,939 162,263 85,832 76,430

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per kg)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

Average, U.S. $1.53 $1.79 $1.50 $1.55 $1.44

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Average, all *** *** *** *** ***

Share of quantity (percent)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 94.4 93.3 93.1 92.5 93.7

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

III-4
Captive (internal) consumption accounted for *** percent of the volume of U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments of CSG in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. *** accounted for the majority

of internal consumption in those years. Captive consumption of CSG by U.S. producers of CSG

essentially consists of those firms transferring CSG internally for fabrication; the resulting fabricated

product is then sold commercially.

The first requirement for application of the captive consumption provision is that the domestic

like product that is internally transferred for processing into a downstream article not enter the merchant

market for the domestic like product. As mentioned above, the internally transferred product is fabricated

and then sold commercially.

The second criterion of the captive consumption provision concerns whether the domestic like

product is the predominant material input in the production of the downstream article that is captively

produced. Although the value added by fabrication varies depending on the type of CSG, in general CSG

is the predominant material input into the fabricated product that is sold commercially.

The third criterion of the captive consumption provision is that the production of the domestic

like product sold in the merchant market is generally not used in the production of the downstream article

produced from the domestic like product that is internally transferred for processing. In fact, the domestic

like product sold in the merchant market is used in the production of the downstream article (the

fabricated CSG) produced from the domestic like product that is internally transferred for processing. At

the Commission’s hearing, the petitioners stated that they do not believe that this third criterion is met in

these investigations.8

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table III-4, which presents end-of-period inventories for CSG, shows that inventories declined

between 2007 and 2009. 

Table III-4

CSG: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December

2009

Item

Calendar year 2009

2007 2008 2009 Jan.-June July-Dec.

Inventories (1,000 kgs) 17,539 15,653 16,923 14,643 16,923

Ratio to production (percent) 11.3 10.1 14.4 12.4 14.4

Ratio to U.S. shipments (percent) 12.2 10.7 15.6 13.2 16.0

Ratio to total shipments (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

Note.–Partial-year ratios are based on annualized production and shipments.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 8 Hearing transcript, p. 97 (DeFrancesco).

III-5
U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of CSG are presented in table III-5.9

 ***.

Table III-5

CSG: U.S. producers’ imports, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for CSG are presented in table III-6. 

Employment of production and related workers (“PRWs”) decreased by 13.4 percent between 2007 and

2009. According to testimony given at the conference, petitioners AMICO and Fisher began laying off

workers in late 2008. AMICO ***.10 The closing of Leavitt’s facility in Jackson, MS *** also

contributed to the decrease in PRWs in the domestic CSG industry.

Between 2007 and 2009, hours worked by PRWs decreased by 15.0 percent. Total wages paid to

PRWs followed the same pattern, decreasing between 2007 and 2009 by 16.7 percent. Productivity levels

decreased between 2007 and 2009 by 11.1 percent. Unit labor costs increased by 10.2 percent between

2007 and 2009.

Table III-6

CSG: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December

2009

Item

Calendar year 2009

2007 2008 2009 Jan.-June July-Dec.

Production and related workers (PRWs) 598 626 518 533 503

Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 1,276 1,336 1,085 538 547

Hours worked per PRW 2,134 2,134 2,095 1,009 1,087

Wages paid to PRWs (1,000 dollars) 25,591 27,534 21,314 10,367 10,947

Hourly wages $20.06 $20.61 $19.64 $19.27 $20.01

Productivity (kilograms produced per hour) 122.0 116.4 108.5 109.6 107.4

Unit labor costs (per kilogram) $0.16 $0.18 $0.18 $0.18 $0.19

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 9 *** reported purchasing CSG from *** because the grating ***. Purchases as a ratio to its production were

*** percent during the period for which data were collected. 

 10 Producers’ questionnaire, question II-2.

III-6
PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

Importer questionnaires were sent to 35 firms believed to be importers of subject CSG, as well as

to all U.S. producers of CSG.1

 Usable questionnaire responses were received from 16 companies,

representing 49.3 percent of total imports from China in 2009 under HTS subheading 7308.90.70.2

 Data

for U.S. imports from China and nonsubject countries are compiled using official Commerce statistics. 

According to official Commerce statistics, China was the largest source of U.S. imports in 2008 and

Canada was the largest nonsubject source.3

 

Table IV-1 lists all responding U.S. importers of CSG from China and other sources, their

locations, and their shares of U.S. imports (official Commerce total) in 2009.

Table IV-1

CSG: U.S. importers, U.S. headquarters, related and/or affiliated firms, and share of reported

imports from China in 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTS

Table IV-2 and figure IV-1 present and depict U.S. imports of CSG during 2007-09 and during

January-June 2009 and July-December 2009. U.S. import data are based on official Commerce statistics

for CSG, with an additional adjustment to delete imports by ***, which indicated that its imports

classified as steel gratings were in reality structural steel, a nonsubject product.4

 U.S. imports of CSG

from China increased from 14.4 million kilograms in 2007 to *** million kilograms in 2008,5

 dropping to

*** million kilograms in 2009. The value of imports of CSG from China followed a similar trend during

2007-09. In contrast, imports of CSG from nonsubject sources decreased in quantity and value between

2007 and 2009. 

 1 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition, along with firms that, based on a

review of data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), may have imported greater than one

percent of total imports under HTS subheading 7308.90.70 in any one year since 2006.

 2

 In addition, four firms responded in the preliminary phase of the investigations but did not in the final phase.

 3

 Petitioners AMICO and Fisher both have sister companies that produce CSG in Canada. Fisher was established

in 1954 and began producing CSG in the United States in 2006, after it acquired Tru-Weld Grating. Prior to this,

Fisher operated several distribution centers in the United States that it supplied from its Canadian operations. 

Conference transcript, p. 39 (Rutter). 

 4

 HTS subheading 7308.90.70.

 5

 The rise in imports from China began in 2006, peaking in 2008.

IV-1
Table IV-2

CSG: U.S. imports, by sources, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

Source

Calendar year 2009

2007 2008 2009 Jan.-June July-Dec.

Quantity (1,000 kgs)

China 14,450 *** *** *** ***

All other sources 18,826 15,072 11,211 6,201 5,010

Total 33,276 *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

China 16,026 *** *** *** ***

All other sources 32,795 31,739 19,983 10,494 9,489

Tootal 48,820 *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per kg)

1

China $1.11 *** *** *** ***

All other sources 1.74 $2.11 $1.78 $1.69 $1.89

Average 1.47 *** *** *** ***

Share of quantity (percent)

China 43.4 *** *** *** ***

All other sources 56.6 *** *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China 32.8 *** *** *** ***

All other sources 67.2 *** *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 Landed, U.S. port of entry, duty-paid.

Note.–*** reported that its imports classified as steel grating actually consisted of structural steel, a nonsubject

product.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

Figure IV-1

CSG: Quantity of subject and nonsubject U.S. imports, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and JulyDecember 2009

* * * * * * *

IV-2
 According to testimony given at the conference, petitioners observed that the influx of imports in

the second half of 2008 far exceeded demand.6

 Petitioners contend that the resulting sales went into

inventory throughout the U.S. distribution system, including at importers, distributors, customers, and

elsewhere.7

 Since CSG is designed for longevity and can be stored unsold for long periods of time, in the

preliminary phase of the investigations petitioners estimated that it might take eight to ten months to clear

out the CSG that was in inventories.8

NEGLIGIBILITY

The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports

of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.9

 Negligible imports are generally defined in the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as imports from a country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic

like product where such imports account for less than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise

imported into the United States in the most recent 12-month period for which data are available that

precedes the filing of the petition or the initiation of the investigation.10 Subject imports from China

accounted for the great majority of U.S. imports of CSG from all countries from April 2008 through

March 2009.11

U.S. Imports by Geographical Markets

Houston, TX, was the largest district of entry for imports of CSG from China, accounting for

most subject imports from January 2007 to December 2009, over four times the quantity of imports

landed at any other port. The Houston port provides a convenient point of entry for CSG imports given

its proximity to oil and energy plants located near the Gulf Coast, which are the main source of business

for CSG. According to testimony given at the conference, CSG producers do a great deal of business

when hurricanes or severe weather threaten or damage oil rigs and other industrial complexes in the Gulf

of Mexico.12

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of CSG during the period of investigation are shown

in table IV-3 and figure IV-3. Between 2007 and 2009, total apparent U.S. consumption decreased

*** percent by quantity and *** percent by value. During the same period, subject imports of CSG

declined *** percent by quantity and *** percent by value. In contrast, nonsubject imports decreased

throughout the period for which data were gathered. Between 2007 and 2009, U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments of CSG decreased by 24.4 percent in quantity and 26.0 percent by value.

 6 Conference transcript, pp. 13-14 (Smith). 

 7

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 9. 

 8

 Conference transcript, p. 75 (Scott). 

 9

 Sections 703(a)(1), 705(b)(1), 733(a)(1), and 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1), 1671d(b)(1),

1673b(a)(1), and 1673d(b)(1)).

 10 Section 771(24) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)).

 11 Official Commerce statistics. 

 12 Conference transcript, p. 16 (Smith). 

IV-3
Table IV-3

CSG: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 2007-09,

January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

Item

Calendar year 2009

2007 2008 2009 Jan.-June July-Dec.

Quantity (1,000 kgs)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 143,493 146,790 108,443 55,539 52,904

U.S. imports from–

China 14,450 *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries 18,826 15,072 11,211 6,201 5,010

Total U.S. imports 33,276 *** *** *** ***

Apparent U.S. consumption 176,769 *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 219,397 262,939 162,262 85,832 76,430

U.S. imports from--

China 16,026 *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries 32,795 31,739 19,983 10,494 9,489

Total U.S. imports 48,820 *** *** *** ***

Apparent U.S. consumption 268,217 *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce

statistics.

Figure IV-3

CSG: Apparent U.S. consumption, by sources, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December

2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share data are presented in table IV-4. U.S. producers’ shipments dropped from

81.2 percent of the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption in 2007 to *** percent in 2008, and then rose

to *** percent in 2009. Between 2007 and 2009, U.S. imports from China increased their share of the

quantity of apparent U.S. consumption of CSG from 8.2 percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008, before

falling to *** percent in 2009.

IV-4
Table IV-4

CSG: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

Item

Calendar year 2009

2007 2008 2009 Jan.-June July-Dec.

Quantity (1,000 kgs)

Apparent U.S. consumption 176,769 *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 268,217 *** *** *** ***

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 81.2 *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

China 8.2 *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries 10.7 *** *** *** ***

All countries 18.8 *** *** *** ***

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 81.8 *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

China 6.0 *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries 12.2 *** *** *** ***

All countries 18.2 *** *** *** ***

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce

statistics.

RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of imports to U.S. production of CSG is presented in table IV-5. 

The ratio of subject imports to U.S. production increased from 9.3 percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008

before dropping to *** percent in 2009. The ratio of nonsubject imports to U.S. production decreased

from 12.1 percent in 2007 to 9.5 percent of U.S. production in 2009.

IV-5
Table IV-5

CSG: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S. production, 2007-09, JanuaryJune 2009, and July-December 2009

Item

Calendar year 2009

2007 2008 2009 Jan.-June July-Dec.

Quantity (1,000 kgs)

U.S. production 155,678 *** *** *** ***

Imports from:

China 14,450 *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries 18,826 15,072 11,211 6,201 5,010

Total imports 33,276 *** *** *** ***

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

Imports from:

China 9.3 *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries 12.1 9.7 9.5 10.5 8.5

Total imports 21.4 *** *** *** ***

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce

statistics.

IV-6
PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

Petitioners report that steel constitutes 60 to 70 percent of U.S. producers’ total cost of producing

CSG.1

 The principal raw materials used for producing CSG are coils of hot-rolled steel sheet and

thin-gauge plate, or flat bars, which are cut into bearing bars, and wire rods, which are cut for the

crossbars used in welded and swage lock grating. The costs of hot-rolled coil, wire rod, and merchant

bars rose slightly during in 2007, then rose abruptly in 2008 before falling in the second half of 2008 and

the beginning of 2009 after which prices rose steadily. In May of 2009 the prices of hot-rolled coil and

wire rod were below prices in 2007, but by April 2010 hot-rolled coil, merchant bar, and wire rod prices

were again above prices in 2007.

Figure V-1

U.S. steel prices: Monthly prices of hot rolled coil, wire rod, and merchant bar, *** monthly average

prices, January 2007 through April 2010

* * * * * * *

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Among U.S. producers, U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from 4.5 to 6 percent. All four

U.S. producers reported that they arrange transportation for their customers. U.S. producers reported that

collectively they sell between 5 and 15 percent of their CSG within 100 miles of their production

facilities, half or more of their sales between 100 and 1,000 miles of their production facilities, and 10 to

40 percent more than 1,000 miles from their production facilities.

Five importers reported U.S. inland transportation costs that ranged between 1 and 5 percent. Six

of 11 responding importers reported that they arranged transportation for their customers, while five

importers reported that their customers arranged transportation. Five of the eight responding importers

reported selling all of their product between 0 and 100 miles from their U.S. points of shipment, two

reported selling half or more of their product between 101 and 1,000 miles from their U.S. points of

shipment, and one reported selling all its product over 1,000 miles from its U.S. point of shipment.

All four responding U.S. producers reported selling nationwide. One of the 10 responding

importers reported selling nationwide. Three importers reported selling in only one region, with the

remaining six reporting sales in 2 to 3 regions. Destination regions most commonly reported by importers

included the Southeast, the Southwest, and the West Coast.

PRICING PRACTICES

CSG is sold in many forms with variations that include the methods of attaching the bearing bars

to the cross bars; the size of the bearing and cross bars; the spacing between bearing bars and cross bars;

use of carbon and stainless steel; plain or serrated surfaces; the use of coatings; and end finishing.2

Bearing bars may be attached to the cross bars by welds, press locks, swage locks, or rivets. Welded steel

grating is the least expensive type and the most common. Grating is typically more expensive per square 

 1 Conference transcript, p. 15 (Smith).

 2

 This includes “addition of end bands, small weldments, or basic cutouts.” Petition p. 9.

V-1
foot if it is heavier (with more steel used), if it is galvanized3

 (although the petitioners report that Chinese

product is typically galvanized in order to protect it while it is shipped and that the Chinese galvanized

product is not more expensive than ungalvanized product),4

 and if it is stainless steel rather than carbon

steel.

Pricing Methods

Three of 4 responding producers and 11 of the 14 responding importers reported using

transaction-by-transaction negotiations to determine price, with 2 of these importers and 1 producer also

reporting the use of price lists. One producer reported using a proprietary algorithm and negotiations to

determine price. One importer reported contract sales and two importers reported internal consumption of

their imports of CSG.

All four responding U.S. producers and eight of nine responding importers reported selling most

of their product using spot sales. All four U.S. producers reported selling from 5 to 44 percent of their

product using short-term contracts, but only two importers reported selling from 30 to 100 percent,

respectively, using short-term contracts. Only one importer reported details on its long-term contracts,

but this firm did not report its shares sold on spot and contract bases. Petitioners report that in a small

share of the market they obtain projects spanning long time periods. In these projects, prices include

price escalators based on CRU or American Metal Market prices but the escalators have become “harder

to enforce.”5

Contract details were reported by four producers and three importers. Short-term contracts

ranged from less than 1 month to 6 months for U.S. producers and were 3 months for both importers that

reported short-term contracts. Two of the four responding producers and one of the two responding

importers reported that contract terms were renegotiated during the period of a short-term contract. Three

producers and two importers reported that contracts fixed both price and quantity, and one producer

reported that short-term contracts fix price. One importer reported that short-term contracts included

meet-or-release provisions. One importer gave details on its long-term contracts, reporting that they were

4 years in length, not renegotiated, fixed price, and contained meet-or-release clauses.

Sales Terms and Discounts

All 4 responding U.S. producers and 9 of the 10 responding importers stated that their typical

sales terms were net 30 days. Three of the four responding U.S. producers and four of the eight

responding importers reported quoting prices on a delivered basis, and one producer and four importers

reported that prices were on an f.o.b. basis.

Two of the 4 responding U.S. producers and 8 of the 11 responding importers reported that they

did not have a discount policy. Two U.S. producers and two importers reported offering quantity or

annual volume discounts, and one importer reported discounts for special accounts.

 3 Petitioners report they typically sell galvanized grating at $1.30 a square foot more than ungalvanized product.

Conference transcript, p. 15 (Smith). 

 4

 Conference transcript, p. 64 (Smith).

 5

 Hearing transcript, pp. 106-108 (Smith, Scott, Rutter).

V-2
PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of CSG to provide quarterly data for the

total quantity (in both square feet and kilograms)6

 and value of CSG that was shipped to unrelated

customers in the U.S. market. Data were requested for the period January-March 2007 through OctoberDecember 2009. The products for which pricing data were requested are as follows:

Product 1.–1.25 inches deep by 3/16 inch thick 19-4 (bearing bars spaced at 19/16" on center (or

metric equivalent), cross bars spaced at 4" on center (or metric equivalent)), 3 foot by 20 foot

welded bar grating panel, carbon steel, unserrated, unpainted, ungalvanized, excluding alloy,

microalloy, and stainless. 

Product 2.--1.00 inch deep by 3/16 inch thick 19-4 (bearing bars spaced at 19/16" on center (or

metric equivalent), cross bars spaced at 4" on center (or metric equivalent)), 3 foot by 20 foot

welded bar grating panel, carbon steel, serrated, galvanized, excluding alloy, microalloy, and

stainless. 

Product 3.--1.25 inches deep by 3/16 inch thick 19-4 (bearing bars spaced at 19/16" on center (or

metric equivalent), cross bars spaced at 4" on center (or metric equivalent)), 3 foot by 20 foot

welded bar grating panel, carbon steel, serrated, galvanized, excluding alloy, microalloy, and

stainless. 

Product 4.--1.50 inches deep by 3/16 inch thick 19-4 (bearing bars spaced at 19/16" on center (or

metric equivalent), cross bars spaced at 4" on center (or metric equivalent)), 3 foot by 20 foot

welded bar grating panel, carbon steel, serrated, galvanized, excluding alloy, microalloy, and

stainless. 

Product 5.--1.25 inches deep by 3/16 inch thick, 19-4 (bearing bars spaced at 19/16" on center

(or metric equivalent), cross bars spaced at 4" on center (or metric equivalent)), 3 foot x 24 foot

welded bar grating panel, carbon steel, unserrated, unpainted, ungalvanized, excluding alloy,

microalloy, and stainless. 

Three U.S. producers and six importers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested

products from the United States and China,7

 although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all

quarters. Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for approximately 15.1 percent of the total value

of U.S. producers’ U.S. commercial shipments of CSG and 20.1 percent of the total value of U.S.

shipments of subject imports from China between 2007 and 2009.

 6 The weight per square foot was calculated for firms that provided both feet and weight. This ratio was typically

very similar for each product reported by each firm. However, the weight per square foot varied by firms. The

differences between the weights per square foot were relatively small among the U.S. producers but larger among

importers. The weight of imported CSG per square foot was not consistently above or below that of U.S. CSG. 

 7

 Price data are reported in terms of feet rather than kilos because more firms provided such data. Usable price

data were provided by U.S. producers *** and from importers of Chinese product ***. In addition, nonsubjectcountry pricing data were provided by ***. Pricing data for imports from China by *** were not included because

they did not include data in terms of feet. 

V-3
Price Trends

U.S. products 1 through 5 followed similar trends, varying within a relatively narrow range

between 2007 and the first quarter of 2008; in the second quarter of 2008, prices rose sharply and peaked

in the third quarter of 2008. In 2009, prices fell sharply before leveling off somewhat or rising slightly in

the last two quarters (tables V-1 to V-5 and figures V-2 to V-6). Thus, the major changes in U.S. prices

during the period appeared to follow steel input prices (figure V-1). In contrast, prices for the Chinese

product followed no discernible pattern. Appendix D provides pricing data for CSG imported from

nonsubject countries.8

Table V-1

CSG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007- December 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2

CSG: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1, by quarters,

January 2007-January 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-2

CSG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007- December 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-3

CSG: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2, by quarters,

January 2007-January 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-3

CSG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007- December 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-4

CSG: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3, by quarters,

January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

 8 Data are not presented for countries with less than three pricing points.

V-4
Table V-4

CSG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007- December 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-5

CSG: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4, by quarters,

January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-5

CSG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007- December 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-6

CSG: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5, by quarters,

January 2006-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Price Comparisons

Selected price comparisons for domestically produced and imported Chinese products are

presented in table V-6. Margins of underselling and overselling are presented in table V-7. As can be

seen from table V-7, prices for CSG imported from China were below those for U.S.-produced CSG in 42

of 51 instances; margins of underselling ranged from 4.8 to 48.7 percent. In the remaining nine instances,

prices for CSG from China were between 0.7 and 51.1 percent above prices for the domestic product. 

V-5
Table V-6

CSG: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices, by product and by country

Country

Number of

quarters

Highest price Lowest price Change in price1

Per square foot Per square foot Percent

Product 1

United States 12 $*** $*** ***

China 8 *** ***

Product 2

United States 12 *** *** ***

China 12 *** *** ***

Product 3

United States 12 *** *** ***

China 11 *** *** ***

Product 4

United States 12 *** *** ***

China 8 *** *** ***

Product 5

United States 12 *** *** ***

China 12 *** *** ***

 1 Percentage change from the first quarter for which price data were reported to the last quarter for which price

data were reported, based on unrounded data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-6
Table V-7

CSG: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins, January

2007-December 2009

Country

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

 China 42 4.8-48.7 20.6 9 0.7-51.1 8.7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

The Commission requested U.S. producers of CSG to report any instances of lost sales or

revenues they experienced due to competition from imports of CSG from China during 2006 through

December 2009. Of the five responding U.S. producers, three reported that they had to either reduce

prices or roll back announced price increases or that they had lost sales. The 18 lost sales allegations

totaled $28,509,800 and involved 22,836 short tons of CSG (table V-8) and the four lost revenues

allegations totaled $2,866,667 and involved 28,317 short tons of CSG (table V-9). Staff received

responses from seven purchasers summarized below.

***.

Table V-8

CSG: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

Table V-9

CSG: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations

* * * * * * *

***.

***

***.

*** 

***.

***.

In addition, purchasers who were sent lost sales/lost revenue questionnaires in the preliminary

phase of the investigations were also asked whether since January 2006 their firm had switched from

U.S.-produced to Chinese grating; three of the seven responding firms reported “yes.” Of those reporting

that they had changed from U.S. product to Chinese product, two reported that price was the reason for

this change. One of them reported that “the term switching is not accurate. We purchased some grating

from China.” The firm shifting to Chinese product for reasons other than price reported that “***.” 

Another, answering “no,” reported it had only purchased *** of Chinese product and that it continued to

purchase U.S. product.

Purchasers were asked whether since January 2006 U.S. producers had reduced their prices of

CSG to compete with prices of CSG imported from China. Three of the six responding purchasers

reported that U.S. producers had reduced their prices because of imports from China. One of these

reported that the effect was much more noticeable in 2007. One reported that it quoted the Chinese price

V-7
which was 35 percent lower to its supplier of U.S.-produced material and this resulted in a lower price for

the U.S. product. One reported that “prices have moved based on the producers’ cost of flat-rolled coil

that is used in the production of grating. Pricing has moved up and down since 2006.” One reported that

it did not answer “yes” or “no” because it did not know why U.S. producers changed their prices. One

reported that U.S. prices had not changed because of the Chinese product but because the cost of steel

fell.

V-8
PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Five U.S. firms provided usable financial data for each of their latest three fiscal years on their

operations producing CSG.1

 These reported data are believed to represent over 95 percent of U.S. CSG

production in 2009.

OPERATIONS ON CSG

Income-and-loss data for the reporting U.S. producers of CSG are presented in table VI-1, and are

briefly described here.

• Total net sales fell irregularly between 2007 and 2009 because of lower sales quantity and a ***

decrease in average unit values.2

• The absolute values of the cost of goods sold (“COGS”) and selling, general, and administrative

(“SG&A”) expenses followed sales, increasing from 2007 to 2008, but were *** lower in 2009. 

The ratio of COGS and of SG&A expenses to net sales increased irregularly between 2007 and

2009 as did the average unit values of those two cost categories. The cost drivers of COGS were

other factory costs and raw material costs. From 2007 to 2008, steel price increases led to

increased raw material costs. Both raw material and other factory costs fell from 2008 to 2009

because of lower sales volume. The average unit value of other factory costs also increased from

2007 to 2008 and remained at virtually the same level in 2009 even though sales volume fell in

that year.

• Operating income increased *** from 2007 to 2008, partly because of the increase in sales

volume but mainly because the unit value of sales increased more than unit costs (COGS plus

SG&A expenses). Operating income fell in 2009 for the opposite reasons: sales volume was

lower and unit costs decreased less than unit revenues.3

 

• Net income before taxes and cash flow followed the same trend as operating income during

2007-09.

Table VI-1

CSG: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December

2009

* * * * * * *

 1 The firms are: AMICO, Fisher, IKG, Leavitt, and Ohio Gratings. Each of the reporting firms has a fiscal year

that ends on or about December 31. There are minor differences between data reported in the trade and financial

sections of the Commission’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire, which are attributable to rounding. Commission staff

verified the questionnaire response of *** and changes have been incorporated in this report. See Verification

Report, May 27, 2010, EDIS document 426241.

 2

 Demand for CSG is reportedly tied to nonresidential construction. Petitioners’ prehearing brief, pp. 10-12 and

hearing transcript, p. 18 (Brightbill), and pp. 57-58 (Kaplan).

 3

 See variance analysis (table VI-4); also, see petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 24-25, 29, and 31-32, and

hearing transcript, p. 24 (Brightbill) and p. 28 (Kaplan).

VI-1
AMICO ***. The firm’s operating ***. The quantity, value, and AUV of AMICO’s commercial

sales fell between 2007 and 2009. Its internal consumption ***. Full-year 2009 was impacted by the

operating results in July-December of that year. AMICO ***.4

IKG ***. The quantity and value of IKG’s total net sales fell between 2007 and 2009, while its

sales AUV increased ***. It was *** of the full years; although its operating income fell by about ***

percent from 2007 to 2009, its operating income margin ***. IKG, ***.5

Fisher6 and Ohio Gratings ***. Fisher produces ***. The AUVs of Ohio Gratings’s commercial

sales ***.7

 ***. Personnel at Ohio Gratings Grating explained that its ***. Leavitt ***. ***.8 ***. 

The results of operations on a firm-by-firm basis are shown in table VI-2.

Table VI-2

CSG: Selected results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and

July-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Raw material inputs utilized in the production of CSG are hot-rolled steel sheet in standard grades

(carbon, alloy, and stainless steel grades) for the bearing bars and steel wire rod in standard grades

(carbon, alloy, and stainless steel grades) for the crossbars. In thicker grades, steel plate may be

substituted for steel sheet. Some manufacturers may choose to purchase pre-slit steel coil or buy steel bar

if they do not have the needed machinery to process the bearing bars or crossbars into the desired size, as

noted in the petition.9

 Raw material costs, which consist of the previously mentioned steel items, declined

irregularly in terms of dollar amounts from 2007 to 2009 due to the fall in sales as well as steel prices;

raw material costs also declined as a percentage of total COGS during the same period, but increased as a

percentage of total net sales. Raw material costs were much lower in July-December 2009 compared with

January-June (accounting for nearly all of the decline in total COGS). Industry witnesses testified that

costs are rising in 2010 and suggested that U.S. producers are experiencing a cost-price squeeze.10 The

data for 2007-09 are shown in table VI-3.

Table VI-3

CSG: Raw material costs of U.S. producers, by firm, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and JulyDecember 2009

* * * * * * *

 4 Petition, vol. 1, exh. 1-3.

 5

 Petition, vol. 1, exh. 1-3.

 6

 Fisher purchased Truweld Grating Inc. in ***. 

 7

 Petition, vol. 1, exh. 1-3, with regard to ***. ***. 

 8

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 34.

 9

 Petition, vol. 1, p. 8 and petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 3.

 10 Hearing transcript, pp. 40 and 66 (Rutter).

VI-2
A variance analysis for the operations of U.S. producers of CSG is presented in table VI-4. The

information for this variance analysis is derived from table VI-1.11 A variance analysis is more effective

when the product involved is a homogeneous product with no variation in product mix (i.e., consistency

in the cost structure). Although petitioners stated that the product mix has changed very little, they noted

that because of imports in common steel grating sizes, U.S. producers have had to produce smaller

volumes of their most common products as well as increase the volume of more specialized products that

are more difficult and expensive to produce.12

Table VI-4

CSG: Variance analysis on the operations of U.S. producers, 2007-09, and January-June 2009 to

July-December 2009

* * * * * * *

The analysis shows that the decrease of $*** in the operating income from 2007 to 2009 was

attributable to the combination of an unfavorable price variance (unit sales values increased), an

unfavorable net cost/expense variance (unit costs increased), and an unfavorable volume variance. The

volume variance from 2007 to 2009 was unfavorable (the volume portion of the sales variance was

greater than the volume portion of the net cost/expense variance). Operating income increased by $***

between January-June 2009 and July-December 2009 because a favorable net cost expense (unit costs

decreased) was greater than an unfavorable price variance (unit prices decreased).

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES

Each of the U.S. producers was asked about the nature of its capital expenditures and research

and development (“R&D”) expenses (table VI-5). AMICO stated that it ***.13 Fisher stated that its

capital expenditures were focused on ***.14 IKG stated that its capital expenditures have been split

between ***.15 Leavitt’s capital expenditures were ***.16 Ohio Gratings provided a list of some of its

more significant items, including ***.17

***.18

 11 A variance analysis is calculated in three parts: sales variance, cost of sales variance, and SG&A expense

variance. Each part consists of a price variance (in the case of the sales variance) or a cost or expense (cost/expense)

variance (in the case of the cost of sales and SG&A expense variance), and a volume variance. The sales or

cost/expense variance is calculated as the change in unit price or per-unit cost/expense times the new volume, while

the volume variance is calculated as the change in volume times the old unit price or per-unit cost/expense. 

Summarized at the bottom of the table, the price variance is from sales; the cost/expense variance is the sum of those

items from COGS and SG&A variances, respectively, and the volume variance is the sum of the volume components

of the net sales, COGS, and SG&A expense variances. 

 12 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 4 (citing Rutter testimony, conference transcript, pp. 23-24).

 13 E-mail to Commission staff from ***, July 1, 2009. AMICO added to its response ***. EDIS document

406383.

 14 E-mail to Commission staff from ***, June 30, 2009. EDIS document 406383.

 15 E-mail to Commission staff from ***, June 30, 2009. EDIS document 406383.

 16 Telephone interview with ***, July 1, 2009. EDIS document 406383.

 17 E-mail to staff from ***, June 30, 2009. EDIS document 406383.

 18 Ibid.

VI-3
Table VI-5

CSG: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. producers, 2007-09,

January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

Item

Fiscal year 2009

2007 2008 2009 Jan.-June July-Dec.

Value (1,000 dollars)

Capital expenditures:

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** ***

Total 7,580 3,071 6,320 5,390 930

R&D expenses:

*** *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Data on the U.S. producers’ total assets and their return on investment (“ROI”) are presented in

table VI-6. Total assets utilized in the production, warehousing, and sale of CSG for reporting U.S.

producers declined by 10 percent from 2007 to 2009. ROI, which is calculated as the ratio of operating

income to total assets, therefore followed the trend of operating income. ROI fell irregularly by ***

percentage points from 2007 to 2009.

Table VI-6

CSG: The value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2007–09

* * * * * * *

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers of CSG to describe any actual or potential negative

effects of imports of CSG from China on their firms’ growth, investment, ability to raise capital,

development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments. Their responses are shown

below.

Actual Negative Effects

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Negative Effects

* * * * * * *

VI-4
PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON

NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making threat determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(F)(i)). Information on the nature of the alleged subsidies was presented in Part I of this report;

information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV and

V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing

development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the subject

merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any other

threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in third-country markets, follows. Also presented in this

section of the report is information obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries

and the global market.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The petitions in these investigations identified 16 potential producers and/or exporters of CSG

from China. In the final phase of the investigations, the Commission sent questionnaires to the 25 firms

that were sent questionnaires during the preliminary phase of the investigations as well as to 15 additional

firms; no completed responses were received.1

Information from the Preliminary Phase Report

The responding firms (***) estimated that they accounted for 6.0 percent of production of CSG in

China and 32.3 percent of exports of CGS from China to the United States in 2008. Reported exports of

CSG to the United States by these firms in 2008 were equivalent to *** percent of the quantity of U.S.

imports of CSG from China in that year based on official Commerce statistics.

Table VII-1 presents data for reporting producers of CSG from China from 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, January-March 2009, and forecasts for 2009 and 2010. Production increased by *** percent

between 2006 and 2008, while capacity increased by *** percent during the same period. Reported

exports to the United States increased by *** percent between 2006 and 2008, but decreased by ***

percent during the interim periods. According to petitioners, the Chinese government maintains a fivepercent value-added tax rebate on CSG that is exported.2

Table VII-1 

CSG: Data for reporting producers from China, 2006-08, January-March 2008, January-March 2009,

and projected 2009 and 2010

* * * * * * *

Information from the Final Phase of the Investigations

Although no producers in China provided data in the final phase of these investigations,

information on the industry in China is available from a study of the steel grating market in China which

was commissioned by the petitioners. The study indicated that the industry in China has an annual

 1 Two firms responded that they did not produce steel gratings; no other firm responded.

 2

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 1. 

VII-1
production capacity of over 2 million short tons or 1.8 billion kilograms.3

 Petitioners contend that

demand for CSG is weakening in China, that there has been a reining in of lending for construction

activities, and that steel grating producers in China are export-oriented.4

 China also reportedly has a 5-

percent value-added-tax rebate of CSG that is exported.5

U.S. INVENTORIES OF CSG FROM CHINA

Inventories of U.S. imports as reported are presented in Table VII-2. Inventories of Chinese CSG

*** from 2007 (*** million kilograms) to 2008 (*** million kilograms) before dropping to *** million

kilograms in 2009. In contrast, inventories from all other sources decreased throughout the period. 

Inventory data are incomplete because importers’ questionnaires were received from firms accounting for

less than 50 percent of the quantity of U.S. imports during the period.

Table VII-2

CSG: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2007-09

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of CSG from China after December 31, 2009. No firms indicated that they had imported or

arranged for the importation of CSG from China after that date.

ANTIDUMPING INVESTIGATIONS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

No producer, importer, or foreign producer reported any countervailing or antidumping duty

orders on CSG from China in third-country markets.

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury

“by reason of subject imports,” the legislative history states “that the Commission must examine all

relevant evidence, including any known factors, other than the dumped or subsidized imports, that may be

injuring the domestic industry, and that the Commission must examine those other factors (including nonsubject imports) ‘to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.’”6

As discussed in Part IV of this report, the largest nonsubject source of CSG is Canada. As figure 

VII-1 illustrates, imports of CSG from Canada and all other sources decreased throughout the period for

which data were gathered.

 3 The report was prepared by ***, and was provided as exh. 11 of the petitioners’ prehearing brief. The report

analyzed 57 producers in China who reportedly combined for a capacity of 1.1 million short tons or 975 million

kilograms of steel grating per year. Petitioners’ prehearing brief, p. 14. 

 4

 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, Answers to Questions, pp. 22-23.

 5

 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, p. 46.

 6

 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 2007-1552 at 17 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 18, 2008), quoting from

Statement of Administrative Action on Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. I at 851-52; see

also Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

VII-2
Figure VII-1

CSG: U.S. imports, by source, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *

VII-3
 
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-1

8746 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by Gleason Industrial Products, Inc., 

Harper Trucks, Inc., Magline, Inc., and Wesco 

Industrial Products, Inc. to be individually 

adequate. Comments from other interested parties 

will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

1For purposes of these investigations, the 

Department of Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise as ‘‘certain steel grating, consisting of 

two or more pieces of steel, including load-bearing 

pieces and cross pieces, joined by any assembly 

process, regardless of: (1) Size or shape; (2) method 

of manufacture; (3) metallurgy (carbon, alloy, or 

stainless); (4) the profile of the bars; and (5) whether 

or not they are galvanized, painted, coated, clad or 

plated. Steel grating is also commonly referred to 

as ‘bar grating,’ although the components may 

consist of steel other than bars, such as hot-rolled 

sheet, plate, or wire rod. The scope of this 

investigation excludes expanded metal grating, 

which is comprised of a single piece or coil of sheet 

or thin plate steel that has been slit and expanded, 

and does not involve welding or joining of multiple 

pieces of steel. The scope of this investigation also 

excludes plank type safety grating which is 

comprised of a single piece or coil of sheet or thin 

plate steel, typically in thickness of 10 to 18 gauge, 

that has been pierced and cold formed, and does 

not involve welding or joining of multiple pieces 

of steel.’’ 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On February 5, 2010, 

the Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (74 

FR 56661, November 2, 2009) of the 

subject five-year review was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the review will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on 

March 15, 2010, and made available to 

persons on the Administrative 

Protective Order service list for this 

review. A public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before March 

18, 2010 and may not contain new 

factual information. Any person that is 

neither a party to the five-year review 

nor an interested party may submit a 

brief written statement (which shall not 

contain any new factual information) 

pertinent to the review by March 18, 

2010. However, should the Department 

of Commerce extend the time limit for 

its completion of the final results of its 

review, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the review must be 

served on all other parties to the review 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determination.—The Commission has 

determined to exercise its authority to 

extend the review period by up to 90 

days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 22, 2010. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3878 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–465 and 731– 

TA–1161 (Final)] 

Certain Steel Grating From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of 

countervailing duty and antidumping 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of countervailing duty 

investigation No. 701–TA–465 (Final) 

under section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act) and 

the final phase of antidumping 

investigation No. 731–TA–1161 (Final) 

under section 735(b) of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1673d(b)) to determine whether 

an industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, or the establishment of 

an industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

subsidized and less-than-fair-value 

imports from China of certain steel 

gratings, provided for in subheading 

7308.90.70 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States.1

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of the 

investigations, hearing procedures, and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: January 6, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Ruggles (202–205–3187 or 

fred.ruggles@usitc.gov), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—The final phase of 

these investigations is being scheduled 

as a result of affirmative preliminary 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce that certain benefits which 

constitute subsidies within the meaning 

of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1671b) are being provided to 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices 8747 

in China of certain steel gratings, and 

that such products are being sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

within the meaning of section 733 of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The 

investigations were requested in a 

petition filed May 29, 2009, by Alabama 

Metal Industries, Birmingham, AL and 

Fisher & Ludlow, Wexford, PA. 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the final phase of these 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

section 201.11 of the Commission’s 

rules, no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. A 

party that filed a notice of appearance 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigations need not file an 

additional notice of appearance during 

this final phase. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the investigations. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in the final phase of these 

investigations available to authorized 

applicants under the APO issued in the 

investigations, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days prior to the hearing date specified 

in this notice. Authorized applicants 

must represent interested parties, as 

defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are 

parties to the investigations. A party 

granted access to BPI in the preliminary 

phase of the investigations need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the final phase of these 

investigations will be placed in the 

nonpublic record on May 11, 2010, and 

a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the final 

phase of these investigations beginning 

at 9:30 a.m. on May 25, 2010, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Requests to appear at the 

hearing should be filed in writing with 

the Secretary to the Commission on or 

before May 17, 2010. A nonparty who 

has testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on May 19, 2010, 

at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 

207.24 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party 

who is an interested party shall submit 

a prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.23 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is May 18, 2010. Parties may also 

file written testimony in connection 

with their presentation at the hearing, as 

provided in section 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules, and posthearing 

briefs, which must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.25 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is June 1, 2010; 

witness testimony must be filed no later 

than three days before the hearing. In 

addition, any person who has not 

entered an appearance as a party to the 

investigations may submit a written 

statement of information pertinent to 

the subject of the investigations, 

including statements of support or 

opposition to the petition, on or before 

June 1, 2010. On June 17, 2010, the 

Commission will make available to 

parties all information on which they 

have not had an opportunity to 

comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before June 21, 2010, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.30 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

investigations must be served on all 

other parties to the investigations (as 

identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 22, 2010. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3879 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Revision of Certain Dollar Amounts in 

the Bankruptcy Code Prescribed Under 

Section 104(A) of the Code 

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the 

United States. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Certain dollar amounts in title 

11 and title 28, United States Code, are 

increased. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Francis F. Szczebak, Chief, Bankruptcy 

Judges Division, Administrative Office 

of the United States Courts, Washington, 

DC 20544, telephone (202) 502–1900 or 

by e-mail at Bankruptcy_Judges_

Division@ao.uscourts.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

104(a) of title 11, United States Code, 

provides the mechanism for an 

automatic 3-year adjustment of dollar 

amounts in certain sections of titles 11 

and 28. Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, 

Public Law 103–394, section 108(e), 

(1994) as amended by Bankruptcy 

Abuse Prevention and Consumer 

Protection Act of 2005, Public Law 109– 

8, section 102(j), (2005) and Public Law 

110–406, (2008). The provision states: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32362 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), we 

determine that it is not practicable to 

complete the results of this review 

within the original time limit. The 

Department needs additional time to 

analyze a significant amount of 

information, which was recently 

submitted, and to determine whether 

any additional information is required. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department 

has decided to extend the time limit for 

the preliminary results from 245 days to 

365 days. The preliminary results will 

now be due no later than December 7, 

2010. Unless extended, the final results 

continue to be due 120 days after the 

publication of the preliminary results, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: June 1, 2010. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13730 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–831] 

Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 

New Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0780. 

Background 

On December 29, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (Department) 

initiated new shipper reviews of fresh 

garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC) for Jinxiang Chengda Imp 

& Exp Co., Ltd. (Chengda), Jinxiang 

Yuanxin Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. (Yuanxin), 

and Zhengzhou Huachao Industrial Co., 

Ltd. (Huachao) covering the period 

November 1, 2008 through October 31, 

2009. See Fresh Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of New 

Shipper Reviews, 75 FR 343 (January 5, 

2010). On February 12, 2010, the 

Department issued a memorandum that 

tolled the deadlines for all Import 

Administration cases by seven calendar 

days due to the Federal Government 

closure. See Memorandum for the 

Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for 

Import Administration, Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines as a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm, dated February 12, 

2010. As a result, the preliminary 

results of these new shipper reviews are 

currently due no later than July 6, 2010. 

Statutory Time Limits 

Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

provides that the Department will issue 

the preliminary results of a new shipper 

review of an antidumping duty order 

within 180 days after the day on which 

the review was initiated. See also 19 

CFR 351.214(i)(1). The Act further 

provides that the Department may 

extend that 180-day period to 300 days 

if it determines that the case is 

extraordinarily complicated. See 19 CFR 

351.214(i)(2). 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results 

The Department determines that these 

new shipper reviews involve 

extraordinarily complicated 

methodological issues, including the 

examination of importer information. 

Additional time is also required to 

ensure that the Department has 

adequate time to include Chengda, 

Yuanxin, and Huachao’s supplemental 

questionnaire responses in its 

examination of the bona fides of the 

companies’ sales. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2), the 

Department is extending the time limit 

for these preliminary results to 300 

days, until no later than November 1, 

2010. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: June 1, 2010. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13731 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–948] 

Certain Steel Grating from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) has determined that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

steel grating from the People’s Republic 

of China (PRC). For information on the 

estimated countervailable subsidy rates, 

please see the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section, below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Justin Neuman or Nicholas Czajkowski 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0486, (202) 482– 

1395, respectively. 

Petitioners 

Petitioners in this investigation are 

Alabama Metal Industries Corp. 

(AMICO) and Fisher & Ludlow 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, i.e., the period of 

investigation (POI), is January 1, 2008 

through December 31, 2008. 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the preliminary determination. 

See Certain Steel Grating from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Alignment of Final 

Countervailing Duty Determination with 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 

74 FR 56796 (November 3, 2009) 

(Preliminary Determination). 

The Department issued several 

supplemental questionnaires to the 

Government of the People’s Republic of 

China (GOC) and Ningbo Jiulong 

Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

(Ningbo Jiulong). The Department 

received responses to questionnaires 

issued to the GOC in December 2009, as 

well as in January and February 2010. 

The Department received responses to 

questionnaires issued to Ningbo Jiulong 

in December 2009, as well as in January, 

February, and March 2010. Public 

versions of the questionnaires and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32363 

responses, as well as the various 

memoranda cited below, are available in 

the Department’s Central Records Unit 

(Room 1117 in the HCHB Building) 

(hereinafter referred to as the CRU). 

As explained in the Memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

has exercised its discretion to toll 

deadlines for the duration of the closure 

of the Federal Government from 

February 5, through February 12, 2010. 

Thus, all deadlines in this segment of 

the proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for 

this final CVD determination is now 

May 28, 2010. See Memorandum to the 

Record from Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines As a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm’’ (February 12, 2010). 

On February 24, 2010, Department 

officials met with Petitioners’ counsel to 

discuss issues related to the upcoming 

verification of the GOC and Ningbo 

Jiulong. See Memorandum for the File 

from Nicholas Czajkowski, Case 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Meeting 

with Counsel for Petitioners: 

Countervailing Duty Investigation on 

Certain Steel Grating from the People’s 

Republic of China (February 26, 2010). 

On March 8, 2010, Petitioners placed 

on the record a detailed analysis of mill 

test certificates that were provided to 

the Department by Ningbo Jiulong. See 

Letter to Secretary Locke from Timothy 

C. Brightbill, Certain Steel Grating from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Comments on Mill Test Certificates 

(March 8, 2010). 

From March 8 through March 13, 

2010, we conducted verification of the 

questionnaire responses submitted by 

the GOC and Ningbo Jiulong. We issued 

verification reports on April 14, 2010. 

See Memorandum to the File from 

Thomas Beline, Staff Attorney; Nicholas 

Czajkowski, International Trade 

Analyst; and Justin Neuman, 

International Trade Analyst, 

Verification of the Questionnaire 

Responses Submitted by the 

Government of China (April 14, 2010), 

and Memorandum to the File from 

Thomas Beline, Staff Attorney; Nicholas 

Czajkowski, International Trade 

Analyst; and Justin Neuman, 

International Trade Analyst, 

Verification of the Questionnaire 

Responses Submitted by Ningbo Jiulong 

Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and 

Ningbo Zhenhai Jiulong Electronic 

Equipment Factory (April 14, 2010) 

(Ningbo Jiulong Verification Report). 

On March 15, 2010, Ningbo Jiulong 

filed a copy of the minor corrections 

provided to the Department at 

verification. See Letter to Secretary 

Locke from Gregory S. Menegaz, Certain 

Steel Grating from the People’s Republic 

of China – Minor Corrections – Ningbo 

Jiulong (March 15, 2010). 

On March 23, 2010, we requested 

permission from Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to place on the record 

certain entry documents that it had 

provided for the record in the 

corresponding antidumping (AD) 

investigation. See Memorandum to Tom 

Futtner, Supervisory Import Compliance 

Analyst, Customs Unit, Import 

Administration from Nicholas 

Czajkowski, International Trade 

Analyst, Office 6, Countervailing Duty 

Investigation of Certain Steel Grating 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Request for Customs Documents (March 

23, 2010). Those documents were 

placed on the record on April 6, 2010. 

See Memorandum to the File from 

Nicholas Czajkowski, Trade Analyst, 

Office 6, AD/CVD Operations, 

Countervailing Duty Investigation of 

Certain Steel Grating (CSG) from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC): CBP 

Entry Documents (April 6, 2010). 

On March 23, 2010, we issued a letter 

establishing a deadline for parties to 

rebut factual information recently added 

to the record. See Letter to Ningbo 

Jiulong from Barbara E. Tillman, 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, 

Countervailing Duty Investigation; 

Certain Steel Grating from the People’s 

Republic of China (March 23, 2010). 

On March 23, 2010, Ningbo Jiulong 

filed clarifying and rebuttal comments 

related to Petitioners’ March 8, 2010 

analysis of mill test certificates provided 

by Ningbo Jiulong to the Department. 

See Letter to Secretary Locke from 

Ningbo Jiulong, Steel Grating from 

China – Ningbo Jiulong Machinery 

Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Ningbo 

Zhenhai Jiulong Electronic Equipment 

Factory – Rebuttal to Petitioners’ March 

8, 2010 Submission (March 24, 2010). 

On April 15, 2010, we issued our 

post–preliminary determination 

regarding the ‘‘Provision of Electricity at 

Less than Adequate Remuneration.’’ See 

Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration from John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

AD/CVD Operations, Countervailing 

Duty Investigation of Certain Steel 

Grating from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC): Post–Preliminary 

Determination Regarding the Provision 

of Electricity for Less than Adequate 

Remuneration (April 15, 2010). 

On April 23, 2010, we received 

comments from Ningbo Jiulong 

regarding what it considers to be several 

significant errors in the Ningbo Jiulong 

Verification Report issued by the 

Department on April 14, 2010, and 

urging the Department not to let those 

errors color its analysis for the purposes 

of the final determination. 

On April 26, 2010, we received case 

briefs from Petitioners, the GOC, Ningbo 

Jiulong, and Yantai Xinke Steel 

Structure Co., Ltd. (an exporter/ 

producer of steel grating that was not 

selected as a mandatory respondent in 

this investigation). On April 28, the 

Department issued a letter rejecting 

Petitioners’ brief because it contained 

new factual information. See Letter to 

AMICO and Fisher & Ludlow from 

Barbara E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, Rejection of New 

Factual Information Submitted in Case 

Brief Dated April 26, 2010. Petitioners 

resubmitted their brief on April 29, 

2010. Rebuttal briefs were submitted by 

Petitioners, the GOC, and Ningbo 

Jiulong on May 3, 2010. 

On May 4, 2010, Ningbo Jiulong 

withdrew its request for a hearing. On 

May 6, 2010, Department officials met 

with representatives of Ningbo Jiulong 

regarding issues in the briefs submitted 

by their client and by Petitioners. See 

Memorandum for the File from Justin 

M. Neuman, International Trade 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, 

Ex–Parte Meeting with Representatives 

of Ningbo Jiulong Machinery 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (May 10, 2010). 

On May 10, 2010, Department officials 

met with Petitioners’ counsel to discuss 

issues related to the briefs. See 

Memorandum for the File from Justin 

M. Neuman, International Trade 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, 

Countervailing Duty Investigation of 

Certain Steel Grating from the People’s 

Republic of China: Ex–Parte Meeting 

with Representatives of Alabama Metal 

Industries, Fisher and Ludlow (May 19, 

2010). 

Scope of the Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are certain steel grating, 

consisting of two or more pieces of steel, 

including load–bearing pieces and cross 

pieces, joined by any assembly process, 

regardless of: (1) size or shape; (2) 

method of manufacture; (3) metallurgy 

(carbon, alloy, or stainless); (4) the 

profile of the bars; and (5) whether or 

not they are galvanized, painted, coated, 

clad or plated. Steel grating is also 

commonly referred to as ‘‘bar grating,’’ 

although the components may consist of 

steel other than bars, such as hot–rolled 

sheet, plate, or wire rod. 

The scope of this investigation 

excludes expanded metal grating, which 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32364 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

is comprised of a single piece or coil of 

sheet or thin plate steel that has been 

slit and expanded, and does not involve 

welding or joining of multiple pieces of 

steel. The scope of this investigation 

also excludes plank type safety grating 

which is comprised of a single piece or 

coil of sheet or thin plate steel, typically 

in thickness of 10 to 18 gauge, that has 

been pierced and cold formed, and does 

not involve welding or joining of 

multiple pieces of steel. 

Certain steel grating that is the subject 

of this investigation is currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) under subheading 

7308.90.7000. While the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the meaning 

of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) is 

required to determine, pursuant to 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act, whether 

imports of the subject merchandise from 

the PRC materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, a United States 

industry. On July 20, 2009, the ITC 

published its preliminary determination 

that there is a reasonable indication that 

an industry in the United States is 

materially injured by reason of allegedly 

subsidized imports from the PRC of 

subject merchandise. See Certain Steel 

Grating From China Determinations, 74 

FR 35204 (July 20, 2009); and Certain 

Steel Grating from China (Preliminary), 

USITC Pub. 4087, Inv. Nos. 701–TA– 

465 and 731–TA–1161 (July 2009). 

Analysis of Subsidy Programs and 

Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, from John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, entitled ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Determination in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigation of Certain Steel 

Grating from the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ dated concurrently with this 

notice (hereinafter, Decision 

Memorandum), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. Attached to this 

notice as an Appendix is a list of the 

issues that parties have raised and to 

which we have responded in the 

Decision Memorandum. The Decision 

Memorandum also contains a complete 

analysis of the programs covered by this 

investigation, and the methodologies 

used to calculate the subsidy rates. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this investigation 

and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room 1117 in the 

main building of the Commerce 

Department. In addition, a complete 

version of the Decision Memorandum 

can be accessed directly on the Internet 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Use of Adverse Facts Available 

For purposes of this final 

determination, we have relied on facts 

available and drawn adverse inferences, 

in accordance with sections 776(a) and 

(b) of the Act, with regard to Ningbo 

Jiulong’s receipt of countervailable 

subsidies under the ‘‘Provision of Hot– 

Rolled Steel for Less than Adequate 

Remuneration’’ and ‘‘Provision of Wire 

Rod for Less than Adequate 

Remuneration’’ programs. A full 

discussion of our decision to apply 

partial adverse facts available (AFA) is 

presented in the Decision Memorandum 

in the section ‘‘Application of Facts 

Available, Including the Application of 

Adverse Inferences,’’ as well as the 

Department’s position on Comment 4 in 

the Decision Memorandum. 

With respect to the GOC’s ‘‘Provision 

of Electricity for Less than Adequate 

Remuneration,’’ the Department has also 

relied upon facts available and drawn 

adverse inferences, in accordance with 

sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. A full 

discussion of our decision to apply 

partial AFA is presented in the section 

‘‘Application of Facts Available, 

Including the Application of Adverse 

Inferences,’’ and the Department’s 

position on Comment 10 of the Decision 

Memorandum. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have 

calculated an individual rate for the 

mandatory respondent under 

investigation, Ningbo Jiulong Machinery 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Section 

705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for 

companies not investigated, we will 

determine an ‘‘all others’’ rate equal to 

the weighted–average countervailable 

subsidy rates established for exporters 

and producers individually 

investigated, excluding any zero and de 

minimis countervailable subsidy rates, 

and any rates determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. In this 

investigation, the Department selected 

two mandatory respondents to review. 

After receiving and reviewing the 

questionnaire responses of one of the 

mandatory respondents, United Steel 

Structures, Ltd. (USSL), the Department 

determined that, because USSL was not 

a steel grating exporter or producer, it 

would be an inappropriate mandatory 

respondent in this investigation. See 

Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration from John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

AD/CVD Operations, Countervailing 

Duty Investigation of Certain Steel 

Grating from the People’s Republic of 

China: Whether USSL Should be 

Maintained as a Mandatory 

Respondent. However, because that 

determination was made on October 23, 

2009, three days before the preliminary 

determination, the Department 

determined that it could not select an 

additional mandatory respondent to 

calculate an individual rate for in this 

investigation. Because there is only one 

respondent in this investigation for 

which the Department has calculated a 

company–specific rate, consistent with 

our practice and section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act, its rate serves as the ‘‘all 

others’’ rate. See e.g., Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Thailand, 66 FR 50410, 

50411 (October 3, 2001); and Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Pure Magnesium From 

Israel, 66 FR 49351, 49353 (Sept. 27, 

2001). 

Exporter/Manufacturer 

Net 

Countervailable 

Subsidy Rate 

Ningbo Jiulong Machinery 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. ... 62.46% ad 

valorem 

All Others ............................. 62.46% ad 

valorem 

As a result of our Preliminary 

Determination, we instructed CBP to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

steel grating from the PRC which were 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after November 

3, 2009, the date of the publication of 

the Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register and to collect cash 

deposits of estimated countervailing 

duties or bonds, in the amount of the 

preliminary countervailing duty rates. 

Pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, 

we subsequently instructed CBP to 

discontinue the suspension of 

liquidation for countervailing duty 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32365 

purposes for subject merchandise 

entered on or after March 3, 2010, but 

to continue the suspension of 

liquidation of entries made on or after 

November 3, 2009 through March 2, 

2010. 

If the ITC issues a final affirmative 

injury determination, we will issue a 

countervailing duty order and order 

CBP to resume the suspension of 

liquidation of entries of steel grating and 

to require a cash deposit on all such 

entries equal to the subsidy rate listed 

above. If the ITC determines that 

material injury, or threat of material 

injury, does not exist, this proceeding 

will be terminated and all deposits or 

securities posted as a result of the 

suspension of liquidation will be 

refunded or canceled. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all non– 

privileged and non–proprietary 

information related to this investigation. 

We will allow the ITC access to all 

privileged and business proprietary 

information in our files, provided the 

ITC confirms that it will not disclose 

such information, either publicly or 

under an APO, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to an administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 705(d) 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: May 28, 2010. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Subsidies Valuation 

A. Date of Applicability of CVD Law 

to the PRC 

B. Allocation Period 

C. Cross–Ownership 

IV. Application of Facts Available, 

Including the Application of Adverse 

Inferences 

V. Analysis of Programs 

A. Programs Determined to Be 

Countervailable 

1. Government Provision of Hot– 

Rolled Steel for Less than Adequate 

Remuneration 

2. Government Provision of Wire Rod 

for Less than Adequate 

Remuneration 

3. Income Tax Credits for 

Domestically Owned Companies 

Purchasing Domestically Produced 

Equipment 

4. Government Provision of Electricity 

for Less than Adequate 

Remuneration 

5. Other Grant Programs 

a) Export Grant 2006, 2007, 2008 

b) Jiulong Lake Town Grant 2008 

c) Energy Saving Grant 2008 

d) Foreign Trade Grant 2008 

e) Famous Brand Grant 2008 

f) Innovative Small- and Medium– 

Sized Enterprise Grant 2008 

g) Water Fund Refund/Exemption 

2008 

h) Product Quality Grant 

B. Program Determined To Be Not 

Countervailable 

Cleaning Production Grant 2008 

C. Programs Determined To Be Not Used 

or To Not Provide Benefits During the 

POI 

1. GOC Provision of Steel Bar for Less 

than Adequate Remuneration 

2. GOC Provision of Steel Plate for 

Less than Adequate Remuneration 

3. GOC Provision of Land–Use Rights 

to SOEs for Less than Adequate 

Remuneration 

4. ‘‘Two Free, Three Half’’ Program 

5. Reduced Income Tax Rates for 

Export–Oriented FIEs 

6. Preferential Income Tax Policy for 

Enterprises in the Northeast Region 

7. Forgiveness of Tax Arrears for 

Enterprises in the Old Industrial 

Bases of Northeast China 

8. Tax Subsidies for FIES in Specially 

Designated Geographic Areas 

9. Local Income Tax Exemption and 

Reduction Programs for 

‘‘Productive’’ FIEs 

10. Income Tax Credits for FIEs 

Purchasing Domestically Produced 

Equipment 

11. Preferential Tax Programs for FIEs 

Recognized as High or New 

Technology Enterprises 

12. Import Tariff and Value Added 

Tax (‘‘VAT’’) Exemptions for 

Encouraged Industries Importing 

Equipment for Domestic Operations 

13. VAT and Tariff Exemptions for 

Purchases of Fixed Assets Under 

the Foreign Trade Development 

Fund 

14. Loans and Interest Subsidies 

Provided Pursuant to the Northeast 

Revitalization Program 

15. Grants to ‘‘Third–Line’’ Military 

Enterprises 

16. Guangdong and Zhejiang Province 

Program to Rebate Antidumping 

Fees 

17. The State Key Technology Project 

Fund 

18. Export Incentive Payments 

Characterized as ‘‘VAT Rebates’’ 

19. VAT Refunds for FIEs Purchasing 

Domestically–Produced Equipment 

20. Technical Upgrading Grant 2005, 

2007 

21. Power Engine Grant 2005 

22. Technical Innovation Grant 2006 

D. Programs For Which Ningbo Jiulong 

Is Determined to Be Ineligible 

1. Liaoning Province ‘‘Five Points, One 

Line’’ Program 

2. Guangzhou City Famous Exports 

Brands 

3. Grants to Companies for ‘‘Outward 

Expansion’’ in Guangdong Province 

IV. Analysis of Comments 

Comment 1: Application of U.S. 

Countervailing Duty Law to China 

Comment 2: Cut–Off Date 

Comment 3: Selection of Two 

Mandatory Respondents 

Comment 4: Application of Adverse 

Facts Available 

Comment 5: Department Procedures 

Comment 6: Provision of Hot–Rolled 

Steel and Wire Rod for Less than 

Adequate Remuneration – The Role of 

Mill Test Certificates 

Comment 7: Provision of Hot–Rolled 

Steel and Wire Rod for Less than 

Adequate Remuneration – Whether 

These Programs Are Countervailable 

Comment 8: Provision of Hot–Rolled 

Steel and Wire Rod for Less than 

Adequate Remuneration – Appropriate 

Benchmark 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32366 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

Comment 9: Income Tax Credits for 

Domestically Owned Companies 

Purchasing Domestically Produced 

Equipment 

Comment 10: Provision of Electricity for 

Less than Adequate Remuneration 

Comment 11: Grant Programs 

Comment 12: Separate CVD Rate for 

Xinke 

VII. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2010–13776 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–947] 

Certain Steel Grating From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2010. 

SUMMARY: On January 6, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping duty investigation of 

certain steel grating (‘‘steel grating’’) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’). See Certain Steel Grating From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination, 75 FR 847 

(January 6, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’). We invited interested 

parties to comment on our preliminary 

determination of sales at LTFV. Based 

on our analysis of the comments we 

received, we have made changes from 

the Preliminary Determination. We 

determine that steel grating from the 

PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold in 

the United States at LTFV as provided 

in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘Act’’). The final dumping 

margins for this investigation are listed 

in the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ 

section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3936. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

October 1, 2008, through March 31, 

2009. The Department published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on January 6, 2010. See 

Preliminary Determination. On February 

4, 2010, we postponed the final 

determination. See Certain Steel Grating 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Postponement of Final Determination, 

75 FR 5766 (February 4, 2010). 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

has exercised its discretion to toll 

deadlines for the duration of the closure 

of the Federal Government from 

February 5, through February 12, 2010. 

Thus, all deadlines in this segment of 

the proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for the 

final determination of this investigation 

is now May 28, 2010. See Memorandum 

to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, 

DAS for Import Administration, 

regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative 

Deadlines As a Result of the 

Government Closure During the Recent 

Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 2010. 

Between January 11, 2010, through 

January 15, 2010, the Department 

conducted verification of Ningbo 

Jiulong Machinery Manufacturing Co., 

Ltd. and Ningbo Zhenhai Jiulong 

Electronic Equipment Factory 

(collectively ‘‘Ningbo Jiulong’’). See the 

‘‘Verification’’ section below for 

additional information. On March 8, 

2010, Fisher & Ludlow and Alabama 

Metal Industries Corporation (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘Petitioners’’) filed 

comments regarding mill test certificates 

from Ningbo Jiulong’s suppliers of steel 

coils and wire rod that were included in 

the Department’s verification exhibits. 

Petitioners cited numerous aspects of 

the mill test certificates that they 

deemed irregular, and which indicated 

that the mill test certificates were not 

genuine. 

On March 8, 2010, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Ningbo Jiulong, requiring a response to 

Petitioners’ analysis and specific 

allegations, and to reconcile its 

suppliers’ mill test certificates with 

other information on the record. On 

March 9, 2010, the Department 

requested additional information from 

Petitioners, supporting the analysis in 

its March 8, 2010 submission. Also, on 

March 9, 2010, the Department 

requested U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) entry documents 

pertaining to certain Ningbo Jiulong 

shipments, specifically any mill test 

certificates filed by the importer of 

record. On March 10, 2010, the 

Department issued an additional request 

to Ningbo Jiulong to provide mill test 

certificates for its steel inputs for certain 

specific U.S. sales of steel grating that 

the Department had selected for specific 

review at verification. 

On March 16, 2010, and March 18, 

2010, the Department received from 

CBP entry documentation and certain 

mill test certificates created by Ningbo 

Jiulong for steel coils, filed with CBP by 

the importer of record. 

On March 18, 2010, Ningbo Jiulong 

responded to the Department’s March 

10, 2010, request for specific mill test 

certificates by stating that (1) Ningbo 

Jiulong could not link steel coil mill test 

certificates to the U.S. sales of steel 

grating in which the steel coil was used 

in production, and (2) in practice 

Ningbo Jiulong did not provide mill test 

certificates to its customer for most 

sales, despite the ‘‘legalistic terms in the 

small print’’ of its purchase orders. 

On March 19, 2010, Petitioners 

responded to the Department’s request 

with supporting information concerning 

the analysis in their March 8, 2010 

submission. Also, on March 19, 2010, 

Ningbo Jiulong responded to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire, stating: (1) Ningbo 

Jiulong cannot trace any of its suppliers’ 

mill test certificates to specific 

purchases of steel coil or wire rod, 

because mill test certificates are 

production records that pertain to steel 

sold to multiple customers; (2) mill test 

certificates are not accounting records 

(e.g., invoices, inventory slips, delivery 

notes), and thus Ningbo Jiulong does not 

keep mill test certificates in its records 

in the normal course of business; (3) 

Ningbo Jiulong creates its own mill test 

certificates that it admits are unreliable, 

and that it has no ability to determine 

with its own analysis the chemical 

properties of any steel that it purchases; 

and (4) irregularities in the mill test 

certificates noted by Petitioners are due 

to the carelessness of their suppliers 

and/or ‘‘estimations’’ made by its 

suppliers using the content of prior mill 

test certificates. 

On April 5, 2010, Petitioners, Ningbo 

Jiulong, and the Government of China 

submitted case briefs. On April 12, 

2010, Petitioners, Ningbo Jiulong, 

Ningbo Haitian International Co. Ltd. 

(‘‘Haitian’’), and Yantai Xinke Steel 

Structure Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xinke’’) submitted 

rebuttal briefs. On April 19, 2010, the 

Department held a public hearing. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES

32366 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

Comment 9: Income Tax Credits for 

Domestically Owned Companies 

Purchasing Domestically Produced 

Equipment 

Comment 10: Provision of Electricity for 

Less than Adequate Remuneration 

Comment 11: Grant Programs 

Comment 12: Separate CVD Rate for 

Xinke 

VII. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2010–13776 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–947] 

Certain Steel Grating From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2010. 

SUMMARY: On January 6, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping duty investigation of 

certain steel grating (‘‘steel grating’’) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’). See Certain Steel Grating From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination, 75 FR 847 

(January 6, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’). We invited interested 

parties to comment on our preliminary 

determination of sales at LTFV. Based 

on our analysis of the comments we 

received, we have made changes from 

the Preliminary Determination. We 

determine that steel grating from the 

PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold in 

the United States at LTFV as provided 

in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘Act’’). The final dumping 

margins for this investigation are listed 

in the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ 

section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3936. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

October 1, 2008, through March 31, 

2009. The Department published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on January 6, 2010. See 

Preliminary Determination. On February 

4, 2010, we postponed the final 

determination. See Certain Steel Grating 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Postponement of Final Determination, 

75 FR 5766 (February 4, 2010). 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

has exercised its discretion to toll 

deadlines for the duration of the closure 

of the Federal Government from 

February 5, through February 12, 2010. 

Thus, all deadlines in this segment of 

the proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for the 

final determination of this investigation 

is now May 28, 2010. See Memorandum 

to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, 

DAS for Import Administration, 

regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative 

Deadlines As a Result of the 

Government Closure During the Recent 

Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 2010. 

Between January 11, 2010, through 

January 15, 2010, the Department 

conducted verification of Ningbo 

Jiulong Machinery Manufacturing Co., 

Ltd. and Ningbo Zhenhai Jiulong 

Electronic Equipment Factory 

(collectively ‘‘Ningbo Jiulong’’). See the 

‘‘Verification’’ section below for 

additional information. On March 8, 

2010, Fisher & Ludlow and Alabama 

Metal Industries Corporation (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘Petitioners’’) filed 

comments regarding mill test certificates 

from Ningbo Jiulong’s suppliers of steel 

coils and wire rod that were included in 

the Department’s verification exhibits. 

Petitioners cited numerous aspects of 

the mill test certificates that they 

deemed irregular, and which indicated 

that the mill test certificates were not 

genuine. 

On March 8, 2010, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Ningbo Jiulong, requiring a response to 

Petitioners’ analysis and specific 

allegations, and to reconcile its 

suppliers’ mill test certificates with 

other information on the record. On 

March 9, 2010, the Department 

requested additional information from 

Petitioners, supporting the analysis in 

its March 8, 2010 submission. Also, on 

March 9, 2010, the Department 

requested U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) entry documents 

pertaining to certain Ningbo Jiulong 

shipments, specifically any mill test 

certificates filed by the importer of 

record. On March 10, 2010, the 

Department issued an additional request 

to Ningbo Jiulong to provide mill test 

certificates for its steel inputs for certain 

specific U.S. sales of steel grating that 

the Department had selected for specific 

review at verification. 

On March 16, 2010, and March 18, 

2010, the Department received from 

CBP entry documentation and certain 

mill test certificates created by Ningbo 

Jiulong for steel coils, filed with CBP by 

the importer of record. 

On March 18, 2010, Ningbo Jiulong 

responded to the Department’s March 

10, 2010, request for specific mill test 

certificates by stating that (1) Ningbo 

Jiulong could not link steel coil mill test 

certificates to the U.S. sales of steel 

grating in which the steel coil was used 

in production, and (2) in practice 

Ningbo Jiulong did not provide mill test 

certificates to its customer for most 

sales, despite the ‘‘legalistic terms in the 

small print’’ of its purchase orders. 

On March 19, 2010, Petitioners 

responded to the Department’s request 

with supporting information concerning 

the analysis in their March 8, 2010 

submission. Also, on March 19, 2010, 

Ningbo Jiulong responded to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire, stating: (1) Ningbo 

Jiulong cannot trace any of its suppliers’ 

mill test certificates to specific 

purchases of steel coil or wire rod, 

because mill test certificates are 

production records that pertain to steel 

sold to multiple customers; (2) mill test 

certificates are not accounting records 

(e.g., invoices, inventory slips, delivery 

notes), and thus Ningbo Jiulong does not 

keep mill test certificates in its records 

in the normal course of business; (3) 

Ningbo Jiulong creates its own mill test 

certificates that it admits are unreliable, 

and that it has no ability to determine 

with its own analysis the chemical 

properties of any steel that it purchases; 

and (4) irregularities in the mill test 

certificates noted by Petitioners are due 

to the carelessness of their suppliers 

and/or ‘‘estimations’’ made by its 

suppliers using the content of prior mill 

test certificates. 

On April 5, 2010, Petitioners, Ningbo 

Jiulong, and the Government of China 

submitted case briefs. On April 12, 

2010, Petitioners, Ningbo Jiulong, 

Ningbo Haitian International Co. Ltd. 

(‘‘Haitian’’), and Yantai Xinke Steel 

Structure Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xinke’’) submitted 

rebuttal briefs. On April 19, 2010, the 

Department held a public hearing. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32367 

1See Ningbo Jiulong AFA Memo at 10–14. 

2See Ningbo Jiulong AFA Memo at 14–17. 

3See Ningbo Jiulong AFA Memo at 17. 

‘‘Certain Steel Grating from the People’s 

Republic of China: Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final 

Determination,’’ (‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’), dated concurrently 

with this notice and which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. A list of the 

issues which parties raised and to 

which we respond in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum is attached to 

this notice as Appendix I. The Issues 

and Decision Memorandum is a public 

document and is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117 of the 

main Commerce building, and is 

accessible on the World Wide Web at 

http://trade.gov/ia/index.asp. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of information 

on the record of this investigation, we 

have determined that the application of 

total adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) is 

warranted in the case of Ningbo Jiulong. 

For further details, see Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comments 3; 

see also Memorandum from Thomas 

Martin to John M. Andersen, regarding: 

Application of Total Adverse Facts 

Available for Ningbo Jiulong Machinery 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Steel Grating from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated May 28, 2010 

(‘‘Ningbo Jiulong AFA Memo’’). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are certain steel grating, 

consisting of two or more pieces of steel, 

including load-bearing pieces and cross 

pieces, joined by any assembly process, 

regardless of: (1) Size or shape; (2) 

method of manufacture; (3) metallurgy 

(carbon, alloy, or stainless); (4) the 

profile of the bars; and (5) whether or 

not they are galvanized, painted, coated, 

clad or plated. Steel grating is also 

commonly referred to as ‘‘bar grating,’’ 

although the components may consist of 

steel other than bars, such as hot-rolled 

sheet, plate, or wire rod. 

The scope of this investigation 

excludes expanded metal grating, which 

is comprised of a single piece or coil of 

sheet or thin plate steel that has been 

slit and expanded, and does not involve 

welding or joining of multiple pieces of 

steel. The scope of this investigation 

also excludes plank type safety grating 

which is comprised of a single piece or 

coil of sheet or thin plate steel, typically 

in thickness of 10 to 18 gauge, that has 

been pierced and cold formed, and does 

not involve welding or joining of 

multiple pieces of steel. 

Certain steel grating that is the subject 

of this investigation is currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) under subheading 

7308.90.7000. While the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Application of Adverse Facts Available 

to Ningbo Jiulong 

Section 776(a)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department may rely on facts 

otherwise available where necessary 

information is not available on the 

record, and section 776(a)(2) of the Act 

provides that if an interested party: (A) 

Withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested, subject to subsections 

782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) 

significantly impedes a determination 

under the antidumping statute; or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified, the 

Department shall, subject to subsection 

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party ‘‘promptly 

after receiving a request from {the 

Department} for information, notifies 

{the Department} that such party is 

unable to submit the information in the 

requested form and manner, together 

with a full explanation and suggested 

alternative form in which such party is 

able to submit the information,’’ the 

Department may modify the 

requirements to avoid imposing an 

unreasonable burden on that party. 

Section 782(d) of the Act provides 

that, if the Department determines that 

a response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, the 

Department will inform the person 

submitting the response of the nature of 

the deficiency and shall, to the extent 

practicable, provide that person the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If that person submits 

further information that continues to be 

unsatisfactory, or this information is not 

submitted within the applicable time 

limits, the Department may, subject to 

section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all 

or part of the original and subsequent 

responses, as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act states that 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider information deemed 

‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (1) 

The information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

states that if the administering authority 

finds that an interested party has not 

acted to the best of its ability to comply 

with a request for information, the 

administering authority may, in 

reaching its determination, use an 

inference that is adverse to that party. 

The adverse inference may be based 

upon: (1) The petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation under 

this title, (3) any previous review under 

section 751 or determination under 

section 753, or (4) any other information 

placed on the record. 

The Department has determined that 

the information to construct an accurate 

and otherwise reliable margin is not 

available on the record with respect to 

Ningbo Jiulong because Ningbo Jiulong 

withheld information that had been 

requested, significantly impeded this 

proceeding, and provided information 

that could not be verified, pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(A), (C) and (D) 

of the of Act.1 As a result, the 

Department has determined to apply the 

facts otherwise available. Further, the 

Department finds that Ningbo Jiulong 

failed to cooperate to the best of its 

ability, pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act, and the Department has determined 

to use an adverse inference when 

applying facts available in this 

investigation.2 In addition, we have 

concluded that the nature of Ningbo 

Jiulong’s unreliable submissions calls 

into question the reliability of the 

questionnaire responses with respect to 

Ningbo Jiulong’s claim of eligibility for 

separate rate status. Thus, as an adverse 

inference, we find that Ningbo Jiulong is 

part of the PRC-wide entity for purposes 

of this investigation.3

The PRC Entity (Including Ningbo 

Jiulong) 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

an non-market-economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country are subject to government 

control and because only the companies 

listed under the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below have overcome 

that presumption, we are applying a 

single antidumping rate—the PRC-wide 

rate—to all other exporters of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32368 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

4See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People’s 

Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 

3, 2000). 

5See Memorandum To the File from Robert 

Bolling, Thomas Martin, and Brian Soiset, 

‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of 

Ningbo Jiulong Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

in the Antidumping Investigation of Certain Steel 

Grating from the People’s Republic of China’’ dated 

February 23, 2010. 

6See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 3. 7See Amended Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Welded 

Carbon Quality Steel Pipe From the People’s 

Republic of China, 73 FR 22130, 22133 (April 24, 

2008); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 6479 (February 

4, 2008) and the accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

merchandise under consideration from 

the PRC, including Ningbo Jiulong.4 The 

PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of 

subject merchandise except for entries 

from the respondents identified as 

receiving a separate rate in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, the Department attempted to verify 

Ningbo Jiulong’s questionnaire 

responses.5 We used standard 

verification procedures, including 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, as well as original 

source documents provided by 

respondents. However, as detailed in 

the AFA section of this notice, and 

Comment 3 of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, we cannot conclude that 

the information submitted is either 

accurate or reliable. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we selected India as the 

appropriate surrogate country to use in 

this investigation for the following 

reasons: (1) It is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at 

a similar level of economic development 

pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act; 

and (3) we have reliable data from India 

that we can use to value the factors of 

production. See Preliminary 

Determination. We received no 

comments on this issue after the 

Preliminary Determination, and we have 

made no changes to our findings with 

respect to the selection of a surrogate 

country for the final determination. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

from the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994), and 19 CFR 

351.107(d). 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that the separate rate applicants 

Sinosteel Yantai Steel Grating Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Sinosteel’’), Ningbo Haitian, and Xinke 

(collectively, the ‘‘Separate Rate 

Applicants’’) demonstrated their 

eligibility for, and were hence assigned, 

separate rate status. No party has 

commented on the eligibility of these 

companies for separate rate status. For 

the final determination, we continue to 

find that the evidence placed on the 

record of this investigation by these 

companies demonstrates both a de jure 

and de facto absence of government 

control with respect to their exports of 

the merchandise under investigation. 

Thus, we continue to find that they are 

eligible for separate rate status. 

Normally, the separate rate is 

determined based on the estimated 

weighted-average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding de 

minimis margins or margins based 

entirely on AFA. See section 

735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department assigned to the Separate 

Rate Applicants’ exporter/producer 

combinations that qualified for a 

separate rate a weighted-average margin 

based on the experience of the 

mandatory respondent, Ningbo Jiulong. 

See Preliminary Determination. For the 

final determination, we have denied 

Ningbo Jiulong a separate rate in 

applying total AFA.6 See ‘‘Application 

of Adverse Facts Available To Ningbo 

Jiulong’’ section above. In this case, 

where there are no mandatory 

respondents receiving a calculated rate 

and the PRC-wide entity’s rate is based 

upon total AFA, we find that applying 

the simple average of the rates alleged 

in the petition, incorporating revisions 

made in Petitioners’ supplemental 

responses, is both reasonable and 

reliable for purposes of establishing a 

separate rate.7 Therefore, the 

Department will assign a separate rate 

for the Separate Rate Applicants’ 

exporter/producer combinations using 

the average of the margins alleged in the 

petition, or 136.76 percent, pursuant to 

its practice. This rate is corroborated, to 

the extent practicable, for the reasons 

stated the ‘‘Corroboration’’ section, 

below. 

The PRC-Wide Rate 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that the PRC-wide 

entity did not respond to our requests 

for information. In the Preliminary 

Determination, we treated PRC 

exporters/producers that did not 

respond to the Department’s request for 

information as part of the PRC-wide 

entity because they did not demonstrate 

that they operate free of government 

control. No additional information has 

been placed on the record with respect 

to these entities after the Preliminary 

Determination. The PRC-wide entity has 

not provided the Department with the 

requested information; therefore, 

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act, the Department continues to find 

that the use of facts available is 

appropriate to determine the PRC-wide 

rate. Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain ColdRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 

Products From the Russian Federation, 

65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). 

See also, Statement of Administrative 

Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. 

Rep. No. 103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994). 

We find that, because the PRC-wide 

entity did not respond to our request for 

information, it has failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability. Therefore, the 

Department finds that, in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available, an 

adverse inference is appropriate for the 

PRC-wide entity. 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

an NME country are subject to 

government control and because only 

the companies listed under the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below 

have overcome that presumption, we are 

applying a single antidumping rate—the 

PRC-wide rate—to all other exporters of 

subject merchandise from the PRC. Such 

companies did not demonstrate 

entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., 

Synthetic Indigo From the People’s 

Republic of China; Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). 

The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 32369 

8See Certain Steel Grating From the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 74 FR 30273. 30277 (June 25, 2009) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

9See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 30277. 

10Ningbo Jiulong Machinery Manufacturing Co., 

Ltd., Ningbo Zhenhai Jiulong Electronic Equipment 

Factory and Shanghai DAHE Grating Co., Ltd. are 

part of the PRC-wide entity. 

of subject merchandise except for 

entries from the Separate Rate 

Applicants, which are listed in the 

‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section 

below. 

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information in using the facts 

otherwise available, it must, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. We 

have interpreted ‘‘corroborate’’ to mean 

that we will, to the extent practicable, 

examine the reliability and relevance of 

the information submitted. See Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 

Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 

Products From Brazil, 65 FR 5554, 5568 

(February 4, 2000); see, e.g., Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, 

and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four 

Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and 

Components Thereof, From Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Partial Termination of Administrative 

Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 

6, 1996). 

As total AFA, the Department 

preliminarily selected the rate of 145.18 

percent from the Initiation Notice,8 i.e., 

a margin from the petition as revised by 

the Department through supplemental 

questionnaires. Petitioners’ 

methodology for calculating the export 

price and normal value (‘‘NV’’) in the 

petition is discussed in the Initiation 

Notice.9 At the Preliminary 

Determination, in accordance with 

section 776(c) of the Act, we 

corroborated our AFA margin by 

comparing it to the CONNUM margins 

we found for the mandatory respondent. 

We found that the margin of 145.18 

percent had probative value because it 

was in the range of CONNUM model 

margins we found for the only 

participating mandatory respondent, 

Ningbo Jiulong. Accordingly, we found 

that the rate of 145.18 percent was 

corroborated within the meaning of 

section 776(c) of the Act. 

Because there are no cooperating 

mandatory respondents to corroborate 

the 145.18 percent margin used as AFA 

for the PRC-wide entity, to the extent 

appropriate information was available, 

we revisited our pre-initiation analysis 

of the adequacy and accuracy of the 

information in the petition. See 

Antidumping Investigation Initiation 

Checklist: Certain Steel Grating from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated June 

18, 2009 (‘‘Initiation Checklist’’). We 

examined evidence supporting the 

calculations in the petition and the 

supplemental information provided by 

Petitioners prior to initiation to 

determine the probative value of the 

margins alleged in the petition. During 

our pre-initiation analysis, we examined 

the information used as the basis of 

export price and NV in the petition, and 

the calculations used to derive the 

alleged margins. Also during our preinitiation analysis, we examined 

information from various independent 

sources provided either in the petition 

or, based on our requests, in 

supplements to the petition (e.g., Global 

Trade Atlas, and Petitioners’ experience 

with selling and producing the 

merchandise under consideration), 

which corroborated key elements of the 

export price and NV calculations. See 

Initiation Checklist at 7–12. We received 

no comments as to the relevance or 

probative value of this information. 

Therefore, the Department finds that the 

margin of 145.18 percent has probative 

value for the purpose of being selected 

as the AFA rate assigned to the PRCwide entity (including Ningbo Jiulong). 

Therefore, the Department finds that 

the rates derived from the petition for 

purposes of initiation have probative 

value for the purpose of being selected 

as the AFA rate assigned to the PRCwide entity (including Ningbo Jiulong). 

Combination Rates 

In the initiation notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 74 FR 

19049 (April 27, 2009). This practice is 

described in Separate Rates and 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations Involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries, 70 FR 17233 (April 

5, 2005) which states: 

{w}hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to exporters, all 

separate rates that the Department will now 

assign in its {non-market economy} 

investigations will be specific to those 

producers that supplied the exporter during 

the period of investigation. Note, however, 

that one rate is calculated for the exporter 

and all of the producers which supplied 

subject merchandise to it during the period 

of investigation. This practice applies both to 

mandatory respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate rate as well 

as the pool of non-investigated firms 

receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of ‘‘combination 

rates’’ because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one or more 

producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to 

an exporter will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in question and 

produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation. 

Final Determination Margins 

The Department determines that the 

following dumping margins exist for the 

period October 1, 2008, through March 

31, 2009: 

Manufacturer Exporter Antidumping duty 

percent margin 

Sinosteel Yantai Steel Grating Co., Ltd ................................... Sinosteel Yantai Steel Grating Co., Ltd ................................... 136.76 

Ningbo Haitian International Co., Ltd ....................................... Ningbo Lihong Steel Grating Co., Ltd ...................................... 136.76 

Yantai Xinke Steel Structure Co., Ltd ...................................... Yantai Xinke Steel Structure Co., Ltd ...................................... 136.76 

PRC-wide Entity10 ..................................................................... ................................................................................................... 145.18 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department 

will instruct CBP to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of steel grating 

from PRC, as described in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section, above, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after January 6, 

2010, the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination in the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
32370 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 8, 2010 / Notices 

Federal Register. The Department will 

instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond equal to the 

weighted-average dumping margin 

amount by which the normal value 

exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The 

rate for the exporter/producer 

combinations listed in the chart above 

will be the rate the Department has 

determined in this final determination; 

(2) for all PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide entity rate; and (3) for 

all non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter/producer combination that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

suspension-of-liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, the Department notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of its final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As the Department’s final 

determination is affirmative, in 

accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act, within 45 days the ITC will 

determine whether the domestic 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess, upon further instruction by 

the Department, antidumping duties on 

all imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: May 28, 2010. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Issues For Final Determination 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Whether the Department Can 

Concurrently Apply Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties to Non-Market 

Economy Producers and Exporters 

Comment 2: Whether the Department Should 

Recalculate the Petition Margins With 

Updated Surrogate Values 

Ningbo Jiulong Specific Issues 

Comment 3: Whether the Department Should 

Apply Adverse Facts Available to Ningbo 

Jiulong Based Upon Submitted False 

Information Regarding Its Steel Inputs 

Comment 4: Whether the Department Should 

Rely Upon Documents Obtained From CBP 

in the Final Determination 

Comment 5: Whether the Department Should 

Apply Adverse Facts Available to Ningbo 

Jiulong Based Upon the Failure To Report 

the Correct Customer 

Comment 6: Whether the Department Should 

Apply Adverse Facts Available to Ningbo 

Jiulong Based Upon Unreported Sales 

Comment 7: Whether the Department Should 

Apply Partial Adverse Facts Available to 

Ningbo Jiulong’s Packing Inputs 

Comment 8: Whether the Department Should 

Revise Ningbo Jiulong’s Steel Scrap Offset 

Surrogate Value Issues for Specific Factors 

of Production 

Comment 9: Whether the Department Should 

Revise the Surrogate Value for the Steel 

Coil Input 

Comment 10: Whether the Department 

Should Revise the Surrogate Value for the 

Wire Rod Input 

Comment 11: Whether the Department 

Should Revise the Surrogate Value for 

Galvanizing Services 

Surrogate Financial Ratio Calculation Issues 

Comment 12: Whether the Department 

Should Use the Financial Statement of 

Greatweld Steel Grating Private Limited to 

Calculate Surrogate Financial Ratios 

Comment 13: Whether the Department 

Should Use the Financial Statements of 

Comparable Merchandise Producers to 

Calculate Surrogate Financial Ratios 

Separate Rate Applicant Rate Issues 

Comment 14: Whether the Department 

Should Revise the Rate Assigned to 

Separate Rate Applicants 

[FR Doc. 2010–13778 Filed 6–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–403–801] 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review: 

Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon 

from Norway 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review: 

Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from 

Norway 

SUMMARY: On August 5, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (Department) 

initiated a changed circumstances 

review of the antidumping order on 

fresh and chilled Atlantic Salmon from 

Norway and preliminarily determined 

that Nordic Group AS is the successor– 

in-interest to Nordic Group A/L for 

purposes of determining antidumping 

duty liability. We received comments 

from interested parties. Based on our 

analysis, we are now affirming our 

preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Conniff, Office of AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1009. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 12, 1991, the Department 

issued the order on fresh and chilled 

Atlantic Salmon from Norway. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh and 

Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway, 

56 FR 14920 (April 12, 1991) 

(Norwegian Salmon Order). Nordic 

Group A/L, as an exporter of subject 

fresh whole salmon from Norway to the 

U.S., requested a new shipper review 

(NSR) in 1995. The Department issued 

the final results of the NSR in which it 

calculated a de minimis margin for 

Nordic Group A/L. See Fresh and 

Chilled Salmon from Norway: Final 

Results of New Shipper Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 1430 

(January 10, 1997). On December 30, 

2005, the Department published in the 

Federal Register the final results of the 

full sunset review of the antidumping 

duty order on fresh and chilled Atlantic 

Salmon from Norway. See Fresh and 

Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway: 

Final Results of the Full Sunset Review 

of Antidumping Duty Order, 70 FR


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-1

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

hearing:

Subject: Certain Steel Grating from China

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-465 and 731-TA-1161 (Final)

Date and Time: May 25, 2010 - 9:30 a.m.

A session was held in connection with these investigations in the Main Hearing Room (room 101),

500 E Street, S.W., Washington, DC.

CONGRESSIONAL APPEARANCE:

The Honorable Jason Altmire, U.S. Representative, 4th District, Pennsylvania

The Honorable Deborah Halvorson, U.S. Representative, 11th District, Illinois

In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders:

Wiley Rein LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Alabama Metal Industries Corporation (“AMICO”)

Fisher & Ludlow Inc.

Joseph D. Smith, President, AMICO

Brian Rutter, President, Fisher & Ludlow Inc.

Michael J. Scott, Vice President of Sales, AMICO

Linda Andros, Legislative Counsel, United Steel Workers

Dr. Seth Kaplan, Principal, The Brattle Group

Alan H. Price )

Timothy C. Brightbill ) – OF COUNSEL

Robert E. DeFrancesco )

B-3
 
APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-1
 
Table C-1

CSG: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

(Quantity=1,000 kilograms, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per kilogram;

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June July-December Jan.-JuneItem 2007 2008 2009 2009 2009 2007-09 2007-08 2008-09 July-Dec. 2009

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176,769 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 81.2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.8 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268,217 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 81.8 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,450 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,026 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.11 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,826 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,795 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.74 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,276 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,820 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.47 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . 277,153 332,185 315,447 161,167 154,280 13.8 19.9 -5.0 -4.3

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . 155,678 155,506 117,738 59,002 58,736 -24.4 -0.1 -24.3 -0.5

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . 56.2 46.8 37.3 36.6 38.1 -18.8 -9.4 -9.5 1.5

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143,493 146,790 108,443 55,539 52,904 -24.4 2.3 -26.1 -4.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219,397 262,939 162,263 85,832 76,430 -26.0 19.8 -38.3 -11.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.53 $1.79 $1.50 $1.55 $1.44 -2.1 17.2 -16.5 -6.5

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 17,539 15,653 16,923 14,643 16,923 -3.5 -10.8 8.1 15.6

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . 598 626 518 533 503 -13.4 4.7 -17.3 -5.6

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . 1,276 1,336 1,085 538 547 -15.0 4.7 -18.8 1.7

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . 25,591 27,534 21,314 10,367 10,947 -16.7 7.6 -22.6 5.6

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20.06 $20.61 $19.64 $19.27 $20.01 -2.1 2.8 -4.7 3.9

 Productivity (kilograms per hour) 122.0 116.4 108.5 109.6 107.4 -11.1 -4.6 -6.8 -2.0

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.16 $0.18 $0.18 $0.18 $0.19 10.2 7.7 2.3 6.0

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . 7,580 3,071 6,320 5,390 930 -16.6 -59.5 105.8 -82.7

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.18 $1.39 $1.27 $1.35 $1.17 7.2 17.5 -8.8 -13.2

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . $0.15 $0.16 $0.18 $0.18 $0.19 21.5 6.7 13.9 6.3

 Unit operating income or (loss) . $0.19 $0.24 $0.04 $0.02 $0.07 -76.6 28.6 -81.8 182.5

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.9 77.7 84.9 87.1 82.3 7.0 -0.2 7.2 -4.9

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 13.4 2.9 1.5 4.6 -9.3 1.1 -10.4 3.1

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-3
Table C-2

CSG: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding ***), 2007-09, January-June 2009,

July-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table C-3

CSG: U.S. producer/fabricator data, 2007-09, January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table C-4

CSG: Combined operations of U.S. producers' subject imports and domestic production, 2007-09,

January-June 2009, and July-December 2009

* * * * * * *

C-4
APPENDIX D

NONSUBJECT-COUNTRY AND AGGREGATED PRICE DATA

D-1

Nonsubject Price Comparisons

Reported prices for imported Canadian products 1 through 5 were higher than prices for U.S.-

produced CSG in 14 instances and lower in 44 instances, and higher than Chinese CSG prices in 31

instances and lower in 18 instances. Prices for the four products from India were generally lower than

prices for the corresponding domestic products but generally higher than prices for the corresponding

Chinese products. Imported Korean products 2 and 3 were priced lower than both the domestic and

imported Chinese product 2 in the three of the four comparisons. The only price for product 2 from

Taiwan was lower than the prices of the corresponding domestic and Chinese products (table D-1). Price

data for U.S.-produced, imported Chinese, and imported nonsubject-country products 1 through 5 are

shown in figure D-1.1

Table D-1

CSG: Number of quarterly price comparisons of imported nonsubject and U.S. products 1 through

5, and of imported nonsubject and Chinese products 1 through 5

Nonsubject countries

United States China

Higher1 Lower2 Higher1 Lower2

Canada 14 44 31 18

India 2 15 8 5

Korea 1 3 1 3

Taiwan 0 1 0 1

Total 17 63 40 27

 1 “Higher” signifies that the price of the nonsubject country’s product was higher than the U.S. or Chinese price. 2 “Lower” signifies that the price of the nonsubject country’s product was lower than the U.S. or Chinese price. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Figure D-1

CSG: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported products 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5,

by quarters, 2007-09

* * * * * * *

 1 Figure D-1 only includes price data for country data series that include three or more data points.

D-3