U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4206 December 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Multilayered Wood Flooring from China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-476 and 731-TA-1179 (Preliminary)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson, Vice Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert

Karen Laney

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Keysha Martinez, Investigator 

 Fred Ruggles, Investigator 

Alberto Goetzl, Industry Analyst 

 James Fetzer, Economist 

 Mary Klir, Accountant 

 David Fishberg, Attorney 

Lita David-Harris, Statistician 

James McClure, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4206 December 2010

Multilayered Wood Flooring from China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-476 and 731-TA-1179 (Preliminary)

CONTENTS

Page

Determination .................................................................. 1

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

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

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

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

U.S. market summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

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

Previous and related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Nature and extent of alleged subsidies and sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Alleged subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Alleged sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

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

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

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

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

Manufacturing facilities and production employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Interchangeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

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-6

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-7

Comparison of U.S.-produced and imported MLWF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-7

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

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

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization ................................... III-3

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

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

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-5

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-5

i
CONTENTS

Page

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

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

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Negligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

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-2

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

Lead times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

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

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

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

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

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

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

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Operations on MLWF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Variance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-5

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6

Actual negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6

Anticipated negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6

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

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

U.S. inventories of product from China ............................................ VII-4

U.S. importers’ imports subsequent to September 30, 2010 ............................. VII-4

Antidumping investigations in third-country markets ................................. VII-5

Information on nonsubject countries .............................................. VII-5

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-5

ii
CONTENTS

Page

Appendixes

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

B. Conference witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

D. 2010 Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Nonsubject country price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-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

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-476 and 731-TA-1179 (Preliminary)

MULTILAYERED WOOD FLOORING 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 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports from China of multilayered wood flooring,

provided for in subheadings 4409.10, 4409.29, 4412.31, 4412.32, 4412.39, 4412.94, 4412.99, 4418.71,

4418.72, 4418.79.00, and 4418.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are

alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) and subsidized by the Government of

China.

COMMENCEMENT OF FINAL PHASE INVESTIGATIONS

Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission’s rules, the Commission also gives notice of the

commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of

scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in section 207.21 of the

Commission’s rules, upon notice from the Department of Commerce (Commerce) of affirmative

preliminary determinations in the investigations under sections 703(b) or 733(b) of the Act, or, if the

preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in those

investigations under sections 705(a) or 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the

preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the

investigations. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level,

representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and

countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names

and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

BACKGROUND

These investigations are being instituted in response to a petition filed on October 21, 2010, on

behalf of the Coalition for American Hardwood Parity (“CAHP”), an ad hoc association of U.S.

manufacturers of multilayered wood flooring. The following companies are members of the CAHP: 

Anderson Hardwood Floors, LLC, Fountain Inn, SC; Award Hardwood Floors, Wausau, WI; Baker's

Creek Wood Floors, Inc., Edwards, MS; From the Forest, Weston, WI; Howell Hardwood Flooring,

Dothan, AL; Mannington Mills, Inc., Salem, NJ; Nydree Flooring, Forest, VA; and Shaw Industries

Group, Inc., Dalton, GA. Accordingly, effective October 21, 2010, the Commission instituted

countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-476 and antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1179

(Preliminary).

 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)).

1
Notice of the institution of the Commission’s investigations and of a public conference to be held

in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register

of October 27, 2010 (75 FR 66126). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on November 12,

2010, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

2
VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that there is a

reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of

multilayered wood flooring (“MLWF”) from China that are allegedly subsidized and sold in the United

States at less than fair value. 

I. THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS

The legal standard for preliminary antidumping and countervailing duty determinations requires

the Commission to determine, based upon the information available at the time of the preliminary

determinations, whether there is a reasonable indication that a domestic industry is materially injured or

threatened with material injury, or that the establishment of an industry is materially retarded, by reason

of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.1

 In applying this standard, the Commission weighs the evidence

before it and determines whether “(1) the record as a whole contains clear and convincing evidence that

there is no material injury or threat of such injury; and (2) no likelihood exists that contrary evidence will

arise in a final investigation.”2

II. BACKGROUND

The petition in these investigations was filed on October 21, 2010, by the Coalition for American

Hardwood Parity (“Petitioners” or “CAHP”), an ad hoc association of U.S. manufacturers of MLWF.3

Petitioners appeared at the staff conference and filed a postconference brief. The North American

Laminate Flooring Association (“NALFA”) filed a statement in support of the petition.

Several respondents appeared at the preliminary staff conference and submitted postconference

briefs. The China National Forest Products Industry Association (“Chinese Producers’ Association”)

participated in the staff conference and submitted a postconference brief. Also filing a joint

postconference brief were WEGO Chemical & Mineral Corp.; DPR International, LLC, Swiff Train Co.;

Hallmark Hardwoods Inc.; BR Custom Surface, Suncrest Supply; Real Wood Floors, LLC; Galleher Inc.;

B&M Noble Co.; Johnson Premium Hardwood Flooring; Wood Flooring International; and Intech

Sourcing Inc., (all of which are U.S. importers of MLWF from China), and Dalian Penghong Floor

Products Co., (a Chinese producer of MLWF) (collectively, “U.S. Importers”). Representatives from

several of the importers participated in the staff conference. Another joint brief was received from

Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC (“Lumber Liquidators”); Home Legend, LLC (“Home Legend”); and

U.S. Floors, Inc. (“U.S. Floors”) (collectively “Lumber Liquidators”), and these parties participated in the

staff conference. Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd., a manufacturer and exporter of MLWF, and J. Michael

& Co. LLC, a U.S. importer of MLWF, filed a joint postconference brief, but did not participate in the

staff conference.

 1 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a) (2000); see also American Lamb Co. v. United States, 785 F.2d 994, 1001-04 (Fed. Cir.

1986); Aristech Chem. Corp. v. United States, 20 CIT 353, 354-55 (1996). No party argued that the establishment of

an industry is materially retarded by reason of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.

 2

 American Lamb Co., 785 F.2d at 1001; see also Texas Crushed Stone Co. v. United States, 35 F.3d 1535, 1543

(Fed. Cir. 1994).

 3

 The following companies are members of the CAHP: Anderson Hardwood Floors, LLC (“Anderson”),

Fountain Inn, South Carolina; Award Hardwood Floors (“Award”), Wausau, Wisconsin; Baker’s Creek Wood

Floors, Inc. (“Baker’s Creek”), Edwards, Mississippi; From the Forest, Weston, Wisconsin; Howell Hardwood

Flooring, (“Howell”), Dothan, Alabama; Mannington Mills, Inc. (“Mannington”), Salem, New Jersey; Nydree

Flooring (“Nydree”), Forest, Virginia; and Shaw Industries Group, Inc. (“Shaw”), Dalton, Georgia. 

3
U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of 11 firms that accounted for nearly all

known U.S. production of MLWF during 2009.4 5

 U.S. imports in the staff report are based on responses

to the Commission’s U.S. importer questionnaires by 50 companies, representing the majority of U.S.

imports from China during the period of investigation.6

 The Commission received responses from

31 firms accounting for a majority of 2009 production of MLWF in China and the vast majority of

exports of MLWF to the United States from China.7

III. 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.”8

 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 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.”9

 In turn, the Tariff Act defines “domestic like

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 ... .”10

 4 CR at I-4, PR at I-3. Respondents ask the Commission to take adverse inferences against the domestic industry

because at the time the parties filed their briefs, the Commission (1) had not received a U.S. producer response from

the ***, and (2) had received a questionnaire response from ***. Chinese Producers’ Association’s Postconference

Brief at 7-9, U.S. Importers’ Postconference Brief at 14. At the outset, we note that *** in fact provided a U.S.

producer questionnaire response, albeit after the briefs were filed. CR at III-1, PR at III-1. Given the short amount

of time to complete preliminary investigations, it is not uncommon for the Commission to receive questionnaire

responses late in the proceeding, particularly from companies that are not parties to the proceeding, as in this case. 

In fact, the statutory scheme anticipates this by keeping the record of an investigation open until the day of the vote. 

See 19 U.S.C. 1673b; Compare 19 U.S.C. 1677m(g) (requiring in final phase investigations that the record be closed

so parties can comment on all factual information). Accordingly, we decline to take adverse inferences against any

U.S. producer. In any final phase investigations, all parties will have a full opportunity to comment on any of the

information submitted on the record.

 5

 Chairman Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences but such

authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as a whole in making

its determination. See 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, 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.” Uruguay

Round Agreements Act Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Rep. 103-316, vol. I at 869 (1994).

 6

 CR at IV-1, PR at IV-1. The period of investigation in the preliminary phase of these investigations covers the

full-years 2007, 2008, and 2009, as well as the first nine months of 2010.

 7

 CR at VII-1, PR at VII-1.

 8

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 9

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

4
B. Product Description

In its notices of initiation, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) defined the imported

merchandise within the scope of the investigations as follows:

Multilayered wood flooring is composed of an assembly of two or more layers

or plies of wood veneer(s)11 in combination with a core. The several layers,

along with the core, are glued or otherwise bonded together to form a final

assembled product. Multilayered wood flooring is often referred to by other

terms, e.g., “engineered wood flooring” or “plywood flooring.” Regardless of

the particular terminology, all products that meet the description set forth herein

are intended for inclusion within the definition of subject merchandise. 

All multilayered wood flooring is included within the definition of subject

merchandise, without regard to: dimension (overall thickness, thickness of face

ply, thickness of back ply, thickness of core, and thickness of inner plies;

width; and length); wood species used for the face, back and inner veneers;

core composition; and face grade. Multilayered wood flooring included within

the definition of subject merchandise may be unfinished (i.e., without a finally

finished surface to protect the face veneer from wear and tear) or “prefinished”

(i.e., a coating applied to the face veneer, including, but not exclusively, oil or

oil-modified or water-based polyurethanes, ultra-violet light cured

polyurethanes, wax, epoxy-ester finishes, moisture-cured urethanes and

acid-curing formaldehyde finishes.) The veneers may be also soaked in an

acrylic- impregnated finish. All multilayered wood flooring is included within

the definition of subject merchandise regardless of whether the face (or back)

of the product is smooth, wire brushed, distressed by any method or multiple

methods, or hand-scraped. In addition, all multilayered wood flooring is

included within the definition of subject merchandise regardless of whether or

not it is manufactured with any interlocking or connecting mechanism (for

example, tongue-and-groove construction or locking joints). All multilayered

wood flooring is included within the definition of the subject merchandise

regardless of whether the product meets a particular industry or similar

standard.

The core of multilayered wood flooring may be composed of a range of

materials, including but not limited to hardwood or softwood veneer,

particleboard, medium-density fiberboard (MDF), high-density fiberboard

(HDF), stone and/or plastic composite, or strips of lumber placed edge-to-edge. 

Multilayered wood flooring products generally, but not exclusively, may be in

the form of a strip, plank, or other geometrical patterns (e.g., circular,

hexagonal). All multilayered wood flooring products are included within this

definition regardless of the actual or nominal dimensions or form of the

product.

 11 A “veneer” is a thin slice of wood that is rotary cut, sliced or sawed from a log, bolt or flitch. Veneer is

referred to as a ply when assembled. 

5
Specifically excluded from the scope are cork flooring and bamboo flooring,

regardless of whether any of the sub-surface layers of either flooring are made

from wood. Also excluded is laminate flooring. Laminate flooring consists of

a top wear layer sheet not made of wood, a decorative paper layer, a core-layer

of high-density fiberboard, and a stabilizing bottom layer.

C. Parties’ Arguments

U.S. Importers argue that the Commission should define the domestic like product to include

products other than MLWF because there are no clear dividing lines between MLWF and substitute

products such as solid wood flooring and laminates.12 Petitioners argue that there are clear dividing lines

between MLWF and solid wood flooring and laminates and that they should not be included in the like

product.

D. Analysis

The Commission must accept the determination of Commerce as to the scope of the imported

merchandise alleged to be subsidized or sold at less than fair value,13 but the Commission may, where

appropriate, include domestic articles in the domestic like product in addition to those described in the

scope.14 In past investigations, the Commission has based its like product determination on a six factor

test that compared domestically produced products within the scope to those outside the scope.15

We address two domestic like product issues under the six factor test: (1) whether to expand the

domestic like product to include wood flooring; and (2) whether to expand the domestic like product to

include laminate flooring products.16 As we explain below, for purposes of these preliminary

investigations, we do not define the domestic like product more broadly than the scope of these

investigations to include solid wood flooring or laminate. Instead, we define a single domestic like

product that is coextensive with the scope of these investigations.

 12 U.S. Importers’ Postconference Brief at 2-13. The Chinese Producers’ Association and Lumber Liquidators do

not challenge Petitioners’ definition of the domestic like product for purposes of the preliminary phase of the

investigations. Chinese Producers’ Association’s Postconference Brief at 3; Lumber Liquidators’ Postconference

Brief at 8.

 13 See USEC, Inc. v. United States, Slip. Op. 01-1421 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 25, 2005) at 9 (“The ITC may not modify

the class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”).

 14 See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from China and Israel, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-403 and 731-TA-895-96 (Final), USITC

Pub. 3467 (Nov. 2001) at 8, n. 34; Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F.Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990),

aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (holding that the Commission is not legally required to limit the domestic like

product to the product advocated by the petitioner, co-extensive with the scope).

 15 See Superalloy Degassed Chromium, USITC Pub. 3768 at 7; Aluminum Plate from South Africa, USITC Pub

3734 at 7; Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1047 (Final), USITC Pub. 3711 at

6-7 (Jul. 2004); Certain Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons from France and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1039-

1040 (Final), USITC Pub. 3683 at 8 (Apr. 2004).

 16 U.S. Importers also suggested that the like product should be expanded to include vinyl wood-look flooring. 

U.S. Importers’ Postconference Brief at 13. Based on the limited record in these investigations, although there may

be some basic interchangeability between the two products, we do not expand the definition of the domestic like

product to include vinyl-wood look flooring. Vinyl flooring does not contain any form of wood fiber and therefore

has very different physical characteristics and production processes than MLWF, is produced in completely separate

manufacturing facilities and with distinct production employees from MLWF, and is usually less expensive than

MLWF. CR at I-12-I-14, PR at I-9-I-10; U.S. Importers’ Postconference Brief at 12-13.

6
(1) Whether to Expand the Domestic Like Product to Include Solid Wood

Flooring

Physical characteristics and uses. MLWF is a type of wood flooring product fabricated by using

multiple layers of wood veneer. It is typically composed of between two and ten plies that include a core

sandwiched between other veneer layers and a face veneer surface of a desired wood species and finish.17

The most common thicknesses of MLWF are d inch and 1⁄2 inch. Solid wood flooring is made by sawing

logs directly into lumber that is sized, graded, and profiled with tongue and groove edges and then may be

finished prior to installation.18 The standard thickness for solid wood flooring is 3⁄4 inch. Although

MLWF and solid wood flooring are both wood products that may be finished prior to installation, solid

wood flooring is constructed from a single piece of wood and thus is less dimensionally stable than

MLWF and much more prone to expansion and contraction from moisture and temperature fluctuations.19

Accordingly, MLWF can be installed below grade (e.g., in a basement) or in areas with high humidity

where solid wood flooring is not typically suitable.20

Interchangeability. There is record evidence that MLWF and solid wood flooring generally are

physically interchangeable, particularly in new construction or for housing additions.21 Unlike solid

wood flooring, however, which typically can be installed by nailing over a wood underlayment, certain

types of MLWF can be glued directly onto a concrete substrate or installed using a glueless click and lock

system.22 MLWF also lends itself for use in remodeling projects where a thinner wood product is more

suitable because of doors that might otherwise have to be trimmed to fit thicker flooring.23 The products

are not interchangeable, however, in below-grade applications, which permit the use of MLWF only.

Channels of Distribution. The available record evidence indicates that the majority of all wood

flooring products are sold through distributors.24

Customer and producer perceptions. Respondents argue that MLWF and solid wood flooring

provide the same type of wood “look” and ambience that consumers appreciate.25 Petitioners argue that

although MLWF has gained greater market acceptance in recent years in large part due to the fact that it is

easier to install and thereby more readily lends itself to do-it-yourself (“DIY”) home projects, solid wood

flooring still retains an aesthetic panache in the perception of the consuming public that MLWF has yet to

achieve.26

 17 CR at I-9, PR at I-7.

 18 CR at I-12, PR at I-9.

 19 CR at I-10, PR at I-8.

 20 CR at I-10, I-12-I-13, PR at I-8-I-10.

 21 CR at I-10, I-12, PR at I-8-I-9.

 22 CR at I-10, PR at I-8.

 23 CR at I-10, PR at I-8.

 24 Petition at 26.

 25 U.S. Importers’ Postconference Brief at 11-12.

 26 Petition at 24-25, n.32.

7
Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes, and Employees. The parties agree that the

manufacturing processes to produce MLWF and solid wood flooring are dissimilar.27 Solid wood

flooring uses solid lumber, whereas MLWF is an engineered product built by the joining of a core and

various plies of veneer peeled from a log and/or sliced from lumber.28 The record also does not reflect

any meaningful overlap of production facilities or employees used to produce MLWF and solid wood

flooring.29

Price. The limited evidence on the record of these investigations shows that there is some

overlap in pricing between MLWF and solid wood flooring.30

Thus, there are sharp distinctions between MLWF and solid wood flooring in physical

characteristics, some uses, production processes, and manufacturing facilities and employees. There is 

interchangeability in some but not all applications. Evidence regarding customer and producer

perceptions is mixed, and the limited evidence on the record appears to show overlap in channels of

distribution and pricing for solid wood flooring and MLWF.

Accordingly, we find that a clear dividing line can be drawn separating MLWF and solid wood

flooring. We therefore do not expand the domestic like product to include solid wood flooring. 

2. Whether to Expand the Domestic Like Product to Include Laminate

Flooring

Physical characteristics and uses. MLWF is a wood flooring product consisting of multiple

layers of wood veneer. It is typically composed of between two and ten plies that include a core

sandwiched between other veneer layers and a face veneer surface of a desired wood species and finish.31

Laminate flooring is typically made from a medium or high density fiberboard onto which a melamine

impregnated printed paper or plastic overlay is pressed.32 The panels are cut to size and profiled with a

tongue and groove or click and lock system for installation. Laminate can be installed on any type of

existing subfloor without interfering with the flooring height throughout the rest of the building.33 Unlike

MLWF, which utilizes a wood face veneer, laminates utilize a printed surface with photographically

reproduced images of wood of a particular wood species.34 The manufacturing process can, and often

does, also imprint a texture that simulates the look and feel of wood. Laminate flooring is available in a

wide variety of wood-like designs and thicknesses. Unlike MLWF, which has a separate finishing

process, laminates incorporate the finishing directly into the manufacturing of the material.35

Interchangeability. There is record evidence that MLWF and laminate are generally

interchangeable, particularly when consumers are in the market for a particular look for their flooring and

 27 CR at I-13, PR at I-10; Petition at 24-25, n.32; U.S. Importers’ Postconference Brief at 12.

 28 CR at I-13, PR at I-10.

 29 CR at I-13, PR at I-10.

 30 U.S. Importers’ Postconference Brief at 12-13.

 31 CR at I-9, PR at I-7.

 32 CR at I-13, PR at I-10. As noted by Petitioners and Respondents, the interior core of MLWF sometimes

contains fiberboard but, unlike laminates which use a paper overlay, MLWF utilizes wood veneer as its wear layer. 

CR at I-14, PR at I-11.

 33 U.S. Importers’ Postconference Brief at 11.

 34 CR at I-13, PR at I-10.

 35 CR at I-13, PR at I-10.

8
are not as concerned about the material itself.36 Laminates may approximate the look of wood flooring. 

There is also evidence, however, that for consumers desiring a floor made of wood, such as MLWF,

products like laminates that merely provide a “wood look” are not an acceptable substitute.37 

Channels of Distribution. The evidence of record indicates that the majority of all wood flooring

products are sold through distributors.38

Customer and producer perceptions. Respondents argue that MLWF and laminate provide the

same type of wood “look” and feel that consumers appreciate.39 Petitioners argue that purchasers

perceive laminate as a distinct product from wood flooring and will seek out one or the other.40 The fact

that customers are generally willing to pay more for MLWF than laminate products indicates that

customers value attributes of the former over the latter, and therefore view them as distinct.

Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes, and Employees. MLWF and laminates are both

made from wood that originates in log form, but the type of wood material produced from the raw logs

and used in the manufacture of each product is markedly different.41 Whereas MLWF uses veneer peeled

from a log and/or sliced from lumber, wood laminates utilize manufacturing residues to make the MDF or

HDF base onto which the printed overlay is adhered.42 The types of logs (or residues) needed for each

product and the basic forms in which the wood material is supplied are usually quite different.43 The

record also does not reflect any overlap of production facilities or employees used to produce MLWF and

laminates.44

Price. Although there may be some overlap in pricing depending on the type of MLWF or

laminate, laminate is generally less expensive than MLWF.45 Consumers with a limited budget may

choose a laminate rather than a more expensive MLWF in order to save money.

Although the final products tend to resemble each other, there are differences in the physical

characteristics of MLWF and laminates that limit the interchangeability of the two products. Specifically,

MLWF provides an option for purchasers desiring a floor made of wood, whereas laminates provide only

a “wood look,” which may be less appealing to customers. Moreover, the production processes for the

two products are dissimilar, and the manufacturing facilities and employees are distinct. The record shows

an overlap in channels of distribution for laminate and MLWF. Finally, laminates are generally less

expensive than MLWF, and the difference in price between the two products may motivate a purchaser

not driven primarily by aesthetic characteristics to choose a laminate over MLWF.

Accordingly, we find that a clear dividing line can be drawn separating MLWF and laminates. 

We therefore do not expand the domestic like product to include laminate flooring. 

 36 CR at I-14, PR at I-11.

 37 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 6.

 38 Petition at 26.

 39 U.S. Importers’ Postconference Brief at 11-12.

 40 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 6.

 41 CR at I-13, PR at I-10.

 42 CR at I-13-I-14, PR at I-10.

 43 CR at I-13, PR at I-10.

 44 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 5.

 45 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 6-7; U.S. Importers’ Postconference Brief at 12-13.

9
IV. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The domestic industry is defined as the domestic “producers 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.”46 In defining the domestic industry, the

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

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

A. Sufficient Production-Related Activities

To be included in the domestic industry, the statute requires that a company be a producer of a

domestic like product in the United States.47 Petitioners ask the Commission to determine that there is

one domestic industry comprised of the U.S. producers that manufacture MLWF, as defined by the scope

of the investigations. Petitioners further argue, however, that U.S. companies that merely finish imported

unfinished MLWF and do not manufacture the underlying wood product, ***,48 should not be included

within the definition of “industry.”49 Lumber Liquidators asserts that assemblers/finishers of MLWF in

the United States should be included as part of the domestic industry and provided information from ***

addressing the Commission’s six-factor framework for a determination whether a firm engages in

sufficient production-related activities.50 

When assessing the nature and extent of production-related activities associated with particular

operations, the Commission usually considers the following six factors:

(1) source and extent of the firm’s capital investment;

(2) technical expertise involved in the production activities;

(3) value added to the product;

(4) employment levels;

(5) quantity, type and source of parts; and

(6) any other costs and activities directly leading to production of the like product.51

 46 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 47 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 48 The record in this preliminary phase does not indicate the existence of any domestic assembler/finisher other

than U.S. Floors.

 49 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 8, n.21. Although the footnote reads that finishers “should be included”

within the definition of the domestic industry, from the context of the footnote it appears that the sentence should

read “should not be included within the definition of the domestic industry.”

 50 Lumber Liquidators’ Postconference Brief at 9-10 & Exhibit 6; Tr. at 232-233 (Dossche).

 51 See, e.g., Lightweight Thermal Paper from China, Germany, and Korea, Inv. No. 701-TA-451 and 731-TA1126 to 1128 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3964 at n.76 (Nov. 2007); Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from China

and Korea, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1092 to 1093 (Final), USITC Pub. 3862 at 8-11 (Jul. 2006) (assemblers included in

the industry); Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India,

Thailand, and Vietnam, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1063-68 (Final), USITC Pub. 3748 at 12-14 (Jan. 2005) (breading,

marinating/saucing, and skewering not viewed as sufficient to constitute domestic production) (but washing, sorting,

cooking, deheading, grading, removing the tail, packaging, machine peeling, deveining, and freezing all constituted

domestic production); Greenhouse Tomatoes from Canada, Inv. No. 731-TA-925 (Final), USITC Pub. 3499 at 10-11

(Apr. 2002) (packers included in the industry along with growers); Honey from Argentina and China, Invs. Nos.

701-TA-402 and 731-TA-892-893 (Final), USITC Pub. 3470 (Nov. 2001) (honey packers included in the industry

along with beekeepers); Pure Magnesium from China and Israel, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-403 and 731-TA-895-96 (Final),

(continued...)

10
Given the sui generis nature of this inquiry, no single factor is determinative, and the Commission may

consider any other factors it deems relevant in light of the specific facts of any investigation.52

The only information on the record of these investigations regarding the nature and extent of

production-related activities associated with finishing operations was provided by U.S. Floors.53

 51 (...continued)

USITC Pub. 3467 at 9-11 (Nov. 2001) (grinding was sufficient production-related activity to constitute

“production,” although the Commission majority noted that the evidence was mixed).

 52 For example, the Commission relied on these factors in one investigation to assess whether U.S. slitters of

jumbo rolls imported from subject countries engaged in sufficient production-related activities to warrant treating the

resulting thermal transfer ribbon products as shipments of the domestic like product rather than as shipments of

subject merchandise. See, e.g., International Imaging Materials, Inc. v. United States, 30 CIT 1181, 1187-89 (2006)

(affirming the Commission’s finding in Certain Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons from France and

Japan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1039-1040 (Final), USITC Pub. 3683 (Apr. 2004), where the scope included both jumbo

(un-slit) rolls of thermal transfer ribbons and slit thermal transfer ribbons, that “slitters” engaged in sufficient

product-related activities when transforming jumbo rolls imported from subject countries into finished thermal

transfer ribbons to constitute domestic production. The Court affirmed the Commission’s treatment of the resulting

products as shipments of the domestic like product). See, also, DRAMs and DRAM Modules from Korea, Inv. No.

701-TA-431 (Final), USITC Pub. 3616 at 11 (Aug. 2003) (In an investigation where the scope included cased and

uncased DRAMs, the Commission found that fabricating uncased DRAMs and casing DRAMs each were

individually significant production operations. The Commission rejected a party’s request to treat uncased DRAMs

fabricated in third countries but cased in the United States as shipments of nonsubject imports. Instead, based on its

finding that casing operations constituted significant production-related activities, the Commission treated DRAMs

fabricated in third countries but cased in the United States as shipments of the domestic like product).

 53 At the conference, the representative from U.S. Floors described its operations as follows:

My facility has both what we call proof filing and staining and finishing capabilities,

which means that I don't start with pressing veneer onto plywood and then ripping it

into planks. I buy the plywood. I buy the four-by-four sheets out of China or I buy

four-by-four sheets of cork flooring out of Portugal or I buy unfinished Jatoba Brazilian

cherry planks out of Brazil and I bring these to my plants. And then in my plants, we

have the capabilities of what Mr. Hubbard was explaining, as well, profiling the rocking

mechanism into the cork flooring, profiling it into the engineered wood flooring that we

-- the sheets that we buy from China or profiling a tooling groove into the solid Jatoba

Brazilian cherry that we buy from Brazil. And then this product goes to our staining

and finishing line, where we apply either a stain color and then the finishing layers to

give the scratch resistence that -- and layers that the product needs. So, we actually

need in our process access to unfinished, all finished type of raw materials. It's like an

assembly plant. It's like a BMW assembly plant at Spartanburg that makes everything,

but imports the engines from Germany. I need these engines, so then I can assemble it

and I can finish it and stain it and then make it available as a finished product to the

U.S. market.

Tr. at 232-233 (Dossche).

11
U.S. Floors has made a ***.54 ***.55 ***.56 ***.57 ***.58 Based on the information provided by U.S.

Floors, we include assemblers/finishers in the definition of the domestic industry. 59

B. Related Parties

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

the domestic industry pursuant to section 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 importers.60 Exclusion

of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each

investigation.61

The record indicates that six domestic producers are subject to possible exclusion under the

related parties provision. Domestic producers *** are related parties because each firm imported subject

 54 Lumber Liquidators’ Postconference Brief at Exhibit 6.

 55 Lumber Liquidators’ Postconference Brief at Exhibit 6.

 56 Lumber Liquidators’ Postconference Brief at Exhibit 6.

 57 Lumber Liquidators’ Postconference Brief at Exhibit 6.

 58 Lumber Liquidators’ Postconference Brief at Exhibit 6. At the conference, Mr. Dossche of U.S. Floors was

asked why U.S. Floors does not source any material from the United States, to which he replied, “well, we would

have to buy from my competitors, which would make it very difficult. I could ultimately do that. My manufacturing

equipment would allow me to do that. But, since I don't have the pressing capacity, I would have to find companies

who can supply that to me and most of them would be my competitors.” Tr. at 234 (Dossche). 

 59 Commissioner Lane notes that the record in these investigations, regarding the nature and extent of production

related activities associated with finishing operations, was very limited. Commissioner Lane further notes that

including or excluding the finishers as part of the domestic industry would most likely have little effect on the

domestic industry determination, and has not materially affected the data set that she has examined in her injury

analysis. However, she is reserving judgment until the final investigation on whether to include U.S. companies that

finish imported unfinished MLWF in the definition of the domestic industry.

 60 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B).

 61 The primary factors we have examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude a related

party are as follows: (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 mem., 991 F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We have 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, 1864 (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. April 22, 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”).

12
merchandise during the period of investigation.62 Petitioners argue that there is no reason at this time to

exclude any producer from the domestic industry based on the statutory related party provision.63

Respondents make no arguments concerning related party issues.

***. *** was the *** largest domestic producer in 2009, accounting for *** percent of reported

domestic production. It is a petitioner in these investigations.64 According to ***, it imported subject

merchandise ***.65

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

producing MLWF. It is a petitioner, and its interests lie more with domestic production than with

importing. Both absolutely and compared to its domestic production, its imports over the period of

investigation were ***, and dropped to *** in 2009 and interim 2010.66 No party has argued that ***

should be excluded from the domestic industry.67 68 Moreover, its U.S. operations do not appear to have

benefitted financially from its low volumes of imports, as its operating performance was ***.69

***. *** was *** domestic producer in 2009, accounting for *** percent of reported domestic

production in that year.70 It *** on the petition.71 *** stated that it imported subject merchandise because

***.72

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

producing MLWF. Based on the data, *** interests appear to lie in domestic production.73 Its ratio of

subject imports to its domestic production was ***.74 It is the *** domestic producer of MLWF, and its

 62 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(I); CR/PR Table III-6.

 63 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 8-9.

 64 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 65 *** U.S. Importers’ Questionnaire Response at Question II-4.

 66 *** imports of subject merchandise increased from *** square feet in 2007 to *** square feet in 2008, but it

had *** subject imports in 2009 or interim 2010. Its ratio of subject imports to domestic production was *** percent

in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** in 2009 and interim 2010. CR/PR at Table III-4.

 67 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.

 68 For purposes of these preliminary investigations, Commissioner Pinkert does not rely upon related parties’

financial performance as a factor in determining whether there are appropriate circumstances to exclude them from

the domestic industry and relies instead on other information relevant to this issue. The present record is not

sufficient to link the related parties' profitability on U.S. operations to any specific benefit they derive from

importing or from their relationships to foreign producers. See Allied Mineral Products, Slip Op. 04-139, at 8. For

the final investigations, Commissioner Pinkert invites the parties to provide any information they may have with

respect to whether related parties are benefitting financially from their status as related parties.

 69 CR/PR at Table VI-2. *** ratio of operating income to net sales was ***. CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 70 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 71 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 72 *** U.S. Importers’ Questionnaire Response at Question II-4.

 73 *** reported imports of subject merchandise increased from *** square feet in 2007 to *** square feet in 2008,

and then declined to *** square feet in 2009. CR/PR at Table III-6. Its imports of subject merchandise were ***

square feet in interim 2009 and *** square feet in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table III-6.

 74 *** ratio of subject imports to domestic production increased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008,

and then declined to *** percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table III-6. Its ratio of subject imports to domestic production

(continued...)

13
exclusion would skew the domestic industry’s data. No party has argued that *** should be excluded

from the domestic industry. In addition, it does not appear that *** derived a significant benefit from its

importation of the subject merchandise. Its operating income and operating income trends were similar to

those of other domestic producers, decreasing overall from 2007 to 2009.75 Despite the fact that the

domestic industry’s operating margins were better in interim 2010 than in interim 2009, *** operating

margins were at their lowest levels for the period in interim 2010 when its imports as a ratio to its

domestic production reached their highest level.

***. *** was the *** largest domestic producer in 2009, accounting for *** percent of domestic

production in that year.76 It is a petitioner in these investigations.77 *** stated that it imported subject

merchandise because of ***78

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

producing MLWF. It is a petitioner, and its interests lie more with domestic production than with

importing.79 Compared to its domestic production, the volume of its imports was ***.80 *** is a ***

domestic producer, and its exclusion could skew the data for the domestic industry. Moreover, no party

has argued that *** should be excluded from the domestic industry. Finally, its U.S. operations also do

not appear to have benefitted financially from its imports, as its financial results were ***.81

***. *** was the *** largest domestic producer in 2009, accounting for *** percent of domestic

production in that year.82 It supports the petition.83 *** stated that it imported subject merchandise due to

***.84

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

producing MLWF. Based on the data, its interests appears to lie more with domestic production than with

importing.85 The volume of its imports was ***.86 Moreover, no party has argued that *** should be

excluded from the domestic industry. Finally, its U.S. operations also do not appear to have benefitted

 74 (...continued)

was *** percent in interim 2009 and *** percent in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table III-6.

 75 *** ratio of operating income to net sales was ***. CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 76 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 77 CR at I-1, PR at I-1.

 78 *** U.S. Importers’ Questionnaire Response at Question II-4.

 79 *** imports of subject merchandise declined from *** square feet in 2007 to *** square feet in 2008 and ***

square feet in 2009, and were *** square feet in interim 2009 and *** square feet in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table

III-6.

 80 *** ratio of subject imports to domestic production declined from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008,

before increasing to *** percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table III-6. Its ratio of subject imports to domestic production

was *** percent in interim 2009 and *** percent in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table III-6.

 81 *** ratio of operating income to net sales was *** in 2007, *** in 2008, and *** in 2009, and was *** in

interim 2009 and *** in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table VI-2. 

 82 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 83 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 84 *** U.S. Importers’ Questionnaire Response at Question II-4.

 85 CR/PR at Table III-6. ***. CR/PR at Table III-1. *** imports of subject merchandise declined from *** square

feet in 2008 to *** square feet in 2009, and was *** square feet in interim 2009 and *** square feet in interim 2010. 

CR/PR at Table III-6

 86 *** ratio of subject imports to domestic production was not insignificant relative to its production, but declined

from *** percent in 2008 to *** percent in 2009,*** percent in interim 2009, and *** percent in interim 2010. 

CR/PR at Table III-6.

14
financially from its volumes of imports, as its financial results were *** throughout the period of

investigation.87

***. *** was the *** largest domestic producer in 2009, accounting for *** percent of domestic

production in that year.88 It supports the petition.89 According to ***, it imported subject merchandise

due to ***.90

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

producing MLWF. Based on the data, its interests appear to lie more with domestic production than with

importing. The volume of its imports was *** both absolutely and relative to its domestic production.91

Moreover, no party has argued that *** should be excluded from the domestic industry. Finally, it is

unclear if *** U.S. operations benefitted financially from its low volumes of imports, as it did not provide

usable financial data.92 Because *** provided no usable financial data, its exclusion would be moot to

that extent at least.

***. *** was one of the smallest domestic producers in 2009, accounting for only *** percent of

domestic production in that year.93 It *** the petition.94 *** stated that it imported subject merchandise

to ***.95

On balance, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic

industry. On the one hand, ***.96 On the other hand, the company ***. As U.S. Floors’ domestic

production ramped up, ***.97 In addition, it is unclear whether *** derived a significant financial benefit

from its importation of the subject merchandise. Its operating margins were *** the industry average in

2009, but were *** the industry average in interim 2010.98 Given this, as well as the fact that ***

accounted for less than *** percent of domestic production in 2009, inclusion or exclusion of this

company would not skew the data for the domestic industry.99

 87 *** ratio of operating income to net sales was *** in 2008, *** in 2009, *** in interim 2009, and *** in

interim 2010. CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 88 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 89 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 90 *** U.S. Importers’ Questionnaire Response at Question II-4.

 91 *** imports of subject merchandise declined from *** square feet in 2007 to *** square feet in 2008 and ***

square feet in 2009. They were *** square feet in interim 2009 and *** square feet in interim 2010. CR/PR at

Table III-6. *** ratio of subject imports to domestic production increased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in

2008, before declining to *** percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table III-6. Its ratio of subject imports to domestic

production was *** percent in interim 2009 and *** percent in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table III-6.

 92 CR at VI-1, n.1, PR at VI-1, n.1.

 93 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 94 CR/PR at Table-III-1.

 95 *** U.S. Importers’ Questionnaire Response at Question II-4.

 96 CR/PR at Table III-6. *** imports of subject merchandise were *** square feet in 2007, *** square feet in

2009, and *** square feet in 2009, and were *** square feet in interim 2009 and *** square feet in interim 2010. 

CR/PR at Table III-6. *** ratio of subject imports to domestic production was *** percent in 2009. Its ratio of

subject imports to domestic production was *** percent in interim 2009 and *** percent in interim 2010. CR/PR at

Table III-6.

 97 CR/PR at Table III-6.

 98 *** ratio of operating income to net sales was *** in 2009, and was *** in interim 2009, and *** in interim

2010. CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 99 CR/PR at Table III-1.

15
Accordingly, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist for the exclusion of any of the

related party producers from the domestic industry. We thus define the domestic industry to include all

U.S. producers of MLWF, including assemblers/finishers.

V. REASONABLE INDICATION OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT

IMPORTS100

A. Legal Standard

In the preliminary phase of antidumping or countervailing duty investigations, the Commission

determines whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially

injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the imports under investigation.101 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.102 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not

inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”103 In assessing whether there is a reasonable indication that

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.104 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.”105

Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether there is a reasonable

indication that the domestic industry is “materially injured by reason of” unfairly traded imports,106 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.107 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 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.108

 100 Negligibility under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24) is not an issue in these investigations. Based on the importer

questionnaire data, subject imports from China represented 86.6 percent of total imports of MLWF, by quantity,

between October 1, 2009 and September 31, 2010. CR at IV-5, n.3, PR at IV-4, n.3.

 101 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

 102 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 ... {a}nd explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

 103 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 104 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 105 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 106 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

 107 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’g 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1996).

 108 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

(continued...)

16
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 nonsubject

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.109 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.110 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 nonsubject

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.111 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.112

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

 108 (...continued)

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).

 109 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.

 110 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, Inv. 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.”).

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

 112 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.”).

17
“ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”113 114 Indeed, the

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

adherence to a specific formula.”115

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 nonsubject 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 nonsubject

imports.116 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether nonsubject 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

injury from nonsubject imports or other factors to subject imports.117 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 nonsubject imports are a significant factor in the U.S.

 113 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.

 114 Commissioner Pinkert does not join this paragraph or the following three 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

when considering present material injury, to undertake a particular kind of analysis of nonsubject imports, albeit

without reliance on 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 nonsubject 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.

 115 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.”).

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

 117 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).

18
market, the Court will require the Commission to give full consideration, with adequate explanation, to

non-attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.118 119

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

institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.120

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is a reasonable

indication of material injury by reason of subject imports.

1. Demand Conditions

U.S. demand for wood flooring is closely tied to U.S. residential housing construction and

remodeling, which account for the vast majority of sales.121 In particular, demand for MLWF depends on

housing starts, mortgage rates, disposable income, and remodeling activity.122 

Due to the subprime mortgage crisis, housing starts have fallen precipitously since 2007.123

Although there was some improvement in housing starts in late 2009 and the first half of 2010, Petitioners

assert that this was due to the federal home buyer tax credit, which has since expired, and does not

represent the early signs of a long term recovery. Petitioners also argue that spending on remodeling

activity, another key macroeconomic indicator for this industry, declined substantially during the period

of investigation.124 

Apparent U.S. consumption of MLWF reflected the declines in these economic factors and

decreased overall during the period examined. Apparent U.S. consumption, by quantity, increased from

*** million square feet in 2007 to *** million square feet in 2008, before declining to *** million square

feet in 2009.125 It was *** million square feet in interim 2009 and increased to *** million square feet in

interim 2010.

Respondents assert that the MLWF industry has two distinct segments, the builder market, which

is primarily supplied by the domestic industry, and the residential remodeling and replacement market, in

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

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

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

 119 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 nonsubject countries that

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

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 nonsubject imports.

 120 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.”).

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

 122 Tr. at 19 (Holm) and 63 (Dougan).

 123 Tr. at 39 (Dougan); CR/PR Figure II-1.

 124 Tr. at 39-40 (Dougan).

 125 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

19
which subject imports are more focused.126 Respondents claim that demand for the MLWF produced by

the domestic industry plummeted during the period of investigation because it was largely tied to the

builder market, which was hit hardest by the recession and the collapse of the housing market and127

Respondents also claim that the residential and remodeling market is serviced mainly by big box retailers

like Lowe’s and Home Depot or specialty DIY retailers ranging from Lumber Liquidators to smaller local

shops.128 Respondents state that large home center stores such as Home Depot and Lowe’s account for an

increasing percentage of sales.129 Although demand in this market also declined during the recession, the

decline was much more modest than in the builder market. Consequently, Respondents claim that demand

for subject imports held up much better than demand for the domestic like product.130 

Respondents have also argued that consumers now have access to a wider range of higher quality

products, such as laminate, luxury vinyl tile, bamboo, and cork, that are viable alternatives to MLWF.131

Respondents claim that these substitutes are competing directly with MLWF and taking away market

share.132

2. Supply Conditions

There are currently 13 known U.S. producers of MLWF.133 The leading U.S. producers of

MLWF are *** which collectively accounted for approximately two-thirds of U.S. production of MLWF

in 2009.134 The leading producers of MLWF in China include ***.135 The leading U.S. importers of

MLWF from China are ***, which collectively accounted for approximately 40 percent of subject

imports.136

During the period of investigation, the U.S. market was supplied by the domestic industry,

subject imports, and imports from nonsubject countries.137 The domestic industry’s share of apparent

U.S. consumption, by quantity, decreased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and ***

percent in 2009, and was *** percent in interim 2009 and *** percent in

interim 2010.138 The market share of subject imports, based on quantity, increased from *** percent in

2007 to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009, and was *** percent in interim 2009 and ***

percent in interim 2010.139 The market share of imports from nonsubject countries, based on quantity,

 126 Tr. at 153-154 (Rogers).

 127 Lumber Liquidators’ Postconference Brief at 28-30.

 128 Lumber Liquidators’ Postconference Brief at 28-29.

 129 Lumber Liquidators’ Postconference Brief at 22, n.54.

 130 CR/PR at Figure II-2.

 131 CR at II-8, PR at II-6; U.S. Importers’ Postconference Brief at 30-32.

 132 U.S. Importers’ Postconference Brief at 30-32.

 133 CR at I-3, PR at I-3.

 134 CR at I-3, PR at I-3, CR at II-1, PR at II-1.

 135 CR at I-3, PR at I-3.

 136 CR at I-3, PR at I-3, CR at II-1, PR at II-1.

 137 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 138 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 139 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

20
decreased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009, and was *** percent

in interim 2009 and *** percent in interim 2010.140

3. Interchangeability and Other Considerations

All 11 responding U.S. producers and 26 of 39 responding importers reported that subject imports

and the domestic like product are either “always” or “frequently” interchangeable.141 Eight of the nine

responding U.S. producers reported that differences other than price between subject imports and the

domestic like product are only sometimes or never a significant factor.142 Responses from importers were

more mixed, with 16 of 41 responding importers reporting that differences other than price between

U.S.-produced MLWF and subject imports are sometimes or never a significant factor.143 

Respondents claim that factors other than price are significant in the U.S. MLWF market.144 

Respondents do not claim that price is not a factor in the MLWF market, but “that non-price factors such

as consumer trends, taste, quality, durability, craftmanship, product consistency, ease of installation, and

service all play a significant role in the purchasing decisions of consumers.”145 Respondents also argue

that U.S. consumer tastes are trending away from domestic species and traditional appearance toward

flooring of exotic species (i.e., nonnative species such as Chinese acacia or birch) or nontraditional

materials (e.g., bamboo).146 Respondents claim that the domestic industry does not manufacture flooring

using the exotic species that are in demand in the United States, and to which foreign producers are

responsive, and have showed an unwillingness to adapt to these changes in demand.147 Additionally,

Respondents argue that the domestic industry was slow to introduce new and innovative technologies

such as high-density fiberboard core products and “click-and-lock” DIY products and therefore has

largely missed out on these important and growing markets.148 According to Respondents, these new

technologies are significant non-price factors for consumers that have been embraced more fully by the

product offerings of subject producers and help to explain the relative growth in subject imports.

Petitioners claim that MLWF from China is interchangeable with domestic merchandise when

made to the same specification and has often been cloned from domestic industry designs.149 Petitioners

assert that, in the U.S. market, subject imports compete head-to-head for the same customers and in the

same channels of distribution as domestically produced merchandise and that U.S. producers have lost the

 140 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 141 CR/PR at Table II-2. The majority of responding U.S. producers and importers also reported that the domestic

like product and subject imports are either “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with nonsubject imports. 

CR/PR at Table II-2.

 142 CR/PR at Table II-3.

 143 CR/PR at Table II-3.

 144 Lumber Liquidators’ Postconference Brief at 30-32. Respondents state that the Commission has already

found, in its 2008 investigation of wood flooring under section 332 of the Tariff Act of 1930, that non-price factors

are significant with respect to wood flooring sales. See Wood Flooring and Hardwood Plywood: Competition

Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industries, Inv. No. 332-487, USITC Pub. 4032. We note, however, that any findings

or conclusions reached in other investigations under other statutory regimes do not bind the Commission in these

investigations, where we must make our determinations under the statutes governing these investigations and on the

record compiled herein.

 145 Lumber Liquidators’ Postconference Brief at 30-31. 

 146 Lumber Liquidators’ Postconference Brief at 32-33; U.S. Importers’ Postconference Brief at 39-41. 

 147 U.S. Importers’ Postconference Brief at 40. 

 148 Lumber Liquidators’ Postconference Brief at 32-33;U.S. Importers’ Postconference Brief at 27-29. 

 149 Tr. at. 42 (Dougan).

21
opportunity to even bid for business with certain customers who are already aware that fully

interchangeable Chinese imports are available at a much lower price. According to Petitioners, “price

drives the market . . . {and} China drives the price,” and China’s gains in market share have been due

solely to price.150

Although the parties disagree as to the importance of price, we find that the record in these

investigations indicates that price is important in purchasing decisions.151 We intend to explore this issue

further in any final phase investigations.

Raw material costs accounted for 45 to 49 percent of the total cost of goods sold (“COGS”) for

U.S. producers from 2007 to 2009.152 Wood veneer peeled or sliced from sawtimber is the main raw

material used to produce MLWF. The average price for oak and hardwood sawtimber remained relatively

flat from 2007 to 2008, declined from 2008 to 2009, and increased from 2009 to September 2010.153

C. Volume of 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.”154

The volume of subject imports from China increased, both absolutely and relatively, over the

period examined. Subject imports increased from 100.2 million square feet in 2007 to 133.7 million

square feet in 2008, then declined to 113.5 million square feet in 2009.155

Despite the decline in the absolute volume of subject imports between 2008 and 2009, subject

imports continued to gain market share during a period of declining apparent U.S. consumption. 

Apparent U.S. consumption of wooden flooring increased by 7.5 percent between 2007 and 2008, but

then declined 14.7 percent between 2008 and 2009, for an overall decline of 8.2 percent between 2007

and 2009. During that period, subject imports from China steadily increased their share of the U.S.

market. Subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption, measured by quantity, increased from

30.5 percent in 2007 to 40.8 percent in 2008 and 42.6 percent in 2009.156

The bulk of the subject imports’ increase in market penetration from 2007 to 2009 came at the

expense of the domestic industry.157 During that period, subject imports’ market share increased by

12.2 percentage points, while the domestic industry’s market share declined by 7.1 percentage points.158

By comparison, the market share of nonsubject imports declined 5.0 percentage points, from 15.0 percent

in 2007 to 9.9 percent in 2009.159

 150 Tr. at 25 (Holm), Tr. at 42 (Dougan).

 151 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables II-2, II-3; CR at II-10-II-11, PR at II-10-II-11.

 152 CR at V-1, PR at V-1.

 153 CR/PR at Figure V-1.

 154 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 155 CR/PR at Table IV-2. The volume of subject imports in interim 2010 (113.0 million square feet) was

considerably higher than that in interim 2009 (88.0 million square feet). Id. 

 156 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 157 The domestic industry’s market share, measured by quantity, declined from 54.5 percent in 2007 to

48.3 percent in 2008 and 47.4 percent in 2009, and was 46.1 percent in interim 2009 and 45.2 percent in interim

2010. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 158 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 159 CR/PR at Table C-1. Apparent U.S. consumption was 10.4 percent higher in interim 2010 than in interim

2009, and subject imports from China increased their market share at the expense of both the domestic industry and

(continued...)

22
Additionally, the volume of subject imports from China increased substantially relative to the

domestic industry’s production levels during the period of investigation. The ratio of subject imports to

domestic production increased from 56.8 percent in 2007 to 85.6 percent in 2008 and 88.9 percent in

2009.160

Respondents argue that the volume of subject imports is not significant because of limited

competition between subject imports and the domestic like product. Specifically, they contend that the

domestic like product and subject imports compete in different markets, with the domestic product

competing primarily in the builder market and subject imports competing primarily in the remodeling

market, thereby attenuating competition between the domestic product and subject imports.161 Moreover,

Respondents assert that home center stores and large chain stores account for an increasing percentage of

sales in the remodeling market and that, despite this rapid growth, some domestic producers, including

Mannington and Anderson, made a strategic decision not to sell through these leading retail channels.162 

Respondents’ attenuated competition argument is at odds with much of the evidence on the record

in these investigations. Domestic industry witnesses for both Mannington and Shaw163 stated that

approximately 60 percent of their sales currently go to the remodeling market, while only the remaining

40 percent of their sales are for new homes.164 *** also provided evidence indicating that they have made

concerted and consistent efforts to sell MLWF through the home center stores and large chain stores, ***,

throughout the period of investigation.165 This evidence indicates that these producers have not refused to

sell to these companies or been unable to provide a requested product. Instead, it shows that there were

occasions when these companies could not sell at the low price points set by subject imports and required

by the home center stores and large chain stores. Additional evidence of overlap of competition between

U.S. producers and importers from China is provided in the responses to the Commission’s

questionnaires, as *** customers, accounting for a significant percentage of U.S. producer shipments and

subject imports, were each named as a top ten customer of at least one U.S. producer and at least one

importer from China.166 Based on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we do not

find that competition is attenuated between the domestic like product and subject imports. 

For purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, we conclude that the volume of

subject imports from China and the increase in that volume are significant both in absolute terms and

relative to consumption and production in the United States.

 159 (...continued)

nonsubject imports. By quantity, subject imports from China had a market share of 43.4 percent in interim 2009 and

46.7 percent in interim 2010, whereas the domestic industry and nonsubject imports both had lower shares in interim

2010 than in interim 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 160 The ratio of subject imports to domestic production in interim 2010 (106.1 percent) was substantially higher

than in interim 2009 (92.0 percent). CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 161 Lumber Liquidators’ Postconference Brief at 21-25; U.S. Importers’ Postconference Brief at 19-29.

 162 Lumber Liquidators’ Postconference Brief at 21-22; U.S. Importers’ Postconference Brief at 24-28.

 163 Anderson is now wholly owned by Shaw. CR /PR at Table III-1.

 164 Tr. at 63-64 (Natkin, Finkell).

 165 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 20-24.

 166 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 24-25.

23
D. 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

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

occurred, to a significant degree.167

In these preliminary phase investigations, the Commission collected quarterly pricing data on

four products. For 2009, the pricing data accounted for approximately 45 percent of U.S. producers’

shipments of MLWF and 18 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from China.168

The subject imports were priced lower than the domestic like product in 42 out of 60 quarterly

pricing comparisons.169 Underselling margins ranged from 0.3 to 49.2 percent and averaged

27.9 percent.170 Because price is an important consideration in purchasing decisions, we find this

widespread underselling at frequently high margins to be significant.

We also examined evidence concerning the domestic industry’s allegations of lost sales and lost

revenues.171 Despite the relatively small share of confirmed lost sales and lost revenue allegations at this

stage, we note that seven of ten responding purchasers named by domestic producers in their lost sales

and lost revenue allegations reported switching purchases of MLWF from U.S. producers to suppliers of

imports from China during the period of investigation.172 All seven purchasers indicated that price was

the reason for the shift.173 Seven of eight responding purchasers named in lost sales and lost revenue

allegations indicated that U.S. producers reduced their prices in order to compete with prices of subject

imports from China during the period of investigation.174 This provides further evidence of the

significance of the low prices of subject imports from China and leads us to conclude that subject imports

gained market share during the period examined at the expense of the domestic industry through

aggressive pricing.

 167 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 168 CR at V-4, PR at V-3.

 169 CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-4, V-6.

 170 CR/PR at Table V-6. We note that the product specifications used in the pricing comparisons for these

preliminary phase investigations may not have distinguished between different grades or species within each product

description. Where possible, we intend, in any final phase investigations, to seek greater precision in the pricing

products we will use to obtain price comparisons between the domestic like product and subject imports. We invite

the parties to make specific proposals on this issue in their comments on draft questionnaires in any final

investigations.

 171 Purchasers specifically agreed with lost sales allegations totaling $33,045, which represent six percent of the

value of all lost sales allegations made by U.S. producers, and with lost revenue allegations totaling $120,000, which

represent 12 percent of the value of all lost revenue allegations made by U.S. producers. CR at V-16, PR at V-6. 

Purchasers specifically disagreed with lost sales allegations totaling $38,128, which represent seven percent of the

value of all lost sales allegations, and lost revenue allegations totaling $68,400, which represent 7 percent of all lost

revenue allegations. CR at V-16, PR at V-6. Purchasers did not specifically agree or disagree with lost sales

allegations totaling $145,178, equivalent to 33 percent of the value of all lost sales allegations, and lost revenue

allegations totaling $240,000, equivalent to 23 percent of all lost revenue allegations. CR at V-16, PR at 6.

 172 CR at V-14, PR at V-5.

 173 One of these six purchasers (***) indicated that both price and species were reasons for the shift, as it moved

to a birch product priced at $*** per square foot. CR at V-14, PR at V-5.

 174 CR at V-14, PR at V-5.

24
The record does not support a finding of price depression. Prices for each of the domestically

produced products on which the Commission collected data fluctuated during the period examined. 

Prices for domestically produced products 1, 2, and 3 remained relatively flat from 2007 to 2008, declined

in 2009, and then increased to approximately their level at the start of the period by the third quarter of

2010.175

The domestic industry’s COGS as a share of net sales increased from *** percent in 2007 to ***

percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009, and was *** percent in interim 2009 and *** percent in interim

2010.176 Thus, during the period of investigation, it appears that the domestic MLWF industry was unable

to raise prices sufficiently to recoup increased costs.177 Accordingly, we find that there is evidence that

subject imports have suppressed prices for domestically produced MLWF.178

For purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that the significant volume

of subject imports during the period of investigation had significant adverse price effects on domestic

producers’ prices. 

E. Impact of the Subject Imports179

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.”180 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.”181

Most domestic industry performance indicators declined overall between 2007 and 2009. 

Production declined progressively during the period examined, from 176.5 million square feet in 2007 to

156.2 million square feet in 2008 and 127.7 million square feet in 2009.182 Although the industry’s

 175 CR/PR at Tables V-1-V-3. 

 176 CR/PR at Table C-3. 

 177 We note in particular the experience of the domestic industry from 2007 to 2008. Despite rising demand, the

domestic industry was unable to raise prices to offset rising costs. During that period, the market share of subject

imports increased by 10.3 percentage points, the domestic industry’s unit COGS increased 10.5 percent, and its

COGS/sales ratio increased by 6.2 percentage points. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 178 Commissioner Aranoff does not find that subject imports prevented price increases for the domestic like

product, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. Given that subject imports and domestic

production are largely substitutable, and that price is an important factor in purchasing decisions, she finds that

significant underselling by subject imports caused domestic producers to lose sales and market share in price-based

competition. 

 179 In its notice initiating the antidumping investigation on multilayered wood flooring from China, Commerce

reported estimated dumping margins ranging from 194.49 percent to 280.6 percent. 75 Fed. Reg. at 70717.

 180 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.”).

 181 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Invs. Nos. 701-

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

 182 CR/PR at Table III-3.

25
average production capacity increased overall during the investigation period,183 its capacity utilization

fell dramatically from 70.9 percent in 2007 to 54.6 percent in 2008 and 47.3 percent in 2009, mostly as a

result of the decline in production.184

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments followed trends similar to those related to production,185

falling from 165.3 million square feet in 2007 to 157.5 million square feet in 2008 and 131.8 million

square feet in 2009.186 The 20.2 percent decline in the quantity of U.S. shipments from 2007 to 2009 was

double the 8.2 percent decline in apparent U.S. consumption during the same period.187 Consequently, the

domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption also fell, declining from 54.5 percent in 2007 to

47.4 percent in 2009.188

The number of production and related workers (“PRWs”) declined overall during the period of

investigation, increasing from 2,357 in 2007 to 2,463 in 2008, but then falling to 2,077 in 2009.189 Hours

worked fell from 5.1 million in 2007 to 5.0 million in 2008 and 4.1 million in 2009.190 Hourly wages, by

contrast, increased each year, while productivity was relatively stable throughout the period.191

The domestic industry’s overall declines in output and market share between 2007 and 2009

corresponded with overall declines in its net sales revenues.192 In addition, the industry’s operating

margins declined from positive 4.7 percent in 2007 to negative 4.3 percent in 2008 and negative

8.7 percent in 2009.193 By 2009, five of the nine reporting producers sustained operating losses.194

 183 Domestic producers’ average production capacity increased from 249.1 million square feet in 2007 to

286.1 million square feet in 2008, but declined to 270.1 million square feet in 2009. CR/PR at Table III-3. Several

domestic producers also closed production operations or plants or had production shutdowns between 2007 and

2009. CR/PR at Table III-1.

 184 CR/PR at Table III-3.

 185 The overwhelming majority of the domestic industry’s shipments were U.S. shipments. The domestic

industry’s exports decreased irregularly from 2007 to 2009, but exports constituted no more than *** percent of total

shipments at any point during the period examined. CR/PR at Table III-4.

 186 CR/PR at Table III-4. End-of-period inventories fell overall, increasing from 26.9 million square feet in 2007

to 30.4 million square feet in 2008, but then declining to 25.3 million square feet in 2009. Due to the overall decline

in its U.S. shipments, the domestic industry’s inventories increased as a ratio to U.S. shipments from 16.3 percent in

2007 to 19.3 percent in 2008 and 19.2 percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table III-5.

 187 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 188 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 189 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 190 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 191 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 192 The domestic industry’s net sales increased from $410.0 million in 2007 to $411.2 million in 2008, but then

declined to $329.6 million in 2009. CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 193 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 194 CR/PR at Table VI-2. Capital expenditures increased from $18.3 million in 2007 to $20.1 million in 2008, and

then declined to $13.5 million in 2009. Research and development expenses declined from $*** in 2007 to $*** in

2008 and $*** in 2009. CR/PR at Table VI-4.

26
Many of the domestic industry’s performance indicators, including production,195 shipments,196

net sales quantities,197 capacity utilization,198 employment,199 and operating margins,200 improved in

interim 2010 relative to interim 2009, even as subject imports reached their highest levels for the period

both absolutely and relatively.201 We note, however, that all of these performance indicators were still far

below their levels at the start of the period and remained depressed in interim 2010. Notably, the

domestic industry’s operating margin remained below the break-even point. Moreover, domestic

producers stated that the improvements in their performance during 2010 were attributable to the stimulus

of the federal home buyer tax credit, which stimulated demand for MLWF by encouraging new home

construction that would not otherwise have occurred.202 According to these domestic producers, all the

benefit from the tax credit arrived in the first half of 2010 and, with the expiration of the tax credit,

second-half 2010 results have returned to depressed levels.203 We intend to further examine this issue in

any final phase investigations, in which we will be able to examine full-year 2010 data.

For purposes of these preliminary phase investigations, we find that there is a causal nexus

between the subject imports and the deteriorating condition of the domestic industry. Subject imports

undersold the domestic like product and displaced domestic production in market share, leading to

significant declines in the domestic industry’s production, shipments, capacity utilization, employment,

and profitability. We have also considered whether there are other factors that may have had an adverse

impact on the domestic industry during the period examined to ensure that we are not attributing injury

from such other factors to the subject imports. We recognize that the significant decline in apparent U.S.

consumption over the period had a role in the domestic industry’s deteriorating performance. 

Nevertheless, as previously noted, the decline in the domestic industry’s shipments from 2007 to 2009

was double the decline in apparent U.S. consumption. By the same token, the domestic industry’s loss of

market share to the subject imports, whose volume increased in 2009 notwithstanding declining demand,

is not a function of demand. Consequently, notwithstanding declines in consumption, the subject imports

were a material cause of the domestic industry’s declining performance.

 195 Production was 95.7 million square feet in interim 2009 and 106.5 million square feet in interim 2010. 

CR/PR at Table C-1.

 196 The U.S. industry’s U.S. shipments were 96.9 million square feet in interim 2009 and 104.8 million square feet

in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 197 The U.S. industry’s net sales quantities were 91.5 million square feet in interim 2009 and 98.9 million square

feet in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 198 Capacity utilization was 45.9 percent in interim 2009 and 56.8 percent in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 199 PRWs were 2,021 in interim 2009 and 2,052 in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table C-1. Hours worked were

2.9 million in interim 2009 and 3.2 million in interim 2010. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 200 Operating margins were negative 9.7 percent in interim 2009 and negative 4.4 percent in interim 2010. 

CR/PR at Table C-1.

 201 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 202 Tr. at 88-89 (Finkell and Holm).

 203 Tr. at 88-89 (Finkell and Holm).

27
We have also examined the impact of nonsubject imports.204 Unlike subject imports, nonsubject

imports declined both in absolute and relative terms. The quantity of nonsubject imports declined from

45.3 million square feet in 2007 to 33.1 million square feet in 2008 and 23.8 million

square feet in 2009.205 It was 18.7 million square feet in interim 2009 and 16.4 million square feet in

interim 2010.206 Nonsubject imports’ share of the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption declined from

15.0 percent in 2007 to 10.9 percent in 2008 and 9.9 percent in 2009.207 It was 10.5 percent in interim

2009 and 8.2 percent in interim 2010.208 The limited information available in the record further indicates

that imports from nonsubject countries sold at higher prices than the domestic like product in the majority

of comparisons.209 This is in contrast to the subject imports, which undersold the domestic product in the

majority of comparisons.210

As discussed above, increasing volumes of subject imports displaced U.S. producers’ market

share throughout the period of investigation, undersold the domestic like product, and led to significant

downturns in the industry’s production, shipments, capacity utilization, employment, and profitability. 

Thus, we conclude that, for purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, the subject imports

have had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record in the preliminary phase of these

investigations, we find that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is

materially injured by reason of allegedly dumped and subsidized imports of MLWF from China.

 204 Based on the record evidence in this preliminary phase, Commissioner Pinkert finds that price competitive,

nonsubject imports were a significant factor in the U.S. market during the period of investigation. He also finds,

however, that, regardless of whether MLWF is a commodity product, nonsubject imports would not have replaced

the subject imports without benefit to the domestic industry had the subject imports exited the market during the

period. The quantity of nonsubject imports was never close to that of the subject imports, and both the quantity and

market share of nonsubject imports declined steadily. CR/PR at Table C-1. Moreover, there is no record

information with respect to the production and export capabilities of nonsubject foreign producers and, thus, nothing

to indicate that such imports could have increased to replace the subject imports. Finally, even if nonsubject imports

had replaced the subject imports, they were generally at higher prices, meaning that there would have been a price

benefit to the domestic industry. CR/PR at Appendix E.

 205 CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 206 CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 207 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 208 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 209 CR/PR at Appendix E. Nonsubject imports oversold the domestic like product in 62 out of 99 instances and

oversold subject imports in 65 out of 99 instances.

 210 CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-4, V-6.

28
PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from a petition filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) on behalf of

the Coalition for American Hardwood Parity (“CAHP”), an ad hoc association of U.S. manufacturers of

multilayered wood flooring, on October 21, 2010, alleging that an industry in the United States is

materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized and less-than-fair-value

(“LTFV”) imports of multilayered wood flooring (“MLWF”)1

 from China. The following companies are

members of the CAHP: Anderson Hardwood Floors, LLC (“Anderson”), Fountain Inn, SC; Award

Hardwood Floors (“Award”), Wausau, WI; Baker’s Creek Wood Floors, Inc. (“Baker’s Creek”),

Edwards, MS; From the Forest, Weston, WI; Howell Hardwood Flooring, (“Howell”), Dothan, AL;

Mannington Mills, Inc. (“Mannington”), Salem, NJ; Nydree Flooring, Forest (“Nydree”), VA; and Shaw

Industries Group, Inc. (“Shaw”), Dalton, GA. Information relating to the background of these

investigations is provided below.2

Effective date Action

October 21, 2010 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission

investigations (75 FR 66126, October 27, 2010)

November 12, 2010 Commission’s conference1

November 18, 2010 Commerce's notice of initiation of antidumping duty investigation (75 FR 70714)

November 18, 2010 Commerce’s notice of initiation of countervailing duty investigation (75 FR 70719)

December 3, 2010 Commission’s vote

December 6, 2010 Commission determination transmitted to Commerce

December 13, 2010 Commission views transmitted to Commerce

 1 A list of witnesses appearing at the conference is presented in app. B.

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

 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 cited in the tabulation are presented in app. A.

I-1
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.

Organization of the Report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, alleged 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 of subject imports and pricing of domestic and imported products, 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

MLWF is used for flooring. The leading U.S. producers of MLWF are ***, while leading

producers of MLWF in China include *** of China. The leading U.S. importers of MLWF from China

are ***. Leading importers of MLWF from nonsubject countries (primarily ***) include ***.

I-2
Apparent U.S. consumption of MLWF totaled approximately 278.1 million square feet

($736.2 million) in 2009. Currently, 13 firms are known to produce MLWF in the United States. U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments of MLWF totaled 131.8 million square feet ($345.7 million) in 2009, and

accounted for 47.4 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 47.0 percent by value. U.S.

shipments of subject imports totaled 118.6 million square feet ($319.6 million) in 2009 and accounted for

42.6 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 43.4 percent by value. U.S. imports from

nonsubject sources totaled 27.6 million square feet ($71.0 million) in 2009 and accounted for 9.9 percent

of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 9.6 percent by value.

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

\ A summary of data collected in the investigations is presented in appendix C. Table C-1 presents

collected producer data and import statistics compiled from data submitted in response to Commission

questionnaires.3

 Except as noted, U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of 11 firms that

accounted for all known U.S. production of MLWF during 2009.

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Multilayered wood flooring has not been the subject of prior countervailing or antidumping duty

investigations in the United States.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF ALLEGED SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV

Alleged Subsidies

On November 18, 2010, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of

its countervailing duty investigation on MLWF from China.4

 Commerce identified the following

government programs in China:

A. Tax Benefit Programs

1. Income Tax Exemption/Reduction under “Two-Free/Three Half” Program

2. Local Income Tax Exemption and Reductions for "Productive" Foreign-Invested Enterprises

(“FIEs”) 

3. Tax Subsidies to FIEs Based on Geographic Location 

B. Indirect Tax and Import Tariff Programs

4. Value Added Tax and Tariff Exemptions on Imported Equipment

 3 All parties agree that responses to the Commission’s importer questionnaire provide the most reliable importer

data. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 12; Chinese Producers’ Association, postconference brief, p. 13; Dorsey

& Whitney LLP (on behalf of 12 U.S. importers and one Chinese producer), postconference brief, p. 18; Mowry &

Grimson, LLC (on behalf of a U.S. importer and Chinese producer), postconference brief, pp. 3-4; and Sandler,

Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. (on behalf of two U.S. importers and one domestic producer), postconference brief,

p. 308.

 4 Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty

Investigation, 75 FR 70719 , November 18, 2010.

I-3
C. Provision of Goods or Services for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (“LTAR”)

5. Electricity for LTAR

6. Provision of Electricity at LTAR for FIEs and “Technologically Advanced” Enterprises by

Jiangsu Province

Alleged Sales at LTFV

On November 18, 2010, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of

its antidumping duty investigation on MLWF from China.5

 Commerce has initiated antidumping duty

investigations based on estimated dumping margins ranging from 194.49 percent to 280.60 percent, with

a simple average of 237.54 percent for MLWF from China.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations as follows:

Multilayered wood flooring is composed of an assembly of two or more layers or plies

of wood veneer(s)6

 in combination with a core. The several layers, along with the

core, are glued or otherwise bonded together to form a final assembled product. 

Multilayered wood flooring is often referred to by other terms, e.g., “engineered wood

flooring” or “plywood flooring.” Regardless of the particular terminology, all

products that meet the description set forth herein are intended for inclusion within the

definition of subject merchandise. 

All multilayered wood flooring is included within the definition of subject

merchandise, without regard to: dimension (overall thickness, thickness of face ply,

thickness of back ply, thickness of core, and thickness of inner plies; width; and

length); wood species used for the face, back and inner veneers; core composition; and

face grade. Multilayered wood flooring included within the definition of subject

merchandise may be unfinished (i.e., without a finally finished surface to protect the

face veneer from wear and tear) or “prefinished” (i.e., a coating applied to the face

veneer, including, but not exclusively, oil or oil-modified or water-based

polyurethanes, ultra-violet light cured polyurethanes, wax, epoxy-ester finishes,

moisture-cured urethanes and acid-curing formaldehyde finishes.) The veneers may

be also soaked in an acrylic-impregnated finish. All multilayered wood flooring is

included within the definition of subject merchandise regardless of whether the face

(or back) of the product is smooth, wire brushed, distressed by any method or multiple

methods, or hand-scraped. In addition, all multilayered wood flooring is included

within the definition of subject merchandise regardless of whether or not it is

manufactured with any interlocking or connecting mechanism (for example,

tongue-and-groove construction or locking joints). All multilayered wood flooring is

 5 Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigation, 75 FR 70714, November 18, 2010.

 6

 A “veneer” is a thin slice of wood, rotary cut, sliced, or sawed from a log,, bolt, or flitch. Veneer is referred to

as a ply when assembled. 

I-4
included within the definition of the subject merchandise regardless of whether the

product meets a particular industry or similar standard.

The core of multilayered wood flooring may be composed of a range of materials,

including but not limited to hardwood or softwood veneer, particleboard,

medium-density fiberboard (MDF), high-density fiberboard (HDF), stone and/or

plastic composite, or strips of lumber placed edge-to-edge. 

Multilayered wood flooring products generally, but not exclusively, may be in the

form of a strip, plank, or other geometrical patterns (e.g., circular, hexagonal). All

multilayered wood flooring products are included within this definition regardless of

the actual or nominal dimensions or form of the product.

Specifically excluded from the scope are cork flooring and bamboo flooring,

regardless of whether any of the sub-surface layers of either flooring are made from

wood. Also excluded is laminate flooring. Laminate flooring consists of a top wear

layer sheet not made of wood, a decorative paper layer, a core-layer of high-density

fiberboard, and a stabilizing bottom layer.

Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following subheadings

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 

4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.4040;

4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155;

4412.31.5165; 4412.31.3175; 4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540;

4412.32.0560; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155;

4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000;

4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039;

4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069;

4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105;

4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171;

4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000;

4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110;

4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170;

4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000;

4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; and 4418.72.9500.

In addition, imports of subject merchandise may enter the U.S. under the following

HTSUS subheadings: 4409.10.0500; 4409.10.2000; 4409.29.0515; 4409.29.0525;

4409.29.0535; 4409.29.0545; 4409.29.0555; 4409.29.0565; 4409.29.2530;

4409.29.2550; 4409.29.2560; 4418.71.1000; 4418.79.0000; and 4418.90.4605.

While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the subject merchandise as set forth herein is dispositive.7

 7 Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigation, 75 FR 70714, November 18, 2010. Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s Republic of

China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 75 FR 70719, November 18, 2010.

I-5
Tariff Treatment8

Imports of multilayered wood flooring are classified within several subheadings within

Chapter 44 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The predominant

classifications are subheadings 4412.31 and 4412.32, HTSUS, which provide as follows:

4412.31 Plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood. Other plywood consisting solely of

sheets of wood, each ply not exceeding 6 mm in thickness; with at least one outer ply of

tropical wood.

4412.32 Plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood. Other plywood consisting solely of

sheets of wood, each ply not exceeding 6 mm in thickness; with at least one outer ply of

nonconiferous wood.

To a lesser degree, and depending on the particular composition and construction of the product

(particularly the composition of the face veneer and the core), imports of multilayered wood flooring may

be classified under other subheadings encompassed within heading 4412, HTSUS, including subheadings

4412.39, 4412.94, and 4412.99, HTSUS. These subheadings provide as follows:

4412.39 Plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood. Other plywood consisting solely of

sheets of wood, each ply not exceeding 6 mm in thickness; with both outer plies of coniferous

wood.

4412.94 Plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood. Blockboard, laminboard and

battenboard.

4412.99 Plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood. Other.

Imports of multilayered wood flooring may also be entered under other headings of Chapter 44,

HTSUS, although imports of the subject merchandise recorded under these headings may constitute

misclassifications. These include the following subheadings with headings 4409 and 4418, HTSUS, as

follows:

4409.10.05 Wood (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled)

continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rebated, chamfered, V-jointed, beaded,

molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges, ends or faces, whether or not

planed, sanded or end-jointed. Coniferous wood continuously shaped along any

of its ends, whether or not also continuously shaped along any of its edges or

face, all the foregoing whether or not planed, sanded or end-jointed. 

4409.10.20 Wood (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled)

continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rebated, chamfered, V-jointed, beaded,

molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges, ends or faces, whether or not

planed, sanded or end-jointed. Coniferous wood continuously shaped along any

of its ends, whether or not also continuously shaped along any of its edges or

face, all the foregoing whether or not planed, sanded or end-jointed. Other wood

flooring. 

 8 Appendix D presents the appropriate HTS pages.

I-6
4409.29.05 Wood (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled)

continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rebated, chamfered, V-jointed, beaded,

molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges, ends or faces, whether or not

planed, sanded or end-jointed. Nonconiferous, other wood continuously shaped

along any of its ends, whether or not also continuously shaped along any of its

edges or face, all the foregoing whether or not planed, sanded or end-jointed. 

Wood flooring (end-matched). 

4409.29.25 Wood (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled)

continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rebated, chamfered, V-jointed, beaded,

molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges, ends or faces, whether or not

planed, sanded or end-jointed. Nonconiferous, other wood flooring.

4418.71.20 Builders’ joinery and carpentry of wood, including cellular wood panels and

assembled flooring panels; shingles and shakes. Assembled flooring panels, for

mosaic floors. Other, having a face ply of more than 6 mm in thickness.

4418.71.90 Builders’ joinery and carpentry of wood, including cellular wood panels and

assembled flooring panels; shingles and shakes. Assembled flooring panels, for

mosaic floors, other, having a face ply of more than 6 mm in thickness. Other.

4418.72.20 Builders’ joinery and carpentry of wood, including cellular wood panels and

assembled flooring panels; shingles and shakes. Assembled flooring panels,

other, multilayer, having a face ply of more than 6 mm in thickness.

4418.72.95 Builders’ joinery and carpentry of wood, including cellular wood panels and

assembled flooring panels; shingles and shakes. Assembled flooring panels,

other, multilayer, having a face ply of more than 6 mm in thickness, other.

4418.79.00 Builders’ joinery and carpentry of wood, including cellular wood panels and

assembled flooring panels; shingles and shakes. Assembled flooring panels,

other.

THE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

MLWF is a type of wood flooring product fabricated by using multiple layers of wood veneer or

other kinds of wood materials. It is typically composed of 2 to 10 laminated wood layers or plies that

include a core sandwiched between other veneer layers and a face veneer surface of a desired wood

species and finish. While the inner layers are typically composed of wood veneers, they may also be

made of solid wood pieces or utilize composite wood such as medium or high density fiberboard (MDF or

HDF). Thicknesses of MLWF typically range from 1⁄4 inch to 3⁄4 inch with the most common thicknesses

being d inch and 1⁄2 inch. The layers are glued with their grain in alternating directions to provide

strength and durability to the product. The surface or face veneer is referred to as the “wear” layer and

can vary from paper thin (as low as 0.1 mm or 0.004 inches) to several millimeters (up to 0.25 inches) in

I-7
thickness.9

 The thicker the face veneer, the greater the surface durability. However, the technology has

advanced to enable production of MLWF using a very thin face veneer or wear layer whose durability is

enhanced through the use of impregnated resins and finishes. MLWF is generally produced and sold in

strips, planks, or geometric patterns such as parquet flooring. Typically, MLWF is sold in lengths of

42-58 inches with widths ranging from 21⁄4 inches to 8 inches, but is also available in longer lengths and

wider dimensions.10

MLWF manufacturers sell the product to specialty flooring distributors, installers and/or home

centers. The share of wood flooring sales by home centers such as Lowes and Home Depot has

reportedly increased over the past decade and represented 26.1 percent of total U.S. wood flooring retail

sales in 2009, according to one source of industry data.11 Lumber Liquidators, a national wood flooring

specialty retailer, is believed to account for an additional 13.1 percent of wood flooring retail sales,

according to the same source.12

The residential market accounts for the vast majority of the total market, but MLWF is also used

in commercial applications.13 Within the residential market, the product has historically been used about

equally in new building construction and for remodeling, although the actual share of each fluctuates with

the strength of activity in each market.14 During the current economic downturn, with housing starts

depressed, the proportion of MLWF sold and used for remodeling or renovations has been higher.15

MLWF is sold most often as a pre-finished product. This lends itself for use in remodeling

projects where consumers may not want to deal with dust and finishing odors, and where a thinner wood

flooring product is more suitable because, for example, doors might otherwise have to be trimmed to fit

thicker flooring.16 Unlike solid wood flooring, which typically can only be installed by nailing over a

wood underlayment, certain types of MLWF can be glued directly onto a concrete substrate or installed

using a glueless click and lock system. MLWF tends to be more stable than solid wood flooring so it can

be installed below grade or in areas with high humidity where solid wood flooring is not typically

suitable.17

Manufacturing Processes

The production of MLWF typically begins with veneers that have been peeled or sliced from

debarked logs, flitches, or lumber, sorted and graded for quality, and dried. The veneers are stacked with

the grain of each layer perpendicular to the next and glued using high pressure. To ensure stability, core

layers must be uniform in moisture content, and must be of a species and quality that allows for even

expansion and contraction. Instead of veneer, the core layer may include composite wood material or

strips of lumber. The majority of U.S. production is by producers that purchase raw logs and peel veneer

for use in the MLWF core and/or wear layer, but some purchase hardwood plywood and/or veneer from

 9 Petition, p. 7.

 10 Testimony at the Conference in these investigations noted that lengths need to be less than 48 inches to fit into

storage bays at home centers or less than the 8 feet to fit sideways into a trailer. Conference transcript, p. 109

(Finkell).

 11 Catalina Research, Report CR064, Wood Flooring, December 2009, p. 6. See exhibit 1, Sandler, Travis &

Rosenberg, P.A. (on behalf of two U.S. importers and one domestic producer), postconference brief.

 12 Ibid.

 13 Conference transcript, p. 134 (Holm).

 14 Conference transcript, pp. 61-61 (Finkell).

 15 Conference transcript, pp. 61-62 (Natkin).

 16 Conference transcript, pp. 61-62 (Bowen).

 17 Conference transcript, p. 16 (Holm).

I-8
other unrelated manufacturers and produce the finished product from those materials. The face veneer for

MLWF is selected based upon marketing considerations and consumer preferences. Face veneers are

typically of high quality with few or no defects. The glues used to make MLWF are usually ureaformaldehyde based.18 Once glued and pressed, the panels are sanded and cut to the desired strip or plank

width. The planks or strips are then shaped with a tongue and groove on the edges of each strip or plank

to facilitate installation. The tongue and groove profile allows for expansion and contraction of the wood

flooring once installed. Some manufacturers incorporate a click and lock system so that the MLWF can

be installed without glue or nailing as a “floating” floor. If the MLWF flooring is to be finished prior to

installation (as most is), the edges of the surface are slightly beveled to hide any differences in thicknesses

between planks where the planks connect to each other. The final stage of the manufacturing process

involves finishing. Unless the natural color of the face veneer is preferred, a stain is applied. Flooring

with a hand-scraped appearance that emulates the texture of an older, worn hardwood floor has increased

in popularity over the past several years. To achieve this look, the flooring is scraped by hand with a

metal scraper prior to finishing. Some manufacturers utilize machines to apply the hand-scraped texture. 

Whether smooth or hand-scraped, a high-durability finish is applied to the face veneer of pre-finished

flooring. The final product is packaged (boxed) and sold. The basic manufacturing process for MLWF is

similar for both imported and domestic MLWF.

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

The petitioner proposes that the domestic like product is co-extensive with the scope of the

petition.19 For purposes of the preliminary investigation, respondent Chinese Producers' Association, and

respondent Lumber Liquidators, Home Legend, and U.S. Floors, do not challenge the like product as

defined by Petitioners.20 However, other respondents argue that there are no clear dividing lines between

different wood flooring products, and therefore, the Commission should expand the definition of the

domestic like product to include solid wood, vinyl, and laminate wood-look flooring.21

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.

Physical Characteristics and Uses

Solid wood flooring is made by sawing logs directly into lumber that is then sized, graded,

profiled with tongue and groove edges, and then may or may not be finished prior to installation. The

standard thickness for solid wood flooring is 3⁄4 inch and flooring boards are generally produced in

various lengths (from 12 inches up to 8 feet). Historically, 21⁄4 inch wide strips were fairly standard, but

wider planks of 3 to 6 inches are now more common. Solid wood flooring is available in a wide

assortment of species, with oak being the most prevalent. How the log is sawed can determine the

 18 Petitioners note that due to California regulations enacted by the California Air Resource Board requiring lower

formaldehyde emissions, the industry has been driven to use lower emitting glues in the last three years. Lower

formaldehyde-emitting glues are typically more expensive than higher formaldehyde-emitting glues. Conference

transcript, p. 111-113 (Natkin and Finkell).

 19 Petition, p. 24 and Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 2.

 20 Sandler, Travis, & Rosenberg, P.A. (on behalf of two U.S. importers and one domestic producer),

postconference brief, p. 8; and Chinese Producers’ Association, postconference brief, p. 3.

 21 Dorsey & Whitney LLP (on behalf of 12 U.S. importers and one Chinese producer), postconference brief, p. 6.

I-9
particular look of the wood grain so solid wood flooring is available as plain sawn, quarter sawn, or rift

sawn. The latter two types of solid wood flooring offer greater stability (less expansion and contraction)

so are more typically used for wider planks, but are also more expensive. Solid wood flooring is mainly

used in new construction or for housing additions. It is usually not recommended for use in basements or

in areas of high humidity, and cannot be installed directly over concrete because it will absorb moisture

causing it to expand and warp.

Laminate flooring is typically made from a medium or high density fiberboard board onto which

a melamine impregnated printed paper or plastic overlay is pressed. The panels are cut to size and

profiled with a tongue and groove or click and lock system for installation. Unlike MLWF that utilizes a

wood face veneer, laminates utilize a printed surface with photographically reproduced images of wood

of a particular wood species. The manufacturing process can, and often does, imprint a texture that also

emulates the wood look and feel. Laminate flooring is available in a wide variety of wood-like designs

and thicknesses. Unlike wood flooring that has a separate finishing process, laminates incorporate the

finishing directly into the manufacturing of the material.

Vinyl wood-look plank flooring is produced using polyvinyl chloride resins along with various

solvents, pigments, and other additives adhered to a carrier sheet or backing.22 Designs give an

appearance of wood flooring but share characteristics of sheet vinyl or vinyl tile. The product is typically

less than 1⁄4 inch thick, sold in strips, and can be installed over any kind of subfloor.23

Manufacturing Facilities and Production Employees

Some producers of MLWF also produce one or more of the domestic like product alternatives

proposed by respondent U.S. importers, but the alternatives are generally made using different

manufacturing techniques and equipment.24 Solid wood flooring, MLWF, and laminates are all made

from wood that originates in log form, but the type of wood material produced from the raw logs and used

in the manufacture of each product is markedly different. Solid wood flooring uses sawed solid lumber;

MLWF uses veneer peeled from a log and/or sliced from lumber; and wood laminates use manufacturing

residues to make the MDF or HDF base onto which the printed overlay is adhered. The types of logs (or

residues) needed for each product and the basic forms in which the wood material is supplied are usually

quite different. However, as noted by petitioners and respondents, some MLWF uses MDF or HDF as a

core material onto which a wood veneer is glued.25 Unlike solid wood flooring, MLWF, and wood

laminate flooring, vinyl plank flooring is not manufactured using any form of wood fiber. Instead, it is

manufactured at plants that make vinyl flooring. As noted above, vinyl flooring is made using various

resins and additives to form sheets that are imprinted or imbued with decorative patterns that give the

appearance of wood strips or boards.

 22 See http://www.madehow.com/Volume-4/Vinyl-Floorcovering.html (Accessed November 18, 2010).

 23 Dorsey & Whitney LLP (on behalf of 12 U.S. importers and one Chinese producer), postconference brief, p. 8.

 24 Five of 10 responding U.S. producers, and 12 of 31 responding Chinese producers, indicated that they produce

products other than MLWF on similar equipment and machinery. See Part II, p. II-4 and p. II-5. However, petitioner

notes that, while some U.S. manufacturers produce both solid wood flooring and MLWF, only one U.S.

manufacturing facility is involved in both. See Petition, p. 25.

 25 Conference transcript, p. 35 (Finkell) and p. 142 (Hubbard).

I-10
Interchangeability

MLWF products are generally interchangeable in the market and in their end uses, distinguished

mainly by appearance and quality. Respondent U.S. importers argue that MLWF is interchangeable as

well with other flooring products because consumers are looking for a particular look and are not as

concerned about the material itself.26 Respondent contends that all of the proposed domestic like product

alternatives can be used in the same applications, over any type of existing subfloor, and all are equally

suited to Do-It-Yourself consumers, builders, and remodelers. Respondent further argues that as long as

they provide a wood “look” and ambience, each of the alternatives is interchangeable with MLWF.27

Petitioners disagree saying that providing a “wood look” is not always acceptable.28

Channels of Distribution

Details regarding the channels of distribution of domestically produced and imported MLWF are

presented in Part II of this report, Conditions of Competition in the U.S. Market.

Price

Petitioners indicate that while MLWF prices have been affected by price pressure from subject

imports of MLWF, as a general matter, the most expensive laminate will have a price at or about that of

the lowest priced MLWF.29 However, respondents indicate MLWF and other substitute products are all

sold at a variety of prices that overlap one another. They indicate that although vinyl is usually

inexpensive, laminates may be just as or more expensive than MLWF or solid wood flooring and that

solid wood flooring can be less or more expensive than MLWF.30

Pricing practices and prices reported for domestically produced and imported MLWF in response

to the Commission’s questionnaires are presented in Part V of this report, Pricing and Related

Information.

 26 Dorsey & Whitney LLP (on behalf of 12 U.S. importers and one Chinese producer), postconference brief, p. 9.

 27 Ibid., p. 11.

 28 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 6-7.

 29 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 6-7.

 30 Dorsey & Whitney LLP (on behalf of 12 U.S. importers and one Chinese producer) postconference brief,

pp. 12-13.

I-11
 
PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

U.S. produced MLWF made up 47.4 percent of the market in terms of volume in 2009; down

from 54.5 percent in 2007. In 2009, imports from China made up 42.6 percent of the U.S. market

compared to 30.5 percent in 2007.

The largest three U.S. producers (***) represented about two-thirds of U.S. production in 2009. 

The four largest importers (***) represented about 40 percent of imports of MLWF from China and about

35 percent of imports of MLWF from all sources. 

Nine of 11 responding U.S. producers (including the *** producers) and 28 of 51 responding

importers (including the *** importers) reported selling MLWF nationally. At least nine producers and

34 importers sold to each specified region. 

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

A majority of U.S.-produced and MLWF imported from China was sold to distributors. As

shown in table II-1, in each full-year period, 93.3 to 97.6 percent of shipments of U.S.-produced MLWF

were to distributors, with the rest of the shipments to end users. The share of reported U.S. shipments of

U.S. imports from China sold to distributors decreased from 77.3 percent in 2007 to 63.3 in 2009. Most of

this decline was due to increase in shipments by importer *** that only sells to end users and importer

*** that did not report imports for 2007 and sells about 60 percent of its shipments to end users. 

Petitioners indicate that the majority of both U.S.-produced and U.S. imports of MLWF is also sold

through distributors.1

 

Petitioners indicate that 60 percent of their sales go to the remodeling market, while the

remaining 40 percent are for new homes.2

 Respondents claim that imports from China have responded to

an increase in demand in the do-it-yourself segment of the market primarily supplied by big box stores

and that U.S. producers have focused on supplying home builders and their independent floor covering

stores.3

In 2006, U.S. manufacturers reported that 75 percent of U.S.-produced wood flooring products

(including MLWF) and 55 percent of imports were sold to distributors and the remaining sales for each

were directly sold to end users. Most direct sales of U.S.-produced wood flooring products were to retail

building materials dealers, with the remainder split between home builders, flooring retailers, flooring

installers, and homeowners. Most direct sales of U.S. imports of wood flooring products were to flooring

retailers, home builders, and flooring installers.4

 1 Petition, p. 26.

 2

 Conference transcript, pp. 63-64 (Natkin, Finkell).

 3

 Conference transcript, pp. 196-97 (Perry), pp. 198-200 (Hamar); Dorsey & Whitney LLP (on behalf of 12 U.S.

importers and one Chinese producer) postconference brief, pp. 19-30; and Sandler, Travis, & Rosenberg, P.A. (On

behalf of two U.S. importers and one domestic producer) postconference brief, pp. 21-25.

 4 Wood Flooring and Hardwood Plywood: Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industries, Investigation

No. 332-487, USITC Publication 4032, August 2008, pp. 3-17-19.

II-1
Table II-1

MLWF: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments of MLWF, by sources and channels of 

distribution, 2007-09, and January-September 2010

Item

Period

2007 2008 2009

Jan.-Sept.

2010

 Share of reported shipments (percent)

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of MLWF to:

 Distributors 97.6 93.7 93.3 93.0

 End users 2.4 6.3 6.7 7.0

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of MLWF from China:

 Distributors 77.3 64.2 63.3 64.2

 End users 22.7 35.8 36.7 35.8

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of MLWF from all other countries to: 

 Distributors 82.0 77.2 74.6 77.4

 End users 18.0 22.8 25.4 22.6

Note.–Data for domestic producers include only U.S. commercial shipments.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

U.S. Supply

Based on available information, U.S. MLWF producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced MLWF to the U.S. market. 

The main contributing factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of

unused capacity, the ability to use inventories to increase shipments, the ability to produce alternate

products, and the lack of supply constraints; supply responsiveness is constrained somewhat by a limited

ability to ship to alternate markets.

Industry capacity

U.S. producers’ capacity utilization decreased from 70.9 percent in 2007 to 47.3 percent in 2009.

This level of capacity utilization indicates that U.S. producers have unused capacity with which they

could increase production of MLWF in the event of a price change.

II-2
Alternative markets

Exports by U.S. producers, as a share of total shipments, decreased from *** percent in 2007 to

*** percent in 2009. This level of shipments to alternative markets indicates that U.S. producers have a

limited ability to divert shipments to or from alternative markets in response to changes in the price of

MLWF.

Inventory levels

The ratio of end-of-period inventories to total shipments for U.S. producers increased from

*** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2009. This level of inventories indicate that U.S. producers are able

to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of MLWF to the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

Five of 11 responding U.S. producers indicated that they produce products other than MLWF on

the equipment and machinery that is used to produce MLWF. Specifically, these producers indicated that

they produce solid wood floors; hardwood plywood; and bamboo and cork products. 

Supply constraints

All 10 responding U.S. producers indicated that they had not refused, declined, or had been

unable to supply MLWF since January 2007. 

Subject Imports from China

Based on available information, Chinese producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of MLWF to the U.S. market.5

 The main

contributing factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused capacity,

the existence of alternate markets, the ability to use inventories, and most importers not facing supply

constraints; supply responsiveness is constrained by an inability to switch production between MLWF

and other products in response to a price change. 

Industry capacity

Chinese producers’ capacity utilization decreased from 68.2 percent in 2007 to 56.5 percent in

2009. This level of capacity utilization indicates that Chinese producers have unused capacity with which

they could increase production of MLWF in the event of a price change.

Alternative markets

Shipments of MLWF from China to markets other than the United States (both exports to

alternative markets and shipments to the home market) increased slightly from approximately

51.8 percent of total shipments in 2007 to 53.5 percent in 2009. This level of shipments relative to

alternative markets indicates that subject producers in China have the ability to divert shipments to or

from their home market and alternative markets in response to changes in the price of MLWF.

 5 Thirty-one Chinese producers responded to the foreign producers’ questionnaire. These responses are believed

to account for the vast majority of Chinese export shipments to the United States.

II-3
Inventory levels

The ratio of end-of-period inventories to total shipments for the Chinese producers increased

from 9.0 percent in 2007 to 11.8 percent in 2009. This level of inventories indicates that Chinese

producers have the ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of MLWF to the U.S.

market.

Production alternatives

Twelve of 31 responding Chinese producers indicated that they produce products other than

MLWF on the equipment and machinery that is used to produce MLWF. These Chinese producers also

produce products such products as solid wood flooring, HDF laminate flooring, and bamboo flooring on

the same equipment. However, all 30 responding Chinese producers indicated that they are not able to

switch production between MLWF and other products in response to a relative change in price of MLWF.

Supply constraints

Only eight of 44 importers of Chinese-produced MLWF indicated that they had refused, declined,

or been unable to supply MLWF since 2007. They cited various reasons including limited container

space on steam vessels, a raw material shortage in 2009 and 2010, quality and availability issues,

sometime being unable to supply specific widths or colors in a time frame acceptable to the customer,

limited availability of certain species, and high demand in builder market in 2007 and 2008.

Demand

Based on available information, it is likely that any change in the price level of MLWF will result

in a moderate change in the quantity of MLWF demanded. The main contributing factors are existence of

substitute products and the small cost share of MLWF in its end-use products.

Demand Characteristics

U.S. demand for wood flooring is closely tied to U.S. residential housing construction and

remodeling, which account for the vast majority of sales. In particular demand for MLWF depends on

housing starts, mortgage rates, disposable income, and remodeling activity.6

Seasonally adjusted housing starts decreased by 63 percent between January 2007 and October

2010 (see figure II-1). Seasonally adjusted starts for single-unit housing structures fell by 61 percent

during the same period, while starts for housing structures with 5 or more units fell by 71 percent. The

“Leading Indicator of Remodeling Activity” (LIRA) which measures homeowner improvements

decreased by 19 percent between the first quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2010 (see figure II-2). 

The value of LIRA is projected to increase by 13 percent between the second quarter of 2010 and the

second quarter of 2011. 

 6 Conference transcript, p. 19 (Holm) and p. 63 (Dougan).

II-4
Figure II-1

Housing starts: Seasonally adjusted housing starts, monthly, January 2007-October 2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing, Mining and Construction Statistics, Construction Spending. 

http://www.census.gov/const/www/c30index.html#. (retrieved November 18, 2010).

Figure II-2

Homeowner improvements: Leading indicator of remodeling activity, four quarter moving total and

rate of change, estimated and projected: quarterly, January 2007-June 2011

Source: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/media/lira/. (retrieved

November 18, 2010).

II-5
Seven of 11 responding U.S. producers and 28 of 50 responding importers indicated that demand

for MLWF in the United States has decreased since 2007. Most of these U.S. producers and importers

attributed decreased demand to declines in the economy and the housing market. Four U.S. producers

and 14 importers reported that demand for MLWF has increased since 2007. Most of these U.S.

producers and importers cited a shift from substitutes such as solid wood flooring and laminates due to

factors such as ease of installation, stability, styling, and environmental friendliness.

Two of three responding U.S. producers and six of 21 responding importers, indicated that

demand for MLWF has decreased outside the United States since 2007. One importer cited the recession

and another importer cited the financial crisis as reasons for the decreased demand. One U.S. producer

and five importers indicated that demand outside the United States has increased, and five importers

reported that demand did not change and five importers reported that demand fluctuated.

Business Cycles

Seven of 11 responding U.S. producers and 34 of 51 responding importers indicated that the

MLWF market is not subject to distinctive business cycles or conditions of competition. Of the producers

and importers that indicated that the MLWF market is subject to business cycles, several indicated that

sales depend on the housing market; several importers indicated that sales are typically greater in late

spring and summer and typically slower in the fall and winter months. 

Substitute Products

All 10 responding U.S. producers and 29 of 49 responding importers indicated that there are

substitutes for MLWF. The most frequently cited substitutes were other types of flooring, in particular

solid wood flooring and laminate flooring. Most producers and importers indicated that changes in the

prices of these substitutes have not affected the price of MLWF. 

Petitioners indicate that some sales of solid wood flooring have shifted to MLWF due to

increased cost consciousness, ease of installation, and environmental benefits of getting more flooring for

the same amount of wood. Petitioners also indicate that demand for both MLWF and laminate flooring

have both increased due to increase cost consciousness.7

 However, respondents have indicated that sales

of MLWF have shifted toward bamboo, laminates, and luxury tile.8

Cost Share

MLWF generally makes up a very small share of the final cost of home construction, although it

may make up a larger share of floor installation for remodeling. Petitioners estimated that an average

installation of MLWF flooring might be about 1 to 2 percent of the cost of a new home.9

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported MLWF depends upon 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, lead times between order and delivery dates, payment terms, product 

 7 ***, phone interview with staff, November 18, 2010.

 8

 Dorsey & Whitney LLP (on behalf of 12 U.S. importers and one Chinese producer) postconference brief, pp.

30-32.

 9

 Conference transcript, p. 86 (Holm) and p. 87 (Levin).

II-6
services, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there is a moderate to high degree of

substitutability between domestically-produced MLWF and MLWF imported from China.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Petitioners indicated that MLWF producers compete primarily on the basis of price. U.S.

producer Mannington Mills indicated that visual appearance was historically the driver with the end

consumer, however price has now become the driver in the market.10 Purchaser *** indicates that

purchasing decisions for MLWF are based primarily, if not exclusively on price. This purchaser indicates

that the large volume and low price of MLWF imported from China over the past few years has rendered

MLWF primarily into a commodity product.11 Shaw indicated that demand is more price sensitive in the

builder market than the remodeling market where consumers want higher quality products.12

Respondents indicate that although price is a factor in sales of MLWF, consumer trends, taste,

quality, durability, craftsmanship, product consistency, ease of installation, and service all play a

significant role in the purchasing decisions of consumers. They cite a statement that price was regarded

by U.S. producers as one of the least influential factors for wood flooring sales (including solid wood

flooring) in a section 332 report and indicate that non-price factors continue to play a dominant role in the

consumer’s choice of wood flooring.13

Comparison of U.S.-Produced and Imported MLWF

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced MLWF can generally be used in the same

applications as imports from China, U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and U.S. purchasers were asked

whether the products can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably. As

shown from table II-2, 64 percent of responding U.S. producers and 38 percent of responding importers

indicated that MLWF produced in the United States and imported from China are “always” used

interchangeably. All responding producers and two-thirds of responding importers reported that they are

at least “frequently” used interchangeably. Several importers indicated that substitutability is limited by

the species of wood that are available to Chinese producers and not available from U.S. producers. Some

importers also indicated that substitutability is limited because imports of MLWF from China generally

can be installed using a “click” technology that U.S. producers have been slower to adopt.14

At least 70 percent of responding U.S. producers, and at least 45 percent of responding importers

reported that MLWF produced in the United States and imported from nonsubject countries are “always”

used interchangeably. At least 75 percent of U.S. producers and at least 47 percent of importers reported

that MLWF imports from China and imports from nonsubject countries are “always” used

interchangeably.

 10 Conference transcript, p. 25 (Natkin).

 11 Petition, exhibit I-13, p. 3.

 12 Conference transcript, p. 71 (Finkell).

 13 Sandler, Travis, & Rosenberg, P.A. (on behalf of two U.S. importers and one domestic producer)

postconference brief, pp. 30-31. Also see Wood Flooring and Hardwood Plywood: Competitive Conditions

Affecting the U.S. Industries, Investigation No. 332-487, USITC Publication 4032, August 2008, pp. 3-16-17.

 14 Conference transcript, p. 140 (Hubbard).

II-7
Table II-2

MLWF: Perceived interchangeability between MLWF 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

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. subject countries: 

 U.S. vs. China 7 4 0 0 15 11 11 2

U.S. vs. nonsubject countries:

 U.S. vs. Brazil 8 3 0 0 10 7 3 2

 U.S. vs. Canada 8 3 0 0 12 7 2 0

 U.S. vs. Indonesia 7 3 0 0 11 6 5 1

 U.S. vs. other nonsubject 62006420

Nonsubject countries comparisons:

 China vs. Brazil 62009730

 China vs. Canada 62009730

 China vs. Indonesia 61009531

 China vs. other nonsubject 61006420

 Brazil vs. Canada 62009521

 Brazil vs. Indonesia 61009431

 Brazil vs. other nonsubject 61006420

 Canada vs. Indonesia 61009430

 Canada vs. other nonsubject 61006420

 Indonesia vs. other nonsubject 61006520

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

As indicated in table II-3, 89 percent of U.S. producers and 39 percent of responding importers

indicated that differences other than price between MLWF produced in the United States and imported

from China were at most “sometimes” a significant factor in their sales. At least 78 percent of U.S.

producers and at least 47 percent of responding importers indicated that differences other than price

between MLWF produced in the United States and imported from nonsubject countries were at most

“sometimes” a significant factor in their sales. The non-price factors most frequently cited by producers

and importers were that some species of wood are only available in certain countries, that imported

product often has longer lead times, and that style and design of MLWF varies by country. 

II-8
Table II-3

MLWF: Perceived differences other than price between MLWF 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

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. subject countries: 

 U.S. vs. China 0 1 6 2 11 14 10 6

U.S. vs. nonsubject countries:

 U.S. vs. Brazil 11616481

 U.S. vs. Canada 00722293

 U.S. vs. Indonesia 01524563

 U.S. vs. other nonsubject 01321252

Nonsubject countries comparisons:

 China vs. Brazil 00412373

 China vs. Canada 00321653

 China vs. Indonesia 00322564

 China vs. other nonsubject 00320252

 Brazil vs. Canada 01311361

 Brazil vs. Indonesia 00321462

 Brazil vs. other nonsubject 00320252

 Canada vs. Indonesia 00321372

 Canada vs. other nonsubject 00320252

 Indonesia vs. other nonsubject 00320252

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

II-9
 
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 margin 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 specified factors is presented in this section and/or Part VI and

(except as noted) is based on the questionnaire responses of 11 firms that accounted for all known U.S.

production of MLWF during 2009.

U.S. PRODUCERS1

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to 15 firms identified in the petition as producers

of MLWF; 11 provided completed responses that they produced MLWF during the period of

investigation and 2 responded they did not.2

 No tolling or production in foreign trade zones was reported.

Table III-1 presents a list of current domestic producers of MLWF and each company’s position

on the petition, production location(s), related and/or affiliated firms, and share of reported production of

MLWF in 2009. Changes in MLWF production operations since 2007 are also presented in table III-1.

Table III-2 presents data on whether U. S. producers produced other products on the same

equipment and machinery used in the production of MLWF and/or using the same production and related

workers employed to produce MLWF since 2007.

 1 ***.

 2

 ***.

III-1
Table III-1

MLWF: 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

reported

2009

production

(percent)

Anderson Hardwood Floors, LLC1 Support Clinton, SC *** ***

Armstrong World Industries, Inc.2 *** Lancaster, PA;

Center, TX;

Somerset, KY;

Statesville, NC;

Vicksburg, MS

*** ***

Award Hardwood Floors3 *** Wausau, WI *** (

3

)

Baker’s Creek Wood Floors, Inc.4 *** Edwards, MS *** (

4

)

Colonial Craft5 Support Shawano, WI *** 0.0

From the Forest6 Support Weston, WI None ***

Howell Hardwood Flooring7 Support Dothan, AL None ***

Mannington Mills, Inc.8 Support Epes, AL; High

Point, NC

None ***

Mohawk Industries, Inc.9 Support Dallas, TX None ***

Nydree Flooring10 Support Karthaus, PA;

Forest, VA

None ***

QEP Comp., Inc.11 Support Boca Raton, FL;

Johnson City, TN;

Montpelier, IN

None ***

Shaw Industries Group, Inc.12 Support Dalton, GA *** ***

US Floors, Inc.13 *** Dalton, GA *** ***

 1 "***."

 2

 ***.

 3

 ***.

 4

 ***.

 5

 ***.

 6

 "***."

 7

 "***."

 8

 "***."

 9

 ***.

 10 "***."

 11 "***."

 12 ***.

 13 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

III-2
Table III-2

MLWF: U.S. producers' reported use of machinery, equipment, and workers used for MLWF and

other nonsubject products, 2007-09, January-September 2009, and January-September 2010

* * * * * * *

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for MLWF are presented in

table III-3.

Table III-3

MLWF: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2007-09, January-September 2009, and

January-September 20101

Item

Calendar year January-September

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Capacity (1,000 square feet) 249,098 286,098 270,142 208,437 187,616

Production (1,000 square feet) 176,512 156,180 127,705 95,673 106,486

Capacity utilization (percent) 70.9 54.6 47.3 45.9 56.8

 1 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Over the period examined, two producers, ***, reported line (***) closings in 2007. In addition

to the plant closures, three producers experienced prolonged shutdowns or production curtailments during

the period examined. *** described shutdowns lasting one to five months. *** detailed shift

eliminations in its two locations, with the work week shortened to 4 days, as well as one week shutdowns

“multiple times a year.” *** has also had one week shutdowns on five different occasions. Also, ***

consolidated its production to one location. Four producers, ***, opened new facilities. In addition, ***.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Over the period examined, U.S. commercial shipments accounted for the vast majority of U.S.

producers’ shipments. U.S. producers generally supplied the domestic U.S. market but not foreign

markets. Between 2007 and 2009, the value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments declined by 21 percent,

with most of this decline occurring between 2008 and 2009. Unit values for shipments of all

U.S.-produced MLWF decreased irregularly between 2007 and 2009.

Data on U.S. producers’ shipments of MLWF are presented in table III-4. No internal

consumption or transfers were reported. *** reported exports to ***.

III-3
Table III-4

MLWF: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2007-09, January-September 2009, and JanuarySeptember 2010

Item

Calendar year January-September

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 square feet)

Commercial shipments 165,271 157,455 131,824 96,892 104,767

Internal consumption 00000

Transfers to related firms 00000

U.S. shipments 165,271 157,455 131,824 96,892 104,767

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial shipments 437,743 423,262 345,687 252,096 271,258

Internal consumption 00000

Transfers to related firms 00000

U.S. shipments 437,743 423,262 345,687 252,096 271,258

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per square feet)

Commercial shipments $2.65 $2.69 $2.62 $2.60 $2.59

Internal consumption (

1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Transfers to related firms (

1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

U.S. shipments 2.65 2.69 2.62 2.60 2.59

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Share of quantity (percent)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Transfers to related firms 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Not applicable.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

III-4
U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table III-5, which presents end-of-period inventories for MLWF, shows that inventories rose

between 2007 and 2008 before falling in 2009 and continuing to decline in 2010.

Table III-5

MLWF: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2007-09, January-September 2009, and JanuarySeptember 2010

Item

Calendar year January-September

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Inventories (1,000 square feet) 26,892 30,445 25,328 27,539 25,841

Ratio to production (percent) 15.2 19.5 19.8 21.6 18.2

Ratio to U.S. shipments (percent) 16.3 19.3 19.2 21.3 18.5

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.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

Six of the 11 U.S. producers imported directly and/or purchased MLWF from China and

nonsubject sources during the period for which data were collected. Nonsubject sources include Brazil,

Indonesia, Paraguay, Serbia, and Sweden. In 2009, U.S. producers that imported directly or purchased

imports of MLWF represented *** percent of the total reported quantity of U.S. imports, *** percent of

U.S. imports from China, and *** percent of U.S. imports from all other sources. Reasons for importing

MLWF include: (1) to obtain exotic species not produced in the United States, (2) lower prices, and

(3) to remain competitive in the U.S. market. U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of MLWF are

presented in table III-6.

Table III-6

MLWF: U.S. producers’ imports and purchases, 2007-09, January-September 2009, and JanuarySeptember 2010

* * * * * * *

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for MLWF are presented in table III-7. ***

were unable to supply employment data.

III-5
Table III-7

MLWF: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2007-09, January-September 2009, and JanuarySeptember 2010

Item

Calendar year January-September

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Production and related workers (PRWs) 2,357 2,463 2,077 2,021 2,052

Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 5,080 4,984 4,083 2,948 3,168

Hours worked per PRW 2,155 2,024 1,966 1,459 1,544

Wages paid to PRWs (1,000 dollars) 67,079 67,986 56,388 41,170 43,400

Hourly wages $13.20 $13.64 $13.81 $13.96 $13.70

Productivity (square feet produced per hour) 31.2 29.8 29.5 30.3 31.4

Unit labor costs (per square foot) $0.42 $0.46 $0.47 $0.46 $0.44

Note.–***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

III-6
PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

Importer questionnaires were sent to 200 firms believed to be importers of subject MLWF, as

well as to all U.S. producers of MLWF.1

 Usable questionnaire responses were received from

50 companies, representing the majority of U.S. imports from China between January 2007 and

September 2010, as defined in Part I.2

 Table IV-1 lists all responding U.S. importers of MLWF from

China and other sources, their locations, and their shares of U.S. imports, in 2009.

Table IV-1

MLWF: U.S. importers, source(s) of imports, U.S. headquarters, and shares of imports in 2009

Firm Headquarters/

operation locations

Source of reported

imports

Share of reported imports

(percent)

China Other Total

A&W Group, Inc. El Monte, CA *** *** *** ***

Allwood Import, LLC Portland, OR *** *** *** ***

Anderson Hardwood Floors, LLC Clinton, SC *** *** *** ***

Armstrong Lancaster, PA *** *** *** ***

B&M Noble Co. San Diego, CA *** *** *** ***

BR Custom Surface Baton Rouge, LA *** *** *** ***

Brandywine International Hardwood

LLC

Pennsauken, NJ *** *** *** ***

Costco Wholesale Corporation Issaquah, WA *** *** *** ***

Courey International USA, Inc. Miami, FL *** *** *** ***

CSC Corp. Ontario, CA *** *** *** ***

Diamond W Supply Co., Inc. City of Industry, CA *** *** *** ***

Easoon USA, LLC Atlanta, GA *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.

 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 at least $500,000

of MLWF since 2007.

 2

 All parties agree responses to the Commission’s importer questionnaire provide reliable importer data, although

the respondents suggest that the Chinese exports to the United States would provide acceptable data; as there is no

value associated with this data. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 12; Chinese Producers’ Association

postconference brief, p. 13; Dorsey & Whitney LLP (on behalf of 12 U.S. importers and one Chinese producer)

postconference brief, p. 18; Mowry & Grimson, LLC (on behalf of a U.S. importer and Chinese producer)

postconference brief, pp. 3-4; and Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. (on behalf of two U.S. importers and one

domestic producer) postconference brief, p. 308.

IV-1
Table IV-1--Continued

MLWF: U.S. importers, source(s) of imports, U.S. headquarters, and shares of imports in 2009

Firm Headquarters/

operation locations

Source of reported

imports

Share of reported imports

(percent)

China Other Total

E.C. Barton & Company Jonesboro, AR *** *** *** ***

Elegance Exotic Wood Flooring Fontana, CA *** *** *** ***

Galleher Santa Fe Springs,

CA

*** *** *** ***

Hallmark Hardwoods, Inc. Ontario, CA *** *** *** ***

Home Legend LLC Adairsville, GA;

Calhoun, CA

*** *** *** ***

IKE Trading Co. Beaverton, OR *** *** *** ***

Intech Sourcing, Inc. Hutto, TX *** *** *** ***

J. J. Haines Glen Burnie, MD *** *** *** ***

J. Michael & Co. LLC Carrollton, TX *** *** *** ***

Johnson Premium Hardwood

Flooring

City of Industry, CA *** *** *** ***

Leadman Flooring LLC Norcross, GA *** *** *** ***

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Toano, VA *** *** *** ***

Mannington Mills, Inc. Salem, NJ *** *** *** ***

Mohawk Industries Calhoun, GA *** *** *** ***

Mullican Flooring, L.P. Johnson City, TN *** *** *** ***

Nature Flooring Industries, Inc. Exton, PA *** *** *** ***

New Harbors Corporation Ontario, CA *** *** *** ***

Old Master Products Van Nuys, CA *** *** *** ***

Omni Wood Flooring, Inc. Ontario, CA *** *** *** ***

Patriot Flooring Supply Inc. Pompton Plains, NJ *** *** *** ***

Pinnacle Interior Elements, Ltd. Carrollton, TX *** *** *** ***

Primavera Distributing Chattanooga, TN *** *** *** ***

Provenza Floors, Inc. Santa Ana, CA *** *** *** ***

QEP Co., Inc. Boca Raton, FL *** *** *** ***

Real Wood Floors West Plains, MO *** *** *** ***

Regal Hardwoods, Inc. Farmers Branch, TX *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.

IV-2
Table IV-1--Continued

MLWF: U.S. importers, source(s) of imports, U.S. headquarters, and shares of imports in 2009

Firm Headquarters/

operation locations

Source of reported

imports

Share of reported imports

(percent)

China Other Total

Robina Wood, Inc. Kennesaw, GA *** *** *** ***

Royalty Intl. Group, Inc. San Gabriel, CA *** *** *** ***

Shamrock Wood Industries, Inc. Horn Lake, MS *** *** *** ***

Shaw Industries Group, Inc. Dalton, GA *** *** *** ***

Somerset Hardwood Flooring, Inc. Somerset, KY *** *** *** ***

Swiff-Train Co., LLC Houston, TX *** *** *** ***

Tuscan Floors Distributor, Corp. Dallas, TX *** *** *** ***

Urban Global LLC City of Industry, CA *** *** *** ***

US Floors, Inc. Dalton, GA *** *** *** ***

WEGO Chemical & Mineral Corp. Great Neck, NY *** *** *** ***

Weyerhaeuser Co. Federal Way, WA *** *** *** ***

World Data & Media, Inc. City of Industry, CA *** *** *** ***

World Product Sourcing, Inc. Augusta, GA *** *** *** ***

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. IMPORTS

Table IV-2 presents data for U.S. imports of MLWF from China and all other sources as reported

by the 50 responding U.S. importers.

IV-3
Table IV-2

MLWF: U.S. imports, by sources, 2007-09, January-September 2009, and January-September 2010

Source

Calendar year January-September

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 square feet)

China 100,199 133,722 113,470 88,011 113,025

Nonsubject 45,327 33,071 23,761 18,677 16,353

Total 145,527 166,793 137,231 106,688 129,378

Value (1,000 dollars)

China 241,263 313,557 255,522 194,806 258,162

Nonsubject 84,309 76,913 48,090 40,138 34,954

Total 325,572 390,470 303,612 234,944 293,116

Unit value (per square foot)

China $2.41 $2.34 $2.25 $2.21 $2.28

Nonsubject 1.86 2.33 2.02 2.15 2.14

Average 2.24 2.34 2.21 2.20 2.27

Share of quantity (percent)

China 68.9 80.2 82.7 82.5 87.4

Nonsubject 31.1 19.8 17.3 17.5 12.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China 74.1 80.3 84.2 82.9 88.1

Nonsubject 25.9 19.7 15.8 17.1 11.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Source: Compiled from responses to Commission’s questionnaires.

NEGLIGIBILITY

The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports

of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.3

 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. However, if there are imports of

such merchandise from a number of countries subject to investigations initiated on the same day that

individually account for less than 3 percent of the total volume of the subject merchandise, and if the

 3 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)).

IV-4
imports from those countries collectively account for more than 7 percent of the volume of all such

merchandise imported into the United States during the applicable 12-month period, then imports from

such countries are deemed not to be negligible.4

 Imports from China accounted for 82.7 percent of total

imports of MLWF by quantity during 2009 and 86.6 percent of total imports between October 1, 2009

and September 31, 2010.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of MLWF during the period of investigation are

shown in table IV-3 and figure IV-1.

Table IV-3

MLWF: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. shipments of imports, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 2007-09, January-September 2009, and January-September 2010

Item

Calendar year January-September

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 square feet)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 165,271 157,455 131,824 96,892 104,767

U.S. shipments of imports from–

China 92,367 132,946 118,590 91,275 108,230

Nonsubject countries 45,404 35,470 27,643 22,019 18,985

Total U.S. imports 137,771 168,415 146,233 113,295 127,215

Apparent U.S. consumption 303,042 325,870 278,057 210,187 231,982

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 437,743 423,262 345,687 252,096 271,258

U.S. shipments of imports from--

China 252,195 364,093 319,566 245,003 286,987

Nonsubject countries 108,274 91,208 70,965 55,512 49,074

Total U.S. imports 360,469 455,301 390,531 300,515 336,062

Apparent U.S. consumption 798,212 878,563 736,218 552,611 607,320

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 4 Section 771(24) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)).

IV-5
Figure IV-1

MLWF: Apparent U.S. consumption, by sources, 2007-09, January-September 2009, and JanuarySeptember 2010

Source: Table IV-3.

IV-6
U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share data are presented in table IV-4.

Table IV-4

MLWF: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2007-09, January-September 2009, and JanuarySeptember 2010

Item

Calendar year January-September

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 square feet)

Apparent U.S. consumption 303,042 325,870 278,057 210,187 231,982

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 798,212 878,563 736,218 552,611 607,320

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 54.5 48.3 47.4 46.1 45.2

U.S. imports from--

China 30.5 40.8 42.6 43.4 46.7

Nonsubject countries 15.0 10.9 9.9 10.5 8.2

All countries 45.5 51.7 52.6 53.9 54.8

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 54.8 48.2 47.0 45.6 44.7

U.S. imports from--

China 31.6 41.4 43.4 44.3 47.3

Nonsubject countries 13.6 10.4 9.6 10.0 8.1

All countries 45.2 51.8 53.0 54.4 55.3

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

IV-7
RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of imports to U.S. production of MLWF is presented in table

IV-5. The ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production rose throughout the period of investigation.

Table IV-5

MLWF: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S. production, 2007-09, JanuarySeptember 2009, and January-September 2010

Item

Calendar year January-September

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 square feet)

U.S. production 176,512 156,180 127,705 95,673 106,486

Imports from:

China 100,199 133,722 113,470 88,011 113,025

Nonsubject countries 45,327 33,071 23,761 18,677 16,353

Total imports 145,527 166,793 137,231 106,688 129,378

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

Imports from:

China 56.8 85.6 88.9 92.0 106.1

Nonsubject countries 25.7 21.2 18.6 19.5 15.4

Total imports 82.4 106.8 107.5 111.5 121.5

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

IV-8
PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

Raw material costs accounted for 45 to 49 percent of the total cost of goods sold for U.S.

producers during 2007 to 2009. Sawtimber is the main raw material used to produce MLWF. The

average Timber Mart-South prices for oak and hardwood sawtimber has fluctuated since 2007, with the

price of oak sawtimber falling by about 1 percent and the price of hardwood sawtimber increasing by

11 percent (see figure V-1).

Figure V-1

MLWF: Average Timber Mart-South sawtimber prices, by quarter, January 2007-September 2010

Source: Timber Mart-South.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Transportation costs for U.S. inland shipments of MLWF generally account for a small-tomoderate share of the delivered price of these products. Most U.S. producers reported that the costs

ranged from less than 2 percent to 10 percent of the delivered price for MLWF. Most responding U.S.

importers reported that such costs were 3 percent to 15 percent of the delivered price of MLWF.

V-1
PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Most U.S. producers and importers reported making sales of MLWF on a spot basis. Five of nine

responding U.S. producers and 24 of 48 responding importers reported making at least 80 percent of their

sales on a spot basis. The four remaining producers and 18 importers reported making at least 80 percent

of their sales on a short-term contract basis of one year or less. Three importers reported making at least

80 percent of their sales on a long-term contract basis of two to five years.

Most firms reported setting prices on using a price list, although some firms set price on a

transaction-by-transaction basis or contracts for multiple shipments. All 11 responding producers and

37 of 51 responding importers reported using a price list. Four of 11 responding producers and 21 of

51 responding purchasers reported setting prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis. Three producers

and 10 importers reported using contracts for multiple shipments.

Eight of 11 responding U.S. producers and 28 of 49 responding importers reported making their

sales on a f.o.b. basis only. Two U.S. producers and 19 importers reported making their sales only on a

delivered basis and the two remaining responding importers reported making their sales on both f.o.b. and

delivered bases. Eight of 10 responding U.S. producers and 28 of 49 importers reported that at least

80 percent of their sales of MLWF are from U.S. inventory and additional three importers reported

making at least 69 percent of their sales from foreign inventory. Two responding producers (***) and

10 importers reported that at least 80 percent of their sales are made to order.

Lead Times

U.S. producers reported lead times from inventory of up to four weeks and lead times for sales of

product-to-order of five days to six weeks. Lead times for delivery for most responding U.S. importers

ranged up to 60 days on sales from U.S. inventory, 45 to 90 days on sales from foreign inventory, and

45 to 120 days on sales of product produced-to-order. Six of 11 responding U.S. producers and 38 of

49 responding importers reported that they generally arrange for the transportation to their customers’

locations. Seven of 10 responding U.S. producers and 16 of 45 responding importers reported making at

least 50 percent of their sales within 101 to 1,000 miles from their point of shipment. No U.S. producers

and 17 responding importers reported making at least 68 percent of their sales within 100 miles from their

point of shipment. Two producers and six importers reported making at least 60 percent of their sales

over 1,000 miles from their point of shipment. Thirty-seven of 50 responding importers reported shipping

from their storage facility and the remaining responding importers reported shipping from their point of

importation. 

Sales Terms and Discounts

Seven of 11 responding producers and 24 of 51 responding importers reported the use of quantity

discounts, three U.S. producers and nine importers reported using annual volume discounts, and one U.S.

producer and 19 importers reported having no discount policy. Four of 10 responding U.S. producers and

17 of 51 responding importers indicated they offered other discounts such as quarterly sales discounts,

discounts for payment terms, and rebates.

V-2
PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of MLWF to provide quarterly data for

the total quantity and f.o.b. value of MLWF that was shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market

during January 2007-September 2010. The products for which pricing data were requested are as

follows:

Product 1.--Multilayered wood flooring, 9.5 mm (d inch) thick, red oak-face product, 

prefinished (veneer core), 125 mm (5 inches) width or less

Product 2.--Multilayered wood flooring, 9.5 mm (d inch) thick, maple-face product, prefinished

(veneer core), 125 mm (5 inches) width or less

Product 3.--Multilayered wood flooring, 9.5 mm (d inch) thick, prefinished (MDF or similar 

core), 125 mm (5 inches) width or less

Product 4.--Multilayered wood flooring, 12.5 mm (1⁄2 inch) thick, hickory-face, hand 

scraped, prefinished (veneer core), 125 mm (5 inches) width or less

Six U.S. producers and 36 importers of MLWF from China provided usable pricing data for sales

of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.1

 Pricing

data reported by these firms accounted for approximately 45 percent of U.S. producers’ shipments of

MLWF, and 18 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from China in 2009. 

Price Trends

Price data are shown in tables V-1 to V-4 and figure V-2. Nonsubject price data are presented in

appendix G. Price trend summary data are presented in table V-5. Weighted-average sales prices for

U.S.-produced products 1 and 2 increased by 1.4 and 4.2 percent, respectively, while prices for U.S.-

produced products 3 and 4 decreased by -0.7 and -22.7 percent, respectively. Weighted average sales

prices of products 1-3 imported from China increased by 7.2 to 9.5 percent, and the price of product

4 decreased by 33.2 percent.

Table V-1

MLWF: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007-September 2010

* * * * * * *

 1 Price data reported for product 3 reported by *** and importer *** were not included because the data was

characterized as including data for all products not matching the description of products 1, 2, and 4. Price data

reported by reported by importer *** for product 4 and U.S. producer *** for products 1 and 2 were not included

because they appear to be premium products that are not competitive with the product described. ***. ***. Email

correspondence with ***, November 18, 2010.

V-3
Table V-2

MLWF: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Table V-3

MLWF: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Table V-4

MLWF: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2

MLWF: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product, by

quarters, January 2007-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Table V-5

MLWF: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-4 from the United States and

China

Item

Number of

quarters

Low price 

(per square foot)

High price

(per square foot)

Change in price1

(percent)

Product 1 

United States 15 $1.56 $2.14 1.4

China 15 2.44 2.99 9.5

Product 2 

United States 15 2.88 3.69 4.2

China 15 2.14 2.58 8.4

Product 3 

United States 15 2.03 2.67 -0.7

China 15 1.68 2.31 7.2

Product 4 

United States 15 4.37 5.65 -22.7

China 15 2.40 3.63 -33.2

 1 Percentage change from the first quarter in which price data were available to the last quarter in which price data

were available, based on unrounded data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

V-4
Price Comparisons

Margins of underselling and overselling for the period are presented in table V-6. As can be seen

from the table, prices for MLWF imported from China were below those for U.S.-produced MLWF in

42 of 60 instances; margins of underselling ranged from 0.3 to 49.2 percent. In the remaining

18 instances, prices for MLWF imported from China were above those for U.S.-produced MLWF;

margins of overselling ranged from 1.3 to 56.1 percent.

Table V-6

MLWF: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins, January

2007-September 2010

Source

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

China 42 0.3 to 49.2 27.9 18 1.3 to 56.1 27.5

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

The Commission requested U.S. producers of MLWF to report any instances of lost sales or

revenues they experienced due to competition from imports of MLWF from China since January 2007. 

*** provided allegations of lost sales ***. *** provide lost sales and revenue allegations.2

 Of the four

responding non-petitioning U.S. producers, three reported that they had to either reduce prices or roll

back announced price increases and three indicated that they had lost sales of MLWF from China. The

22 lost sales allegations totaled $509 thousand and involved 135 thousand square feet of MLWF and the

11 lost revenue allegations totaled $1.0 million and $2.4 million square feet of MLWF. Staff attempted to

contact all of the alleged purchasers, and a summary of the information obtained follows (tables V-7 and

V-8).

Table V-7

MLWF: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

Table V-8

MLWF: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations

* * * * * * *

Seven of 10 responding purchasers named in lost sales and lost revenue allegations indicated that

they switched purchases of MLWF from U.S. producers to suppliers of MLWF from China since January

2007. All seven purchasers indicated that price was the reason for the shift. One of these seven

purchasers (***) indicated that both price and species were reasons for the shift as it moved to a birch

product priced at $*** per square foot. Seven of eight responding purchasers named in lost sales and lost

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

 2 In addition, U.S. producer ***. ***, phone interview with staff, November 18, 2010.

V-5
prices of MLWF from China since January 2007. Some purchasers did not specifically respond “yes” or

“no” to the question, but provided comments. *** indicated that although U.S. producers have reduced

prices on some MLWF, it has not seen an across the board price reduction for MLWF. *** said that there

have been instances of both prices increases and decreases for engineered wood products, but as a

distributor it cannot speculate as to the specific rationale for producer pricing strategy and decisions.

Purchasers specifically “agreed” with lost sales allegations totaling $33,045 which represents

6 percent of the value of all lost sales allegations and with lost revenue allegations totaling $120,000

which represent 12 percent of the value all lost revenue allegations made by U.S. producers. Purchasers

specifically “disagreed” with lost sales allegations totaling $38,128, which represents 7 percent of the

value of all lost sales allegations and specifically “disagreed” with lost revenue allegations totaling

$68,400 or 7 percent of all lost revenue allegations. Purchasers did not specifically “agree” or “disagree”

with lost sales allegations totaling $145,178 or 33 percent of the value of all lost sales allegations and lost

revenue allegations totaling $240,000 or 23 percent of the value these allegations, but provided narrative

responses that are summarized on the following pages. 

*** indicated that there is insufficient data in their system regarding a sale of this size ($***) on

or around the date indicated.

*** disagreed with two lost revenue allegations involving his firm. He indicated that his

company purchases this product frequently from U.S. producer ***, but has no information to confirm the

specific allegation.3

 *** noted that his company has no general strategy or intent to switch to imported

products and that purchases are driven by many factors including design, distributing rights, and price. 

He also indicated that his company continues to purchase from U.S. producers. *** said that there have

been instances of both prices increases and decreases for engineered wood products, but as a distributor

he cannot speculate as to the specific rationale for producer pricing strategy and decisions.

*** disagreed with the lost revenue allegation involving his firm. He indicated that his firm

purchased the product at lower price because of decreased demand for MLWF. *** indicated that there

lower prices are not product specific and that U.S. producers have been lowering their prices also.4

*** disagreed with the lost sales allegation involving his firm. He indicated that his company

does not stock the hickory face product imported from China because the

price is higher, but that his company moved to importing a birch species that was priced at the same price

as the alleged accepted quote for the imported product (***).

*** disagreed with one lost sales allegation and indicated that his company has no record of the

lost revenue allegation and two lost sales allegations made regarding his firm. He disagreed with the ***

lost sales allegation indicating that the product was purchased at the alleged rejected quote for the U.S.

product.

In addition, to the lost sales allegations, petitioners provided *** regarding lost sales. ***.5

 3 ***, phone interview with staff, December 2, 2010.

 4

 ***, phone interview with staff, November 30, 2010.

 5

 Petition, exhibit I-13, pp. 2-3.

V-6
PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCERS

INTRODUCTION

Ten U.S. firms provided usable financial data on their operations on MLWF.1

 These data are

believed to account for the large majority of U.S. operations on MLWF. No firms reported internal

consumption, transfers to related firms, or tolling operations. All firms reported a fiscal year end on or

near December 31 ***. During the period of investigation, the domestic MLWF industry experienced a

number of developments in terms of acquisitions and new market participants. In August/September

2007, Mohawk acquired the assets of Columbia Flooring, and Anderson became an independent

subsidiary of Shaw. U.S. producers From the Forest, U.S. Floors, and Colonial Craft reported that they

began production in 2007, 2009, and 2010, respectively. 

OPERATIONS ON MLWF

Income-and-loss data for U.S. firms on their operations on MLWF are presented in table VI-1,

while selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table VI-2. The domestic industry experienced

declines in net sales quantity and value, as well as profitability, from 2007 to 2009, with the operating

margin declining from 4.7 percent in 2007 to negative 8.7 percent in 2009. Between the comparable

interim periods, both net sales quantity and value improved; while the operating margin also improved, it

still remained an operating loss in interim 2010.2

 The per-square foot net sales value remained unchanged

from 2007 to 2009, while operating costs and expenses (cost of goods sold (“COGS”) and selling, general,

and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses, combined) increased, which led to operating losses in 2008 and

2009. Between the comparable interim periods, the per-square foot operating costs and expenses declined,

while revenue remained unchanged, which led to a smaller operating loss. 

 1 The U.S. producers are ***. 

 2

 Petitioners state that the reduced operating loss between the comparable interim periods was the result of the

Federal homebuyer tax credit, which benefitted U.S. producers of MLWF during the first half of 2010. Petitioners’

postconference brief, p. 26.

VI-1
Table VI-1

MLWF: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2007-09, January-September 2009, and JanuarySeptember 2010

Item

Fiscal year January-September

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 square feet)

Total net sales 155,281 151,891 124,896 91,461 98,871

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales 409,961 411,206 329,611 238,367 258,378

COGS 327,176 353,766 295,831 214,707 221,676

Gross profit 82,785 57,440 33,780 23,660 36,702

SG&A expenses 63,705 74,996 62,488 46,762 48,065

Operating income/(loss) 19,080 (17,556) (28,708) (23,102) (11,363)

Interest expense 45 159 153 127 91

Other income/(expense) 2,930 256 (14,581) (1) (250)

Net income/(loss) 21,965 (17,459) (43,442) (23,230) (11,704)

Depreciation 13,327 13,357 15,162 10,816 11,919

Cash flow 35,292 (4,102) (28,280) (12,414) 215

Ratio to net sales (percent)

 COGS:

 Raw materials 38.8 40.3 40.7 41.0 39.6

 Direct labor 12.1 14.4 15.0 15.3 14.5

 Other factory costs 28.9 31.3 34.1 33.8 31.7

 Total COGS 79.8 86.0 89.8 90.1 85.8

Gross profit 20.2 14.0 10.2 9.9 14.2

SG&A expenses 15.5 18.2 19.0 19.6 18.6

Operating income/(loss) 4.7 (4.3) (8.7) (9.7) (4.4)

Net income/(loss) 5.4 (4.2) (13.2) (9.7) (4.5)

Unit value (per square foot)

Total net sales $2.64 $2.71 $2.64 $2.61 $2.61

 COGS:

 Raw materials 1.02 1.09 1.07 1.07 1.04

 Direct labor 0.32 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.38

 Other factory costs 0.76 0.85 0.90 0.88 0.83

 Total COGS 2.11 2.33 2.37 2.35 2.24

Gross profit 0.53 0.38 0.27 0.26 0.37

SG&A expenses 0.41 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.49

Operating income/(loss) 0.12 (0.12) (0.23) (0.25) (0.11)

Net income/(loss) 0.14 (0.11) (0.35) (0.25) (0.12)

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses 25565

Data 6 8 9 910

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

VI-2
Table VI-2

MLWF: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, 2007-09, January-September 2009, and

January-September 2010

* * * * * * *

All components of COGS increased on a per-square foot basis from 2007 to 2009, with raw

material costs (primarily lumber), direct labor, and other factory costs increasing by $.05, $0.08, and

$0.14, respectively, from 2007 to 2009. Between the comparable interim periods, all components of

COGS declined on a per-square foot basis, with raw material costs, direct labor, and other factory costs

declining by $0.03, $0.02, and $0.05, respectively. Thus, the overall change in per-square foot COGS

during the period examined is primarily the result of increased or decreased conversion costs (direct labor

and other factory costs).3

 In addition, the domestic MLWF industry’s SG&A expenses represented

17 percent of overall operating costs and expenses during the period examined, and are also a factor in the

industry’s reported financial performance.4 5

 

While the domestic MLWF industry experienced a decline in overall profitability from 2007 to

2009, and a decrease in the overall operating loss between the comparable interim periods, ***. 

According to petitioners, ***.6

VARIANCE ANALYSIS

The variance analysis presented in table VI-3 is based on the data in table VI-1. The analysis

shows that the decline in operating income from 2007 to 2009 is primarily attributable to an unfavorable

net cost/expense variance (that is, costs and expenses increased). Between the comparable interim periods,

the reduction in the operating loss is primarily attributable to a favorable net cost/expense variance (that is,

costs/expenses declined).7

 3 Petitioners stated that ***. Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 25.

 4

 At the conference, petitioners stated that, “{t}he successful marketing of the multilayered wood flooring brand

takes a great amount of time, energy, creativity, and, of course, money...Our marketing...involves brochures,

websites, trade shows and displays, among many other elements...” Conference transcript (Finkell), pp. 33-34.

 5

 While per-square foot COGS and SG&A expenses increased from 2007 to 2009, the absolute value of these

operating costs declined by 10 and 2 percent, respectively, while sales quantities declined by 20 percent. Further,

while per-square foot COGS and SG&A expenses declined between the comparable interim periods, the absolute

values for these operating costs each increased by 3 percent, while sales quantities increased by 8 percent. Thus, the

increase in unit operating costs from 2007 to 2009 and the decline in unit operating costs between the comparable

interim periods largely resulted from fluctuations in sales volumes. 

 6

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, Responses to Commission staff questions. Staff notes that ***. 

 7

 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 variance (in the case of

the cost of sales and SG&A expense variance) and a volume variance. The sales or cost variance is calculated as the

change in unit price times the new volume, while the volume variance is calculated as the change in volume times

the old unit price. 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

lines under price and cost/expense variance. The net volume component is generally the smallest component.

VI-3
Table VI-3

MLWF: Variance analysis on operations of U.S. producers, 2007-09, and January-September 

2009-10

Item

Between fiscal years Jan.-Sept.

2007-09 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Value ($1,000)

 Total net sales:

 Price variance (130) 10,195 (8,513) 699

 Volume variance (80,220) (8,950) (73,082) 19,312

 Total net sales variance (80,350) 1,245 (81,595) 20,011

Cost of sales:

 Cost variance (32,676) (33,733) (4,938) 10,426

 Volume variance 64,021 7,143 62,873 (17,395)

 Total cost variance 31,345 (26,590) 57,935 (6,969)

Gross profit variance (49,005) (25,345) (23,660) 13,042

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance (11,249) (12,682) (821) 2,486

 Volume variance 12,466 1,391 13,329 (3,789)

 Total SG&A variance 1,217 (11,291) 12,508 (1,303)

Operating income variance (47,788) (36,636) (11,152) 11,739

Summarized as:

 Price variance (130) 10,195 (8,513) 699

 Net cost/expense variance (43,925) (46,414) (5,759) 12,912

 Net volume variance (3,734) (417) 3,120 (1,872)

Note.-- Unfavorable variances are shown in parentheses; all others are favorable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES

The responding firms’ aggregate data on capital expenditures and research and development

(“R&D”) expenses are shown in table VI-4. Ten firms provided capital expenditure data, and five firms

provided data on R&D expenses. Capital expenditures declined irregularly from 2007 to 2009, and also

declined between the comparable interim periods. Anderson and Armstrong reported ***. Anderson’s

capital expenditures include ***.8

 Armstrong’s capital expenditures include ***.9 Armstrong also

reported ***, and stated that such expenditures reflect ***.10

 8 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exhibits Q-1 and Q-2.

 9

 E-mail correspondence from ***, November 22, 2010.

 10 Ibid.

VI-4
Table VI-4

MLWF: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. producers, 2007-09,

January-September 2009, and January-September 2010

Item

Fiscal year January-September

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Value ($1,000)

Capital expenditures:

 Total 18,252 20,079 13,460 10,601 7,458

R&D expenses:

 Total *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,

and sale of MLWF to compute return on investment (“ROI”). Data on the U.S. producers’ total assets and

their ROI are presented in table VI-5. From 2007 to 2009, the total assets for MLWF decreased from

$466.1 million in 2007 to $371.9 million in 2009, and the ROI declined from 4.1 percent in 2007 to

negative 7.7 percent in 2009.

Table VI-5

MLWF: Asset values and return on investment of U.S. producers, 2007-09

Item

Fiscal year

2007 2008 2009

Value of assets: Value ($1,000)

Current assets:

 Cash and equivalents 913 1,677 2,833

 Accounts receivable, net 47,153 41,675 30,101

 Inventories 155,430 153,863 103,008

 Other 5,370 3,322 4,156

 Total current assets 208,866 200,537 140,098

Non-current assets:

 Property, plant and equipment - book value *** *** ***

 Other non-current assets1 *** *** ***

 Total assets 466,142 463,578 371,852

Operating income or (loss) 19,080 (17,556) (28,708)

Return on investment 4.1 (3.8) (7.7)

 1 ***. E-mail correspondence from ***, November 9, 2010.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

VI-5
CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers of MLWF to describe any actual or potential negative

effects of imports of MLWF from China on their firms’ growth, investment, ability to raise capital,

development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments. Responses provided by U.S.

producers follow.

Actual Negative Effects

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Negative Effects

* * * * * * * 

VI-6
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 earlier in this report (if

relevant); 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 Commission received responses from 31 firms accounting for a majority of 2009 production

of MLWF in China and the vast majority of exports to the United States from China.1

 The respondent

firms accounted for 46.6 percent of total shipments exported to the United States. According to

respondent China National Forest Products, approximately 70 percent of all Chinese production of

MLWF is sold in the domestic market, while approximately 30 percent is exported. The firm estimates

that 10-15 percent is exported to the United States, and that the percentage is declining as the domestic

market continues to grow.2

 Five Chinese producers, (***), reported plant openings. Two of the five

foreign producers, ***, specified that the new plants were to supply raw materials to MLWF operations. 

Several producers also reported expansions and upgrades in machinery and equipment. Many Chinese

producers reported revised labor agreements to comply with China’s new labor law, effective in 2008.3

Foreign producers reported increased cost and inadequate supply of raw materials and labor as constraints

on production. A number of producers also mentioned energy shortages, such as electricity and coal, as a

constraint on production.

Capacity, production, and export shipment data regarding the individual firms are presented in

table VII-1. Seven firms, ***, accounted for nearly half of reported Chinese MLWF production in 2009. 

Capacity utilization ranged between 9 and 97 percent and the share of shipments that were exported to the

United States ranged between 1 and 100 percent.

Table VII-1

MLWF: China’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, by firm,

2009

* * * * * * *

 1 Responses to the Commission’s foreign producer questionnaire. The Commission sent over 200 foreign

producer questionnaires receiving 31 completed.

 2

 Chinese Producers’ Association, postconference brief, response to staff questions, p. 2.

 3

 China's new labor law increases worker protections and benefits for more workers. The law makes employer

and employee enter into a written contract of one of three types: a fixed-term contract, an open-term contract

(“tenure”) or a contract whose term is linked to the completion of a specific task. Social insurance must be paid by

the employer. Previously, most private companies did not pay social insurance for their employees. “China's

Tangled New Labor Law.” Forbes. January 13, 2008. 

http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/11/straszheim-china-labor-oped-cx_dhs_0114straszheim.html. (Accessed

November 18, 2010).

VII-1
Table VII-2 presents data on whether Chinese producers since 2007 produced other products on

the same equipment and machinery used in the production of MLWF and/or using the same production

and related workers employed to produce MLWF. Eleven Chinese producers reported production of

other products using the same workers and/or on the same machinery. These products were solid

hardwood, HDF laminate, and bamboo flooring.

Table VII-2

MLWF: Chinese producers' reported use of machinery, equipment, and workers used for MLWF

and other nonsubject products, 2007-09, January-September 2009, and January-September 2010

Item

Calendar year January-September

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity in 1,000 square feet

Overall production capacity 134,032 181,039 177,711 131,119 154,531

Production of:

 Subject merchandise 64,978 75,127 73,174 53,474 76,987

 Other1 36,253 63,416 60,019 43,532 57,929

Total 101,231 138,543 133,193 97,006 134,917

Overall capacity utilization (%) 75.5 76.5 74.9 74.0 87.3

 1 Other products include solid hardwood, HDF laminate, and bamboo flooring.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table VII-3 presents cumulative data for reported capacity, production, and shipments of MLWF

for all reporting producers in China. Chinese producers reported having 40 percent more capacity to

produce MLWF and two-thirds more production of MLWF than their U. S. counterparts during 2009. 

Exports to the United States have remained less than half of total shipments during the period of

investigation and home market sales were less than 15 percent although they are projected to rise to more

than 18 percent in 2011.

VII-2
Table VII-3

MLWF: China production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2007-09, JanuarySeptember 2009, January-September 2010, and projected 20010-11

Item

Actual experience Projections

2007 2008 2009

JanuarySeptember

2009 2010 2010 2011

Quantity (square feet)

Capacity 344,432 378,531 378,537 293,475 301,953 386,556 387,902

Production 234,994 244,812 214,053 148,634 219,637 269,087 272,359

End of period inventories 20,730 23,026 25,039 24,099 29,645 23,528 23,205

Shipments:

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Home market *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Exports to--

The United States 111,157 106,684 98,651 72,820 107,820 129,221 114,615

All other markets 93,308 100,297 82,744 55,180 78,325 99,601 108,665

Total exports 204,465 206,981 181,395 128,000 186,146 228,822 223,280

Total shipments 230,819 241,134 211,875 147,570 215,045 269,517 273,596

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 68.2 64.7 56.5 50.6 72.7 69.6 70.2

Inventories to production 8.8 9.4 11.7 12.2 10.1 8.7 8.5

Inventories to total

shipments 9.0 9.5 11.8 12.2 10.3 8.7 8.5

Share of total quantity of

shipments:

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Home market *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Exports to--

The United States 48.2 44.2 46.6 49.3 50.1 47.9 41.9

All other markets 40.4 41.6 39.1 37.4 36.4 37.0 39.7

All export

markets 88.6 85.8 85.6 86.7 86.6 84.9 81.6

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

VII-3
U.S. INVENTORIES OF PRODUCT FROM CHINA

Reported inventories held by U.S. importers of subject merchandise from China and nonsubject

countries are shown in table VII-4.

Table VII-4

MLWF: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of subject and nonsubject imports, by sources,

2007-2009, January-September 2009, and January-September 2010

Source

Calendar year January-September

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010

Imports from China:

 Inventories (square feet) 28,523 35,034 31,374 31,520 36,191

 Ratio to imports (percent) 28.5 26.2 27.6 26.9 24.0

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 30.9 26.4 26.5 25.9 25.1

Imports from nonsubject countries:

 Inventories (square feet) 16,221 13,785 9,558 10,101 6,368

 Ratio to imports (percent) 35.8 41.7 40.2 40.6 29.2

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 35.7 38.9 34.6 34.4 25.2

Imports from all sources:

 Inventories (square feet) 44,744 48,819 40,932 41,621 42,559

 Ratio to imports (percent) 30.7 29.3 29.8 29.3 24.7

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 32.5 29.0 28.0 27.6 25.1

Note.–January-September ratios are calculated using annualized import data. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ IMPORTS SUBSEQUENT TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2010

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of MLWF from China after September 30, 2010. Thirty-seven of the 50 reporting U.S.

importers stated that they had imported or arranged for importation subject merchandise since

September 30, 2010, totaling 18.9 million square feet.

VII-4
ANTIDUMPING INVESTIGATIONS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

No investigations of MLWF have or are being conducted in third-country markets. However,

Australia initiated in 2009, and later terminated in 2010, antidumping investigations on certain plywood

from China as well as Brazil, Chile, and Malaysia.4

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.’”5

Global Market

MLWF is produced in a number of countries including Brazil, Canada, China, EU, Indonesia,

Malaysia, and United States. Trade statistics do not allow an accurate assessment of trade flows of

MLWF because the subject product is included in categories that also include nonsubject hardwood

plywood and nonsubject builders’ joinery products. However, Chinese exports of plywood (HS 4412)

and builders’ joinery products (HS 4418), in categories that include subject imports, represented

approximately 16 percent of total global exports in 2009 (table VII-5).

 4 Foreign producer questionnaire response of ***; and Australian Customs Dumping Notice No. 2010/29. 

Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. August 4, 2010. 

http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/MicrosoftWord-100802ACDN.pdf. (Accessed

November 18, 2010).

 5

 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-5
Table VII-5

MLWF: Exports by country, 2007-09

Source

Calendar year

2007 2008 2009

Value (1,000 dollars)

China 1,362,266 1,378,868 1,156,802

Indonesia (1

) (1) 1,137,442

Malaysia 8,203 749,698 937,230

Russia 716,067 726,019 474,775

Austria 550,416 574,465 468,838

Germany 488,567 532,374 399,314

Finland 742,373 714,610 355,398

Poland 288,104 282,806 197,691

Belgium 196,877 254,883 188,053

Sweden 322,371 264,851 181,117

France 298,077 276,885 179,533

Canada 285,122 249,210 174,636

Italy 212,349 223,502 164,565

United States 160,670 191,976 142,605

Latvia 198,597 215,585 136,012

Brazil 267,156 212,423 103,046

Spain 102,906 110,541 75,543

Netherlands 76,619 77,313 72,173

Czech Republic 67,759 75,345 64,834

Slovenia 82,946 85,553 62,526

 Rest of World 801,967 873,196 686,536

 Total World Exports 7,229,413 8,070,103 7,358,668

 1 Not available.

Source: GTIS Global Trade Atlas (4412.31, 4412.32, 4412.94, 4412.99, 4418.71 ,4418.72).

VII-6
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-1

66126 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Notices 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the final FLAG 

Phase I Report—REVISED and the 

accompanying Response to Public 

Comments document can be 

downloaded from the Internet at: http:// 

www.nature.nps.gov/air/permits/flag/ 

index.cfm. 

A copy can also be obtained from 

John Bunyak, Air Resources Division, 

National Park Service, P.O. Box 25287, 

Denver, Colorado 80225; e-mail: 

john_bunyak@nps.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Bunyak at the above address or by 

calling (303) 969–2818. 

Dated: September 8, 2010. 

Thomas L. Strickland, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks, Department of the Interior. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27211 Filed 10–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–476 and 731– 

TA–1179 (Preliminary)] 

Multilayered Wood Flooring From 

China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations and 

scheduling of preliminary phase 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the institution of investigations 

and commencement of preliminary 

phase antidumping and countervailing 

duty investigations Nos. 701–TA–476 

and 731–TA–1179 (Preliminary) under 

sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 

1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that 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 

imports from China of multilayered 

wood flooring, provided for in 

subheadings 4409.10, 4409.29, 4412.31, 

4412.32, 4412.39, 4412.94, 4412.99, 

4418.71, 4418.72, 4418.79.00, and 

4418.90 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States, that are 

alleged to be sold in the United States 

at less than fair value and alleged to be 

subsidized by the Government of China. 

Unless the Department of Commerce 

extends the time for initiation pursuant 

to sections 702(c)(1)(B) or 732(c)(1)(B) of 

the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671a(c)(1)(B) or 

1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must 

reach a preliminary determination in 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

investigations in 45 days, or in this case 

by December 6, 2010. The Commission’s 

views are due at Commerce within five 

business days thereafter, or by 

December 13, 2010. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of these investigations 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 B (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 21, 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.—These investigations 

are being instituted in response to a 

petition filed on October 21, 2010, on 

behalf of the Coalition for American 

Hardwood Parity (‘‘CAHP’’), an ad hoc 

association of U.S. manufacturers of 

multilayered wood flooring. The 

following companies are members of the 

CAHP: Anderson Hardwood Floors, 

LLC, Fountain Inn, SC; Award 

Hardwood Floors, Wausau, WI; Baker’s 

Creek Wood Floors, Inc., Edwards, MS; 

From the Forest, Weston, WI; Howell 

Hardwood Flooring, Dothan, AL; 

Mannington Mills, Inc., Salem, NJ; 

Nydree Flooring, Forest, VA; and Shaw 

Industries Group, Inc., Dalton, GA. 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list.—Persons (other than 

petitioners) wishing to participate in the 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the 

Commission’s rules, not later than seven 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Industrial users 

and (if the merchandise under 

investigation is sold at the retail level) 

representative consumer organizations 

have the right to appear as parties in 

Commission antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations. The 

Secretary will prepare a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to these investigations 

upon the expiration of the period for 

filing entries of appearance. 

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 these investigations 

available to authorized applicants 

representing interested parties (as 

defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are 

parties to the investigations under the 

APO issued in the investigations, 

provided that the application is made 

not later than seven days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. A separate service list will be 

maintained by the Secretary for those 

parties authorized to receive BPI under 

the APO. 

Conference.—The Commission’s 

Director of Investigations has scheduled 

a conference in connection with these 

investigations for 9:30 a.m. on 

November 12, 2010, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. Parties wishing to 

participate in the conference should 

contact Fred Ruggles (202–205–3187) 

not later than November 9, 2010, to 

arrange for their appearance. Parties in 

support of the imposition of 

countervailing and antidumping duties 

in these investigations and parties in 

opposition to the imposition of such 

duties will each be collectively 

allocated one hour within which to 

make an oral presentation at the 

conference. A nonparty who has 

testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the conference. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the 

Commission’s rules, any person may 

submit to the Commission on or before 

November 16, 2010, a written brief 

containing information and arguments 

pertinent to the subject matter of the 

investigations. Parties may file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the conference no later 

than three days before the conference. If 

briefs or written testimony contain 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Notices 66127 

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 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 207.12 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 21, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27173 Filed 10–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

Summary of Commission Practice 

Relating to Administrative Protective 

Orders 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Summary of Commission 

practice relating to administrative 

protective orders. 
70714 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 

1Commerce Secretary Locke Launches Internet 

Policy Task Force, Department of Commerce Press 

Release (April 21, 2010), at http://www.commerce.

gov/news/press-releases/2010/04/21/commercesecretary-locke-announces-public-review-privacypolicy-and-i. 

2See 75 FR 60068 (September 29, 2010). 

1The Coalition for American Hardwood Parity is 

comprised of Anderson Hardwood Floors, LLC, 

Award Hardwood Floors, Baker’s Creek Wood 

Floors, Inc., From the Forest, Howell Hardwood 

Flooring, Mannington Mills, Inc., Nydree Flooring 

and Shaw Industries Group, Inc. 

2See Supplement to the Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties: Multilayered Wood Flooring from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated October 29, 2010 

(‘‘Supplement to the AD Petition’’). 

3See Supplement to the Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties: Multilayered Wood Flooring from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated November 2, 

2010 (‘‘Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions’’). 

4See Supplement to the Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties: Multilayered Wood Flooring from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated November 3, 

2010 (‘‘Second Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions’’). 

5See Letter regarding the Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties: Multilayered Wood Flooring from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated November 8, 

2010. 

6See Letter regarding the Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties: Multilayered Wood Flooring from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated November 9, 

2010. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

[Docket No. 100921457–0561–02] 

RIN 0660–XA20 

Global Free Flow of Information on the 

Internet 

AGENCY: National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force 

announces that the closing deadline for 

submission of comments responsive to 

the September 29, 2010 notice of 

inquiry on the global free flow of 

information on the Internet has been 

reopened and will extend until 5 p.m. 

Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 

December 6, 2010. 

DATES: Comments are due by 5 p.m. EST 

on December 6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

encouraged to file comments 

electronically by e-mail to freeflow-noi2010@ntia.doc.gov. Submissions should 

be in one of the following formats: 

HTML, ASCII, Word, rtf, or pdf. Paper 

comments can be sent to: National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration at U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Room 4701, Washington, DC 

20230. Please note that all material sent 

via the U.S. Postal Service (including 

‘‘Overnight’’ or ‘‘Express Mail’’) is subject 

to delivery delays of up to two weeks 

due to mail security procedures. Paper 

submissions should also include a CD or 

DVD in Word, WordPerfect, or pdf 

format. CDs or DVDs should be labeled 

with the name and organizational 

affiliation of the filer, and the name of 

the word processing program used to 

create the document. Comments filed in 

response to this notice will be made 

available to the public on the Internet 

Policy Task Force Web page at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/

internetpolicytaskforce. For this reason, 

comments should not include 

confidential, proprietary, or business 

sensitive information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general questions about this amended 

Notice, contact: Chris Hemmerlein, 

Office of International Affairs, National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Room 4706, Washington, DC 

20230; telephone (202) 482–1885; e-mail 

chemmerlein@ntia.doc.gov. Please 

direct media inquires to NTIA’s Office 

of Public Affairs at (202) 482–7002; or 

USPTO’s Office of Public Affairs at 

(572) 272–8400. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

21, 2010, the Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) announced the 

formation of a Commerce-wide Internet 

Policy Task Force (‘‘Task Force’’) to 

identify leading public policy and 

operational issues impacting the U.S. 

private sector’s ability to realize the 

potential for economic growth and job 

creation through the Internet.1 On 

September 29, 2010, the Task Force 

issued a notice of inquiry on restrictions 

placed upon the free flow of information 

on the Internet with a closing date for 

comments of November 15, 2010.2 In 

the interest of affording parties more 

time to submit comments, the Task 

Force is reopening the comment period. 

The Task Force announces that the 

closing deadline for submission of 

comments responsive to the September 

29, 2010 is now extended until 5 p.m. 

Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 

December 6, 2010. Comments received 

after the original closing date of 

November 15, 2010 and before the 

publication of this notice will be 

considered timely and given full 

consideration. 

Dated: November 12, 2010. 

Lawrence E. Strickling, 

Assistant Secretary for Communications and 

Information. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29070 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–970] 

Multilayered Wood Flooring From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation 

of Antidumping Duty Investigation 

DATES: Effective Date: November 18, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brandon Petelin, John Hollwitz or 

Charles Riggle, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 8, (202) 482–8173, (202) 482– 

2336 or (202) 482–0650, respectively; 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 21, 2010, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a 

petition concerning imports of 

multilayered wood flooring from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) filed 

in proper form by the Coalition for 

American Hardwood Parity 1

(‘‘Petitioner’’). See Petitions for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties: Multilayered 

Wood Flooring from the People’s 

Republic of China dated October 21, 

2010 (‘‘Petition’’). On October 27, 2010, 

the Department issued requests for 

information and clarification of certain 

areas of the Petition. Petitioner timely 

filed additional information on October 

29, 2010,2 November 2, 2010,3

November 3, 2010,4 November 8, 2010 5

and November 9, 2010.6

On November 4, 2010, we received 

comments from Lumber Liquidators 

Services, LLC (‘‘Lumber Liquidators’’) 

and Home Legend, LLC (‘‘Home 

Legend’’), U.S. importers of multilayered 

wood flooring. Lumber Liquidators and 

Home Legend are interested parties as 

defined by section 771(9)(A) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). Additionally, on November 9, 

2010, we received further comments 

filed by Lumber Liquidators, Home 

Legend and U.S. Floors LLC. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

April 1, 2010, through September 30, 

2010. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 70715 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Act, Petitioner alleged that imports 

of multilayered wood flooring from the 

PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold 

in the United States at less than fair 

value, within the meaning of section 

731 of the Act, and that such imports 

are materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioner is 

an interested party, as defined in 

sections 771(9)(C), (E) and (F) of the Act, 

and has demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

antidumping duty investigation that 

Petitioner is requesting the Department 

to initiate (see ‘‘Determination of 

Industry Support for the Petition’’ 

section below). 

Scope of the Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are multilayered wood 

flooring from the PRC. For a full 

description of the scope of the 

investigation, see ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this 

notice. 

Comments on Scope of the Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioner to 

ensure that it is an accurate reflection of 

the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. As a result, 

the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ language 

has been modified from the language in 

the Petition to reflect these 

clarifications. Moreover, as discussed in 

the preamble to the regulations (see 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 

(May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a 

period for interested parties to raise 

issues regarding product coverage. The 

Department encourages interested 

parties to submit such comments by 

Tuesday, November 30, 2010, which is 

twenty calendar days from the signature 

date of this notice. Comments should be 

addressed to Import Administration’s 

APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. The period of 

scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determination. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires 

We are requesting comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

multilayered wood flooring to be 

reported in response to the 

Department’s antidumping 

questionnaires. This information will be 

used to identify the key physical 

characteristics of the merchandise under 

consideration in order to more 

accurately report the relevant factors 

and costs of production, as well as to 

develop appropriate product 

comparison criteria. 

Interested parties may provide 

information or comments that they 

believe are relevant to the development 

of an accurate listing of physical 

characteristics. Specifically, they may 

provide comments as to which 

characteristics are appropriate to use as: 

(1) General product characteristics; and 

(2) the product comparison criteria. We 

note that it is not always appropriate to 

use all product characteristics as 

product comparison criteria. We base 

product comparison criteria on 

meaningful commercial differences 

among products. In other words, while 

there may be some physical product 

characteristics utilized by 

manufacturers to describe multilayered 

wood flooring, it may be that only a 

select few product characteristics take 

into account commercially meaningful 

physical characteristics. In addition, 

interested parties may comment on the 

order in which the physical 

characteristics should be used in 

product matching. Generally, the 

Department attempts to list the most 

important physical characteristics first 

and the least important characteristics 

last. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing and 

issuing the antidumping duty 

questionnaires, we must receive 

comments at the above-referenced 

address by November 30, 2010. 

Additionally, rebuttal comments must 

be received by December 7, 2010. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) Poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

industry. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The ITC, which 

is responsible for determining whether 

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product (see section 

771(10) of the Act), they do so for 

different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 

2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. 

United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 

(CIT 1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 

1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like 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 under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioner does not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that 

multilayered wood flooring constitutes a 

single domestic like product and we 

have analyzed industry support in terms 

of that domestic like product. For a 

discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Antidumping 

Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Multilayered Wood Flooring from the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

70716 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘Initiation 

Checklist’’), at Attachment II, Analysis 

of Industry Support for the Petitions 

Covering Multilayered Wood Flooring 

from the People’s Republic of China, on 

file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), 

Room 7046 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. 

In determining whether Petitioner has 

standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of 

the Act, we considered the industry 

support data contained in the Petition 

with reference to the domestic like 

product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section above. To 

establish industry support, Petitioner 

provided its production volume of the 

domestic like product in 2009, and 

compared this to the estimated total 

production volume of the domestic like 

product for the entire domestic 

industry. See Volume I of the Petitions, 

at 4–5, and Exhibit I–3; see also 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions 

dated November 2, 2010, at 2; Second 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions 

dated November 3, 2010, at 1–2 and 

Exhibit I–K. Petitioner estimated 2009 

production volume of the domestic like 

product by non-petitioning companies 

based on its knowledge of the industry. 

We have relied upon data Petitioner 

provided for purposes of measuring 

industry support. For further 

discussion, see Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. 

On November 4, 2010, we received a 

submission on behalf of importers of 

multilayered wood flooring, interested 

parties to this proceeding as defined in 

section 771(9)(A) of the Act, questioning 

the industry support calculation. See 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. On 

November 8 and 9, 2010, Petitioner filed 

replies to the importers’ industry 

support challenge. The importers filed 

an additional submission on November 

9, 2010. For further discussion of these 

submissions see Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. 

Based on information provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department, we determine that the 

domestic producers and workers have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of 

the Act because the domestic producers 

(or workers) who support the Petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product. Because the Petition and 

supplemental submissions did not 

establish support from domestic 

producers (or workers) accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department was required to take 

further action in order to evaluate 

industry support. See section 

732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. In this case, the 

Department was able to rely on other 

information, in accordance with section 

732(c)(4)(D)(i) of the Act, to determine 

industry support. See Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II; see also 

Memorandum to the File from Victoria 

Flynn, dated November 3, 2010. Based 

on information provided in the Petition, 

other submissions, and additional 

information obtained by the 

Department, the domestic producers 

and workers have met the statutory 

criteria for industry support under 

section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition. Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the Petition 

was filed on behalf of the domestic 

industry within the meaning of section 

732(b)(1) of the Act. See Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

771(9)(C), (E) and (F) of the Act and they 

have demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

duty investigations that they are 

requesting the Department initiate. Id. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioner alleges that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than normal 

value (‘‘NV’’). In addition, Petitioner 

alleges that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 

Petitioner contends that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, reduced 

production, reduced shipments, 

reduced capacity and capacity 

utilization, underselling and price 

depression or suppression, reduced 

employment, hours worked, and wages 

paid, decline in financial performance, 

lost sales and revenue, and increase in 

import penetration. See Vol. I of the 

Petition, at 16–60. We have assessed the 

allegations and supporting evidence 

regarding material injury, threat of 

material injury, and causation, and we 

have determined that these allegations 

are properly supported by adequate 

evidence and meet the statutory 

requirements for initiation. See 

Checklist at Attachment III, Injury. 

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value 

The following is a description of the 

allegations of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department based its 

decision to initiate this investigation of 

imports of multilayered wood flooring 

from the PRC. The sources of data for 

the deductions and adjustments relating 

to the U.S. price and the factors of 

production are also discussed in the 

initiation checklist. See Initiation 

Checklist. 

U.S. Price 

Petitioner calculated export price 

(‘‘EP’’) based on documentation of offers 

for sales obtained from a proprietary 

source. See Initiation Checklist; see also 

Volume II of the Petition, at 1–2 and 

Exhibit II–1. 

Normal Value 

Petitioner claims the PRC is a nonmarket economy (‘‘NME’’) country and 

that no determination to the contrary 

has been made by the Department. See 

Volume II of the Petition, at 3. The 

presumption of NME status for the PRC 

has not been revoked by the Department 

and, therefore, in accordance with 

section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, remains 

in effect for purposes of the initiation of 

this investigation. Accordingly, the NV 

of the product for the PRC investigation 

is appropriately based on factors of 

production valued in a surrogate 

market-economy country in accordance 

with section 773(c) of the Act. In the 

course of this investigation, all parties, 

including the public, will have the 

opportunity to provide relevant 

information related to the issue of the 

PRC’s NME status and the granting of 

separate rates to individual exporters. 

Petitioner contends that Indonesia is 

the appropriate surrogate country for the 

PRC because: (1) It is at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC and (2) it is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise. 

See Volume II of the Petition, at 3–6, 

and Exhibits II–2, II–3, and II–4. Based 

on the information provided by 

Petitioner, we believe that it is 

appropriate to use Indonesia as a 

surrogate country for initiation 

purposes. After initiation of the 

investigation, interested parties will 

have the opportunity to submit 

comments regarding surrogate country 

selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an 

opportunity to submit publicly available 

information to value factors of 

production within 40 days after the date 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 70717 

of publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

Petitioner calculated NV and the 

dumping margins using the 

Department’s NME methodology as 

required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) 

and 19 CFR 351.408. In calculating NV, 

Petitioner based the quantity of each of 

the inputs used to manufacture 

multilayered wood flooring in the PRC 

on product-specific consumption rates 

of a multilayered wood flooring 

producer in the United States 

(‘‘Surrogate Domestic Producer’’) for 

identical or similar merchandise during 

the POI. See Volume II of the Petition, 

at 6–8 and Exhibits II–5 and II–6. 

Petitioner states that the actual usage 

rates of the foreign manufacturers of 

multilayered wood flooring are not 

reasonably available; however, 

Petitioner notes that according to the 

information available, the production of 

multilayered wood flooring in the PRC 

relies on similar production methods to 

the Surrogate Domestic Producer. See 

Volume II of the Petition, at 6–7 and 

Exhibit II–5. 

As noted above, Petitioner determined 

the consumption quantities of all raw 

materials based on the production 

experience of the Surrogate Domestic 

Producer. Petitioner valued most of the 

factors of production based on 

reasonably available, public surrogate 

country data, specifically, Indonesian 

import statistics from the Global Trade 

Atlas (‘‘GTA’’). See Volume II of the 

Petition, at 8–12 and Exhibits II–6 and 

II–7; see also Supplement to the AD 

Petition, at Supplemental Exhibit II–B. 

Petitioner excluded from these import 

statistics imports from countries 

previously determined by the 

Department to be NME countries. 

Petitioner also excluded import 

statistics from India, the Republic of 

Korea and Thailand, as the Department 

has previously excluded prices from 

these countries because they maintain 

broadly available, non-industry-specific 

export subsidies. See Volume II of the 

Petition, at Exhibit II–7. In addition, 

Petitioner made currency conversions, 

where necessary, based on the POIaverage rupiah/U.S. dollar exchange 

rate, as reported on the Department’s 

Web site. See Volume II of the Petition, 

at 8 and Exhibit II–6. Petitioner 

determined labor costs using the labor 

consumption, in hours, derived from the 

Surrogate Domestic Producer’s 

experience. See Volume II of the 

Petition, at 8 and Exhibit II–5. For 

purposes of initiation, the Department 

determines that the surrogate values 

used by Petitioner are reasonably 

available and, thus, acceptable for 

purposes of initiation. 

Petitioner determined energy and 

utility costs using the usage rates 

derived from the Surrogate Domestic 

Producer’s experience. See Volume II of 

the Petition, at 10 and Exhibit II–6. 

However, when constructing the NV of 

the subject merchandise, Petitioner did 

not individually incorporate the diesel 

fuel, electricity, and water inputs into 

the normal value calculation, because 

Petitioner could not segregate energy 

costs from the surrogate financial 

statements, and so accounted for the 

diesel fuel, electricity, and water costs 

in the calculation of surrogate financial 

ratios. Id. This is consistent with the 

Department’s recent decision in Citric 

Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 16838 

(April 13, 2009), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. See Volume II of the 

Petition, at 11 and Exhibit II–6; see also 

Supplement to the AD Petition, at 

Supplemental Exhibit II–B. 

Petitioner determined labor costs 

using data from Chapter 5B of the 

International Labour Organization’s 

database to calculate a simple average of 

industry-specific wage rates from a 

basket of countries that are 

economically comparable to the PRC 

and are significant exporters of the like 

merchandise. See Supplement to the AD 

Petition at 3, and Supplemental Exhibit 

II–C; see also Letter regarding the 

Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties 

on Imports of Multilayered Wood 

Flooring From the People’s Republic of 

China: Supplemental Questions, dated 

October 27, 2010. 

Petitioner determined packing costs 

using consumption rates derived from 

the Surrogate Domestic Producer’s 

experience, valued using data from the 

GTA. See Volume II of the Petition, at 

12 and Exhibits II–6 and II–7. 

Petitioner based factory overhead, 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses, and profit on data from PT 

Tirta Mahakam Resources, Tbk., an 

Indonesian manufacturer of 

multilayered wood flooring, for the 2009 

fiscal year. See Volume II of the 

Petition, at 11–12 and Exhibit II–12. 

Fair-Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioner, there is reason to believe that 

imports of multilayered wood flooring 

from the PRC are being, or are likely to 

be, sold in the United States at less than 

fair value. Based on a comparison of 

U.S. prices and NV calculated in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act, as described above, the estimated 

dumping margins for multilayered wood 

flooring from the PRC range from 194.49 

percent to 280.60 percent. See Initiation 

Checklist and Supplement to the AD 

Petition at Exhibit II–B. 

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation 

Based upon the examination of the 

Petition on multilayered wood flooring 

from the PRC, the Department finds the 

Petition meets the requirements of 

section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are 

initiating an antidumping duty 

investigation to determine whether 

imports of multilayered wood flooring 

from the PRC are being, or are likely to 

be, sold in the United States at less than 

fair value. In accordance with section 

733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will 

make our preliminary determination no 

later than 140 days after the date of this 

initiation. 

Targeted Dumping Allegations 

On December 10, 2008, the 

Department issued an interim final rule 

for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 

351.414(f) and (g), the regulatory 

provisions governing the targeted 

dumping analysis in antidumping duty 

investigations, and the corresponding 

regulation governing the deadline for 

targeted dumping allegations, 19 CFR 

351.301(d)(5). See Withdrawal of the 

Regulatory Provisions Governing 

Targeted Dumping in Antidumping 

Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930 

(December 10, 2008). The Department 

stated that ‘‘withdrawal will allow the 

Department to exercise the discretion 

intended by the statute and, thereby, 

develop a practice that will allow 

interested parties to pursue all statutory 

avenues of relief in this area.’’ Id. at 

74931. 

In order to accomplish this objective, 

if any interested party wishes to make 

a targeted dumping allegation in this 

investigation pursuant to section 

777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such allegation 

is due no later than 45 days before the 

scheduled date of the preliminary 

determination. 

Respondent Selection 

For this investigation, the Department 

will request quantity and value 

information from known exporters and 

producers identified with complete 

contact information in the Petition. The 

quantity and value data received from 

NME exporters/producers will be used 

as the basis to select the mandatory 

respondents. 

The Department requires that the 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate-rate application by the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

70718 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 

7A ‘‘veneer’’ is a thin slice of wood, rotary cut, 

sliced or sawed from a log, bolt or flitch. Veneer is 

referred to as a ply when assembled. 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate-rate status. 

See Circular Welded Austenitic 

Stainless Pressure Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas 

From the People’s Republic of China, 70 

FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). On 

the date of the publication of this 

initiation notice in the Federal Register, 

the Department will post the quantity 

and value questionnaire along with the 

filing instructions on the Import 

Administration Web site at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html, and a response to the 

quantity and value questionnaire is due 

no later than December 3, 2010. Also, 

the Department will send the quantity 

and value questionnaire to those PRC 

companies identified in Volume I of the 

Petition, at Exhibit I–6. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Instructions for filing such applications 

may be found on the Department’s Web 

site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo. 

Separate Rates Application 

In order to obtain separate-rate status 

in NME investigations, exporters and 

producers must submit a separate-rate 

status application. See Policy Bulletin 

05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 

Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving 

Non-Market Economy Countries, dated 

April 5, 2005 (‘‘Policy Bulletin’’), 

available on the Department’s Web site 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05– 

1.pdf. Based on our experience in 

processing the separate-rate applications 

in previous antidumping duty 

investigations, we have modified the 

application for this investigation to 

make it more administrable and easier 

for applicants to complete. See, e.g., 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain New Pneumatic 

Off-the-Road Tires From the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 43591, 43594– 

95 (August 6, 2007). The specific 

requirements for submitting the 

separate-rate application in this 

investigation are outlined in detail in 

the application itself, which will be 

available on the Department’s Web site 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlightsand-news.html on the date of 

publication of this initiation notice in 

the Federal Register. The separate-rate 

application will be due 60 days after 

publication of this initiation notice. For 

exporters and producers who submit a 

separate-rate status application and 

subsequently are selected as mandatory 

respondents, these exporters and 

producers will no longer be eligible for 

consideration for separate rate status 

unless they respond to all parts of the 

questionnaire as mandatory 

respondents. As noted in the 

‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section above, 

the Department requires that 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate-rate status. 

Use of Combination Rates in an NME 

Investigation 

The Department will calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. The 

Policy Bulletin states: 

{W}hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to exporters, all 

separate rates that the Department will now 

assign in its NME 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. 

See Policy Bulletin at 6 (emphasis 

added). 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), copies of the public versions 

of the Petition have been provided to 

the representatives of the Government of 

the PRC. Because of the large number of 

producers/exporters identified in the 

Petition, the Department considers the 

service of the public version of the 

Petition to the foreign producers/ 

exporters satisfied by the delivery of the 

public version to the Government of the 

PRC, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

no later than December 6, 2010, whether 

there is a reasonable indication that 

imports of multilayered wood flooring 

from the PRC are materially injuring, or 

threatening material injury to a U.S. 

industry. A negative ITC determination 

will result in the investigation being 

terminated; otherwise, this investigation 

will proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: November 10, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation 

Multilayered wood flooring is composed of 

an assembly of two or more layers or plies 

of wood veneer(s) 7 in combination with a 

core. The several layers, along with the core, 

are glued or otherwise bonded together to 

form a final assembled product. Multilayered 

wood flooring is often referred to by other 

terms, e.g., ‘‘engineered wood flooring’’ or 

‘‘plywood flooring.’’ Regardless of the 

particular terminology, all products that meet 

the description set forth herein are intended 

for inclusion within the definition of subject 

merchandise. 

All multilayered wood flooring is included 

within the definition of subject merchandise, 

without regard to: Dimension (overall 

thickness, thickness of face ply, thickness of 

back ply, thickness of core, and thickness of 

inner plies; width; and length); wood species 

used for the face, back and inner veneers; 

core composition; and face grade. 

Multilayered wood flooring included within 

the definition of subject merchandise may be 

unfinished (i.e., without a finally finished 

surface to protect the face veneer from wear 

and tear) or ‘‘prefinished’’ (i.e., a coating 

applied to the face veneer, including, but not 

exclusively, oil or oil-modified or waterbased polyurethanes, ultra-violet light cured 

polyurethanes, wax, epoxy-ester finishes, 

moisture-cured urethanes and acid-curing 

formaldehyde finishes.) The veneers may be 

also soaked in an acrylic-impregnated finish. 

All multilayered wood flooring is included 

within the definition of subject merchandise 

regardless of whether the face (or back) of the 

product is smooth, wire brushed, distressed 

by any method or multiple methods, or handscraped. In addition, all multilayered wood 

flooring is included within the definition of 

subject merchandise regardless of whether or 

not it is manufactured with any interlocking 

or connecting mechanism (for example, 

tongue-and-groove construction or locking 

joints). All multilayered wood flooring is 

included within the definition of the subject 

merchandise regardless of whether the 

product meets a particular industry or similar 

standard. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 70719 

1See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duties: Multilayered Wood 

Flooring from the People’s Republic of China, dated 

October 21, 2010 (‘‘Petition’’). 

The core of multilayered wood flooring 

may be composed of a range of materials, 

including but not limited to hardwood or 

softwood veneer, particleboard, mediumdensity fiberboard (MDF), high-density 

fiberboard (HDF), stone and/or plastic 

composite, or strips of lumber placed edgeto-edge. 

Multilayered wood flooring products 

generally, but not exclusively, may be in the 

form of a strip, plank, or other geometrical 

patterns (e.g., circular, hexagonal). All 

multilayered wood flooring products are 

included within this definition regardless of 

the actual or nominal dimensions or form of 

the product. 

Specifically excluded from the scope are 

cork flooring and bamboo flooring, regardless 

of whether any of the sub-surface layers of 

either flooring are made from wood. Also 

excluded is laminate flooring. Laminate 

flooring consists of a top wear layer sheet not 

made of wood, a decorative paper layer, a 

core-layer of high-density fiberboard, and a 

stabilizing bottom layer. 

Imports of the subject merchandise are 

provided for under the following 

subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 

4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 

4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.4040; 

4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 

4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 

4412.31.5165; 4412.31.3175; 4412.31.6000; 

4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 

4412.32.0560; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 

4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 

4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 

4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 

4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 

4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 

4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 

4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 

4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 

4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105; 

4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 

4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 

4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 

4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 

4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 

4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 

4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 

4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 

4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5710; 

4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; 

4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 

4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; and 

4418.72.9500. 

In addition, imports of subject 

merchandise may enter the U.S. under the 

following HTSUS subheadings: 

4409.10.0500; 4409.10.2000; 4409.29.0515; 

4409.29.0525; 4409.29.0535; 4409.29.0545; 

4409.29.0555; 4409.29.0565; 4409.29.2530; 

4409.29.2550; 4409.29.2560; 4418.71.1000; 

4418.79.0000; and 4418.90.4605. 

While HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the subject 

merchandise is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29119 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–971] 

Multilayered Wood Flooring From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation 

of Countervailing Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 18, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yasmin Nair and Joshua Morris, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3813 and (202) 

482–1779, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On October 21, 2010, the Department 

of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a 

petition filed in proper form by the 

Coalition for American Hardwood Parity 

(‘‘Petitioner’’), whose members 

(Anderson Hardwood Floors, LLC; 

Award Hardwood Floors; Baker’s Creek 

Wood Floors, Inc.; From the Forest; 

Howell Hardwood Flooring; 

Mannington Mills, Inc.; Nydree 

Flooring; Shaw Industries Group, Inc.) 

are domestic producers of multilayered 

wood flooring.1 In response to the 

Department’s requests, Petitioner 

provided timely information 

supplementing the Petition on October 

29, 2010, November 2, 2010, and 

November 3, 2010. Petitioner also 

provided information supplementing 

the Petition on November 9, 2010. 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’), Petitioner alleges that 

manufacturers, producers, or importers 

of multilayered wood flooring from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) 

received countervailable subsidies 

within the meaning of section 701 of the 

Act, and that such imports are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, the domestic industry 

producing multilayered wood flooring 

in the United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C), (E), and (F) of the Act, and 

Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

investigation (see ‘‘Determination of 

Industry Support for the Petition’’ 

section below). 

On November 4, 2010, we received 

comments from Lumber Liquidators 

Services, LLC (‘‘Lumber Liquidators’’) 

and Home Legend, LLC (‘‘Home 

Legend’’), U.S. importers of multilayered 

wood flooring (collectively, 

‘‘importers’’). Lumber Liquidators and 

Home Legend are interested parties as 

defined by section 771(9)(A) of the Act. 

The importers and U.S. Floors LLC (‘‘US 

Floors’’) filed additional comments on 

November 9, 2010. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is January 

1, 2009, through December 31, 2009. 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by the 

investigation are multilayered wood 

flooring products from the PRC. For a 

full description of the scope of the 

investigation, please see ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this 

notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioner to 

ensure that it is an accurate reflection of 

the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. As a result, 

the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ language 

has been modified from the language in 

the Petition to reflect these 

clarifications. Moreover, as discussed in 

the preamble to the Department’s 

regulations (Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage. The Department encourages 

all interested parties to submit such 

comments by November 30, 2010, 

twenty calendar days from the signature 

date of this notice. Comments should be 

addressed to Import Administration’s 

APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. The period of 

the scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determination. 

Consultations 

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, on October 22, 2010, the 

Department invited representatives of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 70719 

1See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duties: Multilayered Wood 

Flooring from the People’s Republic of China, dated 

October 21, 2010 (‘‘Petition’’). 

The core of multilayered wood flooring 

may be composed of a range of materials, 

including but not limited to hardwood or 

softwood veneer, particleboard, mediumdensity fiberboard (MDF), high-density 

fiberboard (HDF), stone and/or plastic 

composite, or strips of lumber placed edgeto-edge. 

Multilayered wood flooring products 

generally, but not exclusively, may be in the 

form of a strip, plank, or other geometrical 

patterns (e.g., circular, hexagonal). All 

multilayered wood flooring products are 

included within this definition regardless of 

the actual or nominal dimensions or form of 

the product. 

Specifically excluded from the scope are 

cork flooring and bamboo flooring, regardless 

of whether any of the sub-surface layers of 

either flooring are made from wood. Also 

excluded is laminate flooring. Laminate 

flooring consists of a top wear layer sheet not 

made of wood, a decorative paper layer, a 

core-layer of high-density fiberboard, and a 

stabilizing bottom layer. 

Imports of the subject merchandise are 

provided for under the following 

subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 

4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 

4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.4040; 

4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 

4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 

4412.31.5165; 4412.31.3175; 4412.31.6000; 

4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 

4412.32.0560; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 

4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 

4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 

4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 

4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 

4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 

4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 

4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 

4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 

4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105; 

4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 

4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 

4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 

4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 

4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 

4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 

4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 

4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 

4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5710; 

4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; 

4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 

4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; and 

4418.72.9500. 

In addition, imports of subject 

merchandise may enter the U.S. under the 

following HTSUS subheadings: 

4409.10.0500; 4409.10.2000; 4409.29.0515; 

4409.29.0525; 4409.29.0535; 4409.29.0545; 

4409.29.0555; 4409.29.0565; 4409.29.2530; 

4409.29.2550; 4409.29.2560; 4418.71.1000; 

4418.79.0000; and 4418.90.4605. 

While HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the subject 

merchandise is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29119 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–971] 

Multilayered Wood Flooring From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation 

of Countervailing Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 18, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yasmin Nair and Joshua Morris, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3813 and (202) 

482–1779, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On October 21, 2010, the Department 

of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a 

petition filed in proper form by the 

Coalition for American Hardwood Parity 

(‘‘Petitioner’’), whose members 

(Anderson Hardwood Floors, LLC; 

Award Hardwood Floors; Baker’s Creek 

Wood Floors, Inc.; From the Forest; 

Howell Hardwood Flooring; 

Mannington Mills, Inc.; Nydree 

Flooring; Shaw Industries Group, Inc.) 

are domestic producers of multilayered 

wood flooring.1 In response to the 

Department’s requests, Petitioner 

provided timely information 

supplementing the Petition on October 

29, 2010, November 2, 2010, and 

November 3, 2010. Petitioner also 

provided information supplementing 

the Petition on November 9, 2010. 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’), Petitioner alleges that 

manufacturers, producers, or importers 

of multilayered wood flooring from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) 

received countervailable subsidies 

within the meaning of section 701 of the 

Act, and that such imports are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, the domestic industry 

producing multilayered wood flooring 

in the United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C), (E), and (F) of the Act, and 

Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

investigation (see ‘‘Determination of 

Industry Support for the Petition’’ 

section below). 

On November 4, 2010, we received 

comments from Lumber Liquidators 

Services, LLC (‘‘Lumber Liquidators’’) 

and Home Legend, LLC (‘‘Home 

Legend’’), U.S. importers of multilayered 

wood flooring (collectively, 

‘‘importers’’). Lumber Liquidators and 

Home Legend are interested parties as 

defined by section 771(9)(A) of the Act. 

The importers and U.S. Floors LLC (‘‘US 

Floors’’) filed additional comments on 

November 9, 2010. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is January 

1, 2009, through December 31, 2009. 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by the 

investigation are multilayered wood 

flooring products from the PRC. For a 

full description of the scope of the 

investigation, please see ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this 

notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioner to 

ensure that it is an accurate reflection of 

the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. As a result, 

the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ language 

has been modified from the language in 

the Petition to reflect these 

clarifications. Moreover, as discussed in 

the preamble to the Department’s 

regulations (Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage. The Department encourages 

all interested parties to submit such 

comments by November 30, 2010, 

twenty calendar days from the signature 

date of this notice. Comments should be 

addressed to Import Administration’s 

APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. The period of 

the scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determination. 

Consultations 

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, on October 22, 2010, the 

Department invited representatives of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

70720 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 

the Government of the PRC (‘‘GOC’’) for 

consultations with respect to the CVD 

petition. On October 27, 2010, the 

GOC’s Ministry of Commerce, under the 

Bureau of Fair Trade for Imports & 

Exports, requested consultations. These 

consultations were held by telephone on 

November 1, 2010. See Memorandum 

from Joshua Morris to the File, entitled, 

‘‘Consultations with Officials from the 

Government of the People’s Republic of 

China on the Countervailing Duty 

Petition regarding Multilayered Wood 

Flooring,’’ (November 8, 2010), which is 

on file in the Central Records Unit 

(‘‘CRU’’) of the main Department of 

Commerce building, Room 7046. On 

November 9, 2010, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

Ronald Lorentzen met with 

representatives from the GOC to discuss 

the Petition. See Memorandum from 

Joshua Morris to the File, entitled, 

‘‘Meeting with Officials from the 

Embassy of the People’s Republic of 

China on the Countervailing Duty 

Petition regarding Multilayered Wood 

Flooring,’’ (November 10, 2010) which is 

on file in the CRU. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

industry. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is 

responsible for determining whether 

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product (see section 

771(10) of the Act), they do so for 

different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 

2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. 

United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 

(CIT 1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 

1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like 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 under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioner does not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigations. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that 

multilayered wood flooring constitutes a 

single domestic like product and we 

have analyzed industry support in terms 

of that domestic like product. For a 

discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see ‘‘Countervailing 

Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Multilayered Wood Flooring from the 

People’s Republic of China’’ (‘‘Initiation 

Checklist’’), at Attachment II, Analysis 

of Industry Support for the Petitions 

Covering Multilayered Wood Flooring 

from the People’s Republic of China, on 

file in the CRU. 

In determining whether Petitioner has 

standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of 

the Act, we considered the industry 

support data contained in the Petition 

with reference to the domestic like 

product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section above. To 

establish industry support, Petitioner 

provided its production volume of the 

domestic like product in 2009, and 

compared this to the estimated total 

production volume of the domestic like 

product for the entire domestic 

industry. See Volume I of the Petitions, 

at 4–5, and Exhibit I–3; see also 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions 

dated November 2, 2010 at 2; see also 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions 

dated November 3, 2010 at 1–2 and 

Exhibit I–K. Petitioner estimated 2009 

production volume of the domestic like 

product by non-petitioning companies 

based on its knowledge of the industry. 

We have relied upon data Petitioner 

provided for purposes of measuring 

industry support. For further 

discussion, see Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. 

On November 4, 2010, we received a 

submission on behalf of importers of 

multilayered wood flooring, interested 

parties to this proceeding as defined in 

section 771(9)(A) of the Act, questioning 

the industry support calculation. See 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. On 

November 8 and 9, 2010, Petitioner filed 

replies to the importers’ industry 

support challenge. The importers filed 

an additional submission on November 

9, 2010, on behalf of the importers and 

US Floors, in which they voice US 

Floors’ opposition to the Petitions. For 

further discussion of these submissions, 

see Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

Based on information provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department, we determine that the 

domestic producers and workers have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of 

the Act because the domestic producers 

(or workers) who support the Petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product. Because the Petition and 

supplemental submissions did not 

establish support from domestic 

producers (or workers) accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department was required to take 

further action in order to evaluate 

industry support. See section 

702(c)(4)(D) of the Act. In this case, the 

Department was able to rely on other 

information, in accordance with section 

702(c)(4)(D)(i) of the Act, to determine 

industry support. See Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. Based on 

information provided in the Petition, 

other submissions, and additional 

information obtained by the 

Department, the domestic producers 

and workers have met the statutory 

criteria for industry support under 

section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 70721 

2See Certain Coated Paper Suitable for HighQuality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 

From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 75 

FR 59212 (September 27, 2010); see also Aluminum 

Extrusions From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, 75 FR 54302 (September 7, 2010). 

the Petition. Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the Petition 

was filed on behalf of the domestic 

industry within the meaning of section 

702(b)(1) of the Act. See Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in sections 

771(9)(C), (E), and (F) of the Act and it 

has demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the CVD 

investigation that it is requesting the 

Department initiate. Id. 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the meaning 

of section 701(b) of the Act, section 

701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this 

investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must 

determine whether imports of subject 

merchandise from the PRC materially 

injure, or threaten material injury to, a 

U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioner alleges that imports of 

multilayered wood flooring from the 

PRC are benefitting from countervailable 

subsidies and that such imports are 

causing, or threaten to cause, material 

injury to the domestic industry 

producing multilayered wood flooring. 

In addition, Petitioner alleges that 

subject imports exceed the negligibility 

threshold provided for under section 

771(24)(A) of the Act. 

Petitioner contends that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, reduced 

production, reduced shipments, 

reduced capacity and capacity 

utilization, underselling and price 

depression or suppression, reduced 

employment, hours worked, and wages 

paid, decline in financial performance, 

lost sales and revenue, and increase in 

import penetration. See Volume I of the 

Petition, at 16–60. We have assessed the 

allegations and supporting evidence 

regarding material injury, threat of 

material injury, and causation, and we 

have determined that these allegations 

are properly supported by adequate 

evidence and meet the statutory 

requirements for initiation. See 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment III, 

Injury. 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

Section 702(b) of the Act requires the 

Department to initiate a CVD proceeding 

whenever an interested party files a 

petition on behalf of an industry that: 

(1) Alleges the elements necessary for an 

imposition of a duty under section 

701(a) of the Act; and (2) is 

accompanied by information reasonably 

available to Petitioner(s) supporting the 

allegations. The Department has 

examined the CVD petition on 

multilayered wood flooring from the 

PRC and finds that it complies with the 

requirements of section 702(b) of the 

Act. Therefore, in accordance with 

section 702(b) of the Act, we are 

initiating a CVD investigation to 

determine whether manufacturers, 

producers, or exporters of multilayered 

wood flooring in the PRC receive 

countervailable subsidies. For a 

discussion of evidence supporting our 

initiation determination, see Initiation 

Checklist. 

We are including in our investigation 

the following programs alleged in the 

Petition to have provided 

countervailable subsidies to producers 

and exporters of the subject 

merchandise in the PRC: 

A. Tax Benefit Programs 

1. Income Tax Exemption/Reduction 

under ‘‘Two-Free/Three Half’’ Program. 

2. Local Income Tax Exemption and 

Reductions for ‘‘Productive’’ ForeignInvested Enterprises (‘‘FIEs’’). 

3. Tax Subsidies to FIEs Based on 

Geographic Location. 

B. Indirect Tax and Import Tariff 

Programs 

4. Value Added Tax and Tariff 

Exemptions on Imported Equipment. 

C. Provision of Goods or Services for 

Less Than Adequate Remuneration 

(‘‘LTAR’’) 

5. Electricity for LTAR. 

6. Provision of Electricity at LTAR for 

FIEs and ‘‘Technologically Advanced’’ 

Enterprises by Jiangsu Province. 

For further information explaining why 

the Department is investigating these 

programs, see Initiation Checklist. 

We are not including in our 

investigation the following program 

alleged to benefit producers and 

exporters of the subject merchandise in 

the PRC: 

1. Currency Undervaluation 

Petitioner alleges that the GOC 

ensures that the Renminbi (‘‘RMB’’) 

exchange rate significantly understates 

the value of the RMB against the U.S. 

Dollar (‘‘USD’’) from 25 to 50 percent. 

Petitioner alleges that Chinese exporters 

earning USD through export 

transactions receive an artificially 

inflated amount of RMB when they 

exchange the USD at the People’s Bank 

of China, a Chinese government entity. 

Petitioner states that the GOC thus 

ensures exporters who receive USD 

from export activities receive more RMB 

than they otherwise would if the value 

of the RMB was set through market 

mechanisms. Petitioner alleges that the 

GOC’s program to maintain artificial 

exchange rates qualifies as a financial 

contribution or, in the alternative, 

Petitioner alleges that GOC foreign 

exchange market interventions 

constitute a price support within the 

meaning of Article XVI of the GATT 

1994. In both cases, Petitioner describes 

the benefit conferred as the excess of 

RMB received over what would have 

been received at a market rate (‘‘excess 

RMB’’), and alleges specificity within 

the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the 

Act. Petitioner notes that the U.S. House 

of Representatives has recently passed 

legislation in regard to subsidies relating 

to a fundamentally undervalued 

currency. According to Petitioner, this 

legislation states that a subsidy may be 

considered export contingent, even if 

the subsidy is also provided in nonexport circumstances. 

Section 771(5A)(B) of the Act 

describes an export subsidy as ‘‘*** a 

subsidy that is, in law or fact, 

contingent upon export performance, 

alone or as 1 of 2 or more conditions.’’ 

Petitioner has failed to sufficiently 

allege that the receipt of the excess RMB 

is contingent on export or export 

performance because receipt of the 

excess RMB is independent of the type 

of transaction or commercial activity for 

which the dollars are converted or of the 

particular company or individuals 

converting the dollars. Petitioner’s 

reliance on legislation passed by the 

U.S. House of Representatives is 

premature as the proposed language 

does not yet equate to an enforceable 

statute. Consequently, consistent with 

previous cases, we do not plan on 

investigating this program because 

Petitioner has failed to properly allege 

the specificity element.2

Respondent Selection: 

For this investigation, the Department 

expects to select respondents based on 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) data for U.S. imports during the 

period of investigation. We intend to 

release the CBP data under 

Administrative Protective Order 

(‘‘APO’’) to all parties with access to 

information protected by APO within 

five days of the announcement of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

70722 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 

3A ‘‘veneer’’ is a thin slice of wood, rotary cut, 

sliced or sawed from a log, bolt or flitch. Veneer is 

referred to as a ply when assembled. 

initiation of this investigation. 

Interested parties may submit comments 

regarding the CBP data and respondent 

selection within seven calendar days of 

publication of this notice. We intend to 

make our decision regarding respondent 

selection within 20 days of publication 

of this Federal Register notice. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). 

Instructions for filing such applications 

may be found on the Department’s Web 

site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition: 

In accordance with section 

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the 

public version of the Petition has been 

provided to the GOC. Because of the 

large number of producers/exporters 

identified in the Petition, the 

Department considers the service of the 

public version of the Petition to the 

foreign producers/exporters satisfied by 

the delivery of the public version to the 

GOC, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification: 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 702(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC: 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 25 days after the date on which 

it receives notice of the initiation, 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that imports of subsidized multilayered 

wood flooring from the PRC are causing 

material injury, or threatening to cause 

material injury, to a U.S. industry. See 

section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative 

ITC determination will result in the 

investigation being terminated; 

otherwise, the investigation will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

November 10, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

APPENDIX I 

Scope of the Investigation 

Multilayered wood flooring is composed of 

an assembly of two or more layers or plies 

of wood veneer(s) 3 in combination with a 

core. The several layers, along with the core, 

are glued or otherwise bonded together to 

form a final assembled product. Multilayered 

wood flooring is often referred to by other 

terms, e.g., ‘‘engineered wood flooring’’ or 

‘‘plywood flooring.’’ Regardless of the 

particular terminology, all products that meet 

the description set forth herein are intended 

for inclusion within the definition of subject 

merchandise. 

All multilayered wood flooring is included 

within the definition of subject merchandise, 

without regard to: dimension (overall 

thickness, thickness of face ply, thickness of 

back ply, thickness of core, and thickness of 

inner plies; width; and length); wood species 

used for the face, back and inner veneers; 

core composition; and face grade. 

Multilayered wood flooring included within 

the definition of subject merchandise may be 

unfinished (i.e., without a finally finished 

surface to protect the face veneer from wear 

and tear) or ‘‘prefinished’’ (i.e., a coating 

applied to the face veneer, including, but not 

exclusively, oil or oil-modified or waterbased polyurethanes, ultra-violet light cured 

polyurethanes, wax, epoxy-ester finishes, 

moisture-cured urethanes and acid-curing 

formaldehyde finishes.) The veneers may be 

also soaked in an acrylic-impregnated finish. 

All multilayered wood flooring is included 

within the definition of subject merchandise 

regardless of whether the face (or back) of the 

product is smooth, wire brushed, distressed 

by any method or multiple methods, or handscraped. In addition, all multilayered wood 

flooring is included within the definition of 

subject merchandise regardless of whether or 

not it is manufactured with any interlocking 

or connecting mechanism (for example, 

tongue-and-groove construction or locking 

joints). All multilayered wood flooring is 

included within the definition of the subject 

merchandise regardless of whether the 

product meets a particular industry or similar 

standard. 

The core of multilayered wood flooring 

may be composed of a range of materials, 

including but not limited to hardwood or 

softwood veneer, particleboard, mediumdensity fiberboard (MDF), high-density 

fiberboard (HDF), stone and/or plastic 

composite, or strips of lumber placed edgeto-edge. 

Multilayered wood flooring products 

generally, but not exclusively, may be in the 

form of a strip, plank, or other geometrical 

patterns (e.g., circular, hexagonal). All 

multilayered wood flooring products are 

included within this definition regardless of 

the actual or nominal dimensions or form of 

the product. 

Specifically excluded from the scope are 

cork flooring and bamboo flooring, regardless 

of whether any of the sub-surface layers of 

either flooring are made from wood. Also 

excluded is laminate flooring. Laminate 

flooring consists of a top wear layer sheet not 

made of wood, a decorative paper layer, a 

core-layer of high-density fiberboard, and a 

stabilizing bottom layer. 

Imports of the subject merchandise are 

provided for under the following 

subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 

4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 

4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.4040; 

4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 

4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 

4412.31.5165; 4412.31.3175; 4412.31.6000; 

4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 

4412.32.0560; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 

4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 

4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 

4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 

4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 

4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 

4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 

4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 

4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 

4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105; 

4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 

4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 

4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 

4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 

4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 

4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 

4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 

4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 

4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5710; 

4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; 

4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 

4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; and 

4418.72.9500. 

In addition, imports of subject 

merchandise may enter the U.S. under the 

following HTSUS subheadings: 

4409.10.0500; 4409.10.2000; 4409.29.0515; 

4409.29.0525; 4409.29.0535; 4409.29.0545; 

4409.29.0555; 4409.29.0565; 4409.29.2530; 

4409.29.2550; 4409.29.2560; 4418.71.1000; 

4418.79.0000; and 4418.90.4605. 

While HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the subject 

merchandise is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29117 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN: 0648–XA044 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council’s (Council) VMS/ 

Enforcement Committee will meet to 

consider actions affecting New England 

fisheries in the exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ). 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Sheraton Harborside Hotel, 250 

Market Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801; 

telephone: (603) 431–2300; fax: (603) 

433–5649. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council; 

telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

APPENDIX B

CONFERENCE WITNESSES

B-1

CALENDAR OF THE PUBLIC CONFERENCE

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

conference held in connection with the following investigations:

MULTILAYERED WOOD FLOORING FROM CHINA

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-476 and 731-TA-1179 (Preliminary)

November 12, 2010 - 9:30 am

The conference was held in Room 101 (Main Hearing Room) of the United States International

Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC.

IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPOSITION OF COUNTERVAILING AND ANTIDUMPING DUTIES:

Mondial Trade Compliance

Bethesda, MD

on behalf of

Kim Holm, President, Residential Business, Mannington Mills, Inc.

Dan Natkin, Director - Wood Business, Mannington Mills, Inc.

Donald R. Finkell, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, Shaw Hardwood

James P. Dougan, Senior Economist, Economic Consulting Services, LLC

Jeffrey Levin, Esq. )--OF COUNSEL

B-3
IN OPPOSITION TO THE IMPOSITION OF COUNTERVAILING AND ANTIDUMPING DUTIES:

SANDLER, TRAVIS & ROSENBERG

Washington, DC

on behalf of

John Jakob, Director of Merchandising, Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC

Clint Hubbard, CEO, Home Legend, LLC

Piet Dossche, CEO/President, US Floors LLC

Tom Rogers )–Captial Trade, Inc. Andrew Szamosszegi

Mark Ludwikowski )--OF COUNSEL Kristen Smith

DORSEY & WHITNEY

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Alex Shaoulpour, Wego Chemical & Mineral Corp.

Mitch Tagle, B&M Noble Co. dba Du Chateau Floors

Jonathan Train, Swiff-Train Co.

Jeff Hamar, Galleher Corp.

Tony Pan, Hallmark Hardwoods Inc.

Clyde Elbrecht, Real Woods Flooring LLC

Jerry Burt, Suncrest Supply

Ken Bowen, BR Custom Surface

John Himes, Wood Flooring International

William Perry )–OF COUNSEL Benjamin Han

BARNES, RICHARDSON & COLBURN

Washington, DC

on behalf of

China National Forest Products Industry Association and its members

Jeffrey S. Neeley )–OF COUNSEL Stephen W. Brophy

B-4
APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-1

Table C-1

Wood flooring: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2007-09, January-September 2009, and January-September 2010

(Quantity=1,000 square feet, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per square foot; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2007 2008 2009 2009 2010 2007-09 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303,042 325,870 278,057 210,187 231,982 -8.2 7.5 -14.7 10.4

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.5 48.3 47.4 46.1 45.2 -7.1 -6.2 -0.9 -0.9

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.5 40.8 42.6 43.4 46.7 12.2 10.3 1.9 3.2

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.0 10.9 9.9 10.5 8.2 -5.0 -4.1 -0.9 -2.3

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.5 51.7 52.6 53.9 54.8 7.1 6.2 0.9 0.9

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798,212 878,563 736,218 552,611 607,320 -7.8 10.1 -16.2 9.9

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.8 48.2 47.0 45.6 44.7 -7.9 -6.7 -1.2 -1.0

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.6 41.4 43.4 44.3 47.3 11.8 9.8 2.0 2.9

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.6 10.4 9.6 10.0 8.1 -3.9 -3.2 -0.7 -2.0

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.2 51.8 53.0 54.4 55.3 7.9 6.7 1.2 1.0

U.S. shipments of imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92,367 132,946 118,590 91,275 108,230 28.4 43.9 -10.8 18.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252,195 364,093 319,566 245,003 286,987 26.7 44.4 -12.2 17.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.73 $2.74 $2.69 $2.68 $2.65 -1.3 0.3 -1.6 -1.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . 28,523 35,034 31,374 31,520 36,191 10.0 22.8 -10.4 14.8

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45,404 35,470 27,643 22,019 18,985 -39.1 -21.9 -22.1 -13.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108,274 91,208 70,965 55,512 49,074 -34.5 -15.8 -22.2 -11.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.38 $2.57 $2.57 $2.52 $2.58 7.7 7.8 -0.2 2.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . 16,221 13,785 9,558 10,101 6,368 -41.1 -15.0 -30.7 -37.0

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137,771 168,415 146,233 113,295 127,215 6.1 22.2 -13.2 12.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360,469 455,301 390,531 300,515 336,062 8.3 26.3 -14.2 11.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.62 $2.70 $2.67 $2.65 $2.64 2.1 3.3 -1.2 -0.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . 44,744 48,819 40,932 41,621 42,559 -8.5 9.1 -16.2 2.3

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . . . . . . 249,099 286,099 270,142 208,437 187,616 8.4 14.9 -5.6 -10.0

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176,512 156,180 127,705 95,673 106,486 -27.7 -11.5 -18.2 11.3

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.9 54.6 47.3 45.9 56.8 -23.6 -16.3 -7.3 10.9

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165,271 157,455 131,824 96,892 104,767 -20.2 -4.7 -16.3 8.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437,743 423,262 345,687 252,096 271,258 -21.0 -3.3 -18.3 7.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.65 $2.69 $2.62 $2.60 $2.59 -1.0 1.5 -2.4 -0.5

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,357 2,463 2,077 2,021 2,052 -11.9 4.5 -15.7 1.5

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,080 4,984 4,083 2,948 3,169 -19.6 -1.9 -18.1 7.5

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67,079 67,986 56,388 41,170 43,400 -15.9 1.4 -17.1 5.4

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $13.20 $13.64 $13.81 $13.96 $13.70 4.6 3.3 1.3 -1.9

 Productivity (square feet/hour) . . . . . . . 31.2 29.8 29.5 30.3 31.4 -5.6 -4.4 -1.2 3.4

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.42 $0.46 $0.47 $0.46 $0.44 10.8 8.1 2.5 -5.1

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155,281 151,891 124,896 91,461 98,871 -19.6 -2.2 -17.8 8.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409,961 411,206 329,611 238,367 258,378 -19.6 0.3 -19.8 8.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.64 $2.71 $2.64 $2.61 $2.61 -0.0 2.5 -2.5 0.3

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . . . . . . 327,176 353,766 295,831 214,707 221,676 -9.6 8.1 -16.4 3.2

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82,785 57,440 33,780 23,660 36,702 -59.2 -30.6 -41.2 55.1

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63,705 74,996 62,488 46,762 48,065 -1.9 17.7 -16.7 2.8

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . 19,080 (17,556) (28,708) (23,102) (11,363) (2) (2) -63.5 50.8

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,252 20,079 13,460 10,601 7,458 -26.3 10.0 -33.0 -29.6

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.11 $2.33 $2.37 $2.35 $2.24 12.4 10.5 1.7 -4.5

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.41 $0.49 $0.50 $0.51 $0.49 22.0 20.4 1.3 -4.9

 Unit operating income or (loss) . . . . . . $0.12 ($0.12) ($0.23) ($0.25) ($0.11) (2) (2) -98.9 54.5

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.8 86.0 89.8 90.1 85.8 9.9 6.2 3.7 -4.3

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 -4.3 -8.7 -9.7 -4.4 -13.4 -8.9 -4.4 5.3

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Undefined.

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.

C-3

APPENDIX D

2010 TARIFF TREATMENT

D-1

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

IX

44-10

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

4409 Wood (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not 

assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rebated, chamfered, V-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or 

the like) along any of its edges, ends or faces, whether or 

not planed, sanded or end-jointed:

4409.10 Coniferous:

4409.10.05 00 Wood continuously shaped along any of its ends, 

whether or not also continuously shaped along any 

of its edges or faces, all the foregoing whether or 

not planed, sanded or end-jointed ..............m3 . . . . . . 3.2% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 33 1/3%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

Other:

4409.10.10 Wood siding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 2.2¢/m2

Resawn bevel siding:

 20 Western red cedar .................m2

m3

 40 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

m3

Other:

 60 Western red cedar .................m2

m3

 80 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

m3

4409.10.20 00 Wood flooring ...........................m2 . . . . . . Free 33 1/3%

m3

Wood moldings:

Standard wood molding:

4409.10.40 Pine (Pinus spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 5%

 10 End-jointed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m

 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m

4409.10.45 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m . . . . . . Free 5%

4409.10.50 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m . . . . . . Free 40%

Wood dowel rods:

4409.10.60 00 Plain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m . . . . . . Free 5%

m3

4409.10.65 00 Sanded, grooved, or otherwise advanced in 

condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m . . . . . . 4.9% Free (A+,AU,BH, 33 1/3%

m3 CA,CL,D,E,IL,J,

 JO,MA,MX,OM,

 P,PE,SG)

4409.10.90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free $1.70/m3

 20 Western red cedar ....................m2

m3

 40 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

m3
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

 IX

44-11

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

4409 (con.) Wood (including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not 

assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rebated, chamfered, V-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or 

the like) along any of its edges, ends or faces, whether or 

not planed, sanded or end-jointed (con.):

Nonconiferous:

4409.21 Of bamboo:

4409.21.05 00 Wood continuously shaped along any of its 

ends, whether or not also continuously shaped 

along any of its edges or faces, all the foregoing

whether or not planed, sanded or end-jointed . . m3 . . . . . . 3.2% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 33 1/3%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

4409.21.90 00 Other ..................................m3 . . . . . . Free $1.70/m3

4409.29 Other:

4409.29.05 Wood continuously shaped along any of its 

ends, whether or not also continuously shaped 

along any of its edges or faces, all the foregoing 

whether or no planed, sanded or end-jointed . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2% Free (A*,AU,BH, 33 1/3%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,)

 PE,SG)

Wood flooring (end-matched):

 15 Jatoba (Hymenaea spp.), also known

as Brazilian Cherry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

m3

 25 Ipe (Tabebuia spp.), also known as

Tahibo, LaPacho, Brazilian walnut, and

Patagonian walnut .................m2

m3

 35 Santos’ mahogany (Myroxylon

balsamum), also known as Cabreuva . . m2

m3

 45 Cumaru (Dipteryx spp.), also known

as Brazilian teak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

m3

 55 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

m3

 65 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

m3

Other:

4409.29.10 00 Wood siding .........................m2 . . . . . . Free 4.3¢/m2

4409.29.25 Wood flooring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 8%

 30 Maple (Acer spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

m3

 50 Birch (Betula spp.) and beech (Fagus 

spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

m3

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

m3

Wood moldings:

4409.29.40 00 Standard wood moldings . . . . . . . . . . . . m . . . . . . Free 5%

4409.29.50 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m . . . . . . Free 40%

Wood dowel rods:

4409.29.60 00 Plain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m . . . . . . Free 5%

4409.29.65 00 Sanded, grooved or otherwise 

advanced in condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m . . . . . . 4.9% Free (A+,AU,BH, 33 1/3%

 CA,CL,D,E,IL,J,

 JO,MA,MX,OM,

 P,PE,SG)

4409.29.90 00 Other ...............................m3 . . . . . . Free $1.70/m3
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

IX

44-16

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

4412 Plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood:

4412.10 Of bamboo:

4412.10.05 00 Plywood ...................................m3

 . . . . . 8% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,P,PE,SG)

4412.10.90 00 Other ................ ....................m3

 . . . . . Free

Other plywood consisting solely of sheets of wood 

(other than bamboo), each ply not exceeding 6 mm in 

thickness:

4412.31 With at least one outer ply of tropical wood

specified in subheading note 1 to this chapter:

Not surface covered, or surface covered with a 

clear or transparent material which does not 

obscure the grain, texture or markings of the

face ply:

4412.31.05 With a face ply of birch (Betula spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 50%

 20 Panels not exceeding in any dimension 

3.6 mm in thickness, 1.2 m in width and

2.2 m in length ....................m3

Other:

 40 Not surface covered . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

4412.31.25 With a face ply of Spanish cedar (Cedrela

spp.) or walnut (Juglans spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

 10 With a face ply of Spanish cedar

(Cedrela spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

 20 With a face ply of walnut (Juglans

spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

Other:

4412.31.40 With at least one outer ply of the

following tropical woods: Dark Red 

Meranti, Light Red Meranti, White 

Lauan, Sipo, Limba, Okoumé, 

Obeche, Acajou d'Afrique, Sapelli, 

Virola, Mahogany, Palissandre de 

Para, Palissandre de Rio or 

Palissandre de Rose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 40%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

 40 With a face ply of mahogany

(Swietenia spp. or Khaya spp.) . . . . m3

Other:

 50 Panels not exceeding in any 

dimension 3.6 mm in thickness,

1.2 m in width and 2.2 m in

length .....................m3

 O ther:

 60 Not surface covered . . . . . . . m3

 70 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

 IX

44-17

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

4412 (con.) Plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood 

(con.):

Other plywood consisting solely of sheets of wood, each 

ply not exceeding 6 mm in thickness (con.):

4412.31 With at least one outer ply of tropical wood

(con.) specified in subheading note 1 to this 

chapter (con.):

Not surface covered, or surface covered with a 

clear or transparent material which does not 

obscure the grain, texture or markings of the

face ply (con.):

Other (con.):

4412.31.51 O ther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

 25 Wood Flooring .................m3

Other:

 35 With a face ply of sen

 (Kalopanax spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

Other:

 55 Panels not exceeding in any 

dimension 3.6 mm in

 thickness,1.2 m in width and

2.2 m in length ...........m3

 O ther:

 65 Not surface covered . . . . m3

 75 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

Other:

4412.31.60 00 With at least one outer ply of the following 

tropical woods: Dark Red Meranti, Light 

Red Meranti, White Lauan, Sipo, Limba, 

Okoumé, Obeche, Acajou d'Afrique,

Sapelli, Virola, Mahogany, Palissandre 

de Para, Palissandre de Rio or 

Palissandre de Rose ...................m3 . . . . . . 8% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

4412.31.91 00 Other ...............................m3 . . . . . . 8% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

IX

44-18

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

4412 (con.) Plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood 

(con.):

Other plywood consisting solely of sheets of wood, each 

ply not exceeding 6 mm in thickness (con.):

4412.32 Other, with at least one outer ply of nonconiferous 

wood:

Not surface covered, or surface covered with a 

clear or transparent material which does not 

obscure the grain, texture or markings of the

face ply:

4412.32.05 With a face ply of birch (Betula spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 50%

 20 Panels not exceeding in any dimension 

3.6 mm in thickness, 1.2 m in width and

2.2 m in length ....................m3

Other:

 40 Not surface covered . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

4412.32.25 With a face ply of Spanish cedar (Cedrela

spp.) or walnut (Juglans spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

 10 With a face ply of Spanish cedar

(Cedrela spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

 20 With a face ply of walnut (Juglans

spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

4412.32.31 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

 25 Wood Flooring ....................m3

Other:

 35 With a face ply of sen (Kalopanax

spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

 55 With a face ply of mahogany 

(Swietenia spp. or Khaya spp.) . . . . m3

Other:

 65 Panels not exceeding in any dimension 3.6 mm in thickness,

1.2 m in width and 2.2 m in 

length .....................m3

 O ther:

 75 Not surface covered . . . . . . . m3

 85 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

4412.32.56 00 Other ..................................m3 . . . . . . 8% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

 IX

44-19

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

4412 (con.) Plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood 

(con.):

Other plywood consisting solely of sheets of wood, each 

ply not exceeding 6 mm in thickness (con.):

4412.39 Other, with both outer plies of coniferous wood:

Not surface covered, or surface covered with a 

clear or transparent material which does not 

obscure the grain, texture or markings of the

face ply:

4412.39.10 00 With a face ply of Parana pine (Araucaria

angustifolia) .........................m3 . . . . . . Free 40%

4412.39.30 00 With a face ply of European red pine (Pinus

 silvestris) ...........................m3 . . . . . . 3.4% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

4412.39.40 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

With at least one outer ply of Douglas

fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii):

 11 Rough, or touch sanded for sizing 

purposes, but not further

processed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

 12 Fully sanded on at least one face, 

but not further processed . . . . . . . . . m3

 19 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

With at least one outer ply of long leaf 

pine (Pinus palustris), short leaf pine 

(Pinus echinata), southern yellow pine 

(loblolly pine)(Pinus taeda), slash pine 

(Pinus elliotti), pitch pine (Pinus rigida) 

or Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana):

 31 Rough, or touch sanded for sizing 

purposes, but not further 

processed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

 32 Fully sanded on at least one face, 

but not further processed . . . . . . . . . m3

 39 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

With at least one outer ply of Agathis

spp.:

 51 Rough, or touch sanded for sizing 

purposes, but not further 

processed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

 52 Fully sanded on at least one face, 

but not further processed . . . . . . . . . m3

 59 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

IX

44-20

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

4412 (con.) Plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood 

(con.):

Other plywood consisting solely of sheets of wood, each 

 ply not exceeding 6 mm in thickness (con.):

4412.39 Other, with both outer plies of coniferous wood

(con.) (con.):

Not surface covered, or surface covered with a 

clear or transparent material which does not 

obscure the grain, texture or markings of the

face ply (con.):

4412.39.40 Other (con.):

(con.)

Other:

 61 Rough, or touch sanded for sizing 

purposes, but not further 

processed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

 62 Fully sanded on at least one face, 

but not further processed . . . . . . . . . m3

 69 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

4412.39.50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1% Free (A+,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,D,E,IL,J,

 JO,MA,MX,OM,

 P,PE,SG)

 10 With at least one outer ply of Douglas fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii) ...............m3

 30 With at least one outer ply of long leaf pine 

(Pinus palustris), short leaf pine (Pinus

echinata), southern yellow pine (loblolly

pine) (Pinus taeda), slash pine (Pinus

elliotti), pitch pine (Pinus rigida) or Virginia 

pine (Pinus virginiana) .................m3

 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

 IX

44-21

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

4412 (con.) Plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood 

(con.):

Other:

4412.94 Blockboard, laminboard and battenboard:

With at least one outer ply of nonconiferous 

wood:

Plywood:

Not surface covered, or surface 

covered with a clear or transparent 

material which does not obscure the 

grain, texture or markings of the face 

ply:

4412.94.10 With a face ply of birch (Betula

spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 50%

 

 30 Not surface covered . . . . . . . . . . m3

 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

4412.94.31 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

 05 Wood flooring ...............m2

m3

Other:

 11 With a face ply of Spanish 

cedar (Cedrela spp.) . . . . . . m2

m3

 21 With a face ply of walnut 

(Juglans spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

m3

 31 With a face ply of sen 

(Kalopanax spp.) . . . . . . . . . m2

m3

 41 With a face ply of mahogany 

(Swietenia spp. or Khaya

spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

m3

Other:

 60 Not surface covered . . . . m2

m3

 71 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2

m3

4412.94.41 00 Other ............................m3 . . . . . . 8% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

4412.94.51 00 Other ...............................m3 . . . . . . Free 40%
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

IX

44-22

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

4412 (con.) Plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood 

(con.):

Other (con.):

4412.94 Blockboard, laminboard and battenboard (con.)

(con.)

Other:

Plywood:

Not surface covered, or surface covered

with a clear or transparent material 

which does not obscure the grain,

texture or markings of the face ply:

4412.94.60 00 With a face ply of Parana pine 

(Araucaria angustifolia) ..........m3 . . . . . . Free 40%

4412.94.70 00 With a face ply of European red 

pine (Pinus silvestris) ...........m3 . . . . . . 3.4% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 40%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

4412.94.80 00 Other ........................m3 . . . . . . 8% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

4412.94.90 00 Other ............................m3 . . . . . . 5.1% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

4412.94.95 00 Other ...............................m3 . . . . . . Free 40%
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

 IX

44-23

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

4412 (con.) Plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood 

(con.):

Other (con.):

4412.99 Other:

With at least one outer ply of nonconiferous 

wood:

4412.99.06 00 Containing at least one layer of particle 

board ...............................m3 . . . . . . Free 40%

Other:

Plywood:

Not surface covered, or surface 

covered with a clear or transparent 

material which does not obscure the 

grain, texture or markings of the face 

ply:

4412.99.10 With a face ply of birch (Betula

spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 50%

 20 Panels not exceeding in any 

dimension 3.6 mm in 

thickness, 1.2 m in width 

and 2.2 m in length ........m3

Other:

 30 Not surface covered . . . . m3

 40 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

4412.99.31 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

 10 With a face ply of Spanish 

cedar (Cedrela spp.) . . . . . . m3

 20 With a face ply of walnut 

(Juglans spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

 30 With a face ply of sen 

(Kalopanax spp.) . . . . . . . . . m3

 40 With a face ply of mahogany 

(Swietenia spp. or Khaya

spp.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

Other:

 50 Panels not exceeding in 

any dimension 3.6 mm 

in thickness, 1.2 m in

 width, and 2.2 m in 

length ...............m3

 60 Other, not surface 

covered . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

 70 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3

4412.99.41 00 Other ........................m3 . . . . . . 8% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

4412.99.51 00 Other ............................m3 . . . . . . Free 40%
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

IX

44-24

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

4412 (con.) Plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood 

(con.):

Other (con.):

4412.99 Other (con.):

(con.)

Other:

4412.99.57 10 Containing at least one layer of particle 

board ...............................m3 . . . . . . Free 40%

Other:

Plywood:

Not surface covered, or surface 

covered with a clear or transparent 

material which does not obscure 

the grain, texture or markings of 

the face ply:

4412.99.60 00 With a face ply of Parana pine 

(Araucaria angustifolia) .......m3 . . . . . . Free 40%

4412.99.70 00 With a face ply of European red 

pine (Pinus silvestris) .........m3 . . . . . . 3.4% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 40%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

4412.99.80 00 Other .....................m3 . . . . . . 8% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

4412.99.90 00 Other ........................m3 . . . . . . 5.1% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

4412.99.95 00 Other ............................m3 . . . . . . Free 40%

4413.00.00 00 Densified wood, in blocks, plates, strips or profile 

shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3.7% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 50%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

4414.00.00 00 Wooden frames for paintings, photographs, mirrors or

similar objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . 3.9% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 33 1/3%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

IX

44-26

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

4418 Builders' joinery and carpentry of wood, including cellular 

wood panels and assembled flooring panels; shingles and 

shakes:

4418.10.00 00 Windows, French-windows and their frames . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . 3.2% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 33 1/3%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

4418.20 Doors and their frames and thresholds:

4418.20.40 00 French doors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . . . 4.8% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 33 1/3%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

4418.20.80 O ther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 33 1/3%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

 30 Flush doors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.

4418.40.00 00 Formwork (shuttering) for concrete constructional 

work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . 3.2% Free (A,AU,BH,CA, 33 1/3%

 CL,E,IL,J,JO,MA,

 MX,OM,P,PE,SG)

4418.50.00 Shingles and shakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free Free 

Shingles:

 10 Of western red cedar .....................square

kg

 30 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square

kg

 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . square

kg

4418.60.00 00 Posts and beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . 3.2% Free (A*,AU,BH, 33 1/3%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

Assembled flooring panels:

4418.71 For mosaic floors:

4418.71.10 00 Solid ..................................m2 . . . . . . Free 33 1/3%

Other:

4418.71.20 00 Having a face ply more than 6 mm in

thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2 . . . . . . Free 33 1/3%

4418.71.90 00 Other ...............................m2 . . . . . . 8% Free (A*,AU,BH, 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

4418.72 Other, multilayer:

4418.72.20 00 Having a face ply more than 6 mm in 

thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2 . . . . . . 3.2% Free (A*,AU,BH, 33 1/3%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

Other :

4418.72.91 00 Of unidirectional bamboo ...............m2 . . . . . . Free 40%

4418.72.95 00 Other ...............................m2 . . . . . . 8% Free (A*, AU, BH 40%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

4418.79.00 00 Other .....................................m2 . . . . . . 3.2% Free (A*,AU,BH, 33 1/3%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010) (Rev. 2)

Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes

 IX

44-27

 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty

 Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2

 fix Quantity General Special

4418 (con.) Builders' joinery and carpentry of wood, including cellular 

wood panels and assembled flooring panels; shingles and 

shakes(con.):

4418.90 Other:

4418.90.25 00 Drilled or notched lumber studs ................m3 . . . . . . Free $1.70/m3

4418.90.46 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2% Free (A*,AU,BH, 33 1/3%

 CA,CL,E,IL,J,JO,

 MA,MX,OM,P,PE,

 SG)

 05 Wood flooring ...........................m2

m3

Other:

 10 Arches, laminated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

 20 Roof trusses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

 40 Other fabricated structural wood members . X

 50 Prefabricated partitions and panels for 

buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

 95 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

APPENDIX E

NONSUBJECT COUNTRY PRICE DATA

E-1

Two importers reported price data for nonsubject country Brazil for products 1, 2, and 4, three

importers reported products 1-4 for Canada, and eight importers reported price data for nonsubject

country Indonesia for products 2 and 4. In comparing nonsubject country pricing data with U.S. producer

pricing data, prices for product imported from nonsubject countries were lower than prices for U.S.

produced product in 37 instances and higher in 62 instances. In comparing nonsubject country pricing

data with subject country pricing data, prices for product imported from nonsubject countries were lower

than prices for product imported from subject countries in 34 instances and higher in 65 instances. Price

and quantity data for Brazil, Canada, and Indonesia are in tables E-1 to E-4 and in shown in figure E-1

with U.S. and subject sources.

Table E-1

MLWF: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of nonsubject imported product 1, by

quarters, January 2007-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Table E-2

MLWF: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of nonsubject imported product 2, by

quarters, January 2007-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Table E-3

MLWF: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of nonsubject imported product 3, by

quarters, January 2007-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Table E-4

MLWF: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of nonsubject imported product 41

, by

quarters, January 2007-September 2010

* * * * * * *

Figure E-1

MLWF: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product, by

quarters, January 2007-September 2010

* * * * * * *

E-3