U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4191 October 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, 

Canada, and China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-249 and 731-TA-262, 263, and 265 (Third Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Karen Laney

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Fred Ruggles, Investigator 

Sandra Wetzel, Investigative Intern 

Keysha Martinez, Investigator (Acting) 

Gerald Houck, Industry Analyst 

Charles St. Charles, Attorney 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4191 October 2010

Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, 

Canada, and China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-249 and 731-TA-262, 263, and 265 (Third Review)

CONTENTS

Page

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

Views ......................................................................... 3

Information obtained in the reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

The original investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Commerce’s final results of expedited five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Commerce’s administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds to affected domestic 

producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Related Commission investigations and reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

U.S. tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-24

Domestic like product and domestic industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-28

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-29

Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-30

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-31

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-31

U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-32

Related party issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-36

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-36

Cumulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-36

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-37

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-42

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-42

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-42

The industry in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-47

The industry in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-48

The industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-49

The world market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-50

Appendix

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

B. Commission’s statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

and therefore has been identified by the use of ***.

i

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-249 and 731-TA-262, 263, and 265 (Third Review)

IRON CONSTRUCTION CASTINGS FROM BRAZIL, CANADA, AND CHINA 

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the countervailing duty order on heavy iron

construction castings from Brazil, the antidumping duty order on heavy iron construction castings from

Canada, and the antidumping duty orders on iron construction castings from Brazil and China would be

likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the industries in the United States within

a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these reviews on May 3, 2010 (75 FR 23295) and determined to

conduct expedited reviews of the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders pursuant to section

751(c)(3) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)).

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

Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on heavy iron

construction castings from Brazil, Canada, and China, and the countervailing duty order covering heavy

iron construction castings from Brazil, would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. We further determine that

revocation of the antidumping duty orders on light iron construction castings from Brazil and China

would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States

within a reasonably foreseeable time.

I. BACKGROUND

In February 1986, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was

materially injured by reason of imports from Canada of heavy iron construction castings which were

being sold at less than fair value.1

 On March 5, 1986, Commerce published an antidumping duty order

covering the subject merchandise from Canada.2

 In April 1986, the Commission determined that an

industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of heavy iron construction

castings from Brazil that were being subsidized by the government of Brazil, that an industry in the

United States was materially injured by reason of imports of heavy iron construction castings from Brazil,

India, and China that were being sold at less than fair value, and that an industry in the United States was

threatened with material injury by reason of imports of light iron construction castings from Brazil, India,

and China that were being sold at less than fair value.3

 On May 9, 1986, Commerce published

antidumping duty orders covering the subject merchandise from Brazil and China.4

 On May 15, 1986,

Commerce published a countervailing duty order covering the subject merchandise from Brazil.5

In October 1999, in the first five-year reviews of those orders, the Commission determined that

revocation of the antidumping duty orders covering heavy iron construction castings from Brazil, Canada,

and China, and the countervailing duty order covering heavy iron construction castings from Brazil,

would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States

within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission further determined that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders covering light iron construction castings from Brazil and China would be likely

to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time.6

 The Commission issued a negative determination with respect to the

countervailing duty order on heavy iron construction castings from India. 

In June 2005, in the second five-year reviews of those orders, the Commission determined that

revocation of the antidumping duty orders covering heavy iron construction castings from Brazil, Canada,

 1 Iron Construction Castings from Canada, Inv. No. 731-TA-263 (Final), USITC Pub. 1811 (Feb. 1986). 

 2

 51 Fed. Reg. 7600 (Mar. 5, 1986); 51 Fed. Reg. 34110 (Sept. 25, 1986) (amended). The Commission’s

determination at USITC Pub. 1811, supra, and the order on construction castings from Canada covered both heavy

and light castings; the order was subsequently revoked in part by Commerce to exclude light iron construction

castings.

 3

 Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, India, and the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 701-TA-249 (Final)

and Invs. Nos. 731-TA-262, 264 and 265 (Final), USITC Pub. 1838 (Apr. 1986). 

 4

 51 Fed. Reg. 17220 (May 9, 1986). The antidumping duty orders with respect to light and heavy construction

castings from India that were also issued at that time were revoked in 1991. USITC Pub. 3247 at I-3, n.3.

 5

 51 Fed. Reg. 17786 (May 15, 1986).

 6

 USITC Pub. 3247 at 3, 12-13, 24.

3
and China, and the countervailing duty order covering heavy iron construction castings from Brazil,

would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States

within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission further determined that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders covering light iron construction castings from Brazil and China would be likely

to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time.7

On May 3, 2010, the Commission instituted these third reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Act to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on heavy iron construction castings

from Brazil, the antidumping duty orders on heavy iron construction castings from Brazil, Canada, and

China, or the antidumping duty orders on light iron construction castings from Brazil and China would be

likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry.8

On August 6, 2010, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response

to its notice of institution was adequate with respect to all of these third reviews. The Commission did

not receive a response from any respondent interested party concerning subject imports from Brazil,

Canada, or China and therefore determined that the respondent interested party group responses to the

notice of institution were inadequate with respect to each of the reviews. In the absence of adequate

respondent interested party group responses or other circumstances that would warrant a full review, the

Commission determined to conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended.9 10 The antidumping (AD) and countervailing (CVD) duty orders that are subject to

these third reviews are as follows:

Heavy Castings: Brazil (CVD and AD), Canada (AD), and China (AD).

Light Castings: Brazil (AD) and China (AD).11

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Act, the Commission defines the

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”12 The 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

 7 Certain Iron Construction Castings from Brazil; and Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China,

Inv. Nos. 701-TA-249, and 731-TA-262, 263 and 265 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3781 (June 2005). 

 8

 Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China, 75 Fed. Reg. 23295 (May 3, 2010).

 9

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3).

 10 See Explanation of Determination on Adequacy, Confidential Staff Report, INV-HH-091 (Sept. 16, 2010)

(“CR”) at Appendix B; Public Staff Report (“PR”) at Appendix B.

 11 A countervailing duty investigation of light iron construction castings from Brazil was terminated in 1987. 

52 Fed. Reg. 29902 (Aug. 12, 1987). As noted above, an antidumping duty order on light and heavy iron

construction castings from India was revoked in 1991. 56 Fed. Reg. 4789 (Feb. 6, 1991). An antidumping duty

order on iron construction castings from Canada was revoked in part in 1998 to exclude light iron construction

castings. 63 Fed. Reg. 49687 (Sept. 17, 1998), 63 Fed. Reg. 50881 (Sept. 23, 1998) (corrected). A countervailing

duty order on heavy iron construction castings from India was revoked in 1999, following the Commission’s

negative determination in the first five-year reviews. 64 Fed. Reg. 61602 (Nov. 12, 1999) (effective Jan. 1, 2000). 

 12 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

4
an investigation under this subtitle.”13 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to examine the

like product definition from the original determination and any completed reviews and consider whether

the record indicates any reason to revisit the prior findings.14

 In the final results of its expedited sunset reviews, Commerce defined the imported merchandise

within the scope of the orders as follows:

- heavy iron construction castings: manhole covers, rings, and frames, catch basin grates and

frames, and clean-out covers and frames for drainage or access purposes for public utility, water,

and sanitary systems.15

- light iron construction castings: valve, service, and meter boxes which are placed below ground

to encase water, gas, or other valves or gas water meters.16

This merchandise is currently classifiable under the following statistical reporting numbers:

- heavy iron construction castings – 7325.10.0010 (manhole covers, rings, and frames),

7325.10.0020 (catch basin grates and frames), 7325.10.0025 (cleanout covers and frames);

- light iron construction castings – 7325.10.0030 (valve and service boxes) and 7325.10.0035

(meter boxes).17

In the original investigations, the Commission defined heavy and light iron construction castings

as separate like products, explaining that the characteristics of heavy and light castings differ markedly

even though both types are made of iron that is not alloyed and not malleable. The Commission noted in

particular that heavy iron construction castings are relatively flat, designed for use on street surfaces for

drainage and access purposes in water and sewage systems, and generally weigh from 270 to 1,000

pounds, whereas light iron construction castings are tubular, designed for use below the ground to encase

water or gas valves and meters in utility systems, and generally weigh under 120 pounds. The

Commission also noted that the foundry methods employed in the production of heavy and light castings

are distinctly different, such that domestic producers equip themselves to specialize in one or the other,

but not both.18

 13 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v.

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

CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); 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); see also S.

Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979).

 14 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review),

USITC Pub. 3831 at 8-9 (Dec. 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub.

3614 at 4 (Jul. 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub.

3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).

 15 75 Fed. Reg. 54595-96, 54596-97 (Sep. 8, 2010). 

 16 75 Fed. Reg. 54595-96 (Sep. 8, 2010). 

 17 Prior to July 1, 1999, the merchandise was classifiable under statistical reporting numbers 7325.10.0010 (heavy

castings) and 7325.10.0050 (light castings). 70 Fed. Reg. at 24512, 24513, 24529.

 18 Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, India, and the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 701-TA249 (Preliminary) and Invs. Nos. 731-TA-262 through 265 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 1720 at 6-7 (Jun. 1985). The

Commission also determined in the original investigations that “other” or “specialty” castings, including tree grates,

(continued...)

5
 In the first and second five-year reviews of the orders on iron construction castings from Brazil,

Canada, and China, the Commission again found heavy iron construction castings and light iron

construction castings to be separate like products.19 

In these reviews, the domestic producers contend that the prior like product definitions are still

appropriate and that they should be continued. No party has expressed disagreement with the like product

definitions, and no new information suggests that they should be revisited. Therefore, for the reasons

stated in the original determinations and the first and second five-year reviews, we continue to define two

domestic like products coextensive with the scope definitions, i.e., (1) heavy iron construction castings,

and (2) light iron construction castings. 

B. Domestic Industry

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant industry 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.”20 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. 

In the original investigations and in the first and second five-year reviews, the Commission

defined the domestic industries as all producers of heavy iron construction castings and all producers of

light iron construction castings.21 No party disagrees with these domestic industry definitions, and no

new facts have been presented to warrant a different definition. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the

original determinations and the first and second reviews, we continue to define two domestic industries: 

 18 (...continued)

water-tight, and bolt-down castings, are not like heavy or light castings in characteristics and uses. It found that

those articles also differed from heavy and light casting in materials and configurations, and differed in end uses, as

reflected by the differing end-users and channels of distribution. The Commission also observed that additional

fabrication, finishing, and assembly are required to achieve characteristics and uses inherent to specialty castings that

are not required for the production of light or heavy iron construction castings. USITC Pub. 1811 at 4, id. n.9;

USITC Pub. 1838 at 7, id. n.14.

 19 USITC Pub. 3247 at 6, USITC Pub. 3781 at 6. The Commission explained that: 

Iron construction castings are routinely divided by U.S. industry terminology and usage into two categories: 

“heavy” construction castings, and “light” construction castings. Heavy castings are used for drainage or

access purposes by utilities and municipalities in storm drainage, water transportation and water treatment,

sanitary systems, natural gas transmission, and highway systems. Heavy castings generally weigh from 270

to 1,000 pounds. Light construction castings, in contrast, are used by utilities and municipalities to encase

the underground valves and meters of water, gas, or other utilities and to provide access to this equipment

for periodic adjustment or readings. Light castings generally weigh from 10 to 120 pounds. Having

different functions and configurations, heavy castings and light castings are not interchangeable in end use

and are perceived by producers and customers as separate products. Heavy and light castings are produced

in the United States by different companies, and in different facilities using different employees. Heavy

castings are produced by the sand cast method. Light castings are produced in the United States by sand

cast, shell mold, or permanent mold processes. Accordingly, we again find heavy iron construction castings

and light iron construction castings to be separate like products. USITC Pub. 3247 at 7 (citations omitted),

USITC Pub. 3781 at 6 (citing first reviews determinations).

 20 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle containing the

antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677.

 21 USITC Pub. 1811 at 4-5, USITC Pub. 1838 at 7-8, USITC Pub. 3247 at 7, USITC Pub. 3781 at 6-7.

6
(1) all producers of heavy iron construction casting, and (2) all producers of light iron construction

castings.22

III. CUMULATION

A. Legal Standard

With respect to five-year reviews, section 752(a) of the Act provides as follows:

the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject

merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or

(c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete

with each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The

Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of the

subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are likely to have

no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.23

Cumulation therefore is discretionary in five-year reviews, unlike original investigations, which

are governed by section 771(7)(G)(I) of the Act.24 The Commission may exercise its discretion to

cumulate, however, only if the reviews are initiated on the same day, the Commission determines that the

subject imports are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S. market,

and imports from each such subject country are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the

domestic industry in the event of revocation. Our focus in five-year reviews is not only on present

conditions of competition, but also on likely conditions of competition in the reasonably foreseeable

future.

The statutory threshold for cumulation is satisfied in these reviews because the reviews were

initiated on the same day, May 3, 2010.25 We consider three issues in deciding whether to exercise our

discretion to cumulate the subject imports: (1) whether imports from any of the subject countries are

precluded from cumulation because they are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic

industry; (2) whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition among imports of iron

 22 The domestic producers identified two domestic producers as possible related parties. East Jordan is identified

as a sister company to Wuxi Lorlong Foundry Co., Ltd. in China and Tyler Pipe is identified as related to the

Canadian foundry Bibby Ste. Croix and to the U.S. importer Bibby U.S.A. CR at I-41, PR at I-36. There is no basis

to conclude on the limited record in these expedited reviews that Wuxi Lorlong is an exporter of subject

merchandise or that it exercised direct or indirect control over East Jordan or, therefore, to conclude that East Jordan

is a related party on the basis of its relationship to Wuxi Lorlong. Also, as the Commission explained in the second

five-year reviews (USITC Pub. 3781 at 7 n.22), any relationship between Tyler Pipe, a domestic producer of only

light castings, and Bibby Ste. Croix, a Canadian producer of only heavy castings, is not pertinent under the related

party statute because light castings from Canada are not subject to the order. While the relationship between Tyler

Pipe and Bibby U.S.A., a U.S. importer, would be pertinent under the related party provision if Bibby U.S.A. had

imported subject light castings from Brazil or China, there is no evidence on the record that Bibby U.S.A. imported

subject light castings. 

 23 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7).

 24 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i); see also, e.g., Nucor Corp. v. United States, 601 F.3d 1291, 1293, App. No. 2009-

1234, Slip Op. at 7-8 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2010) (Commission may reasonably consider likely differing conditions of

competition in deciding whether to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews); Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v.

United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1370, 1378 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission has

in selecting the types of factors it considers relevant in deciding whether to exercise discretion to cumulate subject

imports in five-year reviews); Nucor Corp. v. United States, 569 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1337-38 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008).

 25 75 Fed. Reg. 23295 (May 3, 2010).

7
construction castings from the subject countries and the domestic like product; and (3) other

considerations, such as whether there are similarities and differences in the likely conditions of

competition under which subject imports are likely to compete in the U.S. market.26 27 

In these reviews, the record does not suggest that the no discernible adverse impact exception to

cumulation applies and no party has asserted that this is an issue.28 

The Commission generally has considered four factors intended to provide a framework for

determining whether the imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.29 Only a

 26 Chairman Okun and Commissioner Pearson note that, while they consider the same issues discussed in this

section in determining whether to exercise their discretion to cumulate the subject imports, their analytical

framework begins with whether imports from the subject countries are likely to face similar conditions of

competition. For those subject imports which are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition, they

next proceed to consider whether there is a likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition whereby those imports

are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product. Finally, if based on that analysis they

intend to exercise their discretion to cumulate one or more subject countries, they analyze whether they are

precluded from cumulating such imports because the imports from one or more subject countries, assessed

individually, are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. See Steel Concrete

Reinforcing Bar From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Korea, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA873 to 875, 877 to 880, and 882 (Review), USITC Pub. 3933 (Jul. 2007) (Separate and Dissenting Views of

Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Regarding Cumulation). Accord Nucor Corp.

v. United States, 605 F. Supp.2d 1361, 1372 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009); Nucor Corp. v. United States, 594 F. Supp.2d

1320, 1345-47 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008), aff’d, Slip Op. 2009-1234 (Fed Cir. Apr. 7, 2010).

 27 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert explain their analysis of other considerations as follows. Where, in a fiveyear review, they do not find that the subject imports would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the

domestic industry if the orders were revoked, and find that such imports would be likely to compete with each other

and with the domestic like product in the U.S. market, they cumulate such imports unless there is a condition or

propensity – not merely a trend – that is likely to persist for a reasonably foreseeable time and that significantly

limits competition such that cumulation is not warranted. They note, as is pointed out in the text, the paucity of

record information about the industries in the subject countries. Consequently, they find that there is no condition or

propensity warranting non-cumulation with respect to subject imports from any of the subject countries, and they

have cumulated them in these reviews.

 28 No facts on the record would warrant departure from the Commission’s express and implied findings regarding

no discernible adverse impact in the first and second five-year reviews. See USITC Pub. 3247 at 11-14, USITC Pub.

3781 at 8. The available data from the original investigations indicates that the heavy iron castings industries in

Brazil, Canada, and China and the light iron castings industries in Brazil and China likely have excess capacity, are

export oriented, and would likely undersell the domestic like product to regain market share in the event of

revocation, such that subject heavy castings from each subject source and subject light castings from each subject

source would likely have a discernible adverse impact on the domestic industries. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 1811 at

Table 18 (heavy castings imports from Canada increased in the original investigations from 5.4 million pounds in

1982 to 21.0 million pounds in 1985, heavy castings imports from Brazil increased from 23,000 pounds in 1982 to

19.5 million pounds in 1985, and heavy castings imports from China increased from 4.1 million pounds in 1982 to

19.5 million pounds in 1985); USITC Pub. 1838 at Table 20 (imports of light castings from Brazil increased from

zero in 1982 to 1.64 million pounds in 1985 and imports of light castings from China increased from 95,000 pounds

in 1982 to 1.64 million pounds in 1985); USITC Pub. 1838 at Tables 14, 15 (Brazil and China export orientation

with respect to heavy and light castings); USITC Pub. 1811 at Table 15 (Canada export orientation), at B-51

(capacity in Brazil), at B-54 (capacity in China), at A-31 (capacity in Canada); USITC Pub. 1811 at Table 32 (Brazil,

Canada, and China underselling of heavy castings, and Brazil and China underselling of light castings); see also

USITC Pub. 3781 (certain data for Canada updated in first review of heavy castings). 

 29 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether there is a reasonable overlap in

competition of imports with each other and with the domestic like product are as follows: (1) the degree of

fungibility between the imports from different countries and between imports and the domestic like product,

(continued...)

8
“reasonable overlap” of competition is required.30 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether

there likely would be competition even if none currently exists because the subject imports are absent

from the U.S. market.31 We observe that the record of these expedited reviews contains very little new

information about either the subject industries or the characteristics of the subject imports that have been

present in the U.S. market since the period examined in the original investigations. Consequently, most

of the information available is from the original investigations and prior reviews, particularly the full first

review.

Heavy Iron Construction Castings. In the original investigations, the Commission cumulated

subject heavy castings imports from what were then the four subject countries, Brazil, Canada, China, and

India, after finding that there was a reasonable overlap among the importers and the domestic producers

as to the end users and geographic areas to which the product is directed, and that therefore heavy

castings from all the subject countries compete with each other and with the domestic like product.32 

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission cumulated subject heavy castings from Brazil,

Canada, and China.33 In doing so, the Commission noted that the record indicated that domestic heavy

castings and the subject heavy castings are generally fungible, that U.S. sales of heavy castings are made

through similar channels of distribution, and that heavy castings are sold by U.S. producers and importers

in all areas of the United States, although individual producers, importers, and distributors geographically

limit sales to some extent. The Commission observed that, although the industries in Brazil and China at

the time of the first reviews were exporting heavy castings to the United States small quantities, Brazilian,

 29 (...continued)

including consideration of specific customer requirements and other quality related questions; (2) the presence of

sales or offers to sell in the same geographical markets of imports from different countries and the domestic like

product; (3) the existence of common or similar channels of distribution for imports from different countries and the

domestic like product; and (4) whether the imports are simultaneously present in the market. See, e.g., Wieland

Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989).

 30 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 916 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Wieland Werke, 718 F. Supp.

at 52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”); United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 

673, 685 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We note, however, that there have been

investigations where the Commission has found an insufficient overlap in competition and has declined to cumulate

subject imports. See, e.g., Live Cattle From Canada and Mexico, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-386 and 731-TA-812 to 813

(Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3155 at 15 (Feb. 1999), aff’d sub nom, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Foundation v.

United States, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999); Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the

Republic of Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-761 to 762 (Final), USITC Pub. 3098 at 13-15 (Apr. 1998).

 31 See generally Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002).

 32 USITC Pub. 1811 at 8 at 9. The original final determinations also included a separate affirmative

determination regarding the subsidized imports from Brazil, which, under the Commission’s practice at that time,

were not cumulated with the less than fair value imports of heavy castings, including those from Brazil. The Court

of International Trade subsequently found with respect to a separate negative preliminary determination on light

castings from Brazil, in which the separate determination on heavy castings from Brazil was not at issue, that the

statute required cumulation of the allegedly subsidized subject light castings imports with the allegedly less than fair

value light castings imports. Bingham & Taylor, Division, Virginia Industries, Inc. v. United States, 10 CIT 67, 627

F. Supp 793 (1986), aff’d 815 F.2d 1482 (the Commission on remand cumulated all the subject light castings and

reached an affirmative preliminary determination with respect to Brazil (51 Fed. Reg. 12217 (Apr. 9, 1986)), but

then terminated the investigation regarding Brazil when the petitioners withdrew the petition regarding light castings

from Brazil (52 Fed. Reg. 29902 (Aug. 12, 1987)). 

 33 USITC Pub. 3247 at 14-15. By a 4-2 vote, the Commission determined not to cumulate subject heavy castings

imports from India with those from Brazil, Canada, and China. Three Commissioners found that subject imports

from India would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact, and one Commissioner declined to exercise his

discretion to cumulate. Id. at 12-14, 27-31.

9
Canadian, and Chinese heavy castings had been simultaneously present in the market during the original

investigations and had competed with each other and the domestic like product. The Commission found

that there was nothing on the record in the first reviews to indicate that the circumstances warranting

cumulation in the original investigations would not recur if the orders were revoked and concluded that

the subject imports from China, Brazil, and Canada would be likely to compete with each other and with

the domestic like product in the U.S. market if the order were revoked.34

In the second five-year reviews, based on the determination in the original investigations and in

the first reviews, and given the absence of information on the record indicating any changes in the likely

overlap of competition, the Commission found that if the orders were revoked there would likely be an

overlap of competition among the subject heavy iron construction casting imports from each subject

country, and between the domestic like product and subject imports from each subject country. For these

reasons, and because there was no indication of other significant likely differences in the conditions of

competition such that the likely volume and effect of subject imports would be substantially different, the

Commission concluded that it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to cumulate subject heavy

castings imports from China, Brazil, and Canada in those reviews.35

No party has argued in these current reviews that the Commission find that there is not a likely

reasonable overlap of competition. Based on the determination in the original investigations and in the

first and second reviews, and given the absence of new information on this record indicating any changes

in the likely reasonable overlap of competition, we find that if the orders were revoked there would likely

be a reasonable overlap of competition among the subject heavy iron construction casting imports from

each subject country, and between the domestic like product and subject imports from each subject

country.36 For these reasons, and because there is no indication of other significant differences in the

likely conditions of competition in the market such that the likely volume and effect of subject imports

would be substantially different, we conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to cumulate

subject heavy construction castings from Brazil, Canada, and China in these reviews.

Light Iron Construction Castings. In its affirmative determinations in the original

investigations regarding threat of material injury by reason of imports from Brazil and China, the

Commission did not cumulate the subject imports but rather considered the statutory factors on a countryspecific basis.37 In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that it was likely that there would be

a reasonable overlap of competition between the subject imports from Brazil and China and between

those imports and the domestic like product, noting that during the original investigations Brazilian and

Chinese light castings were simultaneously present in the market and competed with each other and with

the domestic like product. The Commission found that nothing on the record in the reviews indicated that

these circumstances would not recur if the orders were revoked.38 

In the second reviews, based on the determinations in the original investigations and in the first

reviews, and given the absence of information on the record indicating any changes in the likely

reasonable overlap of competition, the Commission found that if the orders were revoked there would

likely be a reasonable overlap of competition between subject light iron construction castings from Brazil

and China, and between the domestic like product and subject imports from each subject country. The

Commission saw no indication that likely conditions of competition would be significantly different for

 34 USITC Pub. 3247 at 14-15.

 35 USITC Pub. 3781 at 9.

 36 Record information on subject imports’ primary ports of entry and the months of importations during 2004-09,

under the discipline of the orders (CR at I-42, PR at I-37), is not inconsistent with our finding of likely geographic

overlap and simultaneous presence in the event of revocation. 

 37 USITC Pub. 1838 at 19-21.

 38 USITC Pub. 3247 at 12.

10
subject imports from Brazil and China if the antidumping duty orders were revoked. Accordingly, the

Commission exercised its discretion to cumulate the likely volume and effect of subject imports of light

construction castings from Brazil and China.39

No party has argued in these reviews that the Commission find that there is not a likely

reasonable overlap of competition. Based on the determinations in the original investigations and in the

first and second reviews, and given the absence of new information on this record indicating any changes

in the likely reasonable overlap of competition, we find that if the orders were revoked there would likely

be a reasonable overlap of competition between subject light iron construction castings from Brazil and

China, and between the domestic like product and subject imports from each subject country.40 We also

see no indication that likely conditions of competition would be significantly different for subject imports

from Brazil and China if the antidumping duty orders were revoked. Accordingly, we exercise our

discretion to cumulate the likely volume and effect of subject imports of light iron construction castings

from Brazil and China.

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDER AND ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS ARE

REVOKED

A. Legal Standard

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke an

antidumping or countervailing duty order unless (1) it makes a determination that dumping or

subsidization is likely to continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation

of the antidumping or countervailing duty order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”41 The SAA states that “under the likelihood

standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the

reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a

proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”42 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.43 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that

“likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission

applies that standard in five-year reviews.44 45 46

 39 USITC Pub. 3781 at 9-10.

 40 Record information on subject imports’ primary ports of entry and the months of importations during 2004-09,

under the discipline of the orders (CR at I-43, PR at I-37), is not inconsistent with our finding of likely geographic

overlap and simultaneous presence in the event of revocation. 

 41 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 42 SAA at 883-84. The SAA states that “{t}he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of the nature of the

Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of an

industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never completed.” Id. at 883.

 43 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed

shipment levels and current and likely continued {sic} prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in

making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” 

SAA at 884.

 44 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v.

(continued...)

11
The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or termination

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”47 According to

the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will exceed the

‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”48

Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an original

antidumping duty investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute provides

that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”49 It

directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether any improvement in

the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether the

industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked or the suspension agreement is

terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

§ 1675(a)(4).50 The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the

Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the

Commission’s determination.51

No respondent interested parties participated in these expedited reviews. The record, therefore,

contains limited new information with respect to the iron construction castings industries in Brazil,

Canada, and China, as well as limited information on the U.S. iron construction castings market during

the period of review. Accordingly, for our determinations, we rely as appropriate on the facts available

 44 (...continued)

United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s

opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals

(Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a

likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002)

(“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 45 For a complete statement of Chairman Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see Additional Views of

Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel

Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review) and

731-TA-707 to 710 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 46 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, Inv.

No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in these reviews and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses this issue.

 47 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 48 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or

differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic

products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),

and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,

such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id.

 49 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 50 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). There have been no duty absorption findings on the subject merchandise covered by

the orders. 

 51 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

12
from the original investigations and prior reviews and the limited new information on the record in these

reviews.52 53

B. Conditions of Competition

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statute directs

the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”54 We find the following conditions

of competition relevant to our determinations.

Generally (Heavy and Light Castings). In the first reviews, the Commission identified several

conditions of competition pertinent to its analysis of the U.S. markets for heavy and light iron

construction castings. It observed that the heavy and light construction castings industries are mature,

primarily employing the basic sand-cast method that has changed little since the original investigations,

although light castings are also produced in permanent molds in higher-volume, standardized production. 

The Commission found that the markets for heavy and light castings are highly cyclical, closely following

trends in housing, highway, public works, and building construction, that the majority of all sales of

heavy and light castings by U.S. producers and importers are to distributors, and that there is no overlap

in the applications of light and heavy castings, as heavy castings are mainly used for drainage purposes

and light castings are mainly used to encase underground valves and meters.55

The domestic industry argued in the second reviews that consolidations and closures occurred in

the U.S. heavy and light castings industries during the review period, despite the addition of one new

major production facility.56 The domestic producers contend in the current reviews that additional

consolidations and closures have occurred since the second five-year reviews, including the closure of

three domestic foundries in 2008-09. They argue that, although the domestic producers’ market shares

for both heavy and light castings have increased in this third review period compared with second review

 52 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

determination when (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an interested party or other person

withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time, form, or manner

requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to section

782(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). The verification requirements in section 782(i) are applicable only to

Commerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). See Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 2001) (“[T]he ITC correctly responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification

procedures for the evidence before it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of a

Commission investigation.”).

 53 Chairman Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

reviews, 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.” SAA at 869.

 54 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 55 USITC Pub. 3247 at 16-17, USITC Pub. 3781 at 12.

 56 USITC Pub. 3781 at 12.

13
period, its current market shares are, nonetheless, below those in the periods examined in the original

investigations and first reviews.57 

Heavy Castings. Apparent U.S. consumption of heavy castings increased from 405 million

pounds in 1983 to 561 million pounds in 1985, and then was higher in the first review period at

683 million pounds in 1998, before declining in the second review period to 631 million pounds in 2003. 

Apparent U.S. consumption of heavy castings was *** pounds in 2009.58 

Domestic heavy casting capacity increased in the original investigations from 391 million pounds

in 1983 to 458 million pounds in 1985, and then was higher in the first review period at 534 million

pounds in 1998. Domestic heavy casting capacity has increased since the first review period, to ***

pounds in 2009.59 Domestic production of heavy iron construction castings increased in the original

investigations from 253 million pounds in 1983 to 314 million pounds in 1985, and then was higher in the

first review period at 543 million pounds in 1998. Domestic production of heavy castings was lower in

the second review period at 447 million pounds in 2003. Domestic production fell further to *** pounds

in 2009.60

Domestic producers’ market share, after declining in the original investigations from 79.7 percent

in 1983 to 72.6 percent in 1985, was 79.5 percent in 1998 in the first review period, before declining in

the second review period to 71.1 percent in 2003. The domestic producers’ market share was *** percent

in 2009. The increase in domestic producers’ market share during the current review period is largely

attributable to the decreased market share of nonsubject imports. Nonsubject imports’ market share

increased from 15.0 percent in 1983 to 16.7 percent in 1985, then was higher at 18.8 percent in 1998 and

27.0 percent in 2003, before declining to *** percent in 2009.61

In the first reviews, the Commission noted that domestic foundries, by virtue of their proximity to

municipalities and construction supply distributors, require relatively short lead times and can fill most

orders for less popular or customized models without maintaining inventories for such items. The

Commission noted that importers have longer lead times and generally handle only the more standardized

models because of the inventory carrying costs associated with supplying a larger range of products. 

Thus, the Commission found that, while domestic producers may typically handle 4,000 to 5,000 heavy

iron construction castings items, importers may carry only 150 to 200. The Commission observed that

the substitutes for heavy iron construction castings most frequently identified in questionnaire responses

were plastics, concrete, fiberglass, and composites. The Commission also noted that some domestic sales

of heavy iron construction castings are subject to “Buy American” provisions.62 The Commission relied

on those same conditions of competition in its determinations in the second reviews.63 We view these

conditions as pertinent in these current reviews as well. 

Light Castings. Apparent U.S. consumption of light iron construction castings increased in the

original investigations from 76 million pounds in 1983 to 94 million pounds in 1985, and then was lower

in the first review period at *** pounds in 1998. Apparent U.S. consumption of light castings increased

in the second review period to *** pounds in 2003. Apparent U.S. consumption of light castings was ***

 57 Domestic Producers Comments (Sep. 22, 2010) at 5-6. 

 58 CR/PR at Table I-18. 

 59 CR/PR at Table I-12. Domestic capacity information for the second review period is unavailable, and it is not

clear that capacity data in the first and third reviews were provided on the same basis. 

 60 CR/PR at Table I-12. 

 61 CR/PR at Table I-18.

 62 USITC Pub. 2347 at 17.

 63 USITC Pub. 3781 at 13.

14
pounds in 2009.64 Domestic light casting capacity increased from 65 million pounds in 1983 to

70 million pounds in 1985 and then was lower in the first review period at *** pounds in 1998. Domestic

light casting capacity has since decreased, to *** pounds in 2009.65 Domestic production of light iron

construction castings was 46 million pounds in 1983 and 1985, and then was higher in the first review

period at *** pounds in 1998. Domestic production of light castings declined in the second review period

to *** pounds in 2003. Domestic production of light castings has since declined, to *** pounds in

2009.66

Domestic producers’ market share, after declining in the original investigations from 74.8 percent

in 1983 to 60.5 percent in 1985, was lower at the end of the first five-year review period at *** percent in

1998. The domestic producers’ market share declined in the second review period to *** percent in 2003. 

The domestic producers’ market share was *** percent in 2009. The increase in domestic producers’

market share during the current review period was accompanied by a small decrease in the market share

of nonsubject countries. Nonsubject imports’ market share increased from 23.9 percent in 1983 to

36.0 percent in 1985, and then was higher in the first review period at *** percent in 1998. Nonsubject

imports’ market share increased in the second review period to *** percent in 2003, before declining to

*** percent in 2009.67

The Commission noted in the first reviews that light construction castings are manufactured in a

range of dimensions but are relatively standardized nationwide, that some producers and respondents

indicated that plastics have made gains in the market for light castings, and that the petitioners estimated

that about 28 percent of light castings sales were subject to “Buy American” provisions in 1997 and

1998.68 The Commission relied on those same conditions of competition in its determinations in the

second review.69 We view them as pertinent in these current reviews as well. 

Based on the record evidence, we find that conditions of competition in the heavy and light iron

construction castings markets are not likely to change significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

Accordingly, in these reviews, we find that current conditions in those markets provide us with a

reasonable basis on which to assess the likely effects of revocation of the orders in the reasonably

foreseeable future.

C. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Heavy Iron Construction Castings

from Brazil, Canada, and China and the Countervailing Duty Order On Heavy Iron

Construction Castings from Brazil Would be Likely to Lead to Continuation or

Recurrence of Material Injury Within a Reasonably Foreseeable Time

For the reasons stated below, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on

heavy iron construction castings from Brazil, Canada, and China and the countervailing duty order on

heavy iron construction castings from Brazil would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to the domestic industry producing heavy iron construction castings within a reasonably

foreseeable time.

 64 CR/PR at Table I-19. 

 65 CR/PR at Table I-13. Domestic capacity information for the second review period is unavailable. 

 66 CR/PR at Table I-13. 

 67 CR/PR at Table I-19.

 68 USITC Pub. 2347 at 17.

 69 USITC Pub. 3781 at 13-14.

15
1. Likely Volume of Subject Heavy Iron Castings Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders are revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume

of imports would be significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States.70 In doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including

four enumerated factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production

capacity in the exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases

in inventories; (3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries

other than the United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the

foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to

produce other products.71

We conclude, based on the facts available,72 that the volume of imports of cumulated subject

heavy iron construction castings is likely to increase significantly and would be significant if the order is

revoked. In making this finding, we recognize that the volume of subject imports is currently small, both

in absolute and relative terms.73 In a five-year review, however, our focus is on whether subject import

volume is likely to be significant within a reasonably foreseeable time if the antidumping duty order is

revoked.

In the original investigations, imports of heavy castings from Brazil increased from 23,000

pounds in 1982 to 19.5 million pounds in 1985, representing an increase from less than 1 percent of

domestic consumption in 1982 to 3.4 percent in 1985. Imports of heavy castings from Canada increased

from 5.4 million pounds in 1982 to 21.0 million pounds in 1985, representing an increase from 1.5

percent of domestic consumption in 1982 to 3.7 percent in 1985. Imports of heavy castings from China

increased from 4.1 million pounds in 1982, or 1.2 percent of domestic consumption, to 19.5 million

pounds in 1985, or 3.4 percent of domestic consumption. Accordingly, in 1985, imports from Canada,

Brazil, and China totaled 60.0 million pounds, and represented 10.5 percent of domestic consumption.74

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission observed that subject imports from Brazil, Canada,

and China totaled 12.6 million pounds in 1997, or 1.8 percent of domestic consumption, and 11.5 million

pounds in 1998, or 1.7 percent of domestic consumption. The Commission explained that, in assessing

the likely volume of imports if the orders are revoked, it viewed the sharp reduction in imports from

Brazil, Canada, and China in the first review period compared with the period of investigation as

reflecting the remedial effects of the antidumping duty orders. The Commission found that, in the case of

Canada, a number of factors suggested that exports of heavy castings to the United States could increase. 

The Commission noted that *** is an important market and the only export market for Bibby Ste-Croix,

the only Canadian producer that responded to the Commission’s questionnaire, which had production

capacity of *** tons in 1998 and had plans to add about *** more tons of capacity to increase its sales

within Canada and its exports to the United States. The Commission concluded that this available

capacity was significant in relation to U.S. consumption. 

The Commission noted that there was no information available on the record in the first reviews

with respect to then-current heavy casting production capacity in Brazil or China because Brazilian and

Chinese producers did not respond to the Commission’s requests for data. It noted, however, that the

information available in the original investigations showed that China’s annual exports of both heavy and

 70 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 71 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).

 72 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a).

 73 CR/PR at Table I-18.

 74 See USITC Pub. 3247 at 21.

16
light iron construction castings to all markets, including the United States, ranged between 135 million

pounds and 201.6 million pounds annually between 1981 and 1985, quantities that the Commission found

to be significant relative to current total consumption in the United States. The Commission also

observed that Brazil’s exports of all cast-iron products to all markets, including the United States, ranged

from 102 million pounds (51,000 short tons) to 224 million pounds (112,000 short tons) annually between

1981 and 1985, quantities that exceeded total U.S. consumption. The Commission found, accordingly,

that the record in the reviews indicated that Brazil, Canada, and China had ample production capacity to

increase their shipments to the United States if the orders were revoked, and that the record did not

indicate that there would be any limitations on the three countries’ ability to resume significant export

shipments to the United States if the orders were revoked. Accordingly, the Commission found that

imports of Brazilian, Canadian, and Chinese castings to the United States would be likely to increase

significantly and to be significant in the reasonably foreseeable future if the orders were revoked.75

In the second reviews, the Commission noted that the most recent information showed that

cumulated imports of subject heavy castings were 12 million pounds in 2003 compared with 60 million

pounds in 1985, and accounted for 1.9 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2003 compared with

10.7 percent in 1985,76 reflecting the continued restraining effects of the orders.77 

Based on the available information in those second reviews, including the determinations in the

original investigations and the first five-year reviews, the Commission concluded that the producers in

Brazil, Canada, and China were largely export-oriented and had ample production capacity to increase

their shipments to the United States if the orders were revoked. The Commission also observed that the

record did not indicate that there would be any limitations on Canada, Brazil, or China resuming

significant imports into the United States if the orders were revoked. Accordingly, the Commission found

that the likely volume of the cumulated imports of the subject merchandise, both in absolute terms and

relative to production and consumption in the United States, would be significant absent the restraining

effect of the antidumping duty orders and the countervailing duty order.78

In the current reviews, cumulated subject imports were 8.7 million pounds in 2009 compared with

60 million pounds in 1985, and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2009

compared with 10.7 percent in 1985,79 reflecting the continued restraining effects of the orders. 

Based on the record in these reviews, we conclude that producers in Brazil, Canada, and China

are largely export oriented and have ample production capacity to increase their shipments to the United

States if the orders were revoked.80 The record does not indicate that there would be any limitations on

Brazilian, Canadian, or Chinese producers resuming significant export shipments to the United States if

the orders were revoked. Accordingly, we find that the likely volume of the cumulated subject imports,

both in absolute terms and relative to production and consumption in the United States, would be

significant absent the restraining effect of the antidumping duty orders and the countervailing duty order.

 75 USITC Pub. 3247 at 21-22.

 76 CR/PR at Table I-18.

 77 USITC Pub. 3781 at 14-15.

 78 USITC Pub. 3781 at 15.

 79 CR/PR at Table I-18.

 80 According to domestic interested parties, there are at least 98, 11, and 200 producers of iron construction

castings in Brazil, Canada, and China, respectively. CR at I-53-56, PR at I-47-49. The information submitted by

domestic interested parties does not distinguish between heavy and light castings. The record also indicates that an

antidumping duty order is in place in the European Union on heavy iron construction castings from China. CR at

I-56, PR at I-49. 

17
2. Likely Price Effects of Subject Heavy Iron Castings Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if an antidumping duty order is revoked,

the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject

imports as compared to domestic like products and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the

price of the domestic like product.81

In the original determinations, imports of subject heavy castings from all subject sources

undersold the domestic like product. As noted above, the Commission found in the first reviews that

Brazil, Canada, and China were likely to increase exports to the United States significantly in the

reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty orders were revoked. The Commission observed

that, because the market likely is fairly price competitive, the imports would have to be priced

aggressively to regain market share if the orders were revoked. It observed that the cumulated subject

imports, in turn, would be likely to have significant depressing and suppressing effects on prices of the

domestic like product. Accordingly, the Commission found that the likely volume of imports from

Canada, Brazil, and China resulting from revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to

have significant effects, including significant underselling of the domestic like product, on domestic

prices for heavy iron construction castings.82

 In the second five-year reviews, there was no new product-specific pricing information on the

record. The Commission noted, however, that data on average unit values showed that the average unit

value of the cumulated subject heavy castings imports was below the average unit value for the domestic

like product in 2003.83 Based on information available in those reviews, including the determinations in

the original investigations and the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that the market for the

subject merchandise was fairly price competitive. The Commission found that, if the orders were

revoked, the subject imports would likely undersell the domestic like product and have significant

depressing and suppressing effects on prices of the domestic like product.84

 There is no new product-specific pricing information on the record in these reviews. Data on

average unit values for subject imports and the domestic like product, however, show that the average unit

value of the cumulated subject heavy castings imports was below the average unit value for the domestic

like product in 2009.85

Based on the record in these reviews, we find that the market for the subject merchandise is fairly

price competitive. If the orders were revoked, the imports would likely undersell the domestic like

 81 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely on

circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAA

at 886.

 82 USITC Pub. 3247 at 22-23.

 83 USITC Pub. 3781 at 16 (AUVs in 2003 were $0.45 per pound for the domestic like product and $0.38 per

pound for the subject imports). The Commission recognized that comparison of average unit values is normally of

limited or no significance where, as here, there are likely differences in product mix between the subject imports and

the domestic like product. The Commission explained that, while these AUV data were consistent with prior

underselling findings, it based its price effects analysis there on the prior findings rather than these AUVs. Id.

 84 USITC Pub. 3781 at 16.

 85 CR/PR at Tables I-12, I-14 (AUVs in 2009 were $*** per pound for the domestic like product and $0.62 per

pound for the subject imports). We recognize that comparison of average unit values is normally of limited or no

significance where, as here, there are likely differences in product mix between the subject imports and the domestic

like product. While these AUV data are consistent with prior underselling findings, we base our price effects

analysis here on the prior findings rather than these AUVs.

18
product and have significant depressing and suppressing effects on prices of the domestic like product. 

Accordingly, we find that the likely volume of imports from Canada, Brazil, and China resulting from

revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to have significant adverse price effects on

domestic prices for heavy iron construction castings.

3. Likely Impact of Subject Heavy Iron Castings Imports 86

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty orders

under review were revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are

likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to the

following: (1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments,

and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages,

growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing

development and production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more

advanced version of the domestic like product.87 All relevant economic factors are to be considered

within the context of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

industry.88 As instructed by the statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the

state of the domestic industry is related to the orders at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to

material injury if the orders were revoked.

In the original determinations the Commission found that the domestic industry producing heavy

castings was materially injured by reason of subject imports, including those from Brazil, Canada, and

China. The Commission found that, while apparent consumption increased markedly during the period of

investigation, the rates at which the domestic producers of heavy construction castings increased

production, shipments, capacity, capacity utilization, and employment were considerably below the rate at

which domestic consumption increased. Although the domestic industry had shown some improvement

during the period of investigation, six of the fifteen domestic producers reported operating losses during

the entire period of investigation. In the original investigations, the Commission found it particularly

significant that there were net operating losses in the domestic industry during the first year of the period

of investigation and marginal operating income during the other years when considered in light of

increased domestic consumption and increases in domestic production and shipments.89

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission observed that the domestic industry’s operating

income as a percent of net sales was 12.9 percent in 1997 and 15.5 percent in 1998. Production exceeded

 86 Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of

dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the

“magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the dumping margin

or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. In the final results of its expedited sunset reviews, Commerce determined

that revocation of the countervailing duty order with respect to heavy castings from Brazil would likely lead to a

countervailing duty margin of 1.06 percent. With respect to the antidumping duty order on heavy and light castings

from Brazil, it determined likely weighted-average dumping margins of 58.74 for Fundição Aldebara, Ltda, 16.61

percent for Sociedade de Metalurgia e Processos, Ltda. (SOMEP), 5.95 percent for Companhia Siderurgica da

Guanabera (COSIGUA), and 26.16 percent for all others. With respect to the antidumping duty order on heavy

castings from Canada, it determined likely weighted-average dumping margins of 8.60 percent for Bibby Ste. Croix

Foundries, Inc., 4.40 percent for LaPerle Foundry, Ltd., 9.80 percent for Mueller Canada, Inc., and 7.50 percent for

all others. Regarding the antidumping duty order on heavy and light castings from China, Commerce determined a

country-wide likely weighted-average dumping margin of 25.52 percent. 75 Fed. Reg. 54595-96 (Sep. 8, 2010) 

 87 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 88 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 89 See USITC Pub. 3247 at 23-24.

19
capacity in both 1997 and 1998, and U.S. shipments, net sales, and number of production workers in 1998

exceeded levels in 1997. The Commission noted that domestic producers’ share of apparent U.S.

consumption (78.6 percent in 1997 and 79.6 percent in 1998), was comparable to their share at the

beginning of the period originally investigated (79.8 percent in 1983).

The Commission also found in the first five-year reviews that the domestic industry producing

heavy iron construction castings was not vulnerable; however, it found, given the generally substitutable

nature of the subject and domestic product, that the significant potential volume of less than fair value and

subsidized subject imports, when combined with the expected adverse price effects of these imports,

would have a significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales, and revenue levels of the

domestic industry. This reduction in the industry’s production, sales, and revenue levels, the Commission

observed, would have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and employment levels as

well as its ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital investments. Accordingly, the

Commission concluded that, if the antidumping duty orders were revoked, the subject imports would be

likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable

time.90

The record in the second reviews did not contain significant new information regarding whether

the domestic industry was then vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of material injury in the event

of revocation of the orders on heavy iron construction castings. The Commission observed, however, that

apparent U.S. consumption was lower in 2003 compared with the first review period, and the domestic

producers’ market share in 2003 was at its lowest level for any year for which data was obtained in the

original investigations and the reviews. As described above, the Commission found that the orders had a

restraining effect on the volume and market share of subject imports and that revocation of the orders

would likely lead to a significant increase in the volume of subject imports that would undersell the

domestic like product and otherwise significantly suppress or depress U.S. prices.91

Within the limits of the data available in the second five-year reviews, and with reference in

particular to the determinations and data in the original investigations and the first five-year reviews, the

Commission also found that the volume and price effects of the subject imports would likely have a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry’s production, sales, and revenue levels and would

have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and employment levels as well as its ability to

raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital investments. Accordingly, the Commission

concluded that, if the antidumping duty orders on subject imports of heavy castings from Brazil, Canada,

and China were revoked, subject imports would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.92

The limited information collected in these expedited reviews with respect to indicators of the

domestic industry’s condition is only for 2009. Domestic producers’ capacity was *** pounds in 2009

compared with 458 million pounds in 1985 and 534 million pounds in 1998. Domestic production was

*** pounds in 2009 compared with 314 million pounds in 1985 and 543 million pounds in 1998. 

Capacity utilization, at *** percent in 2009, compared with 68.4 percent in 1985 and 101.7 percent in

1998.93

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments were *** pounds in 2009 compared with 407 million

pounds in 1985 and 543 million pounds in 1998. Net sales were *** in 2009 compared with $91 million

in 1984 and $258 million in 1998. Operating income was $19 million in 2009 compared with

 90 USITC Pub. 3247 at 23-24.

 91 USITC Pub. 3781 at 17-18.

 92 USITC Pub. 3781 at 18.

 93 CR/PR at Table I-12.

20
$2.5 million in 1984 and $40 million in 1998. Operating income as a percent of net sales was 7.5 percent

in 2009 compared with 2.7 percent in 1984 and 15.5 percent in 1998.94 95 96

 Based on the record in these reviews, we find that the likely volume and price effects of the

subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the industry’s production, sales, and

revenue levels and would have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and employment

levels as well as its ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital investments. 

Accordingly, we conclude that, if the countervailing duty order on subject imports from Brazil and the

antidumping duty orders on subject imports from Brazil, Canada, and China were revoked, subject

imports would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably

foreseeable time.

C. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Light Iron Construction Castings

from Brazil and China Would be Likely to Lead to Continuation or Recurrence of

Material Injury Within a Reasonably Foreseeable Time

For the reasons stated below, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on

light iron construction castings from Brazil and China would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry producing light iron construction castings within a

reasonably foreseeable time.

1. Likely Volume of Subject Light Iron Castings Imports

We conclude, based on the facts available, that import volume of cumulated subject light iron

construction castings is likely to increase significantly and would be significant if the order is revoked. In

making this finding, we recognize that the volume of subject imports has been small since the original

investigations, both in absolute and relative terms. In a five-year review, however, our focus is on

whether subject import volume is likely to be significant within a reasonably foreseeable time if the

antidumping duty order is revoked.

In the original determinations, the Commission concluded that the domestic industry producing

light iron construction castings was threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports from

Brazil and China. Imports of light castings from Brazil increased from zero in 1982 to 1.64 million

pounds in 1985, and imports of light castings from China increased from 95,000 pounds in 1982 to

 94 CR/PR at Table I-12.

 95 Chairman Okun and Commissioners Pearson and Aranoff note that information on the record in this expedited

review concerning the performance of the domestic industry since the original investigation and earlier review

periods is limited to 2009 and pertains only to certain economic factors, discussed above. They find that this

information is insufficient to enable them to make a determination as to whether the industry is currently vulnerable.

 96 Commissioners Lane, Williamson, and Pinkert note that, in the first five-year reviews, the Commission found

that the domestic industry producing heavy iron construction castings was not vulnerable. The Commission found

that the record in the second reviews did not contain significant new information regarding the domestic industry’s

vulnerability. They find that the limited information in these expedited reviews does not provide a basis for

departing from the Commission’s prior findings, and therefore find that the domestic industry producing heavy iron

construction castings is not vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked. They note as well that the

evidence on the record, limited though it is, is generally supportive of such a finding, as U.S. producers had a

profitable 2009 during a period of decreased demand, increased U.S. market share to *** percent, their highest

market share on the record since 1983, and had a net sales value in 2009 comparable to their net sales value in 1998

(the last year on the record with data for this measurement).

21
1.64 million pounds in 1985.97 In the first five-year reviews, the Commission noted that there were no

imports of the subject merchandise from Brazil and China in 1997 and that imports from China totaled

*** pounds in 1998 while imports from Brazil remained at zero. The Commission observed that, in

assessing the likely volume of imports if the orders were revoked, it viewed the recent near-absence from

the U.S. market of imports from Brazil and China as reflecting the remedial effects of the antidumping

duty orders.98

The Commission also noted in the first reviews that, although production and capacity

information were not available for China in the original investigation, the available export information

showed that China’s annual exports of all iron construction castings to all markets, including the United

States, ranged between 135 million pounds and 201.6 million pounds between 1981 and 1985. Brazil’s

exports of all cast-iron products to all markets including the United States ranged from 102 million

pounds to 224 million pounds annually between 1981 and 1985. The Commission found that there was

no record information in the reviews indicating any likely limitations on Brazil and China resuming

significant export shipments to the United States if the orders were revoked. Accordingly, the

Commission found in the first five-year reviews that imports of light iron construction castings from

Brazil and China into the United States would be likely to increase significantly in the reasonably

foreseeable future if the antidumping duty orders were revoked.99

In the second five-year reviews, the Commission observed that the cumulated subject imports

were 3.3 million pounds in 1985, at the end of the original period of investigation, and that after the

orders were in place, the imports were *** pounds in 1998, peaked at 3.4 million pounds in 2003, and fell

to 1.6 million pounds in 2004. The Commission noted that subject light casting imports accounted for

*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2003 compared with 3.4 percent in 1985, even though the

2003 volume was larger in absolute terms than in 1985. The Commission found that these low volumes

continued to reflect the remedial effects of the orders.100 

The Commission explained that there was no new information on the record in the second

reviews regarding light iron construction casting production capacity in Brazil or China because

producers in Brazil and China did not respond to the Commission’s requests for data. Based on the

record in those reviews, the Commission concluded that the producers in Brazil and China were largely 

export oriented and had ample production capacity to increase their shipments to the United States if the

orders were revoked. The Commission again found that the record did not indicate that there would be

any limitations on Brazilian or Chinese producers’ resuming significant export shipments to the United

States if the orders were revoked. To the contrary, the Commission explained, the broad fluctuations in

the volume of subject imports under the restraining effects of the orders, including a 2003 increase above

the prior record volume in 1985, served to confirm that the subject producers were able quickly to

increase their exports to the United States. Accordingly, the Commission found that the likely volume of

the cumulated imports of the subject merchandise, both in absolute terms and relative to production and

consumption in the United States, would be significant absent the restraining effect of the antidumping

duty orders.101

In the current reviews, cumulated subject imports were 794,000 pounds in 2009 compared with

3.2 million pounds in 1985, and were *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2009 compared with

 97 See USITC Pub. 3247 at 18.

 98 USITC Pub. 3247 at 18.

 99 USITC Pub. 3247 at 18-19.

 100 USITC Pub. 3781 at 18-19.

 101 USITC Pub. 3781 at 19.

22
3.5 percent in 1985,102 reflecting the continuation of reduced import volume under the restraining effects

of the orders. 

No producers in Brazil or China responded to the Commission’s requests for data in the current

reviews.103 Based on the record in these reviews, we conclude that the producers in Brazil and China are

largely export oriented and have ample production capacity to increase their shipments to the United

States if the orders were revoked. The record does not indicate that there would be any limitations on

Brazilian or Chinese producers’ resuming significant export shipments to the United States if the orders

were revoked. Accordingly, we find that the likely volume of the cumulated subject imports, both in

absolute terms and relative to production and consumption in the United States, would be significant if

the orders were revoked. 

2. Likely Price Effects of Subject Light Iron Castings Imports

In the original determinations, the Commission found that the available pricing data for one

castings product from Brazil showed margins of underselling in excess of 10 percent throughout 1985. 

Light castings from China undersold the domestic product in each quarter from 1983 to 1985, in most

periods by margins of approximately 30 percent. The Commission found that the domestic like product

and the subject imported light castings were essentially fungible.104

In the first five-year reviews the Commission noted that there were no then-current price data on

imports from Brazil and China and that prices for U.S. light castings generally declined in 1997 and 1998. 

The Commission explained that purchasers consider price to be one of the most important factors in

purchasing decisions and noted the Commission’s finding in the original determinations regarding the

fungibility of the domestic like product and the subject imports. Thus, the Commission found it likely

that low prices for the Brazilian and Chinese product would be offered to U.S. purchasers in order to

regain market share if the antidumping duty orders were revoked and that the likely volume of subject

imports would be likely to enter the United States at prices that would significantly undersell domestic

castings and have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on prices for the domestic like product.105

 In the second five-year reviews, the Commission noted the absence of then-current productspecific pricing information, but that available data showed that the average unit values of the cumulated

subject light castings imports were below those for the domestic like product. As noted above, the

Commission found that producers in Brazil and China were likely to significantly increase exports to the

United States in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty orders were revoked. The

Commission also found, in the absence of any evidence of the contrary, that subject imports would likely

undersell the domestic like product if the orders were revoked and would be likely to have significant

depressing and suppressing effects on prices of the domestic like product. Accordingly, the Commission

found that the likely volume of subject imports from Brazil and China resulting from revocation of the

antidumping duty orders would be likely to have significant adverse price effects on domestic prices for

light iron construction castings.106

 There is no new product-specific pricing information on the record in these reviews. Data on

average unit values for subject imports and the domestic like product, however, show that the average unit

values of the cumulated subject light castings imports was below the average unit value for the domestic

 102 CR/PR at Table I-19.

 103 According to domestic interested parties, there are at least 98 and 200 producers of iron construction castings

in Brazil and China, respectively. CR at I-53-56, PR at I-47-49. The information submitted by domestic interested

parties does not distinguish between heavy and light castings. 

 104 USITC Pub. 3781 at 20.

 105 USITC Pub. 3781 at 20.

 106 USITC Pub. 3781 at 20.

23
like product in 2003, the only year since the first five-year reviews for which average unit value

comparison data is available.107

 As noted above, we again find that producers in Brazil and China are likely to significantly

increase exports to the United States in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty orders

are revoked. In the absence of any evidence of the contrary, we also find that subject imports would

likely undersell the domestic like product if the orders were revoked and would be likely to have

significant depressing and suppressing effects on prices of the domestic like product. Accordingly, we

find that the likely volume of imports from Brazil and China resulting from revocation of the antidumping

duty orders would be likely to have significant adverse price effects on domestic prices for light iron

construction castings.

3. Likely Impact of Subject Light Iron Castings Imports108

In concluding in the original determinations that the domestic industry producing light iron 

construction castings was threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from Brazil and

China, the Commission found that the domestic industry producing light iron construction castings was

beginning to experience difficulties and was vulnerable to material injury from imports, particularly in

terms of declining income toward the end of the period and flat or decreasing prices for the domestic

product.109

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that the domestic industry producing light

iron construction castings was vulnerable to material injury if the orders were revoked. It based that

finding primarily upon the operating income loss experienced by the domestic industry of *** in 1997

and *** in 1998. The Commission stated that, given the generally substitutable nature of the subject

imports and the domestic like product, the significant volume of low-priced subject imports, when

combined with the expected adverse price effects of these imports, would have a significant adverse

impact on the production, shipments, sales, and revenue levels of the domestic industry. This reduction in

the industry’s production, sales, and revenue levels would have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s

profitability and employment levels as well as its ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary

capital investments. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that, if the antidumping duty orders were

revoked, the subject imports would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry

within a reasonably foreseeable time.110

In the second five-year reviews, the Commission found that the limited information available did

not provide a basis for departing from the Commission’s prior findings that the domestic industry

producing light iron construction castings was vulnerable to material injury if the orders were revoked. 

The Commission noted that the industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption in 2003 was only ***

 107 CR/PR at Tables I-15, I-13 (AUVs in 2009 were $0.66 per pound for subject imports and $*** per pound for

domestic like product). We recognize that comparison of average unit values is normally of limited or no

significance where, as here, there are likely differences in product mix between the subject imports and the domestic

like product. While these AUV data are consistent with prior underselling findings, we base our price effects

analysis here on the prior findings rather than these AUVs.

 108 In the final results of its expedited sunset reviews, Commerce determined that revocation of the antidumping

duty order with respect to heavy and light castings from Brazil would likely lead to weighted-average dumping

margins of 58.74 for Fundição Aldebara, Ltda, 16.61 percent for Sociedade de Metalurgia e Processos, Ltda.

(SOMEP), 5.95 percent for Companhia Siderurgica da Guanabera (COSIGUA), and 26.16 percent for all others. 

With respect to the antidumping duty order on heavy and light castings from China, it determined a country-wide

likely weighted-average dumping margin of 25.52 percent. 75 Fed. Reg. 54595-96 (Sep. 8, 2010).

 109 See USITC Pub. 3247 at 20.

 110 USITC Pub. 3247 at 19-20.

24
percent, ***. Although the domestic producers’ market share during that period had been lost largely to

nonsubject imports, the Commission found that the loss of market share indicated that the industry may

have been more vulnerable than before. It also found the volume and price effects of the subject imports,

discussed above, would likely have a significant adverse impact on the industry’s production, sales, and

revenue levels and would have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and employment

levels as well as its ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital investments. 

Accordingly, the Commission concluded that, if the antidumping orders on subject imports from Brazil

and China were revoked, subject imports would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the

domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.111

The limited information collected in these expedited reviews with respect to indicators of the

domestic industry’s condition is only for 2009. Domestic producers’ light casting capacity was ***

pounds in 2009 compared with 70 million pounds in 1985 and *** pounds in 1998. Domestic production

was *** pounds in 2009 compared with 46 million pounds in 1985 and *** pounds in 1998. Capacity

utilization, at *** percent in 2009, was 65.1 percent in 1985 and *** percent in 1998.112

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments were *** pounds in 2009 compared with 57 million pounds

in 1985 and *** pounds in 1998. Net sales were *** in 2009 compared with $*** million in 1984 and

*** in 1998. Operating income was *** in 2009 compared with operating income of $*** million in

1984 and *** in 1998. Operating income as a percent of net sales was *** percent in 2009 compared

with *** percent in 1984 and *** percent in 1998.113 114 115

We find, as explained above, that revocation of the orders on light iron construction castings

would likely lead to a significant increase in the volume of subject imports that would undersell the

domestic like product and otherwise significantly suppress or depress U.S. prices. We also find that the

volume and price effects of the subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the

industry’s production, sales, and revenue levels and would have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s

profitability and employment levels as well as its ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary

capital investments. Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping orders on subject imports from

Brazil and China were revoked, subject imports would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on

the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 111 USITC Pub. 3781 at 21.

 112 CR/PR at Table I-13.

 113 CR/PR at Table I-13.

 114 Chairman Okun and Commissioners Pearson and Aranoff note that information on the record in this expedited

review concerning the performance of the domestic industry since the original investigation and earlier review

periods is limited to 2009 and pertains only to certain economic factors, discussed above. They find that this

information is insufficient to enable them to make a determination as to whether the industry is currently vulnerable.

 115 Commissioners Lane, Williamson, and Pinkert find that the information in these expedited reviews does not

provide a basis for departing from the Commission’s findings in the first and second five-year reviews that the

domestic industry producing light iron construction castings was vulnerable. They note that the evidence on the

record, although not complete due to the expedited nature of this review, is supportive of the prior findings. In 2009,

domestic industry capacity, production, capacity utilization, and sales were all lower than any other year since 1983. 

CR/PR at Table I-13. As a result, the domestic industry posted a *** percent operating loss in 2009, the ***

operating loss on the record since 1983. CR/PR at Table I-13. The domestic industry’s U.S. market share, at ***

percent, was the second lowest market share on the record since 1983 and nearly as low as its *** percent market

share in 2003. Accordingly, based on the Commission’s prior findings and the information on this record, they find

that the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders were revoked. 

25
CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on

heavy iron construction castings from Brazil, Canada, and China, and the countervailing duty order on

heavy iron construction castings from Brazil, would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. We further

determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on light iron construction castings from Brazil

and China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

26
INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEWS

I-1

INTRODUCTION

On May 3, 2010, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the

Act”),1

 the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave notice that it had

instituted reviews to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on heavy iron

construction castings from Brazil, the antidumping duty order on heavy iron construction castings from

Canada, and/or the antidumping duty orders on heavy and light iron construction castings from Brazil and

China would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry within

a reasonably foreseeable time.2 3

 On August 6, 2010, the Commission determined that the domestic

interested party group response to its notice of institution was adequate4

 and that the respondent interested

party group response was inadequate.5

 In the absence of respondent interested party responses and any

other circumstances that would warrant the conduct of full reviews, the Commission determined to

conduct expedited reviews of the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders pursuant to section

751(c)(3) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)).6

 The Commission voted on these reviews on October 15,

2010, and notified Commerce of its determinations on October 27, 2010. The following tabulation

presents selected information relating to the schedule of these five-year reviews.7

 1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2 Iron Construction Castings From Brazil, Canada, and China, 75 FR 23295, May 3, 2010. All interested parties

were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information requested by the Commission. The

Commission’s notice of institution is presented in app. A.

 3

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

notice of initiation of five-year reviews of the subject countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders concurrently

with the Commission’s notice of institution. Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 23240, May 3, 2010.

 4

 The Commission received one submission from domestic producers East Jordan Iron Works, Inc. (“East

Jordan”), Neenah Foundry Company (“Neenah”), and U.S. Foundry & Manufacturing Corporation (“U.S. Foundry”)

(collectively referred to herein as “domestic interested parties”) in response to its notice of institution for the subject

reviews. The domestic interested parties are represented by the law firm of Kelley Drye & Warren, LLC. Domestic

producers D&L Foundry Inc. (“D&L Foundry”) and Vestal Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc. (“Vestal”) also provided

trade and financial data to the domestic interested parties' counsel to submit to the Commission on their behalf in

these reviews. While these firms “authorized counsel for the domestic industry to advise the Commission of their

willingness to cooperate in this review by responding to questionnaires and submitting any other information

requested,” they are not officially represented by the counsel who provided the certification of accuracy and

completeness. The domestic interested parties reported that together they accounted for *** percent of total U.S.

production of heavy construction castings and *** percent of light construction castings in 2009. Response of

domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, p. 24. Including data provided by D&L Foundry and Vestal, the coverage

of domestic interested parties responding to the notice for heavy iron construction castings is *** percent and the

coverage of domestic interested parties responding to the notice for light iron construction castings is *** percent.

 5

 The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties to its notice of institution.

 6 Iron Construction Castings From Brazil, Canada, and China, 75 FR 49945, August 16, 2010. The

Commission’s notice of the expedited reviews appears in app. A. The Commission’s statement on adequacy is

presented in app. B.

 7

 Cited Federal Register notices beginning with the Commission’s institution of these five-year sunset reviews

are presented in app. A.

I-3
Effective date Action

Federal Register

citation

May 3, 2010 Commission’s institution of third five-year reviews

75 FR 23295

May 3, 2010

May 3, 2010 Commerce’s initiation of five-year reviews

75 FR 23240

May 3, 2010

August 6, 2010

Commission’s determination to conduct

expedited five-year reviews

75 FR 49945

August 16, 2010

September 8, 2010

Commerce’s final determinations in its expedited

five-year reviews

75 FR 54595

September 8, 2010

October 15, 2010 Commission’s vote Not applicable

October 27, 2010

Commission’s determinations transmitted to

Commerce Not applicable

The Original Investigations

On May 13, 1985, petitions were filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with further material injury by reason

of imports from Brazil of certain iron construction castings that were allegedly being subsidized by the

Government of Brazil, and by reason of imports of such castings from Brazil, Canada, China, and India

that were allegedly being sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”).8 9

 In February 1986,

the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of

imports from Canada of heavy iron construction castings that Commerce found to be sold at LTFV, and

that an industry in the United States was threatened with material injury by reason of imports from

Canada of light iron construction castings that Commerce found to be sold at LTFV.10 In April 1986, the

Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports

of heavy iron construction castings from Brazil that were being subsidized by the Government of Brazil,

that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports from Brazil, China, and

India of heavy iron construction castings that were being sold at LTFV, and that an industry in the United

States was threatened with material injury by reason of imports from Brazil, China, and India of light iron

construction castings that were being sold at LTFV.11 Commerce issued a countervailing duty order on

 8 The petitions were filed on behalf of the Municipal Castings Fair Trade Council, a trade association representing

15 domestic producers of iron construction castings.

 9

 As discussed in subsequent sections, India was subject to an earlier countervailing duty proceeding that resulted

in an order that was revoked in 1999 (effective January 1, 2000), as well as the 1985-86 antidumping duty

proceeding that resulted in an order that was revoked in 1991.

 10 Iron Construction Castings from Canada: Investigation No. 731-TA-263 (Final), USITC Publication 1811,

February 1986, p. 1. The Commission found two like products (heavy and light iron construction castings) and two

domestic industries: (1) an industry producing heavy iron construction castings and (2) an industry producing light

iron construction castings. Ibid., p. 4.

 11 Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, India and the People's Republic of China: Investigation Nos.

701-TA-249 and 731-TA-262, 264, and 265 (Final), USITC Publication 1838, April 1986, p. 1. The Commission

found two like products (heavy and light iron construction castings) and two domestic industries: (1) an industry

producing heavy iron construction castings and (2) an industry producing light iron construction castings. Ibid.,

pp. 5-6.

I-4
imports of heavy iron construction castings from Brazil on May 15, 1986,12 and antidumping duty orders

on imports of heavy and light iron construction castings from Brazil,13 Canada,14 China,15 and India16 in

March and May of 1986.17

Five-Year Reviews

On November 2, 1998, the Commission gave notice that it had instituted five-year reviews on

iron construction castings. After conducting full reviews and following Commerce’s affirmative

determinations, on October 25, 1999, the Commission determined that revocation of the countervailing

duty order on iron metal castings from India would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission

further determined that revocation of the countervailing duty order on heavy iron construction castings

from Brazil; revocation of the antidumping duty orders on heavy iron construction castings from Brazil,

Canada, and China; and revocation of the antidumping duty orders on light iron construction castings

from Brazil and China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.18

On October 1, 2004, the Commission gave notice that it had instituted second five-year reviews

on iron construction castings. After conducting expedited reviews, on June 8, 2005, the Commission

determined that revocation of the countervailing duty order on heavy iron construction castings from

Brazil; revocation of the antidumping duty order on heavy iron construction castings from Canada; and

revocation of the antidumping duty orders on iron construction castings (both heavy and light) from

Brazil and China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in

the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.19 A chronology of selected historical actions

taken by the Commission and Commerce in the original investigations and the subsequent first and

second five-year reviews is presented in the following tabulation.

 12 Countervailing Duty Order; Certain Heavy Iron Construction Castings From Brazil, 51 FR 17786, May 15,

1986.

 13 Antidumping Duty Order; Iron Construction Castings From Brazil, 51 FR 17220, May 9, 1986.

 14 Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Iron Construction Castings From Canada, 51 FR 7600, March 5, 1986.

 15 Antidumping Duty Order; Iron Construction Castings From the People’s Republic of China (the PRC), 51 FR

17222, May 9, 1986.

 16 Antidumping Duty Order; Iron Construction Castings From India, 51 FR 17221, May 9, 1986.

 17 On February 6, 1991, Commerce revoked the antidumping duty order on heavy and light iron construction

castings from India following its decision on remand. Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order and Termination of

Administrative Reviews; Iron Construction Castings from India, 56 FR 4789, February 6, 1991. On September 17,

1998, Commerce revoked in part the antidumping duty order on heavy and light iron construction castings from

Canada by eliminating light castings from the order. Iron Construction Castings From Canada: Notice of Final

Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of

Antidumping Duty Order, 63 FR 49687, September 17, 1998.

 18 Iron Metal Castings From India; Heavy Iron Construction Castings From Brazil; and Iron Construction

Castings From Brazil, Canada, and China, 64 FR 58442, October 29, 1999.

 19 Certain Iron Construction Castings From Brazil, Canada, and China, 70 FR 34505, June 14, 2005.

I-5
Effective date Action

Federal Register

citation

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-249 (Final) (Brazil) and 731-TA-262, 263, and 265 (Final)

(Brazil, Canada, and China)

February 19, 1986 Commission issues affirmative

determinations

51 FR 7646

March 5, 1986

April 30, 1986

51 FR 16906

May 7, 1986

March 5, 1986

Commerce issues antidumping duty order: 

Canada

51 FR 7600

March 5, 1986

May 9, 1986

Commerce issues antidumping duty order: 

Brazil

51 FR 17220

May 9, 1986

May 9, 1986

Commerce issues antidumping duty order: 

China

51 FR 17222

May 9, 1986

May 15, 1986

Commerce’s issues countervailing duty

order: Brazil

51 FR 17786

May 15, 1986

Investigation No. 701-TA-249 (Review) (Brazil) and 731-TA-262, 263, and 265 (Review)

(Brazil, Canada, and China)

November 2, 1998 Commission institutes reviews

63 FR 58758

November 2, 1998

November 2, 1998 Commerce initiates reviews

63 FR 58709

November 2, 1998

February 24, 1999

Commission determines to conduct full

reviews

64 FR 9176

February 24, 1999

October 25, 1999

Commission issues affirmative

determinations

64 FR 58442

October 29, 1999

November 12, 1999

Commerce issues first continuation of

antidumping duty orders

64 FR 61590

November 12, 1999

November 12, 1999

Commerce issues continuation of

countervailing duty order

64 FR 61591

November 12, 1999

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-249 (Review) (Brazil) and 731-TA-262, 263, and 265 (Review)

(Brazil, Canada, and China)

October 1, 2004

Commission institutes second five-year

reviews

69 FR 58952

October 1, 2004

October 1, 2004 Commerce initiates second five-year reviews

69 FR 58890

October 1, 2004

June 8, 2005

Commission issues affirmative

determinations

70 FR 34505

June 14, 2005

June 29, 2005

Commerce issues second continuation of

subject orders

70 FR 37326

June 29, 2005

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

I-6
Commerce’s Final Results of Expedited Five-Year Reviews

Commerce published the final results of its reviews based on the facts available on September 8,

2010. Commerce concluded that revocation of the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and that revocation of the antidumping duty

orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.20

Commerce’s Administrative Reviews

Commerce has completed numerous administrative reviews of the countervailing duty and

antidumping duty orders on iron construction castings from Brazil, Canada, and China. Information on

Commerce’s final determinations, countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders, administrative and

changed circumstances determinations, and the final results of its expedited five-year reviews are

presented in tables I-1, I-2, I-3, and I-4.

Table I-1

Heavy iron construction castings from Brazil: Commerce’s final determination, countervailing

duty order, and administrative reviews

Action Effective

date

Federal

Register

citation

Period of

investigation/

review

Countervailing duty

margins

FirmspecificCountrywide1

Percent ad valorem

Final determination 03/19/1986 51 FR 9491

12/01/1984-

05/31/1985 -- 5.77

Countervailing duty order 05/15/1986 51 FR 17786 -- -- 3.40

Administrative review 01/21/1992 57 FR 2252

01/01/1990-

12/31/1990 -- 0.33

Final results of expedited

five-year review 09/08/2010 75 FR 54596 – -- 1.06

 1 The country-wide rate applies to all companies that otherwise have not received a “firm-specific” rate.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

 20 Certain Iron Construction Castings From Brazil, Canada, and the People’s Republic of China: Final Results

of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 75 FR 54595, September 8, 2010; Final Results of

Expedited Sunset Review: Heavy Iron Construction Castings From Brazil, 75 FR 54596, September 8, 2010.

I-7
Table I-2

Iron construction castings from Brazil: Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty order,

and administrative reviews

Action Effective

date

Federal

Register

citation

Period of

investigation/

review

Antidumping duty margins

FirmspecificCountrywide1

Percent ad valorem

Final determination 03/19/1986 51 FR 9477

12/01/1984-

05/31/1985

Aldebara 58.74

Somep 16.61

Usipa 5.95 26.16

Antidumping duty

order 05/09/1986 51 FR 17220 --

Aldebara 58.74

Somep 16.61

Usipa 5.95 26.16

Administrative review 06/27/1990 55 FR 26238

10/21/1985-

04/30/1987

Viana 25.50

COSIGUA (Usipa) 15.30

26.16

05/01/1987-

04/30/1988 COSIGUA (Usipa) 8.46

Administrative review 10/25/1990 55 FR 43019

05/01/1988-

04/30/1989 COSIGUA (Usipa) 56.74 26.16

Final results of

expedited five-year

review 09/08/2010 75 FR 54595 –

Aldebara 58.74

Somep 16.61

Usipa 5.95 26.16

 1 The country-wide rate applies to all companies that otherwise have not received a “firm-specific” rate.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

I-8
Table I-3

Iron construction castings from Canada: Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty

order, and administrative and changed circumstances reviews

Action Effective

date

Federal

Register

citation

Period of

investigation/

review

Antidumping duty margins

FirmspecificCountrywide1

Percent ad valorem

Final determination 01/16/1986 51 FR 2412

12/01/1984-

05/31/1985

Bibby 10.90

LaPerle 7.40

Mueller 9.80 10.20

Antidumping duty

order 03/05/1986 51 FR 7600 --

Mueller 9.80

Bibby 8.60

LaPerle 3.90 7.00

Amended final

determination and

antidumping duty

order2 09/25/1986 51 FR 34110

12/01/1984-

05/31/1985

Mueller 9.80

Bibby 8.60

LaPerle 4.40 7.50

Administrative review 05/21/1991 56 FR 23274

10/28/1985-

02/28/1987

Grand Mere 1.37

Laroche 1.38

LaPerle 3.16

Mueller 7.21 7.50

Administrative review 01/05/1990 55 FR 460

03/01/1987-

02/29/1988 Bibby 4.64 7.50

Administrative review 05/17/1994 59 FR 25603

03/01/1992-

02/28/1993

Associated 9.80

Bibby3 9.80

Bibby Foundry 9.80

Bibby Waterworks 9.80

Dobney Foundry 9.80

LaPerle 9.80

McCoy 7.50

Penticton 9.80

Titan Foundry 9.80

Titan Supply 9.80

Trojan Industries 9.80 7.50

Administrative review 03/16/1995 60 FR 9009

03/01/1991-

02/29/1992

LaPerle 9.80

Penticton 9.80

Titan 9.80

Associated 9.80 7.50

Administrative review 04/12/2001 66 FR 18900

03/01/1999-

02/29/2000 Canada Pipe 3.89 7.50

Changed

circumstances review4 08/16/2002 67 FR 53562

03/01/1999-

02/29/2000 Canada Pipe 3.89 7.50

Administrative review 08/16/2002 67 FR 53564

03/01/2000-

02/28/2001 Canada Pipe 1.43 7.50

Final results of

expedited five-year

review 09/08/2010 75 FR 54595 –

Bibby 8.60

LaPerle 4.40

Mueller 9.80 7.50

Table continued on the following page.

I-9
Table I-3--Continued

Iron construction castings from Canada: Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty

order, and administrative and changed circumstances reviews

 1 The country-wide rate applies to all companies that otherwise have not received a “firm-specific” rate.

 2

 Commerce revised the final weighted-average dumping margins following the allegation and correction of

ministerial errors. Iron Construction Castings From Canada; Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value and Amendment to Antidumping Duty Order, 51 FR 34110, September 25, 1986.

 3

 Includes Bibby Ste-Croix Foundries and Bibby Ste-Croix Division.

 4

 The weighted-average margin calculated in the 1999-2000 administrative review applies to Canada Pipe’s

unincorporated plants that have “Bibby Ste.-Croix,” “LaPerle,” “Grand Mere,” or simply “Bibby” in their names. Iron

Construction Castings From Canada: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 67 FR 53562, August 16, 2002.

Note.–As the result of a 1998 changed circumstances review, the antidumping duty order was revoked in part due to

an expression of no interest from the domestic interested parties. The antidumping duty order was revoked in

relation to light castings under HTS statistical reporting number 7325.10.0050. Iron Construction Castings From

Canada: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and

Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 63 FR 49687, September 17,1998; Iron Construction Castings From

Canada: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and

Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order: Correction, 63 FR 50881, September 23, 1998.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Table I-4

Iron construction castings from China: Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty order,

administrative reviews and final results of expedited five-year review

Action Effective

date

Federal

Register

citation

Period of

investigation/

review

Antidumping duty margins

FirmspecificCountrywide1

Percent ad valorem

Final determination 03/19/1986 51 FR 9483

12/01/1984-

05/31/1985 -- 11.66

Antidumping duty

order 05/09/1986 51 FR 17222 -- -- 11.66

Administrative review,

amended results2 09/09/2002 67 FR 57211

05/01/1987-

04/30/1988 -- 12.50

Administrative review,

amended results2 09/09/2002 67 FR 57211

05/01/1988-

04/30/1989 -- 28.77

Administrative review,

amended results2 09/09/2002 67 FR 57211

05/01/1989-

04/30/1990

Minmetals 

Guangdong 22.50 28.77

Administrative review 06/08/1992 57 FR 24245

05/01/1990-

04/30/1991

Minmetals 

Guangdong 92.74 92.74

Administrative review 10/02/1995 60 FR 51454

05/01/1993-

04/30/1994 MACHIMPEX 92.74 92.74

Final results of

expedited five-year

review 09/08/2010 75 FR 54595 -- -- 25.52

Table continued on the following page.

I-10
Table I-4--Continued

Iron construction castings from China: Commerce's final determination, antidumping duty order,

administrative reviews and final results of expedited five-year review

 1 The country-wide rate applies to all companies that otherwise have not received a “firm-specific” rate.

 2

 On February 10, 2000, the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) affirmed Commerce’s remand determinations

arising from the 1987-88, 1988-89, and 1989-90 administrative reviews. These determinations were appealed due

to issues relating to the calculation of the margins assigned for these periods and whether MACHIMPEX should be

deemed included in the reviews. Iron Construction Castings From the People's Republic of China; Amended Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews in Accordance with Court Decision, 67 FR 57211, September

9, 2002; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Iron Construction Castings From the

People's Republic of China, 57 FR 10644, March 27, 1992; Iron Construction Castings From the People's Republic

of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 2742, January 24, 1991.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Funds to Affected Domestic Producers

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd

Amendment) provided that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty

orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.21 Qualified U.S. producers of iron construction castings

have been eligible to receive disbursements from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) under

CDSOA, relating to the orders covering the subject merchandise beginning in Federal fiscal year 2001.22

Tables I-5, I-6, I-7, and I-8 present CDSOA claims and disbursements for Federal fiscal years 2001-09.

 21 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)). The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

repealed the CDSOA with respect to duties on entries of goods made and filed on or after October 1, 2007. See Pub.

L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4, 154 (2006).

 22 19 CFR 159.64(g).

I-11
Table I-5

Heavy iron construction castings from Brazil: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal

years 2001-03, 2005-091 2 3

Year Claimant

Share of yearly

allocation

Certification

amount4

Amount

disbursed

Percent5 Dollars

2001

Allegheny Foundry 1.23 $24,590,588.00 $34.60

East Jordan 38.90 $777,833,568.00 $1,094.55

LeBaron Foundry 6.64 $132,835,568.00 $186.92

Municipal Castings 1.36 $27,097,240.00 $38.13

Neenah 44.22 $884,584,565.00 $1,244.17

U.S. Foundry 5.81 $116,133,044.00 $163.42

Total 100.00 $1,959,949,362.00 $2,813.62

2002

Alhambra Foundry 3.40 $73,961,113.00 (6

)

Allegheny Foundry 1.20 $26,045,875.00 (6

)

East Jordan 40.25 $874,686,782.79 (6

)

LeBaron Foundry 7.24 $157,332,460.00 (6

)

Municipal Castings 1.22 $26,483,794.00 (6

)

Neenah 40.71 $884,584,565.00 (6

)

U.S. Foundry 5.98 $129,964,172.00 (6

)

Total 100.00 $2,173,058,761.79 (6

)

2003

Alhambra Foundry 2.98 $77,720,943.00 (6

)

Allegheny Foundry 1.06 $27,579,978.00 (6

)

East Jordan 37.59 $978,790,207.60 (6

)

LeBaron Foundry 6.61 $172,248,790.00 (6

)

Municipal Castings 1.12 $29,247,844.00 (6

)

Neenah 45.12 $1,174,948,711.00 (6

)

U.S. Foundry 5.51 $143,583,587.00 (6

)

Total 100.00 $2,604,120,061.00 (6

)

2005

Alhambra Foundry 2.67 $84,373,112.00 $2.71

East Jordan 38.64 $1,220,518,512.53 $39.18

LeBaron Foundry 6.70 $211,706,573.00 $6.80

Municipal Castings 1.02 $32,158,334.00 $1.03

Neenah 45.47 $1,436,373,790.00 $46.11

U.S. Foundry 5.50 $173,791,631.00 $5.58

Total 100.00 $3,158,921,952.53 $101.41

Table continued on the following page.

I-12
Table I-5--Continued

Heavy iron construction castings from Brazil: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal

years 2001-03, 2005-091 2 3

Year Claimant

Share of yearly

allocation

Certification

amount4

Amount

disbursed

Percent5 Dollars

2006

Alhambra Foundry 2.50 $88,229,674.00 $1.55

East Jordan 39.00 $1,375,118,272.00 $24.15

LeBaron Foundry 6.43 $226,751,170.20 $3.98

Municipal Castings 1.01 $35,610,235.97 $0.63

Neenah 45.15 $1,591,935,749.89 $27.96

U.S. Foundry 5.90 $208,103,601.42 $3.66

Total 100.00 $3,525,748,703.48 $61.93

2007

Alhambra Foundry (6

) $92,027,832.74 (6)

East Jordan (6

) $1,518,036,670.67 (6)

LeBaron Foundry (6

) $242,913,688.22 (6)

Municipal Castings (6

) $38,597,862.34 (6)

Neenah (6

) $1,747,703,026.93 (6)

U.S. Foundry (6

) $221,496,614.76 (6)

Total (6

) $3,860,775,695.66 (6)

2008

Alhambra Foundry (6

) $92,027,834.00 (6)

East Jordan (6

) $1,518,036,670.67 (6)

LeBaron Foundry (6

) $16,162,515.20 (6)

Neenah (6

) $1,747,703,101.00 (6)

U.S. Foundry (6

) $221,496,614.76 (6)

Total (6

) $3,595,426,735.63 (6)

2009

Alhambra Foundry (6

) $92,027,832.74 (6)

East Jordan (6

) $1,518,036,670.67 (6)

Neenah (6

) $1,747,703,101.00 (6)

U.S. Foundry (6

) $221,496,614.76 (6)

Total (6

) $3,579,264,219.17 (6)

 1 The Federal fiscal year is October 1-September 30.

 2

 No CDSOA claims and disbursements were made with respect to iron construction castings from Brazil prior to

2001.

 3

 No CDSOA data was available on iron construction castings from Brazil in 2004.

 4

 Qualifying expenditures incurred by domestic producers since the issuance of an order.

 5

 Total presented as reported in Annual Report may not add to figures shown.

 6

 No disbursement for this period.

Source: Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2001-09,

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.

I-13
Table I-6

Iron construction castings from Brazil: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal years

2001-03, 2005-091 2 3

Year Claimant

Share of yearly

allocation

Certification

amount4

Amount

disbursed

Percent5 Dollars

2001

Allegheny Foundry 1.23 $24,590,588.00 $34.60

East Jordan 38.90 $777,833,568.00 $1,094.55

LeBaron Foundry 6.64 $132,835,106.00 $186.92

Municipal Castings 1.36 $27,097,240.00 $38.13

Neenah 44.22 $884,163,700.00 $1,244.17

Tyler Pipe 1.84 $36,831,011.00 $51.83

U.S. Foundry 5.81 $116,133,044.00 $163.42

Total 100.00 $1,999,484,257.00 $2,813.62

2002

Alhambra Foundry 3.34 $73,961,113.00 $51.80

Allegheny Foundry 1.18 $26,045,840.40 $18.24

East Jordan 39.46 $874,685,688.24 $612.58

LeBaron Foundry 7.10 $157,457,022.08 $110.27

Municipal Castings 1.20 $26,483,755.87 $18.55

Neenah 39.88 $884,162,455.83 $619.22

Tyler Pipe 1.99 $44,130,121.17 $30.91

U.S. Foundry 5.82 $129,964,008.58 $91.02

Total 100.00 $2,216,890,005.17 $1,552.59

2003

Alhambra Foundry 2.93 $77,720,891.20 $796.79

Allegheny Foundry 1.04 $27,579,923.36 $282.75

East Jordan 36.85 $978,788,500.47 $10,034.45

LeBaron Foundry 6.49 $172,373,241.81 $1,767.15

Municipal Castings 1.10 $29,247,787.32 $299.85

Neenah 44.25 $1,175,478,431.61 $12,050.89

Tyler Pipe 1.94 $51,554,869.26 $528.54

U.S. Foundry 5.41 $142,583,332.56 $1,472.00

Total 100.00 $2,656,326,977.59 $27,232.42

Table continued on the following page.

I-14
Table I-6--Continued

Iron construction castings from Brazil: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal years

2001-03, 2005-091 2 3

Year Claimant

Share of yearly

allocation

Certification

amount4

Amount

disbursed

Percent5 Dollars

2005

Alhambra Foundry 2.61 $84,372,263.00 $96.57

East Jordan 37.80 $1,220,506,770.95 $1,396.92

LeBaron Foundry 6.56 $211,829,257.66 $242.45

Municipal Castings 1.00 $32,157,977.47 $36.81

Neenah 44.54 $1,438,330,562.72 $1,646.23

Tyler Pipe 2.11 $68,105,221.72 $77.95

U.S. Foundry 5.38 $173,789,904.56 $198.91

Total 100.00 $3,229,091,958.08 $3,695.84

2006

Alhambra Foundry 2.45 $88,228,731.84 $392.41

East Jordan 38.15 $1,375,105,173.00 $6,116.00

LeBaron Foundry 6.29 $226,873,619.21 $1,009.06

Municipal Castings 0.99 $35,609,487.13 $158.38

Neenah 44.22 $1,593,890,922.49 $7,089.08

Tyler Pipe 2.13 $76,825,372.77 $341.69

U.S. Foundry 5.77 $208,101,681.65 $925.56

Total 100.00 $3,604,634,988.09 $16,032.18

2007

Alhambra Foundry 0.00 $92,026,499.43 $0.00

East Jordan 0.00 $1,518,017,479.50 $0.00

LeBaron Foundry 0.00 $243,035,132.15 $0.00

Municipal Castings 0.00 $38,596,955.75 $0.00

Neenah 0.00 $1,749,651,109.41 $0.00

U.S. Foundry 0.00 $221,493,773.09 $0.00

Total 0.00 $3,862,820,949.33 $0.00

2008

Alhambra Foundry 2.56 $92,026,499.43 $185.26

East Jordan 42.20 $1,518,017,479.50 $3,055.87

LeBaron Foundry 0.45 $16,159,206.15 $32.53

Neenah 48.64 $1,749,635,578.90 $3,522.14

U.S. Foundry 6.16 $221,493,773.09 $445.88

Total 100.00 $3,597,332,537.07 $7,241.68

Table continued on the following page.

I-15
Table I-6--Continued

Iron construction castings from Brazil: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal years

2001-03, 2005-091 2 3

Year Claimant

Share of yearly

allocation

Certification

amount4

Amount

disbursed

Percent5 Dollars

2009

Alhambra Foundry 0.00 $92,026,314.17 $0.00

East Jordan 0.00 $1,518,014,423.63 $0.00

Neenah 0.00 $1,748,336,856.17 $0.00

U.S. Foundry 0.00 $221,493,327.21 $0.00

Total 0.00 $3,579,870,921.18 $0.00

 1 The Federal fiscal year is October 1-September 30.

 2

 No CDSOA claims and disbursements were made with respect to iron construction castings from Brazil prior to

2001.

 3

 No CDSOA data was available on iron construction castings from Brazil in 2004.

 4

 Qualifying expenditures incurred by domestic producers since the issuance of an order.

 5

 Total presented as reported in Annual Report may not add to figures shown.

Source: Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2001-09,

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.

I-16
Table I-7

Iron construction castings from Canada: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal years

2001-051 2

Year Claimant

Share of

yearly

allocation

Certification

amount3 Amount disbursed

Percent4 Dollars

2001

Allegheny Foundry 1.25 $24,934,857.00 $479.70

East Jordan 39.08 $779,675,501.00 $14,999.51

LeBaron Foundry 6.72 $134,066,761.00 $2,579.20

Municipal Castings 1.21 $24,097,240.00 $463.59

Neenah 44.72 $892,196,645.00 $17,164.21

Tyler Pipe 1.17 $23,258,742.00 $447.46

U.S. Foundry 5.85 $116,801,724.00 $2,247.05

Total 100.00 $1,995,031,470.00 $38,380.72

2002

Alhambra Foundry 3.35 $73,961,113.00 $2,082.55

Allegheny Foundry 1.20 $26,389,664.30 $743.06

East Jordan 39.70 $876,513,715.61 $24,680.27

LeBaron Foundry 7.19 $158,673,545.80 $4,467.82

Municipal Castings 1.19 $26,483,330.41 $745.70

Neenah 40.41 $892,179,480.79 $25,121.37

Tyler Pipe 1.05 $23,258,294.54 $654.89

U.S. Foundry 5.92 $130,630,604.95 $3,678.21

Total 100.00 $2,208,089,749.40 $62,173.87

2003

Alhambra Foundry 2.94 $77,718,860.45 $24,116.38

Allegheny Foundry 1.06 $27,923,024.24 $8,664.59

East Jordan 37.16 $980,592,460.15 $304,280.55

LeBaron Foundry 6.58 $173,585,407.98 $53,864.03

Municipal Castings 1.11 $29,246,634.71 $9,075.31

Neenah 44.81 $1,182,563,664.41 $366,952.77

Tyler Pipe 0.88 $23,257,639.65 $7,216.91

U.S. Foundry 5.47 $144,246,341.74 $44,760.04

Total 100.00 $2,639,134,033.33 $818,930.58

Table continued on the following page.

I-17
Table I-7--Continued

Iron construction castings from Canada: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal years

2001-051 2

Year Claimant

Share of

yearly

allocation

Certification

amount3 Amount disbursed

Percent4 Dollars

2004

Alhambra Foundry 2.77 $81,008,362.00 ($3,285.01)

Allegheny Foundry 1.01 $29,447,795.65 ($1,179.19)

East Jordan 37.92 $1,108,941,284.59 ($41,122.82)

LeBaron Foundry 6.70 $195,843,049.95 ($7,299.72)

Municipal Castings 1.07 $31,145,715.49 ($1,228.46)

Neenah 44.41 $1,298,720,572.64 ($48,648.22)

Tyler Pipe 0.80 $23,250,422.74 ($989.50)

U.S. Foundry 5.34 $156,252,139.70 ($6,058.92)

Total 100.00 $2,924,609,342.76 ($109,811.84)

2005

Alhambra Foundry 2.64 $84,350,198.00 $2,372.12

East Jordan 38.26 $1,222,057,607.36 $34,367.11

LeBaron Foundry 6.67 $212,996,626.67 $5,989.96

Municipal Castings 1.01 $32,149,277.86 $904.11

Neenah 45.24 $1,445,165,531.86 $40,641.42

Tyler Pipe 0.73 $23,251,412.24 $653.88

U.S. Foundry 5.46 $174,415,684.62 $4,904.98

Total 100.00 $3,194,386,338.61 $89,833.59

 1 The Federal fiscal year is October 1-September 30.

 2

 No CDSOA claims and disbursements were made with respect to iron construction castings from Canada prior

to 2001 or after 2005.

 3

 Qualifying expenditures incurred by domestic producers since the issuance of an order.

 4

 Total presented as reported in Annual Report may not add to figures shown.

Note.--Negative disbursement amounts are the result of refunds to importers as a result of liquidations or court

cases.

Source: Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2001-09,

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.

I-18
Table I-8

Iron construction castings from China: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal years

2001-091 2

Year Claimant

Share of

yearly

allocation

Certification

amount3

Amount

disbursed

Percent4 Dollars

2001

Allegheny Foundry 1.23 $24,590,588.00 $1,355.07

East Jordan 38.96 $777,833,568.00 $42,862.79

LeBaron Foundry 6.65 $132,835,106.00 $7,319.92

Municipal Castings 1.21 $24,097,240.00 $1,327.89

Neenah 44.29 $884,163,700.00 $48,722.14

Tyler Pipe 1.84 $36,831,011.00 $2,029.59

U.S. Foundry 5.82 $116,133,044.00 $6,399.55

Total 100.00 $1,996,484,257.00 $110,016.95

2002

Alhambra Foundry 3.34 $73,961,113.00 $916.65

Allegheny Foundry 1.18 $26,044,519.93 $322.79

East Jordan 39.46 $874,643,920.01 $10,840.11

LeBaron Foundry 7.10 $157,449,889.08 $1,951.39

Municipal Castings 1.20 $26,482,466.11 $328.22

Neenah 39.88 $884,114,927.86 $10,957.49

Tyler Pipe 1.99 $44,128,143.41 $546.91

U.S. Foundry 5.86 $129,957,772.44 $1,610.66

Total 100.00 $2,216,782,751.84 $27,474.22

2003

Alhambra Foundry 2.93 $77,720,026.35 $41,012.28

Allegheny Foundry 1.04 $27,578,300.14 $14,552.86

East Jordan 36.85 $978,736,504.71 $516,472.00

LeBaron Foundry 6.49 $172,364,267.69 $90,955.35

Municipal Castings 1.10 $29,246,178.89 $15,432.99

Neenah 44.25 $1,175,420,565.37 $620,260.72

Tyler Pipe 1.94 $51,552,375.50 $27,203.81

U.S. Foundry 5.41 $143,575,576.78 $75,763.77

Total 100.00 $2,656,193,795.43 $1,401,653.78

Table continued on the following page.

I-19
Table I-8--Continued

Iron construction castings from China: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal years

2001-091 2

Year Claimant

Share of

yearly

allocation

Certification

amount3

Amount

disbursed

Percent4 Dollars

2004

Alhambra Foundry 2.77 $80,992,632.00 $12,846.87

Allegheny Foundry 1.00 $29,097,183.28 $4,615.33

East Jordan 37.06 $1,082,893,137.71 $171,766.09

LeBaron Foundry 6.66 $194,584,818.34 $30,864.61

Municipal Castings 1.07 $31,138,910.99 $4,939.18

Neenah 44.20 $1,291,269,192.65 $204,818.23

Tyler Pipe 1.93 $56,241,629.69 $8,920.92

U.S. Foundry 5.32 $155,550,371.01 $24,673.05

Total 100.00 $2,921,767,875.67 $463,444.28

2005

Alhambra Foundry 2.61 $84,318,336.00 $24,985.47

East Jordan 37.80 $1,219,776,571.55 $361,447.99

LeBaron Foundry 6.56 $211,700,230.73 $62,731.67

Municipal Castings 1.00 $32,136,305.72 $9,522.73

Neenah 44.54 $1,437,459,668.42 $425,952.53

Tyler Pipe 2.11 $68,067,131.77 $20,169.86

U.S. Foundry 5.38 $173,683,183.96 $51,466.34

Total 100.00 $3,227,141,428.15 $956,276.60

2006

Alhambra Foundry 2.45 $88,149,915.73 $48.60

East Jordan 38.15 $1,374,014,923.00 $757.47

LeBaron Foundry 6.29 $226,682,103.06 $124.97

Municipal Castings 0.99 $35,556,657.71 $19.60

Neenah 44.22 $1,592,595,721.19 $877.97

Tyler Pipe 2.13 $76,767,190.91 $42.32

U.S. Foundry 5.77 $207,943,693.62 $114.64

Total 100.00 $3,601,710,205.22 $1,985.56

Table continued on the following page.

I-20
Table I-8--Continued

Iron construction castings from China: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal years

2001-091 2

Year Claimant

Share of

yearly

allocation

Certification

amount3

Amount

disbursed

Percent4 Dollars

2007

Alhambra Foundry 0.00 $91,948,027.13 $0.00

East Jordan 0.00 $1,516,932,587.63 $0.00

LeBaron Foundry 0.00 $242,844,500.09 $0.00

Municipal Castings 0.00 $38,544,265.11 $0.00

Neenah 0.00 $1,748,362,149.93 $0.00

Tyler Pipe 0.00 $76,767,148.59 $0.00

U.S. Foundry 0.00 $221,336,595.98 $0.00

Total 0.00 $3,936,735,274.46 $0.00

2008

Alhambra Foundry 2.51 $91,948,076.00 $1,572.81

East Jordan 41.33 $1,516,932,587.63 $25,947.74

LeBaron Foundry 0.44 $15,968,574.09 $273.15

Neenah 47.60 $1,747,051,438.82 $29,884.01

Tyler Pipe 2.09 $76,767,180.91 $1,313.13

U.S. Foundry 6.03 $2,213,365,950.98 $3,786.05

Total 100.00 $3,670,004,453.43 $62,776.89

2009

Alhambra Foundry 2.57 $91,946,454.32 $5,539.90

East Jordan 42.40 $1,516,906,639.89 $91,395.67

Neenah 48.84 $1,747,021,554.81 $105,260.41

U.S. Foundry 6.19 $221,332,809.93 $13,335.60

Total 100.00 $3,577,207,458.95 $215,531.58

 1 The Federal fiscal year is October 1-September 30.

 2

 No CDSOA claims and disbursements were made with respect to iron construction castings from China prior to

2001.

 3

 Qualifying expenditures incurred by domestic producers since the issuance of an order.

 4

 Total presented as reported in Annual Report may not add to figures shown.

Source: Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2001-09,

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.

I-21
Related Commission Investigations and Reviews

On October 8, 1980, the Commission published its determination that an industry in the United

States was materially injured by reason of imports of certain iron metal castings from India that were

being subsidized by the Government of India.23 On October 16, 1980, Commerce issued a countervailing

duty order in regards to the subject merchandise from India.24 On November 2, 1998, the Commission

instituted a five-year review concerning the countervailing duty order on India. On October 29, 1999, the

Commission determined that revocation of the countervailing duty on iron metal castings from India

would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United

States within a reasonably foreseeable time,25 and Commerce revoked the countervailing duty order

effective January 1, 2000.26

On December 18, 1980, the Commission made an affirmative preliminary determination

concerning imports of certain iron construction castings from India that were alleged to be sold at LTFV. 

Commerce subsequently issued a negative determination as to the existence of LTFV sales,27 and the

Commission’s investigation was terminated.

On January 19, 1984, the Commission instituted investigation No. 332-176, Competitive

Assessment of the U.S. Foundry Industry, of which Part III dealt with iron construction castings.28 On

December 2, 1985, the Commission instituted investigation No. TA-201-58, Certain Metal Castings, and

at the end of its investigation made a negative determination.29

The Commission also conducted a countervailing duty investigation of light iron construction

castings from Brazil. In August 1987, the Commission terminated the countervailing duty investigation

of light iron construction castings from Brazil in response to petitioners’ withdrawal of the petition.30 The

termination followed an affirmative preliminary determination31 on remand from a decision of the Court

of International Trade holding that the statute required those allegedly subsidized imports from Brazil to

be cumulated with allegedly LTFV imports of light iron construction castings from Brazil and other

countries.32

 23 Certain Iron-Metal Castings from India: Investigation No. 303-TA-13 (Final), USITC Publication 1098,

September 1980.

 24 The scope of the order consisted of manhole covers and frames, clean-out covers and frames, and catch basin

grates and frames, which are defined as heavy iron construction castings in these current reviews. Certain Iron

Metal Castings From India: Countervailing Duty Order, 45 FR 68650, October 16, 1980.

 25 Iron Metal Castings From India; Heavy Iron Construction Castings From Brazil; and Iron Construction

Castings From Brazil, Canada, and China, 64 FR 58442, October 29, 1999; determination upheld in Neenah

Foundry Co. v. United States, 25 CIT 766, 155 F. Supp. 2d 766 (2001).

 26 Revocation of Countervailing Duty Order: Iron Metal Castings From India, 64 FR 61602, November 12, 1999.

 27 Certain Iron Metal Castings From India; Antidumping: Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair

Value, 46 FR 39871, August 5, 1981.

 28 Competitive Assessment of the U.S. Foundry Industry: Investigation No. 332-176, USITC Publication 1582,

September 1984.

 29 Certain Metal Castings: Investigation No. TA-201-58, USITC Publication 1849, June 1986.

 30 Certain Light Iron Construction Castings From Brazil, 52 FR 29902, August 12, 1987.

 31 Iron Construction Castings From Brazil (Light), 51 FR 12217, April 9, 1986.

 32 Bingham & Taylor, Division, Virginia Industries, Inc. V. United States, 10 CIT 67, 627 F. Supp. 793 (1986),

aff’d 815 F. 2d 1482 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

I-22
THE PRODUCT

Scope

The imported product subject to the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders under

review is heavy and light iron construction castings, provided for in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (“HTSUS”) in subheading 7325.10. The specific production definitions for each subject

country vary somewhat and are outlined below according to the most recent Federal Register notices.33

Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil

The merchandise subject to the countervailing duty order consists of:

. . . certain heavy iron construction castings from Brazil. The merchandise is defined as manhole

covers, rings and frames; catch basin grates and frames; and cleanout covers and frames used for

drainage or access purposes for public utility, water and sanitary systems. The merchandise is

currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) item number 7325.10.00. The

HTS item number subject to the CVD order is provided for convenience and customs purposes.

The written product description remains dispositive.

Heavy and Light Iron Construction Castings from Brazil

The merchandise covered by the antidumping duty order consists of:

. . . certain iron construction castings from Brazil, limited to manhole covers, rings, and frames,

catch basin grates and frames, cleanout covers and frames used for drainage or access purposes

for public utility, water and sanitary systems, classifiable as heavy castings under Harmonized

Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 7325.10.0010; and to valve, service, and meter boxes which

are placed below ground to encase water, gas, or other valves, or water and gas meters,

classifiable as light castings under HTS item number 7325.10.0050. The HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written product description remains

dispositive.

Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Canada

The merchandise covered by the antidumping duty order consists of:

. . . certain iron construction castings from Canada, limited to manhole covers, rings, and frames,

catch basin grates and frames, clean-out covers, and frames used for drainage or access purposes

for public utility, water and sanitary systems, classifiable as heavy castings under HTS item

number 7325.10.0010. The HTS item number is provided for convenience and customs purposes

only. The written product description remains dispositive.

 33 For the scope product definitions included in this report, see Certain Iron Construction Castings From Brazil,

Canada, and the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping

Duty Orders, 75 FR 54595, September 8, 2010; Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Heavy Iron Construction

Castings From Brazil, 75 FR 54596, September 8, 2010.

I-23
Heavy and Light Iron Construction Castings from China

The merchandise covered by the antidumping duty order are:

. . .certain iron construction castings from the PRC, limited to manhole covers, rings and frames,

catch basin grates and frames, cleanout covers and drains used for drainage or access purposes for

public utilities, water and sanitary systems; and valve, service, and meter boxes which are placed

below ground to encase water, gas, or other valves, or water or gas meters. These articles must be

of cast iron, not alloyed, and not malleable. This merchandise is currently classifiable under the

HTS item numbers 7325.10.0010 and 7325.10.0050. The HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. The written product description remains dispositive.

Commerce has completed and published 13 separate scope rulings since the original

investigations. Commerce has completed a fourteenth request, but the ruling has not been published in

the Federal Register. The requestors, outcomes, and completion dates of Commerce’s scope rulings are

listed in table I-9.

U.S. Tariff Treatment

The heavy and light iron construction castings subject to these reviews currently are classified in

HTSUS subheading 7325.10.00. During the period examined in the original investigations, heavy iron

castings and light iron castings were provided for, in part, under Tariff Schedule for the United States,

Annotated (“TSUSA”) item 657.0990. Upon conversion to the HTSUS, iron construction castings

initially were imported under statistical reporting numbers 7325.10.0010 (manhole covers, rings, and

frames) and 7325.10.0050 (other). However, effective July 1, 1999, under changes approved by the

Committee for Statistical Annotation of the Tariff Schedules, heavy and light castings are now reported

under the following statistical reporting numbers (with explanatory descriptors added for clarity): 

7325.10.0010 - Manhole covers, rings and frames (heavy)

7325.10.0020 - Catch basins, grates and frames (heavy)

7325.10.0025 - Cleanout covers and frames (heavy)

7325.10.0030 - Valve and service boxes (light)

7325.10.0035 - Meter boxes (light)

7325.10.0080 - Other

The general or NTR rate of duty for merchandise entering the United States under HTSUS subheading

7325.10 is “free” and applies to products of Brazil, Canada, and China.

I-24
Table I-9

Iron construction castings: Commerce’s scope rulings

Subject

country Requestor Scope ruling

Date of

completion

Federal

Register

citation

China

Customs/CNI

Manufacturing

Exclusion request granted. Certain

light-weight iron rings, not suitable for

use with manhole covers, are not

covered by the order. June 15, 1992

57 FR 32973

(July 24, 1992)

Brazil Southland Marketing

Exclusion request granted. 

DGO700 frame and DG0641 grate are

outside the scope of the order. April 28, 1995

60 FR 36782

(July 18, 1995)

China

Jack's International

Trading Associates, Ltd.

Exclusion request granted. Cast

iron, floor area drains (area drains)

imported by Jack's are outside the

scope of the order. 

August, 28,

1995

60 FR 54213

(October 20,

1995)

China Metraflex Company

Exclusion request granted. Certain

“Y” pipe strainers, imported by

Metraflex Company, are outside the

scope of the order.

August, 13,

1997

62 FR 62288

(November 21,

1997)

China Westview Sales, Ltd.

Exclusion request denied. Imports

of manhole frames and solid covers

are within the scope of the order.

October 17,

2003

70 FR 24533

(May 10,

2005)

China

Frank J. Martin

Company

Exclusion request granted. Imports

of cast iron full-flanged rings and

certain cast iron gas lids are outside

the scope of the order.

October 17,

2003

70 FR 24533

(May 10,

2005)

China A.Y. McDonald Mfg. Co.

Exclusion request denied. Iron cast

bases, iron cast upper bodies, and

iron cast lids are within the scope of

the antidumping duty order.

September 7,

2005

70 FR 70785

(November 23,

2005)

Exclusion request granted. Meter

box frames, covers, and extension

rings are excluded from the scope of

the antidumping duty order.

China

Unisource International,

Inc.

Exclusion request granted. Its

Polycast Series 700 Frame and Grate

are not covered by the order.

August 8,

2006

71 FR 66167

(November 13,

2006)

China A.Y. McDonald Mfg. Co.

Exclusion request granted. The

requestor’s cast iron bases and upper

bodies for meter boxes are not within

the scope of the antidumping duty

order.

January 18,

2007

72 FR 23802

(May 1, 2007)

Canada

Brazil

China

Deeter, East Jordan,

LeBaron Foundry, Leed

Foundry, Municipal

Castings, Neenah, Tyler

Pipe, and U.S. Foundry

Exclusion request denied. Iron

construction castings made of gray

and ductile cast iron are included

within the scope of the antidumping

and countervailing duty orders. May 3, 2007

72 FR 43245

(August 3,

2007)

China A.Y. McDonald Mfg. Co.

Exclusion request granted. Cast

iron lids and bases independently

sourced from the PRC for its “Arch

Pattern” and “Minneapolis Pattern” 

curb boxes are not within the scope of

the antidumping duty order. July 21, 2008

73 FR 72771

(December 1,

2008)

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

I-25
Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry

The domestic like product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in

the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the subject merchandise. The domestic

industry is the collection of U.S. producers as a whole of the domestic like product, or those producers

whose collective output of the domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic

production of the product. In its original determinations, its full first five-year review determinations, and

its expedited second five-year review determinations concerning iron construction castings from Brazil,

Canada, and China, the Commission found two separate domestic like products: “heavy” and “light” iron

construction castings. The Commission also consistently found two separate domestic industries for all

domestic producers of the corresponding domestic like products.34

Generally, foundries producing iron construction castings are dedicated to producing only one

type of casting. Because of the high degree of specialization of product lines and mechanization of

production operations, shifting of production between light and heavy castings generally does not occur. 

At the time of the original investigations, five of the six largest producers of iron construction castings

produced either light or heavy castings, but not both.35 In these current five-year reviews, two of the five

responding producers, East Jordan and Neenah, produce both heavy and light castings, while U.S.

Foundry and D&L Foundry produce only heavy castings and Vestal produces only light castings. The

domestic interested parties indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in these

current reviews that they are in agreement with the Commission’s definitions of two separate domestic

like products and domestic industries.

Physical Characteristics and Uses36

Heavy Iron Construction Castings

Heavy construction castings are used for drainage or access purposes by utilities and

municipalities in storm drainage, water transportation and water treatment, sanitary systems, natural gas

transmission, and highways systems. Heavy construction castings are typically installed by general

contractors or less frequently by municipal work crews. Manhole sets, consisting of a cover and a frame,

 34 The current antidumping duty orders on iron construction castings from Brazil and China cover both heavy and

light iron construction castings, whereas the countervailing duty order on iron construction castings from Brazil and

the antidumping duty order on iron construction castings from Canada cover only heavy iron construction castings. 

The Commission’s original determination and the original antidumping duty order on iron construction castings from

Canada covered both heavy and light castings; however, the order was subsequently revoked in part by Commerce to

exclude light iron construction castings. Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Iron Construction Castings From

Canada, 51 FR 7600, March 5, 1986; Antidumping Duty Order; Iron Construction Castings From Brazil, 51 FR

17220, May 9, 1986; Countervailing Duty Order; Certain Heavy Iron Construction Castings From Brazil, 51 FR

17786, May 15, 1986; Iron Construction Castings From Canada; Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value and Amendment to Antidumping Duty Order, 51 FR 34110, September 25, 1986; Iron

Construction Castings From Canada: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 63 FR 49688, September 17, 1998; Iron

Construction Castings From Canada: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order: Correction, 63 FR 50881, September

23, 1998).

 35 Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, India, and the People’s Republic of China: Investigation Nos. 731-

TA-262, 264, and 265 (Final), USITC Publication 1838, April 1986, p. 6.

 36 Unless otherwise noted, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Certain Iron

Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-249 and 731-TA-262, 263, and

265 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3781, June 2005.

I-26
and sometimes accessory parts such as rings, constitute the bulk of both domestic production and imports

of heavy construction castings. Heavy castings generally range in weight from 270 to 1,000 pounds (123

to 454 kg) and are produced by the sand cast method. High-performance construction castings, such as

those used in airport runways, are increasingly being made of ductile iron, a stronger and more expensive

material than gray iron.

Although the basic configuration of the heavy construction castings included in these reviews

vary little, there are many models of each of these products. Individual models are distinguished by their

dimensions, markings, vents, pick holes, and other characteristics. Some differences in the models result

from the different weather and wear problems characteristic of the different regions in which they are

used. For example, castings used in the Northwest are designed to handle heavy rain runoff, whereas

those sold in the Southwest are designed to prevent clogging with sand.

Other differences result from the preferences of the individual municipalities and utilities that are

the end users of these products. Domestic foundries, by virtue of their proximity to the end users and

construction supply distributors, require relatively short lead times and can fill most orders for less

popular or customized models without maintaining inventories of such items. Importers, with their longer

lead times, generally handle only the faster-moving, more standardized models because of the resulting

inventory carrying costs incurred in supplying a complete range of products. Thus, while domestic

producers may typically handle 4,000 to 5,000 items, importers may carry only 150 to 200.

Light Iron Construction Castings

Light construction castings consist of valve, service, and meter boxes. These products are used

by utilities and municipalities to encase the underground valves and meters of water, gas, or other

utilities, and to provide access to this equipment for periodic adjustment or readings. Light castings are

also manufactured in sets, usually containing three pieces – a base, a top, and a cover with lettering and/or

a pattern. Light castings generally range in weight from 10 to 120 pounds (4.5 to 55 kg) and are produced

in the United States by sand cast, shell mold, or permanent mold processes. Such castings are

manufactured in a range of dimensions, but are relatively standardized nationwide. Valve, service, and

meter boxes must reach below the frost line and consequently the type of boxes used in Northern regions

may differ from those used in Southern regions. Light castings are typically made of gray iron, but other

materials are increasingly being used. For natural gas applications, the underground sections and,

occasionally, the covers of valve, service, and meter boxes, are increasingly made of plastic.

Manufacturing Process37

Heavy Iron Construction Castings

Foundries produce iron castings by pouring molten iron into sand molds, allowing the iron to cool

and solidify, and removing (“shaking out”) the solidified casting from the mold for finishing and sale. 

The molten iron is produced from pig and scrap iron, coke, and limestone in cupola furnaces, but can also

be made in electric furnaces. The molds into which the iron is poured are produced in several ways. The

sand-cast method is used to produce heavy castings and, in some foundries, light castings. In this process,

green sand38 is packed into metal frames (“flasks”) fitted with wood or metal patterns bearing the external

shapes of the finished castings. Each mold consists of two flasks of sand – the “cope” with the pattern of 

 37 Unless otherwise noted, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Certain Iron

Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-249 and 731-TA-262, 263, and

265 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3781, June 2005.

 38 Green sand is sand mixed (“mulled”) with a water-based binder, such as bentonite.

I-27
the casting’s top half and the “drag” with the bottom half. After the sand has been packed firmly, the

patterns are removed and the cope and drag are joined such that an internal cavity having the shape of the

entire casting is created. Molten iron is poured into this cavity. After a cooling period, the green sand

mold is shaken loose from the iron casting. Once completely cooled, the casting is finished, stored, and

allowed to rust slightly to protect the casting from further deterioration. The green sand is reprocessed

and used for further molds.

Light Iron Construction Castings

Light castings have some inner surfaces that can be formed only with sand “cores” inserted into

the cavity before the cope and drag are closed. Molten iron is poured into the mold cavity via a hole

(“sprue”) cut through the sand. After the iron cools, the casting is shaken out of the sand on shaker belts,

and the sand from the molds and cores in reprocessed for further use. The casting is then particle blasted

or ground to remove rough edges and overpourings, and then dip-painted or sold as is.

The shell mold process used by some producers to make light castings is similar to the sand cast

method, except that the cores are made of resin-treated sand, which is baked and placed inside a metal

mold. The sand-resin mold is designed to burn and separate itself from the iron casting at 1,200 degrees

Fahrenheit. Some foundries produce light castings in permanent molds. These molds are made of a metal

with a higher melting point than that of the cast gray iron and, instead of being discarded after each pour,

are used for up to several thousand pours. However, initial tooling costs for permanent molds are high;

therefore, the process is economical only for high-volume, standardized production.

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

In the only full review that has been conducted on the subject orders, the Commission observed

that iron construction castings “are routinely divided by U.S. industry terminology and usage into two

categories: ‘heavy’ construction castings, and ‘light’ construction castings. Heavy castings are used for

drainage or access purposes by utilities and municipalities in storm drainage, water transportation and

water treatment, sanitary systems, natural gas transmission, and highway systems. Heavy castings

generally weigh from 270 to 1,000 pounds. Light construction castings, in contrast, are used by utilities

and municipalities to encase the underground valves and meters of water, gas, or other utilities and to

provide access to this equipment for periodic adjustment or readings. Light castings generally weigh

from 10 to 120 pounds. Having different functions and configurations, heavy castings and light castings

are not interchangeable in end use and are perceived by producers and customers as separate products.”39

Neither the staff report in the second (expedited) reviews nor the response to the notice of institution by

the domestic interested parties in the current (expedited) reviews suggest new or increasingly overlapping

applications for heavy or light castings.

With respect to the U.S.-produced and imported construction castings, there has been general

agreement in the past that such products are, within their specific applications, usually considered

interchangeable. However, the use of imported castings is in certain instances prohibited by domestic

content provisions. According to the staff report in the first reviews (the only full review of the subject

orders), “Buy American” sales40 accounted for 14 percent of the domestic sales of the largest U.S.

 39 Iron Metal Castings from India, Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, and Iron Construction

Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China: Investigation Nos. 303-TA-13, 701-TA-249, and 731-TA-262, 263 and

265 (Review), USITC Publication 3247, October 1999, p. 7.

 40 “Buy America” requirements apply to iron construction castings that are purchased for the Federal-aid highway

construction program (highways, bridges, transit systems, and terminals). Under “Buy America,” Federal-aid funds

may not be obligated for a project unless iron construction castings used in such projects are manufactured in the

(continued...)

I-28
producers of heavy iron castings and 28 percent of the domestic sales of the largest U.S. producers of

light iron castings in 1997 and 1998. At that time, 11 of 15 purchasers of heavy iron castings indicated

that such policies affected their purchases, while three of 10 purchasers of light iron castings reported an

effect.41

Channels of Distribution

Domestic foundries are in close proximity to the municipalities and construction supply

distributors.42 In the original investigations, staff noted that the vast bulk of construction castings are

ultimately purchased and used by utilities, municipalities, and other such entities for civil construction

purposes. Hence, iron construction castings have limited channels of distribution and end markets. 

Respondents to producer questionnaires reported that 35 percent of their shipments of iron construction

castings went to distributors and 65 percent went to other markets (e.g., contractors, firms that construct

municipal water and other utility systems, municipalities, and so forth). Importers that responded to the

questionnaire reported that 60 percent of their shipments went to distributors. The higher proportion of

sales to distributors by importers is typical of metalworking industries’ markets.43

In the first five-year reviews, the Commission noted that U.S. sales of heavy castings are made

through similar channels of distribution.44 Based on the Commission's last large-scale survey of market

participants, the majority of domestically produced heavy iron castings were sold to distributors (57

percent in 1998), with a not insubstantial share of sales directly to end users (43 percent). With respect to

light iron castings, 86 percent of sales of domestically produced castings were sold to distributors and 14

percent were directly to end users. To the extent that such data were available for imported product, they

suggested a similar focus on distributor sales.45

 40 (...continued)

United States (with limited exceptions based on the product cost or its share of the original contract value). In

addition, under an alternate-bid procedure, foreign-source materials may be used if the total project bid using

foreign-source materials is 25 percent less than the lowest total bid using domestic materials. “Buy American” is a

separate and distinct program from “Buy America,” and has completely different rules. The Buy American Act,

which covers specified products, requires the Federal Government to purchase domestic goods and services unless

the head of the agency involved in the procurement has determined that the prices of the domestic suppliers are

“unreasonable” or that their purchase would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” Buy America and Buy

American program descriptions are based on information from Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from China: 

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Final), USITC Publication 4162, June 2010, p. 13.

 41 Iron Metal Castings from India, Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, and Iron Construction

Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China: Investigation Nos. 303-TA-13, 701-TA-249, and 731-TA-262, 263 and

265 (Review), USITC Publication 3247, October 1999, pp. II-8-II-9.

 42 Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, India, and the People’s Republic of China: Investigation Nos. 731-

TA-262, 264, and 265 (Final), USITC Publication 1838, April 1986, p. A-5.

 43 Ibid., p. A-10.

 44 Certain Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-249 and

731-TA-262, 263, and 265 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3781, June 2005, p. 9.

 45 Iron Metal Castings from India, Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, and Iron Construction

Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China: Investigation Nos. 303-TA-13, 701-TA-249, and 731-TA-262, 263 and

265 (Review), USITC Publication 3247, October 1999, p. II-1.

I-29
Pricing

Based on the Commission's last large-scale survey of market participants, U.S. producers (and

importers) utilized a combination of price lists and transaction-by-transaction negotiations to establish

prices. The vast majority of sales of both domestic and imported product were on a spot basis, but

producers and importers alike were divided on the practice of offering discounts, although those that did

generally provided discounts on the basis of prompt or early payment.46

Heavy Iron Construction Castings

In the original investigations, the Commission found that there was a general underselling of

imports of heavy construction castings from Canada, Brazil, India, and China.47 In the period of examined

for the first five-year reviews, Canadian imports of heavy castings undersold domestic heavy castings in

every quarter examined.48 There has been no new price data on imports of heavy castings from Brazil,

Canada, or China since the first reviews. In these current reviews, the domestic interested parties

indicated in their response to the notice of institution that raw material costs for iron construction castings

have increased and driven a price increase for the products, which has been passed through and greatly

decreased the margin of underselling.49 Specifically, the domestic interested parties submitted 2009

average unit value (“AUV”) comparisons and margins of underselling for heavy iron construction

castings, as presented in the following tabulation.

Supplier AUV ($/pound) Margin of

underselling (%)

United States *** --

Brazil 0.72 ***

Canada 0.54 ***

China 0.83 ***

Source: U.S. domestic shipment average unit value, 2009; official Commerce statistics,

HTS statistical reporting number 7325.10.0010; Response of domestic interested

parties, June 2, 2010, p. 15.

Light Iron Construction Castings

In the original investigations, the available pricing data for one Brazilian light castings product

demonstrated margins of underselling in excess of 10 percent throughout 1985, while light castings from

China undersold the domestic product in each quarter from 1983 to 1985, in most periods by margins of

 46 Iron Metal Castings from India, Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, and Iron Construction

Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China: Investigation Nos. 303-TA-13, 701-TA-249, and 731-TA-262, 263 and

265 (Review), USITC Publication 3247, October 1999, pp. V-5 and V-6.

 47 Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, India, and the People’s Republic of China: Investigation Nos. 701-

TA-249 and 731-TA-262, 264, and 265 (Final), USITC Publication 1838, April 1986, p. 15.

 48 Iron Metal Castings from India, Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, and Iron Construction

Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China: Investigation Nos. 303-TA-13, 701-TA-249, and 731-TA-262, 263, and

265 (Review), USITC Publication 3247, October 1999, pp. 22-23.

 49 Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, p. 15.

I-30
approximately 30 percent.50 There has been no new price data on imports of light castings from China or

Brazil since the original investigations.

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

The 1985 petitions concerning Brazil, Canada, and China were filed by the Municipal Castings

Fair Trade Council (“MCFTC”).51 In the original investigations, the Commission found that, as of 1983,

iron construction castings were produced in the United States in approximately 40 foundries on a regular

basis and in number of small jobber foundries on an intermittent basis. In the first full five-year reviews,

the Commission found 13 producers of iron construction castings. In the second five-year reviews, the

domestic interested parties reported 12 producers of iron construction castings.

The domestic interested parties indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of

institution in these current reviews that since the Commission’s second five-year review of the orders

completed in 2005, the U.S. industry has been characterized by foundry closures, consolidations, and a

company bankruptcy. In 2008, East Jordan closed its Denham Springs, LA foundry and a production line

at its East Jordan, MI production facility. In October 2008, LeBaron Foundry, Inc., one of the original

petitioners, ceased its operations, located in Brockton, MA. In April 2009, Leed Foundry in St. Clair, PA

ceased operations.52 East Jordan, which has acquired no fewer than 15 firms since the original

countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders,53 acquired certain assets of LeBaron Foundry in 2008.54

In addition, in 2006, East Jordan acquired the municipal castings business, but not the manufacturing

facilities, of a Canadian manufacturer, McCoy Foundry, and set up a subsidiary, McCoy Construction

Castings, to distribute CCC in Canada.55 The parent company of Neenah Foundry, Neenah Enterprises

Inc., filed for bankruptcy protection in February 2010, citing a decline in sales volume.56 Neenah

emerged from bankruptcy in July 2010, having reduced its debt by more than $270 million.57

At the time of the original investigations, there were approximately 40 U.S. producers of

domestic heavy and light iron construction castings. The top eight producers of construction castings

 50 Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, India, and the People’s Republic of China: Investigation Nos. 701-

TA-249 and 731-TA-262, 264, and 265 (Final), USITC Publication 1838, April 1986, p. 23.

 51 At the time of the filing of the original petitions the MCFTC was comprised of the following 15 firms: 

Alhambra Foundry, Inc.; Allegheny Foundry Co.; Bingham & Taylor; Campbell Foundry Co. (“Campbell”);

Charlotte Pipe & Foundry Co.; Deeter Foundry (“Deeter”); East Jordan; LeBaron Foundry; Municipal Castings;

Neenah; Opelika Fopundry Co., Inc.; Pinkerton Foundry, Inc.; Tyler Pipe Co. (“Tyler Pipe”); U.S. Foundry; and

Vulcan Foundry, Inc.

 52 Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, p. 26-27.

 53 East Jordan Iron Works Acquisitions. http://www.ejiw.com/acquisitions-11/. Retrieved on August 5, 2010.

 54 Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, p. 26.

 55 McCoy History. http://www.mccoycc.com/about-us.html.

 56 “Neenah Enterprises Files for Bankruptcy Protection.” Bloomberg Businessweek. February 5, 2010.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-05/neenah-enterprises-files-for-bankruptcy-protection-indelaware.html.

 57 Neenah Enterprises News Release. “Neenah Enterprises, Inc. Announces Successful Emergence from

Bankruptcy.” July 30, 2010. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/neenah-enterprises-inc-announcessuccessful-emergence-from-bankruptcy-99624374.html.

I-31
accounted for 60 percent of U.S. production.58 In 1998 at the time of the first reviews, the top four firms

accounted for 79 percent of the U.S. industry for heavy construction castings, and the top producing firm

for light castings, ***, alone accounted for *** percent of all light iron construction castings production.59

In 2003 during the second review process, seven firms produced an estimated *** percent of heavy

castings and *** percent of light castings.60 In these current reviews, the top three firms account for an

estimated *** percent of U.S. domestic production of heavy iron construction castings, while the three

largest producers of light iron construction castings account for an estimated *** percent of production.61

This reflects the pattern of consolidation the industry has undergone since the original investigations 25

years ago.

In these current reviews, the domestic interested parties have identified 10 domestic producers of 

iron construction castings, of which seven produced heavy castings and six produced light castings. The

producers, their locations, and estimated shares of the 2009 domestic production of heavy and light iron

construction castings are listed in tables I-10 and I-11.

Table I-10

Heavy iron construction castings: U.S. producers, headquarters locations, and estimated

company shares of 2009 total domestic production

Firm

Headquarters

Location

Estimated share of 2009

domestic production

(percent)

Alhambra Foundry Alhambra, CA (1

)

Campbell Harrison, NJ (1

)

D&L Foundry Moses Lake, WA ***2

East Jordan East Jordan, MI ***

Municipal Castings Madison, MN (

1

)

Neenah Neenah, WI ***

U.S. Foundry Medley, FL ***

 Total ***3

 1 Not provided.

 2

 Legal counsel for the domestic interested parties provided trade and financial data on behalf of D&L Foundry,

but the data was not certified. See Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, pp. 4-5 n. 3.

 3

 When the production data for D&L Foundry is not included, the total share of 2009 domestic production as

reported by the domestic industry parties is *** percent.

Source: Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, pp.18-20.

 58 Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, India, and the People’s Republic of China: Investigation Nos. 701-

TA-249 and 731-TA-262, 264, and 265 (Final), USITC Publication 1838, April 1986, p. A-11.

 59 Staff Report on Iron Metal Castings from India, Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, and Iron

Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China, Investigation Nos. 303-TA-13, 701 -TA-249, and 731-TA262, 263, and 265 (Review), September 29, 1999 (INV-W-222), p. I-30.

 60 Staff Report on Certain Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China, Investigation Nos. 701-

TA-249 and 731-TA-262, 263, and 265 (Second Review), May 3, 2005 (INV-CC-060), p. I-14.

 61 Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, pp. 21-23.

I-32
Table I-11

Light iron construction castings: U.S. producers, headquarters locations, and estimated company

shares of 2009 total domestic production

Firm

Headquarters

Location

Estimated share of 2009

domestic production

(percent)

Alhambra Foundry Alhambra, CA (1

)

Bingham & Taylor Culpeper, VA (1

)

East Jordan East Jordan, MI ***

Neenah Neenah, WI ***

Tyler Pipe Tyler, TX (1

)

Vestal Sweetwater, TN ***2

 Total ***3

 1 Not provided.

 2

 Legal counsel for the domestic interested parties provided trade and financial data on behalf of Vestal

Manufacturing, but the data was not certified. See Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, pp. 4-5

n. 3.

 3

 When the production data for Vestal Manufacturing is not included, the total share of 2009 domestic

production as reported by the domestic industry parties is *** percent.

Source: Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, pp.18-20.

U.S. Producers’ Trade, Employment, and Financial Data

Three producers responded jointly and in a timely manner to the Commission’s notice of

institution for these subject reviews: East Jordan, Neenah, and U.S. Foundry. Information on the U.S.

industry is therefore based on the data provided by these three firms as well as data submitted on behalf of

D&L and Vestal. Information on the domestic industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and certain

financial indicators are presented in tables I-12 and I-13.

I-33
Table I-12

Heavy iron construction castings: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 1983-85,

1997-98, 2003 and 20091

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; unit values and unit labor costs=$/pound)

Item 1983 1984 1985 1997 1998 2003 2009

Capacity 390,782 413,827 458,432 523,626 533,763 (2) ***

Production 253,174 295,516 313,723 527,194 542,637 446,955 ***

Capacity utilization (percent) 64.8 71.4 68.4 100.7 101.7 (2

) ***

U.S. shipments:

 Quantity 323,000 376,000 407,000 518,062 543,430 448,273 ***

 Value ($1,000) (2

) (2) (2) 244,560 259,790 202,445 ***

 Unit value (

2

) (2) (

2

) $0.47 $0.48 $0.45 $***

Exports:

 Quantity <500 <500 <500 1,157 1,014 (2

) (2)

 Value ($1,000) (2

) (2) (2) 869 828 (2) (2)

 Unit value (

2

) (2) (2) $0.75 $0.82 (2) (2)

Total shipments:

 Quantity (2

) (2) (2) 519,219 544,444 (2) (2)

 Value ($1,000) (2

) (2) (2) 245,429 260,618 (2) (2)

 Unit value (

2

) (2) (2) $0.47 $0.48 (2) (2)

End-of-period inventories 54,339 59,195 60,726 109,884 108,077 (2

) (2)

Production and related workers

(number) 1,166 1,244 1,244 1,613 1,625 (2

) (2)

Hours worked (1,000 hours) 2,278 2,501 2,740 3,603 3,602 (2

) (2)

Wages paid ($1,000) 19,508 22,482 25,137 47,982 49,408 (2

) (2)

Hourly wages $8.56 $8.99 $9.17 $13.32 $13.72 (2

) (2)

Productivity (pounds/hour) 111.0 118.0 114.0 146.3 150.6 (2

) (2)

Unit labor costs (per pound) $0.09 $0.09 $0.10 $0.09 $0.09 (2

) (2)

Net sales ($1,000) 74,306 90,636 (2

) 242,758 257,939 (2) ***

Cost of goods sold ($1,000) 60,458 74,517 (2

) 172,537 182,262 (2) ***

Gross profit or (loss) ($1,000) (

2

) (2) (2) 70,221 75,677 (2) ***

SG&A expenses ($1,000) (2

) (2) (2) 38,993 35,611 (2) ***

Operating income or (loss) ($1,000) 544 2,470 (2

) 31,229 40,066 (2) ***

Operating income (loss)/sales

(percent) 0.7 2.7 (

2

) 12.9 15.5 (2) ***

 1 Data presented for 2009 were provided by four producers (East Jordan, Neenah, U.S. Foundry, and D&L Foundry) that are

believed to represent *** percent of heavy iron construction castings production during 2009.

 2

 Not available.

Note.–The fiscal year of Neenah ends September 30; the fiscal year of *** coincides with the calendar year.

Source: Staff reports from the original investigations and the first and second five-year reviews (1983-85, 1997-98, 2003);

Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, pp. 21-22 (2009).

I-34
Table I-13

Light iron construction castings: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 1983-85,

1997-98, 2003 and 20091

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; unit values and unit labor costs=$/pound)

Item 1983 1984 1985 1997 1998 2003 2009

Capacity 64,726 67,201 70,236 *** *** (2) ***

Production 46,417 50,911 45,694 *** *** *** ***

Capacity utilization (percent) 71.7 75.8 65.1 *** *** (2

) ***

U.S. shipments:

 Quantity 57,000 61,000 57,000 *** *** *** ***

 Value ($1,000) (2

) (2) (2) *** *** *** ***

 Unit value (

2

) (2) (

2

) $*** $*** $*** $***

Exports:

 Quantity (2

) (2) <500 *** 0 (2) (2)

 Value ($1,000) (2

) (2) (2) *** 0 (2) (2)

 Unit value (

2

) (2) (2) $*** (3) (2) (2)

Total shipments:

 Quantity (2

) (2) (2) *** *** (2) (2)

 Value ($1,000) (2

) (2) (2) *** *** (2) (2)

 Unit value (

2

) (2) (2) $*** $*** (2) (2)

End-of-period inventories 14,233 16,956 17,159 *** *** (2

) (2)

Production and related workers

(number) 369 397 342 *** *** (2

) (2)

Hours worked (1,000 hours) 449 501 554 *** *** (2

) (2)

Wages paid ($1,000) 4,874 5,600 6,119 *** *** (2

) (2)

Hourly wages $10.85 $11.17 $11.04 $*** $*** (2

) (2)

Productivity (pounds/hour) 110.0 102.0 82.0 *** *** (2

) (2)

Unit labor costs (per pound) $0.13 $0.13 $0.17 $*** $*** (2

) (2)

Net sales ($1,000) *** *** (2

) *** *** (2) ***

Cost of goods sold ($1,000) (2

) (2) (2) *** *** (2) ***

Gross profit or (loss) ($1,000) (

2

) (2) (2) *** *** (2) ***

SG&A expenses ($1,000) *** *** (2

) *** *** (2) ***

Operating income or (loss) ($1,000) *** *** (2

) *** *** (2) ***

Operating income (loss)/sales

(percent) *** *** (2

) *** *** (2) ***

 1 Data presented for 2009 were provided by three producers (East Jordan, Neenah, and Vestal) that are believed to represent

*** percent of heavy iron construction castings production during 2009.

 2

 Not available.

 3

 Not applicable.

Note.–The fiscal year of Neenah ends September 30; the fiscal year of *** coincides with the calendar year.

Source: Staff reports from the original investigations and the first and second five-year reviews (1983-85, 1997-98, 2003);

Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, pp. 23-24 (2009).

I-35
Related Party Issues

The domestic interested parties participating in these review reported in their response to the

Commission’s notice of institution that East Jordan and Tyler Pipe are each related to a producer of

subject merchandise in one of the subject countries. East Jordan is a sister company to Wuxi Norlong

Foundry Co., Ltd. in China. However, counsel reported that East Jordan does not import castings from

Wuxi Norlong into the United States. Tyler Pipe is related to Bibby Ste. Croix (Canadian foundry) and

Bibby USA (U.S. importer), all three of which are owned by U.S. firm McWane, Inc.62

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Cumulation

In assessing whether subject imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic

like product with respect to cumulation, the Commission generally has considered the following four

factors: (1) the degree of fungibility, including specific customer requirements and other quality-related

questions; (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets; (3) common channels of

distribution; and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. Channels of distribution and fungibility

(interchangeability) are discussed in the section of this report entitled “The Product.” Additional

information concerning geographical markets and simultaneous presence in the market is presented

below. 

Heavy Iron Construction Castings

In the original investigations, the Commission cumulated subject heavy castings imports from

what were then the four subject countries, Brazil, Canada, China, and India, after finding a reasonable

overlap among the importers and the domestics producers in regards to end users. In the first five-year

reviews, the Commission majority did not cumulate subject imports from India with those from Brazil,

Canada, and China. Subject imports from Brazil, Canada, and China were cumulated after the

Commission found a “reasonable overlap” of competition between the subject imports of heavy iron

construction castings and the domestic like product. In the second five-year reviews, based on the

absence of information indicating any changes in the likely overlap of competition, the Commission again

found a reasonable overlap of competition and cumulated subject imports from Brazil, Canada, and

China.63

In terms of geographical markets, official statistics indicate that U.S. imports of heavy iron

construction castings primarily entered the United States from the subject countries through the following

districts during 2004-09:

C Brazil: Houston, TX; Tampa, FL; and Norfolk, VA;

C Canada: Ogdensburg, NY and St. Albans, VT; and

C China: Houston, TX; Los Angeles, CA; New York, NY; and San Francisco, CA.

In terms of presence in the market, U.S. imports of heavy iron construction castings from Brazil

entered the United States in 45 of 72 months during 2004-09. U.S. imports of heavy iron construction

castings from both Canada and China entered the United States in all 72 months during this period.

 62 Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, pp. 18-20.

 63 Certain Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-249 and 731-

TA-262, 263, and 265 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3781, June 2005, pp. 9-14 and nn. 32-34.

I-36
Light Iron Construction Castings

In the original investigations, the Commission did not cumulate the subject light castings imports

from Brazil and China in its threat of material injury determinations. In the first five-year reviews, the

Commission cumulated the volume and effect of subject imports of light iron construction castings from

Brazil and China after finding a “reasonable overlap” of competition between the subject imports and the

domestic like product. In the second five-year reviews, based on the absence of information indicating

any changes in the likely overlap of competition, the Commission again found a reasonable overlap of

competition and cumulated Brazil and China.64

In terms of geographical markets, official statistics indicate that U.S. imports of light iron

construction castings primarily entered the United States from the subject countries through the following

districts during 2004-09:

C Brazil: New York, NY; and 

C China: Houston, TX; Los Angeles, CA; and Charlotte, NC.

In terms of presence in the market, U.S. imports of light iron construction castings from Brazil

entered the United States in 42 of 72 months during 2004-09. U.S. imports of light iron construction

castings from China entered the United States in 65 months during this period.

U.S. Imports

Table I-14 presents information on U.S. imports of heavy iron construction castings from Brazil,

Canada, and China, and table I-15 presents information on imports of light iron construction castings

from Brazil and China between 1983 and 1985 and 1997 and 2009. Tables I-16 and I-17 provide data on

imports from nonsubject countries.

 64 Ibid., pp. 9-10.

I-37
I-38

Table I-14Heavy iron construction castings: U.S. imports, by source, 1983-85, 1997-98, and 2000-09

Source 1983 1984 1985 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Brazil 1,873 11,328 19,508 227 73 -- 1,146 607 505 391 1,458 838 2Canada 8,635 14,313 21,004 11,879 10,178 -- 10,912 12,223 9,921 9,557 12,834 10,747 8China 10,799 15,123 19,482 518 1,279 -- 4,217 2,131 1,179 2,285 3,462 5,674 6Subtotal 21,307 40,764 59,994 12,624 11,530 -- 16,274 14,962 11,605 12,233 17,754 17,260 17All other 60,888 99,406 93,792 129,208 128,388 -- 188,389 146,686 178,245 170,256 186,047 188,207 189

 Total 82,195 140,170 153,786 141,832 139,918 -- 204,663 161,648 189,851 182,488 203,801 205,466 207

Value (1,000 dollars)1

Brazil 255 1,473 2,911 67 37 -- 261 171 133 156 686 711 1Canada 2,352 3,461 5,128 3,799 3,558 -- 4,038 4,370 3,714 3,359 5,171 4,892 4China (2) (2) (2) 339 588 -- 1,366 752 547 1,136 2,130 3,496 4

 Subtotal (2) (2) (2) 4,205 4,183 -- 5,665 5,293 4,394 4,652 7,988 9,098 10All other (2) (2) (2) 29,288 29,704 -- 43,562 32,954 37,215 38,819 61,134 66,140 63Total (2) (2) (2) 33,493 33,887 -- 49,227 38,247 41,608 43,470 69,121 75,238 74

Unit value (per pound)

Brazil $0.14 $0.13 $0.15 $0.30 $0.51 -- $0.23 $0.28 $0.26 $0.40 $0.47 $0.85 $Canada 0.27 0.24 0.24 0.32 0.35 -- 0.37 0.36 0.37 0.35 0.40 0.46 

China (2) (2) (2) 0.65 0.46 -- 0.32 0.35 0.46 0.50 0.62 0.62 

Subtotal (2) (2) (2) 0.33 0.36 -- 0.35 0.35 0.38 0.38 0.45 0.53 All other (2) (2) (2) 0.23 0.23 -- 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.23 0.33 0.35  Average (2) (2) (2) 0.24 0.24 -- 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.34 0.37 

1 Landed, duty-paid.2 Not available.3 Not applicable.

Note.–U.S. import data for 1999 are unavailable as a result of the change in the HTSUS effective July 1, 1999.Note.--Data for 1983-85 are for U.S. shipments of imports. Data for 1983-85 do not contain imports under former TSUSA item 657.0990, which encompassed castings and subject and nonsubject light iron construction castings.Source: Compiled from data presented in the staff reports in the original investigation, the first and second five-year reviews, and official Commerce statistics.
I-39

Table I-15Light iron construction castings: U.S. imports, by source, 1983-85, 1997-98, and 2000-09

Source 1983 1984 1985 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Brazil 0 780 1,640 0 0 -- 63 409 222 882 661 529 China 927 1,608 1,644 0 *** -- 1,294 1,884 1,556 2,526 940 978 1Subtotal 927 2,388 3,284 0 *** -- 1,357 2,293 1,778 3,408 1,601 1,507 1All other 18,228 27,753 33,933 30,073 *** -- 99,630 104,063 81,910 83,776 102,241 113,868 113 Total 19,155 30,141 37,217 30,073 *** -- 100,988 106,356 83,688 87,184 103,842 115,375 114

Value (1,000 dollars)1

Brazil (2) (2) (2) 0 0 -- 16 126 82 240 246 206 

China (2) (2) (2) 0 *** -- 312 711 787 765 440 567 

 Subtotal (2) (2) (2) 0 *** -- 328 837 869 1,005 686 774 All other (2) (2) (2) 8,866 *** -- 26,050 26,804 20,222 21,675 35,573 44,639 47

Total (2) (2) (2) 8,866 *** -- 26,378 27,641 21,090 22,680 36,260 45,412 48

Unit value (per pound)

Brazil (2) (2) (2) (3) (3) -- $0.26 $0.31 $0.37 $0.27 $0.37 $0.39 $

China (2) (2) (2) (3) $*** -- 0.24 0.38 0.51 0.30 0.47 0.58 

Subtotal (2) (2) (2) (3) *** -- 0.24 0.36 0.49 0.29 0.43 0.51 All other (2) (2) (2) $0.29 *** -- 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.35 0.39  Average (2) (2) (2) 0.29 *** -- 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.35 0.39 

1 Landed, duty-paid.2 Not available.3 Not applicable.

Note.–U.S. import data for 1999 are unavailable as a result of the change in the HTSUS effective July 1, 1999.Note.--Data for 1983-85 are for U.S. shipments of imports. Data for 1983-85 do not contain imports under former TSUSA item 657.0990, which encompassed castings and subject and nonsubject light iron construction castings.Source: Compiled from data presented in the staff reports in the original investigation, the first and second five-year reviews, and official Commerce statistics
Table I-16

Heavy iron construction castings: Top U.S. imports, by volume, from subject and nonsubject

countries, 2000-09

Country 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Subject countries:

Canada -- 10,912 12,223 9,921 9,557 12,834 10,747 8,384 8,880 7,754 6,619

China -- 4,217 2,131 1,179 2,285 3,462 5,674 6,799 5,308 4,216 1,418

Brazil -- 1,146 607 505 391 1,458 838 2,614 213 106 685

 Subtotal -- 16,274 14,962 11,605 12,233 17,754 17,260 17,797 14,401 12,075 8,722

Nonsubject countries:

India -- 172,527 132,389 165,208 156,021 166,542 168,501 169,285 159,939 112,563 56,427

Mexico -- 15,014 13,154 11,138 10,614 11,931 11,884 12,922 7,359 6,314 6,994

All others -- 849 1,143 1,900 3,621 7,573 7,822 7,391 4,604 3,620 2,110

 Subtotal -- 188,389 146,686 178,245 170,256 186,047 188,207 189,598 171,902 122,496 65,531

Total, all

imports -- 204,663 161,648 189,851 182,488 203,801 205,466 207,395 186,302 134,572 74,253

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

Subject countries:

Canada -- 4,038 4,370 3,714 3,359 5,171 4,892 4,215 4,458 4,336 3,588

China -- 1,366 752 547 1,136 2,130 3,496 4,862 3,708 4,036 1,257

Brazil -- 261 171 133 156 686 711 1,665 133 94 540

 Subtotal -- 5,665 5,293 4,394 4,652 7,988 9,098 10,742 8,299 8,466 5,385

Nonsubject countries:

India -- 38,771 28,356 32,934 33,691 52,097 56,207 51,972 51,823 49,921 21,182

Mexico -- 3,931 3,014 2,690 2,478 2,887 2,872 3,713 2,561 2,160 6,694

All others -- 860 1,584 1,591 2,650 6,149 7,060 7,802 6,162 5,715 3,739

 Subtotal -- 43,562 32,954 37,215 38,819 61,134 66,140 63,487 60,546 57,796 31,615

Total, all

imports -- 49,227 38,247 41,608 43,470 69,121 75,238 74,229 68,845 66,262 37,000

 1 Landed, duty-paid.

Note.–Subject import data and nonsubject import data are presented according to 2009 import volume.

Note.--U.S. import data for 1999 are unavailable as a result of the change in the HTSUS effective July 1, 1999.

Source: Official Commerce statistics for HTS statistical reporting numbers 7325.10.0010, 7325.10.0020, and 7325.10.0025.

I-40
Table I-17

Light iron construction castings: U.S. imports, by volume, from subject and nonsubject countries,

2000-09

Country 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Subject countries:

China -- 1,294 1,884 1,556 2,526 940 978 1,400 1,121 1,436 544

Brazil -- 63 409 222 882 661 529 338 250 393 250

 Subtotal -- 1,357 2,293 1,778 3,408 1,601 1,507 1,738 1,371 1,829 794

Nonsubject countries:

India -- 89,345 90,450 70,829 73,880 92,970 102,977 100,069 95,399 62,214 32,712

Mexico -- 20 0 4 12 7 1,656 5,264 4,815 7,415 1,347

Canada -- 10,129 13,467 10,819 9,384 8,435 8,569 6,816 5,422 5,647 681

All others -- 137 146 257 500 829 667 959 770 304 169

 Subtotal -- 99,630 104,063 81,910 83,776 102,241 113,868 113,108 106,406 75,579 34,908

Total, all

imports -- 100,988 106,356 83,688 87,184 103,842 115,375 114,846 107,777 77,409 35,702

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

Subject countries:

China -- 312 711 787 765 440 567 672 709 1,087 366

Brazil -- 16 126 82 240 246 206 148 114 265 157

 Subtotal -- 328 837 869 1,005 686 774 820 823 1,352 524

Nonsubject countries:

India -- 20,210 19,739 13,962 15,950 29,742 35,351 32,912 33,641 28,694 13,621

Mexico -- 13 0 2 9 2 2,370 8,418 8,686 13,388 2,459

Canada -- 5,737 6,917 6,110 5,525 5,494 6,531 5,422 4,444 4,901 690

All others -- 90 149 147 190 336 388 596 953 563 610

 Subtotal -- 26,050 26,804 20,222 21,675 35,573 44,639 47,348 47,724 47,546 17,380

Total, all

imports -- 26,378 27,641 21,090 22,680 36,260 45,412 48,168 48,547 48,898 17,904

 1 Landed, duty paid.

Note.–Subject import data and nonsubject import data are presented according to 2009 import volume.

Note.--U.S. import data for 1999 are unavailable as a result of the change in the HTSUS effective July 1, 1999.

Source: Official Commerce statistics for HTS statistical reporting numbers 7325.10.0030 and 7325.10.0035.

I-41
Ratio of Imports to U.S. Production

In 1985, the last full year reviewed in the original investigations, U.S. imports of heavy iron

castings from Brazil, Canada, and China were 60.0 million pounds, a quantity equivalent to 19.1 percent

of U.S. production of 313.7 million pounds. In that same year, U.S. imports of light iron castings from

Brazil and China were 3.3 million pounds, a quantity equivalent to 7.2 percent of U.S. production of

45.7 million pounds. Comprehensive official import statistics were not available for the period examined

in the first reviews, however, in 2003 (the final year for which production data were available in the

second reviews), these ratios were 2.7 percent and *** percent. The ratio of imports from subject

countries of heavy iron construction castings to 2009 U.S. production was *** percent. Imports from

subject countries of light iron construction castings were *** percent of 2009 U.S. production.

Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Table I-18 provides information on the quantity and value of U.S. domestic shipments, imports,

and apparent consumption of heavy iron construction castings. Table I-19 provides the same information,

the quantity and value of U.S. domestic shipments, imports, and apparent consumption, for light iron

construction castings.

Demand

Since the last five-year reviews, demand in the United States for iron construction castings has

fallen significantly. Between 2006 and 2009, U.S. residential and private construction fell 58.1 percent

and 32.1 percent, respectively. In the first quarter of 2010, construction spending was down 14.0 percent

compared to the first quarter in 2009.65 As presented in tables I-18 and I-19, apparent U.S. consumption

of heavy castings declined by *** percent between 2003 and 2009, while apparent U.S. consumption of

light castings declined by *** percent.

 65 Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, pp. 24-25

I-42
Table I-18

Heavy iron construction castings: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, and

apparent U.S. consumption, 1983-85, 1997-98, 2003, and 2009

Item 1983 1984 1985 1997 1998 2003 20091

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 323,000 376,000 407,000 518,062 543,430 448,273 ***

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 Brazil 1,873 11,328 19,508 227 73 391 685

 Canada 8,635 14,313 21,004 11,879 10,178 9,557 6,619

 China 10,799 15,123 19,482 518 1,279 2,285 1,418

 Subtotal 21,307 40,764 59,994 12,624 11,530 12,233 8,722

 All other sources 60,888 99,406 93,792 129,208 128,388 170,255 65,394

 Total import shipments 82,195 140,170 153,786 141,832 139,918 182,488 74,116

Apparent U.S. consumption 405,195 516,170 560,786 659,894 683,348 630,761 ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments (2

) (2) (2) 244,560 259,790 202,445 ***

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 Brazil 255 1,473 2,911 67 37 156 529

 Canada 2,352 3,461 5,128 3,799 3,558 3,359 3,515

 China (2

) (2) (2) 339 588 1,136 1,142

 Subtotal (3

) (3) (3) 4,206 4,183 4,651 5,186

 All other sources (3

) (3) (3) 29,288 29,704 38,819 31,615

 Total import shipments (3

) (3) (3) 33,493 33,887 43,470 36,801

Apparent U.S. consumption (3

) (3) (3) 278,053 293,677 245,915 ***

Table continued on the following page.

I-43
Table I-18–Continued

Heavy iron construction castings: U.S. producers' U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports,

and apparent U.S. consumption, 1983-85, 1997-98, 2003, and 2009

Item 1983 1984 1985 1997 1998 2003 2009

Share of consumption based on quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments1 79.7 72.8 72.6 78.5 79.5 71.1 ***

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 Brazil 0.5 2.2 3.5 (2

) (2) 0.1 ***

 Canada 2.1 2.8 3.7 1.8 1.5 1.5 ***

 China 2.7 2.9 3.5 0.1 0.2 0.4 ***

 Subtotal 5.3 7.9 10.7 1.9 1.7 1.9 ***

 All other sources 15.0 19.3 16.7 19.6 18.8 27.0 ***

 Total import shipments 20.3 27.2 27.4 21.5 20.5 28.9 ***

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of consumption based on value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments1 (

3

) (3) (3) 88.0 88.5 82.3 ***

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 Brazil (3

) (3) (3) (2) (2) 0.1 ***

 Canada (3

) (3) (3) 1.4 1.2 1.4 ***

 China (3

) (3) (3) 0.1 0.2 0.5 ***

 Subtotal (3

) (3) (3) 1.5 1.4 1.9 ***

 All other sources (3

) (3) (3) 10.5 10.1 15.8 ***

 Total import shipments (3

) (3) (3) 12.0 11.5 17.7 ***

Apparent U.S. consumption (3

) (3) (3) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Data provided by the domestic interested parties in the response to Commerce’s notice of institution. As a

result, the data represents an estimated *** percent of the U.S. industry.

 2 Less than 0.05 percent.

 3

 Data not available.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data presented in the original staff reports, the first and second five-year reviews, and the

Response of domestic interested parties.

I-44
Table I-19

Light iron construction castings: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, and

apparent U.S. consumption, 1983-85, 1997-98, 2003, and 2009

Item 1983 1984 1985 1997 1998 2003 20091

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 57,000 61,000 57,000 *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 Brazil 0 780 1,640 0 0 882 250

 China 927 1,608 1,644 0 *** 2,526 544

 Subtotal 927 2,388 3,284 0 *** 3,408 794

 All other sources 18,228 27,753 33,933 30,073 *** 83,776 34,835

 Total import shipments 19,155 30,141 37,217 30,073 *** 87,184 35,631

Apparent U.S. consumption 76,155 91,141 94,217 *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments (2

) (2) (2) *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 Brazil (

2

) (2) (2) 0 0 240 143

 China (

2

) (2) (2) 0 *** 765 339

 Subtotal (

2

) (2) (2) 0 *** 1,605 482

 All other sources (

2

) (2) (2) 8,866 *** 21,675 17,381

 Total import shipments (2

) (2) (2) 8,866 *** 22,680 17,863

Apparent U.S. consumption (2

) (2) (2) *** *** *** ***

Table continued on the following page.

I-45
Table I-19–Continued

Light iron construction castings: U.S. producers' U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, and

apparent U.S. consumption, 1983-85, 1997-98, 2003, and 2009

Item 1983 1984 1985 1997 1998 2003 2009

Share of consumption based on quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments1 74.8 66.9 60.5 *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 Brazil 0.0 0.9 1.7 *** *** *** ***

 China 1.2 1.8 1.7 *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal 1.2 2.6 3.5 *** 0.1 *** ***

 All other sources 23.9 30.5 36.0 *** *** *** ***

 Total import shipments 25.2 33.1 39.5 *** *** *** ***

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of consumption based on value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments1 (

2

) (2) (2) *** 69.7 45.1 ***

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 Brazil (

2

) (2) (2) *** *** *** ***

 China (

2

) (2) (2) *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal (

2

) (2) (2) *** *** *** ***

 All other sources (

2

) (2) (2) *** *** *** ***

 Total import shipments (2

) (2) (2) *** *** *** ***

Apparent U.S. consumption (2

) (2) (2) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Data provided by the domestic interested parties in the response to Commerce’s notice of institution. As a

result, the data only represents an estimated *** percent of the U.S. industry.

 2 Data not available.

Source: Compiled from data presented in the original staff reports, the first and second five-year reviews, and the

Response of domestic interested parties.

I-46
THE INDUSTRY IN BRAZIL

During the original investigations on Brazil, there were approximately 1,000 foundries in that

country, of which some 490 produced iron castings. The 30 largest iron foundries, each producing in

excess of 44 million pounds annually, accounted for approximately 50 to 55 percent of iron castings

production. Four known producers of heavy iron construction castings exported to the United States in

1984. Between 1980 and 1983 the production of manhole covers declined from 40 million pounds to

20 million pounds before rising to 32 million pounds in 1985; the annual capacity to produce manhole

covers was about 44 million pounds. The foundry industry in Brazil was characterized as being welldeveloped, with production of construction castings being automated and probably as technologically

efficient as the foundries in the United States and Canada.66

In the first reviews on Brazil, no producers of iron construction castings in Brazil responded to

the Commission’s questionnaires. In their response to the notice of institution, counsel for U.S. producers

listed 79 producers of heavy and/or light iron construction castings in Brazil and estimated that Brazil had

an aggregate production capacity of 449.5 million pounds.67

In the second reviews, domestic interested parties identified 96 producers/exporters of iron

construction castings in Brazil. They mentioned that Brazil produced construction castings primarily for

export and alleged that had the ability to greatly increase the capacities of its labor-intensive facilities in

response to changes in demand.68

In these current reviews, domestic interested parties identified 98 producers/exporters of iron

construction castings in Brazil. Counsel for the domestic interested parties suggested that producers and

exporters of iron construction castings in Brazil have the ability to increase exports to the United States

significantly, which would likely result in material injury to the U.S. industry, were the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders to be revoked.69

 66 Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, India, and the People’s Republic of China: Investigation Nos. 701-

TA-249 and 731-TA-262, 264, and 265 (Final), USITC Publication 1838, April 1986, pp. A-34 to A-35.

 67 Iron Metal Castings from India, Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, and Iron Construction

Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China: Investigation Nos. 303-TA-13, 701-TA-249, and 731-TA-262, 263, and

265 (Review), USITC Publication 3247, October 1999, pp. IV-8-IV-9.

 68 Certain Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-249 and 731-

TA-262, 263, and 265 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3781, June 2005, pp. I-20.

 69 Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, pp. 9-10.

I-47
THE INDUSTRY IN CANADA

During the original investigation on Canada, there were approximately 120 iron foundries in that

country, with total production capacity estimated to be three billion pounds. Canadian iron foundry

shipments decreased from 2.4 billion pounds in 1979 to 1.2 billion pounds in 1982, but then rose to

1.9 billion pounds in 1984. Production of heavy castings rose from *** pounds in 1982 to *** pounds in

1984, while production of light castings increased from *** pounds to *** pounds during the same

period. Exports to the United States in 1984 of heavy castings were *** pounds and of light castings

were *** pounds; exports to other countries were negligible.70

In the first review on Canada, counsel for U.S. producers listed 13 producers of heavy iron

construction castings in Canada. One Canadian producer (***), accounting for about *** percent of U.S.

imports of heavy iron construction castings from Canada in 1998, responded to the Commission’s

questionnaire. Its production in 1998 was *** pounds.71

In the second reviews, domestic interested parties identified 13 producers/exporters of iron

construction castings in Canada. They mentioned that Canada possessed a fully developed public works

sector and was known to have a viable home market for construction castings.72

In these current reviews, domestic interested parties identified 11 producers of iron construction

castings in Canada. Counsel for the domestic interested parties also noted that between 2005 and 2009,

exports of iron construction castings from Canada to the United States accounted for 98.7 percent of

Canada’s total export volume of these products. Counsel reasoned that, because the United States is such

a key export market, exports would likely increase were the antidumping order to be revoked.73

 70 Staff Report on Iron Construction Castings from Canada, Investigation No. 731-TA-263 (Final),

February 4, 1986 (INV-J-019), pp. A-42-A-44.

 71 Iron Construction Castings from India, Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil; and Iron Construction

Castings from Brazil, India, and China, Investigation Nos. 303-TA-13, 701-TA-249, and 731-TA-262, 264, and 265

(Review), USITC Publication 3247, October 1999, pp. IV-8-IV-9.

 72 Certain Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China: Investigation. Nos. 701-TA-249 and

731-TA-262, 263, and 265 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3781, June 2005, p. I-21.

 73 Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, pp. 10-11.

I-48
THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Production and most other data were not available for the foundry industry in China during the

original investigations. Exports to the United States of iron construction castings rose from 1.3 million

pounds in 1981 to 31 million pounds in 1985. Exports to third countries were much larger throughout the

period. Also, it was noted that there was a large home market for iron construction castings in China.74

In the first review on China, no producers in China responded to the Commission’s

questionnaires. In their response to the notice of institution, counsel for U.S. producers listed

86 producers of the subject merchandise (heavy or light) in China and estimated that China possessed a

production capacity of 625.6 million pounds for iron castings.75

In the second reviews, domestic interested parties identified 120 producers of iron construction

castings in China. They mentioned that China produced construction castings primarily for export and

alleged that China had the ability to greatly increase the capacities of its labor-intensive facilities in

response to changes in demand.76

In these current reviews, domestic interested parties identified 200 producers/exporters of iron

construction castings in China. The domestic interested parties estimated Chinese production capacity to

be approximately 3,666,000 short tons. Counsel for the domestic interested parties also noted that China

still produces construction castings primarily for export and alleges that China maintains the ability to

greatly increase the capacities of its labor-intensive facilities in response to changes in demand. In

addition, China also faces an antidumping order in the European Community.77

 74 Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, India, and the People’s Republic of China: Investigation Nos. 701-

TA-249 and 731-TA-262, 264, and 265 (Final), USITC Publication 1838, April 1986, pp. A-36 to A-37.

 75 Iron Metal Castings from India, Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, and Iron Construction

Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China: Investigation Nos. 303-TA-13, 701-TA-249, and 731-TA-262, 263, and

265 (Review), USITC Publication 3247, October 1999, pp. IV-8-IV-9.

 76 Certain Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China: Investigation. Nos. 701-TA-249 and

731-TA-262, 263, and 265 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3781, June 2005, p. I-21.

 77 Response of domestic interested parties, June 2, 2010, pp. 11-13.

I-49
THE WORLD MARKET

India was the source of the majority of U.S. nonsubject imports. In 2009, imports from India

were 56 million pounds of heavy iron construction castings and 33 million pounds of light iron

construction castings. These volumes accounted for the large majority of U.S. imports of these

products.78

India has the largest iron foundry industry in the world, outside of China. During 2008, the

latest year for which data are available, production of gray iron castings in India totaled 5.0 million tons,

10.5 percent of the world total. Although the number of foundries producing gray iron castings is not

available, the total number of foundries operating in India in 2008 was 4,700, more than double the

number operating in any other country outside of China and gray iron accounted for 66 percent of the

total foundry production in India.79

According to the Institute of Indian Foundrymen, a trade association representing the foundry

industry in India, most (80 percent) of the foundries in India are considered “small” and 10 percent each

are considered “medium” and “large”, however most of India’s exports of castings are from large

(70 percent) and medium (17 percent) foundries. The industry is considered to be “labor intensive.” The

small foundries are mainly dependent on manual labor whereas the medium and large units are semi- or

largely mechanized and some of the large foundries are “world class”. Because of its low labor costs, the

industry is considered to have a major competitive advantage over the foundry industries in the developed

countries. The large foundries in India are modern and globally competitive and are working at nearly

full capacity.80

Exports reported from India of non-malleable (gray iron) cast iron articles (commodity code

7325.10) in 2009 totaled 42,000 short tons. This quantity was 5.5 percent of exports from all countries,

and 15 percent of exports from all countries excluding China.81

 78 Tables I-16 and I-17.

 79 “42rd Census of World Casting Production—2008,” Modern Casting, December 2009, p. 18.

 80 “Profile Of Indian Foundry Industry,” published by Foundry Informatics Centre, Delhi, India.

 81 Global Trade Atlas.

I-50
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-1

23240 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Notices 

Administration, we have exercised our 

discretion to toll deadlines for the 

duration of the closure of the Federal 

Government from February 5 through 

February 12, 2010. Thus, all deadlines 

in this review have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for the 

final results of this administrative 

review is currently April 28, 2010. See 

Memorandum to the Record from 

Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import 

Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines As a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 

2010. 

Extension of Time Limit for Final 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department to make a final 

determination within 120 days after the 

date on which the preliminary 

determination is published. If it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within this time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend the time limit for 

the final determination to a maximum of 

180 days after the date on which the 

preliminary results are published. See 

also 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). 

We determine that it is not practicable 

to complete the final results of this 

administrative review by the current 

deadline of April 28, 2010, because we 

are continuing to examine the issue 

related to the export–subsidy 

adjustment addressed by the petitioner 

and respondent in briefs submitted in 

response to the Preliminary Results. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2), we are extending the time 

period for issuing the final results of 

this review by 60 days until June 27, 

2010. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2). 

Dated: April 26, 2010. 

Edward C. Yang, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10261 Filed 4–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders listed below. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) 

is publishing concurrently with this 

notice its notice of Institution of FiveYear Review which covers the same 

orders. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 3, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. For 

information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 

13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 

62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on 

methodological or analytical issues 

relevant to the Department’s conduct of 

Sunset Reviews is set forth in the 

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98.3— 

Policies Regarding the Conduct of FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders: 

DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–570–898 ....... 731–TA–1082 ... PRC .............................................. Chlorinated Isocyanurates ........... Jennifer Moats, (202) 482–5047. 

A–469–814 ....... 731–TA–1083 ... Spain ............................................ Chlorinated Isocyanurates ........... Jennifer Moats, (202) 482–5047. 

A–570–101 ....... 731–TA–101 ..... PRC .............................................. Greige Polyester Cotton Printcloth 

(3nd Review).

Jennifer Moats, (202) 482–5047. 

A–570–001 ....... 731–TA–125 ..... PRC .............................................. Potassium Permanganate (3rd 

Review).

Jennifer Moats, (202) 482–5047. 

A–351–503 ....... 731–TA–262 ..... Brazil ............................................ Iron Construction Castings (3rd 

Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482– 

1391. 

A–122–503 ....... 731–TA–263 ..... Canada ......................................... Iron Construction Castings (3rd 

Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482– 

1391. 

A–570–502 ....... 731–TA–265 ..... PRC .............................................. Iron Construction Castings (3rd 

Review).

Dana Mermelstein, (202) 482– 

1391. 

C–351–504 ....... 701–TA–249 ..... Brazil ............................................ Heavy Iron Construction Castings 

(3rd Review).

Brandon Farlander, (202) 482– 

0182. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s Internet 

Web site at the following address: 

‘‘http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’ All 

submissions in these Sunset Reviews 

must be filed in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

format, translation, service, and 

certification of documents. These rules 

can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Notices 23241 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The 

required contents of the notice of intent 

to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the 

Department’s regulations, if we do not 

receive a notice of intent to participate 

from at least one domestic interested 

party by the 15-day deadline, the 

Department will automatically revoke 

the order without further review. See 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 

(c). 

Dated: April 19, 2010. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10258 Filed 4–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XW11 

Marine Mammals; File No. 14514 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the University of Florida, Aquatic 

Animal Program, College of Veterinary 

Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610 (Ruth 

Francis-Floyd, Responsible Party) has 

applied in due form for a permit to 

receive, import and export marine 

mammal specimens for scientific 

research. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail 

comments must be received on or before 

June 2, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review by 

selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public 

Comment’’ from the Features box on the 

Applications and Permits for Protected 

Species (APPS) home page, https:// 

apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting 

File No. 14514 from the list of available 

applications. 

These documents are also available 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following office(s): 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301) 713–2289; fax (301) 713–0376; and 

Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida 

33701; phone (727) 824–5312; fax (727) 

824–5309. 

Written comments on this application 

should be submitted to the Chief, 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, at the address listed above. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

facsimile to (301) 713–0376, or by email 

to NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. 

Please include the File No. in the 

subject line of the email comment. 

Those individuals requesting a public 

hearing should submit a written request 

to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and 

Education Division at the address listed 

above. The request should set forth the 

specific reasons why a hearing on this 

application would be appropriate. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Sloan or Kate Swails, (301) 713– 

2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject permit is requested under the 

authority of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972, as amended 

(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the 

regulations governing the taking and 

importing of marine mammals (50 CFR 

part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.), the regulations governing the 

taking, importing, and exporting of 

endangered and threatened species (50 

CFR 222–226), and the Fur Seal Act of 

1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et 

seq.). 

The objectives of this research are to 

study various aspects of disease 

afflicting marine mammals including 

viral pathogens and brevetoxin studies; 

develop a marine mammal histology 

database and atlas, marine mammal cell 

lines; and conduct comparative 

morphology. Marine mammal parts 

would be obtained from the following 

sources: samples collected as part of 

routine husbandry procedures using 

captive stocks; other permitted 

academic, federal, and state institutions 

involved in marine mammal research; in 

conjunction with legal subsistence 

harvests; from marine mammals caught 

incidental to fisheries; or from animals 

in foreign countries following the host 

countries legal operations. The samples 

would then be received or imported to 

the investigators. Samples may be 

exported for research or archiving. 

Marine mammal parts (hard and soft 

parts) would not exceed 200 animals per 

year from animals within the order 

Cetacea (dolphins, porpoises and 

whales) and 100 animals per year from 

animals within the order Pinnipedia 

(sea lions and seals but excluding 

walruses), with unlimited sampling 

from each animal to maximize use. 

There would not be incidental take or 

take of live animals. The requested 

permit period is five years. 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial 

determination has been made that the 

activity proposed is categorically


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Notices 23295 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 10–5–215, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

Article 14. Effective Date. 

This Ordinance shall be effective after 

the Secretary of the Interior certifies the 

Ordinance and on the date it is 

published in the Federal Register. 

Article 15. Sovereign Immunity. 

Nothing contained in this Ordinance 

is intended to, nor does it in any way, 

limits, alters, restricts, or waives the 

sovereign immunity of the Tribe or its 

agencies and instrumentalities from 

unconsented suit or action of any kind. 

Article 16. Duration. 

This Ordinance shall be perpetual 

until repealed or amended by the Ponca 

Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma. 

Article 17. Limitations. 

Notwithstanding anything contained 

herein to the contrary, until this 

Ordinance is further amended as 

provided in Article 16, no sale of Liquor 

shall be permitted on Tribal Lands other 

than at a Gaming Facility. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10251 Filed 4–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–4J–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[WY–923–1310–FI; WYW164359] 

Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of 

Terminated Oil and Gas Lease, 

Wyoming 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920, as 

amended, and Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) regulations, the 

BLM received a petition for 

reinstatement from Western American 

Resources, LLC and East Resources, Inc. 

for competitive oil and gas lease 

WYW164359 for land in Goshen 

County, WY. The petition was filed on 

time and was accompanied by all the 

rentals due since the date the lease 

terminated under the law. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. 

Weaver, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals 

Adjudication, at (307) 775–6176. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee 

has agreed to the amended lease terms 

for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 

per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 

162⁄3 percent, respectively. The lessee 

has paid the required $500 

administrative fee and $163 to 

reimburse the Department for the cost of 

this Federal Register notice. The lessee 

has met all the requirements for 

reinstatement of the lease as set out in 

Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral 

Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 

188), and the BLM is proposing to 

reinstate lease WYW164359 effective 

October 1, 2009, under the original 

terms and conditions of the lease and 

the increased rental and royalty rates 

cited above. The BLM has not issued a 

valid lease affecting the lands. 

Julie L. Weaver, 

Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10294 Filed 4–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–22–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–249 and 731– 

TA–262, 263, and 265 (Third Review)] 

Iron Construction Castings From 

Brazil, Canada, and China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the countervailing duty 

order on ‘‘heavy’’ iron construction 

castings from Brazil, the antidumping 

duty order on ‘‘heavy’’ iron construction 

castings from Canada, and the 

antidumping duty orders on iron 

construction castings from Brazil and 

China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

countervailing duty order on ‘‘heavy’’ 

iron construction castings from Brazil, 

the antidumping duty order on ‘‘heavy’’ 

iron construction castings from Canada, 

and the antidumping duty orders on 

iron construction castings from Brazil 

and China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is June 2, 2010. Comments on 

the adequacy of responses may be filed 

with the Commission by July 16, 2010. 

For further information concerning the 

conduct of these reviews 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, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207), as most recently amended at 74 FR 

2847 (January 16, 2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: May 3, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), 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 reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—The Department of 

Commerce issued antidumping duty 

orders on imports of ‘‘heavy’’ and ‘‘light’’ 

iron construction castings from Canada 

on March 5, 1986 (51 FR 7600) and from 

Brazil and China on May 9, 1986 (51 FR 

17220). On May 15, 1986, Commerce 

issued a countervailing duty order on 

imports of ‘‘heavy’’ iron construction 

castings from Brazil (51 FR 17786). On 

September 23, 1998, Commerce issued 

the final results of a changed 

circumstance review concerning iron 

construction castings from Canada, in 

which the antidumping duty order with 

respect to ‘‘light’’ castings was revoked 

(63 FR 50881). Following full first fiveyear reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective November 12, 

1999, Commerce issued a continuation 

of the countervailing duty order on 

‘‘heavy’’ iron construction castings from 

Brazil, a continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on ‘‘heavy’’ iron 

construction castings from Canada, and 

a continuation of the antidumping duty 

orders on ‘‘heavy’’ and ‘‘light’’ iron 

construction castings from Brazil and 

China (64 FR 61590–61592). Following 

expedited second five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective June 29, 2005, Commerce 

issued a second continuation of the 

subject orders (70 FR 27326). The 

Commission is now conducting third 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
23296 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Notices 

reviews to determine whether 

revocation of the orders would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to the domestic industry 

within a reasonably foreseeable time. It 

will assess the adequacy of interested 

party responses to this notice of 

institution to determine whether to 

conduct full or expedited reviews. The 

Commission’s determinations in any 

expedited reviews will be based on the 

facts available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by the Department of 

Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are Brazil, Canada, and China. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determinations, its full first five-year 

review determinations, and its 

expedited second five-year review 

determinations concerning iron 

construction castings from Brazil, 

Canada, and China, the Commission 

found two separate Domestic Like 

Products: ‘‘heavy’’ and ‘‘light’’ iron 

construction castings. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determinations, 

its full first five-year review 

determinations, and its expedited 

second five-year review determinations, 

the Commission found two Domestic 

Industries: (1) all domestic producers of 

‘‘heavy’’ iron construction castings and 

(2) all domestic producers of ‘‘light’’ iron 

construction castings. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official has advised that a five-year 

review is not considered the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the corresponding 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees, and Commission rule 

201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are not 

required to seek Commission approval 

to appear in a review under Commission 

rule 19 CFR § 201.15, even if the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification.—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is June 2, 2010. Pursuant 

to section 207.62(b) of the Commission’s 

rules, eligible parties (as specified in 

Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also 

file comments concerning the adequacy 

of responses to the notice of institution 

and whether the Commission should 

conduct expedited or full reviews. The 

deadline for filing such comments is 

July 16, 2010. All written submissions 

must conform with the provisions of 

sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the 

Commission’s rules and any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in 

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information.—Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 

Information To Be Provided In 

Response To This Notice of Institution: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Notices 23297 

Please provide the requested 

information separately for each 

Domestic Like Product/Domestic 

Industry, as defined by the Commission 

in its original and previous review 

determinations, and for each of the 

products identified by Commerce as 

Subject Merchandise. If you are a 

domestic producer, union/worker 

group, or trade/business association; 

import/export Subject Merchandise 

from more than one Subject Country; or 

produce Subject Merchandise in more 

than one Subject Country, you may file 

a single response. If you do so, please 

ensure that your response to each 

question includes the information 

requested for each pertinent Subject 

Country. As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ 

includes any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address) and name, telephone number, 

fax number, and E-mail address of the 

certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping and 

countervailing duty orders on the 

Domestic Industries in general and/or 

your firm/entity specifically. In your 

response, please discuss the various 

factors specified in section 752(a) of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the 

likely volume of subject imports, likely 

price effects of subject imports, and 

likely impact of imports of Subject 

Merchandise on the Domestic 

Industries. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Products. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

2003. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Products and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and E-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Products or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product(s), provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on each product during 

calendar year 2009, except as noted 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). 

If you are a union/worker group or 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms in which your workers are 

employed/which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of each Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce each Domestic Like Product 

(i.e., the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of each Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(d) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of each Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(e) The value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of each Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2009 (report 

quantity data in pounds and value data 

in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping or countervailing duties) 

of U.S. imports and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total U.S. 

imports of Subject Merchandise from 

each Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. 

commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. internal 

consumption/company transfers of 

Subject Merchandise imported from 

each Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2009 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars, landed and duty-paid at the 

U.S. port but not including antidumping 

or countervailing duties). If you are a 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
23298 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 10–5–216, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 5000 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Products that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country(ies) after 2003, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Products 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country(ies), and such merchandise 

from other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like 

Products and Domestic Industries; if you 

disagree with either or both of these 

definitions, please explain why and 

provide alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: April 22, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9813 Filed 4–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–125 (Third 

Review)] 

Potassium Permanganate From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on potassium permanganate from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on potassium 

permanganate from China would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury. Pursuant 

to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested 

parties are requested to respond to this 

notice by submitting the information 

specified below to the Commission; 1 to 

be assured of consideration, the 

deadline for responses is June 2, 2010. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

July 16, 2010. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this review 

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, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207), as most recently amended at 74 FR 

2847 (January 16, 2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: May 3, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), 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 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On January 31, 1984, 

the Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

potassium permanganate from China (49 

FR 3897). Following first five-year 

reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective November 24, 

1999, Commerce issued a continuation 

of the antidumping duty order on 

imports of potassium permanganate 

from China (64 FR 66166). Following 

second five-year reviews by Commerce 

and the Commission, effective June 21, 

2005, Commerce issued a continuation 

of the antidumping duty order on 

imports of potassium permanganate 

from China (70 FR 35630). The 

Commission is now conducting a third 

review to determine whether revocation 

of the order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to the domestic industry within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. It will 

assess the adequacy of interested party 

responses to this notice of institution to 

determine whether to conduct a full 

review or an expedited review. The 

Commission’s determination in any 

expedited review will be based on the 

facts available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to this review: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year review, as defined 

by the Department of Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in this review 

is China. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determination, its full first five-year 

review determination, and its expedited 

second five-year review determination, 

the Commission defined the Domestic 

Like Product as potassium 

permanganate co-extensive with 

Commerce’s scope. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determination, 

its full first five-year review 

determination, and its expedited second 

five-year determination, the 

Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as all domestic producers of 

potassium permanganate. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the review and public 

service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the review as parties must 

file an entry of appearance with the 

Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 2010 / Notices 49945 

Falls District, 1405 Hollipark Dr., Idaho 

Falls, ID 83401. Telephone: (208) 524– 

7550. E-mail: Sarah_Wheeler@blm.gov. 

Joe Kraayenbrink, 

BLM District Manager. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20145 Filed 8–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLIDC00000.L10200000.MJ0000.241A.0; 

4500014703] 

Notice of Public Meeting, Coeur 

d’Alene District Resource Advisory 

Council Meeting; Idaho 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) Coeur d’Alene 

District Resource Advisory Council 

(RAC) will meet as indicated below. 

DATES: September 14, 2010. The meeting 

will start at 10 a.m. and end at about 

2:30 p.m. with the public comment 

period from 1 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. The 

meeting will be held at the Idaho 

Department of Labor and Commerce, 

1350 Troy Rd., Moscow, ID. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Snook, RAC Coordinator, 

BLM Coeur d’Alene District, 3815 

Schreiber Way, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 

83815 or telephone at (208) 769–5004. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15- 

member RAC advises the Secretary of 

the Interior, through the Bureau of Land 

Management, on a variety of planning 

and management issues associated with 

public land management in Idaho. The 

agenda will include the M3 land 

exchange proposal; overview of the 

Clearwater Basin Collaborative; and 

updates on field office projects. 

Additional agenda topics or changes to 

the agenda will be announced in local 

press releases. More information is 

available at http://www.blm.gov/id/st/ 

en/res/resource_advisory.html. All 

meetings are open to the public. The 

public may present written comments to 

the RAC in advance of or at the meeting. 

Each formal RAC meeting will also have 

time allocated for receiving public 

comments. Depending on the number of 

persons wishing to comment and time 

available, the time for individual oral 

comments may be limited. Individuals 

who plan to attend and need special 

assistance, such as sign language 

interpretation or other reasonable 

accommodations, should contact the 

BLM as provided above. 

Dated: August 9, 2010. 

Stephanie Snook, 

Acting District Manager. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20144 Filed 8–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[ Inv. No. 337–TA–688] 

In the Matter of Certain Hybrid Electric 

Vehicles and Components Thereof; 

Notice of Commission Determination 

Not To Review an Initial Determination 

Terminating the Investigation on the 

Basis of a Settlement Agreement 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review the final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 16) issued by the 

presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) on July 22, 2010, which granted 

a joint motion to terminate the abovecaptioned investigation based upon a 

settlement agreement. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2532. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (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 this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on October 5, 2009, based on a 

complaint filed by Paice LLC (‘‘Paice’’) 

of Bonita Springs, Florida. 74 FR. 

52258–59 (Oct. 9, 2009). The complaint 

named as respondents Toyota Motor 

Corporation of Japan and two U.S. 

subsidiaries (collectively ‘‘Toyota’’). The 

complaint alleges infringement by 

certain Toyota hybrid vehicles of claims 

of U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970. 

On July 19, 2010, Paice and Toyota 

moved to terminate the investigation 

based upon a settlement agreement. 

That same day, the Commission 

investigative attorney filed a response in 

support of the motion. On July 22, 2010, 

the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 16) 

granting the motion. No petitions for 

review of the ID were filed. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the subject ID. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

sections 210.21(b) and 210.42–.45 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.21(b), 210.42– 

.45). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 10, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20118 Filed 8–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–249 and 731– 

TA–262, 263, and 265 (Third Review)] 

Iron Construction Castings From 

Brazil, Canada, and China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of expedited fiveyear reviews concerning the 

countervailing duty and antidumping 

duty orders on iron construction 

castings from Brazil, Canada, and China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of expedited 

reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the 

countervailing duty and or antidumping 

duty orders on iron construction 

castings from Brazil, Canada, and China 

would likely lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews 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, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
49946 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 2010 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s web site. 

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by four producers of heavy iron 

construction castings (D & L Foundry Inc., East 

Jordan Iron Works Inc., Neenah Foundry Co., and 

U.S. Foundry & Manufacturing Co.) and three 

producers of light iron construction castings (East 

Jordan Iron Works Inc., Neenah Foundry Co., and 

Vestal Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc.) to be 

individually adequate. Comments from other 

interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 

207.62(d)(2)). 

DATES: Effective Date: August 6, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Ruggles (202–205–31887 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 reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On August 6, 2010, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (75 

FR 23295, May 3, 2010) of the subject 

five-year reviews was adequate and that 

the respondent interested party group 

response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting full reviews.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct expedited reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the reviews will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on 

September 16, 2010, and made available 

to persons on the Administrative 

Protective Order service list for these 

reviews. A public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the reviews and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

reviews may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the 

reviews. Comments are due on or before 

September 22, 2010, and may not 

contain new factual information. Any 

person that is neither a party to the fiveyear reviews nor an interested party 

may submit a brief written statement 

(which shall not contain any new 

factual information) pertinent to the 

reviews by September 22, 2010. 

However, should the Department of 

Commerce extend the time limit for its 

completion of the final results of its 

reviews, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the reviews must be 

served on all other parties to the reviews 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determination.—The Commission has 

determined to exercise its authority to 

extend the review period by up to 90 

days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: August 10, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20121 Filed 8–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1105–0087] 

National Drug Intelligence Center: 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Extension With 

Change of a Previously Approved 

Collection; Comments Requested 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: Extension 

with Change of a Previously Approved 

Collection SENTRY Early Warning and 

Response System. 

The United States Department of 

Justice (DOJ), National Drug Intelligence 

Center (NDIC), will be submitting the 

following information collection request 

to the Office of Management of Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed 

information collection is published to 

obtain comments from the public and 

affected agencies. Comments are 

encouraged and will be accepted for 

‘‘sixty days’’ until October 15, 2010. This 

process is conducted in accordance with 

5 CFR 1320.10. 

If you have comments especially on 

the estimated public burden or 

associated response time, suggestions, 

or need a copy of the proposed 

information collection instrument with 

instructions or additional information, 

please contact Kevin M. Walker, General 

Counsel, National Drug Intelligence 

Center, Fifth Floor, 319 Washington 

Street, Johnstown, PA 15901. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

information are encouraged. Your 

comments should address one or more 

of the following four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions user; 

—Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Notices 54595 

1Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Iron 

Construction Castings From Canada, 51 FR 7600 

(March 5, 1986), Antidumping Duty Order; Iron 

Construction Castings From Brazil, 51 FR 17220 

(May 9, 1986), and Antidumping Duty Order; Iron 

Construction Castings From the People’s Republic 

of China (the PRC), 51 FR 17222 (May 9, 1986). 

Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 

2000 (TSRA) (22 U.S.C. 7205(a)), the 

Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) 

authorizes exports of agricultural 

commodities, as defined in part 772 of 

the Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR), to Cuba. Requirements and 

procedures associated with such 

authorization are set forth in section 

740.18 of the EAR (15 CFR 740.18). 

These are the only licensing procedures 

in the EAR currently in effect pursuant 

to the requirements of section 906(a) of 

TSRA. 

Under the provisions of section 906(c) 

of TSRA (22 U.S.C. 7205(c)), BIS must 

submit a biennial report to the Congress 

on the operation of the licensing system 

implemented pursuant to section 906(a) 

for the preceding two-year period. This 

report must include the number and 

types of licenses applied for, the 

number and types of licenses approved, 

the average amount of time elapsed from 

the date of filing of a license application 

until the date of its approval, the extent 

to which the licensing procedures were 

effectively implemented, and a 

description of comments received from 

interested parties during a 30-day public 

comment period about the effectiveness 

of the licensing procedures. BIS is 

currently preparing a biennial report on 

the operation of the licensing system for 

the two-year period from October 1, 

2008 through September 30, 2010. 

Request for Comments 

By this notice, BIS requests public 

comments on the effectiveness of the 

licensing procedures for the export of 

agricultural commodities to Cuba set 

forth under section 740.18 of the EAR. 

Parties submitting comments are asked 

to be as specific as possible. All 

comments received by the close of the 

comment period will be considered by 

BIS in developing the report to 

Congress. 

All comments must be in writing and 

will be available for public inspection 

and copying. Any information that the 

commenter does not wish to be made 

available to the public should not be 

submitted to BIS. 

Dated: August 30, 2010. 

Kevin J. Wolf, 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21953 Filed 9–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–351–503, A–122–503, A–570–502] 

Certain Iron Construction Castings 

From Brazil, Canada, and the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of the 

Expedited Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 3, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated the third sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

on certain iron construction castings 

from Brazil, Canada, and the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC), pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). See Initiation of 

Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 

23240 (May 3, 2010) (Notice of 

Initiation). The Department has 

conducted expedited (120-day) sunset 

reviews of these orders. As a result of 

these sunset reviews, the Department 

finds that revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

as indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of 

Reviews’’ section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Dustin Ross 

or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 5, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0747 or (202) 482–1690, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 3, 2010, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset reviews of the antidumping duty 

orders1 on certain iron construction 

castings from Brazil, Canada, and the 

PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Act. See Notice of Initiation. 

The Department received notices of 

intent to participate in these sunset 

reviews from the domestic interested 

parties, East Jordan Iron Works, Inc., 

Neenah Foundry Company, and U.S. 

Foundry & Manufacturing Co. 

(collectively, the petitioners) within the 

15-day period specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic 

interested parties claimed interested– 

party status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act as producers of a domestic like 

product in the United States. 

The Department received complete 

substantive responses to the Notice of 

Initiation from the domestic interested 

parties within the 30-day period 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 

The Department received no substantive 

responses from any respondent 

interested parties. In accordance with 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the 

Department is conducting expedited 

(120-day) sunset reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on certain iron 

construction castings from Brazil, 

Canada, and the PRC. 

Scope of the Orders 

Brazil 

The merchandise covered by the order 

consists of certain iron construction 

castings from Brazil, limited to manhole 

covers, rings, and frames, catch basin 

grates and frames, cleanout covers and 

frames used for drainage or access 

purposes for public utility, water and 

sanitary systems, classifiable as heavy 

castings under Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule (HTS) item number 

7325.10.0010; and to valve, service, and 

meter boxes which are placed below 

ground to encase water, gas, or other 

valves, or water and gas meters, 

classifiable as light castings under HTS 

item number 7325.10.0050. The HTS 

item numbers are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes 

only. The written product description 

remains dispositive. 

Canada 

The merchandise covered by the order 

consists of certain iron construction 

castings from Canada, limited to 

manhole covers, rings,and frames, catch 

basin grates and frames, clean–out 

covers, and frames used for drainage or 

access purposes for public utility, water 

and sanitary systems, classifiable as 

heavy castings under HTS item number 

7325.10.0010. The HTS item number is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes only. The written product 

description remains dispositive. 

PRC 

The products covered by the order are 

certain iron construction castings from 

the PRC, limited to manhole covers, 

rings and frames, catch basin grates and 

frames, cleanout covers and drains used 

for drainage or access purposes for 

public utilities, water and sanitary 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
54596 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Notices 

systems; and valve, service, and meter 

boxes which are placed below ground to 

encase water, gas, or other valves, or 

water or gas meters. These articles must 

be of cast iron, not alloyed, and not 

malleable. This merchandise is 

currently classifiable under the HTS 

item numbers 7325.10.0010 and 

7325.10.0050. The HTS item numbers 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes. The written product 

description remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders on Certain Iron Construction 

Castings From Brazil, Canada, and the 

People’s Republic of China’’ from Acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations Edward C. Yang to Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration Ronald K. Lorentzen 

dated concurrently with this notice 

(Issues and Decision Memo), which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. The 

issues discussed in the Issues and 

Decision Memo include the likelihood 

of continuation or recurrence of 

dumping and the magnitude of the 

margin likely to prevail if the orders 

were revoked. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in these reviews and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room 1117 of the 

main Department of Commerce 

building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Issues and Decision Memo can be 

accessed directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Issues and 

Decision Memo are identical in content. 

Final Results of Reviews 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on certain iron construction 

castings from Brazil, Canada, and the 

PRC would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following weighted–average 

percentage margins: 

Country Company Weighted–Average Margin 

(Percent) 

Brazil ...................................................................................... Fundicao Aldebara Ltda. 58.74 

................................................................................................ Sociedade de Metalurgia E Processos, Ltda. 16.61 

................................................................................................ Usina Siderurgica Paraensa S.A. 5.95 

................................................................................................ All other manufacturers/producers/exporters 26.16 

Canada .................................................................................. Mueller Canada, Inc. 9.80 

................................................................................................ LaPerle Foundry, Ltd. 4.40 

................................................................................................ Bibby Ste. Croix Foundries, Ltd. 8.60 

................................................................................................ All Others 7.50 

PRC ....................................................................................... PRC–wide Rate 25.52 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice serves as a reminder to 

parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written 

notification of the destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

The Department is issuing and 

publishing the final results and notice 

in accordance with sections 751(c), 

752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: August 31, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22373 Filed 9–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–351–504] 

Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review: Heavy Iron Construction 

Castings from Brazil 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 3, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated the third sunset 

review of the countervailing duty order 

(‘‘CVD’’) on heavy iron construction 

castings from Brazil pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties 

and an inadequate response from 

respondent interested parties (in this 

case, no response), the Department 

conducted an expedited sunset review 

of the CVD order pursuant to section 

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As a result of this 

sunset review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the CVD order would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Hargett or David 

Goldberger, AD/CVD Enforcement, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4161 or 

(202) 482–4136, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 3, 2010, the Department 

initiated the third sunset review of the 

CVD order on iron construction castings 

from Brazil pursuant to section 751(c) of 

the Act. See Initiation of Five-year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 75 FR 23240 (May 3, 

2010). The Department received a notice 

of intent to participate from the 

following domestic interested parties: 

East Jordan Iron Works, Inc., Neenah 

Foundry Company, and U.S. Foundry & 

Manufacturing Co. (collectively, 

‘‘domestic interested parties’’), within 

the deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic 

interested parties claimed interested 

party status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act, as domestic producers engaged


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
54596 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Notices 

systems; and valve, service, and meter 

boxes which are placed below ground to 

encase water, gas, or other valves, or 

water or gas meters. These articles must 

be of cast iron, not alloyed, and not 

malleable. This merchandise is 

currently classifiable under the HTS 

item numbers 7325.10.0010 and 

7325.10.0050. The HTS item numbers 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes. The written product 

description remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in these reviews are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders on Certain Iron Construction 

Castings From Brazil, Canada, and the 

People’s Republic of China’’ from Acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations Edward C. Yang to Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration Ronald K. Lorentzen 

dated concurrently with this notice 

(Issues and Decision Memo), which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. The 

issues discussed in the Issues and 

Decision Memo include the likelihood 

of continuation or recurrence of 

dumping and the magnitude of the 

margin likely to prevail if the orders 

were revoked. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in these reviews and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room 1117 of the 

main Department of Commerce 

building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Issues and Decision Memo can be 

accessed directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Issues and 

Decision Memo are identical in content. 

Final Results of Reviews 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on certain iron construction 

castings from Brazil, Canada, and the 

PRC would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following weighted–average 

percentage margins: 

Country Company Weighted–Average Margin 

(Percent)

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice serves as a reminder to 

parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written 

notification of the destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

The Department is issuing and 

publishing the final results and notice 

in accordance with sections 751(c), 

752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: August 31, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22373 Filed 9–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–351–504] 

Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review: Heavy Iron Construction 

Castings from Brazil 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 3, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated the third sunset 

review of the countervailing duty order 

(‘‘CVD’’) on heavy iron construction 

castings from Brazil pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties 

and an inadequate response from 

respondent interested parties (in this 

case, no response), the Department 

conducted an expedited sunset review 

of the CVD order pursuant to section 

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As a result of this 

sunset review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the CVD order would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Hargett or David 

Goldberger, AD/CVD Enforcement, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4161 or 

(202) 482–4136, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 3, 2010, the Department 

initiated the third sunset review of the 

CVD order on iron construction castings 

from Brazil pursuant to section 751(c) of 

the Act. See Initiation of Five-year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 75 FR 23240 (May 3, 

2010). The Department received a notice 

of intent to participate from the 

following domestic interested parties: 

East Jordan Iron Works, Inc., Neenah 

Foundry Company, and U.S. Foundry & 

Manufacturing Co. (collectively, 

‘‘domestic interested parties’’), within 

the deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic 

interested parties claimed interested 

party status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act, as domestic producers engaged 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 8, 2010 / Notices 54597 

in the production of subject 

merchandise in the United States. 

The Department received an adequate 

substantive response collectively from 

the domestic interested parties within 

the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). However, the 

Department did not receive a 

substantive response from any 

government or respondent interested 

party to this proceeding. As a result, 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), 

the Department conducted an expedited 

review of the CVD order. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the CVD 

order consists of certain heavy iron 

construction castings from Brazil. The 

merchandise is defined as manhole 

covers, rings and frames; catch basin 

grates and frames; and cleanout covers 

and frames used for drainage or access 

purposes for public utility, water and 

sanitary systems. The merchandise is 

currently classified under Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTS’’) item number 

7325.10.00. 

The HTS item number subject to the 

CVD order is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes. The written 

product description remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Edward C. Yang, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated August 31, 2010, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this review and 

the corresponding recommendation in 

this public memorandum which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit room B– 

1117 of the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the CVD order would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 

at the following weighted–average 

percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/ 

Exporters/Producers 

Weighted-Average 

Margin (Percent) 

Country–wide rate ........ 1.06 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: August 31, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22375 Filed 9–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XY81 

Fisheries of the South Atlantic; 

Southeast Data, Assessment, and 

Review (SEDAR); South Atlantic Red 

Snapper 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of SEDAR 24 Assessment 

Stage 2, Webinar 3. 

SUMMARY: The SEDAR assessment of the 

South Atlantic stock of red snapper will 

consist of a series of workshops and 

webinars: a Data Workshop, a series of 

Assessment webinars, and a Review 

Workshop. This is the twenty-fourth 

SEDAR. This is notice of the third 

Assessment Webinar Stage 2 webinar for 

SEDAR 24. 

DATES: Assessment Stage 2 Webinar 3 

will take place September 24, 2010. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for agenda 

information. 

ADDRESSES: The Assessment Webinars 

will be held live online via an internet 

based conferencing service. The 

Webinars may be attended by the 

public. Those interested in participating 

should contact Kari Fenske at SEDAR. 

See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

to request an invitation providing 

webinar access information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kari 

Fenske, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber 

Place Drive, Suite 201, North 

Charleston, SC 29405; (843) 571–4366; 

kari.fenske@safmc.net. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf 

of Mexico, South Atlantic, and 

Caribbean Fishery Management 

Councils, in conjunction with NOAA 

Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf 

States Marine Fisheries Commissions 

have implemented the Southeast Data, 

Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 

process, a multi-step method for 

determining the status of fish stocks in 

the Southeast Region. SEDAR includes 

a Data Workshop, a Stock Assessment 

Process and a Review Workshop. The 

product of the Data Workshop is a data 

report which compiles and evaluates 

potential datasets and recommends 

which datasets are appropriate for 

assessment analyses. The product of the 

Stock Assessment Process is a stock 

assessment report which describes the 

fisheries, evaluates the status of the 

stock, estimates biological benchmarks, 

projects future population conditions, 

and recommends research and 

monitoring needs. The assessment is 

independently peer reviewed at the 

Review Workshop. The product of the 

Review Workshop is a Peer Review 

Evaluation Report documenting Panel 

opinions regarding the strengths and 

weaknesses of the stock assessment and 

input data. Participants for SEDAR 

Workshops and Assessment Process are 

appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South 

Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery 

Management Councils; the Atlantic and 

Gulf States Marine Fisheries 

Commissions; and NOAA Fisheries 

Southeast Regional Office and Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center. Participants 

include data collectors and database 

managers; stock assessment scientists, 

biologists, and researchers; constituency 

representatives including fishermen, 

environmentalists, and NGO’s; 

International experts; and staff of 

Councils, Commissions, and state and 

federal agencies. 

SEDAR 24 Assessment Stage 2, Webinar 

3 Schedule 

September 24, 2010: 1 pm–5 pm 

Assessment panelists will review and 

finalize the assessment report. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
APPENDIX B

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

B-1

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China,

Inv. Nos. 701-TA-249, 731-TA-262, 263, 265 (Third Review).

On August 6, 2010, the Commission determined that it should proceed to expedited

reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B).

With regard to each of the reviews, the Commission determined that the domestic

interested party group response to the notice of institution was adequate. The Commission

received a joint response with company specific data from three domestic producers: East

Jordan Iron Works, Inc.; Neenah Foundry; and U.S. Foundry & Manufacturing Co. That

response also contained individual data and statements of willingness to cooperate with

Commission data requests from domestic producers D & L Foundry and Vestal Manufacturing

Enterprises, Inc. The Commission found each of the five producer responses to be individually

adequate. Because the Commission received an adequate response for domestic producers

accounting for a substantial percentage of U.S. production, the Commission determined that the

domestic interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties

concerning subject imports from Brazil, Canada, or China and therefore determined that the

respondent interested party group responses to the notice of institution were inadequate with

regard to each of the reviews. 

The Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting full reviews of

the orders. The Commission, therefore, determined to conduct expedited reviews of the orders.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and on the

Commission’s website (http://www.usitc.gov).