U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4138 April 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 

from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1059 (Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Keysha Martinez, Investigator (Acting) 

Peder Andersen, Industry Analyst 

Gracemary Roth-Roffy, Attorney 

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

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4138 April 2010

Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 

from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1059 (Review)
 
CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

The original investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s original determination and subsequent review determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s final result of expedited five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

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

producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Related Commission investigations and reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

U.S. tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Domestic like product and domestic industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Related party issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

Leading nonsubject sources of imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

Antidumping actions outside the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

The subject industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

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 ***. Final identification of confidential

information is in the public version of the staff report.

i

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1059 (Review)

HAND TRUCKS AND CERTAIN PARTS THEREOF FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

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)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks and certain

parts thereof from 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.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on November 2, 2009 (74 F.R. 56661) and determined on

February 5, 2010 that it would conduct an expedited review (75 F.R. 8745, February 25, 2010).

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

207.2(f)).

1

 1

 During the original investigation, Gleason manufactured and sold hand trucks. Precision also manufactured

hand trucks, but sold all of its hand trucks through Gleason. 2004 Confidential Staff Report at I-1 n.3. 

 2

 Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof, Inv. No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), USITC Pub. 3737 (November 2004)

(“Original Determination”) at 3. Unless specifically noted otherwise, all references to the Commission’s Original

Determination are to USITC Pub. 3737. 

 3

 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of

China, 69 Fed. Reg. 70,122 (December 2, 2004). 

 4

 Notice of Institution of a Five-Year Review of Hand Trucks from the People’s Republic of China, 74 Fed. Reg.

56,661 (November 2, 2009).

 5

 Confidential Staff Report (“CR”) at I-3 n.4, Public Report (“PR”) at I-3 n.4. 

 6

 CR at I-12, PR at I-11. The domestic producers did not report separately their production of hand truck parts. 

The value of hand truck parts is believed to be a small portion of the overall value of hand trucks and hand truck

parts combined. CR at I-18 and n.41, PR at I-14 and n.41. 

 7

 See Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy. 

 8

 Id.; 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3) (2000).

 9

 See Gleason Group’s Final Comments, dated March 17, 2010 (“Gleason Group’s Final Comments”).

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in this five-year review, we determine, under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks and certain

parts thereof from 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

On November 13, 2003, Gleason Industrial Products, Inc. (“Gleason”) filed an antidumping duty

petition regarding imports of hand trucks and hand truck parts from China. The petition was later

amended to include a Gleason affiliate, Precision Products, Inc. (“Precision”) (collectively “Gleason

Group”).1

 In November 2004, the Commission unanimously determined that an industry in the United

States was threatened with material injury by reason of imports of hand trucks and hand truck parts sold

at less than fair value (“LTFV”) from China.2

 The Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued an

antidumping duty order with respect to these imports on December 2, 2004.3

 

The Commission instituted this review on November 2, 2009.4

 The Commission received a joint

substantive response to the notice of institution from domestic producers Gleason and Precision and

separate responses from domestic producers Harper Trucks, Inc. (“Harper”), Magline, Inc. (“Magline”),

and Wesco Industrial Products (“Wesco”) (“domestic producers”).5

 The responding domestic producers

accounted for *** percent of domestic production of hand trucks and hand truck parts in 2008.6

 The

Commission did not receive responses from any Chinese manufacturer or exporter or any U.S. importer

of the subject merchandise.

On February 5, 2010, the Commission found the domestic interested party response to the notice

of institution adequate and the respondent interested party response inadequate.7

 The Commission did not

find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review. It determined that it would conduct

an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.8

On March 17, 2010, Gleason Group filed final comments pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(d).9 No

respondent interested party has provided any information or arguments to the Commission in this review. 

Accordingly, for our determination in this review, we rely as appropriate on facts available on the record,

which consist of information collected in this five-year review, including information submitted by
 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 11 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).

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

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

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

Pub. 3577 at 4 (February 2003).

4

domestic producers, purchaser responses, publicly available information, and information from the

original investigation.

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

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

domestic like product” and the “industry.”10 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 an

investigation under this subtitle.”11 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to 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.12

In its expedited review determination, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as follows:

The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order consists of hand trucks

manufactured from any material, whether assembled or unassembled, complete or

incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain parts thereof, namely the vertical frame, the

handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, and any combination thereof.

A complete or fully assembled hand truck is a hand-propelled barrow consisting of a

vertically disposed frame having a handle or more than one handle at or near the upper

section of the vertical frame; at least two wheels at or near the lower section of the

vertical frame; and a horizontal projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or

angled to the vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the vertical frame. The

projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, slides under a load for purposes of lifting and/or

moving the load.

That the vertical frame can be converted from a vertical setting to a horizontal setting,

then operated in that horizontal setting as a platform, is not a basis for exclusion of the

hand truck from the scope of this order. That the vertical frame, handling area, wheels,

projecting edges or other parts of the hand truck can be collapsed or folded is not a basis

for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the order. That other wheels may be

connected to the vertical frame, handling area, projecting edges, or other parts of the hand

truck, in addition to the two or more wheels located at or near the lower section of the

vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the order. 

Finally, that the hand truck may exhibit physical characteristics in addition to the vertical

frame, the handling area, the projecting edges or toe plate, and the two wheels at or near

the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from

the scope of the order.
 13 75 Fed. Reg. 11,121 (March 10, 2010). Excluded from the scope are small two-wheel or four-wheel utility

carts specifically designed for carrying loads like personal bags or luggage in which the frame is made from

telescoping tubular material measuring less than 5/8 inch in diameter; hand trucks that use motorized operations

either to move the hand truck from one location to the next or to assist in the lifting of items placed on the hand

truck; vertical carriers designed specifically to transport golf bags; and wheels and tires used in the manufacture of

hand trucks. Id.

 14 CR at I-13, PR at I-11.

 15 CR at I-13, PR at I-11; 2004 Confidential Staff Report at I-9. 

 16 CR at I-13, PR at I-11. 

 17 2004 Confidential Staff Report at I-7.

 18 CR at I-13, PR at I-12.

 19 CR at I-13, PR at I-12.

 20 Original Determination at 6.

 21 See responses of Gleason Group, Harper, Magline, and Wesco to the Commission’s Notice of Institution. 

5

Examples of names commonly used to reference hand trucks are hand truck, convertible

hand truck, appliance hand truck, cylinder hand truck, bag truck, dolly, or hand trolley.

They are typically imported under heading 8716.80.50.10 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States ("HTSUS"), although they may also be imported under

heading 8716.80.50.90. Specific parts of a hand truck, namely the vertical frame, the

handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, or any combination thereof, are

typically imported under heading 8716.90.50.60 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department [of

Commerce]’s written description of the scope is dispositive.13

Hand trucks are used to transport materials generally not exceeding 1,000 pounds over short

distances. Hand trucks are a multipurpose product as they can be used indoors and outdoors as well under

a variety of working conditions and over different types of surfaces.14 The majority of hand trucks sold

are designed for general use, but certain hand trucks are designed specifically for transporting certain

items such as appliances, cylinders, barrels, bags, trees, or plants.15 Hand trucks sold in the United States

are typically manufactured from steel components.16 In addition to the finished form, hand trucks are sold

unassembled in kits which contain all or some of the parts necessary to assemble a finished hand truck

(i.e., the frame, the handling area, and the projecting edges or toe plate).17 Hand truck parts are used

almost exclusively for the production of finished hand trucks.18 U.S.-produced hand truck parts that are

sold in the United States are commonly aluminum.19

In the original investigation, the Commission defined a single domestic like product consisting of

hand trucks and parts thereof commensurate with the scope of the investigation.20 In this review, the

domestic producers agree with the Commission’s definition of the domestic like product in the original

investigation.21 There is no new information obtained during this review that would suggest any reason to

revisit the Commission’s domestic like product definition in the original investigation. Therefore, we

continue to define the domestic like product as hand trucks and hand truck parts corresponding to the

scope definition.
 22 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.

 23 Original Determination at 7.

 24 See responses of Gleason Group, Harper, Magline, and Wesco to the Commission’s Notice of Institution. 

 25 The related parties provision, 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B), allows the Commission to exclude certain domestic

producers from the domestic industry that import subject merchandise or have a corporate affiliation with importers

or exporters of the subject merchandise if the Commission finds that appropriate circumstances exist. In this review,

both Valley Craft, a U.S. producer, and Safco Products, a U.S. importer of hand trucks from China, are wholly

owned by Liberty Diversified. CR at I-21, PR at I-17. Valley Craft is a related party because it shares a parent

corporation with an importer of subject merchandise. However, Valley Craft did not respond to the Commission’s

Notice of Institution. Consequently, the record contains no data from Valley Craft, and thus the issue of whether

appropriate circumstances exist to exclude it from the domestic industry is moot. 

 26 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 27 The SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). 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.” SAA at 883. 

 28 Although 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

(continued...)

6

III. 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.”22 In defining the domestic

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

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

merchant market.

In the original investigation, the Commission defined the domestic industry as consisting of all

domestic producers of hand trucks and hand truck parts.23 In this review, the domestic producers agree

with the Commission’s definition of domestic industry in the original investigation,24 and there is no new

evidence presented in this review to warrant a different conclusion. Accordingly, we define the domestic

industry as all domestic producers of hand trucks and hand truck parts.25

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER IS REVOKED

A. Legal Standards

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

antidumping 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 duty

order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably

foreseeable time.”26 The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), Statement of Administrative

Action (“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.”27 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in

nature.28 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year review
 28(...continued)

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

SAA at 884.

 29 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 without opinion, 140 Fed.

Appx. 268 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-153 at 7-8 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 24,

2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-152 at 4 n.3 & 5-6 n.6 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 20,

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, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 19, 2002) (“‘likely’ is

tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 30 For a complete statement of Commissioner 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).

 31 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. 

 32 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 33 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.

 34 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). Commerce made no duty absorption findings with respect to the order under review. 

CR at I-5, PR at I-3. 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. 19

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

SAA at 886.

7

provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.29

30 31

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.”32 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.”33

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.”34 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).35

No respondent interested party participated in this review. The record, therefore, contains no

information with respect to capacity and production of hand trucks and hand truck parts in China during
 36 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.”).

 37 Commissioner 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.

 38 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 

 39 CR at I-27, PR at I-21. 

 40 Original Determination at 10; CR/PR at Table I-8. 

 41 Original Determination (Confidential Version) at 13. 

 42 Original Determination at 10. 

 43 Original Determination (Confidential Version) at 13. 

8

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

record.36 37

B. Conditions of Competition and Business Cycle

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.”38 We find the following conditions

of competition relevant to our determination.

1. Demand

Demand for hand trucks is determined by the needs of final consumers and business customers

for stacking and moving loads.39 In the original investigation, the Commission found that demand for

finished hand trucks, as measured by apparent U.S. consumption in quantity terms, increased by 31.9

percent from 2001 to 2003 (from 2.2 million units to 2.9 million units). It noted that apparent U.S.

consumption in quantity terms was 1.0 percent higher in the first three quarters of 2004 (interim 2004) at

1.5 million units than in the same period in 2003 (interim 2003).40 The Commission further found that

apparent U.S. consumption of finished hand trucks and parts, as measured by value, increased by ***

percent from 2001 to 2003 and was *** percent higher in interim 2004 than in interim 2003.41

With respect to hand truck parts, the Commission noted that demand for hand truck parts is

derived from the demand for finished hand trucks and that demand for parts “accounted for a

comparatively small amount of the demand.”42 The Commission found that, in 2003, apparent U.S.

consumption of hand truck parts, as measured by value, was ***, while consumption of finished hand

trucks was ***.43
 44 CR/PR at Table I-8. In the original investigation, the Commission relied on “(1) quantity-based volume and

consumption data for finished hand trucks, which comprise the majority of subject imports . . . and (2) value-based

volume data and consumption data for all subject imports (finished hand trucks and hand truck parts) for demand and

volume trends.” The Commission relied on these data due to the difficulty of aggregating data for finished hand

trucks with various combinations of hand truck parts. It further found that trends for these data sets were similar. 

Original Determination at 23. 

In this review, we rely on quantity-based volume and consumption data for finished hand trucks in our

analysis of volume and consumption trends since the original investigation. As noted above, the domestic producers

did not report separately their production of hand truck parts. Additionally, import data in the staff report are only

for finished hand trucks because of “the constraints of official import statistics, which provide for hand truck parts

in a diverse statistical reporting number.” CR at I-18, PR at I-14. Under these circumstances, we consider finished

hand trucks to be a reliable proxy for determining trends for finished hand trucks and hand truck parts combined. 

Hand truck parts are believed to be a small portion of the overall demand for hand trucks and hand truck parts. 

Original Determination at 23; CR at I-18 and n.41, PR at I-14 and n.41. Additionally, the majority of subject

imports during the original investigation were finished hand trucks. Original Determination at 23. Finally, we note

that the data collected in this review with respect to domestic production operations are less complete than in the

original investigation. Because the responding domestic producers are believed to have accounted for most of

domestic production during the original investigation (CR at I-19 n.43, PR at I-15 n.43), however, the data are

generally comparable. 

 45 CR at I-26, PR at I-21.

 46 Original Determination at 10.

 47 Original Determination (Confidential Version) at 13-14. 

 48 Original Determination at 10.

 49 Original Determination at 10.

 50 Original Determination at 10-11.

 51 *** Response at 4. 

 52 *** Response at 4. 

9

Demand for hand trucks has declined since the original investigation. In 2008, apparent U.S.

consumption of finished hand trucks in terms of quantity was lower, at *** units, than at any time during

the original investigation.44 According to ***, a *** purchaser, demand for hand trucks has decreased as

consumers have stopped buying discretionary items due to current economic conditions.45

2. Channels of Distribution/U.S. Market Sectors 

Hand trucks are sold to residential, industrial, and office/small business customers through

various channels of distribution, specifically home improvement stores, club warehouses, hardware

stores, catalog houses/industrial distributors, office supply stores and other firms.46 In the original

investigation, the Commission found that the majority of domestic producers’ U.S. shipments were sold

to home improvement stores (*** percent) and club warehouses (*** percent), with the remainder

primarily going to catalog houses/industrial distributors (*** percent).47 The Commission further found

that the majority of importers’ U.S. shipments were also sold to home improvement stores, club

warehouses, and catalog houses/distributors.48 It noted, however, that club warehouses were the leading

channel of distribution for importers’ shipments.49 Although domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of

finished hand trucks were relatively stable, importers’ U.S. shipments of the Chinese product doubled

from 2001 to 2003 and continued to grow in interim 2004, with significant gains in all channels of

distribution.50 

According to the information collected in this review, the number of online (Internet) suppliers

has grown since the original investigation. *** indicated that ***.51 *** also reported that certain large

U.S. industrial distributors have ***.52
 53 Original Determination at 11.

 54 Original Determination at 11.

 55 Original Determination (Confidential Version) at 16. As the Commission noted in the original investigation,

*** was the largest single purchaser of hand trucks in 2003, purchasing or directly importing *** units (equivalent to

*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption for the year). Original Determination (Confidential Version) at 16. 

 56 Original Determination at 11.

 57 Original Determination at 11-12.

 58 CR at I-16, PR at I-13.

 59 Original Determination (Confidential Version) at 17.

 60 Original Determination (Confidential Version) at 17.

 61 Original Determination at 12.

 62 CR/PR at Table I-4. 

 63 Original Determination at 12.

10

In the original investigation, the Commission found that demand for finished hand trucks was

fueled by the home improvement sector of the U.S. market, which encompasses home improvement stores

and club warehouses. Home improvement stores (e.g., Home Depot and Lowe’s) and club warehouses

(e.g., Costco) are generally national chains (referred to as “big-box” retailers) which purchase hand trucks

in large volumes from a single or limited number of suppliers.53 In the original investigation, the

Commission found that because they purchased in large volumes, the big-box retailers were able to

negotiate low purchase prices for hand trucks along with volume discounts.54 Furthermore, the

Commission found that a loss of even one home improvement store account would result in the loss of a

significant percentage of a hand truck producer’s annual sales.55 Consequently, the Commission found

that price competition was intense within the home improvement sector. It noted that most of the

competition between the domestic like product and subject imports occurred in this sector.56

The Commission found that the catalog house/industrial distributor sector of the U.S. market was

a distant second to the home improvement sector in terms of demand for hand trucks. It noted that

industrial distributors bought more specialized and expensive hand trucks, typically in smaller volumes

than were purchased in the home improvement sector. Finally, the Commission found that office supply

customers, the smallest sector of the market, bought hand trucks through national office supply stores or

through certain mail-order dealers.57

According to information submitted by domestic producers in this review, home improvement

stores continue to be an important channel of distribution for hand trucks. *** identified Home Depot

and Lowe’s as leading purchasers of hand trucks.58

3. Supply 

In the original investigation, the Commission noted that the domestic industry was dominated by

three large producers – Gleason, Angelus, and Harper Trucks – that accounted for *** percent of

reported production in 2003.59 Of these three, Gleason was the largest domestic producer of hand trucks,

accounting for *** percent of domestic production in 2003.60 The remainder of the industry was

comprised of several small domestic producers of hand trucks and two producers of hand truck parts.61 In

2008, Gleason Group and Harper, which purchased Angelus in 2008, accounted for *** percent of

reported finished hand truck production in the United States.62

In the original investigation, the Commission found that increasing production capacity for hand

trucks was relatively easy and could sometimes be achieved by simply adding personnel to the production

line. The Commission noted that several domestic and Chinese producers produced other products on the

same equipment used to produce hand trucks.63
 64 Original Determination at 12.

 65 Original Determination at 12.

 66 Original Determination at 13; Original Determination (Confidential Version) at 19; CR/PR at Table I-8.

 67 Original Determination at 13.

 68 Original Determination at 13.

 69 CR/PR at Table I-8. 

 70 CR/PR at Table I-8. 

 71 CR/PR at Table I-8. 

 72 Original Determination at 13.

 73 Original Determination at 13.

 74 Original Determination at 13.

 75 *** Response at 2. 

 76 *** Response at 4.

 77 CR at I-15, PR at 12.

11

The Commission further found that the hand truck industry was characterized by a high level of

variable costs relative to capital investment.64 As a result of the high level of variable costs, producers

would likely cut production and attempt to retain existing profits rather than produce at a loss.65

Finally, the Commission found that nonsubject imports had only a small share of the U.S. market

for finished hand trucks in terms of quantity (ranging from 2.3 percent to 6.2 percent of apparent U.S.

consumption) during the period examined.66 It also noted that, in terms of quantity, nonsubject imports’

market share for finished hand trucks and hand truck parts combined was stable throughout the period.67

Nonsubject imports also had a small share of the U.S. market for finished hand trucks and hand truck

parts combined in terms of value (ranging from *** percent to *** percent).68

Since the imposition of the antidumping duty order, the domestic industry’s share of the U.S.

market for finished hand trucks, in terms of quantity, increased markedly, from 50.9 percent in 2003 to

*** percent in 2008.69 Subject imports’ U.S. market share for finished hand trucks, in terms of quantity,

declined from 46.8 percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2008.70 Although nonsubject imports’ share of the

U.S. market for finished hand trucks, in terms of quantity, more than doubled since 2003, it remained

relatively small at *** percent.71

4. Interchangeability 

In the original investigation, the Commission found that there was a moderate to high level of

interchangeability between the domestic like product and subject imports.72 The majority of producers,

importers, and purchasers reported that the domestic product and subject imports could always or

frequently be used interchangeably.73 Based on Chinese suppliers’ sales to Home Depot and Lowe’s

during the period examined in the original investigation and confirmed lost sales and revenue allegations,

the Commission found that the level of interchangeability between the domestic product and subject

imports translated “into direct competition for sales of general-use hand trucks at national home

improvement stores, club warehouses, and other major retailers.”74

In this review, *** indicated that the general purpose two-wheel hand truck, which is produced

by nearly every domestic producer, makes up an estimated 95 percent of the market.75 It further indicated

that ***.76 ***, however, stated that there is “an on-going focus on innovation of features and use of new

materials such as aluminum in the production of hand trucks” from China.77 On balance, we find the

limited record of this expedited review indicates that the subject imports and the domestic like product

continue to be moderately to highly interchangeable.
 78 Original Determination at 14.

 79 Original Determination at 14.

 80 Original Determination at 14.

 81 Original Determination at 14.

 82 See responses of *** and ***. 

 83 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 84 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A)-(D).

 85 Original Determination at 27.

 86 Original Determination at 15.

 87 Original Determination at 16.

 88 Original Determination at 16.

12

5. Pricing

In the original investigation, the Commission found that price is an important consideration in

purchasing hand trucks.78 Purchasers ranked price, quality, and availability as the most important factors

in purchasing decisions.79 They ranked imports from China and the domestic like product comparable in

quality and availability, but ranked the Chinese product as being lower in price.80 A majority of both

producers and importers reported that non-price differences between hand trucks were never or only

sometimes significant in hand truck sales.81

The limited information in this expedited review indicates that the importance of price in

purchasing decisions has not diminished since the time of the original investigation. Purchasers reported

that the reason subject imports decreased since the original investigation was because antidumping duties

have made it no longer cost effective to purchase hand trucks from China.82 

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty order

were 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.83 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.84

In the original investigation, the Commission found that the volume of subject imports and the

increase in that volume were significant, both in absolute terms and relative to production and

consumption.85 With respect to finished hand trucks, the Commission found that the volume of subject

imports as measured by quantity increased by 107.1 percent from 2001 to 2003 and was 0.4 percent

higher in interim 2004 than in interim 2003.86 It noted that the market penetration of subject imports of

finished hand trucks increased from 29.8 percent in 2001 to 46.8 percent in 2003, for an overall increase

of 17.0 percentage points.87 The Commission found that subject import market share was stable, although

it was somewhat lower in interim 2004 (45.5 percent) than in interim 2003 (45.8 percent).88 

With respect to hand trucks and hand truck parts combined, the Commission found that subject

import volume as measured by value increased by *** percent from to 2001 to 2003 and was *** percent
 89 Original Determination (Confidential Version) at 25.

 90 Original Determination (Confidential Version) at 25. 

 91 Original Determination at 15-16, 26 n.185. 

 92 Original Determination at 16.

 93 Original Determination at 26.

 94 Original Determination at 17-18.

 95 Original Determination (Confidential Version) at 27- 30.

 96 Original Determination at 19. 

 97 Original Determination at 19. 

 98 Original Determination at 19.

 99 Original Determination at 20.

 100 Original Determination at 19. 

 101 Original Determination at 15-16, 26 n.185. 

13

higher in interim 2004 than in interim 2003.89 The Commission further noted that subject import market

penetration *** from 2001 and 2003, increasing from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2003, and

was *** percentage points higher in interim 2004 than in interim 2003.90 Noting that subject import

volume and market shares for finished hand trucks and hand truck parts as measured by quantity and

value had either stabilized or increased at a smaller rate during the latter part of the period of

investigation, the Commission attributed these changes to the pendency of the investigation.91

The Commission also found that subject imports’ gain in market share, as measured both by

quantity and value, came at the expense of the domestic industry. It observed that nonsubject imports’

market share as measured by quantity remained stable during the period examined. The Commission also

observed that nonsubject imports’ market share as measured by value decreased from 2001 to 2003 and

was lower in interim 2004 than in interim 2003.92

As noted above, in the original investigation, the Commission determined that the domestic

industry was threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports. In its threat analysis, the

Commission found that, based on the significant rate of increase in subject import volume and market

penetration over the period examined, subject imports would likely increase substantially in the imminent

future if an order were not imposed.93 The Commission further found that, if no order were imposed,

large purchasers, which accounted for a significant portion of domestic consumption, would switch from

purchasing domestic product to purchasing subject imports.94 It noted that a sizable number of

purchasers, including ***, indicated that they had canceled or *** to purchase subject imports due to the

ongoing investigation.95

The Commission also found that Chinese producers had the means to increase their exports to the

U.S. market substantially in the imminent future. The Commission observed that Chinese producers had

increased their exports to the United States significantly over the period examined.96 In addition, Chinese

producers had excess production capacity in interim 2004 and projected excess capacity for full year

2004.97 The Commission also found that Chinese production levels could be ramped up quickly in order

to increase their exports to the United States in the absence of an order. In support, the Commission

noted that the responding Chinese producers’ rapid increases in production over the period examined

corresponded to increases in their exports to the United States.98 The Commission also found that product

shifting was a potential source of additional Chinese capacity that could be used to increase exports to the

United States.99 Finally, the Commission noted that Chinese producers were export-oriented and that

their exports to third countries could be diverted to the U.S. market.100

As the Commission found in the original investigation, the volume of subject imports decreased

in 2003 and interim 2004 because of the pendency of the investigation.101 Following imposition of the

antidumping duty order, the volume of subject imports continued to decline. Based on official import
 102 Although the volume of subject imports was relatively steady from 2004 to 2006, it fell sharply thereafter. 

The volume of subject imports declined from 1.0 million units in 2004 to 908,507 units in 2005. It increased slightly

to 943,756 units in 2006, but then declined to 550,363 units in 2007 and to 252,245 units in 2008. CR/PR at Table I6. On this limited record, it is not clear what factors caused the substantial decline in the latter part of the period of

review. We note, however, that as a result of a 2008 administrative review, the antidumping duty margin for Taifa,

the *** reporting foreign producer and exporter of hand trucks in the original investigation, increased from 26.49

percent to the country-wide rate (383.60 percent). CR/PR at Table I-1, CR at I-23, PR at I-18. 

 103 CR/PR at Table I-8.

 104 See responses of *** and ***.

 105 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.

 106 Original Determination at 22-23, 27.

14

statistics, the volume of subject imports declined from 1 million units in 2004 to 252,245 units in 2008.102

As a share of apparent U.S. consumption on a quantity basis, subject imports also declined from 46.8

percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2008.103 According to purchasers’ responses in this review, subject

imports have decreased since the original investigation because the antidumping duties have made

purchases of subject imports “cost ineffective.”104

As noted above, in the original investigation, the Commission found that subject imports likely

would increase substantially in the imminent future if no order were imposed. The Commission based

this finding primarily on the Chinese producers' substantial unused capacity, export orientation, and their

ability to increase capacity and production quickly. There is no evidence on the record of this review

indicating that these conditions have changed since the original investigation. Additionally, the large size

of the U.S. market provides Chinese producers with an incentive to increase significantly their exports to

the United States. Given their historical pattern of purchases and that there is nothing in the record to

indicate a deviation from this pattern, large volume purchasers, such as Lowe’s and Home Depot, would

likely resume plans to purchase low-priced subject imports in lieu of domestic like product if the order

were revoked.

Based on the increase in the volume and market share of subject imports during the original

investigation, the substantial Chinese production capacity and unused capacity at the end of the original

investigation, the ability of Chinese producers to increase capacity and production quickly, the export

orientation of the Chinese industry, and the attractiveness of the U.S. market, we find that Chinese

producers have the ability and the incentive to increase their exports to the United States significantly if

the order were revoked. Therefore, we find that the likely volume of subject imports, both in absolute

terms and relative to production and consumption in the United States, would likely be significant within

the reasonably foreseeable future if the order were revoked.

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping duty order were

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

the subject imports as compared to the domestic like product 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.105

In the original investigation, the Commission found that subject imports significantly undersold

the domestic like product. Subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 114 of 122 quarterly

price comparisons by margins as high as 80 percent.106 The Commission, however, did not find that

subject imports had a significant depressing effect on domestic prices, as there were no clear pricing

trends and domestic prices remained relatively stable throughout the period examined. Although there
 107 Original Determination at 22-23.

 108 Original Determination at 21.

 109 Original Determination at 23.

 110 See responses of *** and ***.

15

was some evidence of price suppression toward the end of the period, the Commission did not find

significant price effects.107 

In its threat analysis, the Commission found that subject imports were likely to have significant

price-suppressing effects on domestic prices absent antidumping relief. The Commission found that the

domestic like product and the subject imports were moderately to highly substitutable and that price was

an important factor in purchasing decisions. It noted that price competition was intense in the important

home improvement sector of the U.S. market and that a number of large volume purchasers such as Home

Depot were switching to lower-priced subject imports.108 The Commission noted that, given the likely

loss of sales volume, the industry would have to spread its fixed costs over fewer sales. As a result, the

domestic industry would not be able to raise prices sufficiently on the remaining sales to compensate for

the reduced volume. Thus, the Commission found that given the widespread underselling at high

margins, the evidence of price suppression at the end of the period, and the anticipated reduction in

domestic producers’ sales volume, absent an antidumping order, the likely significant volume of subject

imports would likely have significant price-suppressing effects on domestic prices in the imminent

future.109

There is no new product-specific pricing information on the record of this expedited review. As

explained above, Chinese producers likely would increase their exports to the United States significantly

in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty order were revoked. The record in this

review indicates that price continues to be an important factor in purchasing decisions.110 Consequently,

we find that subject imports would be likely to undersell the domestic like product in order to gain market

share as they successfully did during the period examined in the original investigation. As noted above,

purchasers reported that subject imports have decreased since the original investigation because it is no

longer cost effective to purchase hand trucks from China due to the antidumping duties. There is nothing

on the record contradicting these purchaser statements. We also find, as the Commission did in the

original investigation, that large volume purchasers likely would resume their plans to purchase subject

imports rather than the domestic product if the order were revoked. As a result, the domestic industry

likely would lose critical sales volume and likely would be unable to spread its fixed costs over the

remaining sales. Therefore, we conclude that, if the order were revoked, subject imports from China

likely would increase significantly at prices that likely would undersell the domestic like product, and that

those imports likely would have a depressing or suppressing effect on prices for the domestic like

product.
 111 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

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

these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an

industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at

885; see also 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Tariff Act states that “the Commission may consider

the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” 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 its expedited sunset review of the antidumping finding on hand trucks and hand truck parts from China,

Commerce found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence

of dumping at the following margins: 32.76 percent for Future Tool, 46.48 percent for Huatian, 32.76 percent for

Shandong, 26.49 percent for Taifa, 33.68 percent for True Potential, and 383.60 percent for the PRC-wide rate. CR

at I-5, PR at I-5.

 112 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 113 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 114 Original Determination at 28. The Commission found that, although the volume and market penetration of

subject imports rose during the period examined and there was widespread underselling by subject imports, the

industry’s performance indicators were relatively stable and operating income was relatively healthy. It noted,

however, that the domestic industry’s profitability declined in 2003. Original Determination at 28. 

 115 Original Determination at 24-26. 

16

E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports111

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

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.112 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.113 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 order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order were revoked.

In the original investigation, despite finding that subject imports increased significantly and

undersold the domestic like product significantly, the Commission determined that the negative effects of

the subject imports on the domestic industry had not yet risen to the level of material injury.114 In its

threat analysis, the Commission found that, in the absence of antidumping relief, the volume of subject

imports and the price pressure exerted by these imports would increase, particularly given the domestic

industry’s likely loss of certain major accounts (such as Home Depot and Lowe’s) if no order were

imposed. Declines in the industry’s financial performance at the end of the period of investigation

indicated that it was vulnerable to the effects of subject imports and that the industry’s condition would

further deteriorate in the near future if the escalating volume and price pressure of subject imports

continued. The Commission found that this would result in further reductions in prices or the suppression

of price increases that, in turn, would lead to declines in domestic industry revenues and profitability. 

Thus, the Commission concluded that, absent the issuance of an antidumping duty order, further subject

imports were imminent and material injury by reason of subject imports would occur.115
 116 We note that domestic producers provided all the information requested in response to the Commission’s

Notice of Institution.

 117 See CR/PR at Table I-5.

 118 The domestic industry’s production was 1.5 million units in 2003 *** in 2008. CR/PR at Table I-5. The

industry’s shipments, by quantity, were 1.5 million units in 2003 and *** units in 2008. CR/PR at Table I-5.

 119 The average unit value of the domestic industry’s shipments was $36.41 in 2003 and $*** in 2008. CR/PR at

Table I-5. The industry’s net sales were $53.4 million in 2003 and $*** in 2008. CR/PR at Table I-5.

 120 The industry’s operating income declined from $3.5 million in 2003 to $*** in 2008. The operating income

margin was 6.6 percent in 2003 and *** percent in 2008. 

 121 There is no information in the record of this expedited review pertaining to many of the other indicators, such

as productivity, return on investments, cash flow, wages, ability to raise capital, investment capacity, and

employment levels, that we customarily consider in assessing whether the domestic industry is in a weakened

condition.

 122 The volume of nonsubject imports of finished hand trucks increased from 66,251 units in 2003 to 233,408

units in 2008. CR/PR at Table I-6. Nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption of finished hand trucks

in terms of quantity increased from 5.1 percent to *** percent. CR/PR at Table I-8. 

17

Because this is an expedited review, there is limited information on the record concerning the

performance of the domestic industry since the original injury determination.116 This information pertains

only to certain economic factors and is available only for 2008.117 The data show that the domestic

industry’s production of finished hand trucks was *** percent lower in 2008 than in 2003 and, consistent

with the decrease in demand, its U.S. shipments were lower in 2008 than in 2003.118 The industry’s

average unit value of U.S. sales and net sales were higher in 2008 than in 2003.119 Although both the

operating income and operating margins declined, the industry was profitable.120 Thus, the limited and

mixed evidence in this expedited review does not permit us to determine whether the domestic industry is

vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order were revoked.121

Based on the information available in this review, including information in the record of the

original investigation, we find that revocation of the order would likely lead to a significant increase in

the volume of subject imports. In addition, subject imports would significantly undersell the domestic

product, resulting in significant depression and/or suppression of U.S. prices for the domestic like

product. We find that the intensified subject import competition that would likely occur after revocation

of the order would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. Specifically, the

domestic industry would likely lose market share to low-priced subject imports and would likely obtain

lower prices due to competition from subject imports, which would adversely impact its production,

shipments, sales, and revenue. These reductions would likely 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.

We have considered the likely effects of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market. As noted above,

subject imports’ gain in market share during the original investigation came largely at the expense of the

domestic industry. Although the volume and market share of subject imports declined substantially

during the period examined in this review, nonsubject imports’ volume and market share remained

relatively small, while the domestic industry’s market share increased substantially.122 We find, therefore,

that the volume and market share of nonsubject imports will likely remain low in the reasonably

foreseeable future. Accordingly, we find that subject imports of hand trucks and hand truck parts from

China are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation

of the antidumping duty finding, notwithstanding the presence of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market.

We find that, if the order were revoked, the likely significant adverse impact would not be

attributable to lower demand levels. As noted above, despite the fact that demand has fallen since the end

of the original investigation, the domestic industry has fared relatively well. 
18

Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty order on hand trucks and parts thereof

from China were revoked, subject imports from China would be likely to have a significant adverse

impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on hand

trucks and certain parts thereof from 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-1

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

On November 2, 2009, 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 a review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks and

certain parts thereof (“hand trucks”) from China would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.2 3

 On February 5, 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 a full review, the Commission

determined to conduct an expedited review of the antidumping duty order pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of

the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)).6

 The Commission voted on this review on March 31, 2010, and notified

Commerce of its determination on April 15, 2010. The following tabulation presents selected information

relating to the schedule of this five-year review.7

 1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2 74 FR 56661, November 2, 2009. 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 a five-year review of the subject antidumping duty order concurrently with the Commission’s

notice of institution. 74 FR 56593, November 2, 2009.

 4

 The Commission received four submissions from domestic producers Gleason Industrial Products, Inc.

(“Gleason”) and its jointly-owned and operated affiliate Precision Products, Inc. (“Precision”), Harper Trucks, Inc.

(“Harper”), Magline, Inc. (“Magline”), and Wesco Industrial Products (“Wesco”) (collectively referred to herein as

“domestic interested parties”) in response to its notice of institution for the subject review. Gleason and Precision

(collectively, “Gleason Group”) are represented by the law firm of Crowell & Moring LLP, while the remaining

domestic interested parties are not represented by outside legal counsel. The domestic interested parties accounted

for approximately *** percent of total U.S. production of hand trucks in 2008. The coverage estimate was

calculated as the quantity of total reported production (*** hand trucks) divided by the average of the estimates for

total U.S. production provided by the participating domestic producers in their responses to the Commission's notice

of institution in this review (*** hand trucks).

 5

 The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties to its notice of institution.

 6

 75 FR 8745, February 25, 2010. The Commission’s notice of an expedited review 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 a five-year sunset review are

presented in app. A.

I-3
Effective date Action

Federal Register

citation

November 2, 2009 Commission’s institution of five-year review

74 FR 56661 

November 2, 2009

November 2, 2009 Commerce’s initiation of five-year review

74 FR 56593

November 2, 2009

February 5, 2010 Commission’s determination to conduct an expedited five-year review

75 FR 8745

February 25, 2010

March 10, 2010 Commerce’s final determination in its expedited five-year review

75 FR 11120

March 10, 2010

March 31, 2010 Commission’s vote Not applicable

Apri 15, 2010 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce Not applicable

The Original Investigation

On November 13, 2003, a petition was 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 less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of hand trucks from China.8

 On October 14, 2004, Commerce

made an affirmative final LTFV determination9

 and, on November 22, 2004, the Commission completed

its original investigation, determining that an industry in the United States was threatened with material

injury by reason of LTFV imports of hand trucks from China.10 After receipt of the Commission’s final

affirmative determination, Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on imports of hand trucks from

China.11

Commerce’s Original Determination and Subsequent Review Determinations

Commerce’s original determination was published on October 14, 2004, and the antidumping

duty order concerning hand trucks from China was issued on December 2, 2004. Commerce is currently

conducting an administrative review of the subject merchandise from China for the 2007-08 period and

has published its preliminary results; however, the final results of Commerce’s administrative review are

not expected to be released until later in 2010.12 In addition, Commerce has completed three

administrative reviews13 and two new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from

 8 The petition was filed by Gleason Industrial Products, Inc., Los Angeles, CA. On December 1, 2003, Gleason

filed an amendment to the petition to include a second member of the Gleason Group, Precision Products, Inc.,

Lincoln, IL, as a co-petitioner. Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From China: Investigation No. 731-TA1059 (Final), USITC Publication 3737, November 2004, p. I-1.

 9

 69 FR 60980, October 14, 2004.

 10 69 FR 69957, December 1, 2004.

 11 69 FR 70122, December 2, 2004.

 12 75 FR 1339, January 11, 2010.

 13 Administrative review for the period December 1, 2006, through November 30, 2007 was rescinded. Notice of

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s

Republic of China, 73 FR 36300 (July 28, 2008).

I-4
China as shown in table I-1. Although there have been twenty scope rulings concerning the antidumping

duty order,14 there have been no changed circumstances determinations and no duty absorption findings.

Commerce’s Final Result of Expedited Five-Year Review

Commerce published the final result of its review based on the facts available on March 10, 2010. 

Commerce concluded that revocation of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from China would

likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at margins determined in its original amended final

determination.15 Information on Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty order, administrative

review determinations, new shipper review determinations, and final results of its expedited five-year

review is presented in table I-1.

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act Funds to Affected Domestic Producers

Qualified U.S. producers of hand trucks are eligible to receive disbursements from U.S. Customs

and Border Protection (“Customs”) under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000

(“CDSOA”), also known as the Byrd Amendment.16 Certifications were filed with Customs by three

claimants with respect to hand trucks from China during 2006-09. Gleason and Precision filed separate

claims to receive disbursements under CDSOA in 2006. From 2007-09, Wesco, along with Gleason and

Precision, filed claims. No other CDSOA claims/disbursements were made with respect to the subject

merchandise from China prior to 2006.17 Table I-2 presents CDSOA claims and disbursements for

Federal fiscal years 2006-09.

 14 See the section of this report entitled “Scope” for information concerning Commerce’s scope rulings.

 15 75 FR 11120, March 10, 2010.

 16 19 CFR 159.64(g).

 17 Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2004-2009,

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.

I-5
Table I-1

Hand trucks: Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty order, administrative and new

shipper 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 10/14/2004 69 FR 60980

04/01/2003-

09/30/2003

Future Tool 30.56%

Huatian 45.04%

Shandong 30.56%

Taifa 27.00%

True Potential 24.90%

Xinghua 386.75% 386.75%

Amended final

determination2 11/12/2004 69 FR 65410

04/01/2003-

09/30/2003

Future Tool 32.76%

Huatian 46.48%

Shandong 32.76%

Taifa 26.49%

True Potential 33.68% 383.60%

Antidumping duty order 12/02/2004 69 FR 70122 --

Future Tool 32.76%

Huatian 46.48%

Shandong 32.76%

Taifa 26.49%

True Potential 33.68% 383.60%

Administrative review 05/15/2007 72 FR 27287

12/01/2004-

11/30/2005

Jiaxing 383.60%

True Potential 17.59% 383.60%

New shipper review 05/15/2007 72 FR 27287

12/01/2004-

11/30/2005

Since

Hardware 0.00% --

Administrative review 07/28/2008 73 FR 43684

12/01/2005-

11/30/2006 Taifa 383.60% 383.60%

Administrative review 01/28/2008 73 FR 4829

12/01/2006-

11/30/2007 (3

) (3)

New shipper review 08/15/2008 73 FR 47888

12/01/2006-

05/31/2007 New-Tec 0.00% --

Preliminary results of

administrative review 01/11/2010 75 FR 1339

12/01/2007-

10/31/2007

Since

Hardware 17.57% --

Final results of

expedited five-year

review 03/10/2010 75 FR 11120

Future Tool 32.76%

Huatian 46.48%

Shandong 32.76%

Taifa 26.49%

True Potential 33.68% 383.60%

 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. 

69 FR 65410, November 12, 2004.

 3

 This review was rescinded because the petitioners (Gleason and Precision) withdrew their requests for review. 73 FR

36300, June 26, 2008.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

I-6
Table I-2

Hand trucks: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal years 2006-091 2

Year Claimant

Share of yearly

allocation

Certification

amount3 Amount disbursed

Percent4 Dollars

2006

Gleason 45.50 12,697,538.00 983.13

Precision 54.50 15,212,000.00 1,177.81

Total 100.00 27,909,538.00 2,160.94

2007

Gleason 37.39 22,479,558.30 1,085,781.69

Precision 42.31 25,433,455.17 1,228,457.41

Wesco 20.30 12,204,585.00 589,491.79

Total 100.00 60,117,598.47 2,903,730.89

2008

Gleason 37.27 29,903,572.61 1,231,895.83

Precision 38.80 31,133,521.76 1,282,564.34

Wesco 23.92 19,195,503.21 790,770.41

Total 100.00 80,232,597.58 3,305,230.58

2009

Gleason 37.27 28,671,766.78 531,148.65

Precision 38.80 29,850,957.42 552,993.33

Wesco 23.92 18,404,732.80 340,950.35

Total 100.00 76,927,457.00 1,425,092.33

 1 The Federal fiscal year is October 1-September 30.

 2

 No CDSOA claims and disbursements were made with respect to hand trucks from China prior to 2006.

 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 2004-09,

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.

Related Commission Investigations and Reviews

The Commission has conducted no other related investigations or reviews concerning hand

trucks. However, in 1972 the Commission made a unanimous negative determination with respect to

hand pallet trucks from France.18

 18 Hand Pallet Trucks from France, Inv. No. AA1921-95, TC Publication 498, July 1972.

I-7
THE PRODUCT

Scope

In its original antidumping duty order, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as follows:

. . .hand trucks manufactured from any material, whether assembled or unassembled,

complete or incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain parts thereof, namely the

vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, and any

combination thereof. A complete or fully assembled hand truck is a hand-propelled

barrow consisting of a vertically disposed frame having a handle or more than one handle

at or near the upper section of the vertical frame; at least two wheels at or near the lower

section of the vertical frame; and a horizontal projecting edge or edges, or toe plate,

perpendicular or angled to the vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the vertical

frame. The projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, slides under a load for purposes of

lifting and/or moving the load. That the vertical frame can be converted from a vertical

setting to a horizontal setting, then operated in that horizontal setting as a platform, is not

a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of this petition. That the vertical

frame, handling area, wheels, projecting edges or other parts of the hand truck can be

collapsed or folded is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the

petition. That other wheels may be connected to the vertical frame, handling area,

projecting edges, or other parts of the hand truck, in addition to the two or more wheels

located at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of

the hand truck from the scope of the petition. Finally, that the hand truck may exhibit

physical characteristics in addition to the vertical frame, the handling area, the projecting

edges or toe plate, and the two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is

not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. Examples of

names commonly used to reference hand trucks are hand truck, convertible hand truck,

appliance hand truck, cylinder hand truck, bag truck, dolly, or hand trolley. They are

typically imported under heading 8716.80.50.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (“HTSUS”), although they may also be imported under heading

8716.80.50.90. Specific parts of a hand truck, namely the vertical frame, the handling

area and the projecting edges or toe plate, or any combination thereof, are typically

imported under heading 8716.90.50.60 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department’s

written description of the scope is dispositive. Excluded from the scope are small

two-wheel or four-wheel utility carts specifically designed for carrying loads like

personal bags or luggage in which the frame is made from telescoping tubular material

measuring less than 5.8 inch in diameter; hand trucks that use motorized operations either

to move the hand truck from one location to the next or to assist in the lifting of items

placed on the hand truck; vertical carriers designed specifically to transport golf bags;

and wheels and tires used in the manufacture of hand trucks.19

Commerce has received twenty separate requests for scope rulings since the original antidumping duty

order date. The requestors, outcomes, and completion dates of Commerce’s scope rulings are listed in

table I-3.

 19 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from

the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 60980, October 14, 2004.

I-8
Table I-3

Hand trucks: Commerce’s scope rulings

Requestor Scope ruling

Date of

completion

Federal Register

citation

Central

Purchasing, LLC

Exclusion request denied. Accessory carts are

within the scope of the antidumping duty order. June 3, 2005

70 FR 55110

(September 20, 2005)

Faultless

Starch/Bon Ami

Co.

Exclusion request denied. RuXXac and

RuXXac Long hand trucks are within the scope

of the antidumping duty order. June 3, 2005

70 FR 55110

(September 20, 2005)

Central

Purchasing, LLC

Exclusion request granted. An accessory cart

that is specifically designed to fit and carry a

“Breaker Hammer,” and is imported separately

from the Breaker Hammer, is not included

within the scope of the antidumping duty order.

February 1,

2006

71 FR 26050

(May 3, 2006)

Central

Purchasing, LLC

Exclusion request granted. Its two “welding

carts'' are not included within the scope of the

antidumping duty order.

February 15,

2006

71 FR 26050

(May 3, 2006)

Vertex

International, Inc.

Exclusion request granted. Certain

components of its Garden Cart, if imported

separately, are not included within the scope of

the order. March 8, 2006

71 FR 26050

(May 3, 2006)

Gleason Industrial

Products, Inc.;

Precision Products,

Inc.

Exclusion request denied. The “Black and

Decker Workmate 525'' and “Black and Decker

Workmate 500'' are included within the scope of

the antidumping duty order. June 15, 2006

71 FR 42807

(July 28, 2006)

Ameristep

Corporation, Inc.

Exclusion request granted. Its “non-typical''

deer cart (product no. 7800) and its “grizzly''

deer cart (product no. 9800) are not within the

scope of the antidumping duty order. May 18, 2007

72 FR 43245

(August 3, 2007)

Bond Street Ltd.

Exclusion request denied. The Stebco portable

slide-flat cart (style no. 390009CHR) is included

within the scope of the antidumping duty order. May 30, 2007

72 FR 43245

(August 3, 2007)

WelCom Products,

Inc.

Exclusion request granted. Its MCX Magna

Cart is not within the scope of the antidumping

duty order. May 12, 2008

73 FR 49418

(August 21, 2008)

Fiskars Brands,

Inc.

Exclusion request granted. Its Allbarrow cart is

not within the scope of the antidumping duty

order.

August 13,

2008

73 FR 72771

(December 1, 2008)

Central

Purchasing, LLC

Exclusion request granted. Its welding cart

(model number 65939), is not within the scope

of the antidumping duty order.

October 1,

2008

74 FR 14521

(March 31, 2009)

Reisenthel

Accessories

Exclusion request granted. Carrycruiser

shopping cart is not within the scope of the

antidumping duty order.

October 15,

2008

74 FR 14521

(March 31, 2009)

Ardisam, Inc.

Exclusion request granted. Yukon Tracks

Sportsman's Cart (model number AV125) is not

within the scope of the antidumping duty order.

October 16,

2008

74 FR 14521

(March 31, 2009)

Conair Corporation

Exclusion request denied. LadderKart, a hand

truck with an integral folding step-ladder, is

within the scope of the antidumping duty order.

October 20,

2008

74 FR 14521

(March 31, 2009)

American Lawn

Mower Company

Exclusion request granted. Collect-It Garden

Waste Remover is not within the scope of the

antidumping duty order.

November 10,

2008

74 FR 14521

(March 31, 2009)

Table continued on the following page.

I-9
Table I-3--Continued

Hand trucks: Commerce’s scope rulings

Requestor Scope ruling

Date of

completion

Federal Register

citation

Eastman Outdoors,

Inc.

Exclusion request granted. Versa deer cart

(model 9930) is not within the scope of the

antidumping duty order.

December 31,

2008

74 FR 14521

(March 31, 2009)

Corporate Express

Inc.

Exclusion request denied. Luggage cart model

number CEB31210 is within the scope of the

antidumping duty order.

February 11,

2009

74 FR 43680

(August 27, 2009)

Exclusion request granted. Luggage cart

model number CEB31490 is outside the scope

of the antidumping duty order.

Safco Products Co.

Exclusion request granted. The StowAway Cart

(Model 4062) and Stow And Go Cart (Model

4049) are outside the scope of the antidumping

duty order. June 10, 2009

74 FR 49859

(September 29, 2009)

E & B Giftware,

LLC

Exclusion request denied. The Samsonite

Micro Mover Fold Away Carry-On Luggage Cart

and the American Tourister Swing Wheel

Luggage Cart are within the scope of the

antidumping duty order.

May 29, 2009

74 FR 49859

(September 29, 2009)

Exclusion request granted. The Samsonite

Compact Luggage Cart is outside the scope of

the antidumping duty order.

Central

Purchasing, LLC

Exclusion request granted. Model 93851 is

within the scope of the antidumping duty order.

(

1

)

75 FR 4769

(January 29, 2010)

Exclusion request denied. Model 43615 is

outside the scope of the antidumping duty

order.

 1 In an unpublished ruling, Commerce found both models to be outside the scope of the antidumping duty order in February

2006. However, Gleason disagreed with this finding and filed its summons with the U.S. Court of International Trade. The

Court’s final judgment (presented in this table) was not in harmony with Commerce’s original ruling. Commerce is required to

publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with its determination. Section 516A(c)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §

1675(c)(3)). 75 FR 4769, January 29, 2010.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

U.S. Tariff Treatment

The subject merchandise is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS) in subheading 8716.80.50 and imported under statistical reporting numbers 8716.80.5010

(“industrial hand trucks”) and 8716.80.5090 (“‘other’ vehicles, not mechanically propelled, not elsewhere

enumerated”) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”). Hand truck parts are

primarily imported under statistical reporting number 8716.90.5060. The normal trade relations tariff rate

(applicable to imports from China) imposed for this product in 2010 is 3.2 percent ad valorem.

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. In its original

determination, the Commission found a single domestic like product comprised of finished hand trucks

and certain hand truck parts corresponding to Commerce's scope of investigation and a single domestic

I-10
industry consisting of all U.S. producers of the domestic like product.20 The domestic producers

participating in the adequacy phase of this review indicated in their responses to the Commission's notice

of institution that they agree with the Commission's definitions of the domestic like product and domestic

industry as set out in the Commission’s notice of institution and its final determination in the original

investigation.21

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. The interested domestic parties participating

in this review accounted for *** percent of total U.S. domestic production.22 During the original

investigation, there were believed to be 21 companies producing finished hand trucks and/or hand truck

parts in the United States. U.S. industry data presented in the Commission's staff report in the original

final investigation were based on the questionnaire responses of 10 firms that accounted for

approximately 90 percent of U.S. production during January 2001-June 2004. The three largest producers

at that time were the petitioning firm Gleason, followed by Angelus Manufacturing (“Angelus”) and

Harper. The domestic interested parties in this current five-year review also identified 21 domestic

producers of hand trucks in their responses. The only related party they identified in their responses was

domestic producer Valley Craft, which is related through a common parent (Liberty Diversified

Industries) to Safco Products, a U.S. importer of hand trucks from China.23

Physical Characteristics and Uses24

Hand trucks typically consist of (1) a frame; (2) a handling area; (3) two or more wheels; and

(4) a projecting edge or edges perpendicular, or at an angle, to the frame. The frame is made primarily

from steel, aluminum, or nylon, while the handling area and projecting edges are usually but not always

made from the same material as the frame. Hand trucks sold in the United States typically are

manufactured from steel components.

Hand trucks are used for tasks related to material handling when there is a need to move objects

generally not exceeding 1,000 pounds over short distances. Hand trucks are multipurpose in that they can

be used indoors or outdoors, can roll over a variety of surfaces, and carry every type of load. Although

certain hand trucks are designed for specific tasks, the majority of hand trucks sold are designed for

general use. Newer designs and technology allow certain hand trucks to be folded or collapsed.25

 20 Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), USITC Publication 3737,

November 2004, p. I-4.

 21 See responses of Gleason Group, Harper, Magline, and Wesco to the Commission’s notice of institution in this

review.

 22 The coverage figure presented is the estimated share of total U.S. production of hand trucks in 2008 for which

the responding firms account. The estimate was calculated as the quantity of total reported production (*** hand

trucks) divided by the average of the estimates for total U.S. production provided by the participating domestic

producers in their responses to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review (*** hand trucks).

 23 See responses of Gleason Group, Harper, Magline, and Wesco to the Commission’s notice of institution in this

review.

 24 Much of the industry information presented in this section is from the report issued in the final investigation,

Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), USITC Publication 3737,

November 2004.

 25 Examples include the Magna Cart (WelCom Products, made in China) and the Folding Hand Truck

(Milwaukee Hand Trucks, a Gleason Group company, made in Taiwan).

I-11
Hand truck parts are used almost exclusively for the production of finished hand trucks.26

U.S.-produced hand truck parts that are sold in the United States are commonly aluminum.

Manufacturing Process27

The frame, handling area, and projecting edges are typically manufactured during a continuous

production process. For a basic two-wheel steel hand truck, the manufacturing process is as follows:

(1) steel sheet is cut to form the projecting edge or base plate; (2) steel tubing is then cut and formed into

the exterior portion of the frame; (3) crossbars that formed the interior portion of the frame are stamped

and pressed; and (4) the axle and axle brace are manufactured from round bar. The component parts are

then welded together to create an article that looks like a hand truck minus wheels. The final product is

then cleaned and painted, and ready for the addition of wheels. Different styles of hand trucks generally

are manufactured using the same production processes.

The wheels or casters used on the hand truck generally are manufactured by a separate production

process. They can be manufactured in the same plant as the hand truck assembly, but it is just as likely

that they are manufactured in a separate plant dedicated to the production of wheels and casters. For a

basic two-wheel steel hand truck, the wheels are manufactured using the following components: tires,

bearings, steel tubing, and wheel hubs. The finished wheels are then assembled on the axle of the hand

truck. The finished hand truck is then hand tagged and packed for delivery.

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions28

In the original investigation, the Commission found that there was a moderate to high level of

interchangeability between the domestic product and subject imports. The Commission further found that

the interchangeability between subject imports and the domestic product translated into direct competition

for sales of general-use hand trucks at national home improvement stores, club warehouses, and other

major retailers.29 U.S. producer *** suggested in its response to the notice of institution that U.S.-

produced hand trucks are duplicated outside the United States. However, purchaser *** notes that it has

observed an “on-going focus on the innovation of features and use of new materials such as aluminum in

the production of hand trucks” from China. Purchaser *** stated in its survey response that it has not

observed any competition between the domestic product and subject imports since the institution of the

anti-dumping duty order.30

 26 In the original investigation, only one out of the 10 responding U.S. producers reported using the hand truck

components for anything other than the finished product. Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From China, Inv.

No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), USITC Publication 3737, November 2004, pp. I-4-I-5.

 27 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Hand Trucks

and Certain Parts Thereof From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), USITC Publication 3737, November 2004, p.

I-5.

 28 Ibid.

 29 Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), USITC Publication 3737,

November 2004, p. 13.

 30 Response to the notice of institution by *** and purchaser survey responses of ***.

I-12
Channels of Distribution31

Hand trucks are sold to residential, industrial and office/small business customers through a

variety of channels of distribution: home improvement stores, club warehouses, hardware stores, catalog

houses/industrial distributors, office supply stores and other firms. Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments

of finished hand trucks were primarily sold through home improvement stores, which accounted for ***

percent of domestic shipments, and club warehouses, which accounted for *** of domestic shipments,

during the annual periods examined. Catalog houses/distributors were the next largest category,

accounting for *** percent of domestic shipments in the annual periods surveyed.32 Importers’ U.S.

shipments of finished hand trucks were also primarily sold to home improvement stores, club warehouses,

and catalog houses/distributors. However, for importer shipments, club warehouses rather than home

improvement stores were the leading channel of distribution.

The Commission found in the original investigation that demand for finished hand trucks is

fueled predominantly by the home improvement sector of the U.S. market, which encompasses home

improvement stores and club warehouses, both of which are large scale retailers, (sometimes referred to

as “big-box” retailers). Further, most of the competition between domestic hand trucks and subject

imports takes place in the home improvement sector of the U.S. hand truck market. The industrial sector

of the U.S. hand truck market is a distant second to the home improvement sector in terms of demand for

hand trucks. Industrial customers buy more specialized and expensive hand trucks, typically in smaller

volumes, than are purchased in the home improvement sector.

Information collected in this first review suggests that home improvement stores continue to be

an important channel of distribution for hand trucks, particularly those produced in the United States. ***

identified the Home Depot and Lowe's as leading purchasers of hand trucks.33 *** also stressed the

importance of large industrial distributors and the growing role of online (internet) suppliers since 2004.34

Pricing

During the original investigation the Commission collected pricing data for sales to home

improvement stores, hardware stores, catalog houses/industrial supply distributors, retail, and other end

use consumers of four products. Based on the data, underselling by subject imports of the domestic

product was widespread. Of the 122 possible quarterly price comparisons from January 2001 to

June 2004, subject imports undersold domestic products in 114 quarters or in 93 percent of the possible

comparisons. Underselling margins ranged as high as 80 percent.35

 31 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Hand Trucks

and Certain Parts Thereof From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), USITC Publication 3737, November 2004,

pp. 10-12.

 32 Confidential Views of the Commission, pp. 13-14.

 33 Responses to the notice of institution by ***. The latter producer indicated that Home Depot and Lowe's were

believed to source hand trucks from the United States and Taiwan. Response to the notice of institution by ***. See

also Company Overview for Best Wheel Products Company, Ltd., of Taiwan

(http://www.wheelltd.com/index02.htm, (cache, as of December 12, 2009); product description of the Folding Hand

Truck by Milwaukee Hand Trucks (a Gleason Group company), produced in Taiwan; and product description for the

Magna Cart by WelCom Products, produced in China (but, as noted in Table I-3, the MCX Magna Cart is excluded

from the antidumping duty order).

 34 Response to the notice of institution by ***.

 35 Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), USITC Publication 3737,

November 2004, p. 21.

I-13
In the original investigation, purchasers identified the three major factors considered by their firm

in deciding from whom to purchase hand trucks. In order of importance, price, quality, and availability

were considered the most important; twenty of the 22 responding purchasers ranked price among the top

three factors, 15 ranked quality among the top three, and eight ranked availability among the top three. 

The Commission observed that purchasers indicated that Chinese and domestic products were comparable

in quality and availability, while the Chinese product was lower in price.36

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

U.S. industry data collected in the original investigation were based on the questionnaire

responses of ten domestic producers that accounted for approximately 90 percent of U.S. production of

hand trucks and parts during January 2001-June 2004. The largest U.S. producers that participated in the

original investigation and their shares of reported domestic production for fully assembled hand trucks

during 2003 were as follows: Angelus (*** percent), Gleason Group (*** percent), Harper (*** percent),

Magline (*** percent), and Wesco (*** percent). In addition, B&P and Magline reported shares of

production for hand truck parts, *** percent and *** percent respectively.37

The domestic interested parties reported in their response that there are currently 21 domestic

producers of hand trucks and parts.38 Four of the 10 participants from the original investigation

responded to the Commission’s notice of institution of this review. In addition, although Angelus did not

provide a separate response, the company was purchased by responding producer Harper in 2008.39 This

event was also noted by purchaser ***, which reported in its survey a recent consolidation of the

domestic industry through acquisition.40 Table I-4 lists the ten original participating firms, each firm’s

location(s), and shares of reported production in 2003 and 2008.

Staff notes that the data presented for the remainder of this report focuses on finished hand trucks. 

This reflects the data provided in response to the notice of institution and the constraints of official import

statistics, which provide for hand truck parts in a diverse statistical reporting number. The value of hand

truck parts, however, is not believed to be large relative to the value of finished hand trucks.41

 36 Ibid., pp. 13-14.

 37 Staff Report on Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof, Investigation No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), October 28,

2004 (INV-BB-136), p. III-2.

 38 See responses of Gleason Group, Harper, Magline, and Wesco to the Commission's notice of institution in this

review.

 39 See “Phil Ruffin to expand Harper Trucks once again with a major account” in The Wichita Eagle Blog,

January 27, 2010. See also Gleason Group’s response to the Commission’s notice of institution, exh. A.

 40 Purchaser survey response of ***.

 41 Compare tables C-2 and C-3 in Staff Report on Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof, Investigation No.

731-TA-1059 (Final), October 28, 2004 (INV-BB-136) (parts are less than *** percent of the combined hand truck

consumption).

I-14
Table I-4

Hand trucks and parts: U.S. producers, locations, and company shares of 2003 and 2008 total

domestic production

Firm Location

Share of 2003

reported

production

(percent)

Estimated share

of 2008 reported

production

(percent)

Finished Parts1 Finished Parts1

American Power Pull Ohio (2) --- (3) (3)

Angelus4 California *** --- (3

) ---

Anthony California *** --- (3

) ---

B&P Michigan *** *** (3

) (3)

Fairbanks Georgia *** --- (3

) ---

Gleason Group

Illinois, 

Indiana *** --- *** ---

Harper Kansas *** --- *** ---

Magline Michigan *** *** *** (3

)

Valley Craft Minnesota (2

) --- (3) ---

Wesco Pennsylvania *** --- *** ---

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 (3

)

 1 Includes frames, handling areas, projecting edges (toe plates), and unassembled kits.

 2

 ***.

 3

 Not available.

 4

 Angelus was acquired by Harper in 2008.

Source: Staff Report on Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof, Investigation No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), October

28, 2004 (INV-BB-136), table III-1; Responses of domestic interested parties.

U.S. Producers’ Trade, Employment, and Financial Data

Table I-5 presents data reported by U.S. producers of hand trucks and parts in the Commission’s

original investigation and in response to its five-year review institution notice. Data presented for the

period examined in the final phase of the original investigation were provided by 10 producers (American

Power, Angelus, Anthony, B&P, Fairbanks, Gleason Group (including Precision Products), Harper,

Magline, Valley Craft, and Wesco) that were believed to represent approximately 90 percent of the U.S.

production of hand trucks and parts during January 2001-June 2004. Data presented for 2008 were

provided by four producers (Gleason, Harper, Magline, and Wesco) that are believed to represent

*** percent of hand truck production during 2008.42 43

 42 As noted previously, in 2008 Harper bought Angelus, which accounted for *** percent of U.S. production in

2003.

 43 The Gleason Group (including Precision Products), Harper (including Angelus, which was acquired in 2008),

Magline, and Wesco accounted for the great majority of reported domestic production during the period examined in

the original investigation.

I-15
Table I-5

Finished hand trucks: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 2001-03, JanuaryJune 2003, January-June 2004, and 20081

(Quantity=units; unit values and unit labor costs=$/unit)

Item 2001 2002 2003

January-June

2003 2004 2008

Capacity1 2 2,403,689 2,401,915 2,413,768 1,208,406 1,320,557 ***

Production 1,463,692 1,495,514 1,495,311 816,444 736,204 ***

Capacity utilization (percent) 60.9 62.3 61.9 67.6 55.7 ***

U.S. shipments:

 Quantity 1,468,849 1,425,093 1,467,009 763,374 720,296 ***

 Value ($1,000) 53,989 53,146 53,407 27,737 26,345 ***

 Unit value $36.76 $37.29 $36.41 $36.33 $36.58 ***

Exports:

 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** (3

)

 Value ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** (3

)

 Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** (3

)

Total shipments:

 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** (3

)

 Value ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** (3

)

 Unit value $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** (3

)

End-of-period inventories *** *** *** *** *** (3

)

Production and related

workers (number) 358 370 371 347 327 (3

)

Hours worked (1,000 hours) 695 726 724 374 377 (3

)

Wages paid ($1,000) 7,134 7,345 7,721 3,797 3,884 (3

)

Hourly wages $10.26 $10.12 $10.66 $10.15 $10.32 (3

)

Productivity (units/hour) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.9 (3

)

Unit labor costs (per unit) $5.04 $5.07 $5.32 $4.77 $5.46 (3

)

Net sales ($1,000) 53,658 52,831 53,400 27,818 25,907 ***

Operating income or (loss)

($1,000) 6,471 5,765 3,534 2,525 2,002 ***

Operating income

(loss)/sales (percent) 12.1 10.9 6.6 9.1 7.7 ***

 1 Data presented for 2001-2003, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004 were provided by ten producers

(American Power, Angelus, Anthony, B&P, Fairbanks, Gleason, Harper, Magline, Valley Craft, and Wesco) in the

final phase of the original investigation. These ten firms were believed to have represented approximately 90

percent of the U.S. production of finished hand trucks and parts during the period of investigation. Data presented

for 2008 were provided by Gleason, Harper, Magline, and Wesco. Together with Angelus (acquired by Harper in

2008), these firms are believed to have represented a great majority of reported domestic production during 2003.

 2

 In the original investigation, *** did not report capacity, therefore staff conservatively estimated their capacity at

their highest level of production.

 3

 Not available.

Source: Staff Report on Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof, Investigation No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), October 28,

2004 (INV-BB-136), tables III-3, III-4, III-6, III-7 and VI-1; Responses of domestic interested parties.

I-16
During the period examined in the original investigation, the domestic industry’s capacity for

producing finished hand trucks decreased by 0.1 percent from 2001 to 2002, then increased by 0.5 percent

from 2002 to 2003, and was 9.3 percent higher in January-June 2004 than in January-June 2003. Total

U.S. production of hand trucks increased by 2.2 percent from 2001 to 2002, remained stable in 2003, but

was 9.8 percent lower in January-June 2004 than in January-June 2003. U.S. shipment volume decreased

by 3.0 percent from 2001 to 2002, increased by 2.9 percent in 2003, and was 5.6 percent lower in

January-June 2004 than in January-June 2003. Unit values of U.S. shipments increased by 1.5 percent

from 2001 to 2002, decreased by 2.4 percent in 2003, and were 0.7 percent higher in January-June 2004

than in January-June 2003.44 Average hours worked increased from 2001 to 2002 and remained relatively

stable in 2003. Hourly wages fluctuated in relatively small increments, decreasing slightly from 2001 to

2002 and increasing in 2003. The operating income margin decreased from 2001 to 2003, while total net

sales remained relatively stable during the same period. The total gross profit and operating income

decreased throughout the investigation period.45

During the period examined in this five-year review, production capacity, production volume,

U.S. shipment quantity, value, and unit value, net sales, and operating income for calendar/fiscal year

2008 are the only industry indicators available.46 U.S. production in 2008 was higher than production

during the original investigation, by *** percent compared to 2001 and by *** percent compared to 2003. 

However, the operating income to net sales ratio decreased from 6.6 percent in 2003 to *** percent in

2008.

*** indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of insitution in this review that “most

U.S. hand trucks manufacturers are operating on very slim margins, if not at a loss, due to the current

recession.” *** further states that it is ***.47 The domestic interested parties also indicated that the

antidumping duty order has resulted in increased imports from Taiwan. The observation that U.S. imports

of hand trucks from Taiwan have increased is consistent with U.S. import statistics.

Related Party Issues

In the original investigation, the Commission identified five domestic hand truck producers as

related parties by virtue of their importation of parts (***); finished hand trucks (***); or importation of

subject merchandise by a related entity (***).48 The domestic interested parties indicated in their

response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review that Valley Craft is related to importer

Safco Products, a division of LDI.49 In addition, none of the responding domestic producers reported

having imported the subject merchandise from China since the original investigation and no other related

parties were otherwise identified.

 44 The industry's export shipments averaged only about 2.4 percent of total shipment volume. *** were the only

U.S. producers to report export shipments, which were made to ***. Staff Report on Hand Trucks and Certain Parts

Thereof, Investigation No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), October 28, 2004 (INV-BB-136), p. III-5.

 45 Staff Report on Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof, Investigation No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), October 28,

2004 (INV-BB-136), table C-1.

 46 Although the operating income reported by *** appears to be reasonable, the company’s COGS, gross profit,

and SG&A expenses were internally inconsistent. Accordingly, these data are not presented.

 47 Response of U.S. producer ***.

 48 Confidential Views of the Commission, pp. 8-12.

 49 Staff notes that the record in the original investigation attributed imports of subject hand trucks to ***. ***.

I-17
U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

U.S. Imports

During the original investigation, the Commission received importer questionnaire responses

from 36 companies that were believed to have accounted for nearly three-quarters of the quantity of U.S.

imports from China during the period for which data were collected in the original investigation. Thirtyfive firms reported imports of finished hand trucks from China, the largest of which was ***.50 Seven

U.S. importers reported imports of hand truck parts from China, the largest of which was ***. *** was

found to be the largest single purchaser of hand trucks, having purchased or imported directly *** of

apparent U.S. consumption at that time. Other major known purchasers included ***.51 Purchasers ***

noted in response to surveys issued in the review that it is no longer cost-effective to import hand trucks

from China.52

In their responses to the Commission’s notice of institution in this current review, the domestic

interested parties identified 17 U.S. importers of hand trucks from China. According to official import

statistics, U.S. imports of finished hand trucks from China during 2008 amounted to 252,245 trucks

(valued at $7.7 million).53

Annual data for hand trucks for the period 2001-08 are presented in table I-6. The quantity of

U.S. imports of finished hand trucks from China increased by 107.1 percent from 2001 to 2003. The

quantity of subject finished hand truck imports increased by 44.2 percent from 2001 to 2002, with

continued growth of 43.6 percent from 2002 to 2003. The trend was similar for the value of U.S. imports

of finished hand trucks from China, with an increase of 54.2 percent from 2001 to 2002 and a continued

increase of 44.0 percent from 2002 to 2003. The quantity and value of imports from nonsubject countries

fluctuated markedly from period to period, but never approached the volume of subject imports from

China.

Since the period examined in the original investigation, the quantity of U.S. imports of finished

hand trucks from China decreased by 75.4 percent, from 2004 to 2008, while the value of these imports

decreased by 62.7 percent. From 2006 to 2007, subject imports decreased by 41.7 percent, a substantially

larger decrease than when the antidumping duty order was first instituted in 2004. Subject imports only

decreased by 11.4 percent from 2004 to 2005 and remained relatively stable throughout 2006. Staff notes

that as a result of a 2008 administrative review, Taifa, the *** reporting foreign producer and exporter of

hand trucks during the original investigation, was converted to the country-wide antidumping duty rate.54

Taifa had previously operated under an antidumping duty rate of 26.49 percent at the time the

antidumping duty order was instituted.55

 50 *** imported hand trucks produced in China by Wanrong Industrial Co. (Wireking Group). Other major U.S.

importers of finished hand trucks at that time were: ***

 51 Staff Report on Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof, Investigation No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), October 28,

2004 (INV-BB-136), p. I-3.

 52 Purchaser survey response of ***.

 53 The import data presented are for finished hand trucks classified in the official import statistics under the HTS

statistical reporting number for industrial hand trucks, 8716.80.5010. Some finished hand trucks may also be

imported under HTS statistical reporting number 8716.80.5090, which is a basket category. In addition, hand truck

parts typically are imported under statistical reporting number 8716.90.5060. Therefore, the import data presented

may be somewhat understated.

 54 Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of 2005–2006

Administrative Review, 73 FR 43684, July 28, 2008.

 55 Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of

China, 69 FR 70122, December 2, 2004.

I-18
I-19

Table I-6Hand trucks: U.S. imports, by source, 2001-081

Source 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2

Quantity (units)

China 650,172 937,851 1,346,305 1,025,865 908,507 943,756 All others1 63,912 131,700 66,251 153,206 283,387 263,438 

 Total imports 714,084 1,069,551 1,412,556 1,179,071 1,191,894 1,207,194 

Value ($1,000)

China 9,622 14,839 21,366 20,657 15,904 15,038 All others1 4,052 4,712 4,047 4,437 8,805 9,356 

 Total imports 13,673 19,551 25,413 25,094 24,708 24,394 

Unit value (per unit)

China $14.80 $15.82 $15.87 $20.14 $17.51 $15.93 All others1 63.40 35.78 61.09 28.96 31.07 35.51 

 Average total imports 19.15 18.28 17.99 21.28 20.73 20.21 

Share of quantity (percent)

China 91.0 87.7 95.3 87.0 76.2 78.2 All others1 9.0 12.3 4.7 13.0 23.8 21.8 

 Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

1 The largest “other” sources and their respective shares of the total quantity of imported finished hand trucks during 2008 include the following: Taiwan (3

percent), Canada (0.5 percent), and Mexico (0.5 percent).Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.Note.–In 2009, U.S. imports of finished hand trucks from China rebounded to 793,094 units valued at $16.7 million. Imports from nonsubject sources, primarto 284,701 units valued at $11.5 million.Source: Staff Report on Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof, Investigation No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), October 28, 2004 (INV-BB-136), p. IV-1, IV-2 and taCommerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting number 8716.80.5010.
Leading Nonsubject Sources of Imports

From 2004 to 2008, the quantity of imports from nonsubject countries increased overall by

52.3 percent, and the value of imports from nonsubject countries increased by 147.7 percent. During the

period for which data were collected, imports of finished hand trucks entered the United States from a

variety of sources. The single largest nonsubject source of hand trucks during 2001-08 was Taiwan,

which accounted for the largest share of nonsubject imports in every year after 2002, and 39.0 percent of

total U.S. imports of finished hand trucks during 2008.56 Other sources of finished hand trucks have been

less consistent. Countries accounting for 20,000-50,000 units include Thailand (2001, 2002); Indonesia

(2004); Malaysia (2004); and Vietnam (2008, 2009).

Ratio of Imports to U.S. Production

Information concerning the ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production of hand trucks is presented in

table I-7. Subject imports of hand trucks from China were equivalent to 44.4 percent of U.S. production

in 2001, increased to 62.7 percent during 2002, and then further increased to 90.0 percent in 2003. 

Subject imports of hand trucks from China were equivalent to *** percent of U.S. production during

2008. The ratio of nonsubject imports to domestic production more than *** from 4.4 percent in 2003 to

*** percent in 2008.

Table I-7

Hand trucks: Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production, by sources, 2001-03, January-June 2003,

January-June 2004, and 20081

Item 2001 2002 2003

January-June

2003 2004 2008

Quantity (units)

U.S. production 1,463,692 1,495,514 1,495,311 816,444 736,204 ***

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

China 44.4 62.7 90.0 82.7 92.1 ***

Other 4.4 8.8 4.4 4.6 12.5 ***

 Total imports 48.8 71.5 94.5 87.4 104.7 ***

 1 Production data presented for 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004 were provided by 10

producers believed to have represented approximately 90 percent of the U.S. production of hand trucks and parts

during January 2001-June 2004. Data presented for 2008 were provided by Gleason, Harper, Magline, and Wesco. 

Together with Angelus (acquired by Harper in 2008), these firms are believed to have represented a great majority

of reported domestic production during the period examined in the original investigation.

Source: Staff Report on Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof, Investigation No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), October

28, 2004 (INV-BB-136), tables III-3 and IV-4 (2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004); official

Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting number 8716.80.5010 (for 2008 U.S. import data); and Responses of

domestic interested parties (for 2008 production data).

 56 In 2009, Taiwan accounted for 21.1 percent of U.S. imports of finished hand trucks.

I-20
Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares are presented in table I-8. The quantity of

apparent U.S. consumption of finished hand trucks increased by 31.9 percent from 2001 to 2003 and was

1.0 percent higher in January-June 2004 than in January-June 2003. The value of apparent U.S.

consumption increased by 16.5 percent from 2001 to 2003 and was 3.2 percent higher in January-June

2004 than in January-June 2003. The quantity of apparent U.S. consumption in 2008 was lower than at

any time during the original investigation, and was 34.2 percent less than apparent U.S. consumption in

2003.57 Purchaser *** reported a decrease in consumer demand for hand trucks which it attributed to the

current economic conditions.58

The domestic producers’ market share (based on quantity) fell from 67.3 percent in 2001 to

57.1 percent in 2002, decreased further to 50.9 percent in 2003, and reached 48.3 percent in the first six

months of 2004. The subject imports from China gained market share from 29.8 percent in 2001 to

46.8 percent in 2003. The domestic hand trucks industry held an estimated *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption on the basis of quantity in 2008 and an estimated *** percent on the basis of value in that

year. U.S. imports from China held a *** percent share of the U.S. market in 2008 on the basis of

quantity and other sources held a *** percent share.

Domestic demand for hand trucks in the United States is determined by the needs of final

consumers and business customers for stacking and moving loads, while the demand for hand truck parts

is a derived demand that depends upon the demand for the final product (i.e. hand trucks).59 The domestic

interested parties indicated in their responses to the Commission’s notice of institution that competitive

conditions in the domestic hand trucks industry have changed little since the original investigation. U.S.

domestic producer Gleason indicated in its response that it had noticed an increase in imports from

Taiwan since December 2004,60 which is consistent with official Commerce statistics. The volume of 

imports from Taiwan increased substantially from 55,047 units in 2004 to 257,231 units in 2005.

 57 However, domestic shipments are somewhat understated.

 58 Purchaser survey response of ***.

 59 Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), USITC

Publication 3737, November 2004, p. II-2

 60 Response of Gleason, November 25, 2009, p. 9.

I-21
Table I-8

Hand trucks: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 2001-03, January-June 2003, January-June 2004, and 2008

Item 2001 2002 2003

Jan.-June

2003 2004 2008

Quantity (units)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 1,468,849 1,425,093 1,467,009 763,374 720,296 ***

U.S. imports from--

 China 650,172 937,851 1,346,305 675,556 678,309 252,245

 Other sources 63,912 131,700 66,251 37,649 92,337 233,408

 Total import shipments 714,084 1,069,551 1,412,556 713,205 770,646 485,653

Apparent U.S. consumption 2,182,933 2,494,644 2,879,565 1,476,579 1,490,942 ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 53,989 53,146 53,407 27,737 26,345 ***

U.S. imports from--

 China 9,622 14,839 21,366 10,480 13,562 7,708

 Other sources 4,052 4,712 4,047 2,276 1,862 10,991

 Total import shipments 13,673 19,551 25,413 12,757 15,424 18,699

Apparent U.S. consumption 67,662 72,697 78,820 40,493 41,770 ***

Share of consumption based on quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 67.3 57.1 50.9 51.7 48.3 ***

U.S. imports from--

 China 29.8 37.6 46.8 45.8 45.5 ***

 Other sources 2.9 5.3 2.3 2.5 6.2 ***

 Total import shipments 32.7 42.9 49.1 48.3 51.7 ***

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of consumption based on value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 79.8 73.1 67.8 68.5 63.1 ***

U.S. imports from--

 China 14.2 20.4 27.1 25.9 32.5 ***

 Other sources 6.0 6.5 5.1 5.6 4.5 ***

 Total import shipments 20.2 26.9 32.2 31.5 36.9 ***

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof, Investigation No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), October 28, 2004 (INV-BB-136), table

IV-2-IV-3, official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting number 8716.80.5010, and responses to the notice of institution.

I-22
ANTIDUMPING ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Based on available information, hand trucks and parts from China have not been subject to any

other import relief investigations in the United States or in any other countries.

THE SUBJECT INDUSTRY IN CHINA

In the original investigation, five Chinese producers of hand trucks provided responses to the

Commission’s request for information. The five Chinese producers are: (1) Qingdao Taifa Group Co.

("Taifa"), (2) Qingdao Huatian Hand Truck Co., (3) Jiaonan Tianhe Hand Truck Co., (4) Qingdao

Xinghua Group, and (5) Qingdao Zhenhua Industrial Group. These producers’ exports of the subject

merchandise to the United States accounted for approximately *** percent of total U.S. imports of hand

trucks from China during 2003.

The Commission did not receive any responses to its notice of institution in this review from

Chinese producers of the subject merchandise. However, the domestic interested parties participating in

this review indicated in their responses that there are currently at least 25 producers of hand trucks in

China.61

Table I-9 presents trade data for the Chinese finished hand trucks industry compiled during the

original investigation and U.S. imports from China in 2008. As these data show, Chinese production

increased throughout the period for which data were collected in the original investigation. Only one

firm, ***, indicated that it intended to curtail production.62 During the period examined in the original

investigation, the Chinese producers operated their facilities at capacity utilization rates ranging from

79.6 to 94.8 percent during 2001-03, but only 74.4 percent in January-June 2004.

These responding producers’ exports of the subject merchandise to the United States accounted

for approximately *** percent of total U.S. imports of hand trucks from China during 2003. The largest

reporting producer and exporter of hand trucks from China at that time was ***, which produced both

steel and aluminum hand trucks and reportedly accounted for about *** of all hand truck production in

China.63

In their response to the Commission’s notice of institution, the domestic interested parties

reiterated the Commission’s finding in the original investigation that the Chinese producers have

sufficient capacity to substantially increase production and exports, there are no evident constraints on the

ability of Chinese producers to increase their exports to the United States, and U.S. purchasers can switch

to subject imports with relative ease. Therefore, they conclude, in the absence of the dumping order

imports from China will surge.64

 61 See responses of Gleason Group, Harper, Magline, and Wesco to the Commission's notice of institution in this

review.

 62 Staff Report on Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof, Investigation No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), October 28,

2004 (INV-BB-136), p. VII-2.

 63 Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), USITC

Publication 3737, November 2004, p. VII-1.

 64 See responses of Gleason Group, Harper, Magline, and Wesco to the Commission’s notice of institution in this

review.

I-23
Table I-9

Finished hand trucks: Chinese production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2001-

03, January-June 2003, January-June 2004, and 2008

Item 2001 2002 2003

January-June

2003 2004 2008

Quantity (units)

Capacity 2,050,000 2,050,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 900,000 (2

)

Production 1,631,546 1,861,800 1,896,000 950,000 670,000 (2

)

End of period inventories *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

Shipments:

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

Home market *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

Exports to--

The United States 687,594 744,423 931,194 513,733 *** 252,2453

All other markets1 *** 1,006,469 902,000 378,000 394,563 (2)

Total exports *** 1,750,892 1,833,194 891,733 *** (2

)

Total shipments 0 1750892 1833194 891733 0 (2

)

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 79.6 90.8 94.8 95.0 74.4 (2

)

Inventories to production *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

Inventories to total

shipments *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

Share of total quantity of

shipments:

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

Home market *** *** *** *** *** (2

)

Exports to--

The United States 42.0 39.5 49.2 54.7 *** (2

)

All other markets1 *** 53.5 47.6 40.2 56.2 (2

)

All export

markets *** 93.0 96.8 94.9 *** (2

)

 1 Other principal export markets include Australia, Europe, and Japan.

 2

 Not available.

 3

 Official import statistics for HTS statistical reporting number 8716.80.5010.

Note – Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Staff Report on Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof, Investigation No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), October 28, 2004

(INV-BB-136), Table VII-2; Official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting number 8716.80.5010.

I-24
Contains Business Proprietary Information

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 210 / Monday, November 2, 2009 / Notices 56593 

NMFS is decreasing the fee rate to 

$0.016 per pound which NMFS has 

determined is sufficient to ensure timely 

loan repayment. 

To provide more accessible services, 

streamline collections, and save 

taxpayer dollars, subsector members 

may disburse collected fee deposits to 

NMFS by using a secure Federal system 

on the Internet known as Pay.gov. 

Pay.gov enables subsector members to 

use their checking accounts to 

electronically disburse their collected 

fee deposits to NMFS. Subsector 

members who have access to the 

Internet should consider using this 

quick and easy collected fee 

disbursement method. Subsector 

members may access Pay.gov by going 

directly to Pay.gov’s Federal website at: 

http://www.pay.gov/paygov/. 

Subsector members who do not have 

access to the Internet or who simply do 

not wish to use the Pay.gov electronic 

system, may continue to disburse their 

collected fee deposits to us by sending 

their checks to our lockbox. Our 

lockbox’s address is: 

NOAA Fisheries Longline Catcher 

Processor Non-pollock Buyback 

P. O. Box 979028 

St. Louis, MO 63197—9000 

Subsector members must not forget to 

include with their disbursements the fee 

collection report applicable to each 

disbursement. The fee collection report 

tells NMFS how much of the 

disbursement it must apply to the 

reduction fishery loan. Subsector 

members using Pay.gov will find an 

electronic fee collection report form to 

receive information and accompany 

electronic disbursements. Subsector 

members who do not use Pay.gov must 

include a hard copy fee collection report 

with each of their disbursements. 

Subsector members not using Pay.gov 

may also access the NMFS website for 

an Excel spreadsheet version of the fee 

collection report at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mb/ 

financiallservices/buyback.htm. 

III. Notice 

The new fee rate for the Non-Pollock 

Groundfish fishery will begin on 

January 1, 2010. 

From and after this date, all subsector 

members paying fees on the non-pollock 

groundfish fishery shall begin paying 

non-pollock groundfish fishery program 

fees at the revised rate. 

Fee collection and submission shall 

follow previously established methods 

in § 600.1013 of the framework rule and 

in the final fee rule published in the 

Federal Register on September 24, 2007 

(72 FR 54219). 

The revised fees applicable to the 

non-pollock groundfish program’s 

reduction fishery is as follows: 

FISHERY CURRENT 

FEE RATE 

NEW FEE 

RATE 

Non-Pollock 

Groundfish 

$0.02 per 

pound 

$0.016 per 

pound 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

Pub. L. 108–447, 16 U.S.C. 1861a (b-e), and 

50 CFR 600.1000 et seq. 

Dated: October 27, 2009 

John Oliver, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Operations, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–26306 Filed 10–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–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: November 2, 

2009. 

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 and Constitution 

Avenue, 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 Five-year (‘‘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–533–838 ............ 731–TA–1061 ....... India ...................... Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 .............. Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–570–892 ............ 731–TA–1060 ....... PRC ...................... Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 .............. Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–570–891 ............ 731–TA–1059 ....... PRC ...................... Hand Trucks ........................................ Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–570–501 ............ 731–TA–244 ......... PRC ...................... Natural Bristle Paint Brushes & Brush 

Heads (3rd Review).

Jennifer Moats (202) 482–5047 

C–533–839 ............ 701–TA–437 ......... India ...................... Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 .............. Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and the 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
56594 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 210 / Monday, November 2, 2009 / Notices 

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. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103 (c), 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. 

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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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. 

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: October 21, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–26346 Filed 10–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Subsidy Programs Provided by 

Countries Exporting Softwood Lumber 

and Softwood Lumber Products to the 

United States; Request for Comment 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Department) seeks public comment on 

any subsidies, including stumpage 

subsidies, provided by certain countries 

exporting softwood lumber or softwood 

lumber products to the United States 

during the period January 1 through 

June 30, 2009. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted 

within thirty days after publication of 

this notice. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments (original 

and six copies) should be sent to the 

Secretary of Commerce, Attn: James 

Terpstra, Import Administration, APO/ 

Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street & 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Terpstra, Import Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3965. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 18, 2008, Section 805 of Title 

VIII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the 

Softwood Lumber Act of 2008) was 

enacted into law. Under this provision, 

the Secretary of Commerce is mandated 

to submit to the appropriate 

Congressional committees a report every 

180 days on any subsidies provided by 

countries exporting softwood lumber or 

softwood lumber products to the United 

States, including stumpage subsidies. 

The Department submitted its first 

subsidy report to Congress on December 

15, 2008, and its second subsidy report 

on June 15, 2009. As part of its newest 

report, the Department intends to 

include a list of subsidy programs 

identified with sufficient clarity by the 

public in response to this notice. 

Request for Comment 

Given the large number of countries 

that export softwood lumber and 

softwood lumber products to the United 

States, we are soliciting public comment 

only on subsidies provided by countries 

whose exports accounted for at least one 

percent of total U.S. imports of softwood 

lumber by quantity, as classified under 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule code 

4407.1001 (which accounts for the vast 

majority of imports), during the period 

January 1 through June 30, 2009. 

Official U.S. import data published by 

the United States International Trade 

Commission Tariff and Trade DataWeb 

indicate that exports of softwood lumber 

from Canada, Chile, Germany, Sweden 

and Brazil each account for at least one 

percent of U.S. imports of softwood 

lumber products during that time 

period. We intend to rely on similar 

previous six-month periods to identify 

the countries subject to future reports on 

softwood lumber subsidies. For 

example, we will rely on U.S. imports 

of softwood lumber and softwood 

lumber products during the period July 

1 through December 31, 2009, to select 

the countries subject to the next report. 

Under U.S. trade law, a subsidy exists 

where a government authority: (i) 

Provides a financial contribution; (ii) 

provides any form of income or price 

support within the meaning of Article 

XVI of the GATT 1994; or (iii) makes a 

payment to a funding mechanism to 

provide a financial contribution to a 

person, or entrusts or directs a private 

entity to make a financial contribution, 

if providing the contribution would 

normally be vested in the government 

and the practice does not differ in 

substance from practices normally 

followed by governments, and a benefit 

is thereby conferred. See section


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 210 / Monday, November 2, 2009 / Notices 56661 

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. 10–5–205, 

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. 

Secs. 20 and 21; 

Sec. 22, lots 1 and 2, E1⁄2NW1⁄4 and 

NE1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

Sec. 27, lots 2, 3, and 4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 and 

E1⁄2SW1⁄4; 

Secs. 28, 33, and 34. 

T. 17 S., 71 E., 

Sec. 3, unsurveyed. 

Virgin River ACEC (NVN 76888) 

T. 14 S., R. 69 E., 

Sec. 11, SE1⁄4; 

Sec. 12, W1⁄2NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4, and NW1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

Sec. 14, N1⁄2NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4, and 

SE1⁄4SW1⁄4; 

Sec. 15, SE1⁄4; 

Sec. 22, NE1⁄4 and S1⁄2; 

Secs. 26, 27, and 28, for those portions of 

public land lying north of Gold Butte 

Back Country Byway Road;*** 

Sec. 29, S1⁄2; 

Sec. 32, N1⁄2, SW1⁄4, and SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 

Sec. 33, public land lying north of Gold 

Butte Back Country Byway Road. 

T. 13 S., R. 70 E., 

Sec. 27, lots 8, 10, 17, 19, and 21, and that 

part lying south of Right-of-Way Nev 

065014 (U.S. Interstate 15); 

Sec. 33, lots 1, 11, 13, 15, and 17, SW1⁄4, 

N1⁄2SE1⁄4, and SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, that part lying 

south of Right-of-Way Nev 065014 (U.S. 

Interstate 15); 

Sec. 34, lots 1 to 4, inclusive, 6, 10, and 

11 and NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, that part lying south 

of Right-of-Way Nev 65014 (U.S. 

Interstate 15) and north of Right-of-Way 

Nev 07490 (Nevada State Highway 170). 

T. 14 S., R. 70 E., 

Sec. 3, lot 4, that portion lying north of 

Right-of-Way Nev 07490 (Nevada State 

Highway 170); 

Secs. 4 and 5, those portions lying 

northwest of Right-of-Way Nev 07490 

(Nevada State Highway 170); 

Sec. 6, lots 1, 2, 6, and 7, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, 

E1⁄2SW1⁄4, and SE1⁄4; 

Secs. 7 and 8, those portions lying north 

of Right-of-Way Nev 07490 (Nevada State 

Highway 170); 

***The Gold Butte Back Country Byway is 

a Clark County, Nevada Revised Statute 2477 

road. 

Whitney Pocket ACEC (NVN 76889) 

T. 16 S., R. 70 E., 

Sec. 23, SE1⁄4. 

The areas described above aggregate 

approximately 944,343 acres in Clark 

and Nye Counties. 

2. The withdrawal made by this order 

does not alter the applicability of those 

public land laws governing the use of 

the land under lease, license, or permit, 

or governing the disposal of their 

mineral or vegetative resources other 

than under the mining laws. This Order 

also does not alter the applicability of 

the mineral leasing, geothermal leasing, 

or mineral materials laws. 

3. This withdrawal will expire 20 

years from the effective date of this 

order unless, as a result of a review 

conducted before the expiration date 

pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary 

determines that the withdrawal shall be 

extended. 

Dated: October 28, 2009. 

Wilma A. Lewis, 

Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals 

Management. 

[FR Doc. E9–26372 Filed 10–29–09; 11:15 

am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1059 (Review)] 

Hand Trucks From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on hand trucks 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 hand trucks 

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 December 2, 2009. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

January 15, 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: November 2, 

2009. 

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 December 2, 2004, 

the Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

hand trucks from China (69 FR 70122– 

70123). The Commission is conducting 

a 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, the Commission found a 

single Domestic Like Product comprised 

of finished hand trucks and certain 

hand truck parts corresponding to 

Commerce’s scope of investigation. 

(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, 

the Commission found a single 

Domestic Industry consisting of all U.S. 

producers of the Domestic Like Product 

which, as stated above, consists of all 

finished hand trucks and hand truck 

parts corresponding to Commerce’s 

scope of investigations. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
56662 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 210 / Monday, November 2, 2009 / Notices 

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

antidumping duty order under review 

became effective. In this review, the 

Order Date is December 2, 2004. 

(6) 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 

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 review. 

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 this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, 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 review. 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 this 

review 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 December 2, 2009. 

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 an 

expedited or full review. The deadline 

for filing such comments is January 15, 

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 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (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 review 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 

determination in the review. 

Information to be Provided in 

Response to this Notice of Institution: 

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 this review by providing information 

requested by the Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on the Domestic Industry 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 Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. 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 the Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 210 / Monday, November 2, 2009 / Notices 56663 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Date. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product 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 Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008, except as noted 

(report quantity data in units 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 the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the 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 the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); 

(d) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s); and 

(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 the 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, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008 (report quantity data 

in units 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 duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the 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, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2008 

(report quantity data in units and value 

data in thousands of dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping 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 the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

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 the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country since the Order 

Date, 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 Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in the Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

Issued: October 26, 2009. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–26140 Filed 10–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–437 and 731– 

TA–1060–1061 (Review)] 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From 

China and India 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the countervailing duty 

order on carbazole violet pigment 23 

from India and the antidumping duty 

orders on carbazole violet pigment 23 

from China and India. 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
 
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices 8745 

stating that the United States does not 

have a valid interest in this tract of land. 

Jerry L. Taylor, 

Chief, Branch of Lands, Minerals and Water 

Rights, Resource Services Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3820 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLCAN0600, L16100000] 

Notice of Intent To Prepare a Resource 

Management Plan Amendment and 

Associated Environmental 

Assessment for the Designation of the 

Lower Clear Creek and Grass Valley 

Creek Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern, Redding, CA 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) Redding Field 

Office, California intends to prepare an 

amendment to the Redding Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) with an 

associated Environmental Assessment 

(EA), and by this notice is announcing 

the beginning of the scoping process to 

solicit public comments and identify 

issues. 

DATES: This notice initiates the public 

scoping process for the plan amendment 

and associated EA. Comments on issues 

may be submitted in writing until 

March 29, 2010. The dates and locations 

of any scoping meetings will be 

announced at least 15 days in advance 

through local media, newspapers and 

the BLM Web site at: http:// 

www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/redding/ 

redding_rmp.html. In order to be 

included in the EA, all comments must 

be received prior to the close of the 

scoping period or 15 days after the last 

public meeting, whichever is later. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on issues and planning criteria related 

to the project by any of the following 

methods: 

• Web site: www.blm.gov/ca/redding. 

• E-mail: caweb360@ca.blm.gov. 

• Fax: (530) 224–2172. 

• Mail: Bureau of Land Management, 

Redding Field Office, 355 Hemsted 

Drive, Redding, California 96002. 

Documents pertinent to this proposal 

may be examined at the Redding Field 

Office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information and/or to have your 

name added to our mailing list, contact 

Francis Berg, telephone (530) 224–2120; 

address 355 Hemsted Drive, Redding, 

California 96002; e-mail fberg@blm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document provides notice that the 

BLM’s Redding Field Office intends to 

prepare an RMP Amendment with an 

associated EA to consider the 

designation of the Lower Clear Creek (in 

western Shasta County) and Grass 

Valley Creek (in eastern Trinity County) 

as Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC). This document also 

announces the beginning of the scoping 

process and seeks public input on issues 

and planning criteria. Designation of 

one or both of the ACECs would require 

an amendment to the Redding RMP 

(1993). The two areas encompass 

approximately 15,000 acres of public 

land administered by the Redding Field 

Office. Designation of these two areas as 

ACECs would provide enhanced 

opportunities for conservation of 

fisheries including special status 

species. 

The purpose of the public scoping 

process is to determine relevant issues 

that will influence the scope of the 

amendment and EA, including 

alternatives, and guide the development 

of the amendment and EA. The BLM 

will use an interdisciplinary approach 

in developing the amendment and EA to 

ensure reasonable consideration of each 

issue and the impacts of the ACEC 

designations. Preliminary issues for the 

planning areas include: Botany; 

wildlife; fisheries; archaeology and 

cultural resources; minerals, geology; 

forestry; lands and realty; soils; 

hydrology; outdoor recreation; and law 

enforcement. 

You may submit comments on issues 

and planning criteria in writing to the 

BLM using one of the methods listed in 

the ADDRESSES section above. To be 

most helpful, you should submit 

comments within 30 days after 

publication of this notice. Native 

American Tribal consultations will be 

conducted, and Tribal concerns will be 

given due consideration, including 

impacts on Indian trust assets. Federal, 

state, and local agencies, along with 

other stakeholders that may be 

interested or affected by the BLM’s 

decision on this project are invited to 

participate in the scoping process and, 

if eligible, may participate as a 

cooperating agency. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7; 43 CFR 1610.2; 

1610.5–5; and 1610.7–2. 

Steven W. Anderson, 

Redding Field Office Manager. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3821 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–40–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1059 (Review)] 

Expedited Review Scheduling Notice; 

Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 

From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited fiveyear review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on hand trucks and certain 

parts thereof from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of an expedited 

review 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 antidumping 

duty order on hand trucks and certain 

parts thereof from China would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. 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). 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). 

DATES: Effective Date: February 5, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keysha Martinez (202–205–2136), 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
8746 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by Gleason Industrial Products, Inc., 

Harper Trucks, Inc., Magline, Inc., and Wesco 

Industrial Products, Inc. to be individually 

adequate. Comments from other interested parties 

will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

1For purposes of these investigations, the 

Department of Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise as ‘‘certain steel grating, consisting of 

two or more pieces of steel, including load-bearing 

pieces and cross pieces, joined by any assembly 

process, regardless of: (1) Size or shape; (2) method 

of manufacture; (3) metallurgy (carbon, alloy, or 

stainless); (4) the profile of the bars; and (5) whether 

or not they are galvanized, painted, coated, clad or 

plated. Steel grating is also commonly referred to 

as ‘bar grating,’ although the components may 

consist of steel other than bars, such as hot-rolled 

sheet, plate, or wire rod. The scope of this 

investigation excludes expanded metal grating, 

which is comprised of a single piece or coil of sheet 

or thin plate steel that has been slit and expanded, 

and does not involve welding or joining of multiple 

pieces of steel. The scope of this investigation also 

excludes plank type safety grating which is 

comprised of a single piece or coil of sheet or thin 

plate steel, typically in thickness of 10 to 18 gauge, 

that has been pierced and cold formed, and does 

not involve welding or joining of multiple pieces 

of steel.’’

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On February 5, 2010, 

the Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (74 

FR 56661, November 2, 2009) of the 

subject five-year review was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the review will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on 

March 15, 2010, and made available to 

persons on the Administrative 

Protective Order service list for this 

review. A public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before March 

18, 2010 and may not contain new 

factual information. Any person that is 

neither a party to the five-year review 

nor an interested party may submit a 

brief written statement (which shall not 

contain any new factual information) 

pertinent to the review by March 18, 

2010. However, should the Department 

of Commerce extend the time limit for 

its completion of the final results of its 

review, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the review must be 

served on all other parties to the review 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determination.—The Commission has 

determined to exercise its authority to 

extend the review period by up to 90 

days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 22, 2010. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3878 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–465 and 731– 

TA–1161 (Final)] 

Certain Steel Grating From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of 

countervailing duty and antidumping 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of countervailing duty 

investigation No. 701–TA–465 (Final) 

under section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act) and 

the final phase of antidumping 

investigation No. 731–TA–1161 (Final) 

under section 735(b) of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1673d(b)) to determine whether 

an industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, or the establishment of 

an industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

subsidized and less-than-fair-value 

imports from China of certain steel 

gratings, provided for in subheading 

7308.90.70 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States.1

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of the 

investigations, hearing procedures, and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: January 6, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Ruggles (202–205–3187 or 

fred.ruggles@usitc.gov), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—The final phase of 

these investigations is being scheduled 

as a result of affirmative preliminary 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce that certain benefits which 

constitute subsidies within the meaning 

of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1671b) are being provided to 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
11120 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Notices 

1On June 30, 2008, Feili requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative review of 

their sales for the period June 1, 2007, through May 

31, 2008, and in addition, requested that the 

Department defer the initiation of the review for 

one year in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(c). 

Consequently, on July 29, 2009, the Department 

initiated reviews for Feili covering both the 2007- 

08 and 2008-09 review periods.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–868] 

Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Extension of Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Giselle Cubillos or Charles Riggle, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1778 or (202) 482– 

0650, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 29, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published 

the initiation of administrative reviews 

of the antidumping duty order on 

folding metal tables and chairs from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Deferral of Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 37690 (July 29, 2009). 

These reviews cover the periods June 1, 

2007, through May 31, 2008, and June 

1, 2008, through May 31, 2009.1 The 

preliminary results of these reviews are 

currently due no later than March 2, 

2010. 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

has exercised its discretion to toll 

deadlines for the duration of the closure 

of the Federal Government from 

February 5, through February 12, 2010. 

Thus, all deadlines in this segment of 

the proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for the 

preliminary results of these reviews are 

now March 9, 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 Preliminary 

Results of Review 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), the Department shall make a 

preliminary determination in an 

administrative review of an 

antidumping duty order within 245 

days after the last day of the anniversary 

month of the date of publication of the 

order. The Act further provides, 

however, that the Department may 

extend that 245-day period to 365 days 

if it determines it is not practicable to 

complete the review within the 

foregoing time period. 

The Department finds that it is not 

practicable to complete the preliminary 

results of the administrative reviews of 

folding metal tables and chairs from the 

PRC within this time limit. Specifically, 

additional time is needed to determine 

the appropriate surrogate country and 

surrogate values with which to value 

factors of production. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act, the Department is extending the 

time period for completion of the 

preliminary results of these reviews, 

which are currently due on March 9, 

2010, by 60 days. Therefore, the 

preliminary results are now due no later 

than May 8, 2010. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: March 3, 2010. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5031 Filed 3–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–891] 

Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Expedited Five-year 

(Sunset) Review of Antidumping Duty 

Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 2, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated a sunset review of 

the antidumping duty order on hand 

trucks and certain parts thereof (hand 

trucks) from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC) 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 

one domestic interested party, and the 

lack of a response from respondent 

interested parties, the Department 

conducted an expedited (120-day) 

sunset review of this antidumping duty 

order. As a result of this sunset review, 

the Department finds that revocation of 

the antidumping duty order would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the levels 

identified below in the ‘‘Final Results of 

Sunset Review’’ section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: David 

Cordell or Scott Hoefke, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, or Dana 

Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0408, (202) 482–4947 or (202) 482– 

1391, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 2, 2009, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the 

antidumping duty order on hand trucks 

from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Act. See Initiation of Five-year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 74 FR 56593 

(November 2, 2009). The Department 

received a notice of intent to participate 

from the domestic interested parties, 

Gleason Industrial Products, Inc. and 

Precision Products, Inc. (collectively, 

Gleason) within the deadline specified 

in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 

Gleason claimed interested party 

status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act 

as a U.S manufacturer and producer of 

the subject merchandise. On November 

24, 2009, the Department received a 

complete substantive response from 

Gleason within the 30-day deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 

The Department received no substantive 

responses from respondent interested 

parties. 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 

has conducted an expedited sunset 

review of this order. 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

has exercised its discretion to toll 

deadlines for the duration of the closure 

of the Federal Government from 

February 5, through February 12, 2010. 

Thus, all deadlines in this segment of 

the proceeding have been extended by 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Notices 11121 

seven days. The revised deadline for the 

final results of this review is now March 

9, 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. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this 

antidumping duty order consists of 

hand trucks manufactured from any 

material, whether assembled or 

unassembled, complete or incomplete, 

suitable for any use, and certain parts 

thereof, namely the vertical frame, the 

handling area and the projecting edges 

or toe plate, and any combination 

thereof. 

A complete or fully assembled hand 

truck is a hand–propelled barrow 

consisting of a vertically disposed frame 

having a handle or more than one 

handle at or near the upper section of 

the vertical frame; at least two wheels at 

or near the lower section of the vertical 

frame; and a horizontal projecting edge 

or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or 

angled to the vertical frame, at or near 

the lower section of the vertical frame. 

The projecting edge or edges, or toe 

plate, slides under a load for purposes 

of lifting and/or moving the load. 

That the vertical frame can be 

converted from a vertical setting to a 

horizontal setting, then operated in that 

horizontal setting as a platform, is not 

a basis for exclusion of the hand truck 

from the scope of this order. That the 

vertical frame, handling area, wheels, 

projecting edges or other parts of the 

hand truck can be collapsed or folded is 

not a basis for exclusion of the hand 

truck from the scope of the order. That 

other wheels may be connected to the 

vertical frame, handling area, projecting 

edges, or other parts of the hand truck, 

in addition to the two or more wheels 

located at or near the lower section of 

the vertical frame, is not a basis for 

exclusion of the hand truck from the 

scope of the order. Finally, that the 

hand truck may exhibit physical 

characteristics in addition to the vertical 

frame, the handling area, the projecting 

edges or toe plate, and the two wheels 

at or near the lower section of the 

vertical frame, is not a basis for 

exclusion of the hand truck from the 

scope of the order. 

Examples of names commonly used to 

reference hand trucks are hand truck, 

convertible hand truck, appliance hand 

truck, cylinder hand truck, bag truck, 

dolly, or hand trolley. They are typically 

imported under heading 8716.80.50.10 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States (HTSUS), although 

they may also be imported under 

heading 8716.80.50.90. Specific parts of 

a hand truck, namely the vertical frame, 

the handling area and the projecting 

edges or toe plate, or any combination 

thereof, are typically imported under 

heading 8716.90.50.60 of the HTSUS. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the Department’s written 

description of the scope is dispositive. 

Excluded from the scope are small 

two–wheel or four–wheel utility carts 

specifically designed for carrying loads 

like personal bags or luggage in which 

the frame is made from telescoping 

tubular materials measuring less than 5/ 

8 inch in diameter; hand trucks that use 

motorized operations either to move the 

hand truck from one location to the next 

or to assist in the lifting of items placed 

on the hand truck; vertical carriers 

designed specifically to transport golf 

bags; and wheels and tires used in the 

manufacture of hand trucks. The written 

description remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this case are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum from John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, to Carole Showers, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, dated March 2, 

2010 (Decision Memorandum), which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. The 

issues discussed in the Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margin likely 

to prevail if the order was revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this sunset review 

and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in room 

1117 of the main Department building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Internet at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Sunset Review 

The Department has determined that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on hand trucks from the PRC 

would likely lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the following 

percentage weighted–average margins: 

Manufacturers/ 

Exporters/Producers 

Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

Qingdao Taifa Group 

Co., Ltd. .................... 26.49 percent 

True Potential Co. ........ 33.68 percent 

Qingdao Huatian Hand 

Truck Co., Ltd. .......... 46.48 percent 

Shandong Machinery 

Import & Export 

Group Corp. .............. 32.76 percent 

Qingdao Future Tool 

Inc. ............................ 32.76 percent 

PRC–wide rate ............. 383.60 percent 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (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 the return or 

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 these results and this notice 

in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 2, 2010. 

Carole Showers, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5111 Filed 3–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XU31 

Incidental Takes of Marine Mammals 

During Specified Activities; 

Replacement and Repair of Fur Seal 

Research Observation Towers and 

Walkways on St. Paul Island, Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed Incidental 

Harassment Authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an 

application from the NMFS, Alaska 

Region (NMFS AKR) for an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take 

small numbers of marine mammals, by 

Level B harassment, incidental to 

conducting replacement and repair of 

northern fur seal research observation 

towers and walkways on St. Paul Island,


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Contains Business Proprietary Information

B-1

APPENDIX B

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Certain Hand Trucks and Parts Thereof from China

Inv. No. 731-TA-1059 (Review)

On February 5, 2010, the Commission determined that it should proceed to an expedited

review in the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B)). 

The Commission determined that each of the four domestic producer responses, filed by

Gleason Industrial Products, Inc. and its jointly-owned and operated affiliate Precision Products,

Inc., Harper Trucks, Inc., Magline, Inc., and Wesco Industrial Products, were individually

adequate. The Commission further determined that the domestic interested party group response

was adequate because these producers account for a majority of the domestic production of

certain hand trucks and parts thereof.

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested party in the

review and, therefore, determined that the respondent interested party group response was

inadequate.

Given the absence of an adequate respondent interested party group response, and any

other circumstances that might warrant proceeding to a full review, the Commission determined

to conduct an expedited review. A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the

Office of the Secretary and the Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov).