U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4483 August 2014

Washington, DC 20436

STEEL THREADED ROD FROM CHINA

Investigation No. 731-TA-1145 (Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

Meredith M. Broadbent, Chairman 

Dean A. Pinkert, Vice Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson 

David S. Johanson 

F. Scott Kieff 

Rhonda K. Schmidtlein

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Director of Operations

Jonathan Connelly, Investigator 

Karl Tsuji, Industry Analyst 

Patrick Gallagher, Attorney 

Fred Ruggles, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4483 August 2014

STEEL THREADED ROD FROM CHINA

Investigation No. 731-TA-1145 (Review)

CONTENTS

    Page

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

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

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

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... I‐1

Background...................................................................................................................................... I‐1

The original investigation ......................................................................................................... I‐2

Commerce’s original determination and subsequent review determinations........................ I‐2

Previous and related investigations......................................................................................... I‐3

The product ..................................................................................................................................... I‐3

Commerce’s scope.................................................................................................................... I‐3

U.S. tariff treatment ................................................................................................................. I‐4

Domestic like product and domestic industry.......................................................................... I‐4

Description and applications.................................................................................................... I‐5

Manufacturing process............................................................................................................. I‐5

The industry in the United States................................................................................................... I‐7

U.S. producers .......................................................................................................................... I‐7

U.S. producers’ trade and financial data.................................................................................. I‐8

U.S. imports and apparent consumption ....................................................................................... I‐9

U.S. imports.............................................................................................................................. I‐9

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares .................................................................... I‐13

The industry in China .................................................................................................................... I‐13

Exports.................................................................................................................................... I‐14

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Orders in Third‐Country Markets................................ I‐15

The global market ......................................................................................................................... I‐15

Appendixes

A. Adequacy statement.........................................................................................................   A‐1

B. Summary data...................................................................................................................   B‐1

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731‐TA‐1145 (Review)

CERTAIN STEEL THREADED ROD FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1 developed in the subject five‐year review, 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

certain steel threaded rod 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 March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11827), and determined

on June 6, 2014 that it would conduct an expedited review (79 FR 34783, June 18, 2014).

The Commission completed and filed its determination in this review on August 4, 2014.   

The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4483 (August 2014), entitled

Certain Steel Threaded Rod from China:    Investigation No. 731‐TA‐1145 (Review).

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

(19 CFR ' 207.2(f)).

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 Tariff Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order

on certain steel threaded rod (“CSTR”) from China would likely lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably

foreseeable time.  

I. Background

The original investigation of CSTR from China was instituted in response to a petition by  

Vulcan Threaded Products, Inc. (“Vulcan”), filed on March 5, 2008.1  On April 6, 2009, the

Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason

of imports of CSTR from China that the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) found had

been sold at less than fair value.2

  Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on imports of

CSTR from China on April 8, 2009.3

The Commission instituted this review on March 3, 2014.4

  The Commission received a

substantive response to the notice of institution jointly filed by All America Threaded Products,

Inc. (“All America”), Bay Standard Manufacturing, Inc. (“Bay Standard”), and Vulcan

(collectively, “Domestic Producers”).5  It did not receive a response from any respondent

interested party.  On June 6, 2014, the Commission found each of the Domestic Producers’

responses to the notice of institution individually adequate, the domestic industry party group

response adequate, and the respondent interested party group response inadequate.6

  The

Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review and

determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the

Tariff Act.7

                                                             1 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1145 (Final), USITC Pub. 4070 (April

2009) (“USITC Pub. 4070”) at 3. 2 USITC Pub. 4070 at 3; Certain Steel Threaded Rod from China Determination, 74 Fed. Reg.

16427 (April 10, 2009) and Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s Republic of China; Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 Fed. Reg. 8907 (February 27, 2009).

3 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s Republic of China; Notice of Antidumping Duty

Order, 74 Fed. Reg. 17154 (April 14, 2009). 4 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from China: Institution of Five‐Year Review, 79 Fed. Reg. 11827

(March 3, 2014). 5 Domestic Producers’ Substantive Response to the Commission’s Notice of Institution (April 2,

2014) (“Response”).  In the original investigation, the petition identified nine producers of CSTR:  All

Ohio Threaded Rod Company (“All Ohio”), Bay Standard, Conklin & Conklin Inc., Interstate Fittings, Inc.,

Lancaster Threaded Products, Inc., Rods of Indiana, Threaded Rod Company, Inc., Vulcan, and Watson

Metal Products Corporation.  USITC Pub. 4070 at 14.

6 Summary Voting Sheet, EDIS Doc. 535427. 7 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3); see also Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy, EDIS

Doc. 535694, and 79 Fed. Reg. 34783 (June 18, 2014).
4

II. Domestic Like Product and Industry

A. Domestic Like Product

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

defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”8

  The Tariff Act defines “domestic like

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

uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.”9  The Commission’s

practice in five‐year reviews is to examine the domestic like product definition from the original

investigation and consider whether the record indicates any reason to revisit the prior

findings.10

Commerce has defined the scope of the order in this five‐year review as follows:

The merchandise  . . . is steel threaded rod.  Steel threaded rod is

certain threaded rod, bar, or studs, of carbon quality steel, having a

solid, circular cross section, of any diameter, in any straight length, that

have been forged, turned, cold‐drawn, cold‐rolled, machine

straightened, or otherwise cold‐finished, and into which threaded

grooves have been applied.  In addition, the steel threaded rod, bar, or

studs subject to the order are nonheaded and threaded along greater

than 25 percent of their total length.  A variety of finishes or coatings,

such as plain oil finish as a temporary rust protectant, zinc coating (i.e.,

galvanized, whether by electroplating or hotdipping), paint, and other

similar finishes and coatings, may be applied to the merchandise.  

Included in the scope  . . . are steel threaded rod, bar, or studs, in which:

(1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained

elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or  less, by weight; and (3)

none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight,

respectively indicated:

• 1.80 percent of manganese, or

• 1.50 percent of silicon, or

                                                             8 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

9 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).

10 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks from Japan, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐377

(Second Review), USITC Pub. 3831 at 8‐9 (Dec. 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐

752 (Review), USITC Pub. 3614 at 4 (July 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Turkey, Inv. No. 731‐

TA‐745 (Review), USITC Pub. 3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).
5

• 1.00 percent of copper, or

• 0.50 percent of aluminum, or

• 1.25 percent of chromium, or

• 0.30 percent of cobalt, or

• 0.40 percent of lead, or

• 1.25 percent of nickel, or

• 0.30 percent of tungsten, or

• 0.012 percent of boron, or

• 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or

• 0.10 percent of niobium, or

• 0.41 percent of titanium, or

• 0.15 percent of vanadium, or

• 0.15 percent of zirconium.

      *    *   *

Excluded from the scope of the Order are: (a) Threaded rod, bar, or

studs which are threaded only on one or both ends and the threading

covers 25 percent or less of the total length; and (b) threaded rod, bar,

or studs made to American Society for Testing and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’)

A193 Grade B7, ASTM A193 Grade B7M, ASTM A193 Grade B16, or

ASTM A320 Grade L7.11

The scope definition set out above is unchanged from that in the original investigation.12

CSTR is used primarily in commercial construction to suspend electrical conduits,

plumbing pipes, HVAC ductwork, and fire‐protection sprinkler pipes.  It is also used to hang

suspended ceilings and elevated conveyor belts, in joint restraint systems for underground

                                                             11 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited

First Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 79 Fed. Reg. 36288, 36289 (June 26, 2014)

(“Commerce Sunset Review”). 12 On February 25, 2013, Commerce issued a final determination of circumvention of the

antidumping duty order by Gem‐Year Industrial Company Ltd. (“Gem‐Year”).  See Certain Steel Threaded

Rod from the People’s Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the

Antidumping Duty Order, 78 Fed. Reg. 12718 (February 25, 2013).  Commerce determined that imports

of steel threaded rod from China containing greater than 1.25 percent chromium, by weight, and

produced by Gem‐Year, which otherwise met the description of subject merchandise in the scope of the

order, were subject to the antidumping duty order on CSTR from China.  78 Fed. Reg. at 12719.
6

piping, in structural tie downs in earthquake and hurricane‐resistant roofing systems, as

headless screws, for bolting pipe joints in waterworks applications, and for basic industrial

repair.  The low carbon steel used to make CSTR allows the rod to be cut to the desired length

on site.  CSTR is threaded along its entire length.13

In the original investigation, the Commission found that all CSTR had common physical

characteristics (in particular, it had threaded grooves and was composed of low and medium

carbon steel) and uses (non‐critical bolting applications); that CSTR was not interchangeable

with other threaded rod or other products; that almost all domestically produced CSTR was sold

through distributors; that the full range of CSTR products was produced using common

manufacturing facilities, production processes, and employees; and that customers perceived

CSTR as having distinct properties from other types of threaded rod in that CSTR can be easily

cut to desired lengths.14  In light of these facts, the Commission defined a single domestic like

product consisting of CSTR, coextensive with the scope of the investigation.15  There is no new

information obtained during this review that would suggest any reason to revisit the

Commission’s domestic like product definition from the original determination, and the

responding domestic producers agree with that definition.16  Accordingly, we define the

domestic like product as CSTR, coextensive with Commerce’s scope description.

B. Domestic Industry

Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff 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.”17  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, responding importer Porteous Fastener Company

requested that the Commission exclude related party *** from the domestic industry.18  The

Commission found that, although *** was a related party under the statute due to its

importation of subject CSTR during the period of investigation,19 appropriate circumstances did

not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry.20  The Commission also found that Vulcan

                                                             13 Memorandum INV‐MM‐063, Confidential Report (“CR”) at I‐7 to I‐8, Public Report (“PR”) at I‐

6. 14 USITC Pub. 4070 at 5‐6.

15 USITC Pub. 4070 at 6.  The definition of the domestic like product was not disputed in either

the preliminary or final phase investigations.  Id. 16 See generally CR at I‐4 to I‐6, PR at I‐3 to I‐5; Response at 17. 17 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.

18 USITC Pub. 4070 at 7.  Petitioner Vulcan argued that appropriate circumstances did not exist

to exclude this firm from the domestic industry.  Id.   19 USITC Pub. 4070 at 7.

20 USITC Pub. 4070 at 8.
7

was a related party due to its importation of subject CSTR during the period of investigation.21  

The Commission found, however, that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude

Vulcan from the domestic industry.  The Commission defined the domestic industry as

consisting of all domestic producers of CSTR.22

In this review, the domestic producers have stated that they agree with the domestic

industry definition in the original investigation.23  There is no evidence in the record of this

review to cause us to revisit the definition of the domestic industry determined in the original

investigation and there are no related party issues in this review. 24  Therefore, in light of the

definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry as all domestic

producers of CSTR.

III. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order Would Likely Lead to

Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a Reasonably

Foreseeable Time  

A. Legal Standards

In a five‐year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act, Commerce will

revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order unless: (1) it makes a determination that

dumping or subsidization is likely to continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a

determination that revocation of the antidumping or countervailing duty order “would be likely

to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”25  

The 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.”26  Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in nature.27  The U.S. Court of

                                                             21 USITC Pub. 4070 at 9. 22 USITC Pub. 4070 at 9.

23 Response at 12.  Vulcan, All America, and Bay Standard produce the vast majority of steel

threaded rod in the United States.  Id. and Domestic Producers’ Final Written Comments (July 8, 2014)

(“Comments”) at 1.

24 There were three domestic producers of CSTR that did not respond to the notice of

institution:  All Ohio; Conklin & Conklin; and Interstate Threaded Products (“Interstate”).  Response at

12.  All Ohio and Interstate were the only domestic producers reported to have imported CSTR from

China during the period of review.  Response, Exhibit 1 at 1.  Because All Ohio and Interstate did not

respond to the notice of institution, there is no information in the record pertaining to them to exclude

from the review, even assuming arguendo that appropriate circumstances existed to exclude one or

both of them.

25 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

26 SAA at 883‐84.  The SAA states that “{t}he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of

the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury, or

material retardation of an industry).  Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that

were never completed.”  Id. at 883.
8

International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the five‐year review provisions of the

Tariff Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five‐year reviews.28  

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.”29  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.”30

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

original 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.”31  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

an order under review is revoked or a suspension agreement is terminated, and any findings by

Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).32  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.33

                                                                                                                                                                                                27 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not

necessary,” it indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely

continued depressed shipment levels and current and likely continued {sic} prices for the domestic like

product in the U.S. market in making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of

material injury if the order is revoked.”  SAA at 884.

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

(“‘likely’ means probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d

mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002)

(same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not”

standard is “consistent with the court’s opinion;” “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any

particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, 26 CIT 1059, 1070

(2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”);

Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely

‘possible’”).

29 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

30 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. 31 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

32 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).  Commerce has not made any duty absorption findings nor has it

conducted any administrative reviews, new shipper reviews, or scope inquiry reviews of the

antidumping duty order on CSTR from China.  CR at I‐3, PR at I‐2.

33 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).  Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is

necessarily dispositive.  SAA at 886.
9

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if an order under

review is revoked and/or a suspended investigation is terminated, 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.34  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.35

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if an order under review is

revoked and/or a suspended investigation is terminated, 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.36

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if an order under

review is revoked and/or a suspended investigation is terminated, 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.37  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.  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 under

review and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury upon revocation.38

No respondent interested party participated in this expedited review.  The record,

therefore, contains limited new information with respect to the CSTR industry in China.  There

                                                             34 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

35 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A‐D).

36 See 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.

37 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

38 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.
10

also is limited information on the CSTR market in the United States during the period of review.  

Accordingly, for our determination, we rely as appropriate on the facts available from the

original investigation and data submitted in the response to the notice of institution.

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry if an

order is revoked, 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.”39  The following conditions of competition inform our determination.

Demand Conditions.  In the original investigation and as discussed above, the

Commission found that overall demand was derived from demand for its end‐use applications,

primarily in commercial construction.  The Commission found that apparent U.S. consumption

of CSTR increased by 1.1 percent from 2005 to 2007, and was 4.3 percent higher in the first

nine months (“interim”) of 2008 than in interim 2007.40

The Commission also found that most producers and importers reported that there

were no substitute products for threaded rod.  They also reported that there was little

interchangeability between STR and other types of threaded rod, which contained materials

other than low‐carbon steel and were produced to different specifications than STR.41

There is no information on the record of this review to suggest that the demand

conditions present in the original investigation have subsequently changed.  The record in this

review indicates that overall demand for CSTR remains derived from demand for its end‐use

applications, primarily in commercial construction.42  Apparent U.S. consumption of CSTR was

lower in 2013, at *** pounds, than in 2007, when it was *** pounds.43  

Supply Conditions.  In the original investigation, the Commission found three sources of

supply in the U.S. market:  domestic production, imports of subject CSTR, and imports of CSTR

from nonsubject sources.   The petitioner, Vulcan, was the largest domestic producer,

accounting for *** percent of domestic production in 2007.44  The Commission found that the

domestic industry’s capacity remained stable from 2005 to 2007, and then decreased in 2007,

with one plant closure during the period of investigation (“POI”).  The Commission also found

that the domestic industry’s market share decreased from 58.8 percent in 2005 to 43.8 percent

in 2007, and was lower in interim 2008 than in interim 2007.45

With respect to subject imports, the Commission found that more than 400 firms in

China were believed to be producing and exporting CSTR with one firm accounting for over ***

percent of exports to the United States, *** firms accounting for *** percent of exports to the

                                                             39 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

40 USITC Pub. 4070 at 13. 41 USITC Pub. 4070 at 15.

42 CR at I‐7, PR at I‐5.

43 CR/PR at Table I‐7. 44 USITC Pub. 4070 at 14 and Confidential Views at 19.

45 USITC Pub. 4070 at 14.
11

United States, and *** firms accounting for *** percent of such exports.46  The U.S. market

share of subject imports increased from 34.8 percent in 2005 to 50.4 percent in 2007.47

The Commission found that the principal sources for nonsubject imports were India,

Japan, Belgium, Germany, and Mexico, with nearly 90 percent of the nonsubject imports

coming from India.  The market share of nonsubject imports decreased from 2005 to 2007, and

was lower in interim 2008 than in interim 2007.48

In this review, the record shows that Vulcan is still the primary producer of CSTR in the

United States.49  Since 2008, domestic producer Vulcan increased its production and All

America also increased production and expanded its production capacity by acquiring existing

threaded rod producers and reorganizing and consolidating its production.50  The domestic

industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption was higher in 2013, when it was *** percent,

than it was in 2007, when it was *** percent. 51  

Imports of CSTR from China, as well as from nonsubject sources, have continued to

supply the U.S. market since issuance of the antidumping duty order in 2007.52  The share of

apparent U.S. consumption held by subject imports declined from *** percent in 2007 to ***

percent in 2013.  By contrast, the share of apparent U.S. consumption held by nonsubject

imports increased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2013.53  India, Thailand, Taiwan,

and Malaysia are currently the largest suppliers of nonsubject imports of CSTR.54  

Substitutability and Other Conditions.  In the original investigation, the Commission

found that there was a high degree of interchangeability between CSTR produced in the United

States, subject imports from China, and nonsubject imports.  Most domestic producers,

importers, and purchasers reported that the domestic like product, the subject imports, and

nonsubject imports were “always” or “frequently” interchangeable.  They also identified price

most frequently as the most important factor in purchasing decisions.  Most producers and

importers reported that there were no substitute products for threaded rod.  They also

reported that there was little interchangeability between CSTR and other types of threaded rod,

which contained materials other than low‐carbon steel and were produced to different

specifications than CSTR.55

With respect to raw materials, the Commission found that the main raw material input

used to produce CSTR was carbon steel wire rod.  The Commission also found that

approximately 80 percent of CSTR was made from wire rod, with the remaining 20 percent

                                                             46 USITC Pub. 4070 at 13‐14 and Confidential Views at 18‐19. 47 USITC Pub. 4070 at 14.

48 USITC Pub. 4070 at 14.

49 CR/PR at Table I‐1.

50 CR at I‐9 to I‐10, PR at I‐7; Response at 35 and Exhibit 4.

51 CR/PR at Table I‐7.

52 CR/PR at Tables I‐4 and I‐5.

53 CR/PR at Table I‐7.

54 CR/PR at Table I‐5.  Prior to the time the record closed in this review, the Commission had

issued a negative final determination in an antidumping duty investigation of CSTR from Thailand.  

Certain Streel Threaded Rod from Thailand, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1214 (Final), USITC Doc. 4462 (May 2014). 55 USITC Pub. 4070 at 15.
12

produced using steel bar.  During the POI, the price of steel wire rod decreased in early 2005,

but then generally increased through 2007.56

In this review, there is no new information on the record to call into question the

Commission’s findings in the original investigation that there was a high degree of

interchangeability between the domestic like product and the subject imports, that price played

an important role in purchasing decisions, or that carbon steel wire rod was the main raw

material input for CSTR.  Accordingly, we again find that the domestic like product and subject

CSTR are highly substitutable, that there are no substitute products for CSTR, and that price

continues to be an important factor in purchasing decisions.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

Original Investigation.  In the original investigation, the Commission found that

apparent U.S. consumption had risen modestly during January 2005‐September 2008, but that

the volume of subject imports had increased at a much higher rate.57  The market share of

subject imports also had risen over the POI, as had the ratio of subject imports to U.S.

production.  By contrast, the Commission found that the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments

and market share decreased over the POI.  It also found that the volume and market share of

nonsubject imports decreased over the POI.  The Commission found that, during a period of

stable to rising apparent U.S. consumption, subject imports gained market share in the United

States almost entirely at the expense of the domestic industry.  It subsequently found that the

volume of subject imports and the increase in that volume were significant, both in absolute

terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States.58

Current Review.  In this review, the information available indicates that the order has

had a disciplining effect on the volume of subject imports, which decreased significantly since

the imposition of the order in 2009.59  Subject imports fell from 87.4 million pounds in 2007 to

3.7 million pounds in 2009, and then increased on an annual basis until reaching 20.1 million

pounds in 2013.  Subject import volume in 2013 remained well below the quantities observed

during the original POI.60

As previously stated, no foreign producer or exporter of subject merchandise from

China participated in this expedited review.  Nevertheless, available record data indicate that

the CSTR industry in China continues to manufacture and export substantial volumes of CSTR.61  

Moreover, Global Trade Atlas data indicate that China has been by far the largest global

exporter of a category of products that includes the subject merchandise (as well as threaded

screws and bolts) in each year from 2008 to 2013.62

                                                             56 USITC Pub. 4070 at 14. 57 USITC Pub. 4070 at 15.

58 USITC Pub. 4070 at 16.

59 CR/PR at Tables I‐4 and I‐5.

60 CR/PR at Tables I‐4 and I‐5.

61 CR/PR at Tables I‐8 and I‐9.

62 CR/PR at Table I‐9.
13

The United States remains an attractive market for the CSTR industry in China.  Subject

imports from China have remained in the U.S. market since the imposition of the order in

substantial quantities, and these quantities have increased since 2009.63   The fact that

Commerce has found that a Chinese exporter is circumventing the antidumping duty order

provides further support that the U.S. market is attractive.64  Additionally, the available Global

Trade Atlas data indicate that the United States is China’s largest export market for the broader

category of steel threaded rod products.65

In light of these considerations, we find that the subject producers are likely, absent the

restraining effects of the order, to direct significant volumes of CSTR to the U.S. market, as they

did during the POI.66  We find that the likely volume of subject imports, both in absolute terms

and relative to consumption in the United States, would be significant if the order were

revoked.

D. Likely Price Effects  

Original Investigation.  In the original investigation, the Commission found that the

pricing data showed widespread underselling (99 of 105 comparisons) by subject imports,

sometimes at large margins, throughout the POI.  In light of these facts, the Commission found

that there was significant underselling of the domestic like product by subject imports from

China.67

The Commission found that, given that the domestic like product and subject imports

were highly substitutable, that price was an important factor in purchasing decisions, and that

subject imports undersold the domestic like product to a significant degree.  Also, the price and

volume data provided strong evidence that subject imports depressed domestic process to a

significant degree from 2005 through the third quarter of 2007.  It found that decreasing prices

during a period when subject imports levels increased were particularly significant for a highly

substitutable, price‐competitive product, such as CSTR.68

The Commission also found evidence that subject imports suppressed prices of the

domestic like product to a significant degree.  It determined that demand for CSTR had a low

sensitivity to changes in price because there were few, if any, viable substitutes for CSTR for

                                                             63 CR/PR at Table I‐5.  The record indicated that in 2013 subject imports from China accounted

for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, although this figure may be somewhat overstated

because not all domestic CSTR producers responded to the notice of institution.  CR/PR at Table I‐7.

64 See note 12 supra. 65 CR/PR at Table I‐8.

66 None of the responding parties reported antidumping or countervailing measures, or other

barriers in place, against CSTR from China in third‐country markets.  CR at I‐21, PR at I‐15.  Due to the

failure of any foreign producer, exporter, or importer of subject merchandise from China to participate

in this review, the record does not contain current information regarding existing inventories of subject

merchandise, any likely increases in such inventories, or the potential for product shifting if production

facilities in China which can be used to produce CSTR are currently being used to manufacture other

products.  CR at I‐19 to I‐20, PR at I‐13 to I‐14.

67 USITC Pub. 4070 at 17.

68 USITC Pub. 4070 at 17.
14

many applications and CSTR accounted for a low cost share in construction‐related projects.  

Additionally, while demand for such a product may vary for reasons unrelated to price (such as

a drop in construction‐related activity), demand in the U.S. market was stable or increasing

slightly from 2005 to 2007.  The Commission reasoned that, in such a market, domestic

producers would expect the ability to pass on higher production costs to purchasers, absent

other evidence reflecting market conditions that would restrict price adjustments.  It attributed

the domestic industry’s inability to raise prices to competition from a significant and growing

volume of subject imports, which undersold and were highly substitutable with the domestic

like product, in an environment in which price was the most important factor in purchasing

decisions.  The Commission determined, based on these data, that the domestic industry was

experiencing a cost‐price squeeze in 2007, when it should have been able to increase prices for

CSTR, but subject imports were preventing price increases that otherwise would have occurred

to a significant degree.  The Commission further found that evidence of confirmed lost sales

and revenues supported its finding that the subject imports depressed and suppressed prices of

the domestic like product to a significant degree.69

The Commission also found that the pendency of the investigation allowed domestic

producers to regain customers and raise prices in interim 2008.  These higher prices led to

improvements in the domestic industry’s financial performance.70  The Commission

acknowledged that the sharply rising cost of steel wire rod (the principal raw material used to

produce CSTR) played an important role in the rising prices for CSTR in interim 2008, although it

found that the price increases for CSTR were greater than the increases in raw material costs.  It

also found that the domestic producers would not have been able to implement the price

increases without the pendency of the investigation and, consequently, the Commission gave

less weight to the improvement in domestic prices in interim 2008 in its assessment of the price

effects of subject imports.71

Current Review.  Based on the available information, we find that the significant

underselling observed during the original investigation would likely recur if the antidumping

duty order were revoked.  Moreover, we find that, given the highly substitutable nature of

imported CSTR with the domestic like product and the importance of price in purchasing

decisions, the significant volumes of subject imports likely in the event of revocation are likely

to depress or suppress prices of the domestic like product to a significant degree or cause the

industry to lose market share to increasing volumes of subject imports.

Given our finding that the volume of subject imports would likely increase in the event

of revocation, we conclude that the likely significant volume of subject imports from China

would likely undersell the domestic like product to a significant degree to gain market share

and would also likely have significant effects on the domestic industry’s prices.

                                                             69 USITC Pub. 4070 at 18.

70 USITC Pub. 4070 at 18‐19. 71 USITC Pub. 4070 at 19.
15

E. Likely Impact72

Original Investigation.  In the original investigation, the Commission found that the

trade and financial indicators of domestic industry performance showed sharp declines from

2005 through 2007.73  The number of production and related workers, aggregate hours worked,

and aggregate wages paid all decreased sharply over the POI, although the Commission

acknowledged that there were some improvements in hourly wages and productivity.74

The Commission found that the domestic industry’s financial indicators – net sales

measured by quantity and value, operating income, and operating margins – also decreased

sharply over the POI.  The Commission acknowledged that many of the domestic industry’s

financial indicators and some of its employment indicators showed improvements in interim

2008, but the Commission gave less weight to these improvements due to the effect of the

pendency of the investigation, which allowed the domestic industry to raise prices and regain

customers.75

The Commission concluded that subject imports had an adverse impact on the condition

of the domestic industry during the POI and, in particular, that both the absolute and relative

volumes of subject imports had been significant.  Subject imports gained market share at the

expense of the domestic industry, undersold the domestic like product to a significant degree,

and depressed and suppressed prices to a significant degree.  The Commission found that, as

the domestic industry’s costs increased and significant volumes of lower‐priced subject imports

entered the U.S. market, the domestic industry was caught in a cost‐price squeeze in 2007.  The

Commission found that the increase in subject imports and their adverse effects on U.S. prices

had caused decreases in the domestic industry’s trade, employment, and financial performance

until interim 2008.76

The Commission also examined market trends with respect to nonsubject imports.   The

Commission recognized that a majority of questionnaire respondents considered domestically

produced CSTR and imports from China to be “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with

nonsubject imports.77   The Commission found that nonsubject imports’ market share declined

over the POI and was lower in interim 2008 than in interim 2007.  It determined that

                                                             72 Under the statute, “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping”

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

“magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in a five‐year review 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.  Commerce expedited its sunset review and

found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would lead to a continuation or recurrence of

dumping at the following margins: 43.37 percent for RMB Fasteners Ltd., and IFI & Morgan Ltd.

(“RMB/IFI Group”); 206.00 percent for Ningbo Yinzhou Foreign Trade Company Ltd.; 55.16 percent for

Non‐examined exporters with a separate rate; and 206.00 percent for the PRC‐Wide Entity.  Commerce

Sunset Review, 79 Fed. Reg. at 36289.

73 USITC Pub. 4070 at 19‐20. 74 USITC Pub. 4070 at 20. 75 USITC Pub. 4070 at 21.

76 USITC Pub. 4070 at 21. 77 USITC Pub. 4070 at 21‐22.
16

nonsubject imports generally were higher valued than subject imports from China, although the

evidence suggested that nonsubject imports, particularly from India and Mexico, were lower

valued than the domestic like product.  Therefore, the Commission found that any injury it

found from subject imports from China could not be attributed to nonsubject imports because

of the relatively low and declining levels of nonsubject imports.78

Consequently, the Commission found that the record indicated a causal nexus between

the subject imports and the condition of the domestic industry and thus demonstrated material

injury by reason of the subject imports.  The Commission concluded that the subject imports

had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.79

Current Review.  The information available concerning the domestic industry’s

condition in this review consists of the data that the Domestic Producers provided in response

to the notice of institution.80  Because this is an expedited review, we have only limited

information with respect to the domestic industry’s financial performance.  The limited record

is insufficient for us to make a finding on whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to the

continuation or recurrence of material injury in the event of revocation of the order.

The information on the record indicates that the Domestic Producers’ capacity was ***

pounds in 2013.  Reported production was *** pounds in 2013; accordingly, capacity utilization

was *** percent.  U.S. shipments were *** pounds in 2013.  The Domestic Producers reported

an operating income of $*** from sales of $***, resulting in an operating margin of ***

percent in 2013.81  The Domestic Producers maintain that the imposition of the antidumping

duty order led to improvements in  production, production capacity,  capacity utilization, U.S.

shipments, and operating performance.82

Based on the information on the record, we find that, should the order be revoked, the

likely significant volume of subject imports that would likely significantly undersell the domestic

like product would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales,

market share, and revenues of the domestic industry.  These declines would likely have a direct

adverse impact on the domestic industry’s profitability, as they did in the original investigation.

We also have considered the role of factors other than subject imports, including the

presence of nonsubject imports, so as not to attribute injury from other factors to the subject

imports.  Imports of CSTR from nonsubject countries, particularly India and Thailand, have been

present generally in increasing quantities in the U.S. market since the order was imposed in

2009.83  The Commission found in its final determination concerning CSTR from Thailand that

the domestic industry was neither materially injured nor threatened with material injury by

reason of cumulated subject imports of CSTR from India and Thailand.84  Indeed,

                                                             78 USITC Pub. 4070 at 22.

79 USITC Pub. 4070 at 22.

80 Vulcan, All America, and Bay Standard estimate that they accounted for the vast majority of

U.S. CSTR production in 2013.  Response at 17.

81 CR/PR at Table I‐2.

82 CR at I‐10, PR at I‐7; Response at 14‐15.

83 CR/PR at Table I‐5.

84 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from Thailand, USITC Pub. 4462 at 26, 31.
17

notwithstanding the increase in nonsubject imports during this period, the domestic industry

was able to increase its share of the U.S. market since the end of the original POI.85  Therefore,

any increase in subject imports upon revocation would likely be, at least in substantial part, at

the expense of the domestic industry.

Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty order were revoked, subject

imports from China would likely have a significant impact on the domestic industry within a

reasonably foreseeable time.

IV. Conclusion

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

CSTR from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

                                                             85 CR/PR at Table I‐7.

I‐1

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Background

On March 3, 2014, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”)

gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”),1 that it

had instituted a review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on

certain steel threaded rod (“CSTR”) from China would likely lead to the continuation or

recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry.2,3 On June 6, 2014, the Commission

determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the

Act.4 The following tabulation presents information relating to the background and schedule of

this proceeding:

 

1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c). 2 Certain Steel Threaded Rod From China; Institution of a Five‐Year Review, 79 FR 11827, March 3,

2014. All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information

requested by the Commission.

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. Initiation of Five‐Year (“Sunset”) Review, 79 FR 11762,

March 3, 2014. 4 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five‐Year Review, (79 FR 14185,

June 18, 2014). The Commission received one submission in response to its notice of institution in the

subject review.  A joint response was filed on behalf of All America Threaded Products, Inc., Bay

Standard Manufacturing, Inc., and Vulcan Threaded Products, Inc., U.S. producers believed to account

for a vast majority of U.S. production of the domestic like product in 2013. The Commission did not

receive any responses from producers in China or importers of the subject merchandise from China. The

Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution

was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. 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.  
I‐2

Effective date Action 

March 3, 2014

Commission’s institution of first five‐year review (79 FR 11827)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐2014‐03‐03/html/2014‐04605.htm  

March 3, 2014

Commerce’s initiation of first five‐year review (79 FR 11762)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐2014‐03‐03/pdf/2014‐04720.pdf  

June 6, 2014

Commission’s determination to conduct expedited five‐year review  

(79 FR 14185 , June 18, 2014)

https://federalregister.gov/a/2014‐14185  

June 26, 2014

Commerce’s final result of expedited five‐year review of the antidumping

duty order (79 FR 36288)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐2014‐06‐26/pdf/2014‐15003.pdf

July 22, 2014 Scheduled date for the Commission’s vote

July 31, 2014 Scheduled date for the Commission’s determination and views

The original investigation

The original investigation resulted from a petition filed with Commerce and the

Commission by Vulcan Threaded Products, Inc. (“Vulcan”), Pelham, AL, on March 5, 2008,

alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material

injury by reason of less‐than‐fair‐value (“LTFV”) imports of CSTR from China.  On February 27,

2009, Commerce determined that imports of CSTR from China were being sold at LTFV, by

margins of 55.16 to 206.00 percent.5 On April 6, 2009, the Commission determined that an

industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of CSTR from

China.6

  Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on CSTR from China on April 14, 2009.7

Commerce’s Original Determination and Subsequent Review Determinations

Commerce’s original determination was published on October 8, 2008, and the

antidumping duty order concerning CSTR was issued on April 14, 2009. Since the issuance of the

antidumping duty order, Commerce has not issued any duty absorption findings and has not

conducted any new shipper reviews or changed circumstances reviews. 8

 

5 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value, 74 FR 8907, February 27, 2009.

6 Certain Threaded Steel Rod From China Determination, 74 FR 16427, April 10, 2009. 7 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Antidumping Duty Order,

74 FR 17154, April 14, 2009.

8 On February 25, 2013, Commerce issued a notice of a final determination of circumvention of the

antidumping duty order by Gem‐Year Industrial Co. Ltd.(“Gem‐Year”). Commerce determined that

imports from China of steel threaded rod containing greater than 1.25 percent chromium, by weight,

produced by Gem‐Year, but otherwise met the description of in‐scope merchandise, were subject to the

antidumping duty order on CSTR from China. Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s Republic of

(continued...)
I‐3

Commerce’s Final Result of Expedited Five‐Year Review

Commerce’s results of its expedited review of the subject antidumping duty order were

published in the Federal Register on June 26, 2014.  Commerce determined that revocation of

the subject order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at rates of

47.37 percent for RMB Fasteners Ltd., and IFI & Morgan Ltd.; 206.00 percent for Ningbo

Yinzhou Foreign Trade Co. Ltd; 55.16 percent for all non‐examined exporters with a separate

rate; and 206.00 percent for the PRC‐wide entity.9

Previous and related investigations

CSTR has been the subject of one prior antidumping duty investigation in the United

States. On June 27, 2013, Vulcan filed an antidumping duty petition against imports of threaded

rod from Thailand and India. Following an affirmative determination by Commerce, on May 7,

2014, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was not materially

injured or threatened with material injury, and the establishment of an industry in the United

States was not materially retarded by reason of imports from Thailand of certain steel threaded

rod.10

THE PRODUCT

Commerce’s scope

Commerce initially defined the subject merchandise as:

(C)ertain threaded rod, bar, or studs, of carbon quality steel, having a solid, circular

cross section, of any diameter, in any straight length, that have been forged, turned,

cold drawn, cold rolled, machine straightened, or otherwise cold finished, and into

which threaded grooves have been applied. In addition, the steel threaded rod, bar, or

studs subject to this investigation are non‐headed and threaded along greater than

25 percent of their total length. A variety of finishes or coatings, such as plain oil finish

as a temporary rust protectant, zinc coating (i.e., galvanized, whether by electroplating

or hot– dipping), paint, and other similar finishes and coatings, may be applied to the

merchandise. Included in the scope of this investigation are steel threaded rod, bar, or

studs, in which: (1) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained

                                                      

(...continued)

China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, 78 FR 12718

(February 25, 2013).

9 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 79 FR 36288, June 26, 2014.

10 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from Thailand, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐1214 (Final), USITC Publication 4462,

May 7, 2014, p. 1. The petition concerned STR from both India and Thailand. Commerce has not yet

made its final dumping and subsidy determinations in its investigation of STR from India.
I‐4

elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the

elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:  

1.80 percent of manganese, or; 1.50 percent of silicon, or; 1.00 percent of copper, or;

0.50 percent of aluminum, or; 1.25 percent of chromium, or; 0.30 percent of cobalt, or;

0.40 percent of lead, or; 1.25 percent of nickel, or; 0.30 percent of tungsten, or;

0.012 percent of boron, or; 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or; 0.10 percent of niobium,

or; 0.41 percent of titanium, or; 0.15 percent of vanadium, or; 0.15 percent of

zirconium.

Excluded from the scope of the order are: (a) threaded rod, bar, or studs which are

threaded only on one or both ends and the threading covers 25 percent or less of the

total length; and (b) threaded rod, bar, or studs made to American Society for Testing

and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) A193 Grade B7, ASTM A193 Grade B7M, ASTM A193 Grade

B16, or ASTM A320 Grade L7. 11

U.S. tariff treatment

At the time of the original investigation, imports of CSTR were classifiable in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under subheading 7318.15.50

(studs) and reported for statistical purposes under the subheading 7318.15.5050 (continuously

threaded rod), and were free of duty under the general duty rate, applicable to

China12.  Effective on July 1, 2009, this subheading was annotated for statistical reporting

purposes by action of the Committee for Statistical Annotation of Tariff Schedules. CSTR is

currently imported under HTS statistical reporting number 7318.15.5056 (continuously

threaded rod of nonalloy steel)13.  CSTR imported from China continues to enter the U.S.

market at a column 1‐general duty rate of “free.”14  

Domestic like product and domestic industry

The Commission examined the issue of the appropriate definition of domestic like

product and the domestic industry in the preliminary phase of the original investigation. No

issues were raised with respect to the proposed definition of either the domestic like product

 

11 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 8907, February 27, 2009. Commerce also noted the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading for steel threaded rod subject to investigation,

while observing that the written description of the scope was dispositive.  See also the next section of

this report for current U.S. tariff treatment. 12 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from China, Investigation No. 731‐TA‐1145 (Final), USITC Publication

4070, April 2009, p. I‐7 (Table I‐2).

13 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from China, Investigation No. 731‐TA‐1145 (Review), Import Statistics,

May 2014.

14 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2014).
I‐5

or the domestic industry in the original investigation. The Commission defined the domestic like

product consisting of CSTR, coextensive with the scope of the investigation.15 In the final phase

of the investigation, respondent Porteous Fastener Company (“Porteous”) requested that Bay

Standard Manufacturing, Inc. (“Bay Standard”) be excluded from the definition of the domestic

industry due to Bay Standard’s imports of the subject merchandise and its production of CSTR

meeting the A‐36 specification.16 The Commission did not find appropriate circumstances to

exclude Bay Standard from the domestic industry, citing Bay Standard’s declining ratio of

imports to domestic production, small share of overall domestic production, its support of the

petition, and its reason for importing being due to competitive pressure of subject imports.17

Therefore, the Commission determined the domestic industry as a single domestic industry

consisting of all domestic producers of CSTR.18

In its notice of institution for this review, the Commission solicited comments from

interested parties regarding the appropriate definition of the domestic like product and

domestic industry. In their response to the notice, the domestic industry agreed with the

definitions of the domestic like product and the domestic industry.19

Description and applications20

Threaded rod is fully threaded along its entire length and is of low‐ and medium‐carbon

steel21 for strength and ease of cutting.22 Threaded rod is primarily used in commercial

construction to suspend electrical conduits; pipes for plumbing; heating, ventilation, and air‐

conditioning (HVAC) ductwork; sprinkler systems for fire protection, etc. Normally, one end of

the threaded rod is fastened to the ceiling and the other end is fastened to the support for

suspending the conduits, pipes, ductwork, or sprinkler system. It is also used in structural tie

downs in earthquake‐ and hurricane‐restraint systems for roofing. Threaded rod may also be

used as headless screws in general fastener applications or for bolting together pipe joints.

 

15 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from China, Investigation No. 731‐TA‐1145 (Final), USITC Publication

4070, April 2009, p.7.

16 Respondent Porteous’ prehearing brief, pp. 3‐4 and posthearing brief, p. 3. 17 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from China, Investigation No. 731‐TA‐1145 (Final), Confidential Views

of the Commission, p. 11‐12.

18 Id. p. 7.

19 Domestic Industry’s Response to the Commission’s Notice of Institution, April 2, 2014, p. 17.

20 Certain Steel Threaded Rod From China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐11145(Final), USITC Publication 4070, April

2009, pp. I‐6 – I‐7. 21 Low‐carbon rod has a carbon content between 0.2 and 0.3 percent, medium‐ and high‐carbon rod

have a carbon content between 0.3 and 1 percent carbon, and ultra‐high carbon rod has a carbon

content above 1 percent. The majority of all threaded rod produced in the United States is of low‐

carbon content and is produced by thread rolling. Some companies have the capability to thread‐roll

medium‐carbon rod for use in applications where strength is an important factor, such as in the

petroleum, machinery, or automobile industries. There is no known production of high‐ or ultra‐high

carbon rod.

      22 Threaded rod is especially useful in applications where it may be cut to length on‐site.
I‐6

Manufacturing process23

The primary raw material for most threaded rod is steel wire rod in coils. However, for

larger diameter threaded rod, the raw material is steel bar. The basic production process is the

same with either raw material, beginning with cleaning to remove surface scale.24 The rod or

bar is then cold‐drawn through a series of dies, each one smaller than the preceding one, to

reduce the rod diameter to the required size.25 Afterwards, the resulting rod is straightened

and cut to the desired length, most often into 8‐ and 10‐foot sections. Next, the rod sections

are fed through a threading machine, which forms the threaded grooves along the entire length

by the process of thread rolling the rod between a pair of grooved dies.26 Finally, the threaded

rod is either coated with a plain oil finish during the threading process, or galvanized with zinc

either by electroplating or hot‐dipping, which imparts corrosion resistance.27 After the threaded

rod has received its oil finish or galvanizing, it is packed in paper tubes or otherwise prepared

for shipment. Depending on the rod diameter, several may be packed in the same tube.

All but one of the responding domestic producers reported, in the final phase of the

original investigation, that they manufacture other products on the same equipment and

machinery and with the same production and related workers that they use to produce

threaded rod. Other such reported products included partially threaded rod, stainless rod, alloy

rod, anchor bolts, and coiled rod.

Domestic producers also reported, in the final phase of the original investigation,

that threaded rod producers in China use the same basic manufacturing process, but may incur

inefficiencies in feeding and off‐loading their production machinery and in material movement

throughout their plant, thus making their production process more labor intensive. There were

also some reports, from the preliminary phase of the original investigation, that although the

older Chinese plants may be inefficient, the more modern ones are very similar to those in the

United States.

 

23 Certain Steel Threaded Rod From China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐11145(Final), USITC Publication 4070, April

2009, p. I‐7; and Certain Steel Threaded Rod From China, Investigation No. 731‐TA‐1145 (Preliminary),

USITC Pub. 3996, April 2008, pp. I‐4– I‐5.

      24 Scale is the iron oxides which form on the surface of the wire rod during the wire rod

manufacturing process. This material will lower the quality of the threaded rod and therefore must be

removed.

      25 This process is known as “cold‐drawing” because no additional heat is supplied during this process.

      26 Because thread rolling does not involve cutting the steel, but rather pushes the steel into the die

grooves, there is no scrap or waste material left over.

      27 Most threaded rod is zinc electroplated.
I‐7

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. producers

At the time of the original investigation, nine companies produced CSTR in the United

States, as cited in the petition:  All Ohio Threaded Rod Co. Inc. (“All Ohio”), Bay Standard,

Conklin & Conklin, Inc. (“Conklin”), Interstate Fittings Inc. (“Interstate”), Lancaster Threaded

Products, Inc. (“Lancaster”), Rods Indiana Inc. (“Rods Indiana”), Threaded Rod Company Inc.

(“Threaded Rod”), Vulcan, and Watson Metal Products Corp. (“Watson”).28 All companies

except Interstate responded, with All Ohio ***. Vulcan accounted for *** of reported U.S.

production in 2007, with the remaining respondents accounting for the remaining ***.   

In response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this current review, domestic

producers of CSTR provided a list of three known and currently operating U.S. producers of

CSTR:  All America Threaded Products Inc. (“All America”) (accounting for *** percent of 2013

U.S. CSTR production), Bay Standard (*** percent); and Vulcan (*** percent).29 Domestic

producers claim not to be affiliated with any of the Chinese producers or exporters of CSTR.30

As noted by the domestic producers of CSTR, from 2009 to 2010, “Vulcan...increased its

production by 17.6 percent...and consequently its capacity utilization rate improved by

*** percent over the same period.”31  During the same period, All America “expanded its

operations by acquiring existing threaded rod producers in Indiana, New Jersey, and

Pennsylvania...and reorganized and consolidated these production facilities in anticipation of

the beneficial effect of the antidumping order on threaded rod from China.”32

Details regarding each firm’s location, position on the petition, production, and market

share of U.S. producers are presented in table I‐1.

 

28 Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Steel Threaded Rod from the People’s

Republic of China, March 5, 2008, p. 2‐4.

29 Response of All America, Bay Standard, and Vulcan to the Notice of Institution, April 2, 2014, p. 35

(CBI Exhibit 4).

30 Id. p. 13.

31 Id. p. 15.

32 Id.
I‐8

Table I-1 

Threaded Rod: US producers, locations, position on the petition, and production and shares of 

production in 2007 and 2013 

Firm Plant location(s) Position 

Reported 

production of 

threaded rod in 

2007 

Reported 

production of 

threaded rod in 

2013 

Quantity

(1,000 

pounds) 

Share 

(Percent) 

Quantity 

(1,000 

pounds) 

Share 

(Percent) 

All 

America1

 Denver, CO 

Indianapolis, IN 

Lancaster, PA N/A *** *** *** *** 

All Ohio *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Bay 

Standard

Phoenix, AZ ; Brentwood, CA 

Fontana, CA ; Kapolei, HI 

Las Vegas, NV; Tigard, OR Supports *** *** *** *** 

Conklin Union City, CA Supports *** *** *** ***

Lancaster Lancaster, PA Supports *** *** *** ***

Rods 

Indiana Butler, IN Supports *** *** *** ***

Threaded 

Rod Indianapolis, IN Supports *** *** *** ***

Vulcan Pelham, AL Petitioner *** *** *** *** 

Watson

Kenilworth, NJ 

Petersburg, VA Supports *** *** *** ***

1 All America’s parent purchased Threaded Rod Company in Indianapolis, Indiana, in October 2008. In March 2010, All 

America’s parent purchased Rods Indiana and moved the company’s equipment into the existing Indianapolis plant in May 

2010. In May 2009, All America’s parent purchased Watson and then Lancaster in August 2009. Both of these facilities 

were closed and the equipment moved into the current Lancaster location in July 2010. 

Note--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and domestic industry’s response to 2014 

notice of institution.

U.S. producers’ trade and financial data

The Commission asked domestic interested parties to provide trade and financial data in

their response to the notice of institution of the five‐year review of the subject order. Table I‐2

presents the data reported by responding U.S. producers from both the original investigation

(2005‐07) and the response to the notice of institution (2013). The data presented in table I‐2

were provided by seven firms33 for the period 2005‐07 and by three firms34 for 2013, but in all

cases are believed to account for the vast majority of U.S. production of CSTR.  

 

 

33 All Ohio, Conklin, Lancaster, Rods Indiana, Threaded Rod, Vulcan, and Watson

34 All America , Bay Standard, and Vulcan.
I‐9

Table I-2 

Threaded Rod: U.S. producers’ trade and financial data, 2005-07 and 2013 

* * * * * * * 

The domestic producers of CSTR assert that the domestic industry “remains in a

vulnerable position.”  They observe that while two companies, All America and Vulcan, have

expanded their operations, the issuance of the order against China “triggered an onslaught of

unfairly traded imports from India and Thailand,” and that the revocation of the antidumping

order on China would “likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to the

domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.”35

In the original investigation, the domestic industry experienced a *** percent decline in

capacity from 2005 to 2007. Total U.S. production of CSTR decreased by *** percent during the

same time, while U.S. shipment volume similarly decreased by *** percent. The quantity of net

sales fell *** percent; however, the value of net sales saw a slight increase of *** percent. At

the same time, the cost of goods sold as a percentage of net sales increased *** percent. The

operating income of the domestic industry also saw a decrease of *** percent in the period of

2005‐2007, with the industry operating at a loss in 2006 before increasing to its 2007 level.

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT CONSUMPTION

U.S. imports

In its 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

consumption and production in the United States. The Commission observed that the volume

increased by 80.9 percent from 2005 to 2007, rising from 53.5 million pounds in 2005 to

78.3 million pounds in 2006, then to 96.8 million pounds in 2007. Subject imports also

increased as a share of the market, and relative to U.S. production, during 2005‐07.  The ratio of

the quantity of subject imports to U.S. production rose from 55.7 percent in 2005 to

79.9 percent in 2006 and 117.9 percent in 2007, and was 107.7 percent in interim 2007

compared with 110.6 percent in interim 2008. The Commission described the increase in

subject import market share as coming “almost entirely at the expense of the domestic

market.” From 2005 to 2007, the market share of subject imports rose by 15.6 percentage

points, while that of the domestic industry fell by 15.0 percentage points.36

Table I‐4 presents data regarding U.S. imports of CSTR from the period 2005‐07 and

2013.  Although intended to be similar, it should be noted that the presented data are compiled

 

35 Response of All America, Bay Standard, and Vulcan to the Notice of Institution, April 2, 2014, p. 4.

36 Certain Steel Threaded Rod from China, Investigation No. 731‐TA‐1145 (Final), Confidential Views

of the Commission, p. 21‐22.
I‐10

from different sources – namely, questionnaire and adjusted official Commerce statistics for

2005‐07, and official import statistics of Commerce for 2013.37   

 

37 As noted previously, effective July 1, 2008, a separate HTS subheading 73 18.15.5050 was created

for “continuously threaded rod” made of carbon or alloy steel. At the same time, the HTS subheading

under which carbon and alloy steel threaded rod had previously been classified (7318.15.5060) was

deleted, and a new HTS subheading 73 18.15.5090 for “other” products was added. E‐mail from

Frederick Waite, counsel for Vulcan, November 14, 2008.
I‐11

Table I-4 

CSTR: U.S. imports, 2005-07 and 2013 

Item 2005 2006 2007 2013 

 Quantity (1,000 pounds) 

China 53,496 68,157 87,339 20,061

All other *** *** *** 61,470

 Total imports *** *** *** 81,551

 Landed, duty-paid value ($1,000) 

China 17,237 20,610 28,273 16,010

All other *** *** *** 38,308

 Total imports *** *** *** 54,318

Unit value (dollars per pound) 

China 0.32 0.30 0.32 0.79

All other *** *** *** 0.62

 Average, total *** *** *** 0.67

Share of quantity (percent) 

China *** *** *** 24.6

All other *** *** *** 75.4

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China *** *** *** 29.5

All other *** *** *** 70.5

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ratio to production (percent)

China *** *** *** ***

All other *** *** *** ***

 Total *** *** *** ***

Note.--Because of rounding, figure may not add to total shown. 

Source: Certain Steel Threaded Rod from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1145 (Final), USITC 

Publication 4070, April 2009, p. IV-3; official statistics of Commerce for HTS statistical reporting number 

7318.15.5056.

 
I‐12

Table I‐5 presents the quantity, value, and unit value for imports from China as well as

the other top sources of U.S. imports (shown in descending order of 2013 imports by quantity).  

Though substantially lower in quantity than during 2005‐07, CSTR from China retain a presence

in the U.S. market.

Table I-5 

CSTR: U.S. imports, 2010-13 

Item 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

 Quantity (1,000 pounds) 

China (subject) 3,739 13,439 13,819 19,511 20,061

India 9,894 21,021 26,442 20,723 25,785

Thailand 268 6,244 8,402 22,088 20,631

Taiwan 3,757 16,665 11,550 10,712 9,632

Malaysia 2,099 5,560 3,902 3,997 3,488

United Arab Emirates 535 1,193 1,854 1,160 935

All other imports (nonsubject) 311 1,065 1,821 1,462 1,008

 Total imports 20,604 65,187 67,790 79,651 81,562

 Landed, duty-paid value (1,000 dollars) 

China (subject) 2,478 9,464 11,458 16,205 16,010

India 4,738 10,828 14,690 12,166 14,193

Thailand 124 2,977 4,256 11,099 10,519

Taiwan 2,200 10,135 8,085 7,543 6,602

Malaysia 1,255 3,303 2,727 3,232 3,616

United Arab Emirates 302 695 996 912 607

All other imports (nonsubject) 906 2,037 4,046 4,118 2,772

 Total imports 12,002 39,440 46,257 55,275 54,318

Unit value (dollars per pound) 

China (subject) 0.66 0.70 0.83 0.83 0.79

India 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.59 0.55

Thailand 0.46 0.48 0.51 0.50 0.51

Taiwan 0.59 0.61 0.70 0.70 0.69

Malaysia 0.60 0.59 0.70 0.81 1.04

United Arab Emirates 0.56 0.58 0.54 0.79 0.65

All other imports (nonsubject) 2.91 1.91 2.22 2.82 2.75

 Average, total 0.58 0.61 0.68 0.69 0.67

Note.--Because of rounding, figure may not add to total shown. 

Source: Official statistics of Commerce for HTS statistical reporting number 7318.15.5056. 

 
I‐13

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares

Table I‐6 presents U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports and apparent U.S.

consumption in 2005‐07 and 2013. Data on U.S. market shares during 2005‐07 and 2013 are

presented in Table I‐7.  

Table I-6 

CSTR: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. shipments of imports, and apparent U.S. 

consumption, 2005-07 and 2013 

* * * * * * * 

Table I-7 

CSTR: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2005-07 and 2013 

* * * * * * * 

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The petition listed over 400 Chinese firms believed to be producing and/or exporting

threaded rod. Foreign producer/exporter questionnaires were sent via fax and/or e‐mail to

more than 125 firms that accounted for nearly all of production/exports of product shipped to

the United States under HTS 7318.15.5060.38 Of those firms, proprietary data from U.S.

Customs show that 6 firms accounted for two‐thirds of those exports to the United States

during 2005‐2007 and 50 firms accounted for 90 percent of exports over the same period. One

firm, IFI & Morgan,39 accounted for more than *** percent of U.S.‐bound exports from 2005 to

2007.40  

 

38 As noted earlier, the HTS classification (statistical reporting number 73 18.15.5060) also included

items outside the product scope such as threaded rods made from alloy steel (Le., stainless steel),

hanger bolts, and rods which are not threaded along their entire length, etc. Hence, a portion of product

shipped by Chinese producer/exporters may have been outside the scope of the investigation.   39 According to IFI & Morgan’s company web site, it operated six factories in China with locations in

Haiyan, Dongguan, Ningbo, Tangshan, and Hangzhou. It stated that “major products produced/exported

in our own invested factories and from our sub‐contracted factories” include the subject product, fully

threaded rods/studs, ranging in diameter from 1/4” to 2“ (6mm to 50mm), with lengths of 1’, 2‘, 3’, 6‘,

10’, 12’, or special lengths available upon request, with or without chamfered on ends, and in both

coarse and fine thread, “http://www.ifi‐fasteners.com/en/index.htm,” retrieved January 23, 2009.

40 From January to October 2008, Customs data show that *** accounted for *** percent of total

exports of threaded rod classified under HTS 73 18.15.5060 for January‐June 2008 and HTS 73

18.15.5050 and 7318.15.5090 for July‐October 2008.
I‐14

No foreign producer/exporter in China submitted a questionnaire response in the final

investigation.41 Three firms (one producer and two exporters)42 provided useable responses in

the preliminary phase of the investigation. The exports to the United States of these firms were

equivalent to *** percent of U.S. imports of threaded rod from China in 2007 as reported in

Commission importer questionnaires. None of the firms reported any shipments going to the

home market. From 2005 to 2007, the share of Chinese shipments going to the United States

dropped from *** to *** percent while the share of shipments going to all other export

markets rose from *** to *** percent. Third country markets included Asia, Australia, and

Europe.

Exports

Table I‐8 presents the volume of export shipments of threaded rod from China (as well

as nonsubject threaded rod, bolts, and screws for 2008 through 2013.   

 

 

41 One firm, ***, submitted a final phase foreign producer/exporter questionnaire with the same

data from its response in the preliminary phase. Responses to the additional questions and January‐

September 2007 and January‐September 2008 data were left blank.

42 The producer is UniTrend International, which began operations in 2007, and the exporters are

Ningbo Yinzhou and Shanghai Prime Machinery. From 2005 to 2007, Ningbo Yinzhou was the fifth

largest exporter accounting for 3.03 percent of exports to the United States, while Shanghai Prime

Machinery accounted for 0.16 percent of exports over the same period. U.S. Customs data.
I‐15

Table I-8 

Steel Threaded Rod: China’s exports, by quantity, 2008-13 

Country 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

 Quantity (1,000 pounds) 

United States 453,861 303,015 416,815 485,620 487,353 524,896

Russia 171,889 118,078 197,711 238,586 202,924 229,733

Japan 118,465 108,300 128,940 148,745 148,255 166,307

Australia 93,529 72,587 98,893 93,197 102,178 100,731

Saudi Arabia 39,265 49,418 47,743 70,685 77,939 85,830

United Arab 

Emirates 81,135 87,526 75,250 77,807 74,275 78,449

South Korea 43,204 37,232 51,376 58,412 60,338 76,107

Brazil 49,256 27,253 80,186 70,535 46,752 69,385

Malaysia 27,716 105,635 193,957 87,319 63,540 64,818

India 19,948 38,356 74,825 95,324 81,450 64,689

All other 1,856,141 812,165 1,043,187 1,327,146 1,154,849 1,147,888

Total 2,954,407 1,759,564 2,408,885 2,753,374 2,499,854 2,608,831

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to total shown. 

 

Source: Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas, HS subheading 7318.15. Data 

include product that is outside the scope of this review, i.e. threaded screws and bolts not elsewhere 

specified. 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Orders in Third‐Country Markets

None of the responding parties reported antidumping or countervailing duty orders in

place against Chinese steel threaded rod in third‐country markets.

THE GLOBAL MARKET

Table I‐9 presents the largest global export sources of steel threaded rod (as well as

nonsubject threaded rod, bolts, and screws) during 2008‐13.

 
I‐16

Table I-9 

Steel Threaded Rod: Global exports by major sources, 2008-13 

Item 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

 Quantity (1,000 pounds) 

China 2,953,960 1,759,489 2,408,479 2,753,477 2,500,077 2,608,488

Taiwan 1,432,192 1,084,620 1,580,610 1,784,910 1,670,879 1,792,872

United States 1,091,101 1,197,591 1,598,554 1,166,433 642,122 659,037

Japan 416,087 332,528 463,141 457,896 474,720 488,092

India 149,195 118,495 123,982 207,616 268,658 272,324

South Korea 103,802 97,243 121,625 176,402 210,947 231,622

Thailand 135,546 78,572 128,150 205,337 204,344 203,694

Malaysia 225,635 224,644 452,425 235,756 173,385 200,699

Turkey 62,268 43,058 71,517 95,032 86,868 91,025

United Kingdom 54,471 46,007 50,611 78,184 72,305 72,584

All other 5,022,536 4,155,393 5,273,825 5,739,795 5,129,282 5,265,611

Total 11,646,793 9,137,640 12,272,919 12,900,838 11,433,587 11,886,048

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to total shown. 

 

Source: Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Global Trade Atlas, HS subheading 7318.15. Data 

include product that is outside the scope of this review, i.e. threaded screws and bolts not elsewhere 

specified. 


EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Certain Steel Threaded Rod from China

Inv. No. 731-TA-1145 (Review)

On June 6, 2014, the Commission unanimously determined to conduct 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 received a response to the notice of institution that was jointly filed by

three U.S. producers of steel threaded rod: All America Threaded Products, Inc. (“All America”), 

Bay Standard Manufacturing, Inc. (“Bay Standard”), and Vulcan Threaded Products, Inc. 

(“Vulcan”). The Commission found the responses of All America, Bay Standard, and Vulcan to 

be individually adequate. Because the Commission received an adequate response from 

interested parties accounting for a substantial share of U.S. production of steel threaded rod in 

2013, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response was 

adequate. 

No respondent interested party responded to the notice of institution. Accordingly, the 

Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. 

The Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full

review. The Commission, therefore, decided to conduct an expedited review of this order.

A record of the Commissioners' votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and at 

the Commission's web site (www.usitc.gov).

B-1 

APPENDIX B

SUMMARY DATA


B-4

Table C-2

Threaded rod: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding Bay Standard from U.S.

producer data), 2005-07, January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

* * * * * * *