U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4109 November 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners from 

China and Taiwan

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-472 and 731-TA-1171-1172 (Preliminary)
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 A. Rogowsky

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Director of Operations

Joshua Kaplan, Investigator 

Gerald Houck, Industry Analyst 

Gerald Benedick, Economist 

John Ascienzo, Accountant 

Mary Jane Alves, Attorney 

Elizabeth Duall, Attorney 

Steven Hudgens, Statistician 

Keysha Martinez Roman, Investigatory Intern 

George Deyman, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

Nathanael Comly, Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4109 November 2009

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners from 

China and Taiwan

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-472 and 731-TA-1171-1172 (Preliminary)

i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

OEM CSSF vs. non-OEM CSSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Low-carbon-steel CSSF vs. medium/high-carbon- and alloy-steel CSSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

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

Channels of distribution and market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-1

U.S. supply ............................................................... II-1

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6

Foreign demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-9

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-10

Comparisons of the domestic and imported CSSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-11

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

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

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

U.S. producers’ shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6

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

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

Cummulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Geographical markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Simultaneous presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

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

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

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

Factors affecting pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

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

Tariff rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Questionnaire price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-8

Lost revenues and lost sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-10

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

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

Operations on CSSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

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

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

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-7

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

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

The industry in Taiwan ......................................................... VII-1

The industries in China and Taiwan combined ....................................... VII-2

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-3

U.S. importers’ current orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-5

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

Information on nonsubject countries .............................................. VII-6

Appendices

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

B. Calendar of the Commission’s October 14, 2009 conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

D. Price comparisons among the U.S. produced CSSF products and those imported from subject

and nonsubject countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

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

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

asterisks.
 1

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

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-472 and 731-TA-1171-1172 (Preliminary)

CERTAIN STANDARD STEEL FASTENERS FROM CHINA AND TAIWAN

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is no reasonable indication that an

industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or that the

establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports from China

and Taiwan of certain standard steel fasteners (“CSSF”), provided for in subheadings 7318.15.20,

7318.15.80, and 7318.16.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. CSSF imported

from China are alleged to be subsidized and sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). 

CSSF imported from Taiwan are alleged to be sold in the United States at LTFV.

BACKGROUND

On September 23, 2009, petitions were filed with the Commission and Commerce by Nucor

Fastener Division, St. Joe, Indiana, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and

threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV and subsidized imports of CSSF from China and

LTFV imports of CSSF from Taiwan. Accordingly, effective September 23, 2009, the Commission

instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-472 and antidumping duty investigations Nos.

731-TA-1171-1172 (Preliminary).

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

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

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

of September 29, 2009 (74 FR 49889). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on October 14,

2009, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

 1

 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a); see also, e.g., Co-Steel Raritan, Inc. v. United States, 357 F.3d

1294 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Sensient Technologies Corp. v. United States, 28 CIT 1513 (2004); Committee for

Fair Coke Trade v. United States, 28 CIT 1140 (2004); Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Foundation v.

United States, 74 F. Supp.2d 1353, 1368-69 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999); Aristech Chem. Corp. v. United

States, 20 CIT 353, 354-55 (1996); American Lamb Co. v. United States, 785 F.2d 994, 1001-04 (Fed.

Cir. 1986). No party argued that the establishment of an industry is materially retarded by reason of the

allegedly unfairly traded imports.

 2

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

1535, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

 3

 American Lamb, 785 F.2d at 1004.

 4

 Texas Crushed Stone, 35 F.3d at 1543.

 5

 Ranchers-Cattlemen, 74 F. Supp. 2d at 1368.

 6

 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 34 (Pickard).

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that there is no

reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material

injury by reason of imports of certain standard steel fasteners (“CSSF”) from China and Taiwan that are

allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value and imports of subject merchandise from China

that are allegedly subsidized by the Government of China.

I. THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS

The legal standard for preliminary antidumping and countervailing duty determinations requires

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

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

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

of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.1

 In applying this standard, the Commission weighs the evidence

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

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

arise in a final investigation.”2

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) has stated that the purpose

of preliminary determinations is to avoid the cost and disruption to trade caused by unnecessary

investigations and that the “reasonable indication” standard requires more than a finding that there is a

“possibility” of material injury.3

 It also has noted that, in a preliminary investigation, the “statute calls for

a reasonable indication of injury, not a reasonable indication of need for further inquiry.”4

 Moreover, the

U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) has reaffirmed that, in applying the reasonable indication

“standard for making a preliminary determination regarding material injury or threat of material injury,

the Commission may weigh all evidence before it and resolve conflicts in the evidence.”5

Unlike some industries that the Commission has previously investigated, publicly available

information regarding the U.S. and global fasteners industries and markets is not readily available.6

Moreover, the scope of these investigations as defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) in its notices of initiation corresponds to only a subset of fasteners, thereby limiting the

utility of any data that might otherwise be tracked regularly by any of the various industry participants or
 7

 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 34 (Pickard), 154-57 (Chen, Lee, McGrath, Schoenholtz).

 8

 See, e.g., 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1) to (2), 1671b(f), 1673b(a)(1) to (2), 1673b(f) (giving the

Commission 45 days in which to conduct preliminary investigations, directing the Commission to make

its determinations “based on the information available to it at the time of the determination,” and giving

the Commission 5 days from the date of its determinations in which to transmit its opinion to Commerce

that explains “the facts and conclusions on which its determination is based”).

 9

 See, e.g., Confidential Staff Report, Memorandum INV-GG-106 (Nov. 2, 2009) (“CR”) at I-4, as

supplemented by Memorandum INV-GG-108 (Nov. 5, 2009); Certain Standard Steel Fasteners from

China and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-472 and 731-TA-1171 to 1172, USITC Pub. 4109 (Nov. 2009)

(“PR”) at I-3. In addition to Nucor Fastener Division (“Nucor”), these firms are 3V Fastener Co. (“3V”);

Brunner Manufacturing Co. (“Brunner”); Copper State Bolt & Nut Co. (“Copper State”); Hill Fastener

Corp. (“Hill”); MNP Corp. (“MNP”); Quality Bolt & Screw Co. (“Quality Bolt”); Telefast Industries, Inc.

(“Telefast”); and Unytite, Inc. (“Unytite”). See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-1.

 10 See, e.g., CR at III-1 to III-2; PR at III-1; CR/PR at Table III-1.

 11 See, e.g., EDIS document number 414220.

 12 See, e.g., Petitions, Vol. I at 9-10, 15-17 (arguing, inter alia, that using the “very broad basket

categories” that comprise the majority of the relevant categories “may distort the actual volume trends and

market share information” and explaining that, as a consequence, “the Commission may need to rely on

the importer questionnaires more so than usual to accurately evaluate subject import trends in the

market.”)

 13 See, e.g., Petitions, Vol. I at 9-10 (identifying a number of non-subject products that are also

classifiable in the five “basket” categories).

 14 Compare, e.g., Petitions, Vol. I at Exh. I-6 at 1 (showing official import statistics in kilograms for

subheading 7318.15.2030) with, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-2 (showing imports reported in importer

questionnaire responses).

 15 See, e.g., CR at I-4 at n.4; PR at I-3 at n.4.

4

associations.7

 Notwithstanding these considerations and the short 45-day timetable prescribed by

Congress for the conduct of preliminary investigations,8

 the Commission was able to collect

comprehensive data on CSSF in these investigations.

Data on the domestic industry are based on the questionnaire responses of nine firms that

accounted for the large majority of U.S. production of the product in 2008.9

 They include the leading

domestic producers (i.e., Nucor, the petitioning company, which accounted for *** percent of U.S.

production in 2008, and ***).10

Although the Commission obtained official statistics from Commerce concerning U.S. imports

from subject and non-subject countries corresponding to the six Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (“HTSUS”) statistical reporting numbers identified in the scope of these investigations,11

Nucor argued against relying on these data to measure imports and instead urged the Commission to

collect data on imports using importer questionnaires.12 We agree with Nucor that, in these

investigations, importer questionnaire data yield a more accurate measurement of imports than official

import statistics. For example, as Nucor correctly argues, five of the six HTSUS reporting numbers

(7318.15.2055, 7318.15.2065, 7318.15.8065, 7318.15.8085, and 7318.16.0085) correspond to “basket”

categories containing large amounts of fasteners not subject to these investigations.13 Moreover, using

only the sixth reporting number (7318.15.2030) would underestimate the volume of subject imports.14

Due to these limitations in the official import statistics data, we relied instead on data from importer

questionnaire responses to measure imports from both subject and non-subject countries.15
 16 In these investigations, the “period examined” corresponds to the full years 2006, 2007, and 2008,

as well as the first six months of 2009.

 17 See, e.g., CR at IV-1 at n.1; PR at IV-1 at n.1.

 18 See, e.g., CR at IV-1 & n.1; PR at IV-1 at n.1. Nucor expressed concern that the data reported to

the Commission in these investigations were somehow compromised by the apparent circulation of

communications within the importing community. See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 2, 49, Exh. 24;

Confer. Tr. at 6-7, 59-61 (Price); Petitioner’s Oct. 15, 2009 Submission. More than three dozen firms did

submit letters to the Commission protesting these investigations in one manner or another. Nevertheless,

the Commission received responsive and credible submissions from major market participants, as

explained herein. We find no indication that any outside efforts adversely affected the response rate or

the caliber of the questionnaire data reported to the Commission in these investigations and find no

indication of any adverse effect on the probative value of the information obtained by the Commission.

 19 See, e.g., CR at IV-1; PR at IV-1.

 20 For example, the 10 largest responding U.S. importers collectively accounted for 90.2 percent of

reported imports in 2008, and the top 5 firms collectively accounted for 70.3 percent. See, e.g., CR/PR at

Table IV-1.

 21 Commission staff believes that more questionnaires were received than sent because the Taiwan

industry association circulated the Commission’s questionnaire among its members to increase

participation in these investigations. See, e.g., CR at VII-3 at n.1; PR at VII-1 at n.1.

 22 See, e.g., CR at VII-3; PR at VII-1. The largest responding foreign producer in terms of production,

***, estimated that it accounted for *** percent of total production of CSSF in Taiwan in 2008 and ***

percent of all exports of subject merchandise from Taiwan to the United States in 2008. Id. All other

producers in Taiwan that responded to the Commission’s questionnaires were *** smaller (based on

production) than ***. See, e.g., CR at VII-3; PR at VII-1 to VII-2.

 23 The largest of these firms in terms of reported production in China, ***, estimated that it accounted

for *** percent of production of CSSF in China and *** percent of exports from China to the United

States. See, e.g., CR at VII-1; PR at VII-1.

5

To identify those firms that may have imported more than 1 percent of total imports from China

or Taiwan during the period examined under either the aggregated data for the five “basket” categories or

statistical reporting number 7318.15.2030,16 Commission staff reviewed data provided by U.S. Customs

and Border Protection (“Customs”).17 Commission staff then sent importer questionnaires to each of the

78 firms meeting these criteria.18 Importer questionnaire responses ultimately received from 30 of these

firms represented the large majority of known CSSF imports from China and Taiwan between January

2006 and June 2009, as discussed below.19 As these importer questionnaire responses show, a small

number of firms accounted for a large portion of CSSF imports into the United States, with numerous

other firms each importing significantly smaller amounts.20

In addition to these comprehensive import data, the Commission received more than 60

questionnaire responses from firms in the subject countries; these firms either provided information on

their foreign production operations and shipments of the subject merchandise or certified that they did not

produce or export the subject merchandise. For example, Commission staff initially identified 23 possible

producers of subject merchandise in Taiwan; 39 firms remitted usable foreign producer questionnaire

responses,21 and 11 other firms certified that they do not produce subject merchandise in or export subject

merchandise from Taiwan.22 Likewise, the Commission sent questionnaires to 34 firms believed to be

possible producers of subject merchandise in China. Of these firms, 11 provided questionnaire responses

containing usable data,23 and 2 certified that they had not produced CSSF or exported CSSF to the United
 24 See, e.g., CR at VII-1; PR at VII-1. Although a smaller percentage of producers/exporters in China

supplied foreign producer questionnaire responses than producers/exporters in Taiwan, we note that U.S.

shipments of subject imports from Taiwan consistently held a larger share of the U.S. market, by quantity,

than U.S. shipments of subject imports from China, and the absolute volume of subject imports from

China shipped to the U.S. market, by quantity, declined throughout the period examined. See, e.g.,

CR/PR at Table IV-3 and Table IV-4.

 25 (Derived from CR/PR at Table VII-3 and Table IV-2). We note that U.S. imports reported in

importer questionnaire responses are somewhat more inclusive than U.S. exports reported in foreign

producer questionnaire responses for subject merchandise produced in China and that the converse is true

with respect to subject imports from Taiwan. Regardless of which combination of data sets we examine,

however, we arrive at the same conclusion. (Derived from CR/PR at Tables VII-1, VII-2, VII-3, IV-2,

and IV-3).

 26 Compare, e.g., Petitions, Vol. I at 3-10 with, e.g., CR at I-6; PR at I-4 to I-5; Petitioner’s Oct. 9,

2009, Amendment to the Petitions at Att. 1.

 27 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 57 (Gordon) (“We filed last Friday after a lot of collaboration and direction

from the Department of Commerce what is really the final scope, so that’s been on the record since

Friday, and, you know, that really does speak to – and as far as, you know, the sort of suggestion of, you

know, multiple iterations of the scope, what was eventually settled between with the Department of

Commerce and is on the record is not materially different from what was in the petition, maybe with the

addition of the upper limit.”)

 28 See, e.g., Memorandum INV-GG-108 at 1, 2 (Nov. 5, 2009); CR at I-6 at n.8; PR at I-4 to I-5 at n.8.

6

States since January 1, 2006.24 Finally, although the Commission did not receive questionnaire responses

from all producers in the subject countries, producers in China and Taiwan reported exports of subject

merchandise to the United States in collective quantities that are relatively similar to the quantities of

subject merchandise imports collectively reported by U.S. importers for the period examined.25

In addition to supplying information on their respective production, shipments, and/or

imports/exports of the subject merchandise, domestic producers, producers in the subject countries, and

importers provided extensive narrative and/or numerical data concerning conditions of competition in the

U.S. and global markets, information concerning the interchangeability of subject imports, non-subject

imports, and the domestic like product, and information concerning pricing practices in the U.S. market. 

In line with its established practice in preliminary investigations, the Commission did not send

questionnaires to purchasers. Nevertheless, a number of important purchasers participated in the staff

conference, submitted information and/or briefs, and/or were contacted regarding lost sales and lost

revenue allegations.

In addition to the identities of questionnaire respondents and the breadth of their reported

information, we also considered the quality of the data they reported, particularly in light of the fact that

the language describing the scope of these investigations proposed in the petitions (and primarily used in

the Commission’s questionnaires in these investigations) differed from the language actually used by

Commerce in its initiation notices to define the scope of these investigations.26 Although there are some

differences in the language, we concur with Nucor that the only substantive difference is that otherwise

covered fasteners with a shank or thread of greater than 32 mm are not included in the scope of these

investigations, whereas the proposed scope (and the Commission’s questionnaires) imposed no such size

ceiling.27 Record evidence shows that the effect of the inclusion of fasteners larger than 32 mm in any of

the questionnaire data was minimal.28 We further find that any other language differences between the

proposed scope and the scope defined by Commerce in its notices of institution are semantic rather than
 29 See, e.g., Memorandum INV-GG-108 at 1-2.

 30 See, e.g., Memorandum INV-GG-108 at 2-3.

 31 See, e.g., Memorandum INV-GG-108 at 1-4.

 32 A witness for Sems and Specials, Inc. testified at the staff conference as part of petitioner’s panel,

but he reported that his company does not produce standard products, just made-to-order products that

only occasionally overlap with the product under investigation. See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 25-29, 45, 74

(Aman).

 33 These importers/respondents are: Porteous; Hillman; Bossard; IM; Heads & Threads International

LLC; Soule, Blake & Wechsler, Inc; Stelfast, Inc.; XL Screw; Earnest Machine Products Co.; Fastenal

Co.; and Fasteners and Automotive Products LLC.

 34 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 36 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

7

substantive.29 Moreover, questionnaire respondents whose information accounted for meaningful shares

of our data revised their questionnaire responses prior to submission or modified their reported

information to reflect the scope ultimately defined by Commerce.30 Furthermore, Commission staff

extensively reviewed the reported data and undertook necessary measures to ensure the integrity and

conformity to the products under investigation of the data on which we have relied.31

In sum, we find no likelihood that any evidence we would have obtained in any final phase of

these investigations would change our determinations that there is no reasonable indication that the

domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports

from China and Taiwan.

II. BACKGROUND

The petitions in these investigations were filed on September 23, 2009, by domestic producer

Nucor. Nucor appeared at the staff conference and filed a postconference brief.32 Witnesses for several

respondent firms appeared at the staff conference, including importers Porteous Fastener Company

(“Porteous”), the Hillman Group (“Hillman”), Bossard North America (“Bossard”), and Indent Metals

(“IM”); the Taiwan International Fastener Institute; and Chun Yu Works (USA), Inc., the U.S. subsidiary

of a firm that has production facilities in China and Taiwan. Several of these respondent importers filed a

joint postconference brief (“Respondents’ Postconf. Br.”).33 The Fasteners Association of China also

filed a postconference brief.

III. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

In determining whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is

materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, the

Commission first defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”34 Section 771(4)(A) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the

“producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a

domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”35 In

turn, the Tariff Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like,

most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation ... .”36
 37 See, e.g., 74 Fed. Reg. 54537, 54542-43.

 38 74 Fed. Reg. 54543.

 39 As Commerce explained, the scope excludes “bolts, cap screws, and nuts produced for an {OEM}

part number specific to any ‘automobile’ as defined in 49 U.S.C. Section 32901(a)(3), any ‘work truck’ as

defined in 49 U.S.C. Section 32901(a)(19), or any ‘medium-duty passenger vehicle’ as defined in 40 CFR

(continued...)

8

A. Product Description

Commerce’s notices of initiation define the imported merchandise within the scope of these

investigations as follows:

certain standard nuts, standard bolts, and standard cap screws, of steel other than stainless

steel. Standard nuts, standard bolts, and standard cap screws covered by the

investigations may have a variety of finishes, including but not limited to coating in

paint, phosphates, and zinc. Standard bolts and standard cap screws covered by the

investigations have a shank or thread with an actual and/or nominal diameter between 6

millimeters and 32 millimeters (inclusive). Standard bolts and standard cap screws

covered by the investigations also possess a circular or hexagonal head, the surface of

which may be flat or rounded (also known as “dome-shaped” or “button-headed”). 

Standard bolts covered by the investigations may have an attached washer face or the

equivalent (e.g., a flanged head or chamfered corners on the underside of a fastener with

a hexagonal-shaped head). Standard cap screws covered by the investigations have a

permanently-attached washer face. Standard nuts are covered by the investigations if

they are suitable for attachment to bolts and/or cap screws covered by the

investigations.37

Commerce further explained that standard bolts, standard cap screws, and standard nuts are covered by

the investigations

whether imported alone, attached to other subject and/or non-subject merchandise (e.g.,

tension control assemblies), or unattached and in combination with other subject

merchandise and/or non-subject merchandise. Standard nuts, standard bolts, and standard

cap screws meet the requirements of one or more nationally recognized consensus

industry standard specifications (including but not limited to those referenced below). 

Subject merchandise is typically certified to the specifications published by one or more

consensus standards organizations such as the following: the American Society for

Testing and Materials (“ASTM”); the Society of Automotive Engineers (“SAE”); the

International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”), and the Industrial Fasteners

Institute (“IFI”). Common specifications to which subject merchandise is certified

include, but are not limited to: ASTM A914, ASTM A307, ASTM A325, ASTM

A325M, ASTM A354, ASTM A449, ASTM A490, ASTM A563, ASTM F568M, ASTM

F1852, ASTM F2280, SAE J429, SAE J1199, ISO 898-1, ISO 898-2, ISO 4759-1, ISO

8992, and comparable foreign and domestic specifications (including, but not limited to,

metric versions of specifications such as those listed above).38

Commerce expressly excluded from the scope certain fasteners made for use by aerospace or automotive

original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”),39 as well as track bolts, carriage bolts, and socket screws.40
 39 (...continued)

Section 86.1803-01 (2009). Also excluded from the scope of the investigations are bolts, cap screws, and

nuts produced for an OEM part number specific to any ‘aircraft” as defined in 14 CFR Section 1.1

(2009).” 74 Fed. Reg. at 54543.

 40 Track bolts “have a circular, rounded head and a shank which, immediately beneath the head,

possesses an oval or elliptical shape, such that the non-round shape would restrict rotational movement of

the bolt.” Carriage bolts “have a circular, rounded head and a shank which, immediately beneath the

head, possesses a non-round shape (e.g., square, finned), such that the non-round shape would restrict

rotational movement of the bolt.” Socket screws “have a head with a recessed cavity into which a shaped

bit may be inserted to turn and drive the fastener.” 74 Fed. Reg. at 54543.

 41 See, e.g., 74 Fed. Reg. at 54543. Commerce also explained that the merchandise under

investigation is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”)

under statistical categories 7318.15.2030, 7318.15.2055, 7318.15.2065, 7318.15.8065, 7318.15.8085, and

7318.16.0085, but that the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. See,

e.g., 74 Fed. Reg. at 54543.

 42 See, e.g., CR at I-8; PR at I-6; Petitions, Vol. I at 4-5.

 43 See, e.g., CR at I-8; PR at I-6; Petitions, Vol. I at 5.

 44 See, e.g., CR at I-8; PR at I-6; Petitions, Vol. I at 4-5.

 45 The bolt in a TC assembly has a specially shaped splined extension on its end. In use, the spline

and the nut are separately engaged by a special tightening tool. When the nut is tightened to the correct

torque, the spline end breaks off, leaving the bolt and the nut properly assembled. The bolts in TC

assemblies may have either a hex or a round (dome) head, but the round head is, by far, the more

common. See, e.g., CR at I-8; PR at I-7; Petitions, Vol. I at 5.

 46 See, e.g., Petitions, Vol. I at 4.

 47 See, e.g., Petitions, Vol. I at 16.

 48 For example, SAE grade 2, which corresponds to ASTM A 307, is a low- or medium-carbon steel,

non-heat-treated grade. SAE grade 5, corresponding to ASTM A 325, is a low- or medium-carbon steel,

heat-treated grade. SAE grade 8, corresponding to ASTM A 490, is a medium-carbon alloy steel, heat-

(continued...)

9

At the same time, Commerce clarified that unless “explicitly excluded from the scope of the

investigations, bolts, cap screws, and nuts meeting the description of subject merchandise are covered by

the investigations.”41

Bolts and cap screws are similar, often indistinguishable products. Cap screws and bolts are

typically externally threaded. Bolts are intended to be used with nuts and tightened by torquing on the

nut, whereas cap screws are intended to be inserted into preformed threaded holes and tightened from the

head (the cap), although cap screws may be used with nuts.42 Internally threaded structural steel nuts are

designed to hold the corresponding bolt in place, and the nuts within the scope of these investigations are

hex-shaped.43 Bolts and cap screws are sometimes sold with and sometimes without nuts.44 The scope

includes twist-off type tension-control bolt-nut-washer assemblies (“TC assemblies”), which are special

fasteners used in structural applications to simplify and control the tightening of nuts to the proper

tension.45

The fasteners under investigation are used to hold, join, couple, assemble, or maintain the

equilibrium of single or multiple components.46 Producers manufacture varying head styles, dimensions,

weights, finishes, and grades of fasteners.47 Industry standards establish strength and hardness levels of

the grades.48 The nuts covered by the scope of these investigations are also produced in a range of grades
 48 (...continued)

treated grade. ASTM F 568 M, Class 12.9, is used only for metric fasteners and is an alloy steel, heattreated grade. Other grades such as SAE grades 5.2 and 8.2 have similar physical properties to grades 5

and 8 but are produced from low-carbon boron steel, rather than from medium-carbon or alloy steel. 

Grade 1, however, is relatively uncommon. See, e.g., CR at I-8 to I-9; PR at I-7.

 49 See, e.g., CR at I-9; PR at I-7; Petitions, Vol. I at 6, 8.

 50 See, e.g., CR at I-9 to I-10; PR at I-7; Petitions, Vol. I at 7. Grade 2 fasteners, however, may not

require this annealing stage. See, e.g., CR at I-9; PR at I-7.

 51 See, e.g., CR at I-10; PR at I-7; Petitions, Vol. I at 7.

 52 See, e.g., CR at I-10; PR at I-7 to I-8; Petitions, Vol. I at 7. Larger diameter CSSF, particularly nuts

and fasteners with a nominal diameter greater than 32 mm that are not within the scope of these

investigations, require a larger diameter starting material than bolts or cap screws of the same nominal

size and are produced by hot rather than cold forming. Hot-formed products are produced from straightlength bars, rather than from coiled bars or rods. Annealing, pickling, and coating of the bars prior to the

forming process are not required. The bars are fed into a hot forming line that incorporates a continuous

electric-induction heating section, followed by forming equipment similar to that used for cold forming,

except designed for processing at forging temperature. Fully formed fasteners (except for threading in the

case of nuts) are discharged from the line. See, e.g., CR at I-10; PR at I-8.

 53 See, e.g., CR at I-10; PR at I-8; Petitions, Vol. I at 8.

 54 See, e.g., CR at I-10; PR at I-8.

 55 See, e.g., CR at I-10 to I-11; PR at I-8; Petitions, Vol. I at 8.

 56 See, e.g., CR at I-11; PR at I-8.

10

and strength levels similar to those of the bolts and cap screws that they are designed to hold in place,

although nuts generally are designed to be stronger than their corresponding bolts. Consequently,

petitioner contends, higher-strength nuts can always be substituted for lower-rated strength applications

but should always possess the same finish as the bolts with which they are assembled.49

To manufacture cap screws and bolts in a cold-formed process, producers take irregularly wound

coils of hot-rolled carbon or alloy steel rod or bar of the desired grade and heat them in annealing

furnaces for 24 to 48 hours in order to soften the steel.50 They pickle and clean the softened steel in an

acid bath to remove any oxide scales, dirt, oil, or other impurities and then coat the cleaned steel with a

lubricant to increase the efficiency of the forming and threading machinery as the steel is processed.51 In

the forming and threading stage, manufacturers pass the steel through a series of dies in cold-forming

equipment to form the fastener and then mechanically transfer the steel to threading machinery to cold

roll (for externally threaded products) or tap (for internally threaded nuts) the threads.52 After forming,

grade 5 and higher products are heat treated in quench and temper furnaces by heating to a high

temperature, quenching in oil, reheating to a lower temperature, then slow cooling; this serves to

reintroduce hardness into the steel, which is reduced in the annealing stage.53 After heat treatment, the

fasteners are coated with a special oil to inhibit corrosion. The entire process is commonly done on a

continuous heat-treating line, with the fasteners being placed into a hopper at the entry end of the line and

heat-treated, oiled fasteners being discharged from the line.54 Some fasteners undergo further processing

such as zinc coating, yellow chromate finish coating, phosphate and oil coating, or other operations that

are performed by the domestic producers themselves or by outside firms to provide corrosion-resistance.55

TC assemblies, comprised of a bolt, a washer, and a nut, are assembled either by automatic machinery or

by hand.56
 57 See, e.g., Petitions, Vol. I at 8.

 58 See, e.g., Petitions, Vol. I at 8-9.

 59 See, e.g., Petitions, Vol. I at 9.

 60 See, e.g., Nucor’s Postconf. Br. at 5-30; Nucor’s Oct. 6, 2009, Supplement to the Petitions at 6-15;

Petitions, Vol. I at 4-6, 10-13.

 61 See, e.g., Nucor’s Oct. 6, 2009, Supplement to the Petitions at 6-15.

 62 Alternatively, respondents argue for a single domestic like product that includes all products

identified in the scope as well as fasteners made as part numbers for aerospace/automotive OEMs. See,

e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 4.

 63 See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 3-12. At the staff conference, witnesses for Chun Yu

agreed with respondents’ proposal. See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 141-42 (Lee), 173-75, 192 (Levinson).

 64 See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 12-16. The Fasteners Association of China agrees with

respondents that low-carbon fasteners are a separate domestic like product from medium to high-carbon

fasteners and asserts that there is no or little domestic production of low-carbon fasteners. See, e.g.,

Fasteners Association of China’s Postconf. Br. at 5-10.

 65 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 3-29.

11

All fasteners are then inspected for quality assurance purposes such as metallurgical inspection

and dimensional and destructive testing.57 After inspection, fasteners are packaged into boxes (usually

40-pound boxes for non-structural bolts and nuts) or into steel cans or kegs (usually 200 pounds of

subject goods per can).58 Manufacturers often put the packaged goods onto pallets and secure them for

shipment to the customer.59

B. Parties’ Arguments

Petitioner Nucor requests that the Commission define the domestic like product as standard

structural fasteners, coextensive with the scope of these investigations.60 Nucor argues that fasteners

made for automotive and aerospace OEMs (such as Boeing, Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler) are

different from other fasteners and asks the Commission not to define a domestic like product broader than

the scope of these investigations that would include them.61

Respondents ask the Commission to define three domestic like products.62 Respondents agree

that fasteners made for aerospace and automotive OEMs are different from what they refer to as off-theshelf “commercial fasteners” made to consensus standards. They assert, however, that fasteners

manufactured to “additional specifications and requirements” for use by OEMs other than aerospace and

automotive OEMs, such as farm equipment (John Deere), non-automobile engines (Briggs and Stratton),

chemical and fuel processing equipment (Emerson), and electrical power distribution (Siemens) are also

different from “commercial fasteners.” Thus, respondents ask the Commission to draw a different

dividing line – between all fasteners made to an OEM part number (and not just those made for aerospace

and automotive OEMs) and all off-the-shelf “commercial fasteners.”63

As for off-the-shelf “commercial fasteners,” respondents ask the Commission to define lowcarbon and higher-carbon fasteners as separate domestic like products.64 Petitioner Nucor disagrees that

low-carbon fasteners are a separate domestic like product.65

C. Analysis

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

determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in
 66 See, e.g., Cleo, Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v.

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

States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on

the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts of each case’”). The Commission generally considers

a number of factors including the following: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability;

(3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions of the products; (5) common

manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where appropriate,

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

Trade 1996).

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

 68 See, e.g., Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49; see also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at

90-91 (1979) (Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a

narrow fashion as to permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion

that the product and article are not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be

interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports

under consideration.”).

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

modify the class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v.

United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied,

492 U.S. 919 (1989).

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

may find a single like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce);

Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298 n.1 (“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s {like

product} determination.”); Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-52 (affirming the Commission’s

determination defining six like products in investigations where Commerce found five classes or kinds).

 71 See, e.g., Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1304-05 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 2000); Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States,

693 F. Supp. 1165, 1169 n.5 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988); Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United States, 704 F.

Supp. 1075, 1087-88 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988).

12

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.66 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.67 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.68

Although the Commission must accept Commerce’s determination as to the scope of the imported

merchandise that is subsidized or sold at less than fair value,69 the Commission determines what domestic

product is like the imported articles Commerce has identified.70 The Commission must base its domestic

like product determination on the record in these investigations. The Commission is not bound by prior

determinations, even those pertaining to the same imported products, but may draw upon previous

determinations in addressing pertinent domestic like product issues.71

In these investigations, we analyzed the parties’ arguments concerning possible domestic like

product(s) by considering the record data in terms of the six factors identified below.

Physical characteristics and uses. Although fasteners for aerospace/automotive OEMs may meet

a consensus standard like other fasteners, Nucor asserts that they have distinct physical characteristics,

being manufactured to proprietary or patented specifications, an OEM part number, or a modified set of
 72 See, e.g., Nucor’s Oct. 6, 2009, Supplement to the Petitions at 8-9.

 73 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 53-54 (Witucki, Miller); Nucor’s Oct. 6, 2009, Supplement to the Petitions

at 8-9.

 74 For example, respondents refer to a John Deere part made to a consensus standard but that also has

to meet additional performance and special supplier qualification requirements identified by John Deere. 

Moreover, they point out that an Arvin Meritor fastener for a heavy truck is the same in all material

respects as a GM fastener used in an automotive application because both reference a consensus standard

and specify additional requirements and specifications. Nevertheless, respondents claim, the Arvin

Meritor heavy truck fastener is within the scope of these investigations but the GM automotive fastener is

not. See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 5-6.

 75 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 10-12.

 76 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 10-12.

 77 See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 12-13. Low-carbon fasteners comprise the lowest-strength

level of these fasteners, that of SAE grade 2 or ASTM A 307. The guaranteed minimum-tensile strength

of an ASTM A 307 fastener is 60,000 pounds per square inch (psi). By comparison, the guaranteed

minimum tensile strength of an SAE grade 5 or an ASTM A 325 fastener is 105,000 or 120,000 psi,

depending upon the nominal size, whereas that of an SAE grade 8 or ASTM A 490 fastener is 150,000

psi. See, e.g., CR at I-15 to I-16; PR at I-11.

 78 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 12-13.

 79 See, e.g., CR at I-12 to I-13, I-15 to I-16; PR at I-9, I-11.

13

specifications not identified in a nationally recognized industry standard.72 Furthermore, Nucor contends,

aerospace/automotive OEM fasteners have distinct end uses; although an automotive OEM might need a

specialty automotive OEM fastener for a particular heavy truck, standard fasteners used elsewhere in the

vehicle could not be used in that application.73 Respondents agree that fasteners used by

aerospace/automotive OEMs have different physical characteristics and uses, but they contend that these

differences also extend to fasteners made for other OEMs.74 In response, Nucor asserts that ***; Nucor

explains that the OEM’s specification might require one of several options within a given standard, such

as a particular finish.75 Because these other-OEM fasteners meet the requirements of one or more

nationally recognized consensus industry standards, Nucor argues that, by definition, their general

physical characteristics are the same as other standard fasteners and they have the same use as other

standard fasteners – “to fasten.”76

Respondents assert that low-carbon fasteners do not have the strength requirements of higher

carbon products, cannot be used in the same high-end applications, such as construction, and are instead

found in hardware stores and used for do-it-yourself applications.77 Nucor disagrees, arguing that

fasteners are produced in a continuum of grades yielding products with a continuum of physical

characteristics. It asserts that fasteners of various grades are used in a given end use (such as on a heavy

truck), but that each provides necessary mechanical and physical properties for its particular application.78

The record indicates that, whether made for OEMs or other end users and whether made of lowcarbon or higher-carbon steel, fasteners of each type – bolts, cap screws, and nuts – have similar physical

characteristics; a hex or round head; metallurgical properties of strength, hardness, and ductility as

prescribed in consensus standards; and a nominal diameter between 6 and 32 millimeters. Fasteners are

used for similar purposes – to fasten assembled parts with preformed threads or by use of a nut. They can

be used for joining components or otherwise in the manufacture of a product.79

Interchangeability. Nucor argues that aerospace/automotive fasteners are not interchangeable

with other fasteners because they are produced with unique characteristics to proprietary or patented

specifications, to meet a specific OEM part number, and/or are produced to specifications not included in
 80 See, e.g., Nucor’s Oct. 6, 2009, Supplement to the Petitions at 9-10.

 81 See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 6-7.

 82 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 14-16.

 83 See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 13.

 84 See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 13.

 85 See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 13-14.

 86 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 16-17.

 87 See, e.g., Nucor’s Oct. 6, 2009, Supplement to the Petitions at 10; Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at

Exh. 1 at 31.

 88 See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 7.

 89 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 18-19.

 90 Although large retailers like Home Depot and rural hardware stores that serve both consumers and

construction and agricultural industry purchasers may sell both low-carbon and higher-carbon fasteners,

respondents contend that many hardware stores will not even carry the higher-carbon products. See, e.g.,

Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 14.

 91 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 19.

 92 See, e.g., CR at I-14, I-17 to I-18; PR at I-10, I-12.

14

nationally recognized industry consensus standards.80 Respondents contend that fasteners manufactured

to other OEM part numbers are no more interchangeable with off-the-shelf commercial fasteners than

automotive/aerospace fasteners.81 Nucor disagrees, contending that ***.82

Respondents argue that low-carbon fasteners cannot be used interchangeably with higher-carbon

fasteners because they lack the necessary strength, break under stress, and otherwise engender fears of

product liability and tort suits when used in more demanding applications.83 They further assert that it

would not be economically rational to use higher-carbon fasteners in low-carbon fastener applications.84

Moreover, they contend, in certain applications (such as a low-carbon cap screw used as a shear pin in a

gear box), end users want fasteners to break under stress and would never substitute a higher-strength

fastener.85 Nucor contends that low-carbon grade 2 products are perfectly interchangeable with other

fasteners and questions why respondents did not argue that grade 5 fasteners are separate domestic like

products from grade 8 fasteners.86

Channels of distribution. Nucor asserts that aerospace/automotive fasteners are not sold for

general distribution whereas other fasteners are sold to master distributors (distributors that sell primarily

to other distributors) and distributors for general distribution.87 Respondents assert that off-the-shelf

commercial fasteners are sold for general distribution whereas fasteners used by other OEMs, like those

used by aerospace/automotive OEMs, are not.88 Nucor disagrees, contending that the web site of Bossard,

one of the participants at the staff conference, shows that the company distributes not only standard

fasteners but also fasteners made to specific part numbers for non-aerospace/non-automotive OEMs.89

Respondents assert that low-carbon fasteners are generally sold to consumers at the retail level

through hardware stores.90 Nucor disagrees, arguing that low-carbon and higher-carbon fasteners are both

sold for general distribution.91

The record in these investigations indicates that fasteners are sold primarily to master distributors,

who resell to distributors, who in turn resell to end users.92

Customer and producer perceptions. Because aerospace/automotive fasteners are made to

specific OEM part numbers, involve proprietary or patented specifications, or have a significantly higher
 93 See, e.g., Nucor’s Oct. 6, 2009, Supplement to the Petitions at 10-11.

 94 See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 8.

 95 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 21-23.

 96 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at Exh. 5 at 9.

 97 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at Exh. 5 at 9-10.

 98 See, e.g., Nucor’s Oct. 6, 2009, Supplement to the Petitions at 10-11.

 99 Moreover, respondents disagree with Nucor that the other division of the IFI, the “Industrial

Division” is a synonym for “standard fastener division,” instead contending that members of all divisions

of IFI produce “standard fasteners” covered by these investigations. Respondents note that a number of

companies are members of two or all three IFI divisions. Indeed, they argue, “all OEMs – automotive,

heavy equipment, aerospace, and others – purchase some commercial fasteners off the shelf, and some

made to their OEM part specifications.” Furthermore, the IFI’s annual report on developments in global

markets does not maintain the divisional distinction, “instead breaking down end-use demand between

‘motor vehicles,’ ‘construction,’ electrical products,’ and, in aggregate, ‘aerospace, MRO, industrial

machinery, and other.’” See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 8-9.

 100 See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 14-15 (citing Confer. Tr. at 52 (Miller)).

 101 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 23-24.

 102 See, e.g., Nucor’s Oct. 6, 2009, Supplement to the Petitions at 12.

 103 They assert that fasteners made for part numbers for other OEMs also necessitate laser-sorting

machinery, high-quality, specially trained labor, and machinery run at lower speeds with specialized tools

to limit friction and narrow the tolerances of the resulting products. See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br.

at 10-11; Confer. Tr. at 127-28, 168 (Hansen).

15

quality, Nucor asserts that customers and producers perceive them differently than other fasteners.93

Respondents concur and argue that the same is true of fasteners made to other OEM part numbers.94

Nucor disagrees.95 It asserts that the vast majority of other OEM fasteners are readily substitutable for

other fastener products, having modifications “typically too slight to significantly affect costs or

substitutability.”96 Indeed, it contends, the distinction between an OEM part numbered fastener and other

products is “very often literally nothing more than a difference in the SKU {(stock-keeping unit)}

assigned to the alternative products.”97

As further evidence of differences in customer and producer perceptions of aerospace/automotive

fasteners, Nucor relies on the fact that a U.S. trade association, the IFI, has a separate division for

aerospace and automotive fasteners.98 Respondents assert that a trade association’s organizational

structure does not override the Commission’s six domestic like product factors.99

Respondents assert that customers and producers perceive low-carbon and higher-carbon

fasteners differently, as evidenced by petitioner’s witnesses’ own testimony, and will not choose a lowcarbon product when the strength of a higher-carbon product is needed.100 Nucor disagrees, asserting that

*** and contending that some of the same distributors and customers handle both low-carbon and highercarbon fasteners.101

Common Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes, and Employees. Nucor asserts that

additional production equipment and processes are needed to manufacture aerospace/automotive OEMs,

such as high-quality laser-sorting devices used to meet near-zero-defect quality standards and, in the case

of aerospace fasteners, requirements of the FAA or foreign airworthiness authorities.102 Respondents

agree and argue that the same applies to fasteners made to part numbers for other OEMs.103 They contend

that extensive qualification is required, commencing with a Part Submission Warrant, and that not every

manufacturer can produce fasteners to an OEM part number meeting the requirements of a Production
 104 See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 10-11; Confer. Tr. at 126-27 (Hansen). Respondents

provided a list of manufacturers of other OEM product parts, many of whom, they assert, do not produce

off-the-shelf commercial fasteners. See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at Exh. 1 at 3; Confer. Tr. at

170-73.

 105 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 20-23.

 106 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 25-26.

 107 See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 15-16; see also, e.g., CR at I-10; PR at I-7, I-8 (“annealing

may not be required for grade 2 fasteners”; “{a}fter forming, CSSF of Grade 5 and higher are heattreated”).

 108 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 26-28; ***.

 109 See, e.g., CR at I-13; PR at I-9.

 110 See, e.g., CR at I-16; PR at I-11 to I-12.

 111 See, e.g., Nucor’s Oct. 6, 2009, Supplement to the Petitions at 12.

 112 See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 11-12; Confer. Tr. at 128 (Hansen).

 113 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 28.

 114 See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 16-17.

 115 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 28. ***. See, e.g., Memorandum INV-GG-108 at 3-4.

 116 As discussed above, they allege that some of the same differences in physical characteristics and

(continued...)

16

Part Approval Process (“PPAP”).104 Nucor asserts that PPAP paperwork is a routine process used for all

types of fasteners that involves minimal time (2-4 hours) and minimal financial investment (Nucor

charges *** to fill out the forms).105 Moreover, Nucor asserts that it uses the same machinery to produce

both non-aerospace/non-automotive OEM fasteners and standard fasteners.106

Respondents assert that low-carbon products do not undergo distinct production steps that are

required for higher-carbon fasteners, such as annealing of the material before forming and quenching and

tempering the material after forming. They argue that these additional steps require significant additional

investment in equipment and plant space. Respondents contend that it is not economical for

manufacturers that invest in the additional equipment to use the equipment to manufacture low-carbon

products, which is why, they claim, U.S. producers have not produced low-carbon products in decades.107

Nucor asserts that ***.108

The record shows that in the United States, there is at least some overlap in the manufacturing

facilities, production processes, and employees used to produce OEM and non-OEM fasteners, although

the extent of overlap is not clear on the current record.109 The record also reflects some overlap in

manufacturing facilities, production processes, and employees used to manufacture low-carbon and

higher-carbon fasteners, ***.110

Price. Nucor asserts that aerospace/automotive fasteners sell at a premium over standard steel

fasteners but that there is a continuum of prices for standard fasteners.111 Respondents concur and assert

that the same distinction applies between fasteners made to part numbers for other OEMs and standard

fasteners.112 Nucor disagrees, asserting that ***.113

Respondents argue that higher-carbon fasteners command higher prices than low-carbon fasteners

due to the additional production steps and the higher and more expensive grade of steel used to produce

them.114 Nucor disagrees, instead arguing that there is a continuum of fastener prices.115

Conclusion. Petitioner asks the Commission to draw a line between aerospace/automotive OEM

fasteners and other fasteners, but respondents have raised arguments that may call into question the line

suggested by petitioner.116 The record does reflect some similarities in physical characteristics and uses,
 116 (...continued)

end uses, interchangeability, channels of distribution, producer/customer perceptions, manufacturing

processes/equipment/personnel, and prices that petitioner argues distinguish aerospace/automotive

fasteners from other fasteners apply equally to fasteners made to product part numbers for nonaerospace/automotive OEMs.

 117 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

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

from the domestic industry pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). Subsection 1677(4)(B) allows the

Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are

related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers. 19 U.S.C. §

1677(4)(B). Exclusion of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts

presented in each investigation. See, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1992), aff’d mem., 991 F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Allied Mineral Products, Inc. v. United States,

28 CIT 1861, 1864 (2004); USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 12 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001),

aff’d, 34 Fed. Appx. 725 (Fed. Cir. April 22, 2002); S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. at 83 (1979).

Nucor argued that there was no reason to exclude any producer from the domestic industry based

on the statutory related-party provision. See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at Exh. 1 at 23. Respondents

did not make any arguments concerning related party issues. According to questionnaire data, no U.S.

producer directly imported subject merchandise from China or Taiwan during the period examined. Two

companies (***) purchased subject merchandise from importers, and *** U.S. producers have corporate

relationships with importers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise (***). See, e.g., CR at III-3; PR

at III-2; CR/PR at Table III-1. No party argued, and no evidence on the record in these investigations

indicates, that any of these firms have a control relationship with an exporter or importer of subject

merchandise that would qualify them as related parties. Consequently, we do not find any of the domestic

producers to be related parties.

17

channels of distribution, customer/producer perceptions, and manufacturing facilities, processes, and

employees among fasteners, whether produced for aerospace/automotive, other OEM, or non-OEM

applications, although the record on the whole appears to reflect certain meaningful differences between

aerospace/automotive fasteners and the products corresponding to the scope of these investigations. In

addition, although respondents have raised arguments that suggest differences between low-carbon and

higher-carbon fasteners, the record reflects some similarities in physical characteristics and uses,

interchangeability, channels of distribution, customer/producer perceptions, and manufacturing facilities,

processes, and employees among all types of fasteners within the scope of these investigations. Thus, for

purposes of our analysis in these determinations, based on the record in these investigations, and

consistent with Nucor’s request, we define a single domestic like product that is coextensive with the

scope of these investigations (which we refer to herein as “CSSF”).

IV. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The domestic industry is defined as the domestic “producers as a whole of a domestic like

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

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”117 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. 

Based on our definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry as producers of the

domestic like product, i.e., all U.S. manufacturers of CSSF.118
 119 Negligibility under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24) is not an issue in these investigations, and no party made

any arguments concerning this issue. Based on importer questionnaire responses, subject imports from

China accounted for 34.2 percent and subject imports from Taiwan accounted for 39.7 percent of total

U.S. imports of subject merchandise, by value, for the period July 2008 to June 2009, the most recent 12-

month period preceding the filing of the petition for which data are available. See, e.g., CR at IV-5; PR at

IV-3. Thus, subject imports of CSSF from China and Taiwan as a share of total imports of CSSF into the

United States each clearly exceeded the statute’s three percent negligibility level.

 120 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i).

 121 See Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos.

731-TA-278 to 280 (Final), USITC Pub. 1845 (May 1986), aff’d, Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States,

678 F. Supp. 898 (Ct. Int’l Trade), aff’d, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 122 See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989).

 123 The SAA states that “the new section will not affect current Commission practice under which the

statutory requirement is satisfied if there is a reasonable overlap of competition.” SAA at 848 (citing

Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898, 902 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988)), aff’d, 859 F.2d 915

(Fed. Cir. 1988). See also, e.g., Goss Graphic Sys., Inc. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1087 (Ct.

Int’l Trade 1998) (“cumulation does not require two products to be highly fungible”); Wieland Werke,

AG, 718 F. Supp. at 52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”).

18

V. CUMULATION119

A. Legal Framework

For purposes of evaluating the volume and price effects for determining whether there is a

reasonable indication of material injury by reason of the subject imports, section 771(7)(G)(i) of the

Tariff Act requires the Commission to cumulate subject imports from all countries as to which petitions

were filed and/or investigations self-initiated by Commerce on the same day, if such imports compete

with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S. market.120 In assessing whether subject imports

compete with each other and with the domestic like product, the Commission has generally considered the

following four factors:

(1) the degree of fungibility between the subject imports from different countries and

between imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific

customer requirements and other quality related questions;

(2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets of subject

imports from different countries and the domestic like product;

(3) the existence of common or similar channels of distribution for subject imports

from different countries and the domestic like product; and

(4) whether the subject imports are simultaneously present in the market.121

While no single factor is necessarily determinative, and the list of factors is not exclusive, these factors

are intended to provide the Commission with a framework for determining whether the subject imports

compete with each other and with the domestic like product.122 Only a “reasonable overlap” of

competition is required.123
 124 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 30, Exh. 1 at 6-12; Petitions, Vol. I at 19-22.

 125 See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 19. The Fasteners Association of China makes no

arguments concerning cumulation.

 126 See, e.g., CR at I-1; PR at I-1.

 127 Commissioner Lane notes that, with respect to fungibility, her analysis does not require such

similarity of products that a perfectly symmetrical fungibility is required, and she notes that this factor

would be better described as an analysis of whether subject imports from each country and the domestic

like product could be substituted for each other. See Separate Views of Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane,

Certain Lightweight Thermal Paper from China, Germany, and Korea, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-451 and

731-TA-1126 to 1128 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3964 (Nov. 2007).

 128 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-1.

 129 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-1. Indeed, *** show that low-carbon products were imported from

both China and Taiwan. These data also show imports of fasteners for non-aerospace/non-automotive

OEMs from both China and Taiwan. See, e.g., ***.

 130 See, e.g., CR at II-1; PR at II-1 (showing that sales to distributors as a share of U.S. commercial

shipments in 2008 were 93.3 percent for the domestic like product, 95.2 percent for subject imports from

China, and 90.9 percent for subject imports from Taiwan).

19

B. Parties’ Arguments

Petitioner Nucor argues that all of the requirements for mandatory cumulation are met and asks

the Commission to cumulate subject imports from China with subject imports from Taiwan for purposes

of its present material injury analysis.124 Respondents argue against cumulation, contending there is a

lack of competition between subject imports from China and the domestic like product and only limited

competition between the domestic like product and subject imports from Taiwan. They argue that the

vast majority of subject imports from China consist of low-carbon products, whereas the vast majority of

subject imports from Taiwan are medium/high-carbon products, and that the domestic industry neither

produces nor sells low-carbon products.125

C. Analysis and Conclusion

The statutory threshold for cumulation is satisfied in these investigations of CSSF from China

and Taiwan, which were all instituted on the same day that the antidumping and countervailing duty

petitions were filed, September 23, 2009.126 None of the statutory exceptions to cumulation applies.

Fungibility.

127 According to questionnaire responses, market participants perceive CSSF from

various sources to be interchangeable. Six of seven responding U.S. producers and 20 of the 26 importers

that compared subject merchandise from China and/or Taiwan with CSSF from the United States reported

that they are always or frequently interchangeable.128 When asked to compare imports of subject

merchandise from China with subject imports from Taiwan, six of seven responding U.S. producers and

14 of 20 responding importers reported that they are always or frequently interchangeable with one

another.129

Channels of Distribution. During the period examined, the domestic like product and imports

from each subject country were sold in overlapping channels of distribution, primarily to distributors and

to a lesser degree to end users.130
 131 See, e.g., CR at V-4 to V-5; PR at V-3 to V-4.

 132 See, e.g., CR at IV-4; PR at IV-3; CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-4.

 133 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

 134 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are

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

to the determination.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

 135 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 136 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 137 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 138 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

20

Geographic Overlap. When asked to list the geographic regions where they sell the products

covered by these investigations, questionnaire respondents reported selling the domestic like product and

imports of subject merchandise from both China and Taiwan throughout the United States.131

Simultaneous Presence in Market. Importer questionnaire responses and pricing data submitted

to the Commission in the preliminary phase of these investigations show that subject imports from China

and Taiwan, like the domestic like product, were sold in the U.S. market throughout the period

examined.132

Conclusion. The record indicates that the domestic like product and imports from each subject

source are at least moderately interchangeable, are sold in overlapping channels of distribution, and were

sold in overlapping geographic markets throughout the period examined. The record consequently

indicates that there is a reasonable overlap of competition between the domestic like products and imports

from each subject country and between subject imports from China and Taiwan. We therefore cumulate

subject imports from China and Taiwan for purposes of our analysis of whether there is a reasonable

indication of material injury by reason of subject imports.

VI. NO REASONABLE INDICATION OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON

OF CUMULATED SUBJECT IMPORTS FROM CHINA AND TAIWAN

A. Legal Standards

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

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

injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the imports under investigation.133 In making this

determination, the Commission must consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices for the

domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in

the context of U.S. production operations.134 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not

inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”135 In assessing whether there is a reasonable indication that

the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports,

we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.136 No

single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business

cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”137

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

indication that the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury “by reason

of” unfairly traded imports,138 it does not define the phrase “by reason of,” indicating that this aspect of
 139 See, e.g., Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484-85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he

statute does not ‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’g 944 F. Supp.

943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996).

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

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

meets the causation requirement.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

This was further ratified in Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir.

2008), where the Federal Circuit, quoting Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed.

Cir. 1997), stated that “this court requires evidence in the record ‘to show that the harm occurred “by

reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a minimal or tangential contribution to material harm

caused by LTFV goods.’” See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir.

2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

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

Rep. 103-316, Vol. I at 851-52 (1994) (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it

is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (1979) (the

Commission “will consider information which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than lessthan-fair-value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47 (1979) (“in examining the overall injury being

experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take into account evidence presented to it which

demonstrates that the harm attributed by the petitioner to the subsidized or dumped imports is attributable

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

sold at fair value, contraction in demand or changes in patterns of consumption, trade restrictive practices

of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the

export performance and productivity of the domestic industry”); accord Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877.

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

caused by unfair imports.”); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed.

Cir. 2001) (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by

unfair imports ... . Rather, the Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing

injury from other sources to the subject imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de

Salmon y Trucha de Chile AG v. United States, 180 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002)

(“{t}he Commission is not required to isolate the effects of subject imports from other factors

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

(continued...)

21

the injury analysis is left to the Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion.139 In identifying a

causal link, if any, between subject imports and material injury to the domestic industry, the Commission

examines the facts of record that relate to the significance of the volume and price effects of the subject

imports and any impact of those imports on the condition of the domestic industry. This evaluation under

the “by reason of” standard must ensure that subject imports are more than a minimal or tangential cause

of injury and that there is a sufficient causal, not merely a temporal, nexus between subject imports and

material injury.140

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

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

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

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

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

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

statutory material injury threshold.141 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.142 Nor does the
 142 (...continued)

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

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

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

causal factor,’ then there is nothing to further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald

Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the statute “does not suggest that an

importer of LTFV goods can escape countervailing duties by finding some tangential or minor cause

unrelated to the LTFV goods that contributed to the harmful effects on domestic market prices.”).

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

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

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

principal cause of injury.”).

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

affirmative determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of’

subject imports, the Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that

determination ... . {and has} broad discretion with respect to its choice of methodology.”) citing United

States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d 1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and S. Rep. 96-249 at 75.

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

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

considering present material injury in certain circumstances, to undertake a particular kind of analysis of

non-subject imports. Mittal explains as follows:

What Bratsk held is that “where commodity products are at issue and fairly traded, pricecompetitive, non-subject imports are in the market,” the Commission would not fulfill its

obligation to consider an important aspect of the problem if it failed to consider whether nonsubject or non-LTFV imports would have replaced LTFV subject imports during the period of

investigation without a continuing benefit to the domestic industry. 444 F.3d at 1369. Under

those circumstances, Bratsk requires the Commission to consider whether replacement of the

LTFV subject imports might have occurred during the period of investigation, and it requires the

Commission to provide an explanation of its conclusion with respect to that factor.

542 F.3d at 878.

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

542 F.3d at 879 (“Bratsk did not read into the antidumping statute a Procrustean formula for determining

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

22

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

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

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.143 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.144

Assessment of whether material injury or threat of material injury to the domestic industry is “by

reason of” subject imports “does not require the Commission to address the causation issue in any

particular way” as long as “the injury to the domestic industry can reasonably be attributed to the subject

imports” and the Commission “ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject

imports.”145 146 Indeed, the Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission

methodologies and has disavowed “rigid adherence to a specific formula.”147

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

where the relevant “other” factor was the presence in the market of significant volumes of price-
 148 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875-79.

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

(recognizing the Commission’s alternative interpretation of Bratsk as a reminder to conduct a nonattribution analysis).

 150 Commissioner Lane also refers to her dissenting views in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,

and Strip from Brazil, China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1131-1134

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

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

published information or send out information requests in final phase investigations to producers in nonsubject countries that accounted for substantial shares of U.S. imports of subject merchandise (if, in fact,

there were large non-subject import suppliers). In order to provide a more complete record for the

Commission’s causation analysis, these requests typically seek information on capacity, production, and

shipments of the product under investigation in the major source countries that export to the United

States. The Commission plans to continue utilizing published or requested information in final phase

investigations in which there are substantial levels of non-subject imports.

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

F.3d at 1357; S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (“The determination of the ITC with respect to causation is ... complex

and difficult, and is a matter for the judgment of the ITC.”).

 153 We provide in the discussion of impact in section VI.E. below a full analysis of other factors

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

23

competitive non-subject imports. The Commission interpreted the Federal Circuit’s guidance in Bratsk as

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

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

imports.148 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether non-subject imports might have

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

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

and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

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

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

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

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

injury from non-subject imports or other factors to subject imports.149 Accordingly, we do not consider

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

subsequent to Bratsk.

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

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

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

non-attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.150 151

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

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

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

institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.152 153

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

We considered the business cycle and also took into account several conditions of competition in

our analysis in these investigations.
 154 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at Exh. 1 at 31.

 155 See, e.g., CR at II-1, II-8; PR at II-1, II-6. Nucor contends that the fasteners under investigation

are used in machinery manufacturing/OEM applications (50 percent); maintenance and repair (30

percent); construction (15 percent); and retail (about 5 percent). See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at

Exh. 1 at 14 (citing Confer. Tr. at 114 (Porteous)).

 156 See, e.g., CR at II-1, II-8; PR at II-1, II-6.

 157 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 32-33, Exh. 1 at 12-13, 14-17; Petitions, Vol. I at 22.

 158 See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at 1.

 159 See, e.g., CR at II-10; PR at II-7 to II-8.

 160 See, e.g., CR at II-10 to II-11; PR at II-8.

 161 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 162 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 163 See, e.g., CR at VII-10; PR at VII-6.

 164 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at Exh. 1 at 20.

24

Demand Conditions. CSSF are sold to master distributors and distributors and then resold to end

users.154 The record reflects that the characteristics of CSSF products enable them to be used in a broad

variety of fastener applications, including in motor vehicles, farm vehicles and equipment, machinery,

bridges, and commercial construction.155 Demand for CSSF is largely derived from demand for the varied

downstream products that use CSSF as an input.156

Nucor argues that the U.S. and global economies are in the midst of a severe recession, which has

reduced demand, although at different rates depending on the end-use application, and has increased the

importance of price in purchasing decisions. According to Nucor, these conditions exacerbate the

negative effects of dumped and subsidized subject imports.157 Respondents argue that demand dropped

temporarily due to the recession.158 The majority of all questionnaire respondents reported that U.S.

demand for CSSF fluctuated but decreased overall since January 2006. Reported factors that led to any

increases in demand included increased output of OEM products and domestic manufacturing. Reported

factors that led to fluctuating but decreasing demand included a downturn in general economic

conditions/recession (cited most frequently), the relocation of U.S. OEM production and related

operations to lower-cost countries, a decline in auto production, a slowdown in commercial construction

and U.S. manufacturing, and the cost of steel and transportation.159 Some questionnaire respondents

reported that demand for CSSF was subject to business cycles and seasonality during the period

examined.160

Based on the record in these investigations, apparent U.S. consumption, by quantity, declined

from 661.3 million pounds in 2006 to 642.4 million pounds in 2007 and 641.6 million pounds in 2008

and was 343.5 million pounds in interim 2008 and 225.0 million pounds in interim 2009.161

Supply Conditions. During the period examined, the U.S. market was supplied by the domestic

industry, subject imports from Taiwan, subject imports from China, and imports from non-subject

countries.162 Canada, Italy, Japan, and Thailand are among the larger non-subject suppliers to the U.S.

market.163

Raw Material Costs. Nucor contends that the cost of steel, the single largest cost component in

manufacturing fasteners, rose significantly between 2006 and 2008, as evidenced by the prices of lowcarbon steel wire rod and steel scrap.164 The principal raw material input used to produce domestic CSSF

is steel rod, cold-heading quality; some producers also purchase the downstream cold-drawn steel wire
 165 See, e.g., CR at V-1; PR at V-1.

 166 See, e.g., CR at V-1; PR at V-1.

 167 See, e.g., CR at V-1; PR at V-1; CR/PR at Figure V-1.

 168 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-2.

 169 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-2. U.S. importers that asserted that subject imports were “sometimes”

or “never” interchangeable with the domestic like product or that reported “always” or “frequently”

finding non-price differences between subject imports and the domestic like product cited availability

most often, followed by qualifying requirements of some suppliers, quality, range of products, technical

support, “Buy-America” laws/policies/preferences, and customer preference for specific suppliers. See,

e.g., CR at II-18; PR at II-13 to II-14.

 170 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 171 Apparent U.S. consumption, by quantity, declined from 661.3 million pounds in 2006 to 642.4 

million pounds in 2007 and 641.6 million pounds in 2008 and was 343.5 million pounds in interim 2008

and 225.0 million pounds in interim 2009. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. In the petitions, Nucor

repeatedly emphasized value-based rather than quantity-based measurements of volume. See, e.g.,

Petitions, Vol. I at 16, 18, 23, 29, 33, 35. Our normal practice, however, is to consider volume in terms of

weight or units rather than value except in unusual circumstances. See, e.g., Narrow Woven Ribbons

with Woven Selvedge from China and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-467 and 731-TA-1164 to 1165

(Prelim.), USITC Pub. 4099 at 23-24 (Aug. 2009); Certain Off-the-Road Tires from China, Invs. Nos.

701-TA-448 and 731-TA-1117 (Final), USITC Pub. 4031 at 15 (Aug. 2008); Coated Free Sheet Paper

from China, Indonesia, and Korea, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-444 to 446 and 731-TA-1136 to 1137 (Final),

USITC Pub. 3965 at 8 (Dec. 2007) (“the Commission generally avoids measuring import volume on the

basis of value.”); and Certain Lined Paper School Supplies from China, India, and Indonesia, Invs. Nos.

701-TA-442 to 443 and 731-TA-1095 to 1097(Final), USITC Pub. 3884 at 19 (Sept. 2006), aff’d on this

point in Navneet Publications (India), Ltd. v, United States, 30 Int’l Trade Rep. 1430 (Ct. Int’l Trade Feb.

26, 2008). Nucor has not demonstrated any reason for us to depart from our usual practice.

25

rod/bar.165 Total raw material costs averaged 53.0 percent of the responding U.S. producers’ total costs of

good sold (“COGS”) to produce CSSF during the period examined.166 U.S. spot market quarterly prices

of steel rod fluctuated sharply during April 2007 - September 2009, as did spot prices of steel scrap

during January 2006 - September 2009.167

Interchangeability. Six of the seven responding U.S. producers reported that differences other

than price between subject imports and the domestic like product are only sometimes or never a

significant factor.168 Responses from importers were more mixed, with more than half of responding

importers reporting that differences other than price between U.S.-produced CSSF and subject imports are

sometimes or never a significant factor.169

C. Volume of Cumulated Subject Imports from China and Taiwan

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

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

production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”170

Demand, as measured by the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption, decreased only about 3.0

percent between 2006 and 2008, and was considerably lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008.171

During this period, the absolute volume of cumulated subject merchandise imported from China and

Taiwan into the United States increased only slightly from 354.8 million pounds in 2006 to 359.5 million

pounds in 2007 and 360.9 million pounds in 2008, but was lower in interim 2009 (112.8 million pounds)
 172 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-2. U.S. shipments of cumulated subject imports from China and

Taiwan increased from 339.4 million pounds in 2006 to 340.2 million pounds in 2007, but then decreased

to 332.5 million pounds in 2008, and were lower in interim 2009 (127.7 million pounds) than in interim

2008 (177.6 million pounds). See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 173 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 174 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 175 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 176 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-2. U.S. shipments of CSSF imported from non-subject countries

decreased from 166.6 million pounds in 2006 to 152.0 million pounds in 2007, but then increased to

153.6 million pounds in 2008, and were lower in interim 2009 (45.0 million pounds) than in interim 2008

(81.7 million pounds). See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 177 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 178 Increasing prices of raw materials, energy, and other inputs during 2007 and much of 2008 were

accompanied by higher selling prices of CSSF, but somewhat decreasing shipments. See, e.g., U.S.

producer questionnaire responses, sections V-13 & V-14 and U.S. importer questionnaire responses,

section IV-16a.

 179 See, e.g., CR at II-8 to II-11, III-5; PR at II-6 to II-8; CR/PR at Figure II-1; CR/PR at Table III-3.

 180 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

26

than in interim 2008 (172.7 million pounds).172 Cumulated subject imports’ share of apparent U.S.

consumption, by quantity, increased slightly, from 51.3 percent in 2006 to 53.0 percent in 2007, but then

decreased to 51.8 percent in 2008; their market share in interim 2009 (56.8 percent) was higher than in

interim 2008 (51.7 percent).173 At the same time, the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments of CSSF

decreased from 155.3 million pounds in 2006 to 150.1 million pounds in 2007 and then increased to 155.6

million pounds in 2008; its U.S. shipments in interim 2009 (52.3 million pounds) were lower than in

interim 2008 (84.2 million pounds).174 The domestic industry’s market share, by quantity, was essentially

steady in the full years of the period examined, at 23.5 percent in 2006, 23.4 percent in 2007, and 24.2

percent in 2008; its market share in interim 2009 (23.3 percent) was slightly lower than in interim 2008

(24.5 percent).175 Non-subject imports into the United States decreased from 167.0 million pounds in

2006 to 141.8 million pounds in 2007 and then increased to 165.0 million pounds in 2008; non-subject

imports were lower in interim 2009 (31.5 million pounds) than in interim 2008 (90.1 million pounds).176

Non-subject imports’ market share, by quantity, decreased from 25.2 percent in 2006 to 23.7 percent in

2007 and increased slightly to 23.9 percent in 2008, and their market share in interim 2009 (20.0 percent)

was lower than in interim 2008 (23.8 percent).177

Thus, during a period of somewhat decreasing demand (2006 to 2008), the volume of cumulated

subject imports, the volume of non-subject imports, and the domestic industry’s volume of CSSF, as well

as their respective market shares, were all relatively stable.178 Downturns in U.S. demand in the principal

sectors using CSSF, such as non-residential construction and machinery shipments, from the fourth

quarter of 2008 through the second quarter of 2009 were accompanied by substantial declines in CSSF

shipments.179 Although cumulated subject imports had a higher market share in interim 2009 than in

interim 2008 as demand declined considerably due to the economic recession, their higher market share

came almost entirely at the expense of non-subject imports rather than the domestic industry.180

Viewed in isolation, the absolute volume of cumulated subject imports is significant. 

Nevertheless, we do not find that the volume of cumulated subject imports or any increase in that volume,

either absolutely or relative to U.S. production or consumption, warrants an affirmative determination in

light of the conditions of competition in this market and our findings concerning a lack of significant

price effects and impact, discussed herein.
 181 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 182 See, e.g., CR at II-14 to II-18; PR at II-11 to II-14; CR/PR at Table II-1.

 183 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-2.

 184 See, e.g., CR at II-11 to II-13; PR at II-8 to II-9.

 185 See, e.g., CR at V-5 to V-6; PR at V-4 to V-5.

 186 See, e.g., CR at V-7; PR at V-5 to V-6.

 187 These four pricing products, which were suggested by Nucor in its petitions and during telephone

conversations with Commission staff, are as follows: (1) heavy hex nut, A563, type 1 steel, Grade C, 3/4

inch diameter and 10 threads per inch; (2) heavy hex structural bolt, A325, type 1 steel, 3/4inch diameter

by 2 inches long, 10 threads per inch, and not fully threaded; (3) hex cap screw, Grade 5, type 1 steel, 1⁄2

inch diameter by 1-1/2 inches long, 13 threads per inch, fully threaded, and zinc-blue electroplated;

(4) hex cap screw, Grade 8, type 1 steel, 5/8 inch diameter by 2 inches long, 18 threads per inch, fully

threaded, and zinc phosphate and oil coating. See, e.g., CR at V-8 & n.24; PR at V-6 & n.24.

 188 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for approximately 3.6 percent of the reporting

domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of CSSF, 1.1 percent of the reporting importers’ U.S. shipments of

subject imports from China, and 2.4 percent of the reporting importers’ U.S. shipments of subject imports

from Taiwan. See, e.g., CR at V-8 to V-9; PR at V-6. Higher coverage levels would be difficult to obtain

in an industry such as this involving so many product permutations and thus at least tens of thousands of

SKUs. See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 56 (Witucki), 124 (Hansen).

27

D. Price Effects of Cumulated Subject Imports from China and Taiwan

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

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

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

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

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

occurred, to a significant degree.181

Record data reflect a relatively high degree of interchangeability between the domestic like

product and subject imports from China and Taiwan, when produced to the same specifications and in the

same dimensions.182 Although price is important, non-price factors also play a role in purchases in this

industry.183 Few substitutes exist for CSSF, and CSSF accounts for a relatively low share of the total cost

of the products in which it is used, although its cost share varies by application.184

Questionnaire respondents generally reported using spot sales and short-term contracts to sell

CSSF in the U.S. market, although the domestic industry reported that 21.2 percent of its 2008 sales were

made through long-term contracts.185 The vast majority of sales of CSSF imported from China and

Taiwan were made from existing inventories in the United States, whereas only 40 percent of reported

U.S. sales of the domestic like product were from inventories. Subject imports had an advantage in lead

times when supplied from existing U.S. inventories compared to U.S.-produced CSSF.186

The Commission obtained usable pricing data on quarterly net U.S. delivered selling prices for

shipments of four products to unrelated U.S. distributors for the period January 2006 to June 2009187 from

three domestic CSSF producers, six U.S. importers of subject merchandise from China, and nine

importers of subject merchandise from Taiwan.188 These pricing data show pervasive underselling by
 189 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-4.

 190 Although Nucor alleged losing sales and revenues to subject merchandise imported from China and

Taiwan, it failed to provide adequate details to support these allegations. Nucor at times claimed that it

does not keep detailed information on lost sales/lost revenues or does not receive detailed reasons for its

lost sales/lost revenues from the distributors to whom it sells. See, e.g., Petitions, Vol. I at 27-28;

Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at Exh. 1 at 28. At other times, however, Nucor reported that it could supply

the Commission with more detailed information concerning its losses, but then submitted only incomplete

or untimely data. See, e.g., CR at V-24 & nn.32-33 & 35; PR at V-10 & nn.32-33 & 35; Confer. Tr. at

19-20, 36-37, 62-63. Other domestic producers provided limited information about lost sales and lost

revenue allegations. Staff investigated these claims, but generally was unable to substantiate them. See,

e.g., CR at V-24 to V-27; PR at V-10 to V-11; CR/PR at Tables V-7 and V-8. We consequently find that

information gathered regarding potential lost sales/lost revenue allegations does not detract from other

evidence indicating that the subject imports did not have significant adverse price effects during the

period examined.

 191 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-4; CR at V-10, V-19; PR at V-7, V-9.

 192 See, e.g., CR at V-19; PR at V-9; CR/PR at Figure V-1, Tables V-1 to V-4.

 193 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 194 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-4.

28

subject imports from China and Taiwan at relatively high margins throughout the period examined.189

While the data show significant underselling of the domestic like product by subject imports from China

and Taiwan, we do not find, as discussed herein, that cumulated subject imports had any significant

adverse price effects.190 The underselling did not lead to significant price depression or suppression or to

a significant gain in market share by the subject imports at the expense of the domestic industry, and we

do not find that cumulated subject imports had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry’s

condition.

More specifically, we considered movements in the prices of CSSF during the period examined. 

Based on the questionnaire data submitted in these investigations, quarterly delivered selling prices of

pricing products 1 to 4 produced domestically were generally at or above their initial period prices by the

end of the period examined, including for the two pricing products that accounted for the highest volume

of sales by the domestic industry (pricing products ***).191 Given these trends in the domestic industry’s

prices, we do not find that cumulated subject imports from China and Taiwan depressed prices of the

domestic like product in the U.S. market to a significant degree.

Regarding possible suppression of prices, price trends of CSSF produced by the domestic

industry appear to be substantially influenced by price fluctuations of raw materials, especially steel. 

Quarterly prices of the domestic products increased to period highs between July and September 2008, as

steel prices also reached their peak, and then decreased as steel prices fell.192 Notwithstanding the slight

decline in apparent U.S. consumption, fluctuating costs, and widespread underselling by cumulated

subject imports, the domestic industry’s COGS to net sales ratio was essentially stable between 2006 and

2008, at 75.8 percent in 2006, 76.0 percent in 2007, and 76.1 percent in 2008. Although it was higher in

interim 2009 (81.2 percent) than in interim 2008 (74.7 percent), this occurred as prices declined in

response to the severe economic recession and the 34.5 percent decline in the quantity of apparent U.S.

consumption.193 Underselling by cumulated subject imports was no more prevalent in interim 2009 than

it was in the full years of the period examined.194 Thus, we do not find that cumulated subject imports

prevented price increases that otherwise would have occurred to any significant degree.

For all of these reasons, despite underselling of the domestic like product by subject imports

during the period examined, we do not find that domestic prices were depressed to a significant degree, or

that there has been significant price suppression by reason of the subject imports.
 195 Commerce initiated its antidumping duty investigations based on estimated dumping margins

ranging from 66.87 percent to 205.97 percent for subject imports from China and based on estimated

dumping margins ranging from 51.39 percent to 114.14 percent for subject imports from Taiwan. See,

e.g., CR at I-5; PR at I-4. Commerce initiated its countervailing duty investigation on subject imports

from China and indicated its intention to investigate four preferential loan and interest-rate programs, four

programs of government provision of goods or services for less than adequate remuneration, three income

and other direct tax programs, two indirect tax and tariff exemption programs, six preferential income tax

subsidies for foreign-invested enterprises, and seven direct grant programs. See, e.g., CR at I-4 to I-5; PR

at I-3 to I-4.

 196 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the

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

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

demonstrate that an industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or

subsidized imports.”)

 197 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Invs.

Nos. 701-TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3155 at 25 n.148 (Feb. 1999).

 198 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-2.

 199 Exports did not account for an appreciable share of the domestic industry’s total shipments at any

time during the period examined. U.S. export shipments of CSSF declined from 5.6 million pounds in

2006 to 4.8 million pounds in 2007 and then increased to 7.5 million pounds in 2008; exports in interim

2009 (2.3 million pounds) were lower than in interim 2008 (3.8 million pounds). See, e.g., CR/PR at

Table III-3.

 200 The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments of CSSF decreased from 155.3 million pounds in 2006 to

(continued...)

29

E. Impact of the Cumulated Subject Imports from China and Taiwan195

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

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

bearing on the state of the industry.”196 These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity

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

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

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

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”197

We have examined the performance indicia for the domestic industry producing CSSF and do not

find that there is a reasonable indication that subject imports have had an adverse impact on the domestic

industry during the period examined. Overall, the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations

reflects favorable or even improving performance indicators for the domestic industry. The domestic

industry maintained substantial and increasing operating profits from 2006 to 2008, despite slightly

declining demand conditions, significant subject import market share, and significant underselling by

subject imports from China and Taiwan. In interim 2009, when the domestic industry faced a severe and

sharp decline in apparent U.S. consumption, it continued to post a positive operating income. We find no

significant correlation between subject imports and any declines in the industry’s profitability.

The domestic industry’s production of CSSF decreased from 162.3 million pounds in 2006 to

157.1 million pounds in 2007, but then increased to 170.3 million pounds in 2008; its production in

interim 2009 (45.9 million pounds) was lower than in interim 2008 (90.8 million pounds).198 Its total U.S.

shipments of CSSF followed similar trends,199 declining somewhat at the end of the period examined

consistent with declines in apparent U.S. consumption.200 The domestic industry’s share of the U.S.
 200 (...continued)

150.1 million pounds in 2007 and then increased to 155.6 million pounds in 2008; its U.S. shipments in

interim 2009 (52.3 million pounds) were lower than in interim 2008 (84.2 million pounds). The 37.8

percent decline in shipments between the interim periods was similar to the 34.5 percent decline in

apparent U.S. consumption. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-3.

 201 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 202 The domestic industry’s end-of-period inventories of CSSF increased from *** pounds in 2006 to

*** pounds in 2007 and *** pounds in 2008 and were *** pounds in interim 2008 and *** pounds in

interim 2009. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-4.

 203 The domestic industry’s capacity utilization declined from 51.3 percent in 2006 to 49.4 percent in

2007 and then increased to 50.8 percent in 2008; capacity utilization was 55.6 percent in interim 2008 and

26.2 percent in interim 2009. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-2.

 204 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-2.

 205 See, e.g., CR at III-3; PR at III-2.

 206 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 207 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 208 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 209 See, e.g., CR at VI-1; PR at VI-1.

 210 See, e.g., CR at VI-1; PR at VI-1.

 211 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VI-1.

30

market, by quantity, rose slightly from 2006 to 2008; it was 23.5 percent in 2006, 23.4 percent in 2007,

and 24.2 percent in 2008. The industry’s market share was only 1.2 percentage points lower in interim

2009 (23.3 percent) than in interim 2008 (24.5 percent).201 Its end-of-period inventories were relatively

stable between 2006 and 2008 relative to both U.S. production and shipments.202

Although the domestic industry reported relatively low capacity utilization throughout the period

examined,203 it increased its average production capacity from 316.2 million pounds in 2006 to 317.8

million pounds in 2007 and 335.4 million pounds in 2008; average production capacity in interim 2009

(175.5 million pounds) was higher than in interim 2008 (163.4 million pounds).204 This increase is

largely attributable to production equipment additions made ***.205

The domestic industry’s net sales, by quantity, declined from 163.2 million pounds in 2006 to

157.2 million pounds in 2007 and then increased to 166.0 million pounds in 2008; its net sales, by

quantity, were 89.2 million pounds in interim 2008 and 55.6 million pounds in interim 2009.206 By value,

the domestic industry’s net sales declined from $158.2 million in 2006 to $156.7 million in 2007 and then

increased to $192.5 million in 2008; its net sales, by value, were $93.7 million in interim 2008 and $65.2

million in interim 2009.207 As discussed previously, the domestic industry’s COGS as a share of net sales

was essentially stable between 2006 and 2008.208 Steadily improving unit sales values between 2006 and

2008 offset (in 2007) and then augmented (in 2008) fluctuations in sales quantities, resulting in a 22

percent increase in the absolute value of sales.209

Operating income more than followed suit, as the domestic industry was able to increase its unit

sales values by several cents per pound more than the $0.14 per-pound increase in unit operating costs

(which was largely attributable to raw materials).210 The domestic industry’s $12.6 million operating

income in 2006 improved to $17.1 million in 2007 and $21.7 million in 2008.211 The industry’s operating

income margin improved from 8.0 percent in 2006 to 10.9 percent in 2007 and 11.3 percent in 2008, and
 212 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 213 See, e.g., CR at VI-1; PR at VI-1; CR/PR at Table VI-2. The domestic industry continued to make

capital expenditures throughout the period examined and incurred research and development expenses

(“R&D”) throughout. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VI-4 (showing capital expenditures increased from $2.7

million in 2006 to $3.2 million in 2007 and $6.4 million in 2008 and were *** in interim 2008

and *** in interim 2009, whereas R&D declined from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2007 and $*** in

2008 and was $*** in interim 2008 and $*** in interim 2009). The domestic industry’s return on

investment increased from 18.9 percent in 2006 to 23.9 percent in 2007 and 26.1 percent in 2008. See,

e.g., CR/PR at Table VI-5.

 214 See, e.g., CR at VI-7; PR at VI-1. In interim 2009, seven firms reported decreases in the absolute

quantity and value of sales, the absolute value of operating profits, and their operating margins. Five

firms reported operating losses in interim 2009. See, e.g., CR at VI-7; PR at VI-1; CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 215 The ratio was 12.2 percent in interim 2008. The absolute level of operating income was $11.4

million in interim 2008 and $3.8 million in interim 2009. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VI-1.

31

was 12.2 percent in interim 2008 and 5.8 percent in interim 2009.212 The improvement in financial results

between 2006 and 2008 was widespread, as eight of the nine domestic producers reported increases in the

absolute value of operating profits and the unit value of sales, and seven reported increases in the absolute

value of sales and in their operating margin.213 In interim 2009, when apparent U.S. consumption by

quantity fell by 34.5 percent, the domestic industry saw lower sales quantities and lower levels of all

measures of profitability; unit sales values were $0.12 per pound higher in interim 2009 than in interim

2008, but unit operating costs were $0.18 per pound higher.214 Nonetheless, the domestic industry

continued to post a 5.8 percent operating income to net sales ratio, despite the severe economic

recession.215

We find a general lack of correlation over the period examined between the large and relatively

steady volume of low-priced subject imports and either prices of the domestic like product, which

improved during the period examined, or the domestic industry’s condition. We therefore do not find that

there is a reasonable indication that cumulated subject imports from China and Taiwan are having an

adverse impact on the domestic industry. We find that the record as a whole contains clear and

convincing evidence that there is no reasonable indication of material injury by reason of cumulated

subject imports of CSSF from China and Taiwan and that no likelihood exists that contrary evidence

would arise in any final-phase investigations.

VII. NO REASONABLE INDICATION OF A THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY

REASON OF CUMULATED SUBJECT IMPORTS FROM CHINA AND TAIWAN

A. Cumulation for Purposes of These Threat Determinations

Section 771(7)(H) of the Act provides as follows:

(H) Cumulation for determining threat of material injury – To the extent practicable and subject

to subparagraph (G)(ii), for purposes of clause (i)(III) and (IV) of subparagraph (F), the

Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and price effects of imports of the subject

merchandise from all countries with respect to which – 

(i) petitions were filed under section 1671a(b) or 1673a(b) of this title on the same

day,

(ii) investigations were initiated under section 1671a(a) or 1673a(a) of this title on

the same day, or
 216 19 U.S.C. 1677(7)(H) (emphasis added).

 217 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 218 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 219 These factors are as follows:

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be presented to it by the

administering authority as to the nature of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the

countervailable subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement) and

whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production

capacity in the exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports of

the subject merchandise into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export

markets to absorb any additional exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject

merchandise indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a

significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices and are likely to increase demand

for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(continued...)

32

(iii) petitions were filed under section 1671a(b) or 1673a(b) of this title and

investigations were initiated under section 1671a(a) or 1673a(a) of this title on

the same day,

if such imports compete with each other and with domestic like products in the United States

market.216

This provision leaves to the Commission’s discretion the cumulation of imports in analyzing threat of

material injury. Based on an evaluation of the relevant criteria as well as our analysis supporting

cumulation in the context of our assessment of whether there was a reasonable indication of present

material injury, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from China and Taiwan for

purposes of assessing whether there is a reasonable indication of a threat of material injury.

B. No Reasonable Indication of a Threat of Material Injury

Section 771(7)(F) of the Tariff Act directs the Commission to determine whether the U.S.

industry is threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing whether “further

dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would

occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted.”217 The Commission may not make

such a determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition,” and considers the threat factors “as

a whole” in making its determination whether dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether

material injury by reason of subject imports would occur unless an order is issued.218 In making our

determination, we consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to these investigations.219
 219 (...continued)

(VI) 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.

* * *

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability that there is likely to be

material injury by reason of imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise (whether

or not it is actually being imported at the time).

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i). To organize our analysis, we discuss the applicable statutory threat factors

using the same volume/price/impact framework that applies to our material injury analysis. Statutory

threat factors (I), (II), (III), (V), and (VI) are discussed in the analysis of subject import volume. 

Statutory threat factor (IV) is discussed in the price effects analysis, and statutory threat factor (IX) is

discussed in the impact analysis. Statutory threat factor (VII) is inapplicable, as no imports of agricultural

products are involved in these investigations. No argument was made that the domestic industry is

currently engaging or will imminently engage in any efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the domestic like product, which would implicate statutory threat factor (VIII).

 220 Combined capacity utilization increased from 83.6 percent in 2006 to 85.8 percent in 2007 and

decreased to 81.2 percent in 2008 and was 86.8 percent in interim 2008 and 55.2 percent in interim 2008. 

See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-3 (also showing exports accounted for 74.7 percent of subject producers’

shipments in 2006, 73.8 percent in 2007, 77.0 percent in 2008, 74.3 percent in interim 2008, and 67.1

percent in interim 2009).

 221 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-3 (projecting 60.4 percent in 2009 and 63.6 percent in 2010).

 222 We also note that subject producers collectively project a decreased volume of exports to the

United States. While we place limited weight on these projections, they are credible in light of subject

import trends during the period examined. For example, the subject producers intend to direct a relatively

similar portion of their total shipments to the U.S. market in 2009 and 2010 as in earlier periods. See,

e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-3. The Taiwan Industrial Fasteners Institute provided data on exports from

Taiwan showing that exports of all fasteners to the United States have declined since 2006 and U.S.

exports of CSSF, which accounted for less than *** percent of Taiwan’s total exports since 2006, have

also declined since 2006. See, e.g., Respondents’ Postconf. Br. at Response to Staff Questions at 1, Exh.

6.

 223 While we recognize that data coverage of the subject producers in China and Taiwan is not

complete, we find no reasonable indication that additional data would lead to a different conclusion. The

(continued...)

33

Likely Subject Import Volume. We find that the volume of cumulated subject imports from China

and Taiwan is not likely to increase significantly in the imminent future. At the outset, we acknowledge

that producers of subject merchandise in China and Taiwan have some unused capacity and export the

majority of their shipments.220 They project operating at even lower capacity utilization levels in 2009

and 2010 than during the period examined.221 Nevertheless, despite subject producers’ excess capacity

and export orientation and despite subject imports underselling the domestic like product at large margins,

as discussed above, cumulated subject imports maintained an essentially steady presence in the U.S.

market during the period examined.222 Thus, we do not find likely substantially increased cumulated

subject imports from China and Taiwan in the imminent future, and there is no indication on the record

that the foreign industries’ behavior will change significantly in the imminent future in a fashion that

would lead to such an increase.223
 223 (...continued)

data on the record already indicate excess capacity and export orientation, and yet essentially steady

import market share, despite significant underselling. Thus, even if some additional subject producers

also showed excess capacity and export orientation, it would not affect our conclusion.

 224 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VII-3, Table VII-4.

 225 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 82-84 (Gialamas, Witucki).

 226 See, e.g., CR at VII-8 to VII-9; PR at VII-5 to VII-6.

 227 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. Nor is there any indication on this record that any of the subsidies

allegedly conferred by the Government of China on producers of subject merchandise would cause us to

reach a different conclusion.

 228 There is no indication on this record that foreign producers of subject merchandise are likely to

shift production from other products to subject CSSF, although there is some overlap in the equipment

and machinery used to produce CSSF and other products. See, e.g., CR at II-5, II-7; PR at II-4, II-5.

 229 See, e.g., CR at VI-12 to VI-14; PR at VI-7 to VI-8.

34

We have also examined several other statutory factors pertaining to likely cumulated subject

import volume. Producers of subject merchandise in both China and Taiwan and U.S. importers of

subject merchandise both reported end-of-period inventories of CSSF.224 The record, however,

demonstrates that inventories are relatively common in this industry; domestic producers themselves keep

inventories on hand to meet the needs of their customers.225 We also acknowledge that investigating

authorities in the European Union (2007-09), Canada (2004-05), and South Africa (1999 investigation

followed by a 2005 affirmative five-year review) have conducted investigations of imports of fasteners

from China and/or Taiwan and imposed antidumping duties, and authorities in Mexico initiated an

antidumping duty investigation on carbon steel nuts from China in February 2009.226 The existence of

these investigations and orders, however, has not resulted in a change in the otherwise steady pattern of

cumulated subject imports into the United States. Indeed, record data show that, by quantity, U.S.

shipments of subject imports from China declined during the period examined.227 Accordingly, these

additional factors do not affect our conclusion that significant additional quantities of subject imports are

not likely.228

Likely Price Effects. We found above that cumulated subject imports do not currently have

significant price effects, notwithstanding that subject imports undersold the domestic like product at large

margins throughout the period examined. Significant underselling did not lead to significantly increased

imports during the period examined. Nor does the record indicate that any continued underselling would

increase demand for subject imports from China and Taiwan. In light of our prior finding that cumulated

subject import volume is not likely to increase significantly, and the fact that subject import pricing did

not stimulate demand for additional subject import volumes during the period examined, we do not find

that subject imports will enter the U.S. market at prices that are likely to have significant depressing or

suppressing effect on domestic prices in the imminent future.

Likely Impact. In light of the current economic conditions, the domestic industry is unlikely to

perform as well in the near term as it did during the period examined. Nonetheless, based on our

examination of the domestic industry’s performance indicators during the period examined, we do not

find the domestic industry to be vulnerable. Moreover, contrary to its claims otherwise,229 we do not find

that the declines in the domestic industry’s performance that occurred during the period examined were

attributable to cumulated subject imports to any significant degree, as also discussed above. Nothing in

the record indicates further substantial deterioration in likely demand for CSSF. Based on these

considerations and because there is no likelihood in the imminent future of a significant increase in import

volume or significant price effects from the subject imports, we find that the subject imports will not
35

likely have a significant impact. We accordingly conclude that the record as a whole contains clear and

convincing evidence that there is no reasonable indication of a threat of material injury by reason of

cumulated imports of subject CSSF from China and Taiwan and that no likelihood exists that contrary

evidence would arise in any final-phase investigations.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that there is no reasonable indication that the domestic

CSSF industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of CSSF from

China and Taiwan that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value and imports of subject

merchandise from China that are allegedly subsidized by the Government of China.

 1

 See the section entitled “The Subject Merchandise” in Part I of this report for a complete description of the

merchandise subject to these investigations.

 2 Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation are presented in app. A.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from a petition filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by Nucor

Fastener Division, St. Joe, Indiana, on September 23, 2009, alleging that an industry in the United States

is materially injured and threatened with further material injury by reason of subsidized and less-thanfair-value (“LTFV”) imports of certain standard steel fasteners (“CSSF”)1

 from China and LTFV imports

of CSSF from Taiwan. Information relating to the background of the investigations is provided below.2

Effective date Action

September 23, 2009 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission

investigations (74 FR 49889, September 29, 2009)

October 14, 2009 Commission’s conference1

October 22, 2009 Commerce’s notices of initiation (74 FR 54537 (AD); 74 FR 54543 (CVD))

November 6, 2009 Date of the Commission’s vote

November 9, 2009 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

November 17, 2009 Commission’s views transmitted to Commerce

 1 A list of witnesses that appeared at the conference is presented in app. B.

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in

making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission–

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II)

the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States

for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only

in the context of production operations within the United States; and . . .

may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of

imports.

Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that--

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission

shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any
 3

 Petition, p. 4.

I-2

increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production

or consumption in the United States is significant.

. . .

In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the

Commission shall consider whether . . . (I) there has been significant

price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the

price of domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of

imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph

(B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to

. . . 

(I) actual and potential declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (II)

factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative

effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to

raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects

on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping

investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping.

Organization of the Report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, alleged subsidy rates and

dumping margins, and domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of

competition and other relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the

U.S. industry, including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Part IV 

presents the volume of imports of the subject merchandise. Part V presents the pricing of U.S. and

imported subject products. Part VI presents information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. 

Part VII presents the statutory requirements and information obtained for use in the Commission’s

consideration of the question of threat of material injury as well as information regarding nonsubject

countries.

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

CSSF generally are used to hold, join, couple, assemble, or maintain equilibrium of single or

multiple components.3

 According to questionnaire data collected in these investigations, the leading U.S.

producers of CSSF are Nucor Fastener (“Nucor”) and ***, while leading subject producers of CSSF

outside the United States include *** of China and *** of Taiwan. The leading U.S. importers of CSSF

from China are ***, while the leading importers of CSSF from Taiwan are ***. Leading importers of

CSSF from nonsubject countries (primarily Canada, Italy, and Japan) include ***. 
 4

 Using official import statistics would not provide accurate CSSF import data, as five of the six Harmonized

Tariff Schedule statistical reporting numbers identified in the petition as containing CSSF imports are “basket”

categories containing large amounts of nonsubject fasteners.

 5 Certain Standard Steel Fasteners From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty

Investigation, 74 FR 54543, October 22, 2009.

I-3

Apparent U.S. consumption of CSSF totaled approximately 642 million pounds ($674 million) in

2008. Currently, at least nine firms are known to produce CSSF in the United States. U.S. producers’

U.S. shipments of CSSF totaled 156 million pounds ($183 million) in 2008, and accounted for 24.2

percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 27.1 percent by value. U.S. shipments of imports

from subject sources totaled 332 million pounds ($303 million) in 2008, and accounted for 51.8 percent

of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 45.0 percent by value. U.S. shipments of imports from

nonsubject sources totaled 154 million pounds ($188 million) in 2008, and accounted for 23.9 percent of

apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 27.9 percent by value.

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in the investigations is presented in appendix C, table C-1. Except

as noted, U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of nine firms that accounted for almost

all U.S. production of CSSF during 2008. U.S. imports are based on questionnaire response data.4

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

CSSF have been not been the subject of prior countervailing/antidumping duty investigations in

the United States. 

NATURE AND EXTENT OF ALLEGED SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV

Alleged Subsidies

On October 22, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its

countervailing duty investigation on CSSF from China.5

 Commerce identified the following government

programs in China:

A. Preferential Loans and Interest Rates

1. Policy Loans to Chinese Fasteners Producers

2. Export Loans

3. Preferential Lending to Fasteners Producers and Exporters Classified as

“Honorable Enterprises”

4. Preferential Loans as Part of the Northeast Revitalization Program

B. Government Provision of Goods or Services for Less Than Adequate Remuneration

(“LTAR”)

1. Wire Rod for LTAR

2. Hot-Rolled Steel for LTAR

3. Zinc for LTAR

4. Land-Use Rights for LTAR

C. Income and Other Direct Taxes 

1. Income Tax Credits for Domestically Owned Companies Purchasing

Domestically Produced Equipment
 6 Certain Standard Steel Fasteners From the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping

Duty Investigations, 74 FR 54537, October 22, 2009.

 7

 Ibid.

 8

 The scope of the investigations in the petition was broader than the scope defined by the Department of

Commerce. While the original scope did not place an upper bound on size, the final scope limited subject fasteners

to those with a shank or thread of 32 mm or smaller in diameter. U.S. producer *** is known to produce fasteners in

sizes larger than 32 mm but in volumes that are much lower than subject CSSF. E-mail from *** October 29, 2009. 

The effect of these data on the overall questionnaire data set is thus believed to be minimal. Also, the effect on

(continued...)

I-4

2. Preferential Income Tax Policy for Enterprises in the Northeast Region

3. Forgiveness of Tax Arrears for Enterprises in the Old Industrial Bases of

Northeast China

D. Indirect Tax and Tariff Exemption Programs

1. Export Incentive Payments Characterized as “VAT Rebates”

2. Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions for Foreign Invested Enterprises (“FIEs”)

and Certain Domestic Enterprises Using Imported Equipment in Encouraged

Industries 

E. Preferential Income Tax Subsidies for FIEs

1. “Two Free, Three Half” Tax Exemptions for FIEs

2. Income Tax Exemption Program for Export-Oriented FIEs

3. Local Income Tax Exemption and Reduction Programs for “Productive” FIEs

4. Preferential Tax Programs for FIEs Recognized as High or New Technology

Enterprises

5. Income Tax Subsidies for FIEs Based on Geographic Location

6. VAT Refunds for FIEs Purchasing Domestically Produced Equipment

F. Direct Grants

1. “Five Points, One Line” Program

2. Export Interest Subsidies

3. The State Key Technology Renovation Project Fund

4. Export Assistance Grants in Zhejiang Province

5. Subsidies for Development of Famous Export Brands and China World Top

Brands

6. Sub-Central Government Programs to Promote Famous Export Brands and China

World Top Brands

7. Programs to Rebate Antidumping Legal Fees in Zhejiang and Shenzhen Province 

Alleged Sales at LTFV

On October 22, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its

antidumping duty investigations on CSSF from China and Taiwan.6

 Commerce initiated antidumping

duty investigations based on estimated dumping margins of 66.87-205.97 percent for CSSF from China

and 51.39-114.14 percent for CSSF from Taiwan.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations as follows:7 8
 8

 (...continued)

import statistics of the scope changing to exclude fasteners greater than 32 mm is believed to be small as imports of

these sizes were not high in volume. Conference transcript, p. 162. (Porteous).

 9

 Standard nuts, standard bolts, and standard cap screws meet the requirements of one or more nationally

recognized consensus industry standard specifications (including but not limited to those referenced below). Subject

merchandise is typically certified to the specifications published by one or more consensus standards organizations

such as the following: the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”), the Society of Automotive

Engineers (“SAE”), the International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”), and the Industrial Fasteners Institute. 

Common specifications to which subject merchandise is certified include, but are not limited to: ASTM A194,

ASTM A307, ASTM A325, ASTM A325M, ASTM A354, ASTM A449, ASTM A490, ASTM A563, ASTM

F568M, ASTM F1852, ASTM F2280, SAE J429, SAE J1199, ISO 898-1, ISO 898-2, ISO 4759-1, ISO 8992, and

comparable foreign and domestic specifications (including, but not limited to, metric versions of specifications such

as those listed above). 

 10 Excluded from the scope of the investigations are bolts, cap screws, and nuts produced for an original

equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) part number specific to any "automobile" as defined in 49 U.S.C. Section

32901(a)(3), any "work truck" as defined in 49 U.S.C. Section 32901(a) (19), or any "medium-duty passenger

vehicle" as defined in 40 C.F.R. Section 86.1803-01 (2009).

Also excluded from the scope of the investigations are bolts, cap screws, and nuts produced for an OEM part

number specific to any "aircraft" as defined in 14 C.F.R. Section 1.1 (2009). 

Also excluded from the scope of the investigations are track bolts. Track bolts have a circular, rounded head

and a shank which, immediately beneath the head, possesses an oval or elliptical shape, such that the non-round

shape would restrict rotational movement of the bolt. Also excluded from the scope of the investigations are

carriage bolts. Carriage bolts have a circular, rounded head and a shank which, immediately beneath the head,

possesses a non-round shape (e.g., square, finned), such that the non-round shape would restrict rotational movement

of the bolt. Also excluded from the scope of the investigations are socket screws. Socket screws have a head with a

recessed cavity into which a shaped bit may be inserted to turn and drive the fastener. 

I-5

The merchandise covered by the investigations consists of certain standard nuts, standard

bolts, and standard cap screws, of steel other than stainless steel. Standard nuts, standard

bolts, and standard cap screws covered by the investigations may have a variety of

finishes, including but not limited to coating in paint, phosphates, and zinc. Standard

bolts and standard cap screws covered by the investigations have a shank or thread with

an actual and/or nominal diameter between 6 millimeters and 32 millimeters (inclusive). 

Standard bolts and standard cap screws covered by the investigations also possess a

circular or hexagonal head, the surface of which may be flat or rounded (also known as

“dome-shaped” or “button-headed”). Standard bolts covered by the investigations may

have an attached washer face or the equivalent (e.g., a flanged head or chamfered corners

on the underside of a fastener with a hexagonal-shaped head). Standard cap screws

covered by the investigations have a permanently-attached washer face. Standard nuts

are covered by the investigations if they are suitable for attachment to bolts and/or cap

screws covered by the investigations. 

Standard bolts, standard cap screws, and standard nuts are covered by the investigations

whether imported alone, attached to other subject and/or non-subject merchandise (e.g.,

tension control assemblies), or unattached and in combination with other subject

merchandise and/or non-subject merchandise. 

Unless explicitly excluded from the scope of the investigations, bolts, cap screws, and

nuts meeting the description of subject merchandise are covered by the investigations.9 10
 11 TC assemblies are provided for in ASTM F1852 and ASTM F2280, which are among the specifications

referenced in the scope as included product.

I-6

Tariff Treatment

CSSF are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) under

subheadings 7318.15.20, 7318.15.80, and 7318.16.00 and reported for statistical purposes under statistical

reporting numbers 7318.15.2030, 7318.15.2055, 7318.15.2065, 7318.15.8065, 7318.15.8085, and

7318.16.0085. Table I-1 presents current ad valorem tariff rates for CSSF.

Table I-1

CSSF: Tariff rates, 2009

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special

Column

22

Rates (percent ad valorem)

7318

7318.15

7318.15.20

7318.15.80

7318.16.00

Screws, bolts, nuts, coach screws, screw hooks, rivets,

cotters, cotter pins, washers (including spring washers) and

similar articles, of iron or steel:

 Threaded articles:

 Other screws and bolts, whether or not with their

nuts or washers:

Bolts and bolts and their nuts or washers entered 

or exported in the same shipment .........................

 

Having shanks or threads with a diameter

of 6 mm or more ...................................................

Nuts ......................................................................

Free

8.5

Free

(

3

)

(

4

)

(

3

)

3.5

45.0

0.5

 1 Normal trade relations, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate, applicable to both China and Taiwan. 

 2

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations duty status.

 3

 Special rates not applicable when General rate is free.

 4

 General note 3(c)(i) defines the special duty program symbols enumerated for this provision. 

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2009, revision 1).

THE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

The subject products (“CSSF”) covered by these investigations are threaded steel fasteners used

to join components in construction, machinery, equipment, and other engineering applications. CSSF

comprise bolts, cap screws, and nuts with nominal diameters of 6 mm (1⁄4 inch) through 32 mm (11⁄4 inch). 

Subject bolts and cap screws have hexagonal (hex) shaped or round (also called “dome”) shaped heads. 

Subject nuts are hex-shaped. Bolts and cap screws are similar, often indistinguishable, products. Bolts

are intended to be used with nuts and tightened by torquing on the nut, whereas cap screws are intended

to be inserted into a threaded hole and tightened from the head (the cap). However, cap screws may be

used with nuts. Bolts are U.S.-duty-free whereas cap screws are subject to a column-1 duty of 8.5 percent

ad valorem.

CSSF includes bolts assembled with their nuts; in particular, it includes twist-off type tensioncontrol bolt-nut-washer assemblies (TC assemblies).11 This is a special fastener used in structural
 12 Conference transcript, p. 99 (Gialamas).

 13 Conference transcript, p. 99 (Gialamas).

 14 For specific mechanical and chemical properties of bolts and cap screws, see SAE J429, Tables 1and 2,

excerpted in Industrial Fasteners Institute, Inch Fastener Standards, 7th Edition, pp. B-80-B-81.

 15 For specific mechanical and chemical properties of nuts, see ASTM A 563, Tables 1, 2, and 3, excerpted in

Industrial Fasteners Institute, Inch Fastener Standards, 7th Edition, pp. B-169-B-171.

I-7

applications to simplify and control the tightening of nuts to the proper tension. The bolt in a TC

assembly has a specially-shaped splined extension on its end. In use, the spline and the nut are separately

engaged by a special tightening tool. When the nut is tightened to the correct torque, the spline end

breaks off, leaving the bolt and the nut properly assembled. The bolts in TC assemblies may have either a

hex or a round (dome) head, but the round head is, by far, the more common.

CSSF are processed to meet strength and hardness standards established by the American Society

for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). There are several

levels of strength and hardness for bolts and cap screws, including the following:

• SAE grade 2, which is similar to ASTM A307. This is a low- or medium-carbon steel,

non-heat-treated grade.

• SAE grade 5, similar to ASTM A325. This is a low- or medium-carbon steel, heattreated grade.

• SAE grade 8, similar to ASTM A490. This is a medium-carbon alloy steel, heat-treated

grade.

• One additional, even higher grade, ASTM F568M, Class 12.9, is used only for metric

fasteners. This is an alloy steel, heat-treated grade.

There are other grades of bolts and cap screws. For example, SAE grades 5.2 and 8.2 have

required physical properties similar to those of grades 5 and 8, but are produced from low-carbon boron

steel, rather than from medium-carbon or alloy steel.12 In addition, there is a grade 1, which is

uncommon.13 14 Subject nuts have a range of grades and strength levels similar to those of bolts and cap

screws.15

In addition to grades, CSSF come in two different types. Except for Grade 2, fasteners may be

either of Type 1, regular steel, or of Type 3, weathering steel. Weathering steel contains a significant

amount of copper and weathers by forming a protective oxide surface that resists further corrosion. 

Grade 2 fasteners and Type 1 fasteners of Grade 5 may be coated with zinc for corrosion resistance. 

Three different types of zinc coatings are used: mechanical galvanizing, hot-dip galvanizing, and

electroplating. 

Manufacturing Processes

CSSF are made from hot-rolled carbon or alloy steel rod or bar that is produced to meet the

special quality requirements needed to allow production of cold-headed fasteners at very high speeds

without the formation of bursts, cracks, or open seams. Rod or bar for cold headed fasteners is received

in irregularly wound coils. The steel coils are annealed (heated and slowly cooled) to soften the steel

prior to forming; however, annealing may not be required for grade 2 fasteners. Oxide scale is removed

by dipping the coils in acid followed by rinsing in water and dipping in a coating solution to provide the

necessary lubrication for forming operations. The forming operations consist of cold drawing, cold
 16 Bolts and cap screws in the size range of 6 mm (1⁄4 inch) through 32 mm (11⁄4 inch) are generally produced by

cold forming, whereas larger bolts and cap screws are hot-formed. It is possible that bolts or cap screws as small as

11⁄4 inch or smaller may be produced by hot forming.

 17 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 3.

 18 Barnes, Richardson, and Colburn (“Respondents”) postconference brief, p. 3.

I-8

forming of the fastener, and cold rolling of the threads. Modern bolt-making lines perform all of these

operations automatically, with coiled steel product being fed into the machines and fully-formed, threaded

bolts or cap screws being discharged. Cold formed nuts are produced by similar processing, except that

the internal threads must be made by tapping (cutting) in a separate operation.

Larger diameter nuts, which require a larger diameter starting material than bolts or cap screws of

the same nominal size, are produced by hot, rather than cold forming.16 Hot-formed CSSF are produced

from straight-length bars, rather than from coiled bars or rods. Annealing, pickling, and coating of the

bars prior to the forming process are not required. The bars are fed into a hot forming line that

incorporates a continuous electric-induction heating section, followed by forming equipment similar to

that used for cold-forming, except designed for processing at forging temperature. Fully formed fasteners

(except for threading in the case of nuts) are discharged from the line. 

After forming, CSSF of Grade 5 and higher are heat-treated by heating to a high temperature,

quenching in oil, and reheating to a lower temperature, followed by slow cooling. The process is

common for medium and high-carbon steel and alloy steels and is called “quench and temper” heat

treatment. After heat treatment, the fasteners are coated with a special oil to inhibit corrosion. The entire

process is commonly done on a continuous heat-treating line, with the fasteners being placed into a

hopper at the entry end of the line and heat-treated, oiled fasteners being discharged from the line.

CSSF may be coated to resist corrosion. The most common coatings are of zinc and there are

three different processes, each resulting in a different appearance and level of corrosion resistance. Hotdip galvanizing is done by dipping the fasteners in cleaning solutions, followed by a fluxing solution (to

prepare the surface for coating), and dipping into molten zinc. The fasteners are then spun, while still hot,

in a centrifuge to remove excess zinc. Hot-dip galvanized nuts are rethreaded after galvanizing to provide

the necessary clearance in the threads for the zinc coatings. A second coating method is mechanical

galvanizing, which is accomplished by dipping the fasteners in a cleaning solution, then tumbling them in

a rotating drum containing glass beads and zinc powder. The glass beads cause the zinc powder to adhere

to the steel surface, forming a tight, bright coating. The third process used is electroplating, whereby zinc

is plated electrolytically from a chemical solution. Zinc coating operations are commonly performed by

independent outside processors rather than by the fastener manufacturer.

TC assemblies comprising a bolt, a washer, and a nut are assembled either by automatic

machinery or by hand assembly.

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic product(s) that are “like” the

subject imported product is based on a number of factors including: (1) physical characteristics and uses;

(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and

producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and (6) price. 

The petitioner contends that the Commission should find a single domestic like product,

coextensive with the scope.17 Respondents argue that the scope corresponds to three domestic like

products consisting of (1) low carbon fasteners, (2) medium/high carbon and alloy fasteners, and 

(3) fasteners made to an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) part number regardless of the type of

OEM.18 Fasteners produced for an OEM part number specific to any "automobile," "work truck,"

"medium-duty passenger vehicle," or "aircraft" are excluded from the scope of these investigations. 
 19 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 5.

 20 Respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 3-4.

 21 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 8.

 22 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 5.

 23 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 5.

 24 Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 10-11.

 25 Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 15-16.

 26 Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 25-26.

 27 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 10.

I-9

Examples of uses that would be included in respondents’ proposed OEM fasteners domestic like product

include farm equipment, non-automobile engines, chemical and fuel processing equipment, and electrical

power distribution.19 It appears that respondents would include both low-carbon- and medium/highcarbon- and alloy-steel fasteners in their proposed like product (“OEM CSSF”), and define the domestic

like products of “low carbon fasteners” and “medium/high carbon and alloy fasteners” as other than those

made to an OEM part number (together, “non-OEM CSSF”). Respondents note that petitioners argue that

automotive and aerospace OEM fasteners are different than other fasteners and insist that the same

differences apply to OEM CSSF.20

OEM CSSF vs. non-OEM CSSF 

The following discussion provides information regarding the differences between OEM CSSF

and non-OEM CSSF with respect to each of the domestic like product factors.

Physical Characteristics and Uses

Both OEM CSSF and non-OEM CSSF have the physical characteristics defined in the scope;

namely being a bolt, a cap screw, or a nut; having a hex or a round head; having metallurgical properties

of strength, hardness, and ductility as prescribed in consensus standards; and having a nominal diameter

between 6 and 32 millimeters. OEM CSSF and non-OEM CSSF are used for similar purposes: to fasten

assembled parts with preformed threads or by use of a nut.21 Both can be used for joining components or

otherwise in the manufacture of any product. The distinction, according to respondents, is that OEM

CSSF have a manufacturer’s part number and requirements that are additional to or modified from those

in consensus standards.22 Examples of additional requirements cited by respondents include additional

plating to make the fasteners more corrosion resistant, and tolerances that are more demanding to ensure

high friction specific to their application.23 According to the petitioner, however, OEMs often assign part

numbers to standard fasteners for their own tracking and inventory management purposes that have

nothing to do with the physical characteristics of the part.24 ***.25

Manufacturing Facilities and Production Employees

 In the United States, ***. Nucor ***.26 Respondents state that OEM CSSF, like excluded

automotive and aerospace fasteners, frequently have a near-zero-defect quality standard and that these

extremely high quality requirements necessitate additional production processes and related equipment,

including finishing equipment in the form of high-quality laser sorting devices.27 It is not known whether

OEM CSSF may also be produced in plants that specialize in automotive or aerospace fasteners and do

not produce non-OEM CSSF. 
 28 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 6.

 29 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 7.

 30 Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 14-16.

 31 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 21.

 32 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 21.

 33 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 8.

 34 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 18.

 35 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 7.

 36 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 28.

 37 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 28.

I-10

Interchangeability

According to respondents, OEM CSSF have different and unique physical characteristics that

make them suitable for specific applications and therefore are not interchangeable with non-OEM CSSF

any more than are excluded automotive or aerospace fasteners.28 Respondents state that the “very

difficult and time-consuming qualification process” for an OEM to change suppliers prevents its use of a

substitute, non-OEM CSSF.29

Petitioner states that the nationally-recognized consensus standards create a degree of uniformity,

and as a result, parts produced to the same standards and specifications are highly interchangeable. 

Further, the use of an OEM part number in connection with a standard part does not limit

interchangeability. Petitioner ***.30

Customer and Producer Perceptions

Petitioner asserts that it does not perceive a distinction between OEM CSSF and non-OEM CSSF

and states that it and other producers make all types of CSSF.31 Moreover, according to Petitioner, OEM

consumers buy CSSF both with and without OEM part numbers and do not perceive them as different

products.32

Respondents argue that because OEM CSSF may involve proprietary or patented specifications,

are made to OEM part numbers, or have significantly higher quality requirements, they are perceived by

purchasers in the same manner as are automotive fasteners, that is, clearly not for general distribution.33

Channels of Distribution

Both domestically produced OEM-CSSF and non-OEM CSSF are sold by producers primarily

through master distributors who resell to distributors, who in turn resell to end users. Petitioner ***.34

Respondents argue that OEM CSSF have different channels of distribution because they are not

sold for general distribution.35

Price

Petitioner asserts that there is a continuum of prices for all CSSF with no “bright lines.”36 With

respect to OEM CSSF, petitioner asserts that because ***.37
 38 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 11.

 39 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 11, and conference transcript, p. 128 (Hansen).

 40 Please see brief filed by Squire Sanders on behalf of respondent Fasteners Association of China for additional

information on the domestic like product discussion regarding low carbon and medium/high carbon steel fasteners.

 41 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 8.

 42 ASTM Standards A307-07b, A325-07a, and A490-08a.

 43 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 13, and conference transcript, p. 53 (Miller).

 44 Respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 12-13.

I-11

Respondents claim that like nonsubject automotive and aerospace fasteners, OEM CSSF are sold

at a premium over standard steel fasteners.38 The CEO of Bossard North America, a global fastener

distribution company, testified that because of the additional requirements imposed by OEMs, all OEM

parts are priced at higher levels than off-the-shelf standard parts.39

Low-carbon-steel CSSF vs. Medium/high-carbon- and alloy-steel CSSF40

The following discussion provides information regarding the differences between

low-carbon-steel CSSF (“LC CSSF”) and medium/high-carbon- and alloy-steel CSSF (“MC&A CSSF”)

with respect to each of the domestic like product factors.

Physical Characteristics and Uses

Both LC CSSF and MC&A CSSF have the physical characteristics defined in the scope, namely

being a bolt, a cap screw, or a nut; having a hex or a round head; having metallurgical properties of

strength, hardness, and ductility as prescribed in consensus standards; and having a nominal diameter

between 6 and 32 millimeters. Both LC CSSF and MC&A CSSF are used for similar purposes: to fasten

assembled parts with preformed threads or by use of a nut.41 Both can be used for joining components or

otherwise in the manufacture of any product. LC CSSF comprise the lowest strength level of these

fasteners, that of SAE grade 2 or ASTM A307. The guaranteed minimum tensile strength of an ASTM

A307 fastener is 60,000 pounds per square inch (psi). By comparison, the guaranteed minimum tensile

strength of an SAE grade 5 or ASTM A325 fastener is 105,000 or 120,000 psi, depending upon the

nominal size, and that of an SAE grade 8 or ASTM A490 fastener is 150,000 psi.42

The petitioner views LC CSSF as part of a spectrum of CSSF that includes grade 2, grade 5 and

grade 8 fasteners. The vice president and general manager of Nucor Fastener testified, “It really comes

down to for the end user the mechanical, physical properties that they need in that fastener as to which

one they’re going to buy.”43

Respondents state that because LC CSSF do not have the same strength as MC&A CSSF, they

cannot be used in the same applications, such as construction. They suggest do-it-yourself projects such

as building a work bench or fixing a bookcase as applications for LC CSSF.44

Manufacturing Facilities and Production Employees

***. One difference in the processing of LC CSSF is that it may not be processed on all of the

equipment used for MC&A CSSF. For example, LC CSSF may not be required to be annealed prior to
 45 Conference transcript, pp. 50-51 (Gialamas).

 46 Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 27-28.

 47 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 15.

 48 Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 16-17.

 49 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 13.

 50 Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 23-24.

 51 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 14.

 52 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 14.

 53 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 19, and conference transcript, p. 52 (Miller).

I-12

cold forming and is not heat-treated after forming. However, the equipment used by Nucor for the

production of LC CSSF is also used for the production of MC&A CSSF.45 Nucor ***.46

Respondents argue that the domestic industry has not produced LC CSSF in decades, and that,

even in Asia, manufacturers that produce MC&A CSSF do not produce LC CSSF because of the

significant investment in additional equipment required to produce MC&A CSSF.47

Interchangeability

Because they are produced to the same dimensional and coating standards, there could be a

limited amount of interchangeability between LC CSSF and MC&A CSSF, but only if the part possesses

the necessary properties for the intended application.48 A user would have to verify that the properties of

the interchanged fastener were suitable for his application.

Respondents assert that substituting a MC&S CSSF for a LC CSSF would not be economically

rational because the price of a MC&S CSSF would always be higher than that of the LC CSSF for which

it was substituted. The buyer would be paying a higher price for a level of strength that he or she would

not want or need.49

Customer and Producer Perceptions

Petitioner, ***, claims to perceive both as part of a single spectrum of CSSF having different

properties, but being otherwise the same product. Petitioner also believes that customers perceive all

CSSF as a single product.50

Respondents claim that customers and producers perceive the two proposed domestic like

products differently because LC CSSF are used in applications where strength is not needed or not

desired.51

Channels of Distribution

According to respondents, there are significant differences in the channels of distribution between

those for LC CSSF and MC&A CSSF. LC CSSF are generally sold to consumers at the retail level

whereas MC&A CSSF are generally sold to the construction industry or to manufacturers.52

Petitioner states that the same distributors and master distributors buy both LC CSSF and MC&A

CSSF. The vice president and general manager of Nucor testified, “We sell through distribution and it’s

the same distribution network that buys grade 2s, grade 5s, and grade 8s.”53
 54 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 29.

 55 Respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 16-17.

I-13

Price

Petitioner states that LC CSSF is priced along a continuum, and that whereas the input steel for

LC CSSF is generally less expensive than that for MC&A CSSF, “pricing is not so distinctive as to render

the products clearly distinct.”54

Respondents report that the pricing for LC CSSF is significantly lower than that for MC&A

CSSF.55

 1

 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections II-9 and II-5-6, respectively.

 2

 CSSF are used principally in manufacturing and industrial construction (petition, volume I, p. 22).

 3

 Short-run effects discussed in the supply and demand sections refer to changes that could occur within 12

months, unless otherwise indicated.

 4

 Data on U.S. CSSF production, production capacity, capacity utilization, inventories, and exports are shown in

detail in Part III.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION AND MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

The reporting U.S. producers of CSSF and U.S. importers of CSSF from China, Taiwan, and 

nonsubject countries shipped their products primarily to U.S. distributors during January 2006-June 2009,

with the remainder of the domestic and imported CSSF shipped to end users. The shares of the reported

quantity of U.S. commercial shipments of the domestic and imported CSSF shipped to distributors and to

end users during January 2006-June 2009 are shown in the following tabulation.1

Type of

customer

Shares of U.S. commercial shipments

U.S.-

produced 

Imported

from China

Imported

from

Taiwan

Imported from

nonsubject

countries

Distributors 93.3 95.2 90.9 69.1

End users 6.7 4.8 9.1 30.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 The wide applicability of the various characteristics of CSSF enables it to be used in a broad

variety of fastener applications.2

 As a result, a large number of different CSSF products are produced to

satisfy this varied demand and, accordingly, demand for CSSF is derived from demand for the

downstream products that use CSSF as an input.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS3

U.S. Supply4

U.S. Production

Based on available information, U.S. producers had the ability to respond to changes in U.S.

demand with relatively large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced CSSF to the U.S.
 5

 Petitioner indicated that *** produce CSSF using low and medium carbon steel (petitioner’s postconference

brief, pp. 23-24 and exh. 7). On the other hand, Respondents asserted that domestic producers do not produce and

sell low carbon CSSF in commercially significant quantities (respondents’ (represented by Barnes/Richardson)

postconference brief, p. 19).

 6

 U.S. producers reported that the cyclical or seasonal factors affecting U.S. demand for CSSF (discussed later in

Part II) led to associated fluctuations in the U.S. supply of CSSF (U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section V15).

 7

 This supply flexibility may be constrained to the extent that there is any limited capability of specific U.S.

producers to produce the required types, sizes, and diameters of CSSF demanded.

 8

 As indicated later in Part V, about 21.0 percent of U.S. producer’s 2008 U.S. commercial shipments were based

on long-term contracts that ranged from 2-3 years. 

II-2

market during January 2006-June 2009.5

 Factors contributing to this degree of responsiveness of supply

are discussed below.6

Industry capacity

Based on U.S. producers’ reported capacity and production, the domestic industry’s capacity

utilization for CSSF was relatively stable during 2006-08, averaging 50.5 percent during this period,

before decreasing to 26.2 percent during January-June 2009 from 55.6 percent during January-June 2008. 

These levels of capacity utilization indicate that U.S. producers of CSSF have a substantial amount of

available capacity with which they could increase production of CSSF in the short run in the event of a

price change.7

 As noted later in this section, U.S. producers produce other products on the same

equipment that they produce CSSF. As a result, the measures of capacity and capacity utilization for

CSSF may be subject to allocations and may change as relative prices and demand for the various types of

products change. 

Inventory levels

U.S. producers of CSSF reported combined end-of-period inventory quantities that increased 

during 2006-08 and then decreased during January-June 2009; U.S. producers’ inventories accounted for

19.3-26.2 percent of their total shipments during January 2006-June 2009. These levels of inventories

suggest that U.S. producers may have the ability to use inventories to respond to price changes in the

short run. This flexibility may be restrained in the short run to the extent that U.S. producers’ inventories

consist of products that are not required by the increased demand, or consist of products already

committed to customers in the U.S. and/or export markets.8

Alternate markets

Responding U.S. producers’ total reported exports of their U.S.-produced CSSF fluctuated

modestly during January 2006-June 2009 and averaged almost 4.0 percent of the quantity of their total

shipments of U.S.-produced CSSF during this period. The low level of exports during the period

indicates that domestic producers of CSSF may be constrained in their ability to shift shipments between

the United States and other markets in the short run in response to price changes. This flexibility may be

further restrained in the short run to the extent that U.S. producers’ sales of CSSF exported to thirdcountry markets were not used/acceptable in the U.S. market or vice-versa, or to the extent that U.S.

producers have binding supply agreements longer than 12 months with customers in the U.S. and/or

export markets.
 9

 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, sections II-3 and II-4.

 10 Respondents asserted that the majority of U.S. imports of CSSF from China is low carbon steel (respondents’

(represented by Barnes/Richardson) postconference brief, p. 19).

 11 Data submitted by Chinese producers of CSSF included capacity and production projections for full-year 2009

and for 2010. Based on these projections, capacity utilization is estimated to be at about the same level in both years

and somewhat lower than the average during January 2006-June 2009; annual capacity and production are estimated

to be less in full-year 2009 and in 2010 than during 2006-08.

II-3

Production alternatives

*** responding U.S. producers reported producing several other products on the same equipment

and with the same labor that they used to produce CSSF;9

 these other products accounted for less than ***

percent to *** percent of sales in 2008 depending on the product and company. The ability of U.S.

producers to shift production between CSSF and other products enhances their supply responsiveness in

the short run in response to relative price changes between CSSF and alternative production products.

Supply of Imported CSSF from China to the U.S. Market

Based on available information, staff believes that Chinese producers of CSSF may have the

ability to respond to changes in demand with medium to large changes in shipments of CSSF to the U.S.

market.10 Factors contributing to this degree of responsiveness of supply are discussed below.

Industry capacity

Responding Chinese producers reported total capacity utilization for CSSF that fluctuated but

decreased during January 2006-June 2009, averaging *** percent during this period, as both capacity and

production of CSSF fluctuated but decreased during January-June 2009 from the levels during JanuaryJune 2008. This level of capacity utilization indicates that Chinese producers of CSSF may have some

available capacity with which they could increase production of CSSF in the short run in the event of a

price change.11

Chinese producers reported producing several other products on the same equipment and

machinery that they used to produce CSSF, such that measures of capacity and capacity utilization for

each type of product, including CSSF, may be subject to allocations and may change as relative prices

and demand for the various types of products change.

Inventory levels

Responding Chinese producers of CSSF reported combined end-of-period inventories in China

that increased steadily during January 2006-June 2009, ranging from 13.0-23.9 percent of total shipments. 

These data indicate that Chinese producers may have an ability to use inventories as a means to increase

shipments to the U.S. market in the short run. This flexibility may be restrained in the short run to the

extent that Chinese producers’ inventories consist of products not useable/acceptable in the U.S. market,

or consist of products already committed to customers in home and/or third-country markets.

Alternate markets

Responding Chinese producers of CSSF reported that their products were shipped principally to

third-country markets, secondarily to the home market, thirdly to the U.S. market, and the remainder was
 12 During January 2006-June 2009, exports to third-country markets averaged 54.7 percent of Chinese producers’

total CSSF shipment quantities; shipments to the home market averaged 32.5 percent of the total; exports to the U.S.

market averaged 12.6 percent of the total; and internal consumption/transfers accounted for the remaining 0.2

percent.

 13 U.S. importers reported that it would be difficult to extremely difficult to shift sales of CSSF from subject

countries between the U.S. and alternative country markets (U.S. importer questionnaire responses, section IV-13). 

Eighteen of 20 responding importers cited several reasons for difficulty in switching such sales, including long-term

contracts; customers’ approval process; warehouse leases; asserted inadequate world capacity to supply CSSF; and

inadequate domestic capacity. The remaining two importers reported that they did not have contracts or sales

arrangements that would prevent shifting.

 14 Respondents asserted that the majority of U.S. imports of CSSF from Taiwan is medium to high carbon steel

(respondents’ (represented by Barnes/Richardson) postconference brief, p. 19).

 15 Data submitted by Taiwanese producers of CSSF included capacity and production projections for full-year

2009 and for 2010. Based on these projections, capacity utilization is estimated to remain below the average during

January 2006-June 2009; annual capacity and production are estimated to be less in full-year 2009 and in 2010 than

during 2006-08.

II-4

used for internal consumption/transfers during January 2006-June 2009.12 This shipment pattern was

projected to continue for full year 2009 and in 2010, with the exception that the home market would be

the principal market and third countries the secondary markets. These data indicate that Chinese CSSF

producers have large home and third-country markets from which they may be able to shift shipments of

CSSF to the United States in the short run in the event of a price change in the U.S. market. This

flexibility may be restrained in the short run to the extent that Chinese producers’ sales of CSSF in their

home market and/or exported to third-country markets were not used/acceptable in the U.S. market, or to

the extent that Chinese producers have binding supply agreements longer than 12 months with customers

in the home and/or third-country markets.13

Production alternates

A majority of responding Chinese producers reported producing several other products on the

same equipment and machinery that they used to produce CSSF. The ability of Chinese producers to shift

production between CSSF and other products enhances their supply responsiveness in the short run in

response to relative price changes between CSSF and alternative production products.

Supply of Imported CSSF from Taiwan to the U.S. Market

Based on available information, staff believes that Taiwanese producers of CSSF may have the

ability to respond to changes in demand with medium to large changes in shipments of CSSF to the U.S.

market.14 Factors contributing to this degree of responsiveness of supply are discussed below.

Industry capacity

Responding Taiwanese producers reported total capacity utilization for CSSF that fluctuated but

decreased during January 2006-June 2009, averaging 75.8 percent during this period, as both capacity and

production of CSSF decreased during this period. This level of capacity utilization indicates that

Taiwanese producers of CSSF may have available capacity with which they could increase production of

CSSF in the short run in the event of a price change.15

Taiwanese producers reported producing several other products on the same equipment and

machinery that they used to produce CSSF, such that measures of capacity and capacity utilization for
 16 During January 2006-June 2009, Taiwanese producers’ shipments to the U.S. market averaged 54.0 percent of

their total shipment quantities of CSSF; exports to third-country markets averaged 24.4 percent of the total; exports

to the home market averaged 19.9 percent of the total; and internal consumption/transfers accounted for the

remaining 1.7 percent.

 17 U.S. importers reported that it would be difficult to extremely difficult to shift sales of CSSF from subject

countries between the U.S. and alternative country markets (U.S. importer questionnaire responses, section IV-13). 

Eighteen of 20 responding importers cited several reasons for difficulty in switching such sales, including long-term

contracts; customers’ approval process; warehouse leases; asserted inadequate world capacity to supply CSSF; and

inadequate domestic capacity. The remaining two importers reported that they did not have contracts or sales

arrangements that would prevent shifting.

II-5

each type of product, including CSSF, may be subject to allocations and may change as relative prices

and demand for the various types of products change.

Inventory levels

Responding Taiwanese producers of CSSF reported combined end-of-period inventories in

Taiwan that increased steadily during January 2006-June 2009, ranging from 11.8-24.4 percent of total

shipments. These data indicate that Taiwanese producers may have an ability to use inventories as a

means to increase shipments to the U.S. market in the short run. This flexibility may be restrained in the

short run to the extent that Taiwanese producers’ inventories consist of products not useable/acceptable in

the U.S. market, or consist of products already committed to customers in home and/or third-country

markets.

Alternate markets

The responding Taiwanese producers of CSSF reported that their products were shipped

principally to the U.S. market, secondarily to third-country markets, thirdly to the home market, and the

remainder was used for internal consumption/transfers during January 2006-June 2009.16 This shipment

pattern was projected to continue in full year 2009 and 2010. These data for alternate markets indicate

that Taiwanese CSSF producers have large non-U.S. export markets from which they may be able to shift

shipments of CSSF to the United States in the short run in the event of a price change in the U.S. market. 

This flexibility may be restrained in the short run to the extent that Taiwanese producers’ sales of CSSF

exported to third-country markets were not used/acceptable in the U.S. market, or to the extent that

Taiwanese producers have binding supply agreements longer than 12 months with customers in thirdcountry markets.17

Production alternates

A majority of responding Taiwanese producers reported producing several other products on the

same equipment and machinery that they used to produce CSSF. The ability of Taiwanese producers to

shift production between CSSF and other products enhances their supply responsiveness in the short run

in response to relative price changes between CSSF and alternative production products.

Supply of Nonsubject Imports of CSSF to the U.S. Market

Based on import questionnaire data (presented in Part IV), U.S. imports of CSSF from nonsubject

countries fluctuated but decreased during 2006-08 and decreased during January-June 2009 from the

interim 2008 level and averaged almost 30.0 percent of total CSSF imports during the full period. The

largest nonsubject country suppliers to the U.S. market included Canada, Korea, and Thailand.
 18 Petition, volume I, p. 22.

 19 Blue Chip Economic Indicators, Aspen Publishers, Inc., Vol. 34, No. 10, October 10, 2009, pp. 2-3.

 20 Ibid., p. 5; and for the advance estimate of third-quarter 2009 growth in real GDP, 

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm, retrieved October 20, 2009.

II-6

U.S. Demand

Demand for CSSF, as measured by annual U.S. apparent consumption, decreased steadily during

2006-08, by almost 3.0 percent on a quantity basis during 2006-08; U.S. apparent consumption was 34.5

percent lower in January-March 2009 than in January-March 2008.

CSSF are used in a variety of applications including motor vehicles, farm vehicles and

equipment, machinery, bridges, commercial construction, etc. Thus, U.S. demand for CSSF is largely

derived from the level of demand for downstream products using CSSF. Overall U.S. demand for CSSF

reportedly tends to move with general economic activity in the U.S. economy and with activity in the

manufacturing and industrial construction sectors.18 U.S. real gross domestic product (GDP) increased by

2.7 percent in 2006, 2.1 percent in 2007, and 0.4 percent in 2008; real GDP is forecast to decrease by 2.5

percent in 2009 but to increase by 2.5 percent in 2010.19 Quarterly real GDP, at annualized rates,

decreased by 6.4 percent during January-March 2009 and 0.7 percent during April-June 2009, increased

by 3.5 percent during July-September 2009, and is forecast to increase by 2.4 percent in the fourth quarter

of 2009.20

Nominal values of total U.S. nonresidential construction and machinery shipments during January

2006-June 2009 are shown on a monthly basis in figure II-I. Nonresidential construction spending

increased almost steadily from an annual rate of $516.5 billion during January 2006 to a period high of

$728.9 billion in October 2008, then fell to $687.9 billion by January 2009, before fluctuating but

increasing somewhat to $699.9 billion by June 2009. Machinery shipments fluctuated but increased from

$26.6 billion during January 2006 to a period high of $30.1 billion in September 2008, before decreasing

to a period low of $22.8 billion during April 2009, and then increasing to $23.3 billion by June 2009.
 21 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections V-17a and IV-16a, respectively.

II-7

Figure II-1

Nominal values of total U.S. nonresidential construction spending and machinery shipments, by

months, January 2006-June 2009

Note.--Monthly values are seasonally adjusted annual rates of construction spending and machinery shipments.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing, Mining and Construction Statistics, Construction Spending, historical

and current data available at http://www.census.gov, retrieved on October 18, 2009 and October 24, 2009.

Questionnaire Responses Concerning Changes in U.S. Demand

U.S. producers and importers of CSSF were requested to indicate whether U.S. demand for CSSF

increased, decreased, fluctuated, or did not change since January 2006 and to identify the principal factors

affecting any changes in demand.21 Useable responses were mixed regarding U.S. demand and are

summarized in the following tabulation.

U.S. demand changes for CSSF since January 2006

Types of firms

Number of firms responding

Increase Decrease Fluctuate No change

U.S. producers1 26 1 1

U.S. importers2 59 9 4

Total 7 15 10 5

 1 One other U.S. producer reported that it did not know how U.S. demand changed.

 2

 One other U.S. importer reported that it did not know how U.S. demand changed.
 22 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections V-16 and IV-15, respectively.

II-8

The majority of all questionnaire responses indicate that U.S. demand for CSSF has fluctuated but

decreased since January 2006. Reported factors that led to any increases included increased output of

OEM products and domestic manufacturing. Reported factors that led to fluctuating but decreasing

demand included the following: downturn in general economic conditions/recession (cited most

frequently), U.S. OEM operations relocated entire production and associated requirements to lower-cost

countries, decline in auto production, slowdown in commercial construction and U.S. manufacturing, and

cost of steel and transportation. 

Business Cycles

U.S. producers and importers of CSSF were asked whether U.S. demand for CSSF was subject to

business cycles, seasonal/other demand fluctuations, or other U.S. competitive conditions of demand

distinctive to CSSF during January 2006-June 2009.22 A summary of the responses regarding the type of

any such demand fluctuations or conditions is shown in the following tabulation.

Competitive U.S. demand conditions distinctive to CSSF

Types of firms Cyclical1 Seasonal2

Product cycle

Other

Within

one year

More than

one year

U.S. producers3 12 - - -

U.S. importers4 46 - - -

Total 5 8 0 0 0

 1 Longer than one year.

 2

 Within one year for a complete cycle.

 3

 Seven other U.S. producers reported that there were no cyclical/seasonal U.S. demand

conditions distinctive to CSSF.

 4

 Nineteen other U.S. importers reported that there were no cyclical/seasonal U.S. demand

conditions distinctive to CSSF.

Some firms also provided useable comments. The firms that indicated cyclical demand

conditions cited overall U.S. economic conditions, particularly the 2008/09 recession. In addition, an

importer that cited cyclical demand, ***, asserted that the nonresidential construction market is now in

its lowest start rate in over 40 years, as measured by square footage; this low start rate reportedly is

expected to continue through the rest of 2009 and for most of 2010. Another importer reporting

cyclical demand, ***, indicated that, in early 2009, demand slowed with the recessive U.S. economy,

although most of the first quarter 2009 shipments were fixed commitments based upon a much more

robust domestic economy in 2008. Second quarter 2009 demand reportedly softened in response to first

quarter 2009 U.S. economic conditions. An importer reporting seasonal demand, ***, indicated that

construction markets tend to slow in the fourth quarter and to pick up in the second quarter of the year.
 23 Staff telephone interview with ***.

 24 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections V-18 and IV-17, respectively. The producers and

importers were requested to provide examples of the top five economic substitutes for CSSF and this request was

preceded by the following explanation: “Substitution in demand refers to products that can, based on market price

considerations and consumer/industrial user preferences/technical requirements, reasonably be expected to substitute

for each other when the price of one product changes vis-a-vis the price of the other product–some consumers/

industrial users may require greater price changes than others before they switch among the alternative products.”

 25 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections V-19 and IV-18, respectively.

 26 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections V-12 and IV-12, respectively.

 27 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections V-17b and IV-16b, respectively.

II-9

Substitute Products

Based on available information, U.S. users of CSSF are likely to respond to changes in the prices

of CSSF with small changes in their purchases of CSSF, such that U.S. demand is likely price inelastic.23

The main contributing factors to this level of responsiveness of demand is the low cost share and the level

of substitute products.

All 10 responding U.S. producers and 21 of 22 responding U.S. importers reported that no

substitutes existed for CSSF, whereas the remaining U.S. importer identified substitutes for CSSF during

January 2006-June 2009.24 This latter importer, ***, indicated that Huck and similar blind fastening

systems may substitute for tension control bolts in structural applications. This importer reported that

such substitutes did not affect the price of the applicable CSSF fasteners during this period. All

responding U.S. producers and importers reported that there were no changes in substitutes for CSSF 

during January 2006-June 2009.25

Cost Share

As noted earlier, CSSF are used in manufacturing and industrial construction applications. Based

on useable responses of five U.S. producers and 10 U.S. importers, cost shares of CSSF were reported for

a variety of uses; such cost shares ranged from less than 1 percent to 24 percent.26 These uses and, when

reported, the percentage share of CSSF costs included, heavy truck class 8 (< 1 percent to 24 percent),

agricultural equipment (1-22 percent), recreational vehicles-all terrain vehicles and snowmobiles (18

percent), bridges (< 1 percent), commercial construction (< 1 percent), highway construction (1-2

percent), truck suspensions (3 percent), construction equipment (2 percent), airplanes and autos (< 1

percent), consumer products such as chairs, sofas, recliners, and appliances (1 percent each), *** (5.5

percent), commercial HVAC OEM equipment, commercial satellite communication equipment, truck and

trailer OEM assembly, residential home construction, motor vehicle parts such as axles, wheels, and

suspensions (all less than 1 percent each), OEM products (3-5 percent), military equipment, and steel

structures (2 percent).

Foreign Demand

U.S. producers and importers of CSSF were asked whether foreign demand for CSSF increased,

decreased, fluctuated, or did not change since January 2006, and some identified the principal factors

affecting any changes in demand.27 Useable responses were mixed regarding foreign demand and are

summarized in the following tabulation.
 28 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections V-11 and IV-11, respectively.

 29 The three remaining producers cited increased competition from reportedly low-priced imports from China and

Taiwan.

II-10

Foreign demand changes for CSSF since January 2006

Types of firms

Number of firms responding

Increase Decrease Fluctuate No change

U.S. producers1 11 2 1

U.S. importers2 32 7 3

Total 4 3 9 4

 1 Five other U.S. producers reported that they did not know how foreign demand changed.

 2

 Two other U.S. importers reported that they did not know how foreign demand changed.

The majority of all questionnaire responses indicate that foreign demand for CSSF has fluctuated

since January 2006. The firms reporting an increase stated that U.S. manufacturing operations and

associated CSSF demand relocated to low cost countries (China and Mexico were cited). The firms

reporting a decrease cited the worldwide economic downturn and declines in nonresidential construction. 

The firms citing fluctuating demand cited fluctuations in the cost of steel and transportation and

fluctuations in world economic conditions.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution in demand between CSSF produced in the United States and those

imported from China and Taiwan depends upon such factors as conditions of sales (order lead times,

payment terms, supplier qualification/preference, “Buy America” laws/policies/practices, etc.), purchaser

supply requirements, and product differentiation. Product differentiation depends on factors such as the

range of products, quality (grade standards, defect rates, etc.), availability, reliability of supply, product

services, and the market perception of these factors. Based on the reported information in these

investigations, there appears to be, for at least some products, a relatively high degree of substitution in

demand between CSSF produced domestically and those imported from China and Taiwan during

January 2006-June 2009.

U.S. producers and importers of the subject CSSF were requested in their questionnaire responses

to describe any significant changes in the product range or marketing of CSSF in the United States since

January 2006.28 Five of 10 responding U.S. producers and 23 of 25 responding U.S. importers reported

no changes, while 2 producers and the 2 remaining importers reported that changes had occurred.29 One

of the two U.S. producers, ***, indicated that the Chinese and Taiwanese suppliers have lowered their

minimum order requirements for ocean freight shipments. The remaining U.S. producer, ***, indicated

that there has been a general trend toward using TC (tension control assemblies) for non-bridge

construction based on single-sided installation, reduced labor costs, and the improved quietness and

ergonomics during installation. One of the two U.S. importers, ***, introduced web site sales in June

2008 and offers a 5-percent discount for on-line transactions. The remaining importer, ***, indicated that

internet auctions have become the standard negotiating format for most of the larger OEM buyers. At the

same time, auction frequency, ***, has increased as auction hosting services (like Arriba) have

streamlined the cost and time to put a category of business out for bid. Additionally, *** indicated that

larger OEMs are rationalizing their components and encouraging suppliers to assist them with product
 30 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections V-20 and IV-19, respectively.

 31 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections V-21 and IV-20, respectively. Examples of

nonprice factors referred to in the questionnaires included quality, availability, transportation network, product

range, and technical support, but nonprice factors were not necessarily restricted to only these factors.

II-11

standardization - both in terms of the number of products used and eliminating ”special” characteristics of

products used - making the internet auction process more successful and reducing the component count in

their manufacturing operation. *** also indicated that the expanded reach of this bidding process has

increased competition and decreased selling prices.

Comparisons of the Domestic and Imported CSSF

U.S. producers and importers of CSSF were requested in their questionnaires to report on the

extent of interchangeability (products from different countries physically capable of being used in the

same applications) of CSSF produced domestically, imported from China and Taiwan, and imported from

nonsubject (third) countries.30 They were also asked to report the extent of any non-price factors that

would affect sales in the U.S. market among these various sources of CSSF.31 Responses of the U.S.

producers and importers regarding the degree of interchangeability between domestic and imported CSSF

are summarized in table II-1, and their responses regarding factors other than price affecting competition

are summarized in table II-2. U.S. producers and importers were also requested in their questionnaires to

provide any comments where products are sometimes or never interchangeable and where nonprice

factors were always or frequently significant in competition between the domestic and imported CSSF. 

These comments are included in the text.

For responses regarding the degree of interchangeability, eight U.S. producers of CSSF and

twenty-six U.S. importers reported the requested information (table II-1). Most responding U.S.

producers asserted that CSSF produced in the United States and imported from China, Taiwan, and third

countries was “always” or “frequently” interchangeable among each other, whereas U.S. importers

asserted most often that CSSF from these sources was “always” or “frequently” interchangeable, but also

noted that these sources of CSSF were “sometimes” interchangeable.

For responses regarding factors other than price affecting competition, seven U.S. producers of

CSSF and 27 U.S. importers reported the requested information (table II-2). The responding U.S.

producers and importers asserted most often that nonprice factors among CSSF produced in the United

States and imported from China, Taiwan, and third countries were “sometimes” significant among sales

of the domestic and imported products and, for the U.S. producers, the remaining responses indicated

“never” significant. On the other hand, U.S. importers also asserted that nonprice factors were “always”

or “frequently” significant and, less often, were “never” significant.
II-12

Table II-1

CSSF: Perceived degree of interchangeability among U.S.-produced CSSF and that imported from

China, Taiwan, and nonsubject countries, based on sales in the U.S. market during January 2006-

June 2009

Country pair

Number of U.S. producers’

responses

Number of U.S. Importers’

responses

A F SN A F S N

United States vs.--

 China 4 2 1 - 10 10 5 1

 Taiwan 4 2 1 - 11 9 4 -

 Canada 4 2 1 - 12 6 2 -

 Other countries1 3 2 1 - 10 5 5 -

China vs.--

 Taiwan 5 1 1 - 4 10 5 1

 Canada 4 2 1 - 3 7 5 1

 Other countries1 321- 3 6 61

Taiwan vs.--

 Canada 4 2 1 - 7 6 4 1

 Other countries1 321- 5 5 51

 1 None of the responding firms identified specific other countries.

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 32 Those importers citing availability asserted that some CSSF products were not made in the United States, such

as low carbon finished hex nuts, A307 bolts, and grade 2 products. On the other hand, *** reported shipments of

these products during January 2006-June 2009 (petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 13).

 33 Respondents indicated that qualifying times for the Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) differ widely,

depending on the OEM and product, ranging from a total of 3-12 months, which involves paperwork of 4-8 hours

and up to several months for line trials (respondents’ postconference brief, Response to Staff Questions, p. 8). On

the other hand, the petitioner stated that the PPAP is routine and involves only paperwork of two to four hours,

which Nucor charges $*** for filling out the forms, after which approvals are usually provided quickly (petitioner’s

postconference brief, pp. 21-22). 

II-13

Table II-2

CSSF: Perceived degree of importance of differences in nonprice factors among U.S.-produced

CSSF and that imported from China, Taiwan, and nonsubject countries, based on sales in the U.S.

market during January 2006-June 2009

Country pair

Number of U.S. producers’

responses

Number of U.S. importers’

responses

A F S N AF S N

United States vs.--

 China 1 - 4 2 4 6 10 4

 Taiwan - - 5 2 2 6 9 3

 Canada - - 3 3 1 3 9 4

 Other countries1 - - 4 234 8 4

China vs.--

 Taiwan - - 4 2 3 3 8 4

 Canada - - 4 2 4 3 7 4

 Other countries1 - - 4 213 6 4

Taiwan vs.--

 Canada - - 4 2 2 5 4 5

 Other countries1 - - 4 213 5 4

 1 None of the responding firms identified specific other countries.

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

One U.S. producer and 15 U.S. importers provided comments on interchangeability and nonprice

factors as requested. The lone responding U.S. producer, ***, reported “sometimes” for

interchangeability and nonprice factors due to production and travel lead times. U.S. importers asserting

“sometimes” or “never” for interchangeability and/or “always” or “frequently” for nonprice factors cited

availability most often32 followed by qualifying requirements of some suppliers,33 quality, range of
 34 Respondents indicated that some U.S. distributors maintain domestic-certified product lines to serve the “Buy

America” market. They further indicated that this market was broadened by the “Buy America” requirements of the

$787 billion American Recovery and Reconstruction Act (ARRA) of 2009, of which only $172 billion has been

spent to date (respondents’ postconference brief, p. 38 and Answers to Staff Questions, pp. 5-7). On the other hand,

the petitioner indicated that “Buy America” provisions are relevant to only a tiny number of projects using CSSF,

with the possible exception of projects under the ARRA of 2009 (petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1, pp. 32-

33).

II-14

products, technical support, “Buy-America” laws/policies/preferences,34 and customer preference for

suppliers.
 1

 Two additional firms, *** and ***, certified that they produced CSSF, but did not provide useable questionnaire

data. Based upon the limited questionnaire data received from these two firms, it is known that *** shipped

approximately $*** worth of CSSF in 2007 and *** ships less than *** pounds of CSSF a year. 

 2

 Companies providing useable responses and reporting production of CSSF were ***. 

 3

 Companies certifying that they had not produced CSSF since January 1, 2006 were ***.

 4

 These companies are ***. 

 5

 Companies producing subject CSSF but that provided incomplete responses were ***.

 6

 One company, ***, did not provide questionnaire data but produces approximately *** pounds of CSSF a year. 

This is approximately *** percent of domestic CSSF production. Staff telephone interview with ***. Other possible

producers *** and *** did not provide any information on CSSF despite the best efforts of Commission staff to

obtain this information. These companies combined are believed by the petitioner to have made up *** percent of

domestic CSSF production in 2008. Submission of Additional Information Related to the Calculation of Industry

Standing, Declaration of ***, October 7, 2009.

III-1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§

1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the alleged subsidies and margins of dumping was presented

earlier in this report and information on the volume of imports of CSSF is presented in Part IV. 

Information on the pricing of U.S. and imported subject products is presented in Part V. Information on

the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or Part VI and (except as noted) is based on the

questionnaire responses of nine firms that accounted for almost all U.S. production of CSSF in 2008.1

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to 36 U.S. companies identified in the petition and

through independent staff research. Of these 36 companies, 9 provided useable data,2

 7 certified that they

had not produced CSSF since January 1, 2006,3

 8 provided data for fasteners that were no longer

considered CSSF once the scope of the investigations was finalized,4

 and 2 provided incomplete

responses.5

 The remaining 10 provided no response.6 Of the producers providing useable data, Nucor

Fastener accounted for *** percent of U.S. production of CSSF in 2008. The remaining production was

mainly by ***, which when combined with Nucor accounted for *** percent of U.S. production in 2008. 

Presented in table III-1 is a list of domestic producers of CSSF, positions on the petition, U.S.

production location(s), related and/or affiliated firms, and share of reported CSSF production in 2008.
 7

 *** purchases of CSSF from U.S. companies importing from China and Taiwan totaled *** pounds in 2006,

*** pounds in 2007, and *** pounds in 2008. These totals are *** CSSF produced by *** in the corresponding

years, with the ratios of production to purchases of imports equaling *** percent, *** percent, and *** percent for

2006, 2007, and 2008 respectively. *** purchases from importers were *** relative to the company’s production,

with no more than *** pounds from China and Taiwan of CSSF purchased in a given year during the period for

which data were collected. *** CSSF production exceeded *** in each of the three calendar years during this same

period.

III-2

Table III-1

CSSF: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, related and/or affiliated

firms, and shares of 2008 reported U.S. production

Firm

Position

on

petition

U.S. production

location(s)

Related and/or affiliated

firms

Share of

production

(percent)

3V Fastener Co. *** Corona, CA *** ***

Brunner Manufacturing Co., Inc. *** Mauston, WI None ***

Copper State Bolt & Nut Co. *** Phoenix, AZ None ***

Hill Fastener Corp. *** Rock Falls, IL None ***

MNP Corp. ***

Utica, MI

Madison Heights, MI *** ***

Nucor Fastener

Support

(petitioner) St. Joe, IN *** ***

Quality Bolt & Screw Co. *** Brecksville, OH None ***

Telefast Industries Inc. *** Berea, OH None ***

Unytite, Inc. *** Peru, IL *** ***

Note.–Because of rounding, shares may not total to 100.0 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

As indicated in table III-1, *** U.S. producers are related to foreign producers of the subject

merchandise and are also related to U.S. importers of the subject merchandise. No U.S. producer directly

imports the subject merchandise, and two companies (***) purchase the subject merchandise from U.S.

importers.7

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Production capacity increased during the period for which data were collected. This increase is

largely attributable to *** adding production equipment in 2008. In contrast, production and capacity

utilization decreased substantially in the 2009 interim period compared with the same period in 2008, but

remained relatively constant during 2006-08. U.S. producers’ capacity was well below apparent U.S.

consumption of CSSF in each year of the period for which data were collected.
 8

 E-mail from ***, October 22, 2009.

 9

 *** reported that *** of its equipment and workers used in CSSF production were also used to produce other

products in 2008, with the exception of the less than *** percent of these resources that was allocated to ***. ***

producer of CSSF, ***, reported using *** percent of its production resources in the production of CSSF and the

remaining *** percent in the production of fasteners for automotive applications.

III-3

According to ***, the production declines in the 2009 interim period are attributable to increased

competition with subject fasteners. *** producer of CSSF, ***, identified two factors, ***, as the reasons

for the company’s reduced production levels in 2009.8

Of the nine U.S. producers, *** reported production of other products using the same equipment

and/or workers used to produce CSSFs.9

 U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization

data for CSSF are presented in table III-2 and figure III-1. 

Table III-2

CSSF: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January-June--

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Capacity (1,000 pounds)

1 316,191 317,840 335,425 163,351 175,519

Production (1,000 pounds) 162,349 157,128 170,275 90,841 45,923

Capacity utilization (percent) 51.3 49.4 50.8 55.6 26.2

 1 *** reported capacity (production capability) based on operating 148 hours per week and 48 weeks per year. 

*** reported capacity (production capability) based on operating 80 hours per week and 48 weeks per year. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
III-4

Figure III-1

CSSF: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-08, January-June 2008,

and January-June 2009

Source: Table III-2.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Data on U.S. producers’ shipments of CSSF are presented in table III-3. Between 2006 and 2008

and during the 2009 interim period relative to the same period in 2008, total shipments declined on a

quantity basis. On a value basis, total shipments increased from 2006 to 2008 but then decreased during

the 2009 interim period relative to the 2008 interim period. Average unit values increased during each

period for which data were collected.
III-5

Table III-3

CSSF: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January-June--

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Commercial shipments 154,622 149,401 154,498 83,591 52,067

Internal consumption 0 0 0 0 0

Transfers to related firms 680 711 1,080 581 264

U.S. shipments 155,302 150,112 155,578 84,172 52,331

Export shipments 5,577 4,805 7,506 3,818 2,330

Total shipments 160,879 154,917 163,084 87,990 54,661

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial shipments 151,543 149,599 181,487 88,239 61,412

Internal consumption 0 0 0 0 0

Transfers to related firms 608 667 1,228 598 301

U.S. shipments 152,151 150,266 182,715 88,837 61,713

Export shipments 5,512 5,119 9,011 4,174 2,801

Total shipments 157,663 155,385 191,726 93,011 64,514

Unit value (per pound)

Commercial shipments $0.98 $1.00 $1.17 $1.06 $1.18

Internal consumption (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Transfers to related firms 0.89 0.94 1.14 1.03 1.14

U.S. shipments 0.98 1.00 1.17 1.06 1.18

Export shipments 0.99 1.07 1.20 1.09 1.20

Total shipments 0.98 1.00 1.18 1.06 1.18

Share of quantity (percent)

Commercial shipments 96.1 96.4 94.7 95.0 95.3

Internal consumption 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Transfers to related firms 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5

U.S. shipments 96.5 96.9 95.4 95.7 95.7

Export shipments 3.5 3.1 4.6 4.3 4.3

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Not applicable.

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

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
III-6

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Data on end-of-period inventories of CSSF during the period for which data were collected are

presented in table III-4.

Table III-4

CSSF: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2006-08, Jan.-June 2008, and Jan.-June 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for CSSF are presented in table III-5. The

number of production and related workers (“PRWs”), hours worked, wages paid, and unit labor costs all

increased during the 2006-08 period, and then decreased during the 2009 interim period compared with

the 2008 interim period. The decrease in the number of PRWs during the 2009 interim period reflects

*** reductions in employment reported by ***. Additionally, unit labor costs increased substantially

during the 2009 interim period compared with the 2008 interim period as a result of the decrease in

production relative to employment at that time.

Table III-5

CSSF: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June

2009

Item

Calendar year January-June--

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Production and related workers (PRWs) 458 461 468 472 446

Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 879 890 942 483 384

Hours worked per PRW 1,919 1,930 2,013 1,023 862

Wages paid to PRWs (1,000 dollars) 20,949 22,505 23,381 12,170 10,604

Hourly wages $23.84 $25.29 $24.82 $25.21 $27.60

Productivity (pounds produced per hour) 184.7 176.6 180.8 188.2 119.5

Unit labor costs (per pound) $0.13 $0.14 $0.14 $0.13 $0.23

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 1

 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms that, based on a review of data provided by U.S. Customs

and Border Protection (“Customs”), may have imported more than one percent of total imports from China or

Taiwan under the aggregated data of HTS statistical reporting numbers 7318.15.2030, 7318.15.2055, 7318.15.2065,

7318.15.8065, 7318.15.8085, and 7318.16.0085 in 2008 or in January-June 2009. Questionnaires were also sent to

firms representing greater than one percent of total imports from China or Taiwan under statistical reporting number

7318.15.2030 during this period, as the petition identified this number as the only one that was entirely CSSF.

 2

 Importer questionnaire responses were also submitted by six companies *** but were not received in useable

form prior to the deadline for incorporation into the importer dataset. Two of these companies, *** and ***,

reported CSSF imports in somewhat substantial quantities, but only ***’s imports were from a subject country

(China). *** imports were all from Japan and were only used internally in the manufacture of motor vehicles. 

 3

 Four importers of CSSF from subject countries, ***, stated in their questionnaire responses that they import into

foreign trade zones. None of these companies were large importers of CSSF during the period for which data were

collected, with the largest of the four, ***, accounting for no more than *** percent of total CSSF imports in any

given period. 

 4

 Three importers, ***, stated in their questionnaire responses that they import CSSF into bonded warehouses. 

The largest importer of the three, ***, was responsible for no more than *** percent of CSSF imports in any given

period.

 5

 Only limited data exist on imports of CSSF broken out by grade. Of the seven companies providing data on

imports by grade, five reported imports of low-carbon CSSF in excess of 25 percent of the total value of their 2008

CSSF imports from China and/or Taiwan. Respondents’ postconference brief, exh. 2.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

Importer questionnaires were sent to 78 firms believed to be importers of subject CSSF, as well as

to all U.S. producers of CSSF.1

 Usable questionnaire responses were received from 30 companies,

representing the large majority of known CSSF imports from China and Taiwan between January 2006

and June 2009.2

 Table IV-1 lists the 10 largest responding U.S. importers of CSSF from China, Taiwan

and other sources, their locations, and their shares of U.S. imports in 2008.

Table IV-1

CSSF: Ten largest reporting U.S. importers, U.S. headquarters, and shares of imports in 2008

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTS

Table IV-2 presents data for U.S. imports of CSSF from China, Taiwan, and all other sources. 

U.S. imports of CSSF from China decreased on a quantity basis between 2006 and 2008 and between the

interim periods of 2008 and 2009, but on a value basis imports from China increased from 2006 through

2008, and then decreased in the 2009 interim period relative to the same period in 2008. For Taiwan,

CSSF imports increased on both a quantity and value basis in the 2006-08 period but then decreased in

the 2009 interim period. Average unit values increased for imports of CSSF from both China and Taiwan

during the 2006-08 period. While the average unit value of imports from China decreased in the 2009

interim period relative to the same period in 2008, for CSSF imports from Taiwan they increased. The

import share of subject imports increased irregularly on both a quantity and value basis during the period

for which data were collected.3 4 5
IV-2

Table IV-2

CSSF: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Source

Calendar year January-June

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China 167,934 157,618 158,457 78,076 58,784

Taiwan 186,889 201,916 202,437 94,658 54,011

Subject subtotal 354,823 359,534 360,895 172,734 112,795

Nonsubject 166,967 141,766 164,950 90,086 31,516

Total 521,790 501,300 525,845 262,820 144,311

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

China 78,172 76,004 104,356 47,429 34,205

Taiwan 127,575 132,868 156,949 67,160 45,571

Subject subtotal 205,748 208,872 261,305 114,589 79,776

Nonsubject 165,986 145,608 179,842 91,676 38,647

Total 371,734 354,480 441,147 206,265 118,423

Unit value (per pound)

1

China $0.47 $0.48 $0.66 $0.61 $0.58

Taiwan 0.68 0.66 0.78 0.71 0.84

Subject subtotal 0.58 0.58 0.72 0.66 0.71

Nonsubject 0.99 1.03 1.09 1.02 1.23

Average 0.71 0.71 0.84 0.78 0.82

Share of quantity (percent)

China 32.2 31.4 30.1 29.7 40.7

Taiwan 35.8 40.3 38.5 36.0 37.4

Subject subtotal 68.0 71.7 68.6 65.7 78.2

Nonsubject 32.0 28.3 31.4 34.3 21.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China 21.0 21.4 23.7 23.0 28.9

Taiwan 34.3 37.5 35.6 32.6 38.5

Subject subtotal 55.3 58.9 59.2 55.6 67.4

Nonsubject 44.7 41.1 40.8 44.4 32.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 Landed, U.S. port of entry, duty-paid. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 6

 Using official import statistics does not provide accurate CSSF import data by port of entry, as five of the six

Harmonized Tariff Schedule statistical reporting numbers identified in the petition as containing CSSF imports are

“basket” categories containing large amounts of nonsubject fasteners.

 7

 Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 9.

 8

 Sections 703(a)(1), 705(b)(1), 733(a)(1), and 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1), 1671d(b)(1),

1673b(a)(1), and 1673d(b)(1)).

 9

 Section 771(24) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)).

IV-3

CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing whether imports should be cumulated, the Commission determines whether U.S.

imports from the subject countries compete with each other and with the domestic like product and has

generally considered four factors: (1) fungibility; (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same

geographic market; (3) common or similar channels of distribution; and (4) simultaneous presence in the

market. Issues concerning channels of distribution and fungibility are addressed in Part II of this report. 

The remaining factors are addressed below.

Geographical Markets

Customs statistics showing imports of CSSF by port of entry into the United States are not

available.6

 Additional information on geographic markets is provided in section V of this report. In its

postconference brief, the petitioner argued that imports from the two subject countries are sold in the

same geographic markets as each other and as the domestic like product.7

Simultaneous Presence in the Market

Pricing data submitted to the Commission show that imports of CSSF from China and Taiwan

entered the United States in every quarter of the period for which data were collected. 

NEGLIGIBILITY

The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports

of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.8

 Negligible imports are generally defined in the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as imports from a country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic

like product where such imports account for less than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise

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

precedes the filing of the petition or the initiation of the investigation. However, if there are imports of

such merchandise from a number of countries subject to investigations initiated on the same day that

individually account for less than 3 percent of the total volume of the subject merchandise, and if the

imports from those countries collectively account for more than 7 percent of the volume of all such

merchandise imported into the United States during the applicable 12-month period, then imports from

such countries are deemed not to be negligible.9

 Because reliable monthly import data from Customs

statistics are not available for CSSF, July 2008-June 2009 questionnaire data are the best indicator of

import volume for subject countries. Imports from China accounted for 34.2 percent of total reported

imports of CSSF by quantity during that period, and imports from Taiwan accounted for 39.7 percent.
IV-4

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of CSSF during the period for which data were

collected are shown in table IV-3 and figure IV-1. Apparent U.S. consumption decreased during the

period for which data were collected on a quantity basis. On a value basis, apparent consumption

increased during the 2006-08 period but then decreased in the 2009 interim period relative to the same

period in 2008.

Table IV-3

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

consumption, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January-June

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 155,302 150,112 155,578 84,172 52,331

U.S. shipments of imports from–

China 160,690 151,861 150,823 78,853 59,692

Taiwan 178,733 188,355 181,632 98,763 68,031

Subject subtotal 339,423 340,217 332,454 177,617 127,723

Nonsubject countries 166,598 152,027 153,579 81,683 44,976

Total U.S. imports 506,020 492,244 486,033 259,300 172,699

Apparent U.S. consumption 661,322 642,355 641,611 343,472 225,030

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 152,151 150,266 182,715 88,837 61,713

U.S. shipments of imports from--

China 108,100 103,072 125,608 62,053 48,385

Taiwan 140,527 154,695 177,278 93,155 71,448

Subject subtotal 248,627 257,767 302,886 155,208 119,833

Nonsubject countries 189,592 178,246 188,162 104,057 59,305

Total U.S. imports 438,219 436,013 491,048 259,265 179,138

Apparent U.S. consumption 590,370 586,279 673,763 348,102 240,851

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

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
IV-5

Figure IV-1

CSSF: Apparent U.S. consumption, by sources, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June

2009

Source: Table IV-3.

U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share data are presented in table IV-4. U.S. producers’ market share increased, in

both quantity and value terms, between 2006 and 2008 but was lower in the 2009 interim period than in

the same period in 2008. The market share of CSSF imported from the subject countries combined

increased slightly over the period for which data were collected. 
IV-6

Table IV-4

CSSF: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January-June

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Apparent U.S. consumption 661,322 642,355 641,611 343,472 225,030

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 590,370 586,279 673,763 348,102 240,851

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 23.5 23.4 24.2 24.5 23.3

U.S. imports from--

China 24.3 23.6 23.5 23.0 26.5

Taiwan 27.0 29.3 28.3 28.8 30.2

Subject subtotal 51.3 53.0 51.8 51.7 56.8

Nonsubject countries 25.2 23.7 23.9 23.8 20.0

All countries 76.5 76.6 75.8 75.5 76.7

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 25.8 25.6 27.1 25.5 25.6

U.S. imports from--

China 18.3 17.6 18.6 17.8 20.1

Taiwan 23.8 26.4 26.3 26.8 29.7

Subject subtotal 42.1 44.0 45.0 44.6 49.8

Nonsubject countries 32.1 30.4 27.9 29.9 24.6

All countries 74.2 74.4 72.9 74.5 74.4

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

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of imports to U.S. production of CSSF is presented in table

IV-5. The ratio of subject imports to production was mostly unchanged during 2006-08, but then

increased in the 2009 interim period relative to the same period in 2008. This increase can be mostly

attributed to U.S. production decreasing by a greater percentage relative to the percentage decrease in

subject imports during the same period.
IV-7

Table IV-5

CSSF: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S. production, 2006-08, JanuaryJune 2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Calendar year January-June

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. production 162,349 157,128 170,275 90,841 45,923

Imports from:

 China 167,934 157,618 158,457 78,076 58,784

Taiwan 186,889 201,916 202,437 94,658 54,011

Subject subtotal 354,823 359,534 360,895 172,734 112,795

Nonsubject countries 166,967 141,766 164,950 90,086 31,516

Total imports 521,790 501,300 525,845 262,820 144,311

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

Imports from:

China 103.4 100.3 93.1 85.9 128.0

Taiwan 115.1 128.5 118.9 104.2 117.6

Subject subtotal 218.6 228.8 211.9 190.1 245.6

Nonsubject countries 102.8 90.2 96.9 99.2 68.6

Total imports 321.4 319.0 308.8 289.3 314.2

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

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 1

 Petition, volume I, p. 22.

 2 Part II discusses in detail substitution between CSSF and alternative products. Part V shows prices of U.S.-

produced CSSF and that imported from subject and nonsubject countries, where the latter also compete with the

domestic CSSF.

 3 E-mail from ***.

 4 Prices of steel rod are f.o.b. the mill and include surcharges for scrap and energy, but only for common carbon

steel; prices do not include alloy surcharges or extras for alloy steel. These prices are intended to indicate price

trends; specific prices any buyer pays reportedly will vary due to a number of factors, including volume, distribution

issues, specification variances, surcharges mentioned above, packaging fees, and other market factors. 

 5 Prices of steel scrap are the American Metal Market prices of No. 1 Busheling-Chicago steel scrap delivered to

the customer; Nucor referenced this price series at the conference (conference transcript, p. 97 (McCoy)); ***

commented on the price volatility of Busheling scrap as a major factor affecting steel prices (***). 

 6 As noted earlier, prices of steel rod included the surcharge for steel scrap. 

 7 Changes in U.S. producers’ reported quarterly selling prices of four specified CSSF products shown later in

Part V were correlated with the quarterly movements of the quarterly steel rod prices during April 2007-June 2009. 

The correlation coefficients between prices of the CSSF products and steel rod ranged from 73.5 percent for product

2 to 92.9 percent for product 3.

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICING

U.S. prices of CSSF can fluctuate based on demand factors such as overall U.S. economic activity

and sectoral demand fluctuations such as in manufacturing and industrial construction.1

 On the supply

side, prices of CSSF also can differ because of a number of factors such as raw material costs and product

specifications, including but not restricted to grade and type of steel, length, diameter, and coating or

finish. The prices of CSSF can also fluctuate due to the size of the shipment and to competition.2

Raw Material Costs

Total raw material costs averaged 53.0 percent of the responding U.S. producers’ total costs of

goods sold to produce CSSF during January 2006-June 2009. The principal raw material input used to

produce domestic CSSF is steel rod, cold-heading quality; some producers also purchase the downstream

cold-drawn steel wire rod/bar.3

 U.S. spot market quarterly prices of steel rod fluctuated sharply during

April 2007-September 20094

 as did spot prices of steel scrap during January 2006-September 2009 (figure

V-1).5

 

As seen in figure V-1, prices of steel rod and steel scrap moved together,6

 although prices of steel

scrap rose and fell more sharply than prices of steel rod. U.S. quarterly prices of steel rod fluctuated but

increased from $35.26 per cwt (100 pounds) during April-June 2007 (the first quarter for which prices

were available) to a period high of $62.08 per cwt by July-September 2008, or by 76.1 percent, before

decreasing to a period low of $34.12 per cwt by April-June 2009, or by 45.0 percent from the period high,

and then increasing somewhat to $35.41 per cwt by July-September 2009.7
 8

 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, sections V-13-14.

 9 In addition, *** cited an increase in fuel costs that led to higher shipping costs (Ibid.).

V-2

Figure V-1

Steel rod (cold-heading quality) and steel scrap: U.S. prices, by quarter, April 2007-September 2009 for steel

rod and January 2006-September 2009 for steel scrap

Source: American Metal Market, http://www.amm.com/price/, retrieved September 29, 2009 and October 14, 2009.

U.S. CSSF producers described the changes in prices of their raw materials and other inputs that

were used to produce CSSF during January 2006-June 2009 and they reported the impact of these input

costs on their selling prices and quantities of CSSF during this period.8

 U.S. producers of CSSF generally

cited the price volatility of carbon and alloy steel and energy (typically natural gas) inputs during January

2006-June 2009.9

 The U.S. producers also indicated that their selling prices of CSSF increased and

volumes decreased as steel and energy costs increased. *** reported that they were unable to recoup the

full increase in input costs in their selling prices due to prices of imported CSSF from China and Taiwan

and that the subsequent decrease in input costs did not allow them to compete with the imported products.

Tariff Rates

The U.S. normal trade relations ad valorem import duty rate during January 2006-June 2009 was

free for imports of CSSF, including those from China and Taiwan, under HTS subheadings 7318.15.20

and 7318.16.00, and 8.5 percent for imports of CSSF under HTS subheading 7318.15.80. Cap screws are

subject to the 8.5 percent duty, whereas bolts are not. The NAFTA duty rate was free for imports of

CSSF under all three HTSUS subheadings.
 10 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections V-8 and IV-8, respectively. *** responding U.S.

producers reported that their customers arranged the U.S. freight (U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section V7). On the other hand, 13 of 23 responding U.S. importers of CSSF from China and/or Taiwan reported that they

arranged the U.S.-inland freight to their U.S. customer locations, whereas the 10 remaining importers of CSSF from

the subject countries reported that their customers arranged the freight (U.S. importer questionnaire responses,

section IV-7).

 11 U.S. producers of CSSF and importers of CSSF from China and Taiwan also reported the U.S. freight share of

their delivered prices for four specified CSSF products sold to distributors during January-June 2009. These freight

costs averaged 3.2 percent for U.S. producers for all four products, 4.9 percent for the imports from China, and 5.5

percent for the imports from Taiwan.

 12 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections V-8 and IV-8, respectively.

 13 U.S. producers were requested to report shipping costs from their U.S. production facilities and U.S. importers

were requested to report shipping costs from their U.S. ports-of-entry. The firms were also requested to include any

freight to their U.S. warehouses if they sold their CSSF from such facilities.

 14 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-19 and III-22, respectively.

V-3

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Six U.S. producers of CSSF and 20 U.S. importers of the CSSF from China and Taiwan reported

in their questionnaire responses the average U.S. freight costs to their U.S. customers’ locations for their

total sales of CSSF during January 2006-June 2009.10 U.S.-inland freight costs for domestic CSSF

averaged 3.2 percent of the delivered prices, and U.S.-inland freight costs of CSSF from the subject

countries averaged 5.6 percent of the delivered prices.11

Nine U.S. producers and 22 U.S. importers of CSSF from China and Taiwan estimated their U.S.

shipments of domestic and subject imported CSSF that were shipped to U.S. customers in three specified

distance categories during January 2006-June 2009.12 U.S. producers’ and importers’ reported shipment

shares of domestic and subject imported CSSF during this period, by distance categories from their U.S.

selling locations,13 are shown in the following tabulation.

Distance shipped

Shares of U.S. commercial shipments

(percent)

U.S.-produced 

Imported from

China and Taiwan

Within 100 miles 7.3 27.5

101 to 1,000 miles 71.0 27.6

Over 1,000 miles 21.7 45.0

Total 100.0 100.0

Note.–Totals may not add to 100.0 due to rounding.

Nine U.S. producers of CSSF, 19 U.S. importers of CSSF from China, 19 importers of CSSF

from Taiwan, and 16 importers of CSSF from nonsubject countries reported the U.S. geographic market

area(s) during 2008 to which they shipped their domestic and subject imported CSSF.14 The weightedaverage U.S. shipment shares by each of the specified geographic areas for the subject products produced
 15 Information on pricing practices discussed in this section was based on questionnaire responses of the U.S.

producers and importers of the domestic and imported Chinese and Taiwanese CSSF, unless otherwise noted.

 16 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections V-2 and IV-2, respectively.

 17 Spot sales are usually one-time delivery, within 30 days of the purchase agreement; short-term sales are for

multiple deliveries for up to 12 months after the purchase agreement; and long-term sales are for multiple deliveries

for more than 12 months after the purchase agreement. Short-term and long-term sales may be arranged by contracts

or oral agreements.

V-4

domestically and imported from China, Taiwan, and nonsubject coutries are shown in the following

tabulation.

U.S. geographic

area

Shares of 2008 U.S. commercial shipments (percent)

U.S.-

produced 

Imported 

from China

Imported

from Taiwan

Imported from

nonsubject

countries

Northeast1 15.3 14.3 11.3 10.9

Midwest2 32.5 31.7 36.6 41.5

Southeast3 29.8 18.8 18.9 23.0

Central Southwest4 12.2 14.4 13.8 11.9

Mountains5 2.3 7.4 7.9 3.9

Pacific Coast6 7.8 12.5 10.5 8.4

Other7 - 0.8 1.0 0.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Includes CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, and VT.

 2

 Includes IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, OH, SD, and WI.

 3

 Includes AL, DE, DC, FL, GA, KY, MD, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, and WV.

 4

 Includes AR, LA, OK, and TX.

 5

 Includes AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, and WY.

 6

 Includes CA, OR, and WA.

 7

 Includes all other markets in the United States not previously listed, including AK, HI, PR, and VI,

among others.

Note.–Totals may not add to 100.0 due to rounding.

PRICING PRACTICES15

Nine U.S. producers of CSSF, 20 U.S. importers of CSSF from China, and 20 importers of CSSF

from Taiwan reported their 2008 U.S. commercial shipments by type of sale;16 their shipment shares,

based on quantity, are shown in the following tabulation.17
 18 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections V-3 through V-5 and IV-3 through IV-5,

respectively. 

 19 Ibid. U.S. producers of CSSF and importers of CSSF from the subject countries generally reported offering

quantity discounts; those producers and importers that reported offering no discounts also noted that the size of the

order was a factor in determining price (U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections V-6 and IV-6,

respectively).

 20 For short-term contracts, four U.S. producers reported price renegotiation provisions and four reported no price

renegotiation provisions (U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section V-4).

 21 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections V-7 and IV-7, respectively.

 22 Ibid.

 23 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections V-9 and IV-9, respectively.

V-5

Type of sale

Shares of 2008 U.S. commercial shipments (percent)

U.S.-produced 

Imported from

China

Imported from

Taiwan

Spot sales 46.1 66.3 50.6

Short-term sales 32.7 30.5 38.6

Long-term sales 21.2 3.2 10.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

U.S. producers of CSSF and importers of CSSF from the subject countries reported that spot sales

prices were typically based on oral agreements where price lists were frequently used, whereas short-term

and long-term contract sales prices were typically based on contracts.18 Both U.S. producers and

importers reported that they negotiated prices for all three types of sales lengths where the price of steel,

production costs, the level of capacity utilization, general market conditions, and the size of the order

were considered.19 U.S. producers and importers reported that their long-term contracts typically ranged

2-3 years and, for U.S. producers, short-term contracts were typically 2-3 months, whereas for importers,

short-term contracts were typically 12 months. U.S. producers reported that their long-term and shortterm contracts typically allowed for price renegotiations,20 fixed both price and quantity, and contained

meet-or-release provisions. U.S. importers reported that their long-term and short-term contracts were

about evenly divided as to whether there were price renegotiation provisions, whether the contracts fixed

both price and quantity or just price, and whether there were meet-or-release provisions.

*** reporting U.S. producers of CSSF reported quoting prices on an f.o.b. plant basis, with the

customer arranging the freight. On the other hand, 16 of the 26 responding U.S. importers of CSSF from

China and/or Taiwan reported quoting prices on an f.o.b. U.S. warehouse basis and the remaining 10

importers reported quoting prices on a delivered basis; 13 of the 23 responding importers reported

arranging the U.S. freight and 10 importers reported that the customer arranged the freight.21 U.S.

producers of CSSF and U.S. importers of CSSF from the subject countries typically offered payment

terms of net 30 days, although some responding producers and importers also offered payment discounts

of 1⁄2 to 2 percent if paid within 10 days.22

Nine U.S. producers of CSSF, 17 U.S. importers of CSSF from China, and 18 importers of CSSF

from Taiwan reported their 2008 commercial shipments, by quantity, that were shipped from U.S.

inventory or direct from U.S. production or from China or Taiwan and the number of days of lead time

from the date of order to the date of delivery to U.S. customers.23 Their aggregated responses are

presented in the following tabulation.
 24 The petitioners suggested these product categories and indicated that collecting prices on a delivered basis and

in dollars per piece was appropriate (petition, pp. 24-25; staff telephone interview with ***, September 23, 2009;

and e-mails from ***, September 23-24, 2009).

 25 Product 1 may involve low carbon (grade 2) or medium carbon (grade 5) steel, whereas products 2-4 involve

only medium carbon steel (grades 5 or 8). ***. E-mail from ***, October 27, 2009.

 26 If the reporting firms sold their CSSF on a U.S. f.o.b. basis, they were requested to estimate, to the extent

possible, the delivered price by adding to the f.o.b. price all U.S.-inland freight (actual and/or estimated) for U.S.

shipments (1) direct from their U.S. plants or port(s)-of-entry and (2) for shipments from their U.S. warehouses (if

not located at the plant/port-of-entry), the U.S. freight from the U.S. plant(s)/port(s)-of-entry to their warehouses and

from the warehouses to distributors. The firms were requested to report the resulting effective delivered value and

not to report transactions where they were unable to report values, either actual or adjusted, on a delivered basis.

V-6

Shares of 2008 U.S. commercial shipments and lead times

Shipment source

U.S.-produced Imported from China Imported from Taiwan

Share of

U.S.

shipments

(percent)

Lead

time

(days)

Share of

U.S.

shipments

(percent)

Lead

time

(days)

Share of

U.S.

shipments

(percent)

Lead

time

(days)

U.S. inventory 40.0 17 94.4 3 93.8 3

U.S. production/foreign

country 60.0 72 5.6 148 6.2 130

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

QUESTIONNAIRE PRICE DATA

U.S. selling value and quantity data were requested for sales to U.S. customers for the following

four CSSF product categories produced in the United States and imported from China and Taiwan:24 25

Product 1.--Heavy hex nut, A563, type 1 steel, Grade C, 3⁄4 inch diameter and 10

threads per inch.

Product 2.–Heavy hex structural bolt, A325, type 1 steel, 3⁄4 inch diameter by 2 inches

long, 10 threads per inch, and not fully threaded.

Product 3.–Hex cap screw, Grade 5, type 1 steel, 1⁄2 inch diameter by 1-1/2 inches long,

13 threads per inch, fully threaded, and zinc-blue electroplated.

Product 4.–Hex cap screw, Grade 8, type 1 steel, 5/8 inch diameter by 2 inches long,

18 threads per inch, fully threaded, and zinc phosphate and oil coating.

The price data were based on quarterly net U.S. delivered selling price data of U.S. producers and

importers for their shipments of the specified domestic CSSF products and those imported from China

and Taiwan, during January 2006-June 2009, to U.S. distributors unrelated to the selling firms. In

addition, each U.S. importer was requested to provide the selling price data for the specified products that

they imported from their largest nonsubject country source.26

Three U.S. producers of CSSF, six U.S. importers of the specified CSSF products from China,

and nine U.S. importers of CSSF from Taiwan reported useable price information, but not necessarily for
 27 U.S. importers reported the requested pricing data for products 1-3 from Canada and products 1 and 3 from

Thailand.

 28 The weight measure is based on Nucor’s reported weight equivalents for 100 pieces of each product for which

pricing data were reported (e-mails from ***, October 8, 2009 and from ***, October 16, 2009.).

 29 The limited coverage ratios for the reported pricing data from U.S. producers and importers are due to the large

number of CSSF products. 

V-7

all products or periods. In addition, three U.S. importers of CSSF also reported the requested price data

for two nonsubject countries, Canada and Thailand.27 The responding U.S. producers reported a total

quantity (converted to pounds) of the U.S.-produced CSSF for pricing purposes during January 2006-June

2009 that accounted for 3.6 percent of their total reported U.S. commercial shipments of the U.S.-

produced CSSF during this period.28 The responding U.S. importers reported total sales quantities

(converted to pounds) of the imported CSSF from the subject countries for pricing purposes during

January 2006-June 2009 that accounted for 1.1 percent of total U.S. commercial shipments of imports of

CSSF from China and 2.4 percent of imports of CSSF from Taiwan during this period. In addition, the

responding U.S. importers reported total sales quantities (converted to pounds) of CSSF from the two

nonsubject countries for pricing purposes during January 2006-June 2009 that accounted for 2.8 percent

of total U.S. commercial shipments of imports of CSSF from nonsubject countries during this period.29

The total delivered sales quantities and values of the specified CSSF products to distributors for

which U.S. producers and subject importers reported the requested pricing data during January 2006-June

2009 are shown in the following tabulation.

* * * * * * *

Although prices were collected in pieces, which is the way the U.S. producers and importers

generally sell their CSSF products, weights and values may be better bases than pieces to make

comparisons across the four products because of the different weights and prices for each product. As

seen in the tabulation, by either weight or value, U.S. producers’ sales were concentrated in products 2, 1,

and 4; Chinese importers’ sales were concentrated in product 1; and Taiwanese importers’ sales were

concentrated in products 2, 3, and 1.

Trends in weighted-average prices of the domestic CSSF and imported CSSF from China and

Taiwan and comparisons of the weighted-average prices of the domestic and imported products from

China and Taiwan are based on the responding firms’ reported quarterly net delivered U.S. selling price

data to distributors. Quarterly trends in weighted-average selling prices and total quantities of the

domestic and subject imported specified products 1-4 are shown by products in tables V-1 through V-4,

respectively, and in figures V-2a through V-2d, respectively; price comparisons between the domestic and

the subject imported products are also shown in these tables. The reported quarterly quantities and

weighted-average prices of the specified products 1-3 imported from Canada and products 1 and 3

imported from Thailand are briefly discussed in appendix D and shown in figures D-1 through D-3.

Table V-1

CSSF: Net weighted-average U.S. delivered selling prices and quantities of domestic and subject

imported CSSF product 1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-

June 2009

* * * * * * *
V-8

Table V-2

CSSF: Net weighted-average U.S. delivered selling prices and quantities of domestic and subject

imported CSSF product 2 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-

June 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-3

CSSF: Net weighted-average U.S. delivered selling prices and quantities of domestic and subject

imported CSSF product 3 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-

June 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-4

CSSF: Net weighted-average U.S. delivered selling prices and quantities of domestic and subject

imported CSSF product 4 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-

June 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2a

CSSF: Net weighted-average U.S. delivered selling prices and quantities of domestic and subject

imported CSSF product 1, by quarters, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2b

CSSF: Net weighted-average U.S. delivered selling prices and quantities of domestic and subject

imported CSSF product 2, by quarters, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2c

CSSF: Net weighted-average U.S. delivered selling prices and quantities of domestic and subject

imported CSSF product 3, by quarters, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2d

CSSF: Net weighted-average U.S. delivered selling prices and quantities of domestic and subject

imported CSSF product 4, by quarters, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Price Trends

The weighted-average quarterly delivered selling prices and quantities of the specified CSSF

products produced domestically and imported from China and Taiwan fluctuated during January 2006-

June 2009 (tables V-1 through V-4 and figures V-2a through V-2d). Price trends of the domestic CSSF

during January 2006-June 2009 appear to be influenced, at least partially, by price fluctuations of raw

materials, including importantly the steel input. Quarterly prices of the domestic products increased to

period highs during July-September 2008, as steel prices also reached their peak, and then decreased as

steel prices fell. A summary of price trends and high/low prices for the domestic products and the

imported products from China and Taiwan is shown in table V-5.
 30 Prices of specified CSSF products 2-4 imported from Taiwan were generally higher than prices of the products

from China during January 2006-June 2009; prices of product 1 imported from Taiwan were consistently lower than

prices of product 1 from China. As noted earlier, the product 1 prices from Taiwan were heavily influenced by large

volumes and low prices of a single importer. 

V-9

Quarterly delivered selling prices of the CSSF products 1-4 produced domestically and imported

from the subject countries were generally at or above their initial period prices during January 2006-June

2009; the lone exception was prices of product 2 imported from Taiwan, where prices were lower than the

initial period value during this period. Prices of domestic products 1-2 ended higher than their initial

period values, while prices of domestic products 3-4 ended lower than their initial period values. Prices

of products 1-4 imported from China ended higher than their initial period values. Prices of products 1-2

imported from Taiwan ended lower than their initial period values, while prices of products 3-4 from

Taiwan ended higher than their initial period values.

 U.S. producers’ quarterly shipment quantities of products 1-4 decreased during January 2006-

June 2009. Quarterly shipment quantities of products 1-2 imported from China generally increased

during this period, while shipments of product 3 from China decreased and shipments of product 4 from

China remained relatively stable. Quarterly shipment quantities of products 1-3 imported from Taiwan

generally decreased during January 2006-June 2009, while shipments of product 4 from Taiwan remained

relatively stable, but picked up somewhat during October 2008-June 2009. 

Table V-5

CSSF: Summary of trends in quarterly weighted-average net delivered selling prices for domestic

and subject imported CSSF products 1-4, by country of origin, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Price Comparisons

A total of 53 and 55 quarterly price comparisons were possible between the domestic CSSF

products 1-4 and those imported from China and Taiwan, respectively, that were shipped to U.S.

distributors during January 2006-June 2009. In 52 selling price comparisons between the domestic and

imported Chinese products, the imported products were priced less than the domestic products. In 51

selling price comparisons between the domestic and imported Taiwanese products, the imported products

were priced less than the domestic products. The five remaining price comparisons between the domestic

and imported products from the subject countries showed that the domestic products were priced less than

the imported products.30 The selling price comparisons are shown by period and by product based on

quantity and on value for imported Chinese CSSF in table V-6a and for imported Taiwanese CSSF in

table V-6b.

Table V-6a

CSSF: Number of quarterly net weighted-average U.S. delivered selling price comparisons

between U.S.-produced and imported CSSF from China, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-6b

CSSF: Number of quarterly net weighted-average U.S. delivered selling price comparisons

between U.S.-produced and imported CSSF from Taiwan, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *
 31 Petition, vol. I, pp. 27-28 and petitioner’s postconference brief, Answers to Staff Questions, p. 28.

 32 E-mail from ***, October 2, 2009.

 33 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, sections VII-2 (lost revenues) and VII-3 (lost sales).

 34 One of the latter three producers, ***, reported that customers provide general feedback that Chinese and

Taiwanese pricing is lower, resulting in lower sales for the firm. *** stated that it cannot provide specific examples

and documentation.

 35 *** was one of the firms indicating that it had lost revenues and sales, but did not provide any allegations

where requested in its questionnaire rsponse. In response to section V-6 of the U.S. producer questionnaire asking

about discount policies, *** provided six allegations of lost revenue/sales that involved generalized information, but

no contact information. *** provided contact information ***, but did not provide fax numbers as requested. The

staff notes that these allegations predated the filing of the petition ***. Because this information was provided so

late in the investigations, the staff was unable to follow up.

 36 One of the seven producers, ***, stated that the prices of CSSF from China and Taiwan are so low that the

firm does not bother to provide competing price quotes when product from these countries is being considered by a

potential customer.

V-10

LOST REVENUES AND LOST SALES

In the petition, Nucor reported that it had lost revenues and sales to the imported CSSF from

China and Taiwan during January 2006-June 2009, but did not provide the information needed for the

staff to investigate.31 The petitioner reported that Nucor does not keep detailed lost revenue/sales

information or have this information within its control as it sells through distributors; the latter reportedly

do not provide Nucor with such information compared to end users.32

The U.S. producer questionnaire requested information on lost revenue and lost sales of CSSF for

the products imported from China and Taiwan during January 2006-June 2009.33 Two U.S. producers,

***, provided a total of two lost revenues allegations and seven lost sales allegations as a result of

competition with imported CSSF from China and Taiwan during January 2006-June 2009. One U.S.

producer, ***, provided a list of customers to whom it lost sales prior to 2006. In addition, two other

U.S. producers indicated losing revenue and three U.S. producers indicated losing sales of CSSF to the

imported products from China and Taiwan, but were unable to provide any information.34 35 On the other

hand, seven other U.S. producers reported that they had not lost revenues and four producers reported that

they had not lost sales to the subject imported products.36

The two lost revenue allegations totaled $1,598.75 and the seven lost sales allegations totaled

$216,948. Responding purchasers disagreed with one of the lost revenue allegations, 4 of the lost sales

allegations, and was unfamiliar with the product cited in another lost sales allegation. There were no

responses for the remaining lost revenue and lost sales allegation. The purchasers cited in the lost

revenue and lost sales allegations in the questionnaire responses, the transaction information supplied by

the U.S. producers, and whether the responding purchasers agreed or disagreed with the allegations are

shown in tables V-7 and V-8, respectively. Any additional comments of the responding purchasers are

discussed following the tables.

Table V-7

CSSF: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations

* * * * * * *

Table V-8

CSSF: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *
 37 ***.

V-11

***.37

***.

 Purchasers cited in lost revenue and lost sales allegations were also asked (1) whether they

switched purchases of CSSF from U.S. producers to products imported from China and/or Taiwan and, if

they did switch, they were asked if price was the reason; and (2) whether U.S. producers reduced their

prices of CSSF to compete with suppliers of CSSF from China and/or Taiwan during January 2006-June

2009. Only two purchasers, ***, responded. *** responded “Yes” to question 1 for CSSF from both

China and Taiwan, but indicated that its shift to CSSF imported from China and Taiwan from that

produced domestically was not as a result of price. *** cited availability and lead times as the reasons for

the shift to the subject imported CSSF and asserted that there was not enough capacity or range of

products from U.S. producers. *** responded “No” to question 2 for both China and Taiwan, explaining

that U.S. producers adjusted their prices up or down according to changes in material prices, scrap

surcharges, energy costs, and plating costs. *** indicated “No” to both questions for CSSF from China

and from Taiwan.

 1

 The producers and their respective fiscal year ends if other than December 31 are Brunner, Copper State (April

30; reported data for years ending April 30 of 2007-09, Hill Fastener, MNP (November 30), Nucor, Quality Bolt

(June 30; reported data for years ending June 30 of 2007-09, Telefast, Unytite, and 3V.

 2

 See footnote 1 in table VI-1 for a discussion of possible issues with the financial data.

 3

 Cost of goods sold and selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses combined.

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

The same nine producers that provided production and shipment data also provided financial data

on their CSSF operations.1

 There was no reported internal consumption, and transfers to related parties

were minimal, accounting for approximately one-half percent of sales quantities and values every period. 

Accordingly, they are being presented together with commercial sales. 

OPERATIONS ON CSSF

Income-and-loss data for U.S. producers of CSSF are presented in table VI-1, and selected

company-specific financial data are presented in table VI-2. In sum, sales and profitability increased

measurably between 2006 and 2008, and then were both sharply lower during January-June 2009

compared to the same period in 2008.2

 From 2006 to 2008, steadily improving unit sales values offset (in

2007) and then augmented (in 2008) fluctuations in sales quantities, resulting in a 22-percent increase in

the absolute value of sales. Operating income more than followed suit, as the industry was able to

increase its unit sales values by several cents per pound more than the $0.14 per pound increase in unit

operating costs3

 (which was largely attributable to raw materials). The improvement in financial results

was widespread, as eight of the nine firms reported increases in the absolute value of operating profits and

the unit value of sales, and seven reported increases in the absolute value of sales and in their operating

margin (see table VI-2).

The improving financial situation reversed itself when comparing January-June 2009 to JanuaryJune 2008. Sales quantities were down by more than one-third, and every level of profitability was down

by every measure. Unit sales values were $0.12 per pound higher in the first half of 2009 than in the first

half of 2008, but unit operating costs were $0.18 per pound higher, led by raw materials ($0.08 per pound

higher), although other factory costs and direct labor were $0.05 and $0.04 per pound higher,

respectively. The decline in financial results was as widespread as was the increase during 2006-08, as

seven firms reported decreases in the absolute quantity and value of sales, the absolute value of operating

profits, and their operating margins (see table VI-2). Moreover, five firms reported operating losses in the

first half of 2009, while only one or two reported an operating loss during the preceding periods.
VI-2

Table VI-1

CSSF: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June

2009

Item

Fiscal year January-June

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Total net sales 163,203 157,167 166,014 89,199 55,597

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales 158,202 156,725 192,510 93,688 65,237

Cost of goods sold:

 Raw materials 61,929 60,428 81,795 38,437 28,452

 Direct labor 17,882 18,926 20,419 10,065 8,408

 Other factory costs 40,161 39,709 44,254 21,487 16,097

 Total cost of goods sold 119,972 119,063 146,468 69,989 52,957

Gross profit 38,230 37,662 46,042 23,699 12,280

SG&A expense 25,613 20,517 24,305 12,307 8,478

Operating income1 12,617 17,145 21,737 11,392 3,802

Other (income) or expense, net (438) (98) 770 344 619

Net income or (loss) 13,055 17,243 20,967 11,048 3,183

Depreciation 3,926 3,712 4,325 2,258 2,459

Cash flow 16,981 20,955 25,292 13,306 5,642

Ratio to net sales (percent)

Cost of goods sold:

 Raw materials 39.1 38.6 42.5 41.0 43.6

 Direct labor 11.3 12.1 10.6 10.7 12.9

 Other factory costs 25.4 25.3 23.0 22.9 24.7

 Average COGS 75.8 76.0 76.1 74.7 81.2

Gross profit 24.2 24.0 23.9 25.3 18.8

SG&A expenses 16.2 13.1 12.6 13.1 13.0

Operating income1 8.0 10.9 11.3 12.2 5.8

Number of companies reporting

Operating losses 2 2 1 1 5

Data 9 9 9 9 9

Table continued on next page.
VI-3

Table VI-1--Continued

CSSF: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June

2009

Item

Fiscal year January-June

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Unit value (per pound)

Net sales $0.97 $1.00 $1.16 $1.05 $1.17

Cost of goods sold:

 Raw materials 0.38 0.38 0.49 0.43 0.51

 Direct labor 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.15

 Other factory costs 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.24 0.29

 Average COGS 0.74 0.76 0.88 0.78 0.95

Gross profit 0.23 0.24 0.28 0.27 0.22

SG&A expenses 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.15

Operating income1 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.07

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

1

 *** producers – *** – had difficulty preparing profit-and-loss statements for CSSF only, and instead estimated all

of their CSSF costs based upon the ratio of CSSF sales to all fastener sales. As a result, the profit margin for

CSSF and all other fasteners was the same. The ITC staff discourages producers in any investigation from

estimating all of their costs in such a manner, because the resulting cost structure and profitability will be the same

for any and all products, and this is often not the case. While it may be reasonable to base some costs, such as

SG&A expenses and interest expense, on the ratio of subject merchandise sales to all sales, it is seldom

reasonable to base cost of goods sold (direct materials, direct labor, and other factory costs) on such a ratio. 

Producers must instead review their accounting and cost records and determine the actual costs of the subject

merchandise (in this case CSSF). The problems associated with basing all costs upon the relative sales ratio

becomes more pronounced when the subject merchandise makes up a relatively small portion of the overall sales. 

This was the case for *** of the four named producers. Finally, the issue becomes particularly pronounced when

the overall sales contain a wide mix of high and low value products. In this particular case, the named producers

***.

The four named producers accounted for *** percent of sales values in every period. Their average operating

margins for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009, and the operating margins

of the five other producers, are as follows:

 Fiscal year---------------- January-June-- 

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Operating margins:

 Four named producers *** *** *** *** ***

 Five other producers *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 4

 Conference transcript, p. 97 (McCoy).

 5

 Conference transcript, p. 97 (McCoy). 

VI-4

Table VI-2

CSSF: Selected results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

As discussed at the staff conference, the producers’ operating costs increased from 2006 to 2009.4

The unit cost of raw materials (primarily cold-heading quality (CHQ) steel rod) increased by $0.13 per

pound, with most of the increase occurring from 2007 to 2008. This agrees with the data in figure V-1,

which shows the price for number 1 busheling scrap out of Chicago (the main input for CHQ rod)

increasing from approximately $300 per gross ton ($0.13 per pound) to as much as $750 per gross ton

$0.33 per pound) for a time in mid-2008 before falling to $200 per gross ton ($0.09 per pound) by late

2008.5

The unit cost of direct labor and other factory costs both increased by $0.04 per pound during the

same time frame, with essentially all of the increase occurring during the first half of 2009. As indicated

in table VI-1, the absolute values of these costs were lower by approximately 16 and 25 percent,

respectively, in January-June 2009 than in January-June 2008. However, since the relative decreases for

these semi-fixed costs were much less than the decrease in sales quantities (approximately 38 percent),

the unit costs for both increased.

A variance analysis for the operations of U.S. producers of CSSF is presented in table VI-3. The

information for this variance analysis is derived from table VI-1. The analysis confirms the previous

discussion – the increase in operating income from 2006 to 2008 was the result of revenues increasing

faster than costs, and operating income was lower in January-June 2009 compared to January-June 2008

because costs increased faster than revenues and sales volumes declined sharply. The summary at the

bottom of the table illustrates that from 2006 to 2008 the positive effect of increased prices ($31.6

million) was somewhat offset by increased costs ($22.7 million); comparing interim 2009 to 2008, the

combined negative effect of increased costs ($10.1 million) and decreased sales volume ($4.3 million)

was more than twice as much as the positive effect of increased prices ($6.8 million).

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES

Capital expenditures and research and development (“R&D”) expenses are shown in table VI-4. 

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Data on the U.S. producers’ total assets and their return on investment (“ROI”) are presented in

table VI-5. 
VI-5

Table VI-3

CSSF: Variance analysis on the operations of U.S. producers, 2006-08, and January-June 2008 to

January-June 2009

Item

Between fiscal years Jan.-June

2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales:

 Price variance 31,583 4,374 26,963 6,842

 Volume variance 2,725 (5,851) 8,822 (35,293)

 Total net sales variance 34,308 (1,477) 35,785 (28,451)

Cost of sales:

 Cost variance (24,430) (3,528) (20,703) (9,333)

 Volume variance (2,066) 4,437 (6,702) 26,365

 Total cost of sales variance (26,496) 909 (27,405) 17,032

Gross profit variance 7,812 (568) 8,380 (11,419)

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance 1,749 4,149 (2,633) (807)

 Volume variance (441) 947 (1,155) 4,636

 Total SG&A variance 1,308 5,096 (3,788) 3,829

Operating income variance 9,120 4,528 4,592 (7,590)

Summarized as:

 Price variance 31,583 4,374 26,963 6,842

 Net cost/expense variance (22,680) 621 (23,336) (10,141)

 Net volume variance 217 (467) 965 (4,291)

Note.--Unfavorable variances are shown in parentheses; all others are favorable. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
VI-6

Table VI-4

CSSF: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. producers, 2006-08,

January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

Item

Fiscal year January-June

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Value (1,000 dollars)

Capital expenditures:

 Brunner *** *** *** *** ***

 Copper State *** *** *** *** ***

 Hill Fastener *** *** *** *** ***

 MNP *** *** *** *** ***

 Nucor *** *** *** *** ***

 Quality Screw *** *** *** *** ***

 Safety Socket *** *** *** *** ***

 Telefast *** *** *** *** ***

 Unytite *** *** *** *** ***

 3V *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 2,692 3,227 6,412 *** ***

R&D expenses:

 Brunner *** *** *** *** ***

 Copper State *** *** *** *** ***

 Hill Fastener *** *** *** *** ***

 MNP *** *** *** *** ***

 Nucor *** *** *** *** ***

 Quality Screw *** *** *** *** ***

 Safety Socket *** *** *** *** ***

 Telefast *** *** *** *** ***

 Unytite *** *** *** *** ***

 3V *** *** *** *** ***

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

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
VI-7

Table VI-5

CSSF: U.S. producers’ total assets and return on investment, fiscal years 2006-08

Item

Fiscal year

2006 2007 2008

Value of assets: Value ($1,000)

Current assets:

 Cash and equivalents 1,713 1,735 2,654

 Accounts receivable, net 12,762 13,247 12,741

 Inventories 32,481 34,789 44,702

 Other 739 2,667 1,095

 Total current assets 47,695 52,438 61,192

Property, plant and equipment:

Original cost 79,405 84,050 92,411

Less: accumulated depreciation 60,788 65,006 70,709

Equals: book value 18,617 19,044 21,702

Other non-current assets 293 304 284

 Total assets 66,605 71,786 83,178

Operating income 12,617 17,145 21,737

Share (percent)

Return on investment 18.9 23.9 26.1

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers of CSSF to describe any actual or potential negative

effects of imports of CSSF from China and Taiwan on their firms’ growth, investment, ability to raise

capital, development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments. Their responses are as

follows:
VI-8

Since January 1, 2006, has your firm experienced any actual effects on its return on investment,

growth, investment, ability to raise capital, existing development and production efforts (including efforts

to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the product), or the scale of capital investments as a

result of imports of CSSF from China and/or Taiwan?

Brunner ***

Copper State ***

Hill Fastener ***

MNP ***

Nucor ***

Quality Bolt ***

Telefast ***

Unytite ***

3V ***

Does your firm anticipate any negative impact of imports of CSSF from China and/or Taiwan?

Brunner ***

Copper State ***

Hill Fastener ***

MNP ***

Nucor *** 

Quality Bolt ***

Telefast ***

Unytite ***

3V ***
 1

 More questionnaires were received than sent because staff believes that the Taiwan industry association

circulated the Commission’s questionnaire among its members to increase participation in these investigations.

VII-1

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON

NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making threat determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(F)(i)). Information on the nature of the alleged subsidies was presented earlier in this report;

information on the volume of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV; information on

the pricing of U.S. and imported subject products is presented in Part V; and information on the effects of

imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing development and production efforts is

presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’

operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any other threat indicators, if applicable; and

any dumping in third-country markets, follows. Also presented in this section of the report is information

obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The Commission requested data from 34 firms in China believed to be possible producers of

CSSF. Of these firms, 11 provided questionnaire responses containing useable data, two certified that

they had not produced or exported CSSF since January 1, 2006, and 21 did not provide responses. The

largest responding firm in terms of production, ***, estimated that it accounted for *** percent of

production of CSSF in China and *** percent of exports of CSSF from China to the United States.

Table VII-1 presents aggregated data reported by producers in China. Between 2006 and 2008,

capacity, inventories, and exports increased, whereas production, home-market shipments, and total

shipments decreased; the magnitude of the changes was generally minor, although inventories increased

substantially. Nearly all indicators decreased in January-June 2009 compared to the levels in JanuaryJune 2008. Virtually all projections also show decreases. One foreign producer, ***, attributed its

conservative projections to the current global recession.

Table VII-1

CSSF: China's reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2006-08,

January-June 2008, January-June 2009, and projections for 2009 and 2010

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN TAIWAN

The Commission requested data from 23 firms in Taiwan believed to be possible producers or

exporters of CSSF. Of these firms, 39 provided questionnaire responses containing useable data and 11

certified that they had not produced or exported CSSF since January 1, 2006.1

 ***, the largest responding

foreign producer in terms of production, estimated that it accounted for *** percent of 2008 total

production of CSSF in Taiwan and *** percent of 2008 exports of CSSF from Taiwan to the United

States. All other Taiwanese firms responding to the Commission’s questionnaire were *** smaller (based
 2

 One large producer of fasteners in Taiwan, ***, provided a questionnaire response claiming CSSF production,

but according to the company website ***, the company produces “vehicle fasteners.” Staff repeatedly attempted to

contact *** to confirm the nature of the company’s fastener operations but no further information was obtained. ***

was therefore excluded from the dataset.

 3

 Respondents’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 1 (Chen).

VII-2

on production) than ***.2 The Taiwan International Fastener Institute estimated total CSSF production

capacity in Taiwan to be *** pounds per year.3

Between 2006 and 2008, nearly all indicators reported by the Taiwanese firms decreased, with

production decreasing the most both absolutely and in percentage terms (table VII-2). Nearly all

indicators also decreased in January-June 2009 compared with the levels in January-June 2008, especially

production. Projections for 2009 and 2010 show substantial decreases from 2008 levels.

Table VII-2

CSSF: Taiwan's reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2006-08,

January-June 2008, January-June 2009, and projections for 2009 and 2010

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRIES IN CHINA AND TAIWAN COMBINED

Table VII-3 presents aggregate data for the reporting producers of CSSF in China and Taiwan.

Table VII-3

CSSF: Subject countries’ reported production capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories, 2006-08, January-June 2008, January-June 2009, and projections for 2009 and 2010

Item

Actual experience Projections

2006 2007 2008

January-June

2008 2009 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Capacity 809,463 799,717 815,641 400,327 371,132 706,218 703,777

Production 676,430 685,839 662,352 347,681 204,895 426,885 447,943

End of period inventories 92,120 114,876 123,396 101,899 121,870 112,466 98,866

Shipments:

 Internal consumption 5,914 9,502 8,416 3,609 3,845 8,299 8,317

 Home market 185,536 187,114 161,465 98,457 78,924 165,221 176,363

 Exports to--

 The United States 305,440 277,870 300,107 147,391 85,297 173,974 177,039

 All other markets 259,128 276,904 269,158 147,677 83,651 164,502 175,937

 Total exports 564,568 554,774 569,265 295,067 168,948 338,475 352,976

Total shipments 756,019 751,389 739,146 397,133 251,717 511,996 537,656

Table continued on next page.
VII-3

Table VII-3--Continued

CSSF: Subject countries’ reported production capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories, 2006-08, January-June 2008, January-June 2009, and projections for 2009 and 2010

Item

Actual experience Projections

2006 2007 2008

January-June

2008 2009 2009 2010

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 83.6 85.8 81.2 86.8 55.2 60.4 63.6

Inventories to production 13.6 16.7 18.6 14.7 29.7 26.3 22.1

Inventories to total

shipments 12.2 15.3 16.7 12.8 24.2 22.0 18.4

Share of total quantity of

shipments:

 Internal consumption 0.8 1.3 1.1 0.9 1.5 1.6 1.5

 Home market 24.5 24.9 21.8 24.8 31.4 32.3 32.8

 Exports to--

 The United States 40.4 37.0 40.6 37.1 33.9 34.0 32.9

 All other markets 34.3 36.9 36.4 37.2 33.2 32.1 32.7

 All export markets 74.7 73.8 77.0 74.3 67.1 66.1 65.7

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

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Reported end-of-period inventories of CSSF held by U.S. importers of subject merchandise from

China and Taiwan are shown in table VII-4. Inventories of CSSF from both China and Taiwan, as a ratio

to imports and to U.S. shipments of imports from each of those countries, were over 50 percent in 2008

and were over 70 percent in January-June 2009. Inventories of imports from all other sources were also

large as a ratio to imports and U.S. shipments of imports.
VII-4

Table VII-4

CSSF: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

Source

Calendar year January-June

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Imports from China:

 Inventories (1,000 pounds) 88,977 87,158 88,886 79,870 84,897

 Ratio to imports (percent) 53.0 55.3 56.1 51.1 72.2

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 55.4 57.4 58.9 50.6 71.1

Imports from Taiwan:

 Inventories (1,000 pounds) 91,836 90,138 104,071 86,097 96,303

 Ratio to imports (percent) 49.1 44.6 51.4 45.5 89.2

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 51.4 47.9 57.3 43.6 70.8

Imports from subject sources:

 Inventories (1,000 pounds) 180,813 177,296 192,957 165,967 181,201

 Ratio to imports (percent) 51.0 49.3 53.5 48.0 80.3

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 53.3 52.1 58.0 46.7 70.9

Imports from all other sources:

 Inventories (1,000 pounds) 45,571 38,899 50,254 50,142 45,368

 Ratio to imports (percent) 27.3 27.4 30.5 27.8 72.0

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 27.4 25.6 32.7 30.7 50.4

Imports from all sources:

 Inventories (1,000 pounds) 226,384 216,194 243,210 216,109 226,568

 Ratio to imports (percent) 43.4 43.1 46.3 41.1 78.5

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 44.7 43.9 50.0 41.7 65.6

Note.– Partial-year ratios are based on annualized import and shipment data.

Note.– Importer *** imports, shipments, and inventories do not reconcile. The firm reported that its database is

extremely fragmented and sometimes lacks key information, such as product weight and country of origin.

Note.– Importer *** imports, shipments, and inventories do not reconcile. The firm’s inventory data do not

differentiate based on foreign or domestic sources.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 4

 EC Council Regulation No 91/2009 (January 26, 2009). Antidumping duties range from 26.5 to 85.0 percent,

with two producers in China excluded from that order. The EU also has antidumping duties in place for stainless

steel fasteners from China, Taiwan, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam; investigations for imports from India and

Malaysia are also underway. “EIFI alleges stainless steel dumping from India and Malaysia.” Fastener+Fixing

Magazine. Fastener Fair. July 24, 2009, http://fastenerfair.com/page3074/antidumping.aspx, accessed on October

23, 2009.

 5

 “China asks WTO to rule on trade dispute on fasteners.” IndustryWeek. Agence France-Presse, October 12,

2009, http://www.industryweek.com/articles/china_asks_wto_to_rule_on_trade_dispute_on_fasteners_20152.aspx,

accessed on October 26, 2009. China also initiated its own antidumping duty investigation on fasteners from the EU

in December 2008. “China announces AD investigation against fasteners from EU.” Fastener Fair. January 7,

2009, http://www.fastenerfair.com/page3075/antidumping.aspx, accessed on October 28, 2009.

 6

 Canada Border Services Agency. Certain Carbon Steel and Stainless Steel Fasteners - Notice of Conclusion of

Re-investigation. February 28, 2007, http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/ri-re/ad1308/ad1308-ni06-eng.html,

accessed on October 23, 2009.

VII-5

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of CSSF after June 30, 2009. Table VII-5 presents importers’ responses by source.

Table VII-5

CSSF: U.S. importers’ current orders, by source, imported or arranged for importation after June

30, 2009

Source July-Sept.

2009

Oct.-Dec.

2009

Jan.-Mar.

2010

After Mar.

2010

Total

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China 12,838 33,377 14,429 265 60,909

Taiwan 18,991 42,675 11,605 697 73,968

All other sources 1,664 8,839 683 43 11,229

Total 33,493 84,892 26,717 1,005 146,107

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

ANTIDUMPING INVESTIGATIONS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

Staff is aware of several antidumping/countervailing duty investigations on steel fasteners

concerning one or both of the subject countries. The European Union conducted an antidumping duty

investigation on iron and steel (other than stainless steel) fasteners from China in 2007-09. An

antidumping duty order was imposed in January 2009.4

 China subsequently filed a complaint against the

EU at the World Trade Organization.5

 Canada conducted antidumping and countervailing duty

investigations on steel fasteners from China and Taiwan in 2004-05. The investigations resulted in the

imposition of antidumping duties on product from China and Taiwan as well as countervailing duties on

product from China; the duties remain in place.6

 South Africa maintains antidumping duties on Chinese

and Taiwanese fasteners from a 1999 investigation. The duties were continued in a 2005 review

investigation, but the order is due to expire unless another five-year review is requested by December 2,
 7

 “South Africa announced antidumping case against Chinese iron and steel bolts and nuts would expire soon.” 

Chinafastener.info. July 3, 2009, http://www.chinafastener.info/en/news/3042.htm, accessed on October 26, 2009.

 8

 “Mexico initiates antidumping investigation against carbon steel nuts from China.” Chinafastener.info. 

September 2, 2009, http://www.chinafastener.info/en/news/2943/Mexico_initiates_antidumping_investigation_

against_carbon_steel_nuts_from_China.htm, accessed on October 26, 2009.

 9

 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 2007-1552 at 17 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 18, 2008), quoting from

Statement of Administrative Action on Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. I at 851-52; see

also Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

 10 Conference transcript, p. 75 (Witucki).

 11 Ibid., p. 186 (Porteous).

 12 Conference transcript, p. 43 (Witucki).

 13 Based on importer questionnaire responses.

 14 Based on importer questionnaire responses from *** (Canada), *** (Italy), *** (Japan), and *** (Thailand).

VII-6

2009.7

 In addition, Mexico initiated an antidumping duty investigation on carbon steel nuts from China

in February 2009.8

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury

“by reason of subject imports,” the legislative history states “that the Commission must examine all

relevant evidence, including any known factors, other than the dumped or subsidized imports, that may be

injuring the domestic industry, and that the Commission must examine those other factors (including nonsubject imports) ‘to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.’”9

There is no publicly available information regarding international production or exports of CSSF

during the period for which data were collected. Canada is known to be a significant producer of CSSF,

accounting for at least 3 percent of total imports of CSSF coming into the United States.10 Certain firms

in Korea and Thailand are believed to have significant operations as well.11 Jim Witucki, sales manager

for Nucor, testified that “...although there’s a presence of others, they’re either still in the developing

stages or so small that they really don’t come into play in a regular and ongoing basis...”12 Other

countries believed to be producing CSSF on a smaller scale include Brazil, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy,

Japan, Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.13 Of the countries mentioned, staff believes

Canada, Italy, Japan, and Thailand to be some of the largest sources CSSF imports outside of China and

Taiwan.14
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Notices 49889 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–468 and 731– 

TA–1166–1167 (Preliminary)] 

Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From 

China and Mexico 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject investigations, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(Commission) determines, pursuant to 

sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 19 

U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is 

a reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured,2 or threatened with material 

injury 3 by reason of imports from China 

and Mexico of certain magnesia carbon 

bricks, provided for in subheadings 

6902.10.10, 6902.10.50, 6815.91.00, and 

6815.99.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States, that are 

alleged to be sold in the United States 

at less than fair value (LTFV) and 

subsidized by the Government of China. 

Commencement of Final Phase 

Investigation 

Pursuant to section 207.18 of the 

Commission’s rules, the Commission 

also gives notice of the commencement 

of the final phase of its investigations. 

The Commission will issue a final phase 

notice of scheduling, which will be 

published in the Federal Register as 

provided in section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules, upon notice from 

the Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) of affirmative preliminary 

determinations in these investigations 

under sections 703(b) and 733(b) of the 

Act, or, if the preliminary 

determinations are negative, upon 

notice of affirmative final 

determinations in those investigations 

under sections 705(a) and 735(a) of the 

Act. Parties that filed entries of 

appearance in the preliminary phase of 

the investigations need not enter a 

separate appearance for the final phase 

of the investigations. Industrial users, 

and, if the merchandise under 

investigation is sold at the retail level, 

representative consumer organizations 

have the right to appear as parties in 

Commission antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations. The 

Secretary will prepare a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to the investigations. 

Background 

On July 29, 2009, a petition was filed 

with the Commission and Commerce by 

Resco Products Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 

alleging that an industry in the United 

States is materially injured or 

threatened with material injury by 

reason of subsidized imports of certain 

magnesia carbon bricks from China and 

LTFV imports of certain magnesia 

carbon bricks from China and Mexico. 

Accordingly, effective July 29, 2009, the 

Commission instituted countervailing 

duty investigation No. 701–TA–468 

(Preliminary) and antidumping duty 

investigation Nos. 731–TA–1166–1167 

(Preliminary). 

Notice of the institution of the 

Commission’s investigations and of a 

public conference to be held in 

connection therewith was given by 

posting copies of the notice in the Office 

of the Secretary, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, Washington, DC, 

and by publishing the notice in the 

Federal Register of August 10, 2009 (74 

FR 39969). The conference was held in 

Washington, DC, on August 19, 2009, 

and all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in 

person or by counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determinations in these investigations to 

the Secretary of Commerce on 

September 14, 2009. The views of the 

Commission are contained in USITC 

Publication 4100 (September 2009), 

entitled Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks 

from China and Mexico: Investigation 

Nos. 701–TA–468 and 731–TA–1166– 

1167 (Preliminary). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 22, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–23388 Filed 9–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–472 and 731– 

TA–1171–1172 (Preliminary)] 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners From 

China and Taiwan 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations and 

scheduling of preliminary phase 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the institution of investigations 

and commencement of preliminary 

phase antidumping and countervailing 

duty investigations Nos. 701–TA–472 

and 731–TA–1171–1172 (Preliminary) 

under sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) 

and 1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that an industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, or the establishment of 

an industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

imports from China and/or Taiwan of 

certain standard steel fasteners 

(‘‘fasteners’’), provided for in 

subheadings 7318.15.20, 7318.15.80, 

and 7318.16.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States, that are 

alleged to be sold in the United States 

at less than fair value and alleged to be 

subsidized by the Government of China. 

Unless the Department of Commerce 

extends the time for initiation pursuant 

to sections 702(c)(1)(B) or 732(c)(1)(B) of 

the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671a(c)(1)(B) or 

1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must 

reach a preliminary determination in 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

investigations in 45 days, or in this case 

by November 9, 2009. The 

Commission’s views are due at 

Commerce within five business days 

thereafter, or by November 17, 2009. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of these investigations and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: September 23, 

2009. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
49890 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 29, 2009 / Notices 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joshua Kaplan (202–205–3184), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—These investigations 

are being instituted in response to a 

petition filed on September 23, 2009, by 

Nucor Fastener Division, St. Joe, IN. 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list.—Persons (other than 

petitioners) wishing to participate in the 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the 

Commission’s rules, not later than seven 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Industrial users 

and (if the merchandise under 

investigation is sold at the retail level) 

representative consumer organizations 

have the right to appear as parties in 

Commission antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations. The 

Secretary will prepare a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to these investigations 

upon the expiration of the period for 

filing entries of appearance. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in these investigations 

available to authorized applicants 

representing interested parties (as 

defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are 

parties to the investigations under the 

APO issued in the investigations, 

provided that the application is made 

not later than seven days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. A separate service list will be 

maintained by the Secretary for those 

parties authorized to receive BPI under 

the APO. 

Conference.—The Commission’s 

Director of Investigations has scheduled 

a conference in connection with these 

investigations for 9:30 a.m. on October 

14, 2009, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building, 500 E Street, 

SW., Washington, DC. Parties wishing to 

participate in the conference should 

contact Joshua Kaplan (202–205–3184) 

not later than October 9, 2009, to 

arrange for their appearance. Parties in 

support of the imposition of 

antidumping and/or countervailing 

duties in these investigations and 

parties in opposition to the imposition 

of such duties will each be collectively 

allocated one hour within which to 

make an oral presentation at the 

conference. A nonparty who has 

testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the conference. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the 

Commission’s rules, any person may 

submit to the Commission on or before 

October 19, 2009, a written brief 

containing information and arguments 

pertinent to the subject matter of the 

investigations. Parties may file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the conference no later 

than three days before the conference. If 

briefs or written testimony contain BPI, 

they must conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, 

and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. 

The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the investigations 

must be served on all other parties to 

the investigations (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.12 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 24, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–23501 Filed 9–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–636] 

In the Matter of Certain Laser 

Imageable Lithographic Printing 

Plates: Notice of Commission 

Determination To Review in Part an 

Initial Determination Finding 

Respondents in Violation of Section 

337 and on Review To Affirm the 

Administrative Law Judge’s 

Determination That There Is a Violation 

of Section 337; Schedule for Briefing 

on the Issues on Review and on 

Remedy, Public Interest, and Bonding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States 

International Trade Commission hereby 

provides notice that it has determined to 

review in part the final initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the 

presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) finding a violation of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1337) by the remaining respondents in 

the above-captioned investigation. 

Specifically, the Commission has 

determined to modify the ALJ’s claim 

construction analysis, but to affirm the 

ALJ’s determination of violation of 

section 337. Notice is further given that 

the Commission is requesting briefing 

on remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding with respect to the respondents 

found in violation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

M. Bartkowski, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–5432. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 54537 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Commodity Matchbooks from India.’’ 

See also the October 15, 2009, 

memorandum from LaVonne Clark, 

Senior Accountant, to Neal Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, 

‘‘Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Final Determination 

- Triveni Safety Matches Pvt. Ltd.’’ 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the sales and cost 

information submitted by Triveni for 

use in our final determination. We used 

standard verification procedures 

including an examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, and 

original source documents provided by 

Triveni. Our sales and cost verification 

results are outlined in separate 

verification reports. See the June 24, 

2009, memorandum from Holly Phelps, 

Analyst, to James P. Maeder, Director, 

Office 2, entitled, ‘‘Verification of the 

Sales Response of Triveni Safety 

Matches Pvt. Ltd. (Triveni) in the Less– 

Than-Fair–Value Investigation on 

Commodity Matchbooks from India.’’ 

See also the July 16, 2009, 

memorandum from LaVonne Clark, 

Senior Accountant, to Neal Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, 

‘‘Verification of the Cost Response of 

Triveni Safety Matches Pvt., Ltd. in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Commodity Matchbooks from India.’’ 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

Pursuant to 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we 

will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of subject 

merchandise from India, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after June 2, 2009, 

the date of publication of the 

preliminary determination in the 

Federal Register. CBP shall require a 

cash deposit or the posting of a bond 

equal to the estimated amount by which 

the normal value exceeds the U.S. price 

as shown below, adjusted for export 

subsidies found in the final 

determination of the companion 

countervailing duty investigation of this 

merchandise. Specifically, consistent 

with our practice, where the product 

under investigation is also subject to a 

concurrent countervailing duty 

investigation, we instruct CBP to require 

a cash deposit or posting of a bond 

equal to the amount by which the 

normal value exceeds the export price 

or constructed export price, as indicated 

below, less the amount of the 

countervailing duty determined to 

constitute an export subsidy. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole 

Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 

67306, 67307 (Nov. 17, 2004). 

Accordingly, for cash deposit 

purposes, we are subtracting from the 

applicable cash deposit rate that portion 

of the rate attributable to the export 

subsidies found in the affirmative 

countervailing duty determination for 

each respondent (i.e., 9.88 percent for 

Triveni, and 9.88 percent for ‘‘All 

Others’’). After the adjustment for the 

cash deposit rates attributed to export 

subsidies, the resulting cash deposit 

rates will be 56.19 percent for Triveni 

and 56.19 percent for ‘‘All Others.’’ 

These instructions suspending 

liquidation will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Final Determination Margins 

The weighted–average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

Producer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (percent) 

‘‘All Others’’ Rate 

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

provides that the estimated ‘‘All Others’’ 

rate shall be an amount equal to the 

weighted average of the estimated 

weighted–average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero or de minimis margins, and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. Triveni is the 

only respondent in this investigation. 

Therefore, for purposes of determining 

the ‘‘All Others’’ rate and pursuant to 

section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are 

using the weighted–average dumping 

margin calculated for Triveni, as 

referenced above. See, e.g., Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet 

and Strip in Coils From Italy, 64 FR 

30750, 30755 (June 8, 1999); and Coated 

Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination, 72 FR 30753, 

30757 (June 4, 2007), unchanged in 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free 

Sheet Paper from Indonesia, 72 FR 

60636 (Oct. 25, 2007). 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

our final determination. As our final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine within 45 days whether 

imports of the subject merchandise are 

causing material injury, or threat of 

material injury, to an industry in the 

United States. If the ITC determines that 

material injury or threat of injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

This notice will serve as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the 

Act. 

Dated: October 15, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–25446 Filed 10–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–960, A–583–845] 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners From 

the People’s Republic of China and 

Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations 

DATES: Effective Date: October 22, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD 

Operations Office 7, (202) 482–6312 or 

(202) 482–0649, respectively (Taiwan); 

Susan Pulongbarit or Jerry Huang, AD/ 

CVD Operations Office 9, (202) 482– 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
54538 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 

4031 or (202) 482–4047, respectively 

(People’s Republic of China); Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 23, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) received 

petitions concerning imports of certain 

standard steel fasteners (fasteners) from 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC) 

and Taiwan filed in proper form by 

Nucor Fastener (Petitioner). See 

Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties: Certain Standard Steel Fasteners 

from the People’s Republic of China and 

Taiwan, dated September 23, 2009 

(Petition). On September 30, 2009, the 

Department issued additional requests 

for information and clarification of 

certain areas of the Petition. Petitioner 

timely filed additional information 

pertaining to Taiwan and the PRC on 

October 5, 2009. See Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners from 

Taiwan: Response to Deficiency 

Questionnaire, dated October 5, 2009 

(Taiwan Deficiency Response); see also 

Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Certain 

Standard Steel Fasteners from the 

People’s Republic of China: Response to 

Deficiency Questionnaire, dated October 

5, 2009 (PRC Deficiency Response). 

Petitioner further timely filed additional 

information pertaining to general issues 

in the Petition on October 6, 2009 (see 

Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties 

on Certain Standard Steel Fasteners 

from the People’s Republic of China and 

Taiwan: Response to General Issues 

Deficiency Questionnaire, dated October 

6, 2009 (Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions)), on October 8, 2009 (see 

Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties 

on Certain Standard Steel Fasteners 

from the People’s Republic of China and 

Antidumping Duties on Certain 

Standard Steel Fasteners from Taiwan: 

Submission of Additional Information 

Related to The Calculation of Industry 

Standing, dated October 8, 2009 

(Industry Support Supplement)), also on 

October 8, 2009, (see Petitions for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Certain 

Standard Steel Fasteners from the 

People’s Republic of China and Taiwan: 

Response to General Issues Deficiency 

Questionnaire, dated October 8, 2009 

(Second Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions)), also on October 8, 2009, (see 

Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties 

on Certain Standard Steel Fasteners 

from the People’s Republic of China and 

Antidumping Duties on Certain 

Standard Steel Fasteners from Taiwan: 

Confirmation of Simultaneous Filing at 

DOC and ITC, dated October 8, 2009 

(Simultaneous Filing Supplement)), on 

October 9, 2009 (see Petitions for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties on Certain 

Standard Steel Fasteners from the 

People’s Republic of China and 

Antidumping Duties on Certain 

Standard Steel Fasteners from Taiwan: 

Revised Description of Scope and Uses 

and Technical Characteristics/U.S. 

Producers List, dated October 9, 2009 

(Third Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions)), and on October 13, 2009 (see 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners from 

the People’s Republic of China and 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners from 

Taiwan). 

The period of investigation (POI) for 

the PRC is January 1, 2009, through June 

30, 2009. The POI for Taiwan is July 1, 

2008, through June 30, 2009. See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Tariff Act), Petitioner alleges that 

imports of certain standard steel 

fasteners from the PRC and Taiwan are 

being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value, 

within the meaning of section 731 of the 

Tariff Act, and that such imports are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. 

The Department finds Petitioner filed 

the Petition on behalf of the domestic 

industry because Petitioner is an 

interested party, as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Tariff Act, and has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

duty investigations that Petitioner is 

requesting the Department to initiate 

(see ‘‘Determination of Industry Support 

for the Petitions’’ section below). 

Scope of the Investigations 

The products covered by these 

investigations are fasteners from the 

PRC and Taiwan. For a full description 

of the scope of the investigations, please 

see ‘‘Scope of Investigations,’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. The 

Department, after consulting with 

Petitioner, made minor changes to the 

scope language submitted by Petitioner 

in the Third Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions. See Memorandum to the file 

from Steve Bezirganian, Analyst, 

entitled ‘‘Certain Standard Steel 

Fasteners from the People’s Republic of 

China (A–570–960 and C–570–961) and 

Taiwan (A–583–845): Revisions to 

Petitioner’s Proposed October 9, 2009, 

Scope Language,’’ dated October 13, 

2009. 

Comments on Scope of Investigations 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioner to 

ensure that it is an accurate reflection of 

the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 

discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations (Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage. The Department encourages 

all interested parties to submit such 

comments by Monday, November 2, 

2009, which is twenty calendar days 

from the signature date of this notice. 

Comments should be addressed to 

Import Administration’s APO/Dockets 

Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

The period of scope consultations is 

intended to provide the Department 

with ample opportunity to consider all 

comments and to consult with parties 

prior to the issuance of the preliminary 

determinations. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires 

We are requesting comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

fasteners to be reported in response to 

the Department’s antidumping 

questionnaires. This information will be 

used to identify the key physical 

characteristics of the merchandise under 

consideration in order to more 

accurately report the relevant factors 

and costs of production, as well as to 

develop appropriate product 

comparison criteria. 

Interested parties may provide 

information or comments that they 

believe are relevant to the development 

of an accurate listing of physical 

characteristics. Specifically, they may 

provide comments as to which 

characteristics are appropriate to use as: 

(1) General product characteristics; and 

(2) the product comparison criteria. We 

note that it is not always appropriate to 

use all product characteristics as 

product comparison criteria. We base 

product comparison criteria on 

meaningful commercial differences 

among products. In other words, while 

there may be some physical product 

characteristics utilized by 

manufacturers to describe fasteners, it 

may be that only a select few product 

characteristics take into account 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 54539 

commercially meaningful physical 

characteristics. In addition, interested 

parties may comment on the order in 

which the physical characteristics 

should be used in product matching. 

Generally, the Department attempts to 

list the most important physical 

characteristics first and the least 

important characteristics last. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing and 

issuing the antidumping duty 

questionnaires, we must receive 

comments at the above-referenced 

address by October 27, 2009. 

Additionally, rebuttal comments must 

be received by November 3, 2009. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petitions 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Tariff Act 

requires that a petition be filed on 

behalf of the domestic industry. Section 

732(c)(4)(A) of the Tariff Act provides 

that a petition meets this requirement if 

the domestic producers or workers who 

support the petition account for: (i) At 

least 25 percent of the total production 

of the domestic like product; and (ii) 

more than 50 percent of the production 

of the domestic like product produced 

by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the petition. Moreover, section 

732(c)(4)(D) of the Tariff Act provides 

that, if the petition does not establish 

support of domestic producers or 

workers accounting for more than 50 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product, the Department 

shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on 

other information in order to determine 

if there is support for the petition, as 

required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) 

determine industry support using a 

statistically valid sampling method to 

poll the industry. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act 

defines the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers 

as a whole of a domestic like product. 

Thus, to determine whether a petition 

has the requisite industry support, the 

statute directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (the Commission), 

which is responsible for determining 

whether ‘‘the domestic industry’’ has 

been injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the Commission 

must apply the same statutory definition 

regarding the domestic like product (see 

section 771(10) of the Tariff Act), they 

do so for different purposes and 

pursuant to a separate and distinct 

authority. In addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (Ct. 

Int’l Trade 2001), citing Algoma Steel 

Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 

Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), 

aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. 

denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Tariff Act 

defines the domestic like product as ‘‘a 

product which is like, or in the absence 

of like, most similar in characteristics 

and uses with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioner does not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigations. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that 

fasteners constitute a single domestic 

like product and we have analyzed 

industry support in terms of that 

domestic like product. For a discussion 

of the domestic like product analysis in 

this case, see Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners from 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC 

Checklist), at Attachment II, Industry 

Support, and Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners from 

Taiwan (Taiwan Checklist), at 

Attachment II, Industry Support, on file 

in the Central Records Unit (CRU), 

Room 1117 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. 

In determining whether Petitioner has 

standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of 

the Tariff Act, we considered the 

industry support data contained in the 

Petitions with reference to the domestic 

like product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigations’’ section above. To 

establish industry support, Petitioner 

provided its production of the domestic 

like product for the year 2008, and 

compared this to the estimated total 

production of the domestic like product 

for the entire domestic industry. See 

Volume I of the Petition, at 2–3, Exhibit 

I–10; see also Supplement to the AD/ 

CVD Petitions, at 17–18, Exhibit I– 

Supp-6, and Industry Support 

Supplement, at Attachment 1. To 

estimate 2008 production of the 

domestic like product, Petitioner used 

its own data and industry specific 

knowledge. See Industry Support 

Supplement, at Attachment I; see also 

PRC Checklist at Attachment II, Taiwan 

Checklist at Attachment II. Petitioner 

calculated total domestic production 

based on its own production plus 

estimates regarding the other producers 

of the domestic like product in the 

United States. Id. We have relied upon 

data Petitioner provided for purposes of 

measuring industry support. For further 

discussion, see Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. 

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petitions, supplemental submissions, 

and other information readily available 

to the Department indicates that 

Petitioner has established industry 

support. First, the Petitions established 

support from domestic producers (or 

workers) accounting for more than 50 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product and, as such, the 

Department is not required to take 

further action in order to evaluate 

industry support (e.g., polling). See 

section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Tariff Act; see 

also PRC Checklist at Attachment II, and 

Taiwan Checklist at Attachment II. 

Second, the domestic producers (or 

workers) have met the statutory criteria 

for industry support under section 

732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act because 

the domestic producers (or workers) 

who support the Petitions account for at 

least 25 percent of the total production 

of the domestic like product. See PRC 

Checklist at Attachment II, and Taiwan 

Checklist at Attachment II. Finally, the 

domestic producers (or workers) have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Tariff Act because the domestic 

producers (or workers) who support the 

Petitions account for more than 50 

percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

Petitions. Accordingly, the Department 

determines that the Petitions were filed 

on behalf of the domestic industry 

within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act. Id. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petitions on behalf of the 

domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Tariff Act and it has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

duty investigations that it is requesting 

the Department initiate. Id. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioner alleges that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
54540 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than normal 

value (NV). In addition, Petitioner 

alleges that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Tariff 

Act. 

Petitioner contends that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, underselling and 

price depressing and suppressing 

effects, increased import penetration, 

declining sales, reduced production, 

reduced capacity, increased raw 

material cost, abandoned product lines, 

reduced shipments, reduced wages and 

hours worked, and an overall decline in 

financial performance. We have 

assessed the allegations and supporting 

evidence regarding material injury, 

threat of material injury, and causation, 

and we have determined that these 

allegations are properly supported by 

adequate evidence and meet the 

statutory requirements for initiation. See 

PRC Checklist at Attachment III, Injury, 

and Taiwan Checklist at Attachment III, 

Injury. 

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value 

The following is a description of the 

allegations of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department based its 

decision to initiate these investigations 

of imports of fasteners from the PRC and 

Taiwan. The sources of data for the 

deductions and adjustments relating to 

the U.S. price, the factors of production 

(for the PRC), and price-based NV (for 

Taiwan) are also discussed in the 

country-specific initiation checklists. 

See PRC Checklist and Taiwan 

Checklist. 

U.S. Price 

The PRC 

For the PRC, Petitioner calculated 

export price (EP) based on 

documentation of offers for sale 

obtained from a confidential source. See 

PRC Initiation Checklist; see also 

Petition Vol. II at 3 and Exhibit II–2. 

Based on the terms of sale, Petitioner 

adjusted the export price for brokerage 

and handling, ocean freight, insurance 

and port expenses, as well as U.S. 

inland freight expenses. See PRC 

Initiation Checklist; see also Petition 

Vol. II at 5–13 and Exhibit II–5. 

Taiwan 

For Taiwan, Petitioner based U.S. 

price on EP because, it maintains, 

Taiwanese producers typically sell the 

subject merchandise either directly to 

unaffiliated U.S. customers or via an 

unaffiliated trading company to the U.S. 

customer. Petitioner obtained POI prices 

of fasteners produced by the Taiwanese 

manufacturer Jinn Her Enterprise Co., 

Ltd. (Jinn Her). Petitioner substantiated 

the U.S. prices used with affidavits from 

persons who obtained the information. 

Petitioner deducted, where appropriate, 

movement expenses (foreign inland 

freight, foreign port, brokerage and 

handling charges, ocean freight, and 

U.S. inland freight). Petitioners also 

deducted an amount for imputed credit 

expenses, based upon the presumed 

terms of payment. See Taiwan 

Checklist; see also Petition Vol. IV at 2– 

8 and Exhibits IV–1 to IV–15, and 

Taiwan Deficiency Response at Exhibits 

IV–Supp-1 to IV–Supp-5. 

Normal Value 

The PRC 

Petitioner claims the PRC is a nonmarket economy (NME) country and 

that no determination to the contrary 

has been made by the Department. See 

Petition Vol. II at 14. In accordance with 

section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the 

presumption of NME status remains in 

effect until revoked by the Department. 

The presumption of NME status for the 

PRC has not been revoked by the 

Department and, therefore, remains in 

effect for purposes of the initiation of 

this investigation. Accordingly, the NV 

of the product for the PRC investigation 

is appropriately based on factors of 

production valued in a surrogate 

market-economy country in accordance 

with section 773(c) of the Act. In the 

course of the PRC investigation, all 

parties, including the public, will have 

the opportunity to provide relevant 

information related to the issue of the 

PRC’s NME status and the granting of 

separate rates to individual exporters. 

Petitioner contends that India is the 

appropriate surrogate country for the 

PRC because: (1) it is at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC and (2) it is a significant 

producer and exporter of comparable 

merchandise. See Petition Vol. II at 14– 

16. Based on the information provided 

by Petitioner, we believe that it is 

appropriate to use India as a surrogate 

country for initiation purposes. After 

initiation of the investigation, interested 

parties will have the opportunity to 

submit comments regarding surrogate 

country selection and, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided 

an opportunity to submit publicly 

available information to value factors of 

production within 40 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

Petitioner calculated the NV and 

dumping margins using the 

Department’s NME methodology as 

required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) 

and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioner 

calculated NV based on consumption 

rates of the factors of production on the 

average consumption rates of a fasteners 

producer in the United States (Surrogate 

Domestic Producer) for identical or 

similar merchandise. See Petition Vol. II 

at 2 and 16–17 and Exhibit II–16. In 

calculating NV, Petitioner based the 

quantity of each of the inputs used to 

manufacture and pack fasteners in the 

PRC on product-specific production 

costs and/or consumption rates of the 

Surrogate Domestic Producer during the 

POI. See Petition Vol. II at 16–17 and 

Exhibit II–16. Petitioner states that the 

actual usage rates of the foreign 

manufacturers of fasteners, Autocraft 

Industrial (Autocraft) and Shanghai 

Prime Machinery Co., Ltd. (Shanghai 

Prime), are not reasonably available; 

however, Petitioner notes that according 

to the information available to 

Petitioner, the production of fasteners 

by Autocraft and Shanghai Prime relies 

on similar production methods to the 

Surrogate Domestic Producer. See 

Petition Vol. II at 16 and 19 and and 16– 

17 and Exhibit II–16. 

Petitioner determined the 

consumption quantities of all raw 

materials and packing materials based 

on the production experience of the 

Surrogate Domestic Producer. See 

Petition Vol. II at 2 and 19–20. 

Petitioner valued the factors of 

production based on reasonably 

available, public surrogate country data, 

specifically, Indian import statistics 

from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA). See 

the PRC Deficiency Response at 1 and 

Exhibits II–Supp-1 and 2. Petitioner 

excluded from these import statistics 

imports from countries previously 

determined by the Department to be 

NME countries. Petitioner also excluded 

import statistics from Indonesia, the 

Republic of Korea, and Thailand, as the 

Department has previously excluded 

prices from these countries because they 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific export subsidies. Id., 

at 1 and Exhibits II–Supp-1 and 2. In 

addition, the Petitioner made currency 

conversions, where necessary, based on 

the POI-average rupee/U.S. dollar 

exchange rate, as reported on the 

Department’s Web site. See Petition Vol. 

II at 21 and Exhibit II–8. Petitioner 

determined labor costs using the labor 

consumption, in hours, derived from the 

Surrogate Domestic Producer’s 

experience. See Exhibit II–16 and PRC 

Deficiency Response at Exhibit II–Supp2. Petitioner valued labor costs using the 

Department’s NME Wage Rate for the 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 54541 

PRC at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/ 

05wages/05wages-051608.html. See 

Petition Vol. II at 26. For purposes of 

initiation, the Department determines 

that the surrogate values used by 

Petitioner are reasonably available and, 

thus, acceptable for purposes of 

initiation. 

Petitioner determined electricity costs 

using the electricity consumption, in 

kilowatt hours, derived from the 

Surrogate Domestic Producer’s 

experience. See Petition Vol. II at 26 and 

Exhibit II–16. Petitioner valued 

electricity using the Indian electricity 

rate reported by the Central Electric 

Authority of the Government of India. 

See PRC Deficiency Response at 3 and 

Exhibits II–Supp-2 and II–Supp-5. 

Petitioner determined natural gas 

costs using the natural gas consumption 

derived from the Surrogate Domestic 

Producer’s experience. See Volume II of 

the Petition at Exhibit II–16. Petitioner 

valued natural gas using the CRISIL 

natural gas rate that the Department 

replied upon in several recent 

investigations. See, e.g., Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations: LightWalled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 

Republic of Korea, Mexico, Turkey, and 

the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 

40274 (July 24, 2007). Petitioner 

converted the amounts denominated in 

Indian rupees to USD using the 

Department’s published exchange rates 

for the time period for the prospective 

POI. See Volume II of the Petition at 25– 

26 and Exhibit II–22. 

Petitioner determined nitrogen costs 

using a price quote from Bhoruka Gases 

Ltd, which was previously relied upon 

in Frontseating Valves from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Final Negative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 13, 

2009) and Petition Vol. II at 25 and 

Exhibit II–20, and the Supplement to 

the Petition Vol. II at 2. 

Petitioner determined the 

consumption of all packing materials 

based on the Surrogate Domestic 

Producer’s experience. See Volume II of 

the Petition at 28 and Exhibit II–16. 

Petitioner valued packing materials 

based on Indian import statistics from 

GTA, and as noted above, excluded 

NME countries as well as countries with 

general export subsidies. See the 

Supplement to the AD PRC Petition at 

Exhibit II–Supp-1. In addition, 

Petitioner made currency conversions, 

where necessary, based on the POIaverage rupee/USD exchange rate, as 

reported on the Department’s Web site. 

See the Supplement to the AD PRC 

Petition at Exhibit II–Supp-3. 

Petitioner based factory overhead, 

selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A), and profit on data from 

Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. (SFL), a 

producer of similar merchandise, for the 

2007–2008 fiscal year. See Petition Vol. 

II at 27–28 and Exhibit II–24. For 

purposes of the initiation, the 

Department finds Petitioner’s use of 

SFL’s unconsolidated financial ratios 

appropriate. 

Taiwan 

Petitioner based NV on price quotes 

for fasteners offered for sale in Taiwan 

by Jinn Her. These price and adjustment 

data were obtained through market 

research commissioned by petitioner. 

The price and adjustment data involve 

merchandise that is both commonly 

sold in the home market, and is 

substantially identical to the 

merchandise sold in the United States. 

Since the prices quoted were on an ‘‘exworks’’ basis, Petitioner made no 

adjustments for movement expenses. 

Petitioner adjusted NV for imputed 

credit expenses. For comparison to EP, 

petitioner then added U.S. credit 

expenses. See Taiwan Checklist. 

Fair-Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioner, there is reason to believe that 

imports of fasteners from the PRC and 

Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value. Based on a comparison of U.S. 

prices and NV calculated in accordance 

with section 773(c) of the Tariff Act, the 

estimated dumping margins for 

fasteners from the PRC range from 66.87 

percent to 205.97 percent. See PRC 

Checklist and PRC Deficiency Response 

at Exhibit II–Supp-4. Based on a 

comparison of U.S. price and NV, the 

estimated dumping margins for 

fasteners from Taiwan range from 51.39 

percent to 114.14 percent. See Taiwan 

Checklist; see also Petition Vol. IV at 

18–19 and Exhibit IV–20, and Taiwan 

Deficiency Response at 11 and Exhibit 

IV–Supp-8. 

Initiation of Antidumping 

Investigations 

Based upon the examination of the 

Petition on fasteners from the PRC and 

Taiwan, the Department finds the 

Petition meets the requirements of 

section 732 of the Tariff Act. Therefore, 

we are initiating antidumping duty 

investigations to determine whether 

imports of fasteners from the PRC and 

Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value. In accordance with section 

733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act and 19 

CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, 

we will make our preliminary 

determinations no later than 140 days 

after the date of this initiation. 

Targeted-Dumping Allegations 

On December 10, 2008, the 

Department issued an interim final rule 

for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 

351.414(f) and (g), the regulatory 

provisions governing the targeteddumping analysis in antidumping duty 

investigations, and the corresponding 

regulation governing the deadline for 

targeted-dumping allegations, 19 CFR 

351.301(d)(5). See Withdrawal of the 

Regulatory Provisions Governing 

Targeted Dumping in Antidumping 

Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930 

(December 10, 2008). The Department 

stated that ‘‘withdrawal will allow the 

Department to exercise the discretion 

intended by the statute and, thereby, 

develop a practice that will allow 

interested parties to pursue all statutory 

avenues of relief in this area.’’ Id., 73 FR 

at 74931. 

In order to accomplish this objective, 

if any interested party wishes to make 

a targeted-dumping allegation in either 

of these investigations pursuant to 

section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act, 

such allegations are due no later than 45 

days before the scheduled date of the 

country-specific preliminary 

determination. 

Respondent Selection 

The PRC 

For this investigation, the Department 

will request quantity and value 

information from all known exporters 

and producers identified with complete 

contact information in the Petition. The 

quantity and value data received from 

NME exporters/producers will be used 

as the basis to select the mandatory 

respondents. 

The Department requires that the 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate-rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate-rate status. 

See Circular Welded Austenitic 

Stainless Pressure Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas 

From the People’s Republic of China, 70 

FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). The 

Department will post the quantity and 

value questionnaire along with the filing 

instructions on the Import 

Administration Web site at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html, and a response to the 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
54542 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 

quantity and value questionnaire is due 

no later than November 3, 2009. Also, 

the Department will send the quantity 

and value questionnaire to those PRC 

companies identified in the Petition at 

Exhibit I–4 and in the General Issues 

Deficiency Response at Exhibit I–Supp1. 

Taiwan 

For this investigation, the Department 

intends to select respondents based on 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) data for U.S. imports under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) numbers 

7318.15.2030, 7318.15.2055, 

7318.15.2065, 7318.15.8065, 

7318.15.8085, and 7318.16.0085, the six 

HTSUS categories most specific to the 

subject merchandise, during the POI. 

We intend to release the CBP data under 

Administrative Protective Order (APO) 

to all parties with access to information 

protected by APO within five days of 

publication of this Federal Register 

notice. We note that Petitioner has 

stated that five of the six HTS categories 

covering subject merchandise ‘‘are 

broad basket categories that also cover 

products outside the scope of this 

investigation.’’ See Petition at 9 and 

Exhibit I–5. Accordingly, the 

Department invites additional 

comments regarding the CBP data and 

respondent selection, including the 

propriety of basing respondent selection 

upon CBP data in this investigation, 

within ten days of publication of this 

Federal Register notice. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Instructions for filing such applications 

may be found on the Department’s Web 

site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo. 

Separate Rates Application 

In order to obtain separate-rate status 

in NME investigations, exporters and 

producers must submit a separate-rate 

status application. See Policy Bulletin 

05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 

Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving 

Non-Market Economy Countries, dated 

April 5, 2005 (Separate Rates and 

Combination Rates Bulletin), available 

on the Department’s Web site at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. Based 

on our experience in processing the 

separate-rate applications in previous 

antidumping duty investigations, we 

have modified the application for this 

investigation to make it more 

administrable and easier for applicants 

to complete. See, e.g., Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation: 

Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road 

Tires From the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 43591, 43594–95 (August 

6, 2007). The specific requirements for 

submitting the separate-rate application 

in this investigation are outlined in 

detail in the application itself, which 

will be available on the Department’s 

Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/iahighlights-and-news.html on the date of 

publication of this initiation notice in 

the Federal Register. The separate-rate 

application will be due 60 days after 

publication of this initiation notice. For 

exporters and producers who submit a 

separate-rate status application and 

subsequently are selected as mandatory 

respondents, these exporters and 

producers will no longer be eligible for 

consideration for separate rate status 

unless they respond to all parts of the 

questionnaire as mandatory 

respondents. As noted in the 

‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section above, 

the Department requires that 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate-rate status. 

The quantity and value questionnaire 

will be available on the Department’s 

Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/iahighlights-and-news.html on the date of 

the publication of this initiation notice 

in the Federal Register. 

Use of Combination Rates in an NME 

Investigation 

The Department will calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. The 

Separate Rates and Combination Rates 

Bulletin states: 

[W]hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to exporters, all 

separate rates that the Department will now 

assign in its NME investigations will be 

specific to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation. 

Note, however, that one rate is calculated for 

the exporter and all of the producers which 

supplied subject merchandise to it during the 

period of investigation. This practice applies 

both to mandatory respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate rate as well 

as the pool of non-investigated firms 

receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of ‘‘combination 

rates’’ because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one or more 

producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to 

an exporter will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in question and 

produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation. 

See Separate Rates and Combination 

Rates Bulletin at 6 (emphasis added). 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act and 19 

CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public 

versions of the Petition have been 

provided to the representatives of the 

Governments of the PRC and Taiwan. 

Because of the large number of 

producers/exporters identified in the 

Petition, the Department considers the 

service of the public version of the 

Petition to the foreign producers/ 

exporters satisfied by the delivery of the 

public version to the Government of the 

PRC and the Government of Taiwan, 

consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). 

Commission Notification 

We have notified the Commission of 

our initiations, as required by section 

732(d) of the Tariff Act. 

Preliminary Determinations by the 

Commission 

The Commission will preliminarily 

determine, no later than November 7, 

2009, whether there is a reasonable 

indication that imports of fasteners from 

the PRC and Taiwan are materially 

injuring, or threatening material injury 

to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC 

determination with respect to any 

country will result in the investigation 

being terminated for that country; 

otherwise, these investigations will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Tariff 

Act. 

Dated: October 13, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigations 

The merchandise covered by the 

investigations consists of certain standard 

nuts, standard bolts, and standard cap 

screws, of steel other than stainless steel. 

Standard nuts, standard bolts, and standard 

cap screws covered by the investigations may 

have a variety of finishes, including but not 

limited to coating in paint, phosphates, and 

zinc. Standard bolts and standard cap screws 

covered by the investigations have a shank or 

thread with an actual and/or nominal 

diameter between 6 millimeters and 32 

millimeters (inclusive). Standard bolts and 

standard cap screws covered by the 

investigations also possess a circular or 

hexagonal head, the surface of which may be 

flat or rounded (also known as ‘‘domeshaped’’ or ‘‘button-headed’’). Standard bolts 

covered by the investigations may have an 

attached washer face or the equivalent (e.g., 

a flanged head or chamfered corners on the 

underside of a fastener with a hexagonalshaped head). Standard cap screws covered 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 54543 

1See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duties Pursuant to Sections 701 

and 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended: 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated September 23, 2009 

(‘‘Petition’’). 

by the investigations have a permanentlyattached washer face. Standard nuts are 

covered by the investigations if they are 

suitable for attachment to bolts and/or cap 

screws covered by the investigations. 

Standard bolts, standard cap screws, and 

standard nuts are covered by the 

investigations whether imported alone, 

attached to other subject and/or non-subject 

merchandise (e.g., tension control 

assemblies), or unattached and in 

combination with other subject merchandise 

and/or non-subject merchandise. 

Standard nuts, standard bolts, and 

standard cap screws meet the requirements of 

one or more nationally recognized consensus 

industry standard specifications (including 

but not limited to those referenced below). 

Subject merchandise is typically certified to 

the specifications published by one or more 

consensus standards organizations such as 

the following: the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE), the 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO), and the Industrial 

Fasteners Institute. Common specifications to 

which subject merchandise is certified 

include, but are not limited to: ASTM A194, 

ASTM A307, ASTM A325, ASTM A325M, 

ASTM A354, ASTM A449, ASTM A490, 

ASTM A563, ASTM F568M, ASTM F1852, 

ASTM F2280, SAE J429, SAE J1199, ISO 

898–1, ISO 898–2, ISO 4759–1, ISO 8992, 

and comparable foreign and domestic 

specifications (including, but not limited to, 

metric versions of specifications such as 

those listed above). 

Excluded from the scope of the 

investigations are bolts, cap screws, and nuts 

produced for an original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) part number specific to 

any ‘‘automobile’’ as defined in 49 U.S.C. 

Section 32901(a)(3), any ‘‘work truck’’ as 

defined in 49 U.S.C. Section 32901(a)(19), or 

any ‘‘medium-duty passenger vehicle’’ as 

defined in 40 CFR Section 86.1803–01 

(2009). 

Also excluded from the scope of the 

investigations are bolts, cap screws, and nuts 

produced for an OEM part number specific 

to any ‘‘aircraft’’ as defined in 14 CFR 

Section 1.1 (2009). 

Also excluded from the scope of the 

investigations are track bolts. Track bolts 

have a circular, rounded head and a shank 

which, immediately beneath the head, 

possesses an oval or elliptical shape, such 

that the non-round shape would restrict 

rotational movement of the bolt. Also 

excluded from the scope of the investigations 

are carriage bolts. Carriage bolts have a 

circular, rounded head and a shank which, 

immediately beneath the head, possesses a 

non-round shape (e.g., square, finned), such 

that the non-round shape would restrict 

rotational movement of the bolt. Also 

excluded from the scope of the investigations 

are socket screws. Socket screws have a head 

with a recessed cavity into which a shaped 

bit may be inserted to turn and drive the 

fastener. 

Unless explicitly excluded from the scope 

of the investigations, bolts, cap screws, and 

nuts meeting the description of subject 

merchandise are covered by the 

investigations. 

Merchandise covered by the investigations 

is classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under 

subheadings: 7318.15.2030, 7318.15.2055, 

7318.15.2065, 7318.15.8065, 7318.15.8085, 

and 7318.16.0085. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the merchandise under the 

investigations is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. E9–25194 Filed 10–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–961] 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 22, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yasmin Nair and Joseph Shuler, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3813 and (202) 

482–1293, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On September 23, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) received a 

countervailing duty petition concerning 

imports of certain standard steel 

fasteners (‘‘fasteners’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The petition 

was filed in proper form by Nucor 

Fastener (‘‘Petitioner’’), a domestic 

producer of fasteners.1 In response to 

the Department’s requests, Petitioner 

provided timely information 

supplementing the Petition on October 

6, 7, 8, and 9, 2009. 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’), Petitioner alleges that 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

of standard steel fasteners in the PRC 

receive countervailable subsidies within 

the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) 

of the Act, and that such imports are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, and Petitioner has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

investigation (see ‘‘Determination of 

Industry Support for the Petition’’ 

section below). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

January 1, 2008, through December 31, 

2008. 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by the 

investigation are fasteners from the PRC 

and Taiwan. For a full description of the 

scope of the investigation, please see 

‘‘Scope of Investigation,’’ in Appendix I 

of this notice. The Department, after 

consulting with Petitioner, made minor 

changes to the scope language submitted 

by Petitioner in the Third Supplement 

to the AD/CVD Petitions, dated October 

9, 2009, at Attachment 1. See 

Memorandum to the file from Steve 

Bezirganian, Analyst, entitled ‘‘Certain 

Standard Steel Fasteners from the 

People’s Republic of China (A–570–960 

and C–570–961) and Taiwan (A–583– 

845): Revisions to Petitioner’s Proposed 

October 9, 2009, Scope Language,’’ 

dated October 13, 2009. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioner to 

ensure that it is an accurate reflection of 

the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 

discussed in the preamble to the 

Department’s regulations (Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 

Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997)), we are setting aside a period for 

interested parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage. The 

Department encourages all interested 

parties to submit such comments by 

November 2, 2009, twenty calendar days 

from the signature date of this notice. 

Comments should be addressed to 

Import Administration’s APO/Dockets 

Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

The period for scope consultations is 

intended to provide the Department 

with ample opportunity to consider all 

comments and to consult with parties 

prior to the issuance of the preliminary 

determination. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 54543 

1See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duties Pursuant to Sections 701 

and 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended: 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated September 23, 2009 

(‘‘Petition’’). 

by the investigations have a permanentlyattached washer face. Standard nuts are 

covered by the investigations if they are 

suitable for attachment to bolts and/or cap 

screws covered by the investigations. 

Standard bolts, standard cap screws, and 

standard nuts are covered by the 

investigations whether imported alone, 

attached to other subject and/or non-subject 

merchandise (e.g., tension control 

assemblies), or unattached and in 

combination with other subject merchandise 

and/or non-subject merchandise. 

Standard nuts, standard bolts, and 

standard cap screws meet the requirements of 

one or more nationally recognized consensus 

industry standard specifications (including 

but not limited to those referenced below). 

Subject merchandise is typically certified to 

the specifications published by one or more 

consensus standards organizations such as 

the following: the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE), the 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO), and the Industrial 

Fasteners Institute. Common specifications to 

which subject merchandise is certified 

include, but are not limited to: ASTM A194, 

ASTM A307, ASTM A325, ASTM A325M, 

ASTM A354, ASTM A449, ASTM A490, 

ASTM A563, ASTM F568M, ASTM F1852, 

ASTM F2280, SAE J429, SAE J1199, ISO 

898–1, ISO 898–2, ISO 4759–1, ISO 8992, 

and comparable foreign and domestic 

specifications (including, but not limited to, 

metric versions of specifications such as 

those listed above). 

Excluded from the scope of the 

investigations are bolts, cap screws, and nuts 

produced for an original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) part number specific to 

any ‘‘automobile’’ as defined in 49 U.S.C. 

Section 32901(a)(3), any ‘‘work truck’’ as 

defined in 49 U.S.C. Section 32901(a)(19), or 

any ‘‘medium-duty passenger vehicle’’ as 

defined in 40 CFR Section 86.1803–01 

(2009). 

Also excluded from the scope of the 

investigations are bolts, cap screws, and nuts 

produced for an OEM part number specific 

to any ‘‘aircraft’’ as defined in 14 CFR 

Section 1.1 (2009). 

Also excluded from the scope of the 

investigations are track bolts. Track bolts 

have a circular, rounded head and a shank 

which, immediately beneath the head, 

possesses an oval or elliptical shape, such 

that the non-round shape would restrict 

rotational movement of the bolt. Also 

excluded from the scope of the investigations 

are carriage bolts. Carriage bolts have a 

circular, rounded head and a shank which, 

immediately beneath the head, possesses a 

non-round shape (e.g., square, finned), such 

that the non-round shape would restrict 

rotational movement of the bolt. Also 

excluded from the scope of the investigations 

are socket screws. Socket screws have a head 

with a recessed cavity into which a shaped 

bit may be inserted to turn and drive the 

fastener. 

Unless explicitly excluded from the scope 

of the investigations, bolts, cap screws, and 

nuts meeting the description of subject 

merchandise are covered by the 

investigations. 

Merchandise covered by the investigations 

is classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under 

subheadings: 7318.15.2030, 7318.15.2055, 

7318.15.2065, 7318.15.8065, 7318.15.8085, 

and 7318.16.0085. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the merchandise under the 

investigations is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. E9–25194 Filed 10–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–961] 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 22, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yasmin Nair and Joseph Shuler, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3813 and (202) 

482–1293, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On September 23, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) received a 

countervailing duty petition concerning 

imports of certain standard steel 

fasteners (‘‘fasteners’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The petition 

was filed in proper form by Nucor 

Fastener (‘‘Petitioner’’), a domestic 

producer of fasteners.1 In response to 

the Department’s requests, Petitioner 

provided timely information 

supplementing the Petition on October 

6, 7, 8, and 9, 2009. 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’), Petitioner alleges that 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

of standard steel fasteners in the PRC 

receive countervailable subsidies within 

the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) 

of the Act, and that such imports are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, and Petitioner has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

investigation (see ‘‘Determination of 

Industry Support for the Petition’’ 

section below). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

January 1, 2008, through December 31, 

2008. 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by the 

investigation are fasteners from the PRC 

and Taiwan. For a full description of the 

scope of the investigation, please see 

‘‘Scope of Investigation,’’ in Appendix I 

of this notice. The Department, after 

consulting with Petitioner, made minor 

changes to the scope language submitted 

by Petitioner in the Third Supplement 

to the AD/CVD Petitions, dated October 

9, 2009, at Attachment 1. See 

Memorandum to the file from Steve 

Bezirganian, Analyst, entitled ‘‘Certain 

Standard Steel Fasteners from the 

People’s Republic of China (A–570–960 

and C–570–961) and Taiwan (A–583– 

845): Revisions to Petitioner’s Proposed 

October 9, 2009, Scope Language,’’ 

dated October 13, 2009. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioner to 

ensure that it is an accurate reflection of 

the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 

discussed in the preamble to the 

Department’s regulations (Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 

Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997)), we are setting aside a period for 

interested parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage. The 

Department encourages all interested 

parties to submit such comments by 

November 2, 2009, twenty calendar days 

from the signature date of this notice. 

Comments should be addressed to 

Import Administration’s APO/Dockets 

Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

The period for scope consultations is 

intended to provide the Department 

with ample opportunity to consider all 

comments and to consult with parties 

prior to the issuance of the preliminary 

determination. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
54544 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 

Consultations 

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, on September 23, 2009, the 

Department invited representatives of 

the Government of the PRC for 

consultations with respect to the CVD 

petition. On October 13, 2009, the GOC 

requested that the Department extend 

the deadline for consultations. The 

Department responded that it could not 

extend this deadline for pre-initiation 

consultations, but would consult with 

the GOC in the course of this proceeding 

if initiated, as required by Article 13.2 

of the Agreement on Subsidies and 

Countervailing Measures. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

(‘‘ITC’’), which is responsible for 

determining whether ‘‘the domestic 

industry’’ has been injured, must also 

determine what constitutes a domestic 

like product in order to define the 

industry. While both the Department 

and the ITC must apply the same 

statutory definition regarding the 

domestic like product (section 771(10) 

of the Act), they do so for different 

purposes and pursuant to a separate and 

distinct authority. In addition, the 

Department’s determination is subject to 

limitations of time and information. 

Although this may result in different 

definitions of the like product, such 

differences do not render the decision of 

either agency contrary to law. See 

USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. 

Supp. 2d 1, 8 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001), 

citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United 

States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l 

Trade 1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. 

Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 

(1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioner does not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that 

fasteners constitute a single domestic 

like product and we have analyzed 

industry support in terms of that 

domestic like product. For a discussion 

of the domestic like product analysis in 

this case, see ‘‘Countervailing Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Certain Standard Steel Fasteners from 

the People’s Republic of China’’ 

(‘‘Initiation Checklist’’), at Attachment 

II, Analysis of Industry Support for the 

Petitions Covering Certain Standard 

Steel Fasteners from the People’s 

Republic of China, on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117 of 

the main Department of Commerce 

building. 

In determining whether Petitioner has 

standing (i.e., the domestic workers and 

producers supporting the Petition 

account for (1) at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product and (2) more than 50 percent of 

the production of the domestic like 

product produced by that portion of the 

industry expressing support for, or 

opposition to, the Petition), we 

considered the industry support data 

contained in the Petition with reference 

to the domestic like product. To 

establish industry support, Petitioner 

provided its production of the domestic 

like product for the year 2008, and 

compared this to the estimated total 

production of the domestic like product 

for the entire domestic industry. See 

Volume I of the Petition, at 2–3, Exhibit 

I–10, and Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions, dated October 6, 2009, at 17– 

18, Exhibit I–Supp-6, and Industry 

Support Supplement, dated October 8, 

2009 (‘‘Industry Support Supplement’’), 

at Attachment 1. To estimate 2008 

production of the domestic like product, 

Petitioner used its own data and 

industry specific knowledge. See 

Industry Support Supplement, at 

Attachment 1. Petitioner calculated total 

domestic production based on its own 

production plus estimates regarding the 

other producers of the domestic like 

product in the United States. Id. We 

have relied upon data Petitioner 

provided for purposes of measuring 

industry support. For further 

discussion, see Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. 

The Department’s review of the data 

provided in the Petition, supplemental 

submissions, and other information 

readily available to the Department 

indicates that Petitioner has established 

industry support. First, the Petition 

establishes support from domestic 

producers (or workers) accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like 

products and, as such, the Department 

is not required to take further action in 

order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 

polling). See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the 

Act and Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

products. See Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. Finally, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like 

products produced by that portion of 

the industry expressing support for, or 

opposition to, the Petitions. 

Accordingly, the Department 

determines that the Petition was filed on 

behalf of the domestic industry within 

the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the 

Act. See Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the CVD 

investigation that it is requesting the 

Department initiate. See Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 54545 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to 

this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC 

must determine whether imports of 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioner alleges that imports of 

standard steel fasteners from the PRC 

are benefitting from countervailable 

subsidies and that such imports are 

causing, or threaten to cause, material 

injury to the domestic industry 

producing certain standard steel 

fasteners. In addition, Petitioner alleges 

that subsidized imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 

Petitioner contends that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, underselling and 

price depressing and suppressing 

effects, increased import penetration, 

declining sales, reduced production, 

reduced capacity, increased raw 

material cost, abandoned product lines, 

reduced shipments, reduced wages and 

hours worked, and an overall decline in 

financial performance. We have 

assessed the allegations and supporting 

evidence regarding material injury, 

threat of material injury, and causation, 

and we have determined that these 

allegations are properly supported by 

adequate evidence and meet the 

statutory requirements for initiation. See 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment III 

(Analysis of Injury Allegations and 

Evidence of Material Injury and 

Causation). 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

Section 702(b) of the Act requires the 

Department to initiate a CVD proceeding 

whenever an interested party files a 

petition on behalf of an industry that: 

(1) Alleges the elements necessary for an 

imposition of a duty under section 

701(a) of the Act; and (2) is 

accompanied by information reasonably 

available to the petitioner(s) supporting 

the allegations. 

The Department has examined the 

CVD petition on standard steel fasteners 

from the PRC and finds that it complies 

with the requirements of section 702(b) 

of the Act. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 702(b) of the Act, we are 

initiating a CVD investigation to 

determine whether manufacturers, 

producers, or exporters of standard steel 

fasteners in the PRC receive 

countervailable subsidies. For a 

discussion of evidence supporting our 

initiation determination, see Initiation 

Checklist. 

We are including in our investigation 

the following programs alleged in the 

Petition to have provided 

countervailable subsidies to producers 

and exporters of the subject 

merchandise in the PRC: 

A. Preferential Loans and Interest Rates 

1. Policy Loans to Chinese Fasteners 

Producers 

2. Export Loans 

3. Preferential Lending to Fasteners 

Producers and Exporters Classified 

as ‘‘Honorable Enterprises’’ 

4. Preferential Loans as Part of the 

Northeast Revitalization Program 

B. Government Provision of Goods or 

Services for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration (‘‘LTAR’’) 

1. Wire Rod for LTAR 

2. Hot-Rolled Steel for LTAR 

3. Zinc for LTAR 

4. Land-Use Rights for LTAR 

C. Income and Other Direct Taxes 

1. Income Tax Credits for 

Domestically Owned Companies 

Purchasing Domestically Produced 

Equipment 

2. Preferential Income Tax Policy for 

Enterprises in the Northeast Region 

3. Forgiveness of Tax Arrears for 

Enterprises in the Old Industrial 

Bases of Northeast China 

D. Indirect Tax and Tariff Exemption 

Programs 

1. Export Incentive Payments 

Characterized as ‘‘VAT Rebates’’ 

2. Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions 

for Foreign Invested Enterprises 

(‘‘FIEs’’) and Certain Domestic 

Enterprises Using Imported 

Equipment in Encouraged 

Industries 

E. Preferential Income Tax Subsidies for 

FIEs 

1. ‘‘Two Free, Three Half’’ Tax 

Exemptions for FIEs 

2. Income Tax Exemption Program for 

Export-Oriented FIEs 

3. Local Income Tax Exemption and 

Reduction Programs for 

‘‘Productive’’ FIEs 

4. Preferential Tax Programs for FIEs 

Recognized as High or New 

Technology Enterprises 

5. Income Tax Subsidies for FIEs 

Based on Geographic Location 

6. VAT Refunds for FIEs Purchasing 

Domestically Produced Equipment 

F. Direct Grants 

1. ‘‘Five Points, One Line’’ Program 

2. Export Interest Subsidies 

3. The State Key Technology 

Renovation Project Fund 

4. Export Assistance Grants in 

Zhejiang Province 

5. Subsidies for Development of 

Famous Export Brands and China 

World Top Brands 

6. Sub-Central Government Programs 

to Promote Famous Export Brands 

and China World Top Brands 

7. Programs to Rebate Antidumping 

Legal Fees in Zhejiang and 

Shenzhen Province 

For further information explaining why 

the Department is investigating these 

programs, see Initiation Checklist. 

We are not including in our 

investigation the following programs 

alleged to benefit producers and 

exporters of subject merchandise in the 

PRC: 

1. Preferential Loans for Key Projects 

and Technologies 

In its Petition, Petitioner asserted that 

some fasteners producers located in 

Northeastern China may benefit from 

preferential loans given to their steel 

suppliers. However, Petitioner did not 

file an adequate upstream subsidy 

allegation, nor did Petitioner allege that 

fasteners producers would be eligible to 

receive preferential loans under this 

program directly. Furthermore, in its 

October 7, 2009 supplemental response, 

Petitioner allows that it is unlikely that 

fasteners producers benefited from this 

program. Accordingly, we do not plan 

on investigating this program. 

2. Electricity for LTAR 

Petitioner alleges that the Government 

of the PRC (‘‘GOC’’) is providing a 

financial benefit of electricity for less 

than adequate remuneration to steel 

producers, and that fasteners producers 

receive an associated downstream 

benefit within the meaning of Section 

771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act. The financial 

contribution as alleged by Petitioner is 

an upstream subsidy. Petitioner has not 

supported the allegation and, 

consequently, we do not plan to 

investigate this program. 

3. Fixed Assets Investment Orientation 

Regulatory Tax 

Petitioner claims that producers of 

fasteners in the PRC are exempted from 

or receive preferential income tax rates 

on investments in fixed assets. 

Petitioner has not provided information 

to demonstrate that fasteners producers 

would be covered by the relevant 

legislation. For example, the legislation 

relating to this program includes 

specific aspects of the iron and steel 

production process that are eligible for 

tax benefits, but it does not include any 

processes related to production of 

fasteners. Accordingly, we do not plan 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
54546 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 

2See Certain Kitchen Shelving and Racks from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 37012 

(July 27, 2009), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at 18. 

on investigating this program. However, 

if one of the mandatory respondents 

chosen in this investigation is part of a 

vertically integrated steel company, or 

cross-owned with a primary steel 

producer, Petitioner may re-allege this 

program under a timely filed new 

subsidy allegation, at which time the 

Department will reconsider the 

information provided. Accordingly, we 

do not plan on investigating this 

program. 

4. Tax Reduction for Enterprises Making 

Little Profit 

According to the PRC’s World Trade 

Organization subsidies notification, 

enterprises with annual taxable incomes 

between Renminbi (‘‘RMB’’) 30,000 and 

100,000 are eligible for a three percent 

reduction in their annual income tax 

rate. Petitioner has not established with 

reasonably available information that 

‘‘enterprises making little profit’’ are a 

de jure specific group because Petitioner 

has provided no explanation of why 

companies with access to this program 

comprise an enterprise or industry, or 

group of enterprises or industries within 

the meaning of Section 771(5A) of the 

Act. Consequently, we do not plan on 

investigating this program. 

5. Income Tax Exemption for 

Investment in Domestic ‘‘Technological 

Renovation’’ 

Petitioner alleges that, pursuant to the 

Technological Renovation of Domestic 

Equipment Corporate Income Tax 

Exemption Notice, the State Tax 

Administration provides a tax credit to 

enterprises for a certain portion of 

investment in any domestically 

produced equipment that relates to 

technology updates. However, in the 

final determination of certain kitchen 

appliance shelving and racks from the 

PRC, the Department investigated this 

program and found that it does not 

exist.2 Consequently, we do not plan on 

investigating this program. 

6. China’s Enforced Undervaluation of 

Its Currency 

Petitioner alleges that the GOCmaintained exchange rate effectively 

prevents the appreciation of the Chinese 

currency (RMB) against the U.S. dollar. 

Therefore, when producers/exporters in 

the PRC sell their dollars at official 

foreign exchange banks, as required by 

law, the producers receive more RMB 

than they otherwise would if the value 

of the RMB were set by market 

mechanisms. Petitioner describes the 

benefit conferred as the excess of RMB 

received, over what would have been 

received at a market rate (‘‘excess 

RMB’’) and alleges specificity within the 

meaning of Section 771(5A)(B) of the 

Act by virtue of the fact that ‘‘* * * 

there is a direct and positive correlation 

between the export activity/export 

earnings and the amount of subsidy 

received.’’ Section 771(5A)(B) of the Act 

describes an export subsidy as ‘‘* * * a 

subsidy that is, in law or fact, 

contingent upon export performance, 

alone or as 1 of 2 or more conditions.’’ 

Petitioner has failed to sufficiently 

allege that the receipt of the excess RMB 

is contingent on export or export 

performance because receipt of the 

excess RMB is independent of the type 

of transaction or commercial activity for 

which the dollars are converted or of the 

particular company or individuals 

converting the dollars. Therefore, we do 

not plan on investigating this program 

because Petitioner has failed to properly 

allege the specificity element. 

Respondent Selection 

For this investigation, the Department 

expects to select respondents based on 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) data for U.S. imports during the 

POI. We intend to release the CBP data 

under Administrative Protective Order 

(‘‘APO’’) to all parties with access to 

information protected by APO within 

five days of the announcement of the 

initiation of this investigation. 

Interested parties may submit comments 

regarding the CBP data and respondent 

selection within seven calendar days of 

publication of this notice. We intend to 

make our decision regarding respondent 

selection within 20 days of publication 

of this Federal Register notice. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). 

Instructions for filing such applications 

may be found on the Department’s Web 

site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the 

public version of the Petition has been 

provided to the Government of the PRC. 

As soon as and to the extent practicable, 

we will attempt to provide a copy of the 

public version of the Petition to each 

exporter named in the Petition, 

consistent with section 351.203(c)(2) of 

the Department’s regulations. 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 702(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 25 days after the date on which 

it receives notice of the initiation, 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that imports of subsidized standard steel 

fasteners from the PRC are causing 

material injury, or threatening to cause 

material injury, to a U.S. industry. See 

section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative 

ITC determination will result in the 

investigation being terminated; 

otherwise, the investigation will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by the 

investigation consists of certain standard 

nuts, standard bolts, and standard cap 

screws, of steel other than stainless steel. 

Standard nuts, standard bolts, and standard 

cap screws covered by the investigation may 

have a variety of finishes, including but not 

limited to coating in paint, phosphates, and 

zinc. Standard bolts and standard cap screws 

covered by the investigation have a shank or 

thread with an actual and/or nominal 

diameter between 6 millimeters and 32 

millimeters (inclusive). Standard bolts and 

standard cap screws covered by the 

investigation also possess a circular or 

hexagonal head, the surface of which may be 

flat or rounded (also known as ‘‘domeshaped’’ or ‘‘button-headed’’). Standard bolts 

covered by the investigation may have an 

attached washer face or the equivalent (e.g., 

a flanged head or chamfered corners on the 

underside of a fastener with a hexagonalshaped head). Standard cap screws covered 

by the investigation have a permanentlyattached washer face. Standard nuts are 

covered by the investigation if they are 

suitable for attachment to bolts and/or cap 

screws covered by the investigation. 

Standard bolts, standard cap screws, and 

standard nuts are covered by the 

investigation whether imported alone, 

attached to other subject and/or non-subject 

merchandise (e.g., tension control 

assemblies), or unattached and in 

combination with other subject merchandise 

and/or non-subject merchandise. 

Standard nuts, standard bolts, and 

standard cap screws meet the requirements of 

one or more nationally recognized consensus 

industry standard specifications (including 

but not limited to those referenced below). 

Subject merchandise is typically certified to 

the specifications published by one or more 

consensus standards organizations such as 

the following: the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE), the 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO), and the Industrial 

Fasteners Institute. Common specifications to 

which subject merchandise is certified 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 203 / Thursday, October 22, 2009 / Notices 54547 

1Such commodity matchbooks are also referred 

to as ‘‘for resale’’ because they always enter into 

retail channels, meaning businesses that sell a 

general variety of tangible merchandise, e.g., 

convenience stores, supermarkets, dollar stores, 

drug stores and mass merchandisers. 

include, but are not limited to: ASTM A194, 

ASTM A307, ASTM A325, ASTM A325M, 

ASTM A354, ASTM A449, ASTM A490, 

ASTM A563, ASTM F568M, ASTM F1852, 

ASTM F2280, SAE J429, SAE J1199, ISO 

898–1, ISO 898–2, ISO 4759–1, ISO 8992, 

and comparable foreign and domestic 

specifications (including, but not limited to, 

metric versions of specifications such as 

those listed above). 

Excluded from the scope of the 

investigation are bolts, cap screws, and nuts 

produced for an original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) part number specific to 

any ‘‘automobile’’ as defined in 49 U.S.C. 

Section 32901(a)(3), any ‘‘work truck’’ as 

defined in 49 U.S.C. Section 32901(a) (19), or 

any ‘‘medium-duty passenger vehicle’’ as 

defined in 40 C.F.R. Section 86.1803–01 

(2009). 

Also excluded from the scope of the 

investigation are bolts, cap screws, and nuts 

produced for an OEM part number specific 

to any ‘‘aircraft’’ as defined in 14 CFR 1.1 

(2009). 

Also excluded from the scope of the 

investigation are track bolts. Track bolts have 

a circular, rounded head and a shank which, 

immediately beneath the head, possesses an 

oval or elliptical shape, such that the nonround shape would restrict rotational 

movement of the bolt. Also excluded from 

the scope of the investigation are carriage 

bolts. Carriage bolts have a circular, rounded 

head and a shank which, immediately 

beneath the head, possesses a non-round 

shape (e.g., square, finned), such that the 

non-round shape would restrict rotational 

movement of the bolt. Also excluded from 

the scope of the investigation are socket 

screws. Socket screws have a head with a 

recessed cavity into which a shaped bit may 

be inserted to turn and drive the fastener. 

Unless explicitly excluded from the scope 

of the investigation, bolts, cap screws, and 

nuts meeting the description of subject 

merchandise are covered by the 

investigation. 

Merchandise covered by the investigation 

is classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under 

subheadings: 7318.15.2030, 7318.15.2055, 

7318.15.2065, 7318.15.8065, 7318.15.8085, 

and 7318.16.0085. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the merchandise under the 

investigation is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. E9–25197 Filed 10–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–849] 

Commodity Matchbooks From India: 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) determines that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

commodity matchbooks from India. For 

information on the estimated subsidy 

rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Carey 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) 482–3964 and (202) 

482–1391, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, i.e., the period of 

investigation (POI), is January 1, 2007 

through December 31, 2007. 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the publication of the 

Department’s preliminary determination 

in the Federal Register. See Commodity 

Matchbooks from India: Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Alignment of Final 

Countervailing Duty Determination with 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 

74 FR 15444 (April 6, 2009). The 

Department conducted a verification of 

the Government of India’s (GOI) 

questionnaire responses regarding the 

administration of the Export Promotion 

Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) on May 

4, 2009, in New Delhi, India. See 

Memorandum to Dana Mermelstein, 

Program Manager for AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, from Sean Carey, 

Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, ‘‘Verification of the 

Questionnaire Responses Submitted by 

the Government of India,’’ dated August 

7, 2009. On May 5 through 8, 2009, the 

Department verified the information 

submitted by the sole respondent in this 

investigation, Triveni Safety Matches 

Pvt. Ltd. (Triveni), at its corporate 

headquarters in Mumbai, India. See 

Memorandum to Dana Mermelstein, 

Program Manager for AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, from Sean Carey, 

Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, ‘‘Verification of the 

Questionnaire Responses Submitted by 

Triveni Safety Matches Pvt. Ltd.,’’ dated 

August 7, 2009. The Department 

released its briefing schedule on August 

7, 2009, notifying all parties of the 

deadlines for submission of case and 

rebuttal briefs. No case briefs were filed 

by any of the interested parties. The 

memoranda cited above are available at 

the Department’s Central Records Unit 

(Room 1117 in the HCHB Building) 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘CRU’’). 

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation covers 

commodity matchbooks, also known as 

commodity book matches, paper 

matches or booklet matches.1

Commodity matchbooks typically, but 

do not necessarily, consist of twenty 

match stems which are usually made 

from paperboard or similar material 

tipped with a match head composed of 

any chemical formula. The match stems 

may be stitched, stapled or otherwise 

fastened into a matchbook cover of any 

material, on which a striking strip 

composed of any chemical formula has 

been applied to assist in the ignition 

process. 

Commodity matchbooks included in 

the scope of this investigation may or 

may not contain printing. For example, 

they may have no printing other than 

the identification of the manufacturer or 

importer. Commodity matchbooks may 

also be printed with a generic message 

such as ‘‘Thank You’’ or a generic image 

such as the American Flag, with store 

brands (e.g., Kroger, 7–Eleven, Shurfine 

or Giant); product brands for national or 

regional advertisers such as cigarettes or 

alcoholic beverages; or with corporate 

brands for national or regional 

distributors (e.g., Penley Corp. or 

Diamond Brands). They all enter retail 

distribution channels. Regardless of the 

materials used for the stems of the 

matches and regardless of the way the 

match stems are fastened to the 

matchbook cover, all commodity 

matchbooks are included in the scope of 

this investigation. All matchbooks, 

including commodity matchbooks, 

typically comply with the United States 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC) Safety Standard for Matchbooks, 

codified at 16 CFR § 1202.1 et seq. 

The scope of this investigation 

excludes promotional matchbooks, often 

referred to as ‘‘not for resale,’’ or 

‘‘specialty advertising’’ matchbooks, as 

they do not enter into retail channels 

and are sold to businesses that provide 

hospitality, dining, drinking or 

entertainment services to their 

customers, and are given away by these 

businesses as promotional items. Such 

promotional matchbooks are 

distinguished by the physical 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
B-1

APPENDIX B

CALENDAR OF THE COMMISSION’S OCTOBER 14, 2009 CONFERENCE

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC CONFERENCE

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s conference:

Subject: Certain Standard Steel Fasteners from China and Taiwan

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-472 and 731-TA-1171-1172 (Preliminary)

Date and Time: October 14, 2009 - 9:30 a.m.

The conference in connection with these investigations was held in Courtroom B, 500 E

Street, SW, Washington, DC.

OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioners

Alan H. Price, Wiley Rein LLP

Respondents

Matthew T. McGrath, Barnes Richardson & Colburn

In Support of the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties:

Wiley Rein LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Nucor Fastener

Tom Miller, Vice President & General Manager, Nucor Fastener

J.J. McCoy, Controller, Nucor Fastener

Jim Witucki, Sales Manager, Nucor Fastener

Jim Gialamas, Technical Services Director, Nucor Fastener

David Aman, National Sales Manager, Sems & Specials

Alan H. Price, Esq. )

Daniel B. Pickard, Esq. ) – OF COUNSEL

Adam Gordon, Esq. )
B-4

In Opposition to the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties:

Barnes Richardson & Colburn

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Bossard North America

Earnest Machine Products Co.

Fastenal Co.

Fasteners and Automotive Products, LLC

Heads and Threads International, LLC

The Hillman Group

Indent Metals, LLC

Porteous Fastener Co.

Soule, Blake & Wechsler, Inc.

Stelfast, Inc.

XL Screw Corp.

Barry Porteous, President, Porteous Fastener Company

Max Hillman, CEO, The Hillman Group

Steen Hansen, CEO, Bossard North America

Steve Schonholtz, President, Indent Metals

Ming-Jou Chen, Chairman, Taiwan International Fastener Institute

Matthew T. McGrath, Esq. ) – OF COUNSEL

Stephen W. Brophy, Esq. )

Garvey Schubert Barer

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Chun Yu Works (U.S.A.) Inc.

Dan Lee, Project Manager, Chun Yu Works (U.S.A.) Inc.

Lizbeth R. Levinson, Esq. ) – OF COUNSEL

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

Petitioners

Daniel B. Pickard, Wiley Rein LLP

Respondents

Matthew T. McGrath, Barnes Richardson & Colburn
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

Fasteners: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661,322 642,355 641,611 343,472 225,030 -3.0 -2.9 -0.1 -34.5

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . 23.5 23.4 24.2 24.5 23.3 0.8 -0.1 0.9 -1.3

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.3 23.6 23.5 23.0 26.5 -0.8 -0.7 -0.1 3.6

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.0 29.3 28.3 28.8 30.2 1.3 2.3 -1.0 1.5

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.3 53.0 51.8 51.7 56.8 0.5 1.6 -1.1 5.0

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.2 23.7 23.9 23.8 20.0 -1.3 -1.5 0.3 -3.8

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.5 76.6 75.8 75.5 76.7 -0.8 0.1 -0.9 1.3

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590,370 586,279 673,763 348,102 240,851 14.1 -0.7 14.9 -30.8

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . . 25.8 25.6 27.1 25.5 25.6 1.3 -0.1 1.5 0.1

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.3 17.6 18.6 17.8 20.1 0.3 -0.7 1.1 2.3

 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.8 26.4 26.3 26.8 29.7 2.5 2.6 -0.1 2.9

 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.1 44.0 45.0 44.6 49.8 2.8 1.9 1.0 5.2

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.1 30.4 27.9 29.9 24.6 -4.2 -1.7 -2.5 -5.3

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.2 74.4 72.9 74.5 74.4 -1.3 0.1 -1.5 -0.1

U.S. shipments of imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160,690 151,861 150,823 78,853 59,692 -6.1 -5.5 -0.7 -24.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108,100 103,072 125,608 62,053 48,385 16.2 -4.7 21.9 -22.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.67 $0.68 $0.83 $0.79 $0.81 23.8 0.9 22.7 3.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 88,977 87,158 88,886 79,870 84,897 -0.1 -2.0 2.0 6.3

 Taiwan:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178,733 188,355 181,632 98,763 68,031 1.6 5.4 -3.6 -31.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,527 154,695 177,278 93,155 71,448 26.2 10.1 14.6 -23.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.79 $0.82 $0.98 $0.94 $1.05 24.1 4.5 18.8 11.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 91,836 90,138 104,071 86,097 96,303 13.3 -1.8 15.5 11.9

 Subtotal:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339,423 340,217 332,454 177,617 127,723 -2.1 0.2 -2.3 -28.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248,627 257,767 302,886 155,208 119,833 21.8 3.7 17.5 -22.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.73 $0.76 $0.91 $0.87 $0.94 24.4 3.4 20.2 7.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 180,813 177,296 192,957 165,967 181,201 6.7 -1.9 8.8 9.2

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166,598 152,027 153,579 81,683 44,976 -7.8 -8.7 1.0 -44.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189,592 178,246 188,162 104,057 59,305 -0.8 -6.0 5.6 -43.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.14 $1.17 $1.23 $1.27 $1.32 7.7 3.0 4.5 3.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 45,571 38,899 50,254 50,142 45,368 10.3 -14.6 29.2 -9.5

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506,020 492,244 486,033 259,300 172,699 -3.9 -2.7 -1.3 -33.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438,219 436,013 491,048 259,265 179,138 12.1 -0.5 12.6 -30.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.87 $0.89 $1.01 $1.00 $1.04 16.7 2.3 14.1 3.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 226,384 216,194 243,210 216,109 226,568 7.4 -4.5 12.5 4.8

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . 316,191 317,840 335,425 163,351 175,519 6.1 0.5 5.5 7.4

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . . 162,349 157,128 170,275 90,841 45,923 4.9 -3.2 8.4 -49.4

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . 51.3 49.4 50.8 55.6 26.2 -0.6 -1.9 1.3 -29.4

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155,302 150,112 155,578 84,172 52,331 0.2 -3.3 3.6 -37.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152,151 150,266 182,715 88,837 61,713 20.1 -1.2 21.6 -30.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.98 $1.00 $1.17 $1.06 $1.18 19.9 2.2 17.3 11.7

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,577 4,805 7,506 3,818 2,330 34.6 -13.8 56.2 -39.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,512 5,119 9,011 4,174 2,801 63.5 -7.1 76.0 -32.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.99 $1.07 $1.20 $1.09 $1.20 21.5 7.8 12.7 10.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . 458 461 468 472 446 2.2 0.7 1.5 -5.5

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . . 879 890 942 483 384 7.2 1.2 5.9 -20.4

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . 20,949 22,505 23,381 12,170 10,604 11.6 7.4 3.9 -12.9

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $23.84 $25.29 $24.82 $25.21 $27.60 4.1 6.1 -1.9 9.5

 Productivity (pounds per hour) . . 184.7 176.6 180.8 188.2 119.5 -2.1 -4.4 2.4 -36.5

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.13 $0.14 $0.14 $0.13 $0.23 6.4 11.0 -4.1 72.4

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163,203 157,167 166,014 89,199 55,597 1.7 -3.7 5.6 -37.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158,202 156,725 192,510 93,688 65,237 21.7 -0.9 22.8 -30.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.97 $1.00 $1.16 $1.05 $1.17 19.6 2.9 16.3 11.7

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . 119,972 119,063 146,469 69,988 52,957 22.1 -0.8 23.0 -24.3

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . 38,230 37,662 46,042 23,700 12,279 20.4 -1.5 22.2 -48.2

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,613 20,517 24,305 12,307 8,478 -5.1 -19.9 18.5 -31.1

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . . 12,617 17,145 21,736 11,393 3,801 72.3 35.9 26.8 -66.6

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . 2,692 3,227 6,412 *** *** 138.2 19.9 98.7 ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.74 $0.76 $0.88 $0.78 $0.95 20.0 3.1 16.5 21.4

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . $0.16 $0.13 $0.15 $0.14 $0.15 -6.7 -16.8 12.1 10.5

 Unit operating income or (loss) . $0.08 $0.11 $0.13 $0.13 $0.07 69.4 41.1 20.0 -46.5

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.8 76.0 76.1 74.7 81.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 6.5

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 10.9 11.3 12.2 5.8 3.3 3.0 0.4 -6.3

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

C-3

D-1

APPENDIX D

 PRICE COMPARISONS AMONG THE U.S.-PRODUCED CSSF PRODUCTS

AND THOSE IMPORTED FROM SUBJECT AND NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

 1

 U.S. importers reported the requested pricing data for products 1-3 from Canada and products 1 and 3 from

Thailand.

D-3

Although not shown in tables, prices of the three specified CSSF products imported from Canada

were generally priced higher than prices of these products imported from China and Taiwan during

January 2006-June 2009, whereas price comparisons between the Canadian and domestic products were

mixed. Prices of the two products imported from Thailand were generally less than prices of the domestic

products and those imported from China during January 2006-June 2009, but generally greater than prices

of the products imported from Taiwan. The following tabulation shows the number of quarterly price

comparisons showing under/overselling for all reported specified products imported from Canada and

Thailand vis-a-vis the products produced domestically and imported from China and Taiwan during

January 2006-June 2009.

Number of quarterly price comparisons for all reported specified products

Countries

Canada versus-- Thailand versus--

Underselling Overselling Underselling Overselling

United States 24 18 21 3

China 2 40 15 9

Taiwan 2 40 8 16

Total 28 98 44 28

Figures D-1 through D-3 show the quarterly delivered prices and quantities of the specified

products 1-3, respectively, for domestic CSSF, those imported from the two subject countries and from

Canada, and products 1 and 3 from Thailand.1

Figure D-1

CSSF: Net weighted-average U.S. delivered selling prices and quantities of product 1 produced

domestically, imported from the subject countries, and imported from Canada and Thailand, by

quarters, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure D-2

CSSF: Net weighted-average U.S. delivered selling prices and quantities of product 2 produced

domestically, imported from the subject countries, and imported from Canada, by quarters,

January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure D-3

CSSF: Net weighted-average U.S. delivered selling prices and quantities of product 3 produced

domestically, imported from the subject countries, and imported from Canada and Thailand, by

quarters, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *