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-5

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

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

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

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

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

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

Manufacturing facilities and production employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

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

U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

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

Supply ................................................................... II-1

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-4

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5

Comparisons of domestic products and Chinese imports ............................ II-5

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-3

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

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

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

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

U.S. imports by geographical markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

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

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

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

Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

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

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

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

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

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

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

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

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

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

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

Operations on CSG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Actual negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7

Anticipated negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

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

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

U.S. inventories of CSG from China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-2

U.S. importers’ current orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-2

Antidumping investigations in third-country markets ................................. VII-3

Information on nonsubject countries .............................................. VII-3
iii

CONTENTS

Page

Appendixes

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

B. Calendar of the Commission’s June 19, 2009 conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

D. Pricing data from all sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

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

published and therefore has been replaced with asterisks in this report.
 
 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-465 and 731-TA-1161 (Preliminary)

CERTAIN STEEL GRATING FROM CHINA

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 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 threatened with material injury by reason of imports from China of

certain steel grating, provided for in subheading 7308.90.70 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States, that is alleged to be subsidized by the Government of China and sold in the United States at

less than fair value (LTFV).

COMMENCEMENT OF THE FINAL PHASE INVESTIGATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

On May 29, 2009, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by Alabama Metal

Industries, Corp., of Birmingham, AL and Fisher & Ludlow, Inc., of Wexford, PA, alleging that an

industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of

subsidized and LTFV imports of certain steel grating from China. Accordingly, effective May 29, 2009,

the Commission instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-465 (Preliminary) and

antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1161 (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 June 5, 2009 (74 FR 27049). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on June 19, 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) (2000); see also American Lamb Co. v. United States, 785 F.2d 994, 1001-04

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

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

 2

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

(Fed. Cir. 1994).

 3

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 4

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 5

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

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

reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of

imports of certain steel grating (“CSG”) from China that are allegedly sold in the United States at less

than fair value and 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

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

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

of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.1

 In applying this standard, the Commission weighs the evidence

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

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

arise in a final investigation.”2

II. BACKGROUND

The petitions in these investigations were filed on May 29, 2009. The petitioners are domestic

producers Alabama Metal Industries Corp., of Birmingham, AL (“AMICO”) and Fisher & Ludlow, Inc.,

of Wexford, PA (“Fisher”) (collectively, “petitioners”). Representatives from each petitioning company

participated at the staff conference accompanied by counsel and filed a joint postconference brief. No

producer, exporter or importer of subject merchandise from China participated at the conference or filed a

postconference brief.

III. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

A. In General

In determining whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with

material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”3

 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 {w}hole 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.”4

 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 ... .”5
 6

 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).

 7

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

 8

 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.”).

 9

 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).

 10 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).

 11 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).

4

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

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.6

 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.7

 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.8

Although the Commission must accept the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) 

determination as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is subsidized or sold at less than fair value

(“LTFV”),9

 the Commission determines what domestic product is like the imported articles Commerce

has identified.10 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.11

B. Product Description

In its notice of initiation, Commerce defined the imported merchandise within the scope of these

investigations as follows:

Certain steel grating, consisting of two or more pieces of steel, including load bearing pieces and

cross pieces, joined by any assembly process, regardless of: (1) size or shape; (2) method of

manufacture; (3) metallurgy (carbon, alloy, or stainless); (4) the profile of the bars; and (5)

whether or not they are galvanized, painted, coated, clad or plated. Steel grating is also
 12 Certain Steel Grating from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74

Fed. Reg. 30273, June 25, 2009.

 13 Confidential Staff Report (“CR”) at I-7, Public Staff Report (“PR”) at I-6; Petition at 8, 13.

 14 CR at I-7, PR at I-6; Conference Transcript at 52 (Rutter). Standard-size CSG panels measure 3-feet wide by

24-feet long. Conference Transcript at 13 (Smith) & 52 (Rutter). Although the terms “mat” or “panel” are

referenced in the petition, petitioners indicated that there is no real difference between the two. Conference

Transcript at 52 (Rutter).

 15 CR at I-7, PR at I-6; Petition at 13.

 16 CR at I-7, PR at I-6; Petition at 9.

 17 Conference Transcript at 80 (Smith); CR at I-7, PR at I-6. 

 18 CR at I-7, PR at I-6; Petition at 7.

 19 CR at I-7, I-8, PR at I-6; Petition at 7-8.

5

commonly referred to as bar grating, although the components may consist of steel other than

bars, such as hot-rolled sheet, plate, or wire rod. 

The scope excludes expanded metal grating, which is comprised of a single piece of coil of sheet

or thin plate steel that has been slit and expanded, and does not involve welding or joining of

multiple pieces of steel. The scope also excludes plank type safety grating which is comprised of

a single piece or coil of sheet or thin plate steel, typically in thickness of 10 to 18 gauge, that has

been pierced and cold formed, and does not involve welding or joining of multiple pieces of

steel.12

CSG is a downstream steel product distinguished by two sets of components – the “bearing bars”

that extend across the length and the “crossbars” that transverse (typically perpendicular to) the bearing

bars13 to form a “panel” or “mat.”14 CSG is designed to support and distribute the weight of objects,

which is achieved through varying the dimensions and spacing of both the bearing bars and cross bars.15

As such, CSG is used in environments which require not only light and air filtration but load bearing and

load distribution as well. CSG is available in various forms including “standard welded bar grating”

(crossbars welded across the tops of the bearing bars), “press-locked steel grating” (notched bearing bars

and crossbars), “swage-locked steel grating” (crossbars passing through and swaged or crimped on each

side of bearing bars), and “riveted steel grating” (pre-bent bars riveted between adjacent bearing bars).16

The majority of CSG is sold for private industrial and commercial applications including utility

plants, offshore oil platforms, and manufacturing facilities.17 Common end uses include walkways,

mezzanines, catwalks, platforms for overhead signs, fire escapes, stairways and flooring. CSG also serves

as decking and supports for heavy-duty applications such as motor-vehicle bridges, railway rolling-stock

flooring, drainage pit covers, boat-landing ramps, truck beds, running boards, and mooring docks.18 CSG

is commonly produced to American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) and National Association of

Architectural Metal Manufacturers (“NAAMM”) standards.19

C. Domestic Like Product Analysis

Petitioners argue that the Commission should define the domestic like product as CSG,

coextensive with the scope. They emphasize that no party has challenged the proposed domestic like

product definition. At the conference, in the petition, and in other submissions, petitioners further

discussed why the domestic like product should not be expanded to include other types of grating,

including expanded metal, safety plank grating, fiberglass grating, and aluminum bar grating. 
 20 CR at I-7, PR at I-6.

 21 CR at I-7, PR at I-6; Petition at 13.

 22 Conference Transcript at 27-31 (Scott).

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

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

 25 Conference Transcript at 49 (Scott); 

 26 Conference Transcript at 49-50 (Rutter); CR at I-13, I-14, PR at I-10. 

 27 Petition at 7.

 28 Conference Transcript at 29-30 (Scott).

 29 Conference Transcript at 29 (Scott).

 30 Conference Transcript at 29-31 (Scott).

 31 Conference Transcript at 49 (Scott); 

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

 33 Petition Supplement (June 9, 2009) at 7.

6

Physical Characteristics and End Uses. All forms of CSG have the same characteristics, bearing

and crossbars made from steel, and all are used for the same purpose, namely load-bearing applications.20

CSG’s physical characteristics vary from other types of grating such as expanded metal, 

fiberglass grating, safety plank grating, and aluminum bar grating. CSG is manufactured from pieces/bars

of steel, which are welded, forged, swaged, or pressed together for strength.21 In contrast, expanded metal

and safety plank grating are made from a single piece of sheet, coil, or thin plate of metal or steel that is

cut or expanded or pierced and punched.22 Fiberglass grating is produced either as a one-piece molded

panel or as components that are assembled into a panel.23 Aluminum bar grating’s bars, unlike CSG,

cannot be welded or forged together.24 

 CSG is also distinguishable from fiberglass and aluminum bar grating in terms of primary

materials used. These different materials impart certain physical characteristics to aluminum bar grating

and fiberglass grating that are not shared by CSG. Aluminum bar generally does not rust or corrode

easily, and is a lightweight, nonsparking metal.25 Fiberglass is also lightweight and corrosion-resistant but

can be used in more caustic environments than either CSG or aluminum bar grating.26

 Although CSG and the other four types of grating are used in similar environments to permit the

passage of light and air, the physical characteristics of each generally dictate their end- use applications. 

As noted above, CSG’s configuration of steel bars permits it to be used when load-bearing capabilities are

required, and only CSG is used in heavy load-bearing applications. Its end uses range from lightweight

applications, such as walkways, mezzanines, catwalks, and fire escapes, to heavy-duty applications such

as motor-vehicle bridges, railway rolling-stock flooring, and drainage pit covers.27 Expanded metal,

which is made from a single sheet of metal stretched into a continuous unit of diamond-shaped openings,

has limited load-bearing capabilities. Expanded metal is commonly utilized for enclosure, protective

(safety-guard), decorative, and filtration purposes.28 Its end uses, among others, include air and fluid

filters, ventilation system applications, satellite and radar antennas, fencing, and decorative dividers.29

Safety plank grating has a top surface of holes with serrated edges, making it slip-resistant. It is used for

light pedestrian traffic on work platforms, vehicle steps and running boards, roof-top walkways, and stair

treads.30 Aluminum bar grating is typically used in more corrosive environments than CSG, such as water

treatment plants.31 Finally, fiberglass grating is used primarily in slip-resistant flooring systems.32

Channels of Distribution. CSG, and expanded metal and safety plank grating, are typically sold

through service centers and distributors.33 
 34 Petition Supplement (June 9, 2009) at 7.

 35 Petition at 14.

 36 Petition Supplement (June 9, 2009) at 7.

 37 Petition at 15.

 38 Petition Supplement (June 9, 2009) at 8.

 39 Petition Supplement (June 9, 2009) at 8.

 40 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 41 The record indicates that there are certain distributors and fabricators that further process the CSG. Conference

Transcript at 45-47 (Rutter),(Smith). In any final phase investigation, we will examine whether these distributors or

fabricators may be considered domestic producers and are therefore part of the domestic industry.

7

Customer and Producer Perceptions. According to petitioners, the fact that the NAAMM has

created distinct technical standards for expanded metal grating and CSG is evidence that customers and

end users view these as separate products.34

Common Manufacturing Facilities, Processes, and Employees. Although CSG, expanded metal,

safety plank, and aluminum bar grating may be produced in the same facilities, these products are

manufactured on different types of equipment, and are generally produced by distinct groups of

employees.35 

Manufacturing processes also differ for these products. CSG is typically manufactured from the

welding, cold-pressing, riveting, or swaging of pre-cut and preformed steel bars (the crossbars) onto a

second set of bearing bars laid out in parallel patterns. Expanded metal and safety plank grating are

produced using a uniform piece of thin-gauge steel that is then pierced and punched.36 Aluminum bar

grating, unlike CSG, cannot be welded and, as such, the forge welding and EVG equipment used for CSG

manufacture are not suitable for manufacturing aluminum grating.37

Price. According to petitioners, CSG is generally more expensive than safety plank grating and

significantly more expensive than expanded metal due to the greater amount of steel involved and

significantly different manufacturing processes.38 They note that “CSG typically costs $*** per foot”

while expanded metal is generally $*** per foot. Aluminum bar grating, on the other hand, is sold at a

higher pricing point than CSG due to the expensive input materials.39 

Conclusion. The record indicates that although CSG may overlap with other grating in certain

light-weight applications, CSG’s physical characteristics differ from the other four types of grating as

only CSG can be used in heavy load-bearing applications. While CSG shares the same channels of

distribution with the other gratings, there is some indication in the record that expanded metal and CSG

are perceived to be distinct products and are manufactured using different processes and different

employees. Finally, CSG is priced higher than expanded metal and safety plank grating and is priced

lower than aluminum bar grating due to input costs. 

Based on these differences, we find a clear dividing line between CSG and other types of grating

and therefore define the domestic like product as certain CSG coextensive with the scope of these

investigations.

IV. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The domestic industry is defined as the domestic “producers as a {w}hole 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.”40 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.41

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

producers of CSG. 
 42 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 43 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to

exclude a related party are as follows: (1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing

producer; (2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e., whether

the firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue

production and compete in the U.S. market, and (3) the position of the related producer vis-a-vis the rest of the

industry, i.e., whether inclusion or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry. See,

e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d 809

(Fed. Cir. 1993). The Commission has also considered the ratio of import shipments to U.S. production for related

producers and whether the primary interest of the related producer lies in domestic production or importation. These

latter two considerations were cited as appropriate factors in Allied Mineral Products, Inc. v. United States, —F.

Supp. 2d—, Slip Op. 04-139 (Ct. Int’l Trade November 12, 2004) at 5-6 (“The most significant factor considered by

the Commission in making the ‘appropriate circumstances’ determination is whether the domestic producer accrued

a substantial benefit from its importation of the subject merchandise.”); USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d

1, 12 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001) (“the provision’s purpose is to exclude from the industry headcount domestic producers

substantially benefitting from their relationships with foreign exporters.”), aff’d, Slip Op. 01-1421 (Fed. Cir. April

22, 2002); S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. at 83 (1979) (“where a U.S. producer is related to a foreign exporter

and the foreign exporter directs his exports to the United States so as not to compete with his related U.S. producer,

this should be a case where the ITC would not consider the related U.S. producer to be a part of the domestic

industry”).

 44 Petitioners’ Brief at 5-6.

 45 In 2008, *** represented *** percent of domestic production of CSG. CR/PR at Table III-1.

 46 CR/PR at Table III-5.

 47 CR /PR at Table III-5.

 48 CR/PR at Table III-1.

8

A. Related Parties

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

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

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

related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers.42 Exclusion

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

investigation.43 

The issue of related parties is raised with respect to two domestic producers, *** and ***, by

virtue of their importation of the subject merchandise. Petitioners advocate that only *** should be

excluded as a related party as it *** and consequently its product, shipment, and financial data do not

reflect accurately the harm caused by the subject imports.44 

B. Analysis 

***. ***, the ***,45 imported subject merchandise from China. Its imports increased from ***

kilograms (“kg”) in 2006 to *** kg in 2007 but decreased to *** kg in 2008.46 *** reported that it

imported the subject merchandise from China ***. Its ratio of imports from China to production ***

throughout the period of investigation, increasing from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, and

then decreasing to *** percent in 2008.47 As such, it appears that *** primary interest is in domestic

production rather than importation. *** takes ***.48
 49 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 50 Consistent with her practice in past investigations and reviews, Chairman Aranoff does not rely on individualcompany operating income margins, which reflect a domestic producer’s financial operations related to production

of the domestic like product, in assessing whether a related party has benefitted from importation of subject

merchandise. Rather, she determines whether to exclude a related party based principally on its ratio of subject

imports to domestic production and whether its primary interests lie in domestic production or importation.

 51 For purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, Commissioner Pinkert does not rely upon

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

parties from the domestic industry. The present record is not sufficient to infer from the companies’ profitability on

their U.S. operations whether they have derived a specific benefit from importing. See Allied Mineral Products v.

United States, 28 C.I.T. 1861, 1865-67 (2004). For the final phase of these investigations, Commissioner Pinkert

invites the parties to provide any information they may have with respect to whether these companies are benefitting

financially from their status as related parties. 

 52 CR/PR at Table III-5.

 53 Calculated from CR/PR at Table III-5.

 54 CR/PR at Table III-5.

 55 CR/PR at Table III-5. ***. Id. at n.3.

 56 CR/PR at Table VI-4.

 57 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 58 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 59 CR/PR at Table III-1 and C-1/C-2.

9

*** financial performance is not inconsistent with its status as mainly a U.S. producer. ***.49 50 51

For these reasons, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the

domestic industry.

***. *** imports of subject merchandise increased from *** kg in 2006 to *** kg in 2007, and

then to *** kg in 2008.52 At the same time, its ratio of imports to production *** from *** percent in

200653 to *** percent in 2007, and then to *** percent in 2008.54 

***.55 ***. Over the entire period of investigation, ***.56

In sum, the record is mixed as to the prime focus of ***. On the one hand, its subject imports

increased each year of the period of investigation ***. On the other hand, ***. ***.57 The record

indicates that *** operating income and operating margin trends generally ***.58 Thus, exclusion or

inclusion of ***, which accounted for *** percent of domestic CSG production in 2008, would not skew

the financial data for the domestic industry.59 
 60 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 61 Chairman Aranoff and Commissioner Pinkert find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude *** from the

domestic industry. *** imported the subject merchandise in increasing quantities over the period of investigation, at

*** kg in 2006, *** kg in 2007, and *** kg in 2008. It imported *** less, *** kg in interim 2009 as compared to

*** kg in interim 2008. CR/PR at Table III-5. *** domestic production of CSG fell from *** kg in 2006, to *** kg

in 2007 and *** kg in 2008. It produced *** kg in interim 2009 as compared to *** kg in interim 2008. As a result,

the ratio of the company’s imports of subject merchandise to its domestic production increased from *** percent in

2006, to *** percent in 2007, and further to *** percent in 2008. The ratio was *** percent in interim 2009 as

compared to *** percent in interim 2008. All of *** imports of CSG from 2007 to the end of the period of

investigation were from China. CR/PR at Table III-5. 

***. ***. CR/PR at Table III-5, n.3; Phone Notes July 9, 2009, Interview between Commission staff and

***.

Based on these facts, Chairman Aranoff and Commissioner Pinkert find that *** primary interest has

shifted from domestic production to the importation of subject merchandise, and they therefore determine to exclude

*** from the domestic industry. They acknowledge, however, that the record includes some contrary evidence,

specifically *** production of *** and its capital expenditures. Petition, Ex. I-3; CR/PR at Table VI-4. 

Consequently, they intend to reconsider this issue in any final phase investigations. 

 62 Negligibility under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24) is not an issue in these investigations. Official statistics from

Commerce indicate that, from April 2008 to March 2009, which is the most recent 12-month period preceding the

filing of the petition for which data were available, subject imports from China accounted for 81.5 percent of total

U.S. imports of CSG. CR/PR at IV-7. The volume of subject imports is thus well above the statute’s three percent

negligibility level. 

 63 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

 64 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).

 65 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 66 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

10

On balance for purposes of these preliminary investigations, we find that appropriate

circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry.60 61 We will re-examine this issue

in any final phase investigations.

Based on the reasons discussed above and consistent with our definition of the domestic like

product, we define the domestic industry as all domestic producers of CSG. 

V. THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS62

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.63 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.64 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not

inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”65 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.66 No
 67 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 68 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

 69 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).

 70 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).

 71 Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) on Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. 103-

316, Vol. I at 851-52 (1994) (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing

injury from other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (1979) (the Commission “will consider

information which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than less-than-fair-value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96-

317 at 47 (1979) (“in examining the overall injury being experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take into

account evidence presented to it which demonstrates that the harm attributed by the petitioner to the subsidized or

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

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

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

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

 72 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

(continued...)

11

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.”67

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,68 it does not define the phrase “by reason of,” indicating that this aspect of the

injury analysis is left to the Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion.69 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.70

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

be having adverse effects on the domestic industry. Such economic factors might include nonsubject

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

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

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

the subject imports, thereby inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the

statutory material injury threshold.71 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.72 Nor does the
 72 (...continued)

F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“{t}he Commission is not required to isolate the effects of subject

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

imports and other causes.); see also Softwood Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928

(Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 100-01 (Dec. 2003) (Commission recognized that “{i}f an alleged other factor is

found not to have or threaten to have injurious effects to the domestic industry, i.e., it is not an ‘other causal factor,’

then there is nothing to further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States,

132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the statute “does not suggest that an importer of LTFV goods can escape

countervailing duties by finding some tangential or minor cause unrelated to the LTFV goods that contributed to the

harmful effects on domestic market prices.”).

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

 74 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.”).

 75 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.

 76 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, in certain circumstances,

relating to determinations as to present material injury, to undertake a particular kind of analysis of nonsubject

imports. Mittal explains as follows:

What Bratsk held is that “where commodity products are at issue and fairly traded, price-competitive, nonsubject imports are in the market,” the Commission would not fulfill its obligation to consider an important

aspect of the problem if it failed to consider whether non-subject 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.

 77 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.”).

12

“by reason of” standard require that unfairly traded imports be the “principal” cause of injury or

contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors, such as nonsubject

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.73 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.74

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.”75 76 Indeed, the Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various

Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid adherence to a specific formula.”77

The Federal Circuit’s decisions in Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel all involved cases

where the relevant “other” factor was the presence in the market of significant volumes of pricecompetitive nonsubject imports. The Commission interpreted the Federal Circuit’s guidance in Bratsk as
 78 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875-79.

 79 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 875-79 & n.2 (recognizing the

Commission’s alternative interpretation of Bratsk as a reminder to conduct a non-attribution analysis).

 80 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.

 81 To that end, after the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Bratsk, the Commission began to present published

information or send out information requests in final phase investigations to producers in nonsubject countries that

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

import suppliers). In order to provide a more complete record for the Commission’s causation analysis, these

requests typically seek information on capacity, production, and shipments of the product under investigation in the

major source countries that export to the United States. The Commission plans to continue utilizing published or

requested information in final phase investigations in which there are substantial levels of nonsubject imports.

 82 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.”).

 83 We provide in the discussion of impact in section V.E. below an analysis of other factors alleged to cause any

threat of material injury that likely would be experienced by the domestic industry.

 84 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

13

requiring it to apply a particular additional methodology following its finding of material injury in cases

involving commodity products and a significant market presence of price-competitive nonsubject

imports.78 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether nonsubject imports might have

replaced subject imports without any benefit to the U.S. industry. The Commission applied that specific

additional test in subsequent cases, including the Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad

and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

Mittal Steel clarifies that the Commission’s interpretation of Bratsk was too rigid and makes clear

that the Federal Circuit does not require the Commission to apply an additional test nor any one specific

methodology; instead, the court requires the Commission to have “evidence in the record ‘to show that the

harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,’” and requires that the Commission not attribute injury

from nonsubject imports or other factors to subject imports.79 Accordingly, we do not consider ourselves

required to apply the replacement/benefit test that was included in Commission opinions subsequent to

Bratsk.

The progression of Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel clarifies that, in cases involving

commodity products where price-competitive nonsubject imports are a significant factor in the U.S.

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

non-attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.80 81

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.82 83

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.”84 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
 85 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 86 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,

(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).

 87 CR/PR at III-1, Table III-1. 

 88 CR/PR at VII-1 and calculated from CR/PR at Tables IV-2 and VII-1.

 89 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences, but such

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

its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by the participating

parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does not automatically

accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the level of participation

and the interpretations urged by participating parties, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to

each of the statutory factors and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general,

the Commission makes determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors

relating to the domestic industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most

(continued...)

14

material injury by reason of subject imports would occur unless an order is issued.85 In making our

determination, we consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to these investigations.86

As noted above, the Commission has essentially complete data coverage for the domestic

industry.87 The Commission also received completed questionnaire responses from three subject

producers in China that accounted for an estimated 6.0 percent of production of CSG in China in 2008

and *** percent of the subject product imported into the United States in the same year.88 When

appropriate in these investigations, we have relied on the facts otherwise available, including official

import statistics, information available from published sources, and information submitted in these

investigations.89
 89 (...continued)

persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 90 The domestic industry reported internal consumption rates ranging from *** percent to *** percent of its total

shipments. CR/PR at Table III-3. Therefore, we have considered whether the captive production provision, 19

U.S.C. § 1677 (7)(C)(iv), applies in this case. The record in these preliminary phase investigations does not indicate

whether the second and third statutory criteria for application of the captive production provision are met. We

therefore do not apply the captive production provision in our analysis in these investigations. We will examine the

issues surrounding the application of this provision fully in any final phase investigations. 

 91 CR at II-5, PR at II-4.

 92 CR at II-5, PR at II-4; Conference Transcript at 88 (Scott).

 93 CR at II-5, PR at II-4; Conference Transcript at 87-88 (Scott).

 94 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 95 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 96 Petitioners’ Brief at 9-10; CR at IV-5-IV-6, PR at IV-3.

 97 CR at II-5, PR at II-4.

15

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is material injury or

threat of material injury by reason of subject imports.90

1. Demand Considerations

 As noted above, CSG is used in a variety of end-use applications. The majority of CSG is used

in private industrial and commercial applications including utility plants, offshore oil platforms and

manufacturing facilities. The U.S. CSG market is a mature one and the demand for CSG depends on the

health of the overall U.S. economy and, in particular, the industrial construction and energy sectors.91

According to petitioners, demand for CSG follows the overall business cycle, but it does not follow an

annual cycle.92 The record indicates that a spike in demand for CSG generally occurs when hurricanes hit

areas in which off-shore drilling platforms are located (e.g., the Gulf of Mexico) because safety

procedures for those structures require that CSG be thrown into the ocean when a hurricane approaches.93 

As measured by apparent U.S. consumption, U.S. CSG demand increased from 184 million kg in

2006 to 194 million kg in 2007, and then to 245.2 million kg in 2008, an overall increase of 33.5 percent

between 2006 and 2008; most of the increase in consumption occurred from 2007 to 2008 when it

increased by 26.5 percent.94 Apparent U.S. consumption was at 33 million kg in interim (January-March)

2009, which was 38.2 percent lower than in interim (January-March) 2008, when apparent U.S.

consumption was 53.1 million kg.95

 The extent to which the increase in apparent U.S. consumption from 2007 to 2008 reflects an

increase in actual demand is unclear on the current record. Petitioners argue that in the second half of

2008, imports of CSG from China far exceeded actual demand and that sales of these imports went into

inventory throughout the U.S. distribution system.96 Domestic producers’ and importers’ questionnaire 

responses provide mixed responses characterizing demand changes during the period of investigation. 

Three of four domestic producers and four of eight importers reported that demand had increased until

mid-2008 and then declined.97 We intend to examine any changes in demand further in any final phase

investigations.

With respect to future demand for CSG in the U.S. and global markets, the record indicates that

demand will likely remain sluggish over the coming months due to the world-wide economic crisis. U.S.
 98 Petitioners’ Brief at 39-41.

 99 CR/PR at Table-C-1.

 100 CR/PR at Table-C-1.

 101 CR/PR at I-3 n. 4.

 102 CR/PR at Table-C-1.

 103 As noted previously, Chairman Aranoff and Commissioner Pinkert determine to exclude *** from the

domestic industry. As a result, where these views refer to data pertaining to the domestic industry, Chairman

Aranoff and Commissioner Pinkert rely on data reported in the staff report at Table C-2, which provides information

for the domestic industry excluding ***.

 104 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 105 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 106 The domestic industry reported that capacity utilization rates declined from 66.6 percent in 2006 to 56.2

percent in 2008. CR/PR at Table-C-1.

 107 CR at II-4, PR at II-3.

 108 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 109 Petitioners’ Brief at 9. 

 110 Conference Transcript at 27 (Scott).

16

demand is forecast to weaken in the primary consumer industries of CSG, the industrial construction and

energy (oil and gas) markets.98

2. Supply Conditions

The U.S. market is supplied by domestic producers, subject imports and imports from nonsubject

countries. Domestic production accounted for more than two-thirds of apparent U.S. consumption

throughout the period of investigation.99 In 2006 and 2007, nonsubject imports were the second largest

source of CSG in the U.S. market, but were overtaken by subject imports in 2008.100

During the period of investigation, the domestic industry consisted of seven domestic producers,

five of which provided questionnaire responses. ***, domestic producer Leavitt ceased production of

CSG.101 Throughout the period of investigation, domestic production capacity exceeded apparent U.S.

consumption.102 103 Domestic production capacity increased by 36.7 percent from 2006 to 2008,104 and

was slightly higher (by 0.3 percent) in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008.105 At the same time, the

domestic industry had considerable unused capacity throughout the period of investigation.106 

 Subject imports’ volume increased by 538.4 percent from 2006 to 2008, far outpacing the 

increase in demand for the same period. Nonsubject imports were supplied by a number of countries,

including Canada and Mexico.107 In contrast to subject imports, the volume of nonsubject imports

declined by 48.8 percent between 2006 and 2008. 

U.S. importers’ inventories of imports from China were also a considerable source of supply

during the period of investigation. The importers’ inventories of subject merchandise increased

dramatically from 975,000 kg in 2006 to 4.8 million kg in 2008, an increase of 387.5 percent. In interim

2009, importers’ ending inventories were 40.8 percent higher at 3.7 million kg compared to interim 2008

at 2.7 million kg.108 We note that steel grating is designed for longevity and, as such, can be stored unsold

for long periods of time.109 According to petitioners, it will take eight to ten months or more to clear out

CSG currently in inventories at current demand levels.110

 

3. Interchangeability 
 111 CR/PR at Table II-2. 

 112 CR at II-7-II-8, PR at II-5-II-6, CR/PR at Table II-3.

 113 Petitioners’ Brief at 10-11. At the conference, petitioners testified that “we make CSG as standard, or the vast

majority of them come out as a standard size . . . .{then CSG} would be shipped out to either a redistribution

{center,} most of them, so that a steel service center would stock that and wait” for the customers’ call. Conference

Transcript at 52 (Rutter). 

 114 CR at V-3, PR at V-2.

 115 CR/PR at VI-4, PR at VI-3.

 116 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 117 CR/PR at V-1.

 118 CR/PR at Table II-1. 

 119 Relevant to the likely volume of subject imports (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)(I)), Commerce initiated a

countervailing duty investigation based on 22 alleged subsidy programs, including 2 preferential lending programs, 9

income tax programs, 2 tariff and indirect tax programs,1 land grant program, 4 programs providing inputs for less

than adequate remuneration, 4 regional programs, and four subsidies for steel product inputs. CR at I-4-I-5, PR at I3-I-4. Several of the alleged subsidies are intended to benefit exportation and, thus, to encourage exports. CR at I-4-

I-5, PR at I-3-I-4. 

17

The record indicates that CSG is highly interchangeable regardless of the country of origin. Most

producers and importers reported that nonsubject imports, subject imports, and the domestic like product

are “always” or “frequently” used interchangeably.111 Most producers and importers also reported that

differences other than price are sometimes or never significant in sales of nonsubject imports, subject

imports, and the domestic like product.112 While CSG is sold in various tolerances and dimensions, most

CSG is produced to NAAMM and ANSI standards. As noted above, petitioners describe CSG from

different sources as “totally interchangeable” and having no distinguishing characteristics.113 

4. Other Conditions

Almost all U.S. producers and importers reported that CSG is sold on a spot basis, and that they

determine their price on a transaction-by-transaction basis.114

Raw material costs are a significant part of the final cost of CSG, accounting for 65 to 70 percent

of the total cost of producing CSG.115 Raw material costs fluctuated, but increased overall during the

period of investigation and averaged $0.93 per kilogram in 2008.116 The principal raw materials for

producing CSG include coils of hot-rolled steel sheet and thin-gauge plate, or flat bars (merchant bars)

and wire rods. Prices for hot-rolled sheet/plate, wire rod, and merchant bars fluctuated in 2006 and 2007

within a narrow range but rose abruptly in 2008 before declining in the second half of 2008 and the

beginning of 2009. By May 2009, prices of hot-rolled sheet/plate and wire rod had fallen below price

levels in 2006 and 2007, while prices for merchant bar remained above price levels in 2006 and 2007.117 

 The majority of domestically produced and imported CSG was sold through distributors from

2006 to 2008 and the remainder was sold to end users. In interim 2009, however, while the majority of

domestically produced CSG was sold through distributors, the majority of imports from China and

nonsubject countries was sold to end users.118

C. Likely Volume of the Subject Imports119

We consider the likely future volume of subject imports both in absolute terms and relative to

domestic consumption and production. For the reasons discussed below, the volume of subject imports

relative to domestic consumption and production is likely to increase substantially. We recognize
 120 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 121 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 122 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 123 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 124 CR/PR at Figure IV-2; Petition at Ex. I-6.

 125 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 126 The ratio of subject imports to domestic production measured by quantity increased even more substantially,

growing from 6.2 percent in 2006 to 8.7 percent in 2007 and 34.4 percent in 2008. The ratio of subject imports to

domestic production was 12.5 percent in interim 2009 and 8.4 percent in interim 2008. CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 127 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 128 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 129 There is little information in the record with respect to inventories of subject merchandise held by distributors

or end users. We will examine the full role of inventories throughout the distribution chain in the U.S. market in any

final phase investigations. 

18

nonetheless that the volume of subject imports is likely to decline in absolute terms from the very high

levels observed toward the end of the period of investigation. 

In absolute terms, the volume of subject imports increased from 9.3 million kg in 2006 to 14.5

million kg in 2007, and then to 59.6 million kg in 2008, an increase of 538.4 percent.120 Subject imports

were 12 percent lower in interim 2009, at 3.3 million kg, than in interim 2008, at 3.8 million kg.121

The rate of increase in subject imports by quantity far outpaced increases in apparent U.S.

consumption for CSG. From 2006 to 2007, apparent U.S. consumption increased by 5.5 percent, while

the volume of subject imports increased by 54.7 percent.122 From 2007 to 2008, apparent U.S.

consumption rose by 26.5 percent, while the volume of subject imports increased by a remarkable 312.6

percent.123 Most of the increase in subject imports occurred in the latter half of 2008, as subject import

volume in that period totaled 47.3 million kg compared to 12.3 million kg in the first half of 2008.124

Apparent U.S. consumption was 38.2 percent lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008, but subject

imports in interim 2009 were only 12 percent lower than their interim 2008 level. 

The market share held by subject imports increased throughout the period of investigation, from

5.1 percent in 2006 to 24.3 percent in 2008, and was higher in interim 2009, at 10.1 percent, than in

interim 2008, when it was 7.1 percent.125 As subject imports’ market share rose, the domestic producers’

market share fluctuated but declined overall from 78.9 percent in 2006 to 69.5 percent in 2008. Domestic

producers’ market share was lower in interim 2009, at 80.6 percent, than in interim 2008, at 84.1

percent.126 

The increased volume of subject imports corresponded to increases in inventories held by

importers from 2006 to 2007.127 The volume of subject merchandise in importers’ inventories increased

by 387.5 percent from 975,000 kg at the end of 2006 to 4.8 million kg at the end of 2008. Additionally,

despite lower subject import volume in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008, importers’ inventories

were 40.8 percent higher at the end of interim 2009, at 3.7 million kg, than at the end of interim 2008, at

2.7 million kg.128 

In addition to this examination of the most recent trends, we have analyzed the likely future

volume of imports in the context of expected demand in the imminent future. As noted previously,

demand for CSG fell abruptly in interim 2009. Given projected declines in the U.S. economy, demand

will likely remain at lower levels for the imminent future. Thus, the absolute volume of subject imports

likely may be lower in the imminent future than it was during the period of investigation, but it will

remain significant in light of sluggish demand and high inventory levels.129

As noted above, the Commission received completed questionnaires from only three Chinese

subject producers who estimated that they accounted for 6.0 percent of total Chinese production of CSG
 133 Petitioners’ Brief at 37.

 134 CR/PR at Table VII-1.

 135 Calculated from CR/PR at Tables VII-1 and C-1. 

 136 Calculated from CR/PR at Table VII-1. 

 137 We do not rely on the potential for shifts in production as a basis for our determination. According to the

responding Chinese producers, they ***. Foreign Producer Questionnaire Responses.

 138 CR/PR at Table VII-1.

 139 CR/PR at Table VII-1.

 140 CR/PR at Table VII-1. We note that responding producers’ reported U.S. exports as a percent of their total

shipments in interim 2009 and their projected higher U.S. exports as a percent of their total shipments for full year

2009 may support the petitioners’ contention that there is a seasonality to subject import volumes i.e., that they

substantially increase in the latter half of the year. We will examine this issue further in any final phase

investigations. 

 141 CR/PR at Table VII-1.

 142 CR/PR at Tables IV-2 and C-1.

 143 CR/PR at Table VII-1.

19

in 2008. The evidence, although limited, demonstrates that the likely available Chinese capacity will be

very high. Petitioners contend that Chinese subject producers have more than *** kg of production

capacity.133 Extrapolating from the responding producers’ reported aggregate production and estimated

6.0 percent share of total Chinese industry production, Chinese producers’ production of CSG totaled

about *** kg in 2008.134 Such a production quantity would be equal to *** apparent U.S. consumption

and U.S. production for the same year.135 Additionally based on responding producers’ aggregate

production projections for 2009 and 2010, CSG production capacity in China likely will increase.136 137 

 In addition to substantial capacity, Chinese producers’ unused capacity will permit them to ship

significant volumes of subject imports to the U.S. market in the imminent future. While the three

responding Chinese producers reported a capacity utilization rate of *** percent in 2008,138 we do not

have data on the vast majority of the Chinese industry. Moreover, the responding producers reported a

capacity utilization rate of *** percent in interim 2009 and projected a capacity utilization rate of ***

percent for full year 2009 and *** percent for full year 2010.139 These diminished capacity utilization

rates indicate that there will be substantial unused capacity in the Chinese industry that could be used to

direct further exports to the U.S. market in amounts far greater than U.S. consumption and U.S.

production.140 

The record also indicates that Chinese CSG producers are export-oriented. The responding

Chinese producers’ total exports and exports to the U.S. market, as a percent of their total shipments of

CSG, increased from 2006 to 2008, reaching *** percent and *** percent, respectively, in 2008.141

Furthermore, the Chinese industry’s reliance on the U.S. market is evidenced not only by the responding

producers’ reported exports, but by the massive increases of subject import volumes throughout the period

of investigation.142

 In addition, Chinese producers’ inventories could be utilized for exports of subject merchandise

to the United States. The three responding Chinese producers’ end-of-period inventories increased from

*** kg in 2006 to *** kg in 2008 and were *** kg in interim 2009.143 Because the three responding

producers represented only an estimated 6 percent of Chinese CSG production for 2008, however,

inventories for the entire Chinese industry are likely much greater. 

Although there are no reported import barriers in third-country markets, the global financial crisis

and reduced global demand for CSG will likely limit the extent to which the Chinese home market and

third-country markets will be able to absorb Chinese CSG.
 144 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 145 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 146 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 147 CR/PR at Table II-2, CR at V-3, PR at V-2.

 148 CR at V-4-V-5, PR at V-3.

 149 CR at V-5, PR at V-3.

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

 151 CR/PR at Tables V-1-V-4.

 152 CR/PR at Tables V-1-V-4. We note that there were no available price comparisons for first quarter 2009 for

products 2, 3, and 4. The pricing data for product 1 for first quarter 2009 shows that subject imports oversold the

domestic like product. CR/PR at Table V-1. 

20

Despite the large and increasing supply of subject merchandise and Chinese producers’ incentive

and ability to ship larger quantities, we recognize that, due to lower demand and high inventory levels, the

absolute volume of subject imports from China likely will be lower in the imminent future. Nonetheless,

relative to domestic consumption and production, subject imports likely will increase substantially in the

imminent future. As noted above, subject imports rapidly increased both in volume and market share

during the period of investigation, particularly from 2007 to 2008.144 Although apparent U.S.

consumption was 38.2 percent lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008, the volume of subject imports

was only 12 percent lower.145 Moreover, subject imports’ market share was higher in interim 2009 than in

interim 2008.146 

Thus, for purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find a reasonable

indication that subject import volume is likely to be significant within an imminent time frame, both in

absolute terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States, and that the increase in

subject imports’ market share will be substantial.

D. Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports

In assessing the likely price effects of the subject imports, we consider pricing developments

during the period of investigation and likely developments in the imminent future in light of key

conditions of competition in the U.S. market. The record indicates that subject imports from China and

domestic CSG are highly interchangeable, most sales of both the domestic like product and subject

imports are spot sales, and price typically is determined on a transaction-by-transaction basis.147

The Commission collected quarterly pricing data for four CSG products.148 Usable pricing data

were provided by three domestic producers, whose pricing data accounted for 6.1 percent of domestic

producers’ shipments during the period of investigation, and four importers, whose pricing data accounted

for 10.2 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports during the period.149 Subject imports undersold the

domestic like product in 37 of 43 quarterly pricing comparisons by margins ranging from 0.8 percent to

42.5 percent.150

For each of the four products, the prices of both the Chinese and domestic products were higher

at the end of the period of investigation than at the beginning.151 In the first three quarters of 2008, when

subject imports increased dramatically, subject imports undersold the domestic like product in each

comparison, usually by considerable high margins.152 As noted above, this is the same period in which

subject imports’ volume increased dramatically. Given that subject imports undersold domestic CSG to a

significant degree throughout the period, we find that underselling is likely to be significant in the

imminent future. 

In addition, because the volume of subject imports in the imminent future is likely to continue to

be substantial, in absolute and relative terms, we find that subject imports would enter at prices that are
 153 Based on the limited pricing data available, there is little evidence of price suppression or depression from

2006 to 2008. In interim 2009, however, there is an indication that prices were suppressed to some degree. 

Although average unit sales values increased by 29.3 percent, and were $1.95 in interim 2009 and $1.51 in interim

2008, unit COGS rose. The domestic industry’s cost of goods sold (“COGS”) as a ratio to net sales, was

substantially higher at 86.8 percent in interim 2009 compared to 73.4 percent in interim 2008. Additionally, unit

costs increased as the domestic industry’s net sales by quantity were *** percent lower in interim 2009 than in

interim 2008. As a result, unit COGS were 53 percent higher in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008 at $1.70 and

$1.11, respectively. CR/PR at Tables V-1, VI-2, and C-1 

 154 The alleged subsidies that formed the basis for Commerce’s initiation of the countervailing duty investigation

are summarized above and are set forth in detail at CR at I-4-I-5, PR at I-3-I-4. Commerce initiated the antidumping

duty investigation based on estimated dumping margins of 131.51 to 145.18 percent for CSG from China. CR at I-5,

PR at I-4.

 155 Chairman Aranoff and Commissioner Pinkert have relied on the data for the domestic industry set forth in

Table C-2, which excludes data for ***.

 156 Production increased by 15.3 percent from 2006 to 2008, from 150.4 million kg in 2006 to 165.7 million kg in

2007, and to 173.4 million kg in 2008. The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments increased by 17.6 percent in the

same period from 144.9 million kg in 2006 to 160.6 million kg in 2007, and to 170.5 million kg in 2008. Also the

number of production related workers increased by 9.7 percent from 773 in 2006 to 815 in 2007, and to 848 in 2008. 

Hours worked increased by 11.6 percent, from 1.62 million in 2006 to 1.76 million in 2007, and to 1.81 million in

2008. Productivity increased by 3.4 percent and was 92.9 kg per hour in 2006, 94.2 kg per hour in 2007, and 96.0 kg

per hour in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 157 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 158 The domestic industry’s market share was 78.9 percent in 2006, 82.8 percent in 2007, and 69.5 percent in

2008. CR/PR at Table C-1. Subject imports’ market share grew from 5.1 percent in 2006 to 7.5 percent in 2007 and

24.3 percent in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 159 The domestic industry’s capacity utilization rates decreased from 66.6 percent in 2006 to 65.2 percent in 2007,

and to 56.2 percent in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 160 Domestic production capacity increased by 36.7 percent from 2006 to 2008 from 225.6 million kg in 2006 to

254.0 million kg in 2007, and to 308.4 million kg in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 161 Net sales increased from *** kg in 2006 to *** kg in 2007, and then to *** kg in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 162 The domestic industry reported operating profits of $*** in 2006, $*** in 2007, and $*** in 2008. The

domestic industry’s operating income ratio was 15.3 percent in 2006, 18.1 percent in 2007, and 17.8 percent in 2008. 

(continued...)

21

likely to have significant adverse effects on U.S. prices and will likely increase demand for subject

imports relative to domestic consumption and production.153 Accordingly, we find that subject imports of

CSG from China are likely to have a significant adverse effects on the domestic producers’ prices in the

imminent future. 

E. Likely Impact of the Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry154 155

From 2006 to 2008, the domestic CSG industry registered gains in a number of performance

indicators, including production, shipments, and employment.156 These gains did not keep pace with the

33.5 percent increase in apparent U.S. consumption in quantity from 2006 to 2008 as subject imports

dramatically increased their presence.157 The domestic industry’s market share fluctuated and decreased

overall by 9.4 percentage points from 2006 to 2008.158 The domestic industry’s capacity utilization rates

were relatively low and decreased by 10.4 percentage points from 2006 to 2008.159 The decrease in the

industry’s capacity utilization rates generally paralleled the industry’s increase in production capacity.160

The domestic industry’s net sales increased by *** percent161 and the industry was profitable in each year

from 2006 to 2008.162
 162 (...continued)

CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 163 Production was 44.9 million kg in interim 2008 and 26.4 million kg in interim 2009. U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments were 44.7 million kg in interim 2008 and 26.5 million kg in interim 2009. The number of production

workers was 827 in interim 2008 and 749 in interim 2009. Hours worked were 444,000 in interim 2008 and 399,000

in interim 2009. Productivity (kg per 1,000 hours worked) was 101.1 in interim 2008 and 66.1 in interim 2009. 

CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 164 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 165 The domestic industry’s operating income was $*** in interim 2008 and $*** in interim 2009. Net sales were

*** kg in interim 2008 and *** kg in interim 2009. Although average unit sales values increased by 28.3 percent,

and were $1.95 in interim 2009 and $1.51 in interim 2008, unit COGS increased to a greater extent. Unit COGS

were 53 percent higher in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008 at $1.70 and $1.11, respectively. CR/PR at Table

C-1. 

 166 See CR/PR at Table C-1. 

22

As described above, apparent U.S. consumption increased from 2006 to 2008, but was

considerably lower in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008. The drop off in demand followed a surge

in import volume in 2008, particularly in the latter half of 2008. Although subject import volume was

lower in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008, subject imports’ market share and importer inventories

were higher in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008. As a result, many domestic industry indicators

were drastically lower in the first quarter of 2009 than in the first quarter of 2008. The domestic

industry’s reported production was 41.2 percent lower, U.S. shipments were 40.7 percent lower, the

number of production workers was 9.4 percent lower, hours worked were 10.1 percent lower, and

productivity was 34.7 percent lower.163 The domestic industry’s market share was also lower in interim

2009 compared to interim 2008.164 

The domestic industry’s financial indicators were markedly lower in the first quarter of 2009

compared to first quarter of 2008, and compared to each full year 2006 to 2008. Although the domestic

industry reported profits for first quarter 2009, its operating income was *** percent lower than in interim

2008 as net sales fell and unit COGS increased.165 The domestic industry’s operating income to net sales

ratio was 13.4 percentage points lower, at just 3.9 percent, in interim 2009, compared to 17.3 percent in

interim 2008. 

For purposes of these preliminary phase investigations, we find that there is a causal nexus

between the subject imports and a likely imminent adverse impact on the domestic industry. This

conclusion is based on the declines in the industry’s trade and employment data discussed above, our

finding that the volume of subject imports is likely to increase significantly in relative terms in an

imminent time frame, and our finding that underselling by subject imports will likely continue and will

likely have significant adverse effects on domestic prices. Significant volumes of subject imports at low

prices are likely to affect negatively the industry’s sales volumes and prices, thereby reducing the

industry’s levels of production, employment, and profitability.

 We have considered whether there are other factors that will likely have an imminent impact on

the domestic industry. We recognize that the decline in CSG demand played a role in the downturn in the

domestic industry’s performance near the end of the period of investigation. Moreover, as discussed

above, demand is likely to remain at suppressed levels in the imminent future. In any final phase of these

investigations, we intend to further explore the role that any changes in demand would play in the

performance of the domestic industry in order to ensure that we do not attribute to subject imports the

effects of any future adverse demand conditions.

We also recognize that nonsubject imports were present in the U.S. market during the period of

investigation. The volume of nonsubject imports declined by 48.8 percent from 2006 to 2008 and was

35.1 percent lower in first-quarter 2009 than in first-quarter 2008.166 Nonsubject imports held a smaller
 167 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 168 CR/PR at Tables D-1-D-4. 

23

share of the market than did subject imports at the end of the period of investigation.167 The prices for

nonsubject imports were lower than those of subject imports in a majority of instances from 2006 to 2007,

but were generally higher thereafter.168 

Consequently, we conclude for purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations that

there is a causal nexus between the subject imports and a likely imminent adverse impact on the domestic

industry, which demonstrates a reasonable indication that the domestic industry is threatened with

material injury by reason of subject imports.

 CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, and based on the record in the preliminary phase of these

investigations, we find that there is a reasonable indication that the domestic industry producing CSG is

threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from China that are allegedly sold in the

United States at less than fair value, and 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 petitions filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by Alabama

Metal Industries Corp., of Birmingham, AL (“AMICO”) and Fisher & Ludlow, Inc., of Wexford, PA

(“Fisher”) on May 29, 2009, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or

threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized and less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of

certain steel grating (“CSG”)1

 from China. Information relating to the background of the investigations is

provided below.2

Effective date Action

May 29, 2009 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission

investigations (74 FR 27049, June 5, 2009)

June 19, 2009 Commission’s conference1

June 25, 2009 Commerce’s notices of initiation (74 FR 30273 (AD); 74 FR 30278 (CVD))

July 10, 2009 Date of the Commission’s vote

July 13, 2009 Commission determinations transmitted to Commerce

July 20, 2009 Commission 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.
I-2

Section 771(7)© of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)©) further provides that--

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission

shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any

increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production

or consumption in the United States is significant.

. . .

In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the

Commission shall consider whether . . . (I) there has been significant

price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the

price of domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of

imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph

(B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to

. . . 

(I) actual and potential declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (II)

factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative

effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to

raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects

on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping

investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping.

Organization of the Report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, alleged subsidy and

dumping margins, and domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of

competition and other relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the

U.S. industry, including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Parts IV

and V present the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise, respectively. Part VI

presents information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. Part VII presents the statutory

requirements and information obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat

of material injury as well as information regarding nonsubject countries.

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

CSG is comprised of downstream steel products which are manufactured from multiple, separate

pieces of steel, including load-bearing pieces and cross pieces. These separate pieces are then joined

together by welding, riveting, swaging, or pressing. CSG serves in a wide range of heavy load-bearing

applications including flooring, railroad car stand platforms, vehicle bridges, freight car flooring, boat

landing ramps, and catwalks. The product may also be used in applications that require less of a loadbearing application such as pedestrian walkways, mezzanines, overhead sign platforms, and fire escape
 3

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 7. 

 4

 AMICO; Fisher; Bailey Bridges, Inc. (“Bailey”); IKG Industries (“IKG”); MLP Steel, LLC, Laurel Steel

Division (“Laurel”); and Ohio Gratings. A seventh producer, Leavitt Tube Co., LLC (“Leavitt”), went out of

business ***. 

 5

 Table C-2 presents data concerning the U.S. market, excluding ***.

 6 Certain Steel Grating From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 74

FR 30278, June 25, 2009.

I-3

platforms.3

 The leading U.S. producers of CSG are AMICO and IKG Industries (“IKG”), while leading

producers of CSG outside the United States include *** of China. The leading U.S. importers of CSG

from China are ***. 

Apparent U.S. consumption of CSG totaled approximately 245.2 million kilograms 

($444.2 million) in 2008. Currently, six firms are known to produce CSG in the United States.4

 U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments of CSG totaled 170.5 million kilograms ($310.8 million) in 2008, and

accounted for 69.5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 70.0 percent by value. U.S.

imports from China totaled 59.6 million kilograms ($101.8 million) in 2008 and accounted for

24.3 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 22.9 percent by value. U.S. imports from

nonsubject sources totaled 15.1 million kilograms ($31.7 million) in 2008 and accounted for 6.1 percent

of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 7.1 percent by value.

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in the investigations is presented in appendix C, table C-1.5

 Except

as noted, U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of five firms that accounted for the vast

majority of U.S. production of CSG during 2008. U.S. imports are based on official import statistics of

Commerce.

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

CSG has not been the subject of any prior countervailing or antidumping duty investigations in

the United States. 

NATURE AND EXTENT OF ALLEGED SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV 

Alleged Subsidies

On June 25, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its

countervailing duty investigation on CSG from China.6

 The following government programs in China

are involved:

GOC Provision of Inputs for Less than Adequate Renumeration 

1. Provision of Hot-Rolled Steel for Less than Adequate Renumeration 

2. Provision of Steel Bar for Less than Adequate Renumeration

3. Provision of Steel Plate for Less than Adequate Renumeration

4. Provision of Wire Rod for Less than Adequate Renumeration

GOC Provision of Land-Use Rights to State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) for Less than Adequate

Renumeration
 7 Certain Steel Grating from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR

30273, June 25, 2009.

I-4

GOC Income Tax Programs

1. “Two Free, Three Half” Program

2. Reduced Income Tax Rates for Export-Oriented Foreign-Invested Enterprises (FIEs)

3. Preferential Income Tax Policy for Enterprises of the Northeast Region

4. Forgiveness of Tax Arrears for Enterprises in the Old Industrial Bases of Northeast China

5. Tax Subsidies for FIEs in Specially Designated Geographic Areas

 6. Local Income Tax Exemption and Reduction Programs for “Productive” FIEs

 7. Income Tax Credits for Domestically Owned Companies Purchasing Domestically Produced 

 Equipment

 8. Income Tax Credits for FIEs Purchasing Domestically Produced Equipment

 9. Preferential Tax Programs for FIEs Recognized as High or New Technology Enterprises

GOC VAT Programs

 1. Import Tariff and Value Added Tax (VAT) Exemptions for Encouraged Industries Importing 

 Equipment for Domestic Operations

 2. VAT and Tariff Exemptions for Purchases of Fixed Assets Under the Foreign Trade 

 Development Fund

Other GOC Programs

 1. Loans and Interest Subsidies Provided Pursuant to the Northeast Revitalization Program

 2. Grants to “Third Line” Military Enterprises

Provincial/Municipal Programs

 1. Liaoning Province “Five Points, One Line” Program

 2. Guangzhou City Famous Export Brands

 3. Grants to Companies for “Outward Expansion” in Guangdong Province

 4. Guangdong and Zhejiang Provinces Programs to Rebate Antidumping Fees

Alleged Sales at LTFV

On June 25, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its

antidumping duty investigations on CSG from China.7

 Commerce has initiated antidumping duty

investigations based on estimated dumping margins of 131.51 to 145.18 percent for CSG from China.
 8 Certain Steel Grating from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR

30278, June 25, 2009.

I-5

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations as follows:

Certain steel grating, consisting of two or more pieces of steel, including loadbearing pieces and

cross pieces, joined by any assembly process, regardless of: (1) size or shape; (2) method of

manufacture; (3) metallurgy (carbon, alloy, or stainless); (4) the profile of the bars; and (5)

whether or not they are galvanized, painted, coated, clad or plated. Steel grating is also

commonly referred to as bar grating, although the components may consist of steel other than

bars, such as hot-rolled sheet, plate, or wire rod. 

The scope excludes expanded metal grating, which is comprised of a single piece of coil of sheet

or thin plate steel that has been slit and expanded, and does not involve welding or joining of

multiple pieces of steel. The scope also excludes plank type safety grating which is comprised of

a single piece or coil of sheet or thin plate steel, typically in thickness of 10 to 18 gauge, that has

been pierced and cold formed, and does not involve welding or joining of multiple pieces of

steel.8

Tariff Treatment

Commerce indicated in its preliminary determinations that CSG is classifiable in the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 7308.90.70. Table I-1 presents current

tariff rates for CSG. As Table I-1 illustrates, imports of CSG from countries (including China) that enjoy

normal trade relations enter the United States duty-free.
 9

 Petition, p. 8.

 10 Conference transcript, p. 52 (Rutter). Standard-size CSG panels measure 3-feet wide by 24-feet long. Petition,

p. 4.

 11 Petition, p. 13.

 12 Petition, p. 9.

I-6

Table I-1

CSG: Tariff rates, 2009

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special2

Column

23

Rates (ad valorem)

7308

7308.90

7308.90.30

7308.90.60

7308.90.70

Structures (excluding prefabricated buildings of heading

9406) and parts of structures (for example, bridges and

bridge sections, lock gates, towers, lattice masts, roofs,

roofing frameworks, doors and windows and their frames

and thresholds for doors, shutters, balustrades, pillars and

columns) of iron or steel; plates, rods, angles, shapes,

sections, tubes and the like, prepared for use in structures,

of iron or steel:

 Other:

 Columns, pillars, posts, beams, girders and

 similar structural units:

 Not in part of alloy steel...................................

 Other................................................................

 Other:

 Steel grating....................................................

Free

Free

Free

Free

Free

Free

Free

Free

45%

20%

30%

45%

 1 Normal trade relations, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate. 

 2

 Special rates not applicable when General rate is free.

 3

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations duty status.

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2009, revision 1).

THE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

CSG is a fabricated product distinguished by two sets of components– the “bearing bars” that

extend across the length and the “crossbars” that transverse (typically perpendicular to) the bearing bars9

to form a “panel” or “mat.”10 The dimensions and spacing of both the bearing bars and crossbars are

designed for a wide variety of load-bearing and load-distribution applications.11 CSG is available in

various forms (figure I-1) including “standard welded bar grating” with crossbars welded across the tops

of the bearing bars, “press-locked grating” with notched bearing bars and sometimes notched crossbars

mechanically pressed together, “swage-locked grating” characterized by crossbars passing through and

swaged (crimped) on each side of bearing bars, and “riveted grating” distinguished by reticulated (prebent) bars riveted between adjacent bearing bars to enhance resistance to buckling.12 Upper edges of the

bearing bars can be serrated for greater traction. The majority of CSG is sold for private industrial and

commercial applications including utility plants, offshore oil platforms, and manufacturing facilities,
 13 Conference transcript, p. 80 (Smith). “Almost none” of the CSG sales are subject to “Buy America”

requirements. Conference transcript, p. 80 (Scott).

 14 Petition, p. 7.

 15 Petition, p. 7.

 16 “ANSI/NAAMM MBG 531-00 Metal Bar Grating Manual,” Metal Bar Grating Division, Glen Ellyn, IL:

NAAMM, February 21, 2001.

 17 “ANSI/NAAMM MBG 532-00 Heavy-Duty Metal Bar Grating Manual,” Metal Bar Grating Division, Glen

Ellyn, IL: NAAMM, November 14, 2000.

I-7

rather than for government-controlled or government-funded project such as bridges.13 Common end uses

include walkways, mezzanines, and catwalks; platforms for overhead signs, fire escapes, and railway

rolling-stock stand platforms; and stairways and flooring. Decking and supports are heavier-duty

applications for CSG, for example motor-vehicle bridges, railway rolling-stock flooring, drainage pit

covers, boat landing ramps, truck beds, running boards, and mooring docks.14 CSG is commonly

produced15 to American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”)/National Association of Architectural

Metal Manufacturers (“NAAMM”) standards MBG 531-0016 or MBG 532-00.17

Figure I-1

Certain steel grating: Standard welded bar grating, press-locked grating, swage-locked grating,

and riveted grating

Source: Reproduced with permission from Alabama Metal Industries Corp., Grating and Expanded

Metals, January 2008. 
 18 Conference transcript, p. 89 (Rutter).

 19 ANSI/NAAMM standards MBG 531-00 and MBG 532-00 specify that the steel for bearing bars shall conform

to ASTM A-1011/A-1011M for hot-rolled carbon steel coil and strip. ANSI/NAAMM MBG 531-00, p. 23; and

MBG 532-00, p. 14.

 20 ANSI/NAAMM standards MBG 531-00 and MBG 532-00 specify that the steel for crossbars shall conform to

ASTM A-510/A-510M for carbon steel wire rod and coarse round wire. Ibid.

 21 Crossbars are twisted to and enhance surface traction, facilitate assembly, and impart rigidity of the CSG. 

Conference transcript, pp. 76-77 (Rutter) and p. 77 (Smith).

 22 Petition, p. 8.

 23 Petition, p. 4.

 24 Petition, p. 8.

 25 Petition, pp. 4-5.

 26 Petition, p. 9.

 27 Conference transcript, p. 86 (Rutter).

I-8

Manufacturing Processes

Reportedly, the manufacturing technology for producing steel grating products is well established

and dispersed worldwide, as there are few producers of the manufacturing equipment.18 Production of

CSG typically requires two or more of the following processing phases: (1) slitting and cutting of steel

coils, (2) forming of the bearing and crossbars into a panel, and (3) finishing of the assembled panel. 

First, in the slitting and cutting phase, flat-rolled steel coils19 are unrolled and then slit to width and cut to

length for the bearing bars. Likewise, steel wire rod20 for the crossbars is uncoiled, straightened, cut to

length, and then mechanically twisted.21 Producers can also purchase the bearing bars already pre-cut to

size from either steel coil or steel flat bars, and the crossbars pre-cut and pre-twisted from steel rods,

albeit reportedly at a significant cost premium over the uncut steel mill products bought in bulk.22 For the

CSG to provide greater tread surface traction, the upper edges of the individual bearing bars can be

serrated in preparation for the forming phase.

Next, in the forming phase, CSG is assembled by either welding or cold pressing the pre-cut

bearing and crossbars into a panel. To form a panel by welding, a high-voltage electric welder heats the

same spot across the top of each bearing bar, and a separate press machine forces the crossbars onto the

heated bearing bars to complete the CSG panel. Reportedly, the majority of U.S. steel grating products is

produced by semi-automated forge-welding machinery (the “Newcor method of production”) that is ***. 

Forge welding generally produces *** panels per eight-hour shift,23 and requires manual placement of the

pre-cut bearing bars into the spacing slots of a jig (“setter”) that holds them in place during welding and

pressing.24 Some U.S. facilities also utilize the more highly automated welding machinery developed by

Entwicklungs und Verwertungs GmbH (the “EVG method of production”). Starting with multiple coils

of cut-to-width strip, the EVG method results in higher output, reportedly *** panels per eight-hour

shift.25

Alternatively, CSG panels can be formed by various processes that don’t require welding. For

press-locked grating products, the bearing bars and sometimes the crossbars are notched or slotted before

being hydraulically pressed together. Swage-locked grating products are formed by the crossbars being

driven through the bearing bars, and swaged along each side of the bearing bars to lock them in place. To

assemble riveted grating products, reticulated bars are riveted between the bearing bars.26

The assembled panel is inspected and tested for weld integrity, tensile strength, bearing-bar

alignment, and load tolerance. Finally, some CSG panels may be subject to various processes in the

finishing phase, including dip-coat (rather than spray) painting;27 electrolytic galvanizing for corrosion

resistance; or end finishing, which involves capping the bearing bars with end bands, attachment of
 28 Conference transcript, p. 63 (Smith).

 29 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 7-8.

 30 Petition, p. 14; and conference transcript, p. 29 (Scott).

 31 Conference transcript, p. 31 (Scott).

 32 Conference transcript, p. 28 (Scott).

 33 Expanded metal of steel is classified under HTS subheading 7314.50.00. There is not a similar breakout for

expanded metal of aluminum in HTS chapter 76.

 34 Conference transcript, pp. 29-30 (Scott).

 35 There is not a specific breakout in the HTS for safety plank grating, either of steel or aluminum. 

 36 Conference transcript, pp. 29-31 (Scott).

I-9

weldments, and basic cut-outs. Reportedly, the majority of domestically produced CSG is sold

ungalvanized, since galvanizing impedes further processing as welding emits fumes from the galvanized

coating.28

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

No domestic like product issues have been raised in this investigation, although certain other

types of grating can substitute for CSG. The petitioner proposes a single domestic like product – CSG –

coextensive with Commerce’s scope.29 No respondents participated in this phase of these investigations. 

The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic product(s) that are “like” the subject

imported product is based on a number of factors including: (1) physical characteristics and uses;

(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and

producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and (6) price. Information regarding these factors is

discussed below, except for channels of distribution, which is discussed in Part II of this report.

Physical Characteristics and Uses

Several other types of fabricated products are also manufactured by producers of CSG, including

expanded metal of steel or aluminum, safety plank grating of steel or aluminum, and fiberglass grating. 

However, the petitioners note that these items are not considered suitable for the heavy load-bearing

applications as is CSG.30 CSG is stronger at its mid-section point and can support loads up to several

hundred pounds more per square foot than either expanded metal or safety plank grating (figure I-2). 

Further, CSG is suitable for motor vehicle traffic but both expanded metal and safety grating are not.31

Also, unlike CSG that is assembled from separate pieces of steel,32 expanded metal33 is recognizable as a

single sheet of steel or aluminum that has been slit and pulled along one direction to create an open lattice

network. Hence, expanded metal is commonly utilized in enclosure, protective (safety-guard), decorative,

and filtration applications.34 Likewise, safety plank grating35 is characterized as a long strip of steel or

aluminum with a top surface shaped by punching of holes with serrated edges and smooth edges folded

over by cold forming. The major application of safety plank grating is to provide a non-slip surface for

light pedestrian traffic on work platforms, vehicle steps and running boards, roof-top walkways, and stair

treads.36
 37 AMICO, “Fiberglass,” available at http://amico-grating.com/fiberglass.htm; and “Fiberglass Grating,”

available at http://amico-seasafe.com/fiberglass-grating.htm.

 38 Petition, pp. 14-15.

 39 Petition, p. 14.

I-10

Figure I-2

Other metal grating: Expanded metal and safety plank grating

Source: Reproduced with permission from Alabama Metal Industries Corp., Grating and Expanded

Metals, January 2008. 

Fiberglass grating is available either as one-piece or as assembled panels. For grating panels,

fiberglass combines durability, corrosion resistance, fire retardancy, non-electrical conductivity, nonmagnetism, stability, and light weight. Slip-resistant flooring systems are the major end-use applications

for fiberglass gratings, including work platforms, ramps, stair treads, trench covers, and catwalks in a

wide range of industries.37

Petitioners consider certain aluminum (e.g., press-locked swage-locked, and riveted) grating as

capable of being utilized in similar applications as CSG; however, because aluminum does not rust or

corrode easily, its use is typically limited to more caustic environments, such as wastewater treatment

facilities.38 Given the higher cost of aluminum compared to steel, aluminum grating is sold at higher

prices than steel grating.39 Aluminum bar grating is included, along with grating of carbon steel and
 40 NAAMM, “ANSI/NAAMM MBG 531-00 Metal Bar Grating Manual.”

 41 NAAMM, “ANSI/NAAMM MBG 532-00 Heavy-Duty Metal Bar Grating Manual.”

 42 Petition, p. 15.

 43 Petition, p. 15.

 44 AMICO, “GatorGrate Open-molded Grating,” available at http://amico-seasafe.com/grate1.htm.

 45 AMICO, “GatorDeck Pultruded Grating,” available at http://amico-seasafe.com/deck1.htm.

 46 Safety plank grating is not among the products covered by NAAMM and no standard has been published by

NAAMM for this product. ***, telephone interview with Commission staff, June 26, 2009.

 47 Conference transcript, pp. 31-32 (Scott).

 48 NAAMM, “NAAMM Standard EMMA 557-99 Standards for Expanded Metal,” Expanded Metal

Manufacturers Association Division, Glen Ellyn, IL: NAAMM, 1999.

 49 Conference transcript, pp. 62-63 (Scott).

I-11

stainless steel, in ANSI/NAAMM standard MBG 532-00.40 However, aluminum grating is not covered

by ANSI/NAAMM standard MBG 532-00, which only includes CSG of carbon or stainless steels.41

Manufacturing Facilities and Production Employees

Expanded metal and safety plank grating may be produced in the same facilities as CSG. 

However, these products are manufactured on separate production equipment and typically by separate

groups of employees.42 Although steel and aluminum grating may be produced in the same facilities, the

production equipment and production employees are separate for each type of metal grating. Nor can

aluminum be welded, so forge welding and EVG equipment are not suitable for manufacturing aluminum

grating.43

Fiberglass grating is produced either as an one-piece molded panel or as pultruded-components

assembled into a panel. Molded fiberglass grating is manufactured by interweaving fiberglass strands

with thermosetting resins with the grating dimensions and surfaces shaped by molds.44 The first step in

manufacturing pultruded fiberglass grating is continuous molding of the bearing bars and cross rods, both

consisting of a fiberglass core, clad with glass matting, and finally clad with a synthetic surface material

that are pulled (pultruded) through a resin bath and a heated steel die that imparts and sets the final crosssectional shapes. Next, the pultruded fiberglass panel is assembled by mechanically pressing the cross

rods across the tops of the aligned bearing bars.45

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

According to the petitioners’ witness, CSG is viewed by customers as a different product than

either expanded metal or safety plank grating due to distinct manufacturing processes and different

applications. Further, the separate divisions and technical standards at NAAMM for CSG versus

expanded metal and safety plank grating46 reflect that producers and users consider these separate

products.47 For example, a separate standard by the Expanded Metal Manufacturers Association

(EMMA) Division of NAAMM (EMMA 557-99) covers expanded metal of carbon steel, stainless steel,

and aluminum.48

A representative of one of the petitioners noted that ANSI/NAAMM standards are voluntary and

there is no certification process. Hence, both domestic and foreign producers, including those in China,

can claim that their CSG meets ANSI/NAAMM standards. As such, customers must rely on the

producer’s reputation that its product adheres to the specific dimensional and integrity standards.49 This
 50 Conference transcript, p. 28 (Scott). Petitioners considered the degree of underweighting of Chinese CSG

panels to be ***. ***. Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 2.

 51 Conference transcript, pp. 41-42 (Rutter and Smith).

 52 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 10. 

I-12

same representative further noted that Chinese producers of CSG tend to “underweight” their product.50

Other representatives of the petitioners indicated that there are no country-of-origin marking requirements

for CSG, so the domestic and imported products can appear similar enough to be almost indistinguishable

due to lack of markings.51

Price

Pricing data for four types of CSG are presented in Part V of this report. U.S. producers’ reported

prices for those types of CSG generally range between $*** and $*** per square foot during January

2006-March 2009. In contrast, expanded-metal grating generally sells for $*** to $*** per square foot.52
 1

 Distributors may include converters who do not sell CSG in the form in which they purchase it. 

 2

 *** provided both producer and importer questionnaires. Both importer and producer responses are recorded in

Parts II and V of this report, although these firms generally provided identical responses to most questions in the

pricing section of their questionnaires. 

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

CSG has numerous end-uses including: pedestrian walkways such as mezzanines, catwalks,

overhead sign platforms, fire escape platforms, railway rolling-stock stand platforms, stairways, and

flooring; and heavy-duty applications such as vehicle bridges, railway rolling-stock flooring, drainage pit

covers, boat landing ramps, truck beds, running boards, and mooring docks. 

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

Table II-1 presents information on channels of distribution for U.S. producers as well as for U.S.

importers of subject product from China, and product from nonsubject countries. U.S. product, subject

imports, and nonsubject imports were sold to distributors1

 more frequently than to end users in all full

years; however, in the first quarter of 2009 most imports from China and nonsubject countries were sold

to end users. 

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

U.S. supply

Based on available information, U.S. CSG producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced CSG to the U.S. market. The

main contributing factor to the high degree of responsiveness of supply is the availability of unused

capacity. 

Industry capacity

Overall U.S. capacity increased steadily from 225.6 million kilograms in 2006 to 308.4 million

kilograms in 2008 and increased slightly from 77.9 million kilograms in the first quarter of 2008 to 78.2

million kilograms in the first quarter of 2009. Capacity utilization was relatively low and decreased from

66.6 percent in 2006 to 56.2 percent in 2008, and from 57.6 percent in the first quarter of 2008 to 33.8

percent in the first quarter of 2009.

*** responding U.S. producers stated that there had been no changes in the product range or

marketing of CSG since January 1, 2006.2

 One producer, ***, reported that increased imports had

changed the market for U.S. producers. 
II-2

Table II-1

CSG: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments, by channels of distribution, 2006-08 and

January-March 20091

Item

Period

2006 2007 2008

Jan.-March

2009

 Share of reported shipments (percent)

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of CSG to:

 Distributors 76.1 75.0 73.2 72.0

 End users 23.9 25.0 26.8 28.0

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of CSG from China to:

 Distributors 84.8 60.4 92.0 26.2

 End users 15.2 39.6 8.0 73.8

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of CSG from all other countries to: 

 Distributors 74.0 65.0 98.7 40.3

 End users 26.0 35.0 1.3 59.7

Note.–Data for domestic producers consist of only U.S. commercial shipments.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Alternative markets

Between January 2006 and December 2008, U.S. producers’ exports of CSG increased steadily

from *** percent of their shipments in 2006 to *** percent in 2008, and from *** percent in interim 2008

to *** percent in interim 2009. At these levels, U.S. producers have relatively little ability to use exports

as a means to increase supply.

Inventory levels

U.S. producers’ inventories as a share of their total shipments was relatively steady, increasing

from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and then falling to *** percent in 2008. This level of

inventories may allow some increase in shipments from inventories.

Production alternatives

Three out of the five responding U.S. producers reported that they did not produce any other

products on the equipment used to produce CSG. The other two reported that they also produced

aluminum grating on the same equipment as CSG.

Subject Imports from China

Based on available information, Chinese producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of CSG to the U.S. market. The main
II-3

contributing factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are *** increases in capacity between

2006 and 2008, and the existence of *** sales to alternative markets. 

Industry capacity

Three Chinese producers responded to the foreign producers’ questionnaires, representing an

estimated 6.0 percent of Chinese production and 32.3 percent of exports to the United States in 2008. 

Reported Chinese capacity increased steadily from *** kilograms in 2006 to *** kilograms in 2008 and

from *** kilograms in the first quarter of 2008 to *** kilograms in the first quarter of 2009.

Alternative markets

The responding Chinese producers’ exports to the United States increased steadily from ***

percent of their reported shipments in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. These producers’ shipments of CSG

to the Chinese home market (including internal consumption) fell steadily from *** percent of their total

shipments in 2006, to *** percent in 2008, but rose from *** percent in the first quarter of 2008 to ***

percent in the first quarter of 2009. These firms’ shipments to non-U.S., non-Chinese markets increased

from *** percent of their total shipments in 2006 to *** percent in 2008, and also increased from ***

percent in the first quarter of 2008 to *** percent in the first quarter of 2009. 

Inventory levels

Inventories of the responding Chinese producers of CSG declined from *** percent of their total

shipments in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. Inventories as a ratio to total shipments increased from ***

percent in the first quarter of 2008 to *** percent in the first quarter of 2009.

Production alternatives

*** of the Chinese producers reported producing other products using the same equipment as

CSG. 

Nonsubject Imports

CSG has been imported into the United States from Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, and South Africa,

listed in descending order of 2008 volume. The two known Canadian producers are each related to a U.S.

producer. Imports from Canada fell steadily from 20.3 million kilograms in 2006 to 12.2 million

kilograms in 2008. Imports from all other nonsubject-country sources also declined steadily, from 9.1

million kilograms in 2006 to 2.8 million kilograms in 2008.

Demand

Based on available information, the overall demand for CSG is likely to change relatively little in

response to changes in price. The main contributing factors are the limited range of substitute products

and the small cost share of CSG in most of its ultimate end uses. However, some factors increase the

responsiveness of demand, including the large cost share of CSG in some intermediate products and the

existence of some substitutes. 

Available data indicate that total apparent U.S. consumption of CSG increased from 183.7 million

kilograms in 2006 to 245.2 million kilograms in 2008, but fell abruptly from 53.1 million kilograms in

interim 2008 to 32.8 million kilograms in interim 2009.
 3

 Conference transcript, p.40 (Rutter).

 4

 Conference transcript, p. 88 (Scott).

 5

 Conference transcript, p. 87 (Scott).

 6

 Checker plate is a solid plate of steel with raised nubs to prevent slips; plank decking is also called safety plank

grating which is made from a single thin plate of steel that is cut and expanded or pierced and punched. Conference

transcript, pp. 29, 58 (Scott, Rutter).

II-4

Demand Characteristics

There was little agreement among various producers and importers on how to characterize

demand changes since the beginning of 2006. Of the five responding producers, two reported that

demand had fallen since 2006, one reported that demand was unchanged, one that demand had fluctuated,

and one that demand had increased. Ten importers responded: four reported that demand had increased,

two reported that it was unchanged, two reported that demand had decreased, and two reported that it had

fluctuated. There was more agreement on the actual changes that had occurred in demand, with three out

of four responding producers and four of eight responding importers reporting that demand had increased

until about mid-2008 and then declined with the business cycle. The other producer reported that demand

had expanded in the energy sector. Responses from importers included increased demand in the energy

sector, that economic decline had caused demand to decline, that product was not available from U.S.

producers, and that demand for CSG was in the industrial, commercial, and heavy construction areas. 

Petitioners report that the market for CSG is a mature market with demand following the general market

and industrial construction and that prices have little impact on CSG demand.3

Business Cycles

Petitioners report that demand for CSG follows the overall business cycle, but that, unlike for

products used in residential construction, it does not follow an annual cycle.4

 Spikes in demand occur

when hurricanes hit areas where there are off-shore drilling platforms (e.g., the Gulf of Mexico) because

safety procedures require that steel grating be thrown into the Gulf when a hurricane approaches.5

Substitute Products

Two of the five responding U.S. producers and 4 of the 14 responding importers reported

substitutes for CSG. Substitutes listed include wood flooring, metal plates, aluminum grating, plank

decking, resin/fiberglass grating, expanded metal, and checker plate.6

 None of the firms reported that the

price of substitutes affected the price of CSG.

Cost Share

Three U.S. producers and three importers estimated that CSG’s share of the cost of one or more

downstream products. Cost shares ranged from 1 percent to 80 percent, with five of the eight products

listed having CSG cost shares of 8 percent or less.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported CSG depends on such factors as

relative prices, quality (e.g., grade standards, reliability of supply, defect rates, etc.), and conditions of

sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and delivery dates, payment terms, product

services, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there is a relatively high degree of
 7

 ***.

 8

 Conference transcript, p. 62 (Scott).

 9

 Conference transcript, p. 59 (Scott).

II-5

substitutability between U.S. and Chinese products, particularly for commodity types and grades and for

galvanized product.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Lead times from inventories reported by U.S. producers were generally 2 or 3 days.7

 Seven

importers reported lead times from inventories ranging from 1 day to 6 months, with five reporting lead

times of 10 days or fewer. Lead times for made-to-order products were reported by four U.S. producers,

ranging from 2 days to 6 months with two reporting lead times of 1 to 2 weeks. Twelve importers

reported lead times for made-to-order product ranging from two days to 6 months, with four reporting 1

month or less and four reporting 2 to 3 months.

Comparisons of Domestic Products and Chinese Imports

Producers and importers were requested to provide information regarding the interchangeability

of domestic, subject, and nonsubject CSG and to discuss why any products may not be interchangeable

(table II-2). Most U.S. producers reported that product from each of the country pairs was always

interchangeable. Most importers responded that CSG from each of the different country sources was

either always interchangeable or frequently interchangeable. Reported differences included: Chinese

product did not always meet U.S. standards; differences between imperial and metric measures; and

product from nonsubject countries did not necessarily meet ANSI/NAAMM or ASTM standards. 

Table II-2

CSG: Perceived interchangeability between product produced in the United States and in other

countries, by country pairs

Country pair

 Number of U.S. 

 producers reporting

Number of U.S. importers

reporting

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. China *** *** 0 0 5 8 1 0

U.S. vs. nonsubject 31003410

China vs. nonsubject 31003410

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Petitioners reported that most product is sold using ANSI/NAAMM standards but that firms may

state that their product meets these standards even if it does not; it is difficult for purchasers to test the

product to determine if it actually does meets these standards.8

 In addition, they reported that Chinese

product was sometime underweight, with the bars not as thick as reported in the specifications.9

Producers and importers were requested to provide information regarding the significance of

differences other than price for domestic, subject, and nonsubject CSG (table II-3). Most responding U.S.

producers reported that there were never differences other than price for all country pairs. Most
II-6

Table II-3

CSG: Perceived importance of differences in factors other than price between product produced

in the United States and in other countries, by country pairs

Country pair

 Number of U.S.

producers reporting

Number of U.S. importers

reporting

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. China *** 0 *** *** 1 4 5 2

U.S. vs. nonsubject 00120241

China vs. nonsubject 00120241

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 responding importers reported that there were sometimes or frequently differences other than price for

each pair. Differences reported included differences in lead times and that China was the only source

willing to sell to the reporting firm. 
 1

 The Commission did not receive responses from Bailey or Laurel. Both Bailey and Laurel produce small

amounts of CSG. Bailey produced *** kilograms of CSG in 2008 and Laurel produced *** kilograms. Both entities

concentrate on heavier duty grating (primarily for bridge applications). Both Bailey and Laurel have indicated that

they support the filing of the petitions on behalf of the domestic industry. Petitioners’ June 9, 2009 public response

to Commerce’s June 4, 2009 supplemental questionnaire, exhs. 5 and 6. 

 2

 In addition to those producers who have indicated support for the petition, on June 15, 2009 the United Steel,

Paper, Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union AFL-CIO

(“USW”) filed a letter in support of the petitions. Also, a USW representative testified at the Commission’s June 19,

2009 conference. 

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 and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is

presented in Parts IV and 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 five firms that accounted for the

vast majority of U.S. production of CSG during 2008.

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to the seven firms identified in the petitions as

U.S. producers of CSG: AMICO, Fisher, Bailey, IKG, Laurel, Ohio Gratings, and Leavitt. Of these, five

provided useable data and the remaining two provided no response.1

 Of the domestic producers that

provided useable data, petitioners AMICO and Fisher combined for *** percent of U.S. production in

2008. A third domestic producer, IKG, accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. production in

2008. Presented in table III-1 is a list of domestic producers of CSG, each company’s position on the

petition2

, production location(s), related and/or affiliated firms, and shares of reported production of CSG

in 2008.
 3

 AMICO and Fisher are related to producers in Canada. IKG is related to a producer in Mexico. In addition,

IKG and its parent company, Harsco Industries, maintain an ownership interest in a Chinese company which

produces CSG. Petition, p. 5. 

III-2

Table III-1

CSG: 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)

AMICO ***

Birmingham, AL

Dayton, TX

Orem, UT

Bourbonnais, IL

Gibralter Industries1

AMICO Canada2 ***

Fisher ***

Wexford, PA

Saegertown, PA

Litchfield, IL

Nucor1

Fisher & Ludlow, Ltd.2 ***

IKG ***

Channelview, TX

Leeds, AL

Sand Springs, OK

Garrett, IN

Harsco Industries1

Electroforjados Nacionales3 ***

Leavitt4

 *** Jackson, MS

MKK USA Inc.

Sumitomo Corp. ***

Ohio Gratings ***

Canton, OH

Linden, UT

Meiser Bartley Gratings5

Interstate Gratings5 ***

 1 Parent company.

 2

 Sister company and foreign producer.

 3

 Subsidiary and foreign producer.

 4 Leavitt no longer produces CSG. It is jointly owned by MKK USA Inc. (60 percent) and Sumitomo Corp. of

America (40 percent).

 5 Subsidiary.

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, several U.S. producers are related to foreign producers of the subject

merchandise and none are related to U.S. importers of the subject merchandise.3

 In addition, as discussed

in greater detail below, three U.S. producers *** directly import CSG and one (***) purchases CSG from

a domestic producer.

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for CSG are presented in table

III-2. U.S. producers’ capacity exceeded apparent U.S. consumption of CSG in each period for which

data were collected. Between 2006 and 2008, total reported U.S. capacity increased by 36.7 percent. 

U.S. production of CSG increased from 150.4 million kilograms in 2006 to 173.4 million kilograms in

2008; however, production during the interim period of 2009 was 41.2 percent less than production
 4

 *** reported using *** percent of its equipment and workers to produce CSG; *** reported using *** percent of

its equipment and *** percent of its workers to produce CSG. Alternative products produced using the same

production resources consisted of aluminum and fiberglass grating. 

 5

 *** reported transfers at market value to ***, which subsequently took over marketing rights. The transferred

grating had minimal processed inputs from sources other than *** before it was sold to a third party. *** domestic

producer questionnaire response, question II-10.

 6

 *** reported exporting to Canada. *** reported exporting to Canada and Germany.

III-3

during interim 2008. Capacity utilization decreased by 10.4 percentage points between 2006 and 2008

and decreased by 23.8 percentage points between the interim periods. 

The domestic producers were asked to report any changes in the character of their operations or

organization relating to the production of CSG since January 1, 2006. ***. ***. Two U.S. producers

(***) reported the production of products other than CSG on the same equipment and machinery and

using the same production and related workers employed in the production of CSG.4

Table III-2

CSG: U.S. producers’ production capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, and January-March 2009 

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

As detailed in table III-3, the volume of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of CSG increased by

17.6 percent between 2006 and 2008, but decreased by 40.7 percent between the interim periods. The

value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of CSG followed the same trend, increasing by 24.1 percent

between 2006 and 2008 and decreasing by 24.0 percent between the interim periods. Two producers

(***) reported internal consumption during the period and one producer reported transfers of CSG to

related firms.5

 Three firms reported export shipments.6
III-4

Table III-3

CSG: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 kgs)

Commercial shipments 121,171 131,726 134,890 36,469 21,572

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 144,939 160,605 170,510 44,673 26,473

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial shipments 211,445 226,395 251,622 56,206 42,865

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 250,391 271,386 310,747 67,415 51,244

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per kg)

Commercial shipments $1.75 $1.72 $1.87 $1.54 $1.99

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments 1.73 1.69 1.82 1.51 1.94

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Average *** *** *** *** ***

Share of quantity (percent)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

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

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 7

 *** reported purchasing CSG from *** because the grating ***. Purchases as a ratio to production were ***

percent during the period for which data were collected. 

 8

 Conference transcript, p. 18 (Smith). 

 9

 Conference transcript, pp. 24-25 (Rutter).

 10 Conference transcript, pp. 25-26 (Rutter). 

III-5

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table III-4, which presents end-of-period inventories for CSG, shows that inventories fluctuated

between 2006 and 2008. 

Table III-4

CSG: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March

2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Inventories (1,000 kgs) 13,890 15,988 14,750 15,774 13,368

Ratio to production (percent) 9.2 9.7 8.5 8.8 12.7

Ratio to U.S. shipments (percent) 9.6 10.0 8.7 8.8 12.6

Ratio to total shipments (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

Note.–Partial-year ratios are based on annualized production and shipments.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

U.S. producers’ imports of CSG are presented in table III-5.7

 

Table III-5

CSG: U.S. producers’ imports, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for CSG are presented in table III-6. 

Employment of production and related workers (“PRWs”) increased by 9.7 percent between 2006 and

2008, but decreased by 9.4 percent between the interim periods. According to testimony given at the

conference, petitioners AMICO and Fisher began laying off workers in late 2008. Through the first

quarter of 2009, AMICO laid off 20 percent of its hourly workforce and 10 percent of its salaried

workforce.8

 By the end of 2008, Fisher had laid off five percent of its workforce at its Saegertown, PA

facility.9

 In June 2009, Fisher laid off an additional 10 percent of its workforce at the same facility.10 The

closing of Leavitt’s facility in Jackson, MS *** also contributed to the decrease in PRWs in the domestic

CSG industry.

Between 2006 and 2008, hours worked by PRWs increased by 11.6 percent, but decreased by

10.1 percent between the interim periods. Total wages paid to PRWs followed the same pattern,
III-6

increasing between 2006 and 2008 by 7.2 percent, but decreasing by 20.8 percent between the interim

periods. Productivity levels increased between 2006 and 2008 by 3.4 percent, but decreased during the

interim periods by 34.7 percent. Unit labor costs decreased by 7.0 percent between 2006 and 2008, and

then increased by 34.8 percent between the interim periods.

Table III-6

CSG: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March

2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Production and related workers (PRWs) 773 815 848 827 749

Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 1,619 1,758 1,806 444 399

Hours worked per PRW 2,094 2,157 2,130 537 533

Wages paid to PRWs (1,000 dollars) 37,481 38,819 40,191 10,283 8,141

Hourly wages $23.15 $22.08 $22.25 $23.16 $20.40

Productivity (kilograms produced per hour) 92.9 94.2 96.0 101.1 66.1

Unit labor costs (per kilogram) $0.25 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.31

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 1

 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition, along with firms that, based on a

review of data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), may have imported greater than one

percent of total imports under HTS subheading 7308.90.70 in any one year since 2006.

 2

 Petitioners AMICO and Fisher both have sister companies that produce CSG in Canada. Fisher was established

in 1954 and began producing CSG in the United States in 2006, after it acquired Tru-Weld Grating. Prior to this,

Fisher operated several distribution centers in the United States that it supplied from its Canadian operations. 

Conference transcript, p. 39 (Rutter). 

 3

 HTS subheading 7308.90.70.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

Importer questionnaires were sent to 35 firms believed to be importers of subject CSG, as well as

to all U.S. producers of CSG.1

 Usable questionnaire responses were received from 19 companies,

representing 44.0 percent of total imports from China in 2008 under HTS subheading 7308.90.70. Data

for U.S. imports from China and nonsubject countries are compiled using official Commerce statistics. 

According to official Commerce statistics, China was the largest source of U.S. imports in 2008 and

Canada was the largest nonsubject source.2

 

Table IV-1 lists all responding U.S. importers of CSG from China and other sources, their

locations, and their shares of U.S. imports from in 2008. 

Table IV-1

CSG: U.S. importers, U.S. headquarters, related and/or affiliated firms and share of reported

imports from China in 2008

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTS

Table IV-2 and figure IV-1 present and depict U.S. imports of CSG during 2006 to 2008 and

during January-March 2008 and 2009. U.S. import data are based on official Commerce statistics for

CSG.3

 U.S. imports of CSG from China increased from 9.3 million kilograms in 2006 to 59.6 million

kilograms in 2008, an increase of 538.4 percent. The value of imports of CSG from China increased from

$9.6 million in 2006 to $101.8 million in 2008, an increase of 956.1 percent. In contrast, imports of CSG

from nonsubject sources decreased in quantity and value, by 48.8 percent and 20.8 percent, respectively,

between 2006 and 2008. The average unit value of imports of CSG from China increased by 65.4 percent

between 2006 and 2008 and increased by 38.2 percent between the interim periods. The unit value of

imports from nonsubject sources followed a similar trend, increasing by 54.6 percent between 2006 and

2008 and increasing by 20.3 percent between the interim periods. 
IV-2

Table IV-2

CSG: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Source

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 kgs)

China 9,338 14,450 59,617 3,762 3,310

All other sources 29,414 18,826 15,072 4,707 3,053

Total 38,752 33,276 74,689 8,469 6,363

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

China 9,635 16,026 101,755 5,272 6,411

All other sources 40,062 32,795 31,739 7,872 6,144

Total 49,697 48,820 133,493 13,144 12,555

Unit value (per kg)

1

China $1.03 $1.11 $1.71 $1.40 $1.94

All other sources 1.36 1.74 2.11 1.67 2.01

Average 1.28 1.47 1.79 1.55 1.97

Share of quantity (percent)

China 24.1 43.4 79.8 44.4 52.0

All other sources 75.9 56.6 20.2 55.6 48.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China 19.4 32.8 76.2 40.1 51.1

All other sources 80.6 67.2 23.8 59.9 48.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 Landed, U.S. port of entry, duty-paid. 

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.
 4

 Conference transcript, pp. 13-14 (Smith). 

 5

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 9. 

 6

 Conference transcript, p. 75 (Scott). 

IV-3

Figure IV-1

CSG: Quantity of subject and nonsubject U.S. imports, 2006-08, January-March 2008 and JanuaryMarch 2009

Source: Table IV-2.

Figure IV-2 presents monthly imports of CSG from China and all other sources from January

2008 until March 2009. As the graph illustrates, imports of CSG from China reached peak levels in

September 2008. According to testimony given at the conference, petitioners observed that the influx of

imports in the second half of 2008 far exceeded demand.4

 Petitioners contend that the resulting sales

went into inventory throughout the U.S. distribution system, including at importers, distributors,

customers, and elsewhere.5

 Since CSG is designed for longevity and can be stored unsold for long

periods of time, petitioners estimate that it might take eight to ten months to clear out the CSG currently

in inventories.6

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

2006 2007 2008 Jan-Mar 2008 Jan-Mar 2009

Quantity (1,000 kgs)

China All others
 7

 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)).

 8

 Section 771(24) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)).

 9

 Official Commerce statistics. 

IV-4

Figure IV-2

CSG: U.S. imports, by month, January 2008 to March 2009

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

NEGLIGIBILITY

The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports

of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.7

 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.8

 Subject imports from China

accounted for 81.5 percent of U.S. imports of CSG from all countries from April 2008 through March

2009.9

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Jan.

2008

March May July Sept. Nov. Jan.

2009

March

Quantity (1,000 kgs)

China All others
 10 Conference transcript, p. 16 (Smith). 

IV-5

U.S. Imports by Geographical Markets

Houston, TX, was the largest district of entry for imports of CSG from China, accounting for

nearly 61.6 percent of total subject imports from January 2006 to March 2009, and nearly four times the

quantity of imports landed at any other port. The Houston port provides a convenient point of entry for

CSG imports given its proximity to oil and energy plants located near the Gulf Coast, which are the main

source of business for CSG. According to testimony given at the conference, CSG producers do a great

deal of business when hurricanes or severe weather threaten or damage oil rigs and other industrial

complexes in the Gulf of Mexico.10

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of CSG during the period of investigation are shown

in table IV-3 and figure IV-3. Between 2006 and 2008, total apparent U.S. consumption increased 33.5

percent by quantity and 48.0 percent by value. During the same period, subject imports of CSG increased

538.4 percent by quantity and 956.1 percent by value. In contrast, nonsubject imports decreased

throughout the period for which data were gathered. Between 2006 and 2008, U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments of CSG increased by 17.6 percent, but decreased in quantity and value by 40.7 percent and

24.0 percent, respectively, between the interim periods. 

Table IV-3

CSG: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 2006-08,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 kgs)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 144,939 160,605 170,510 44,673 26,473

U.S. imports from–

China 9,338 14,450 59,617 3,762 3,310

Nonsubject countries 29,414 18,826 15,072 4,707 3,053

Total U.S. imports 38,752 33,276 74,689 8,469 6,363

Apparent U.S. consumption 183,691 193,881 245,199 53,142 32,836

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 250,391 271,386 310,747 67,415 51,244

U.S. imports from--

China 9,635 16,026 101,755 5,272 6,411

Nonsubject countries 40,062 32,795 31,739 7,872 6,144

Total U.S. imports 49,697 48,820 133,493 13,144 12,555

Apparent U.S. consumption 300,088 320,206 444,240 80,559 63,799

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce

statistics.
IV-6

Figure IV-3

CSG: Apparent U.S. consumption, by sources, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March

2009

Source: Table IV-3.

U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share data are presented in table IV-4. U.S. producers’ shipments decreased as a

share of the quantity and value of apparent U.S. consumption of CSG during the period for which data

were collected, while imports from China increased by both measures. Between 2006 and 2008, U.S.

imports from China increased as a share of the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption of CSG from 5.1

percent in 2006 to 24.3 percent in 2008, an increase of 19.2 percentage points. 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2006 2007 2008 Interim 2008 Interim 2009

Quantit

y (1,000 k

g

s)

 U.S. shipments China All other sources 
IV-7

Table IV-4

CSG: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March

2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 kgs)

Apparent U.S. consumption 183,691 193,881 245,199 53,142 32,836

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption 300,088 320,206 444,240 80,559 63,799

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 78.9 82.8 69.5 84.1 80.6

U.S. imports from--

China 5.1 7.5 24.3 7.1 10.1

Nonsubject countries 16.0 9.7 6.1 8.9 9.3

All countries 21.1 17.2 30.5 15.9 19.4

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 83.4 84.8 70.0 83.7 80.3

U.S. imports from--

China 3.2 5.0 22.9 6.5 10.0

Nonsubject countries 13.4 10.2 7.1 9.8 9.6

All countries 16.6 15.2 30.0 16.3 19.7

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

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce

statistics.

RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of imports to U.S. production of CSG is presented in table IV-5. 

Subject imports increased from 6.2 percent of U.S. production in 2006 to 34.4 percent of U.S. production

in 2008. Nonsubject imports decreased from 19.6 percent of U.S. production in 2006 to 8.7 percent of

U.S. production in 2008.
IV-8

Table IV-5

CSG: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S. production, 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 kgs)

U.S. production 150,386 165,653 173,393 44,882 26,408

Imports from:

China 9,338 14,450 59,617 3,762 3,310

Nonsubject countries 29,414 18,826 15,072 4,707 3,053

Total imports 38,752 33,276 74,689 8,469 6,363

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

Imports from:

China 6.2 8.7 34.4 8.4 12.5

Nonsubject countries 19.6 11.4 8.7 10.5 11.6

Total imports 25.8 20.1 43.1 18.9 24.1

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

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce

statistics.
 1

 Conference transcript, p. 15 (Smith).

 2

 One of these importers reported selling half of its CSG 100 miles or less from its U.S. point of shipment and the

other half 101 to 1,000 miles from its U.S. point of shipment.

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

Petitioners report that steel constitutes 60 to 70 percent of U.S. producers’ total cost of producing

CSG.1

 The principal raw materials used for producing CSG are coils of hot-rolled steel sheet and

thin-gauge plate, or flat bars, which are cut into bearing bars, and wire rods which are cut for the

crossbars used in welded and swage lock grating. The costs of hot-rolled coil, wire rod, and merchant

bars fluctuated within a relatively limited range in 2006 and 2007 but rose abruptly in 2008 before falling

in the second half of 2008 and the beginning of 2009. By May of 2009 the prices of hot-rolled coil and

wire rod were below prices in 2006 and 2007. In contrast, in May of 2009 the price of merchant bar was

still above its prices in 2006 and 2007.

Figure V-1

U.S. steel prices: Monthly prices of hot rolled coil, wire rod, and merchant bar, *** monthly average

prices, January 2006 through May 2008

*******

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Among U.S. producers, U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from 4.5 to 10 percent. All five

U.S. producers reported that they arrange transportation for their customers. U.S. producers reported that

collectively they sell between 0 and 15 percent of their CSG within 100 miles of their production

facilities, half or more of their sales between 100 and 1,000 miles from their production facilities, and 9 to

40 percent more than 1,000 miles from their production facilities.

Seven importers reported U.S. inland transportation costs that ranged between 3 to 6 percent. 

Nine of the 13 responding importers reported that they arranged transportation for their customers, while

four importers reported that their customers arrange transportation. Seven of the 12 responding importers

reported selling half or more of their product between 0 and 100 miles from their U.S. points of shipment,

four reported selling half or more of their product between 101 and 1,000 miles from their U.S. points of

shipment, and two reported selling most of their product over 1,000 miles from their U.S. points of

shipment.2

Three of the five U.S. producers reported selling nationwide, while one reported selling in all

regions other than the Northwest, and one reported selling to the Northeast, the Mid-Atlantic, the

Midwest, and the Southeast. Four of the 14 responding importers reported selling nationwide. Five

importers reported selling in only one region, with the remaining three reporting sales in 2 to 4 regions. 

Regions most commonly reported by importers included the Southeast, the Southwest, and the West

Coast.
 3

 This includes “addition of end bands, small weldments, or basic cutouts.” Petition p. 9.

 4

 Petitioners report they typically sell galvanized grating at $1.30 a square foot more than ungalvanized product.

Conference transcript, p. 15 (Smith). 

 5

 Conference transcript, p. 64 (Smith).

V-2

PRICING PRACTICES

CSG is sold in many forms with variations that include: the methods of attaching the bearing

bars to the cross bars; the size of the bearing and cross bars; the spacing between bearing bars and cross

bars; use of carbon and stainless steel; plain or serrated surface; the use of coatings; and end finishing.3

Bearing bars may be attached to the cross bars by welds, press locks, swage locks, or rivets. Welded steel

grating is the least expensive type and the most common. Grating is typically more expensive per square

foot if it is heavier (with more steel used), if it is galvanized4

 (although the petitioners report that Chinese

product is typically galvanized in order to protect it while it is shipped and that the Chinese galvanized

product is not more expensive than non-galvanized product),5

 and if it is stainless steel rather than carbon

steel.

Pricing Methods

Three of five responding producers and 11 of the 13 responding importers reported using

transaction-by-transaction negotiations to determine price. One producer reported using a price list and

one *** reported using a proprietary algorithm and negotiations to determine price. One importer

reported market pricing for its sales of CSG.

Four out of five U.S. producers and all 11 responding importers reported selling most of their

product using spot sales. One of the five responding U.S. producers and 9 of 11 responding importers

reported selling all of their product through spot sales.

Short-term contracts ranged from less than one month to 6 months. Four of the five responding

producers and 3 of the 12 responding importers reported that they used short-term contracts, with one

producer and one importer selling mainly through short-term contracts. Contract details were reported by

three producers and five importers. Two of the four responding producers and two of five responding

importers reported that contract terms were renegotiated during the period of the contract. Two producers

and three importers reported that contracts fix both price and quantity, one producer reported that

contracts fixed price, one *** reported contracts either fixed price or both price and quantity, and one

importer reported that contracts did not fix price or quantity. None of the responding producers’ or

importers’ contracts included meet-or-release provisions.

None of the producers or importers reported long-term contracts.

Sales Terms and Discounts

All five responding U.S. producers and 11 of the 15 responding importers stated that their typical

sales terms were net 30 days. Two of the five responding U.S. producers and 3 of the 14 responding

importers reported quoting prices on an f.o.b. basis, two producers and three importers reported that

prices were on a delivered basis, one producer and one importer reported that prices were on both f.o.b.

and delivered bases, and seven importers reported that prices were on a point-of-entry basis.

Two of the four responding U.S. producers and 9 of the 10 responding importers reported that

they did not have a discount policy. One U.S. producer and two importers reported offering quantity or

annual volume discounts, while two *** reported they rarely offered discounts.
 6

 Usable price data were provided by U.S. producers *** and from importers of Chinese product ***. In addition,

nonsubject-country pricing data were provided by ***. Pricing data on imports from China by *** were not

included because they did not appear reasonable despite some corrections. 

 7

 This understates the share of imports from China because one importer’s quantity is not included; it did not

include the weight of its product, but only provided square feet.

 8

 Data are not recorded for countries with less than three pricing points.

V-3

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of CSG to provide quarterly data for the

total quantity (in both square feet and kilograms) and value of CSG that was shipped to unrelated

customers in the U.S. market. Data were requested for the period January-March 2006 through JanuaryMarch 2009. The products for which pricing data were requested are as follows:

Product 1.–1.25 inches deep by 3/16 inch thick 19-4 (bearing bars spaced at 19/16" on center (or

metric equivalent), cross bars spaced at 4" on center (or metric equivalent)), 3 foot by 20 foot

welded bar grating panel, carbon steel, unserrated, unpainted, ungalvanized, excluding alloy,

microalloy, and stainless. 

Product 2.--1.00 inch deep by 3/16 inch thick 19-4 (bearing bars spaced at 19/16" on center (or

metric equivalent), cross bars spaced at 4" on center (or metric equivalent)), 3 foot by 20 foot

welded bar grating panel, carbon steel, serrated, galvanized, excluding alloy, microalloy, and

stainless. 

Product 3.--1.25 inches deep by 3/16 inch thick 19-4 (bearing bars spaced at 19/16" on center (or

metric equivalent), cross bars spaced at 4" on center (or metric equivalent)), 3 foot by 20 foot

welded bar grating panel, carbon steel, serrated, galvanized, excluding alloy, microalloy, and

stainless. 

Product 4.--1.50 inches deep by 3/16 inch thick 19-4 (bearing bars spaced at 19/16" on center (or

metric equivalent), cross bars spaced at 4" on center (or metric equivalent)), 3 foot by 20 foot

welded bar grating panel, carbon steel, serrated, galvanized, excluding alloy, microalloy, and

stainless. 

Three U.S. producers and four importers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested

products from U.S. and China,6

 although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. 

Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for approximately 6.1 percent of U.S. producers’

shipments of CSG and 10.2 percent7

 of U.S. shipments of subject imports from China in 2008.

Price Trends

U.S. products 1 through 4 followed similar trends, varying within a relatively narrow range

between 2006 and the first quarter of 2008; in the second quarter of 2008, prices rose sharply, and prices

then rose well above earlier levels until 2009 when prices fell sharply (tables V-1 to V-5 and figures V-2

to V-5). Appendix D provides pricing data for CGS imported from nonsubject countries.8

 The major

changes in U.S. prices during the period appeared to follow steel input prices (figure V-1). In contrast,

prices for the Chinese product followed no special pattern, although product 1 prices rose sharply in 2008.
V-4

Table V-1

CSG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1 and margins of

underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

*******

Table V-2

CSG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 and margins of

underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

*******

Table V-3

CSG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3 and margins of

underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

*******

Table V-4

CSG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4 and margins of

underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

*******

Figure V-2

CSG: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1, by quarters,

January 2006-March 2009

*******

Figure V-3

CSG: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2, by quarters,

January 2006-March 2009

*******

Figure V-4

CSG: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3, by quarters,

January 2006-March 2009

*******

Figure V-5

CSG: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4, by quarters,

January 2006-March 2009

*******
V-5

Price Comparisons

Selected price comparisons for domestically produced and imported Chinese products are

presented in table V-5. Margins of underselling and overselling are presented in table V-6. As can be

seen from table V-6, prices for CSG imported from China were below those for U.S.-produced CSG in 37

of 43 instances; margins of underselling ranged from 0.8 to 42.5 percent. In the remaining six instances,

prices for CSG from China were between 0.7 and 20.4 percent above prices for the domestic product. 

Table V-5

CSG: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices, by product, and by country

Country

Number of

quarters

Highest price Lowest price Change in price1

Per pound Per pound Percent

Product 1

United States 13 $*** $*** ***

China 13 *** *** ***

Product 2

United States 13 *** *** ***

China 11 *** *** ***

Product 3

United States 13 *** *** ***

China 10 *** *** ***

Product 4

United States 13 *** *** ***

China 9 *** *** ***

 1 Percentage change from the first quarter for which price data were reported to the last quarter for which price

data were reported, based on unrounded data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table V-6

CSG: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins, 

January 2006-March 2009

Country

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

 China 37 0.8-42.5 16.7 6 (0.7)- (20.4) (9.0)

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-6

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

The Commission requested U.S. producers of CSG to report any instances of lost sales or

revenues they experienced due to competition from imports of CSG from China during 2006 through

March 2009. Of the five responding U.S. producers, three reported that they had to either reduce prices

or roll back announced price increases or that they had lost sales. The 18 lost sales allegations totaled

$28,292,800 and involved 22,836 short tons of CSG (table V-7) and the four lost revenues allegations

totaled $2,866,667 and involved 28,317 short tons of CSG (table V-8). Staff received responses from

four purchasers and a summary of the information obtained follows.

***.

***.

Table V-7

CSG: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

*******

Table V-8

CSG: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations

*******

***.

***.

***.

***.

In addition, purchasers who were sent lost sales/lost revenue questionnaires were also asked

whether since January 2006 their firm had switched from U.S.-produced to Chinese grating; three of the

seven responding firms reported “yes.” Of those reporting that they had changed from U.S. product to

Chinese product, two reported that price was the reason for this change. One of them reported that “the

term switching is not accurate. We purchased some grating from China.” The firm shifting to Chinese

product but for reasons other than price reported that “***.” Another, answering “no,” reported it had

only purchased *** of Chinese product and that it continued to purchase U.S. product.

Purchasers were asked whether since January 2006 U.S. producers had reduced their prices of

CSG to compete with prices of CSG imported from China. Three of the six responding purchasers

reported that U.S. producers had reduced their prices because of imports from China. One of these

reported that the effect was much more noticeable in 2007. One reported that it quoted the Chinese price

which was 35 percent lower to its supplier of U.S.-produced material and this resulted in a lower price for

the U.S. product. One reported that “prices have moved based on the producers’ cost of flat-rolled coil

that is used in the production of grating. Pricing has moved up and down since 2006.” One reported that

it did not answer “yes” or “no” because it did not know why U.S. producers changed their prices. One

reported that U.S. prices had not changed because of the Chinese product but because the cost of steel

fell. 
 1

 The firms are: AMICO, Fisher, IKG, Leavitt, and Ohio Gratings. Each of the reporting firms has a fiscal year

that ends on or about December 31. There are *** differences between data reported in the trade and financial

sections of the Commission’s producers’ questionnaire, which are attributable to ***.

 2

 Also, see petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 24-25, 29, and 31-32.

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Five U.S. firms provided usable financial data for each of their latest three fiscal years on their

operations producing certain steel grating (“CSG”).1

 These reported data are believed to represent over

95 percent of U.S. CSG production in the period for which data were gathered.

OPERATIONS ON CSG

Income-and-loss data for U.S. producers of CSG are presented in table VI-1. Total net sales

increased from 2006 to 2008 but were much lower in January-March 2009 than in January-March 2008

(*** percent and *** percent by quantity and value, respectively) . The absolute values of the cost of

goods sold (“COGS”) and selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses followed sales,

increasing from 2006 to 2008, but were only slightly lower in January-March 2009 than in the same

period in 2008. The ratio of COGS and of SG&A expenses to sales declined slightly between 2006 and

2008; the COGS-to-sales ratio was much higher in January-March 2009 than in January-March 2008,

while the SG&A expense-to-sales ratio was unchanged. Reportedly driven by increasing steel prices, the

average unit values (“AUV”) of sales and COGS rose irregularly from 2006 to 2008 but were sharply

higher in January-March 2009 than in January-March 2008; the AUV of SG&A expenses was slightly

lower from 2006 to 2008 but was sharply higher in interim 2009 than interim 2008. Operating income

increased sharply from 2006 to 2008 partly because of the increase in sales volume but mainly because

the unit value of sales increased more than the unit values of COGS plus SG&A expenses. Operating

income was dramatically lower in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008 for the opposite

reasons–sales volume was lower and unit costs increased more than unit revenues.2

 Net income before

taxes and cash flow followed the same trend as operating income.
VI-2

Table VI-1

CSG: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March

2009

Item

Fiscal year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 kilograms)

Total net sales1 *** *** *** *** ***

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales1 *** *** *** *** ***

Cost of goods sold (COGS)

Raw materials *** *** *** *** ***

Direct labor *** *** *** *** ***

Other factory costs *** *** *** *** ***

Total COGS *** *** *** *** ***

Gross profit *** *** *** *** ***

SG&A expense *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income *** *** *** *** ***

Other income or (expense), net2 *** *** *** *** ***

Net income *** *** *** *** ***

Depreciation *** *** *** *** ***

Cash flow *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to net sales (percent)

Cost of goods sold:

Raw materials 50.0 50.3 50.4 48.9 58.1

Direct labor 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.6

Other factory costs 20.9 18.6 19.4 20.2 24.1

Average COGS 75.3 73.3 74.1 73.4 86.8

Gross profit 24.7 26.7 25.9 26.6 13.2

SG&A expenses 9.4 8.6 8.1 9.3 9.3

Operating income 15.3 18.1 17.8 17.3 3.9

Net income 15.4 15.9 14.9 16.2 3.4

Table continued on following page.
 3

 Petition, vol. 1, p. 8 and petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 3.

 4

 Petition, vol. 1, exh. 1-3.

VI-3

Table VI-1--Continued

CSG: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March

2009

Item

Fiscal year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Unit value (per kilogram)

Total net sales1 $1.73 $1.69 $1.83 $1.51 $1.95

Cost of goods sold:

Raw materials 0.86 0.85 0.93 0.74 1.14

Direct labor 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.09

Other factory costs 0.36 0.32 0.36 0.31 0.47

Average COGS 1.30 1.24 1.36 1.11 1.70

Gross profit 0.43 0.45 0.48 0.40 0.26

SG&A expenses 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.18

Operating income or (loss) 0.26 0.31 0.33 0.26 0.08

Net income or (loss) 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.07

Number of companies reporting

Operating losses3 *** *** *** *** ***

Data3 45555

1

 ***. These data are included within total net sales.

2

 Includes interest expense, other expenses, and other income items. Each firm reported interest expense. ***. 3

 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Raw material inputs utilized in the production of CSG are hot-rolled steel sheet in standard grades

(carbon, alloy, and stainless steel grades) for the bearing bars and steel wire rod in standard grades

(carbon, alloy, and stainless steel grades) for the crossbars. In thicker grades, steel plate may be

substituted for steel sheet. Some manufacturers may choose to purchase pre-slit steel coil or buy steel bar

if they do not have the needed machinery to process the bearing bars or crossbars into the desired size, as

noted in the petition.3

 Raw material costs, which are these steel items, rose in absolute value and as a

percentage of net sales during the period for which data were gathered, as noted earlier. Raw material

costs also increased as a share of total COGS, from 66.4 percent in 2006 to 68.1 percent in 2008. Raw

material costs averaged $0.93 per kilogram of sales in 2008 for the reporting U.S. producers and ranged

from $*** to $*** per kilogram of sales on a firm-by-firm basis. 

AMICO ***. It was *** of the periods for which data were gathered, and its operating income

margin ***. The quantity, value, and AUV of AMICO’s sales *** between 2006 and 2008. Although its

sales in January-March 2009 were *** in January-March 2008, ***. Its ***. AMICO ***.4
 5

 Petition, vol. 1, exh. 1-3.

 6 Fisher purchased Tru-Weld Grating Inc. in ***. Questionnaire response, II-2.

 7

 Petition, vol. 1, exh. 1-3.

 8

 The results of the domestic industry, excluding ***, are presented in table C-2.

 9 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 34.

 10 Conference transcript, p. 12 (Smith); p. 23-24 (Rutter). Witnesses at the conference described how both

AMICO and Fisher were forced to reduce production and their capacity utilization fell as the firms lost sales. They

also described price cuts and a cost-price squeeze (e.g, conference transcript, p. 15 (Smith–prices down 45 percent

since January 2009)). 

 11 Fixed costs are those that do not vary with changes in production. While the absolute value of fixed costs

remains the same, the AUVs of fixed costs vary inversely with production changes–they rise when production falls

and decrease with production increases. Variable costs increase or decrease with changes in production although the

AUV of variable costs stays the same with changes in production. All of the reporting firms stated that raw material

costs are variable costs and the vast majority of direct labor was reported to be classified as a variable cost. Other

factory costs include both fixed costs (depreciation, insurance, plant management) and variable costs (indirect

materials, electricity, utility charges). In 2008, the fixed cost component accounted for 54 percent of other factory

costs. SG&A expenses also have fixed and variable components. About 58 percent of total SG&A expenses were

estimated to be fixed costs in 2008. 

 12 Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 13 The breakeven point can be calculated as sales minus variable costs minus fixed costs equals zero. Sales minus

variable costs is the contribution margin. Rearranging the equation, the quantity at the breakeven point equals fixed

costs in dollars divided by the unit contribution margin. The validity of this calculation depends upon a number of

crucial assumptions. See, Charles T. Horngren, George Foster, Srikant M. Datar, Cost Accounting: A Managerial

Emphasis (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 9th Ed, 1997), p. 60.

VI-4

IKG ***. It was *** of the periods for which data were collected, and its operating income

margin ***. The quantity, value, and AUV of IKG’s sales *** between 2006 and 2008. Although its

sales in January-March 2009 were *** in January-March 2008, ***. IKG, ***.5

Table VI-2

CSG: Selected results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Fisher6

 and Ohio Gratings ***. Fisher produces ***; 7 the AUVs of Ohio Gratings’s sales ***.8

Leavitt ***.9

 ***. 

As noted by petitioners, domestic producers require a certain baseload of business to maintain

capacity utilization and to enable them to operate as efficiently as possible.10 Each of the responding

firms provided a breakdown between fixed costs and variable costs11 in their questionnaire response. For

the five firms together, fixed costs account for about 14 percent of COGS and 58 percent of SG&A

expenses in 2008.12 While the fixed cost portion of COGS seems very low, it should be noted that raw

materials costs, chiefly forms of steel, accounted for about 68 percent of total COGS in 2008. Based on

the breakdown between fixed and variable costs, the breakeven point, which is the quantity sold where

total revenues and total costs are equal,13 can be calculated for the five firms. That point was 80.1 million

kilograms in 2008 and constituted about half the actual production of 173.4 million kilograms of CSG the

firms produced in 2008 or *** the total net sales of *** million kilograms. Each of the reporting U.S.

producers *** had sales above or well above the firm’s breakeven point. ***.
 14 A variance analysis is calculated in three parts, sales variance, cost of sales variance, and SG&A expense

variance. Each part consists of a price variance (in the case of the sales variance) or a cost variance (in the case of

the cost of sales and SG&A expense variance) and a volume variance. The sales or cost variance is calculated as the

change in unit price times the new volume, while the volume variance is calculated as the change in volume times

the old unit price. Summarized at the bottom of the table, the price variance is from sales; the cost/expense variance

is the sum of those items from COGS and SG&A variances, respectively, and the volume variance is the sum of the

lines under price and cost/expense variance. The volume component of price variance is nearly always negative

because of the way in which the spreadsheet is constructed.

 15 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 4 (citing Rutter testimony, conference transcript, pp. 23-24).

 16 E-mail to Commission staff from ***, July 1, 2009. AMICO added to its response ***. EDIS document

406383.

 17 E-mail to Commission staff from ***, June 30, 2009. EDIS document 406383.

 18 E-mail to Commission staff from ***, June 30, 2009. EDIS document 406383.

 19 Telephone interview with ***, July 1, 2009. EDIS document 406383.

 20 E-mail to staff from ***, June 30, 2009. EDIS document 406383.

VI-5

A variance analysis for the operations of U.S. producers of CSG is presented in table VI-3. The

information for this variance analysis is derived from table VI-1.14 A variance analysis is more effective

when the product involved is a homogeneous product with no variation in product mix (i.e., consistency

in the cost structure). Although petitioners stated that the product mix has changed very little, they noted

that because of imports in common steel grating sizes, U.S. producers have had to produce smaller

volume and more specialized products that are more difficult and expensive to produce.15 Hence, the

usefulness of this analysis may be diminished by increasing costs of CSG due to this shift in product mix.

The analysis shows that the increase of $*** million in the operating income from 2006 to 2008

was attributable to the favorable price variance (unit sales values increased) that was greater than the

unfavorable net cost/expense variance (unit costs increased). The volume variance from 2006 to 2008

was favorable (the volume portion of the sales variance was greater than the volume portion of the net

cost/expense variance). Operating income dropped by $*** million between January-March 2008 and

January-March 2009 because a favorable price variance (unit prices increased) was overwhelmed by

unfavorable variances on net cost/expense (unit costs increased) and volume.

Table VI-3

CSG: Variance analysis on the operations of U.S. producers, 2006-08, and January-March 2008 to

January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES

Each of the U.S. producers was asked about the nature of their capital expenditures and research

and development (“R&D”) expenses (table VI-4). AMICO stated that it ***.16 Fisher stated that its

capital expenditures were focused on ***.17 IKG stated that its capital expenditures have been split

between ***.18 Leavitt’s capital expenditures were ***.19 Ohio Gratings provided a list of some of its

more significant items, including ***.20
 21 Ibid.

VI-6

Table VI-4

CSG: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. producers, 2006-08,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Fiscal year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Value (1,000 dollars)

Capital expenditures:

AMICO *** *** *** *** ***

Fisher *** *** *** *** ***

IKG *** *** *** *** ***

Leavitt *** *** *** *** ***

Ohio Gratings *** *** *** *** ***

Total 10,460 7,246 4,320 1,188 1,914

R&D expenses:

*** *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

***.21

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. Total assets utilized in the production, warehousing, and sale of CSG for reporting U.S.

producers were basically flat from 2006 to 2008. ROI, which is calculated as the ratio of operating

income to total assets, therefore followed the trend of operating income, and increased by *** percentage

points.
VI-7

Table VI-5

CSG: The value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006–08

Item 2006 2007 2008

Value ($1,000)

Current assets:

Cash and equivalents *** *** ***

Accounts receivable, net 27,389 29,589 33,595

Finished goods inventories 21,306 19,704 23,498

Raw materials and work-in-process inventories 20,801 23,224 25,813

Other current assets1 *** *** ***

Subtotal current assets 72,102 74,251 84,001

Noncurrent assets:

Original cost of property, plant, and equipment 78,271 78,407 83,868

Accumulated depreciation 34,507 29,513 35,610

Book value of property, plant, and equipment 43,765 48,894 48,257

Other noncurrent assets2 83,444 68,188 71,789

Total assets 199,310 191,334 204,047

Ratio of operating income to total assets

(percent)

Return on investment *** *** ***

1

 Includes such items as other receivables, prepaid expenses, company loans, and short-term investments. 2

 Includes such items as goodwill, patents, or intangible assets, investments, life insurance, or other non-current

assets.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers of CSG to describe any actual or potential negative

effects of imports of CSG from China on their firms’ growth, investment, ability to raise capital,

development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments. Their responses are shown

below.

Actual Negative Effects

Amico: ***

Fisher: ***

IKG: ***

Leavitt: ***

Ohio Gratings: ***
VI-8

Anticipated Negative Effects

AMICO: ***

Fisher: ***

IKG: ***

Leavitt: ***

Ohio Gratings: ***
 1

 Questionnaires were sent to the following firms in China either listed in the petition or identified through

independent staff research: Anping Jinyuan Metal; Chagzhou Huatong Xinli Floor Co.; DaLian AW Gratings, Ltd.;

East Rock Limited; Grand Tower; Guangzhou United Steel Structures Ltd.; Guangzhou Webforge Grating Co. Ltd.;

Hebei Jinshi Industrial Metal Co., Ltd.; Hebei Kanglida Steel Products Co.; Jiashan Qilimei Grating; Nanjing Huade

Storage Equipment Manufacturing Co. Ltd.; Ningbo Jiulong Machinery; Ningbo Lihong Steel Grating Co., Ltd.;

Qing Auqing Mechanical; Shanghai Chinehwa Heavy Industry Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Cosco Kawasaki Heavy;

Shanghai Dahe Grating; Shanghai Klemp Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Matsuo Steel Structure Co., Ltd.;

Shanghai Shenhao Steel Structure Designing; Sinosteel Yantai Steel Grating; Tianchang Flying-Dragon Metallic

Products; Wuxi Webforge; Yantai Xinke Steel Structure Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Hengzhou Steel Grating.

 2

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 1. 

 3

 Staff interview with *** on June 17, 2009. 

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 in Part I of this report;

information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV and

V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing

development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the subject

merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any other

threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in third-country markets, follows. Also presented in this

section of the report is information obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries

and the global market.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The petitions in these investigations identified 16 potential producers and/or exporters of CSG

from China. The Commission sent questionnaires to 25 firms and received three completed responses.1

The responding firms (***) estimated that they accounted for 6.0 percent of production of CSG in China

and 32.3 percent of exports of CGS from China to the United States in 2008. Reported exports of CSG to

the United States by these firms in 2008 were equivalent to *** percent of the quantity of U.S. imports of

CSG from China in that year based on official Commerce statistics.

Table VII-1 presents data for reporting producers of CSG from China from 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, January-March 2009, and forecasts for 2009 and 2010. Production increased by *** percent

between 2006 and 2008, while capacity increased by *** percent during the same period. Reported

exports to the United States increased by *** percent between 2006 and 2008, but decreased by ***

percent during the interim periods. According to petitioners, the Chinese government maintains a fivepercent value-added tax rebate on CSG that is exported.2

 According to ***, this amount may have

increased as recently as within the last two weeks.3

 

Table VII-1 

CSG: Data for reporting producers from China, 2006-08, January-March 2008, January-March 2009,

and projected 2009 and 2010

* * * * * * *
 4

 *** reported ***. *** reported ***. *** reported ***. *** reported ***. *** reported *** from June-July

2009. 

VII-2

U.S. INVENTORIES OF CSG FROM CHINA

Inventories of U.S. imports as reported are presented in Table VII-2. Inventories of Chinese CSG

increased throughout the period for which data were collected. In contrast, inventories from all other

sources decreased throughout the period. Inventory data are incomplete because importers’

questionnaires were received from firms accounting for less than 50 percent of the quantity of U.S.

imports during the period. 

Table VII-2

CSG: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

China:

Inventories (1,000 kgs) 975 2,494 4,753 2,663 3,749

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) 14.6 15.2 18.1 14.2 42.6

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 20.5 20.9 22.1 18.0 32.6

All other sources:

Inventories (1,000 kgs) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

All sources:

Inventories (1,000 kgs) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio of inventories to imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

Note.–Ratios were calculated using data from firms providing information on both inventories and imports or U.S.

shipments of imports. Partial-year ratios are based on annualized import/shipment data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to the Commission’s questionnaire.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of CSG from China after March 31, 2009. *** firms indicated that they had imported or

arranged for the importation of CSG from China.4
 5

 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 2007-1552 at 17 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 18, 2008), quoting from

Statement of Administrative Action on Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. I at 851-52; see

also Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

VII-3

ANTIDUMPING INVESTIGATIONS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

No producer, importer, or foreign producer reported any countervailing or antidumping duty

orders on CSG from China in third-country markets.

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury

“by reason of subject imports,” the legislative history states “that the Commission must examine all

relevant evidence, including any known factors, other than the dumped or subsidized imports, that may be

injuring the domestic industry, and that the Commission must examine those other factors (including nonsubject imports) ‘to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.’”5

As discussed in Part IV of this report, the largest nonsubject source of CSG is Canada. As figure 

VII-1 illustrates, imports of CSG from Canada and all other sources decreased throughout the period for

which data were gathered. 

Figure VII-1

CSG: U.S. imports, by source, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2006 2007 2008 Jan-March 2008 Jan-March 2009

Quantity (1,000 kgs)

China Canada Other sources 
 
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES
 
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Notices 27049 

treatment unless the information has 

already been granted such treatment 

during the proceedings. All such 

requests should be directed to the 

Secretary of the Commission and must 

include a full statement of the reasons 

why the Commission should grant such 

treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents 

for which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is sought will be treated 

accordingly. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection at the Office of the Secretary. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR Part 210). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: June 1, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–13110 Filed 6–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–03–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–666] 

Notice of Commission Decision Not To 

Review an Initial Determination 

Correcting the Name of ASUS 

Computer International in the 

Complaint and Notice of Investigation; 

Certain Cold Cathode Fluorescent 

Lamp (‘‘CCFL’’) Inverter Circuits and 

Products Containing the Same 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 8) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the 

above-referenced investigation 

correcting the name of ASUS Computer 

International in the complaint and 

notice of investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel E. Valencia, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–1999. 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 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on January 14, 2009, based on a 

complaint filed by O2 Micro 

International, Ltd. of the Cayman 

Islands and O2 Micro, Inc. of Santa 

Clara, California (collectively, ‘‘O2 

Micro’’). 74 FR 2099. The complaint 

alleges violations of section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in 

the importation into the United States, 

the sale for importation, and the sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain cold cathode 

fluorescent lamp inverter circuits and 

products containing the same by reason 

of infringement of various U.S. patents. 

The complaint names ten respondents, 

including ASUSTeK Computer 

International America of Fremont, 

California. 

On April 27, 2009, O2 Micro moved 

to amend the complaint and notice of 

investigation to correct the name of 

respondent ASUSTeK Computer 

International America to ASUS 

Computer International (‘‘ASUS’’). No 

party opposed this motion. 

On May 13, 2009, the ALJ issued the 

subject ID correcting the name of 

respondent ASUS. No petitions for 

review of the ID were filed. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the ALJ’s ID. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

section 210.42 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: June 2, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–13129 Filed 6–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–465 and 731– 

TA–1161 (Preliminary)] 

Certain Steel Grating From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of countervailing 

duty and antidumping duty 

investigations and scheduling of 

preliminary phase investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the institution of 

investigations, commencement of 

preliminary phase countervailing duty 

investigation No. 701–TA–465 

(Preliminary), and commencement of 

antidumping duty investigation No. 

731–TA–1161 (Preliminary) under 

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) to determine 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that an industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, or the establishment of 

an industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

imports from China of certain steel 

grating, provided for in subheading 

7308.90.70 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States, that are 

alleged to be subsidized by the 

Government of China and sold in the 

United States at less than fair value. 

Unless the Department of Commerce 

extends the time for initiation pursuant 

to section 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission 

must reach preliminary determinations 

in these investigations in 45 days, or in 

this case by July 13, 2009. The 

Commission’s views are due at 

Commerce within five business days 

thereafter, or by July 20, 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: May 29, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward Petronzio (202–205–3176), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired 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 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
27050 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Notices 

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 May 29, 2009, by 

Alabama Metal Industries, Birmingham, 

AL and Fisher & Ludlow, Wexford, PA. 

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 countervailing duty 

antidumping duty investigations. The 

Secretary will prepare a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to these investigations 

upon the expiration of the period for 

filing entries of appearance. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in these investigations 

available to authorized applicants 

representing interested parties (as 

defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are 

parties to the investigations under the 

APO issued in the investigations, 

provided that the application is made 

not later than seven days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. A separate service list will be 

maintained by the Secretary for those 

parties authorized to receive BPI under 

the APO. 

Conference.—The Commission’s 

Director of Operations has scheduled a 

conference in connection with these 

investigations for 9:30 a.m. on June 19, 

2009, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building, 500 E Street, 

SW., Washington, DC. Parties wishing to 

participate in the conference should 

contact Edward Petronzio (202–205– 

3176) not later than June 16, 2009, to 

arrange for their appearance. Parties in 

support of the imposition of 

countervailing and antidumping duties 

in these investigations and parties in 

opposition to the imposition of such 

duties will each be collectively 

allocated one hour within which to 

make an oral presentation at the 

conference. A nonparty who has 

testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the conference. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the 

Commission’s rules, any person may 

submit to the Commission on or before 

June 24, 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. 

Issued: June 1, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–13111 Filed 6–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[USITC SE–09–016] 

Government in the Sunshine Act 

Meeting Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United 

States International Trade Commission. 

TIME AND DATE: June 15, 2009 at 11 a.m. 

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 

(202) 205–2000. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Agenda for future meetings: None. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Inv. No. 731–TA–1012 (Review) 

(Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from 

Vietnam)—briefing and vote. (The 

Commission is currently scheduled to 

transmit its determination and 

Commissioners’ opinions to the 

Secretary of Commerce on or before 

June 26, 2009.) 

5. Outstanding action jackets: None. 

In accordance with Commission 

policy, subject matter listed above, not 

disposed of at the scheduled meeting, 

may be carried over to the agenda of the 

following meeting. 

By order of the Commission: 

Issued: June 2, 2009. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. E9–13250 Filed 6–3–09; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1121–0291] 

Office of Justice Programs, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, Agency Information 

Collection Activities: Proposed 

Collection; Comments Requested 

ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review; Census of 

Juveniles on Probation (Reinstatement, 

with change, of a previously approved 

collection for which approval has 

expired). 
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 30273 

• Form RD 1940–1, ‘‘Request for 

Obligation of Funds.’’ 

• Form RD 1942–46, ‘‘Letter of Intent 

to Meet Conditions.’’ 

• Form AD–1047, ‘‘Certification 

Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and 

Other Responsibility Matters—Primary 

Covered Transactions.’’ 

• Form AD–1048, ‘‘Certification 

Regarding Debarment, Suspension, 

Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion— 

Lower Tier Covered Transactions.’’ 

• Form AD–1049, ‘‘Certification 

Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace 

Requirements (Grants).’’ 

• Form RD 400–4, ‘‘Assurance 

Agreement.’’ 

Additional information on these 

requirements can be found at http:// 

www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/ssdpg/ 

ssdpg.htm. 

Fund Disbursement: The Agency will 

determine, based on 7 CFR parts 3015, 

3016 and 3019, as applicable, whether 

disbursement of a grant will be by 

advance or reimbursement. As needed, 

but not more frequently than once every 

30 days, an original of SF–270, ‘‘Request 

for Advance or Reimbursement,’’ may 

be submitted to Rural Development. 

Recipient’s request for advance shall not 

be made in excess of reasonable outlays 

for the month covered. 

Reporting Requirements: Grantees 

must provide Rural Development with 

an original or an electronic copy that 

includes all required signatures of the 

following reports. The reports should be 

submitted to the Agency contact listed 

on the Grant Agreement and Letter of 

Conditions. Failure to submit 

satisfactory reports on time may result 

in suspension or termination of the 

grant. Grantees will submit: 

1. Form SF–269 or SF–269A. A 

‘‘Financial Status Report,’’ listing 

expenditures according to agreed upon 

budget categories, on a semi-annual 

basis. Reporting periods end each March 

31 and September 30. Reports are due 

30 days after the reporting period ends. 

2. Semi-annual performance reports 

comparing accomplishments to the 

objectives stated in the proposal, 

identifying all tasks completed to date 

and providing documentation 

supporting the reported results. If the 

original schedule provided in the work 

plan is not being met, the report should 

discuss the problems or delays that may 

affect completion of the Project. 

Objectives for the next reporting period 

should be listed. Compliance with any 

special condition on the use of award 

funds must be discussed. Reports are 

due as provided in paragraph (1) of this 

section. Supporting documentation 

must also be submitted for completed 

tasks. The supporting documentation for 

completed tasks includes, but is not 

limited to, feasibility studies, marketing 

plans, business plans, articles of 

incorporation, and bylaws as they relate 

to the assistance provided. 

3. Final project performance reports 

comparing accomplishments to the 

objectives stated in the proposal, 

identifying all tasks completed, and 

providing documentation supporting 

the reported results. If the original 

schedule provided in the work plan was 

not met, the report must discuss the 

problems or delays that affected 

completion of the project. Compliance 

with any special condition on the use of 

award funds must be discussed. 

Supporting documentation for 

completed tasks must also be submitted. 

The supporting documentation for 

completed tasks includes, but is not 

limited to, feasibility studies, marketing 

plans, business plans, articles of 

incorporation, and bylaws as they relate 

to the assistance provided. The final 

performance report is due within 90 

days of the completion of the project. 

The report must also include a summary 

at the end of the report with the number 

of small socially disadvantaged 

agricultural producers assisted to assist 

in documenting the annual performance 

goals of the SSDPG program for 

Congress. 

VII. Agency Contacts 

For general questions about this 

announcement and for program 

technical assistance, please contact the 

appropriate State Office as indicated in 

the Addresses section of this notice. 

VIII. Non-Discrimination Statement 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) prohibits discrimination in all 

its programs and activities on the basis 

of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, 

genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an 

individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all 

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large 

print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720– 

2600 (voice and TDD). To file a 

complaint of discrimination, write to 

USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call 

(800) 795–3272 (voice) or (202) 720– 

6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer. 

Dated June 19, 2009. 

Judith A. Canales, 

Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–14954 Filed 6–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–947] 

Certain Steel Grating from the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 25, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Martin at (202) 482–3936 or 

Robert Bolling at (202) 482–3434, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On May 29, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received 

a petition concerning imports of certain 

steel grating (‘‘CSG’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘the PRC’’) filed in 

proper form by Fisher & Ludlow and 

Alabama Metal Industries Corporation 

(‘‘AMICO’’) (collectively ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

See the Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties: Certain Steel Grating from the 

PRC submitted on May 29, 2009 (‘‘the 

Petition’’). On June 4, 2009, and on June 

11, 2009, the Department issued 

requests for additional information and 

clarification involving certain areas of 

the Petition. Based on the Department’s 

requests, Petitioners filed additional 

information on June 9, 2009, and June 

15, 2009. Specifically, Petitioners filed 

two submissions on June 9, 2009, one 

regarding general issues of the petition, 

and one containing clarifications 

specific to the antidumping allegation 

(hereinafter ‘‘Supplement to the AD/ 

CVD Petitions’’ and ‘‘Supplement to the 

AD Petition’’ respectively). Petitioners 

also filed two submissions on June 15, 

2009, again one containing more 

clarifications on general issues of the 

petition, and one providing requested 

clarification pertaining to the 

antidumping allegations (hereinafter 

‘‘Second Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions’’ and ‘‘Second Supplement to 

the AD Petition’’ respectively). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
30274 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), Petitioners allege that imports of 

CSG from the PRC are being, or are 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

less than fair value, within the meaning 

of section 731 of the Act, and that such 

imports are materially injuring, or 

threatening material injury to, an 

industry in the United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed this Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioners 

are interested parties as defined in 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act and have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

duty investigation that Petitioners are 

requesting that the Department initiate 

(see ‘‘Determination of Industry Support 

for the Petition’’ section below). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are certain steel grating 

from the PRC. For a full description of 

the scope of the investigation, please see 

the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioners 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 within twenty calendar days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register. Comments 

should be addressed to Import 

Administration’s APO/Dockets Unit, 

Room 1870, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. 

The period of scope consultations is 

intended to provide the Department 

with ample opportunity to consider all 

comments and to consult with parties 

prior to the issuance of the preliminary 

determination. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires 

We are requesting comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

CSG to be reported in response to the 

Department’s antidumping 

questionnaires. This information will be 

used to identify the key physical 

characteristics of the subject 

merchandise 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 any 

information or comments that they feel 

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 CSG, it may 

be that only a select few product 

characteristics take into account 

commercially meaningful physical 

characteristics. In addition, interested 

parties may comment on the order in 

which the physical characteristics 

should be used in product matching. 

Generally, the Department attempts to 

list the most important physical 

characteristics first and the least 

important characteristics last. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing and 

issuing the antidumping duty 

questionnaires, we must receive 

comments at the above–referenced 

address by July 9, 2009. Additionally, 

we must receive rebuttal comments by 

July 16, 2009. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) at least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

industry. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The 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 (CIT 

2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. 

United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 

(CIT 1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 

1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this subtitle.’’ 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, Petitioners do 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 CSG 

constitutes a single domestic like 

product and we have analyzed industry 

support in terms of that domestic like 

product. For a discussion of the 

domestic like product analysis in this 

case, see Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: CSG 

from the PRC (‘‘Initiation Checklist’’) at 

Attachment II (‘‘Industry Support’’), 

dated concurrently with this notice and 

on file in the Central Records Unit 

(‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. 

In determining whether Petitioners 

have standing, pursuant to section 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 30275 

732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered 

the industry support data contained in 

the Petition with reference to the 

domestic like product as defined in the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section above. 

To establish industry support, 

Petitioners provided their production of 

the domestic like product for the year 

2008, as well as the production of three 

companies who support the Petition, 

and compared this to an estimate of 

total production of the domestic like 

product for the entire domestic 

industry. See Volume I of the Petitions 

at 3–6, and Exhibits I–3, and 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, at 

8–10, and Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. To 

estimate 2008 production of the 

domestic like product, Petitioners used 

their own data as well their own 

industry–specific knowledge. 

Petitioners calculated total domestic 

production based on information 

provided by companies that are 

supporters of the Petition and that 

produce the domestic like product in 

the United States, as well estimates of 

production of non–petitioning 

producers of the domestic like product 

who have not expressed an opinion 

regarding the Petition. Id.; see also 

Initiation Checklist as Attachment II, 

Industry Support. 

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department indicates that 

Petitioners have established industry 

support. First, the Petition 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 Act and 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II 

(Industry Support). Second, the 

domestic producers (or workers) have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of 

the Act because the domestic producers 

(or workers) who support the Petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product. See Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II (Industry Support). 

Finally, the domestic producers (or 

workers) have met the statutory criteria 

for industry support under section 

732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the 

domestic producers (or workers) who 

support the Petition account for more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

Petition. Id. Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the Petition 

was filed on behalf of the domestic 

industry within the meaning of section 

732(b)(1) of the Act. Id. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and they have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

investigation that they are requesting 

the Department initiate. Id. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than normal 

value (‘‘NV’’). In addition, Petitioners 

allege that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 

Petitioners contend that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, increased import 

penetration, underselling and price 

depressing and suppressing effects, lost 

sales and revenue, reduced production, 

capacity, and capacity utilization, 

reduced shipments and increased 

inventories, reduced employment, 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. 

Period of Investigation 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.204(b), because this Petition was 

filed on May 29, 2009, the anticipated 

period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

October 1, 2008 through March 31, 

2009, the two most recently completed 

fiscal quarters, as of the month 

preceding the month in which the 

Petition was filed. 

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value 

The following is a description of the 

allegation of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department based its 

decision to initiate this investigation of 

imports of CSG from the PRC. The 

sources of data for the deductions and 

adjustments relating to the U.S. price, 

and the factors of production, are also 

discussed in the Initiation Checklist, 

issued concurrently with this Federal 

Register notice. See Initiation Checklist. 

Should the need arise to use any of this 

information as facts available under 

section 776 of the Act in our 

preliminary or final determinations, we 

will reexamine the information and 

revise the margin calculations, if 

appropriate. 

Export Price 

Petitioners calculated export prices 

(‘‘EPs’’) based on an offer for sale of five 

CSG products by a Chinese producer, 

sale term CIF. Petitioners presented an 

affidavit, in which they confirmed that 

the sales offer was made during the POI. 

See Initiation Checklist for further 

discussion 

To calculate the net U.S. EP, 

Petitioners deducted from the U.S. 

prices the costs associated with 

exporting and delivering the product, 

which included expenses relating to 

foreign inland freight, ocean freight, 

insurance, foreign brokerage and 

handling, and U.S. port expenses (i.e., 

fees for security, unloading, and 

wharfage). See Volume II of the Petition 

at 4–10 and Exhibit II–9; see also 

Supplement to the AD Petition, at 1–3 

and Exhibits S–1, S–2, S–3, S–4, S–5, 

and S–9, and Second Supplement to the 

AD Petition, at 1–2. 

To be conservative, Petitioners did 

not make specific adjustments to the 

U.S. price for foreign port charges 

(stevedoring, wharfage and handling 

charges) and U.S. port expenses of 

unloading fee and wharfage because: (1) 

these expenses are either included in 

Petitioners’ calculated ocean freight and 

insurance expenses; or (2) the 

information regarding the length of time 

in which goods would remain within 

the limits of the export and import ports 

was unclear to Petitioners. See Volume 

II of the Petition at 9–10. Petitioners 

calculated the per–unit value of ocean 

freight and insurance using the U.S. ITC 

data, by deducting the reported customs 

value of CSG landed in a specific U.S. 

port from the reported CIF value and 

dividing the resulting amount by the 

total import quantity. See Volume II of 

the Petition at 7–8 and Exhibit II–7; 

Supplement to the AD Petition, 2–3 and 

Exhibit S–4; and Second Supplement to 

the AD Petition, at 1–2. The U.S. Census 

Bureau defines CIF data as the sum of 

import charges and customs value. See 

http://www.census.gov/foreign–trade/ 

www/sec2.htmlιvalcusimports. 

Accordingly, when customs value is 

deducted from the CIF value, the 

remaining amount represents import 

charges. The U.S. Census Bureau 

defines import charges as ‘‘the aggregate 

cost of all freight, insurance, and other 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
30276 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 

charges (excluding U.S. import duties) 

incurred in bringing the merchandise 

from alongside the carrier at the port of 

exportation in the country of 

exportation and placing it alongside the 

carrier at the first port of entry in the 

United States.’’ Id. Thus it is clear that 

import charges, the basis for ocean 

freight and insurance, include expenses 

associated with loading the 

merchandise from the wharf to the 

carrier, and those expenses associated 

with unloading the merchandise from 

the vessel to wharf, (i.e., stevedoring, 

wharfage and handling). 

Petitioners calculated PRC brokerage 

and handling by using the brokerage 

and handling surrogate value used in 

the investigation of Certain Activated 

Carbon From the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Preliminary Results of 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Extension of Time Limits for 

the Final Results, 74 FR 21317 (May 7, 

2009) (‘‘Activated Carbon From China’’), 

and inflated it to the POI. See Activated 

Carbon From China 74 FR at 21328. See 

also Volume II of Petition, at 8–9, and 

Exhibit II–8, and Supplement to AD 

Petition, at 2 and Exhibit S–3. 

Normal Value 

Petitioners state that the PRC is a 

non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) country 

and no determination to the contrary 

has been made by the Department. See 

Volume II of the Petition at 11. 

Petitioners state that the Department has 

treated the PRC as an NME country in 

every administrative proceeding in 

which the PRC has been involved, and 

has continued to do so in recent 

months. Id. 

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 is appropriately based on 

factors of production valued in a 

surrogate market–economy country in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act. In the course of this investigation, 

all parties, including the public, will 

have the opportunity to provide relevant 

information related to the issues of the 

PRC’s NME status and the granting of 

separate rates to individual exporters. 

Citing section 773(c)(4) of the Act, 

Petitioners contend 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 of CSG. See Volume II of the 

Petition at 11–13 and Exhibits II–10, II– 

11 and II–12. Based on the information 

provided by Petitioners, 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. 

Petitioners calculated the NV and 

dumping margins for the U.S. prices, 

discussed above, using the Department’s 

NME methodology as required by 19 

CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 

351.408. Petitioners calculated NV 

based on the consumption rates of a 

U.S. CSG producer for the period of 

October 2008 through March 2009. See 

Volume II of the Petition at 13–23, and 

Exhibit II–13, and Supplement to the 

AD Petition at 5–8. Petitioners state that 

a U.S. CSG producer has produced CSG 

for many years, using a production 

method similar to that employed by the 

PRC manufacturer from whom 

Petitioners obtained the sales offer, 

upon which they relied for calculating 

the EP, discussed above. Accordingly, 

Petitioners state that the U.S. producer’s 

production experience is representative 

of the production process used in the 

PRC. See Volume II of the Petition at 16 

and Exhibit II–13, see also Supplement 

to the AD Petition, at 4–8 and Exhibit 

S–9. 

Petitioners valued the factors of 

production based on reasonably 

available, public surrogate–country 

data, including Indian statistics from the 

Global Trade Information Services 

database known as Global Trade Atlas. 

See Volume II of the AD Petition at 18– 

20 and Exhibit II–15; see also 

Supplement to the AD Petition, at 8–9 

and Exhibits S–6 and S–9 and Second 

Supplement to AD Petition, at 3 and 5 

and Exhibits S2–2 and S2–3. Petitioners 

adjusted the values for raw materials by 

the freight costs associated with the 

transportation of raw materials from 

outside suppliers. See Volume II of the 

AD Petition at 17–19 and Exhibit II–18; 

see also Supplement to AD Petition, at 

1, and Exhibit S–1. In addition, 

Petitioners made currency conversions, 

where necessary, based on the POI– 

average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate, 

as reported on the Department’s 

website. See Volume II of the Petition at 

17 and Exhibit II–4. Petitioners 

determined labor costs using the labor 

consumption, in hours, derived from a 

U.S. CSG producer. See Volume II of the 

AD Petition at 21, and Supplement to 

the AD Petition, at 6 and Exhibit S–7. 

Petitioners determined labor costs 

using the Department’s NME Wage Rate 

for the PRC at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

wages/05wages/05wages– 

051608.html#table2. See Volume II of 

the Petition at 21 and Exhibit II–17, and 

Supplement to the AD Petition, at 2–3. 

For purposes of initiation, the 

Department determines that the 

surrogate values used by Petitioners are 

reasonably available and, thus, 

acceptable for purposes of initiation. 

Petitioners determined electricity 

costs using the electricity consumption, 

in kilowatt hours, derived from a U.S. 

producer. Petitioners valued electricity 

using the Indian electricity rate reported 

by the Central Electric Authority of the 

Government of India. See Volume II of 

the Petition, at 20–21 and Exhibit II–16; 

see also Supplement to the AD Petition, 

at 6 and Exhibit S–6. 

Petitioners based factory overhead, 

selling, general and administrative, and 

profit on data from Mekins Agro 

Products Limited (‘‘Mekins’’) for the 

fiscal year April 2007, through March 

2008. See Supplement to the AD 

Petition, at 10 and Exhibit S–8. 

Petitioners state that, like steel grating, 

the products manufactured by Mekins 

are steel goods which are unrolled, slit 

to or cut to the desired size and then 

welded utilizing welding machinery. 

Accordingly, Petitioners maintain that 

using Mekins’ financial ratios satisfies 

the Department’s ‘‘comparable’’ 

industry requirements, as they were 

unable to obtain industry–specific 

financial statements from India. 

Although the Mekins financial 

statement has a line item for state 

subsidy, we have insufficient evidence 

with respect to this line item to 

determine that the financial statement is 

less representative than other available 

information. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of 

the First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and First New 

Shipper Review, 72 FR 52052 

(September 12, 2007) at Comment 2c. 

Therefore, for purposes of the initiation, 

the Department finds Petitioners’ use of 

Mekins’ financial ratios appropriate. 

Fair–Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioners, there is reason to believe 

that imports of CSG from the PRC are 

being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value. 

Based on a comparison of EP and NV 

calculated in accordance with section 

773(c) of the Act, the estimated 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 30277 

dumping margins for CSG from the PRC 

range from 131.51 percent to 145.18 

percent. See Initiation Checklist. 

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation 

Based upon the examination of the 

Petition on CSG from the PRC the 

Department finds that the Petition meets 

the requirements of section 732 of the 

Act. Therefore, we are initiating an 

antidumping duty investigation to 

determine whether imports of CSG from 

the PRC are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value. In accordance with section 

733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will 

make our preliminary determination no 

later than 140 days after the date of this 

initiation. 

Targeted–Dumping Allegation 

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 ‘‘{w}ithdrawal will allow the 

Department to exercise the discretion 

intended by the statute and, thereby, 

develop a practice that will allow 

interested parties to pursue all statutory 

avenues of relief in this area.’’ Id. at 

74931. 

In order to accomplish this objective, 

if any interested party wishes to make 

a targeted- dumping allegation in this 

investigation pursuant to section 

777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such 

allegations are due no later than 45 days 

before the scheduled date of the 

country–specific preliminary 

determination. 

Respondent Selection 

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. See 

Supplement to the AD Petition, at 

Exhibit S–1. 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), and 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas 

From the People’s Republic of China, 70 

FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). 

Appendix II of this notice contains the 

quantity and value questionnaire that 

must be submitted by all NME 

exporters/producers no later than July 

14, 2009. In addition, the Department 

will post the quantity and value 

questionnaire along with the filing 

instructions on the Import 

Administration website at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia–highlights-and– 

news.html. 

Separate Rates 

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 (April 

5, 2005) (‘‘Separate Rates and 

Combination Rates Bulletin’’), available 

on the Department’s website 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 website at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme–seprate.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. As noted in the 

‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section above, 

the Department requires that 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate–rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate–rate status. 

Use of Combination Rates in an NME 

Investigation 

The Department will calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. The 

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 Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), a copy of the public version 

of the Petition has been provided to the 

representatives of the Government of the 

PRC. Because of the particularly large 

number of producers/exporters 

identified in the Petition, the 

Department considers the service of the 

public version of the Petition to the 

foreign producers/exporters satisfied by 

the delivery of the public version to the 

Government of the PRC, consistent with 

19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determinations by the 

International Trade Commission 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

no later than July 13, 2009, whether 

there is a reasonable indication that 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
30278 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 

designated period, please provide a full 

explanation. 

imports of CSG from the PRC are 

materially injuring, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative 

ITC determination will result in the 

investigation being terminated; 

otherwise, this investigation will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: June 18, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are certain steel grating, 

consisting of two or more pieces of steel, 

including load–bearing pieces and cross 

pieces, joined by any assembly process, 

regardless of: (1) size or shape; (2) 

method of manufacture; (3) metallurgy 

(carbon, alloy, or stainless); (4) the 

profile of the bars; and (5) whether or 

not they are galvanized, painted, coated, 

clad or plated. Steel grating is also 

commonly referred to as ‘‘bar grating,’’ 

although the components may consist of 

steel other than bars, such as hot–rolled 

sheet, plate, or wire rod. 

The scope of this investigation 

excludes expanded metal grating, which 

is comprised of a single piece or coil of 

sheet or thin plate steel that has been 

slit and expanded, and does not involve 

welding or joining of multiple pieces of 

steel. The scope of this investigation 

also excludes plank type safety grating 

which is comprised of a single piece or 

coil of sheet or thin plate steel, typically 

in thickness of 10 to 18 gauge, that has 

been pierced and cold formed, and does 

not involve welding or joining of 

multiple pieces of steel. 

Certain steel grating that is the subject 

of this investigation is currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) under subheading 

7308.90.7000. While the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Appendix II 

Format for Reporting Quantity and 

Value of Sales 

In providing the information in the 

chart below, please provide the total 

quantity in both pieces and kilograms 

(kg) (net weight) and total value (in U.S. 

dollars) of all your sales to the United 

States during the period October 1, 

2008, through March 31, 2009, covered 

by the scope of this investigation (see 

Appendix I), produced in the PRC, i.e. 

CSG. 

Please provide the conversion factor 

used to convert pieces to kg (net 

weight). 

Please use the invoice date when 

determining which sales to include 

within the period noted above.1

Additionally, if you believe that you 

should be treated as a single entity along 

with other named exporters, please 

complete the chart, below, both in the 

aggregate for all named parties in your 

group and, in separate charts, 

individually for each named entity. 

Please label each chart accordingly. 

Please state whether you exported CSG 

to the United States during the POI. 

If you did export CSG to the United 

States during the POI, please state 

whether you produced 100 percent of 

the CSG that you exported to the United 

States during the POI. 

If you did produce 100 percent of the 

CSG that you exported to the United 

States during the POI, please provide 

the following: 

Market: United States Total Quantity (kg) (Net 

Weight) 

Total 

QuantityPieces Terms of Sale2 Total Value3($U.S.) 

1. Export Price4.

2. Constructed Export Price5.

3. Further Manufactured6.

Total.

2To the extent possible, sales values should be reported based on the same terms (e.g., FOB). 3Values should be expressed in U.S. dollars. Indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and sources. 

4Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an EP sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs before the goods are imported into the 

United States. 5Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs after importation. 

However, if the first sale to the unaffiliated person is made by a person in the United States affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies even if the sale occurs prior to importation. Do not report the sale to the affiliated party in the United States, rather report the 

sale made by the affiliated party to the unaffiliated customer in the United States. 6 ‘‘Further manufactured’’ refers to merchandise that undergoes further manufacture or assembly in the United States before sale to the first 

unaffiliated customer. 

[FR Doc. E9–15018 Filed 6–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–948] 

Certain Steel Grating From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation 

of Countervailing Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 25, 2009 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Carey or Justin Neuman, 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) 

482–0486, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions 

On May 29, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) received 

countervailing duty (CVD) and 

antidumping (AD) petitions concerning 

imports of certain steel grating (CSG) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC) filed in proper form by Alabama 

Metal Industries Corp. (AMICO) and 

Fisher and Ludlow (collectively, the 

petitioners), domestic producers of CSG. 

See ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties: Certain Steel Grating from the 

People’s Republic of China’’ (the 

petitions). On June 4, 2009, the 

Department issued requests for 

additional information and clarification 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
30278 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 

1 If you believe that another date besides the 

invoice date would provide a more accurate 

representation of your company’s sales during the designated period, please provide a full 

explanation. 

imports of CSG from the PRC are 

materially injuring, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative 

ITC determination will result in the 

investigation being terminated; 

otherwise, this investigation will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: June 18, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are certain steel grating, 

consisting of two or more pieces of steel, 

including load–bearing pieces and cross 

pieces, joined by any assembly process, 

regardless of: (1) size or shape; (2) 

method of manufacture; (3) metallurgy 

(carbon, alloy, or stainless); (4) the 

profile of the bars; and (5) whether or 

not they are galvanized, painted, coated, 

clad or plated. Steel grating is also 

commonly referred to as ‘‘bar grating,’’ 

although the components may consist of 

steel other than bars, such as hot–rolled 

sheet, plate, or wire rod. 

The scope of this investigation 

excludes expanded metal grating, which 

is comprised of a single piece or coil of 

sheet or thin plate steel that has been 

slit and expanded, and does not involve 

welding or joining of multiple pieces of 

steel. The scope of this investigation 

also excludes plank type safety grating 

which is comprised of a single piece or 

coil of sheet or thin plate steel, typically 

in thickness of 10 to 18 gauge, that has 

been pierced and cold formed, and does 

not involve welding or joining of 

multiple pieces of steel. 

Certain steel grating that is the subject 

of this investigation is currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) under subheading 

7308.90.7000. While the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Appendix II 

Format for Reporting Quantity and 

Value of Sales 

In providing the information in the 

chart below, please provide the total 

quantity in both pieces and kilograms 

(kg) (net weight) and total value (in U.S. 

dollars) of all your sales to the United 

States during the period October 1, 

2008, through March 31, 2009, covered 

by the scope of this investigation (see 

Appendix I), produced in the PRC, i.e. 

CSG. 

Please provide the conversion factor 

used to convert pieces to kg (net 

weight). 

Please use the invoice date when 

determining which sales to include 

within the period noted above.1

Additionally, if you believe that you 

should be treated as a single entity along 

with other named exporters, please 

complete the chart, below, both in the 

aggregate for all named parties in your 

group and, in separate charts, 

individually for each named entity. 

Please label each chart accordingly. 

Please state whether you exported CSG 

to the United States during the POI. 

If you did export CSG to the United 

States during the POI, please state 

whether you produced 100 percent of 

the CSG that you exported to the United 

States during the POI. 

If you did produce 100 percent of the 

CSG that you exported to the United 

States during the POI, please provide 

the following: 

Market: United States Total Quantity (kg) (Net 

Weight) 

Total 

QuantityPieces Terms of Sale2 Total Value3($U.S.) 

1. Export Price4.

2. Constructed Export Price5.

3. Further Manufactured6.

Total.

2To the extent possible, sales values should be reported based on the same terms (e.g., FOB). 3Values should be expressed in U.S. dollars. Indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and sources. 

4Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an EP sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs before the goods are imported into the 

United States. 5Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs after importation. 

However, if the first sale to the unaffiliated person is made by a person in the United States affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies even if the sale occurs prior to importation. Do not report the sale to the affiliated party in the United States, rather report the 

sale made by the affiliated party to the unaffiliated customer in the United States. 6 ‘‘Further manufactured’’ refers to merchandise that undergoes further manufacture or assembly in the United States before sale to the first 

unaffiliated customer. 

[FR Doc. E9–15018 Filed 6–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–948] 

Certain Steel Grating From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation 

of Countervailing Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 25, 2009 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Carey or Justin Neuman, 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) 

482–0486, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions 

On May 29, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) received 

countervailing duty (CVD) and 

antidumping (AD) petitions concerning 

imports of certain steel grating (CSG) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC) filed in proper form by Alabama 

Metal Industries Corp. (AMICO) and 

Fisher and Ludlow (collectively, the 

petitioners), domestic producers of CSG. 

See ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties: Certain Steel Grating from the 

People’s Republic of China’’ (the 

petitions). On June 4, 2009, the 

Department issued requests for 

additional information and clarification 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 30279 

of certain areas of the CVD petition 

involving countervailable subsidy 

allegations and further information and 

clarification concerning general issues 

common to the petitions. See Letter 

from Dana Mermelstein, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, 

to the petitioners, ‘‘Petition for the 

Imposition of Countervailing Duties on 

Steel Gratings Imported from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Supplemental Questions, June 4, 2009.’’ 

See also Letter from Robert Bolling, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, to the petitioners, ‘‘Petitions 

for the Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties: Certain Steel 

Grating from the People’s Republic of 

China: Supplemental Questions, June 4, 

2009.’’ Based on the Department’s 

requests, the petitioners timely filed 

additional information on June 9, 2009. 

A second request seeking additional 

information and clarification concerning 

general issues common to the petitions 

was sent to the petitioners on June 11, 

2009. See Letter from Robert Bolling, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, to the petitioners, ‘‘Petitions 

for the Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties: Certain Steel 

Grating from the People’s Republic of 

China: Supplemental Questions, June 

11, 2009.’’ Based on the Department’s 

request, the petitioners timely filed 

additional information pertaining to the 

petitions on June 15, 2009. Finally, the 

petitioners clarified the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ on June 16, 2009. 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), the petitioners allege that 

producers/exporters of CSG in the PRC 

received countervailable subsidies 

within the meaning of section 701 and 

771(5) of the Act, and that imports 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, an industry in the United 

States. 

The Department finds that the 

petitioners filed this CVD petition on 

behalf of the domestic industry because 

they are interested parties as defined in 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and the 

petitioners have demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

countervailing duty investigation that 

they are requesting the Department to 

initiate (see ‘‘Determination of Industry 

Support for the CVD Petition’’ below). 

Period of Investigation 

The anticipated period of 

investigation (POI) is calendar year 

2008. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are certain steel grating 

from the PRC. For a full description of 

the scope of the investigation, please see 

the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ in 

Appendix I to this notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the CVD 

petition, we discussed the scope with 

petitioners 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 (See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 

(May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a 

period for interested parties to raise 

issues regarding product coverage. The 

Department encourages all interested 

parties to submit such comments within 

twenty calendar days of the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. Comments should be 

addressed to the Import 

Administration’s Central Records Unit 

(CRU), Room 1117, 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. 

Consultations 

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, the Department held 

consultations with the government of 

the PRC (hereinafter, the GOC) with 

respect to the CVD petition on June 1, 

2009. See Memorandum to the File, 

Countervailing Duty Petitions on PreStressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand and 

Certain Steel Grating from the People’s 

Republic of China: Consultations with 

the Government of the People’s Republic 

of China, on file in the CRU, Room 1117 

of the main Department of Commerce 

building. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the CVD 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 (CIT 

2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. 

United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 

(CIT 1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 

1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, petitioners do 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 CSG 

constitutes a single domestic like 

product and we have analyzed industry 

support in terms of that domestic like 

product. For a discussion of the 

domestic like product analysis in this 

case, see Countervailing Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: CSG 

from the PRC (CVD Initiation Checklist) 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
30280 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 

at Attachment II (Industry Support), 

dated concurrently with this notice and 

on file in the CRU, Room 1117 of the 

main Department of Commerce 

building. 

With regard to section 702(c)(4)(A), in 

determining whether petitioners have 

standing (i.e., those domestic workers 

and producers supporting the CVD 

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 CVD 

petition), we considered the industry 

support data contained in the CVD 

petition with reference to the domestic 

like product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ in Appendix I. To 

establish industry support, petitioners 

provided their production of the 

domestic like product for the year 2008, 

and compared this to total production of 

the domestic like product for the entire 

domestic industry. See Volume I of the 

AD/CVD petitions at 3–6, and Exhibit I– 

3, and Supplement to the AD/CVD 

petitions filed June 9, 2009, at 8–10, and 

Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. To estimate 

2008 production of the domestic like 

product, the petitioners used their own 

data as well their own industry specific 

knowledge. Petitioners calculated total 

domestic production based on 

information provided by companies that 

are supporters of the CVD petition and 

that produce the domestic like product 

in the United States, as well as estimates 

of production of non-petitioning 

producers of the domestic like product. 

See Volume I of the AD/CVD petitions 

at 3–6, and Exhibit I–3, and Supplement 

to the AD/CVD petitions filed June 9, 

2009, at 8–10, and Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 

and 7. See also CVD Initiation Checklist 

at Attachment II, Industry Support. 

Our review of the data provided in the 

CVD petition, supplemental 

submissions, and other information 

readily available to the Department 

indicates that petitioners have 

established industry support. First, the 

CVD petition 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 702(c)(4)(D) of the 

Act and CVD 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 CVD petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product. See CVD 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 CVD petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the CVD petition. Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the CVD 

petition was filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry within the meaning 

of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. See CVD 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

The Department finds that petitioners 

filed the CVD petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and they have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the 

countervailing investigation that they 

are requesting the Department initiate. 

See CVD Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II. 

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 the 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that imports of CSG 

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 CSG. In addition, 

petitioners allege that subsidized 

imports exceed the negligibility 

threshold provided for under section 

771(24)(A) of the Act. 

Petitioners contend that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, increased import 

penetration, underselling and price 

depressing and suppressing effects, lost 

sales and revenue, reduced production 

and capacity utilization, reduced 

employment, 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 

CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment 

III (Analysis of Allegations and 

Evidence of Material Injury and 

Causation for the Petition). 

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 

CVD 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 petitioners supporting 

the allegations. 

The Department has examined the 

CVD petition on CSG 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 producers/exporters 

of CSG in the PRC receive 

countervailable subsidies. For a 

discussion of evidence supporting our 

initiation determination, see CVD 

Initiation Checklist. 

We are including in our investigation 

the following programs alleged in the 

CVD petition to provide countervailable 

subsidies to producers/exporters of the 

subject merchandise: 

A. GOC Provision of Inputs for Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration 

1. Provision of Hot-Rolled Steel for Less 

than Adequate Remuneration 

2. Provision of Steel Bar for Less than 

Adequate Remuneration 

3. Provision of Steel Plate for Less than 

Adequate Remuneration 

4. Provision of Wire Rod for Less than 

Adequate Remuneration 

B. GOC Provision of Land-Use Rights to 

State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) for Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration 

C. GOC Income Tax Programs 

1. ‘‘Two Free, Three Half’’ Program 

2. Reduced Income Tax Rates for 

Export-Oriented Foreign-Invested 

Enterprises (FIEs) 

3. Preferential Income Tax Policy for 

Enterprises in the Northeast Region 

4. Forgiveness of Tax Arrears for 

Enterprises in the Old Industrial 

Bases of Northeast China 

5. Tax Subsidies for FIEs in Specially 

Designated Geographic Areas 

6. Local Income Tax Exemption and 

Reduction Programs for 

‘‘Productive’’ FIEs 

7. Income Tax Credits for Domestically 

Owned Companies Purchasing 

Domestically Produced Equipment 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 30281 

8. Income Tax Credits for FIEs 

Purchasing Domestically Produced 

Equipment 

9. Preferential Tax Programs for FIEs 

Recognized as High or New 

Technology Enterprises 

D. GOC VAT Programs 

1. Import Tariff and Value Added Tax 

(VAT) Exemptions for Encouraged 

Industries Importing Equipment for 

Domestic Operations 

2. VAT and Tariff Exemptions for 

Purchases of Fixed Assets Under 

the Foreign Trade Development 

Fund 

E. Other GOC Programs 

1. Loans and Interest Subsidies 

Provided Pursuant to the Northeast 

Revitalization Program 

2. Grants to ‘‘Third Line’’ Military 

Enterprises 

F. Provincial/Municipal Programs 

1. Liaoning Province ‘‘Five Points, One 

Line’’ Program 

2. Guangzhou City Famous Export 

Brands 

3. Grants to Companies for ‘‘Outward 

Expansion’’ in Guangdong Province 

4. Guangdong and Zhejiang Provinces 

Programs to Rebate Antidumping 

Fees 

For further information explaining 

why the Department is investigating 

these programs, see CVD Initiation 

Checklist. 

We are not including in our 

investigation the following programs 

alleged to benefit producers/exporters of 

the subject merchandise in the PRC: 

A. GOC Policy Lending and Directed 

Credit to Steel Producers 

B. Discounted Loans and Interest Rate 

Subsidies under the Liaoning 

Province Framework 

C. Grants to Steel Producers for 

Environmental Purposes. 

For further information explaining 

why the Department is not initiating an 

investigation of these programs, see 

CVD Initiation Checklist. 

Respondent Selection 

For this investigation, the Department 

intends to select respondents based on 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) data for U.S. imports during the 

POI (i.e., calendar year 2008). 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 

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 

website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo. 

Distribution of Copies of the CVD 

Petition 

In accordance with section 

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), a copy of the public version 

of the petition has been provided to the 

representatives of the GOC. Because of 

the particularly large number of 

producers/exporters identified in the 

petition, the Department considers the 

service of the public version of the 

petition to the foreign producers/ 

exporters satisfied by the delivery of the 

public version to the GOC, consistent 

with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 702(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 25 days after the date on which 

it receives notice of the initiation, 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that imports of subsidized CSG from the 

PRC materially injure, or threaten 

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; see 

section 703(a)(1) of the Act. 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. 

Dated: June 18, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are certain steel grating, 

consisting of two or more pieces of steel, 

including load-bearing pieces and cross 

pieces, joined by any assembly process, 

regardless of: (1) Size or shape; (2) 

method of manufacture; (3) metallurgy 

(carbon, alloy, or stainless); (4) the 

profile of the bars; and (5) whether or 

not they are galvanized, painted, coated, 

clad or plated. Steel grating is also 

commonly referred to as ‘‘bar grating,’’ 

although the components may consist of 

steel other than bars, such as hot-rolled 

sheet, plate, or wire rod. 

The scope of this investigation 

excludes expanded metal grating, which 

is comprised of a single piece or coil of 

sheet or thin plate steel that has been 

slit and expanded, and does not involve 

welding or joining of multiple pieces of 

steel. The scope of this investigation 

also excludes plank type safety grating 

which is comprised of a single piece or 

coil of sheet or thin plate steel, typically 

in thickness of 10 to 18 gauge, that has 

been pierced and cold formed, and does 

not involve welding or joining of 

multiple pieces of steel. 

Certain steel grating that is the subject 

of this investigation is currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) under subheading 

7308.90.7000. While the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. E9–15017 Filed 6–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request—Requirements for 

Baby-Bouncers, Walker-Jumpers, and 

Baby-Walkers 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of 

April 16, 2009 (74 FR 17638), the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC or Commission) published a 

notice in accordance with provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) to announce the 

CPSC’s intention to seek extension of 

approval of the collection of information 

in the requirements for baby-bouncers, 

walker-jumpers, and baby-walkers in 

regulations codified at 16 CFR 

1500.18(a)(6) and 1500.86(a)(4). 

No comments were received in 

response to that notice. Therefore, by 

publication of this notice, the 

Commission announces that it has 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) a request for 

extension of approval of that collection 

of information without change. 

One CPSC regulation bans any 

product known as a baby-bouncer, 

walker-jumper, baby-walker or similar 

article if it is designed in such a way 

that exposed parts present hazards of 

amputations, crushing, lacerations, 

fractures, hematomas, bruises or other 

injuries to children’s fingers, toes, or 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
B-1

APPENDIX B

CALENDAR OF THE COMMISSION’S JUNE 19, 2009 CONFERENCE
B-2
B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC CONFERENCE

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s conference:

Subject: Certain Steel Grating from China 

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-465 and 731-TA-1161 (Preliminary)

Date and Time: June 19, 2009 - 9:30 a.m.

The conference was held in connection with these investigations in the Main Hearing Room

(Room 101), United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC.

OPENING STATEMENT

Petitioner: Alan H. Price, Wiley Rein, LLP

IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPOSITION OF ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING

DUTIES

Wiley Rein

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Alabama Metal Industries Corp.

Fisher & Ludlow, Inc.

Joseph D. Smith, President, Alabama Metal Industries Corp. 

Michael J. Scott, Vice President of Sales and Marketing, Alabama Metal Industries Corp. 

Brian Rutter, President, Fisher & Ludlow Inc.

Mark McElhinney, United Steelworkers, Fisher & Ludlow Inc., Saegertown,

PA

Alan H. Price )

)–OF COUNSEL

Timothy C. Brightbill )

CLOSING STATEMENT:

Petitioner: Timothy Brightbill, Wiley Rein LLP
 
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA
C-2
Table C-1

Certain steel grating: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

(Quantity=1,000 kilograms, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per kilogram; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-March Jan.-Mar.

Item 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183,691 193,881 245,199 53,142 32,836 33.5 5.5 26.5 -38.2

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 78.9 82.8 69.5 84.1 80.6 -9.4 3.9 -13.3 -3.4

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 7.5 24.3 7.1 10.1 19.2 2.4 16.9 3.0

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 16.0 9.7 6.1 8.9 9.3 -9.9 -6.3 -3.6 0.4

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1 17.2 30.5 15.9 19.4 9.4 -3.9 13.3 3.4

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,088 320,206 444,240 80,559 63,799 48.0 6.7 38.7 -20.8

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 83.4 84.8 70.0 83.7 80.3 -13.5 1.3 -14.8 -3.4

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 5.0 22.9 6.5 10.0 19.7 1.8 17.9 3.5

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4 10.2 7.1 9.8 9.6 -6.2 -3.1 -3.1 -0.1

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.6 15.2 30.0 16.3 19.7 13.5 -1.3 14.8 3.4

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,338 14,450 59,617 3,762 3,310 538.4 54.7 312.6 -12.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,635 16,026 101,755 5,272 6,411 956.1 66.3 534.9 21.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.03 $1.11 $1.71 $1.40 $1.94 65.4 7.5 53.9 38.2

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 975 2,494 4,753 2,663 3,749 387.5 155.8 90.6 40.8

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,414 18,826 15,072 4,707 3,053 -48.8 -36.0 -19.9 -35.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,062 32,795 31,739 7,872 6,144 -20.8 -18.1 -3.2 -22.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.36 $1.74 $2.11 $1.67 $2.01 54.6 27.9 20.9 20.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,752 33,276 74,689 8,469 6,363 92.7 -14.1 124.5 -24.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49,697 48,820 133,493 13,144 12,555 168.6 -1.8 173.4 -4.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.28 $1.47 $1.79 $1.55 $1.97 39.4 14.4 21.8 27.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . 225,636 254,023 308,397 77,919 78,180 36.7 12.6 21.4 0.3

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . 150,386 165,653 173,393 44,882 26,408 15.3 10.2 4.7 -41.2

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . 66.6 65.2 56.2 57.6 33.8 -10.4 -1.4 -9.0 -23.8

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144,939 160,605 170,510 44,673 26,473 17.6 10.8 6.2 -40.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,391 271,386 310,747 67,415 51,244 24.1 8.4 14.5 -24.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.73 $1.69 $1.82 $1.51 $1.94 5.5 -2.2 7.9 28.3

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 13,890 15,988 14,750 15,774 13,368 6.2 15.1 -7.7 -15.3

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . 773 815 848 827 749 9.7 5.4 4.0 -9.4

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . 1,619 1,758 1,806 444 399 11.6 8.6 2.7 -10.1

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . 37,481 38,819 40,191 10,283 8,141 7.2 3.6 3.5 -20.8

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $23.15 $22.08 $22.25 $23.16 $20.40 -3.9 -4.6 0.8 -11.9

 Productivity (kilograms per hour) 92.9 94.2 96.0 101.1 66.1 3.4 1.4 1.9 -34.7

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.25 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.31 -7.0 -6.0 -1.1 34.8

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.73 $1.69 $1.82 $1.51 $1.94 5.5 -2.2 7.9 28.3

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . 10,460 7,246 4,320 1,188 1,914 -58.7 -30.7 -40.4 61.1

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.30 $1.24 $1.36 $1.11 $1.70 4.4 -4.6 9.4 53.0

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . $0.16 $0.15 $0.15 $0.14 $0.18 -8.8 -10.5 1.8 29.0

 Unit operating income or (loss) . $0.26 $0.31 $0.33 $0.26 $0.08 24.0 15.8 7.0 -71.2

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.3 73.3 74.1 73.4 86.8 -1.2 -2.0 0.7 13.5

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 18.1 17.8 17.3 3.9 2.6 2.8 -0.2 -13.4

 (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 and from official Commerce statistics.

C-3
 
C-4

Table C-2

Certain Steel Grating: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding ***), 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
 
D-1

APPENDIX D

PRICING DATA FROM ALL SOURCES
D-2
D-3

Table D-1

CSG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1 and 

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

*******

Table D-2

CSG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

*******

Table D-3

CSG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

*******

Table D-4

CSG: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

*******