U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4069 April 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1021 (Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Dana Lofgren, Investigator 

Norman VanToai, Industry Analyst 

Patrick Gallagher, Attorney 

Jim McClure, Supervisor Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4069 April 2009

Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1021 (Review)
 
i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commerce’s final result of expedited five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

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

producers ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . I-6

Previous and related Commission investigations and reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

The product ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... I-9

Scope ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . I-9

U.S. tariff treatment ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... I-9

Domestic like product and domestic industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Physical characteristics and uses ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . I-10

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

Raw materials ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... I-13

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Substitute products ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . I-15

Channels of distribution ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . I-15

Pricing ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . I-16

The industry in the United States ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . I-17

U.S. producers ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . I-17

U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . I-22

U.S. imports ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... I-22

Leading nonsubject sources of imports ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... I-25

Ratio of imports to U.S. production ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . I-26

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

Antidumping actions outside the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

The subject industry in China ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . I-28

Malleable fittings operations ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . I-30

Appendix

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

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

C. Table C-2 from Commission’s staff report in the final phase of the original investigation . . . . . C-1

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

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

asterisks.

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

207.2(f)).

1

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1021 (Review)

Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from China

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record developed in the subject five-year review, the United States

1

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

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

pipe fittings from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on November 3, 2008 (73 F.R. 65401) and determined on

February 6, 2009 that it would conduct an expedited review (74 F.R. 7703). Notice of the scheduling of

the Commission’s review 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

on February 19, 2009 (74 FR 7703).
 
 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, December 1

2003, at I-1 (“Original Determination”). 

 Original Determination at 3. 2

 Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of China, 68 Fed. 3

Reg. 69376 (December 12, 2003). 

 Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from China, 73 Fed. Reg. 65401 (November 3, 2008). 4

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

 CR/PR at I-3 n.4 and Domestic Producers’ Response to the Commission’s Notice of Institution, dated December 6

23, 2008 (“Domestic Producers’ Response”).

 CR/PR at I-3 n.4. 7

 74 Fed. Reg. 7703, 7703-04 (February 19, 2009); see Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy, 8

CR/PR at Appendix B.

 See Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy, CR/PR at Appendix B. 

9

 Id.; 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3) (2000). 10

 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). 11

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

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

of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on malleable iron pipe

fittings from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry

in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

1. BACKGROUND

The original investigation of malleable cast iron pipe fittings (“malleable pipe fittings”) from

China was instituted on October 30, 2002, based on a petition filed by Anvil International, LP (“Anvil”)

and Ward Manufacturing, LLC (“Ward”). In November 2003, the Commission determined that an 1

industry in the United States was threatened with material injury by reason of imports of malleable cast

iron pipe fittings sold at less than fair value (“LTFV”) from China. On December 12, 2003, the U.S. 2

Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) imposed an antidumping duty order on imports of malleable

pipe fittings from China.3

The Commission instituted this review on November 3, 2008. The Commission received only

4

one substantive response to the notice of institution. The sole interested party response was filed jointly 5

by two U.S. producers of malleable pipe fittings, Anvil and Ward (jointly, “Domestic Producers”).

6

These firms are believed to account for *** percent of total U.S. production of malleable pipe fittings in

2007. The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested party. 7

On February 6, 2009, the Commission found that the domestic interested party response to the

notice of institution was adequate and that the respondent interested party response was inadequate. 8 9

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

Consequently, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section

751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Accordingly, for our determination in this review, we 10

rely when appropriate on facts available on the record, which consist primarily of information from the

original investigation and information collected in this five-year review, including that submitted by the

Domestic Producers and publicly available information.11
 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 12

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. 13

United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-

49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also S. Rep. No. 249, 96 Cong., 1 Sess. 90- th st

91 (1979).

 See e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and the 14

United Kingdom, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-380 to 382 and 731-TA-797 to 804 (Review), USITC Pub. 3788 at 6 (Jul.

2005); Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub. 3614 at 4 (July 2003); Steel

Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub. 3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).

 Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset 15

Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 Fed. Reg. 10239 ( March 10, 2009). 

 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3649 at 3, 5. 16

 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3649 at 4-5. 

17

4

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c), the Commission defines the “domestic like

product” and the “industry.” The Act defines the “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, 12

or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an

investigation under this subtitle.” In five-year reviews, the Commission looks to the domestic like 13

product definition from the original determination and any previous reviews and considers whether the

record indicates any reason to revisit that definition.

14

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

within the scope of the order as certain malleable iron pipe fittings, cast, other than grooved fittings:

The merchandise is classified under item numbers 7307.19.90.30, 7307.19.90.60 and

7307.19.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United State (HTSUS).

Excluded from the scope of the order are metal compression couplings, which are

imported under HTSUS number 7307.19.90.80. A metal compression coupling consists

of a coupling body, two gaskets, and two compression nuts. These products range in

diameter from 1⁄2 inch to 2 inches and are carried only in galvanized finish.15

The scope definition set out above is unchanged from Commerce’s scope definition in the original

investigation.

Malleable pipe fittings are used for connecting the bores of two or more pipes or tubes,

connecting a pipe to some other apparatus, changing the direction of fluid flow, or closing a pipe. They

are principally used in the gas and water systems of residential and non-residential buildings and pipe

systems of oil refineries. The metal from which malleable pipe fittings are made, cast metal, is a general

term for alloys primarily composed of iron, carbon (greater than two percent), and silicon. The metal is

subject to a lengthy annealing process following casting that improves its machineability, ductility, and

durability. Malleable pipe fittings are employed when shock and vibration resistance are required and

the fittings must withstand quick temperature changes.16

In the Commission’s original determination, it defined the domestic like product as malleable

iron pipe fittings, cast, other than grooved, commensurate with the scope of the investigation. In this 17

review, the Domestic Producers agree with the Commission’s definition of the domestic like product in
 Domestic Producers’ Response at 12. 18

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to 19

include in the industry all domestic production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or

sold in the domestic merchant market, provided that adequate production-related activity is conducted in the United

States. See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 682-83 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96

F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

 Original Determination at 7-9. 20

 Domestic Producers’ Final Comments, dated March 10, 2009, at 12 (“Domestic Producers’ Comments”). 21

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

22

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-à-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).

 See, e.g., Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F.Supp. 1322, 1331-32 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989), aff’d mem., 904 23

F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Empire Plow Co. v. United States, 675 F.Supp 1348, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1987).

 See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.Supp. 2d 1, 12 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001). 24

5

the original investigation. No new information was obtained during this review that would suggest 18

revisiting the Commission’s domestic like product definition. Therefore, we continue to define the

domestic like product as malleable iron pipe fittings, cast, other than grooved, coextensive with the scope

definition.

B. Domestic Industry

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a whole

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

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”19

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

domestic producers of malleable pipe fittings, specifically Anvil, Ward, and The Buck Company, Inc.

(“Buck”). There were no related party issues in the original investigation.20

In this review, Anvil and Ward state that they do not object to the Commission’s definition of the

domestic industry as stated in the original investigation. Unlike in the original investigation, however,

21

domestic producer *** imported subject merchandise from China during 2007 through its related firm,

***.

We therefore examine whether *** should be excluded from the domestic industry pursuant to

section 771(4)(B) of the Act. Section 771(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. Exclusion of such a producer is within the 22

Commission’s discretion based on the facts presented in each case. The purpose of the provision is to 23

exclude domestic producers that substantially benefit from importation of subject merchandise or their

relationships with foreign exporters.24

In this review, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to warrant excluding *** from

the definition of the domestic industry. The record indicates that *** domestic production represented a
 CR/PR at Table I-3. Through ***, *** imported *** tons of subject malleable pipe fittings from China with a 25

value of (***) in 2007. These imports were equivalent to *** percent of *** domestic production in that year. CR at

I-13.

 Domestic Producers’ Response at 1. 26

 CR at I-33, PR at I-22; and CR/PR at Table I-5. 27

 Consistent with her practice in past investigations and reviews, Chairman Aranoff does not rely on individual- 28

company operating income margins, which reflect a domestic producer’s financial operations related to production

of the 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.

 Commissioner Pinkert does not rely upon *** financial performance as a factor in determining whether there 29

are appropriate circumstances to exclude it from the domestic industry in this review.

 *** reported no corporate affiliations with importers or exporters of subject merchandise, and it did not report 30

any imports of subject merchandise. We conclude that *** is not a related party.

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a). 31

 The SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury 32

standard applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of

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

that were never completed.” SAA at 883. 

6

substantial proportion of U.S. production in 2007 (*** percent) and *** ratio of imports to its U.S.

production during 2007 was very small. In addition, *** supports the continued maintenance of the 25

order. Further, although *** has provided no information as to why its related firm imported subject 26

malleable pipe fittings in 2007, the limited financial data available do not suggest that *** domestic

operations performed appreciably better than other firms in the industry over the period of review due to

its importation of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we find that appropriate circumstances do 27 28 29

not exist to warrant excluding *** from our definition of the domestic industry.

There is no other new information obtained during this review that would suggest any reason for

revisiting our prior domestic industry definition. Accordingly, we continue to define the domestic

30

industry as all producers of malleable cast iron pipe fittings, other than grooved.

III. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF 

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER IS REVOKED

A. Legal Standard In a Five-Year Review

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

antidumping duty order unless (1) it makes a determination that dumping or subsidization is likely to

continue or recur, and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation of the antidumping

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

foreseeable time.” The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), Statement of Administrative 31

Action (“SAA”), states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important

change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its

restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.” Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in 32
 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it 33

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

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

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

SAA at 884.

 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means 34

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d without opinion, 140 Fed.

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

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

2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’

to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-

105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury,

not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 19, 2002) (“‘likely’ is

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

 For a complete statement of Commissioner Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see Additional Views 35

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

Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review)

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

 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No. 36

AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004) at 15-17, she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely” but she will apply the Court’s standard in this review and all

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

addresses the issue.

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). 37

 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or 38

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

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

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

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

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). 39

7

nature. The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year review 33

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

reviews. 

34 35 36

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

termination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”37

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

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

38

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

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

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

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

39

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

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

industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked or the suspension agreement is
 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). Commerce did not make any duty absorption findings with respect to the order under 40

review. See Commerce’s Review Determination, 71 Fed. Reg. at 70956-57. The statute further provides that the

presence or absence of any factor that the Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive

guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must

consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886.

 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a 41

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

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

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

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

Commerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). See Titanium Metals Corp., 155 F. Supp. 2d at 765 (“[T]he ITC correctly

responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the evidence before

it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of a Commission investigation.”).

 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year 42

reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as a

whole in making its determination. 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 persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 43

 Original Determination at 8-9. 44

8

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

§ 1675(a)(4).

40

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

limited information with respect to the malleable pipe fittings industry in China. Accordingly, we rely on

available information when appropriate, which consists primarily of information from the original

investigation and information collected in this five-year review, including information submitted by

Anvil and Ward.41 42

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

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

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

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.” The following conditions of 43

competition are relevant to our determination.

Demand. In the original investigation, the Commission found that demand for malleable pipe

fittings in the United States market was derived from the demand for systems incorporating such pipe

fittings, primarily involving new and retrofit construction in the residential and commercial/industrial

building markets. During the original investigation, the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption of

malleable pipe fittings irregularly decreased by *** percent from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons

in 2002, and was *** percent higher in interim 2003 (*** short tons) compared to interim 2002 (***

short tons). While the available data are limited, we note that there is some evidence in the record that

44
 CR/PR at Table I-9 and Domestic Producers’ Response at 3 (“. . . residential and commercial/industrial 45

building markets have plummeted in 2008.”).

 Original Determination at 9. The Commission also received a questionnaire response from another domestic 46

producer, Buck, which *** of the domestic like product during the period of investigation. The Commission also

found that a fourth and *** domestic producer, Lancaster Malleable Casting Co., permanently shut down malleable

pipe fittings production in early 2003. Id. at 9 n.26

 Original Determination at 9; see Domestic Producers’ Response at 7 and Comments at 5. 47

 Original Determination at 9. 48

 Original Investigation Staff Report, CR/PR at Table C-1. 49

 Shipments of nonsubject imports decreased from *** short tons in 2002 to *** short tons in 2007. CR/PR at 50

Table I-9. Subject imports increased from *** short tons in 2002 to *** short tons in 2007. Id.

 CR at I-20, PR at I-14; Original Determination at 3-7 and CR at II-10 to II-12. 51

 Domestic Producers’ Response at 3 and Comments at 2-3. 52

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). 53

9

demand for malleable pipe fittings weakened in 2007 and will continue to weaken in the reasonably

foreseeable future as construction spending declines.45

Supply. In the original investigation, the Commission found that Anvil and Ward accounted for

*** percent of the U.S. production of malleable pipe fittings in 2002. Although Anvil operated two 46

foundries prior to August 2001, Anvil sold one of its foundries and consolidated its production into one

facility during the original period of investigation. The Commission found that this consolidation 47

reduced Anvil’s capacity to produce malleable pipe fittings. There is no evidence on the record of this 48

expedited review to suggest that these conditions have changed significantly since the original

investigation.

With respect to other sources of supply, during the original period of investigation the U.S.

market was supplied in increasing quantities by malleable pipe fittings imported from subject and nonsubject sources. Imports from both sources were present in the U.S. market in 2007. Subject imports

49

were higher in 2007 than in 2002, whereas non-subject imports were lower in 2007 than in 2002.

50

Substitutability. In the original determination, the Commission observed that the domestic like

product and the subject merchandise were substitutable. Purchasers familiar with both the domestic like

product and the subject merchandise considered them to be generally substitutable. The Commission

found that both quality and price were important factors in purchasing decisions. Although quality was

often a first consideration in purchasing decisions, the Commission found that many purchasers viewed

the quality and consistency of the domestic like product and the subject merchandise to be comparable.51

The Domestic Producers maintain that these conditions continue today.52

There is no evidence on the record of this expedited review to suggest that these conditions have

changed significantly since the original investigation. Accordingly, in this review, we find that current

conditions in the market provide us with a reasonable basis on which to assess the likely effects of

revocation of the order in the reasonably foreseeable future.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

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

is revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States. In

53

doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated

factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the
 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A)-(D). 54

 Original Determination at 13 and CR/PR at Table IV-2. 55

 Original Determination at 13. 

56

 Original Determination at 13. 

57

 Original Determination at 14-15 and n.96. 58

 Original Determination at 14-15. 59

 CR/PR at Table I-7. Subject imports were 20,809 short tons in 2002, 18,210 short tons in 2003, 21,310 short 60

tons in 2004, 25,780 short tons in 2005, 28,858 short tons in 2006, and 25,065 short tons in 2007. Id.

 CR/PR at Table I-9. U.S. imports of subject merchandise from China, by quantity, accounted for *** percent 61

of apparent U.S. consumption in 2007, while U.S. shipments of subject imports from China, by quantity, accounted

for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2002. U.S. imports of subject merchandise from China, by value,

accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2007, while U.S. shipments of subject imports from

(continued...)

10

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

(3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the

United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country,

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

products.54

In the original determination, the Commission found that the volume and market share of subject

imports increased substantially during the period of investigation. The Commission found that the

quantity of subject imports increased by 54.2 percent between 2000 and 2002, and was 9,505 short tons

in January-June 2003 compared to 8,954 short tons in January-June 2002. Shipments of subject imports

55

as a share of apparent U.S. consumption increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2001 and

*** percent in 2002, as apparent U.S. consumption declined *** percent. Subject imports increased

relative to U.S. production from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2001 and *** percent in 2002.

56

The Commission concluded that the increased volumes of subject imports were significant both in

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

increase in that volume was significant.

57

As noted above, the Commission in the original investigation made an affirmative determination

that an industry in the United States was being threatened with material injury by reason of the subject

imports. The Commission found in its original injury determination that Chinese producers had

substantial and growing capacity to produce the subject merchandise and that the Chinese industry was

export-oriented, with the United States as an *** market, and that Chinese inventories had increased over

the period of investigation. In making its threat determination, the Commission noted that antidumping 58

duty orders on malleable pipe fittings from China were in place in the EU, Turkey, Brazil, and Argentina;

these orders, the Commission believed, increased the attractiveness of the U.S. market as a focus for

future exports from China. Therefore, the Commission found that a significant increase in the volume

and market share of imports from China was likely in the imminent future, given the increased Chinese

inventories, the substantial and growing production and production capacity in China, the reliance of the

Chinese industry on the U.S. market, declining subject import prices, increasing underselling, and

barriers to exports in other markets.59

Official import statistics show that subject imports declined in the year the antidumping duty

order was imposed in 2003, but then increased steadily over the period of review before declining in

2007. The market share of the subject imports increased steadily over the period of investigation, and 60

was *** percentage points higher in 2007 than in 2002, the last full year of the original period of

investigation.61
 (...continued) 61

China, by value, accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2002. Id.

 CR at I-14 to I -15, PR at I-11 to I-12; Domestic Producers’ Response at 9; and Continuation of Antidumping 62

Duty Order on Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of China, 73 Fed. Reg. 47887

(August 15, 2008).

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering 63

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

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

at 886.

 Original Determination at 12-13. 64

 Original Determination at 14-15. 65

11

Nothing in the record of this expedited review contradicts the Commission’s findings in the

original investigation that Chinese producers of the subject merchandise have substantial excess capacity

and that the United States is an *** market for the Chinese producers. Moreover, because Chinese

producers can use some of the same machinery and workers to produce non-malleable pipe fittings,

which are also subject to a U.S. antidumping duty order, Chinese producers that are subject to that order

may have an incentive to shift their production from non-malleable pipe fittings to the subject

merchandise if the order on malleable pipe fittings were revoked.62

Based on the significant increase in the volume of subject imports during the original

investigation, the rising and significant volumes of subject imports since that time despite the

antidumping duty order, the increase in market share held by the subject imports, the excess capacity of

the Chinese industry, the potential for shifting production between non-malleable and malleable pipe

fittings, and the *** of the U.S. market to Chinese producers, we find that Chinese producers would have

the incentive and the ability to ship significant volumes of malleable pipe fittings to the United States if

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

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

were revoked.

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

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

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

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

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

price of the domestic like product.63

In the original investigation, the Commission found that the domestic like product and subject

imports were interchangeable and that price, as well as quality, was an important factor in purchasing

decisions. While the Commission found consistent and significant underselling by the subject imports, 64

the record did not indicate depression or suppression of prices for the domestic like product because

domestic prices increased over the period of investigation notwithstanding an overall decline in apparent

U.S. consumption. Accordingly, the Commission determined that the price effects of subject imports

were not significant.

65

In determining threat of material injury, the Commission found that the subject imports

undersold the domestic product in nearly all quarterly comparisons. More important, the pricing trends

generally showed increasing margins of underselling over the period of investigation. When viewed in

conjunction with the declining share of U.S. apparent consumption by U.S. producers, the preference of

certain purchasers for the domestic like product was eroding. The Commission determined that this
 Original Determination at 15. 66

 Original Determination at 16. 67

 Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun concur with their colleagues that, if the order were revoked, 68

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

that those imports would likely have adverse price effects on the prices for the domestic like product. Given the

absence of record evidence, however, concerning current prices and costs for malleable pipe fittings, Vice Chairman

Pearson and Commissioner Okun cannot conclude that prices would likely be either depressed or suppressed by

subject imports in the event of revocation.

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 69

 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude 70

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

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

dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. Commerce expedited its determination in its review of

malleable pipe fittings from China and found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following margins: 15.92 percent for Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co.,

Ltd.; 7.35 percent for Langfang Pannext Pipe Fitting Co., Ltd.; 11.18 percent for Chengde Malleable Iron General

Factory; 11.18 percent for SCE Co., Ltd.; 11.31 percent for Jinan Meide Casting Co., Ltd.; and 111.36 percent for

the PRC-wide rate. Malleable Cast Iron Fittings from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited

(continued...)

12

growing price disparity would likely heighten demand for subject imports and accelerate their penetration

of the market as purchasers increasingly would switch from the domestic product to the subject imports

in order to take advantage of the price differences. The Commission further found that the domestic

66

industry’s strategy at that time was not to set prices in relation to Chinese prices but, rather, to cede

volume to subject imports while maintaining prices at or near current levels. Accordingly, the

Commission did not rely upon a finding of likely price depression or suppression in making its threat of

material injury determination.67

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

explained above, we find that Chinese producers likely would significantly increase exports to the United

States in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty order were revoked. There is nothing

in the record of this review to suggest that price does not continue to be an important factor in purchasing

decisions. Consequently, as in the original investigation, we find that subject imports would be likely to

undersell the domestic like product in order to gain market share. Therefore, we conclude that, if the

order were to be revoked, subject imports from China likely would increase significantly at prices that

likely would undersell the domestic like product and that those imports would likely have a depressing or

suppressing effect on prices for the domestic like product.68

E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

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

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a

bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to the following: (1)

likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization

of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to

raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and production

efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic

like product. All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business 69

cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry. As instructed by the statute, 70
 (...continued) 70

Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 Fed. Reg. 10239 (March 10, 2009). These dumping margins were

the same margins that Commerce calculated in the original less-than-fair value investigation. 68 Fed. Reg. at 69376.

 Original Determination at 12-14. 71

 Original Determination at 13. 72

 See CR/PR at Table I-5. 73

 The domestic industry’s production was *** short tons in 2007 compared to *** short tons in 2002. The 74

domestic industry’s shipments, by quantity, were *** short tons in 2007 compared to *** short tons in 2002. The

industry’s shipments, by value, were $*** in 2007 compared to $*** in 2002. CR/PR at Table I-5.

 The average unit value of the domestic industry’s shipments increased from $*** per short ton in 2002 to $*** 75

per short ton in 2007. CR/PR at Table I-5.

 The Domestic Producers’ operating income ratio was *** percent in 2007 compared to *** percent in 2002. 

76

CR/PR at Table I-5. Anvil reported that it ***, and Ward *** in 2007. CR at I-33, PR at I-22; Domestic Producers’

Response at 6, 10.

 Domestic Producers’ Response at 6. The Domestic Producers also suggest that the high fixed costs of foundry 77

operations and lower production rates have increased per unit costs. At the same time, they cannot curtail operations

to adjust to increased costs because Anvil and Ward each have only one foundry. Id. at 7.

 There is no current information in the record pertaining to many of the other indicators, such as productivity, 78

return on investments, cash flow, wages, ability to raise capital, investment capacity, and employment levels, that we

customarily consider in assessing whether the domestic industry is in a weakened condition.

13

we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related

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

In its original investigation, the Commission found that the subject imports did not have a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry’s performance. Although a number of performance 71

indicators for the domestic industry had declined, the Commission found that the financial condition of

the industry, while diminished, was healthy and that the decline resulted, at least in part, from factors

other than subject imports, including declining apparent U.S. consumption prior to the rise in subject

imports and a consolidation by the domestic industry during the period of investigation. In making its

72

affirmative determination of threat of material injury, the Commission found that the significantly

increased volume and market share of imports in the imminent future would have a significant negative

impact on the domestic industry’s production, capacity, employment levels, and profitability.

There is only limited information on the record concerning the performance and condition of the

domestic industry since the original injury determination. This information pertains only to certain

economic factors and is available only for 2007. These data show that the domestic industry’s 73

production and shipments were lower in 2007 than in 2002, the last full year of the original period of

investigation, although the average unit value of U.S. shipments was higher in 2007 compared to 74

2002. The domestic industry’s financial performance also appears to have deteriorated since the 75

original investigation. The Domestic Producers contend that this factor is the result of the domestic

76

industry’s inability to pass through to its customers the full measure of significant increases in raw

material, energy, and labor benefits costs experienced during the period of review. The limited 77

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

producing malleable pipe fittings is vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of material injury in the

event of revocation of the order.78

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

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

the volume of subject imports, and that this increased volume of subject imports would likely undersell

the domestic like product to a significant degree and significantly depress or suppress U.S. prices for the
 Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun find that the likely significant increase in subject import 79

volume sold at prices that would likely undersell the domestic like product would likely have a significant adverse

impact on the production, shipments, sales, and revenue level of the domestic industry.

14

domestic like product. We find that the intensified subject import competition that would likely occur 79

after revocation of the order would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry,

especially in a period of declining demand. Specifically, the domestic industry would likely lose market

share to subject imports, which would adversely impact production, shipments, sales, and revenue levels

of the domestic industry. This reduction in the industry’s production, shipments, sales, and revenue

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

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

Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty order on malleable pipe fittings from

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

the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine, under section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on malleable pipe fittings from China would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
I-1

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

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

 Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From China, 73 FR 65401, November 3, 2008. All interested parties were 2

requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information requested by the Commission. The Commission’s

notice of institution is presented in app. A.

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

3

notice of initiation of a five-year review of the subject antidumping duty order concurrently with the Commission’s

notice of institution. Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Review, 73 FR 65292, November 3, 2008.

 The Commission received a joint submission from domestic producers Anvil International, LP (“Anvil”), and 4

Ward Manufacturing LLC (“Ward”) (collectively referred to herein as “domestic interested parties”) in response to

its notice of institution for the subject review. The domestic interested parties are represented by the law firm of

Schagrin Associates. The domestic interested parties reported that together they accounted for 90-95 percent of total

U.S. production of malleable fittings in 2007. Response of domestic interested parties, December 23, 2008, p. 11.

 The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties to its notice of institution. 5

 The Commission’s notice of an expedited review appears in app. A. The Commission’s statement on adequacy 6

is presented in app. B.

 Cited Federal Register notices beginning with the Commission’s institution of a five-year sunset review are 7

presented in app. A.

I-3

INTRODUCTION

On November 3, 2008, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Act”), the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave notice that it 1

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

malleable cast iron pipe fittings (“malleable fittings”) from China would be likely to lead to a

continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. On February 6, 2 3

2009, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of

institution was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. In the 4 5

absence of respondent interested party responses and any other circumstances that would warrant the

conduct of a full review, the Commission determined to conduct an expedited review of the antidumping

duty order pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)). The following tabulation 6

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

Effective date Action

Federal Register

citation

November 3, 2008 Commission’s institution of five-year review 73 FR 65401

November 3, 2008 Commerce’s initiation of five-year review 73 FR 65292

February 6, 2009

Commission’s determination to conduct an expedited five-year review

and scheduling of expedited review 74 FR 7703

March 10, 2009 Commerce’s final results for expedited five-year review 74 FR 10239

March 24, 2009 Commission’s vote Not applicable

April 1, 2009 Commission’s determination to Commerce Not applicable
 The petition was filed by Anvil, Portsmouth, NH, and Ward, Blossburg, PA. 8

 Commerce further found that critical circumstances existed with respect to subject imports from China. 

9

Commerce’s determination applied to Chinese producer/exporter Jinan Meide Casting Co. (“JMC”), SCE Co., Ltd.

(“SCE”); and the PRC-wide entity. Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical

Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From The People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 61395, October

28, 2003.

 The Commission, given its determination of no present material injury by reason of subject imports, did not 10

reach the issue of whether critical circumstances existed. Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China: Inv. No. 731-

TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, December 2003, p. 14, fn. 86.

 Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From The People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 11

69376, December 12, 2003.

 Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 12

Part, 74 FR 5821, February 2, 2009.

 Letter from Edward C. Yang, Senior Enforcement Officer, AD/CVD Operations, China/NME Unit, Import 13

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, December 20, 2008. 

I-4

The Original Investigation

On October 30, 2002, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with further material injury by reason

of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of malleable fittings from China. On October 20, 2003, 8

Commerce made an affirmative final LTFV determination and, on November 21, 2003, the Commission 9

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

injury by reason of LTFV imports of malleable fittings from China. After receipt of the Commission’s 10

final affirmative determination, Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on imports of malleable

fittings from China.11

Commerce’s Original Determination and Subsequent Review Determinations

Commerce’s original determination was published on October 28, 2003, and the antidumping

duty order concerning malleable fittings from China was issued on December 12, 2003. Since the

issuance of the antidumping duty order, one administrative review was completed and two were

rescinded. There have been no scope rulings concerning the antidumping duty order, no new shipper

reviews, no changed circumstances determinations, and no duty absorption findings. Commerce is

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

period; however, the preliminary results of Commerce’s administrative review will be released not later

than December 31, 2009.

12

Commerce’s Final Result of Expedited Five-Year Review

On December 20, 2008, Commerce notified the Commission that it did not receive an adequate

response to its notice of initiation from the respondent interested parties with respect to malleable fittings

from China and that it would conduct an expedited review of the order. Commerce issued the final 13

results of its review on March 10, 2009. Commerce concluded that revocation of the antidumping duty

order on malleable fittings from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at

margins determined in its original amended final determination. Information on Commerce’s final

determination, antidumping duty order, preliminary administrative review determination, and final results

of its expedited five-year review is presented in table I-1.
I-5

Table I-1

Malleable fittings: Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty order, administrative reviews, and

final results of expedited five-year review

Action

Effective

date

Federal

Register

citation

Period of

investigation/

review

Antidumping duty margins

FirmspecificPRCwide1

Percent ad valorem

Final determination 10/28/2003 68 FR 61395 04/01/02-09/30/02

Jinan Meide Casting Co. . . . . . . . . . . 11.35

Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co . . . . . 14.32

Langfang Pannext Pipe Fitting Co . . . . 7.35

Chengde Malleable Iron General Factory

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 10.96

SCE Co ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 10.96 111.36

Amended final

determination 11/24/2003 68 FR 65873 04/01/02-09/30/02 2

Jinan Meide Casting Co. . . . . . . . . . . 11.31

Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co . . . . . 15.92

Langfang Pannext Pipe Fitting Co . . . . 7.35

Chengde Malleable Iron General Factory

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 11.18

SCE Co ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 11.18 111.36

Antidumping duty

order 12/12/2003 68 FR 69376 --

Jinan Meide Casting Co. . . . . . . . . . . 11.31

Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co . . . . . 15.92

Langfang Pannext Pipe Fitting Co . . . . 7.35

Chengde Malleable Iron General Factory

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 11.18

SCE Co ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 11.18 111.36

Administrative review 06/29/2006 71 FR 37051 12/02/03-11/30/04

Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co and LDR

Industries, Inc. ... ... ... ... ... ... 9.243

Langfang Pannext Pipe Fitting Co . . . . 6.95

Chengde Malleable Iron General Factory

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 81.64

SCE Co ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 53.64 111.36

Administrative review 02/02/2007 72 FR 5005 12/01/05-11/30/06 ( ) ( )

4 4

Administrative review 01/28/2008 73 FR 4829 12/01/06-11/30/07 ( ) ( )

5 5

Administrative review 02/02/2009 74 FR 5821 12/01/07-11/30/08 -- --

Final results of

expedited five-year

review 03/03/2009 74 FR 10239 --

Jinan Meide Casting Co. . . . . . . . . . . 11.31

Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co . . . . . 15.92

Langfang Pannext Pipe Fitting Co . . . . 7.35

Chengde Malleable Iron General Factory

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 11.18

SCE Co ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 11.18 111.36

 The PRC-wide rate applies to all companies that otherwise have not received a “firm-specific” rate.

1

 Commerce revised the final weighted-average dumping margins following the allegation and correction of ministerial errors. 68 FR 65873, 2

November 24, 2003. 

 Commerce amended the final results of this administrative review to correct ministerial errors made in the calculation of the dumping margin for

3

Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co, Ltd. and LDR Industries Inc. 71 FR 45016, August 8, 2006. As a result of this correction, the dumping margin for

these companies was changed from 14.69 to 9.24. 

 This review was rescinded because both requesting companies withdrew their requests for review. 72 FR 9731, March 5, 2007. 4

 This review was rescinded because both requesting companies withdrew their requests for review. 73 FR 9998, February 25, 2008. 

5

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 19 CFR 159.64(g).

14

 Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2004-08, found at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_ 15

cvd/cont_dump/. 

I-6

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

Qualified U.S. producers of malleable fittings are eligible to receive disbursements from U.S.

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

2000 (“CDSOA”), also known as the Byrd Amendment. Certifications were filed with Customs by two 14

claimants (Anvil and Ward) with respect to malleable fittings from China during 2004-08. No other

CDSOA claims/disbursements were made with respect to the subject merchandise from China prior to

2004. Table I-2 presents CDSOA claims and disbursements for Federal fiscal years 2004-08. 15

Table I-2

Malleable fittings: CDSOA claims and disbursements, Federal fiscal years 2004-08 1 2

Year Claimant

Share of yearly

allocation Certification amount Amount disbursed 3

Percent Dollars

2004

Anvil 25.13 16,302,000.00 720.11

Ward 74.87 48,581,215.00 2,145.97

Total, 2004 100.00 64,883,215.00 2,866.08

2005

Anvil 51.20 90,575,280.00 7,072.09

Ward 48.80 86,417,800.00 6,747.47

Total, 2005 100.00 176,993,080.00 13,819.56

2006

Anvil 50.80 149,784,208.00 1,562,458.76

Ward 49.20 145,043,344.00 1,513,004.92

Total, 2006 100.00 294,827,552.00 3,075,463.68

2007

Anvil 53.40 219,932,749.04 2,776,560.97

Ward 46.60 191,598,922.00 2,418,858.00

Total, 2007 100.00 411,531,671.04 5,195,418.97

2008

Anvil 53.20 232,209,188.08 1,757,480.19

Ward 46.80 204,146,445.00 1,545,086.73

Total, 2008 100.00 436,355,633.08 3,302,566.92

 The Federal fiscal year is October 1-September 30.

1

 No CDSOA claims and disbursements were made with respect to malleable fittings from China prior to 2004. 2

 Qualifying expenditures incurred by domestic producers since the issuance of an order. 3

Source: Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2003-08, found at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add

_cvd/cont_dump/. 
 Malleable Cast-Iron Pipe and Tube Fittings, Inv. No. TA-201-26, USITC Publication 835, September 1977. 16

 Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, Inv. No. 701-TA-221 (Final), USITC Publication 1681, April 17

1985.

 On August 7, 1985, the Commission received a letter from counsel for the petitioner amending the petitions to 18

exclude “groove-lock” pipe fittings. 

 Subsequently, the petition with respect to non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Taiwan was withdrawn and 19

the investigation terminated.

 Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-278-280 20

(Final), USITC Publication 1845, May 1986.

I-7

Previous and Related Commission Investigations and Reviews

On April 13, 1977, the Commission instituted investigation No. TA-201-26 under section 201 of

the Trade Act of 1974 concerning malleable cast iron pipe and tube fittings in response to a petition filed

by the American Pipe Fittings Association (“APFA”). The Commission made a negative determination

in the investigation.16

On January 7, 1980, Commerce made a preliminary determination that the Government of Japan

was providing benefits that might constitute bounties or grants on the manufacture, production, or

exportation of certain malleable cast iron pipe fittings. Accordingly, the Commission instituted

investigation No. 701-TA-9 (Final) under section 703(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”). On March

20, 1980, the Commission terminated the investigation upon written request by petitioner, the APFA.

On September 18, 1984, the Cast Iron Pipe Fittings Committee (“CIPFC”) filed countervailing

duty petitions with the Commission and Commerce on imports from Brazil and India of certain cast-iron

pipe fittings, other than for cast iron soil pipe. On October 9, 1984, following receipt of a letter from

counsel for the petitioners withdrawing the petition relating to imports of the subject merchandise from

India, the Commission discontinued the subsidy investigation concerning India. In the remaining

investigation concerning Brazil, the Commission made final determinations that there were two domestic

like products, malleable cast iron pipe fittings and non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings, other than for

cast iron soil pipe, and made negative determinations concerning both malleable and non-malleable cast

iron pipe fittings which were subsidized by the Government of Brazil.

17

Effective July 31, 1985, the Commission instituted investigation Nos. 731-TA-278-281

(Preliminary) following receipt of antidumping complaints from the CIPFC on malleable cast iron pipe

fittings from Brazil, Korea, and Taiwan and non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings, other than for cast iron

soil pipe, from Taiwan. On January 14, 1986, Commerce published notice of its preliminary

18

determinations that malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Brazil, Korea, and Taiwan were being, or were

likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV and that non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Taiwan

were not being, nor likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Accordingly, effective January 13,

19

1986, the Commission instituted final investigations. The Commission made affirmative determinations

on imports from Brazil, Korea, and Taiwan of malleable cast iron pipe fittings, excluding “groove-lock”

pipe fittings, whether or not advanced in condition by operations or processes (such as threading)

subsequent to the casting process. No information was presented nor arguments made during the

investigations which indicated that the Commission should adopt definitions of the domestic like

products different from those made in the previous subsidy investigation concerning Brazil.

20

On August 29, 1986, antidumping petitions were filed on behalf of the CIPFC alleging that

malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Japan and Thailand were being sold at LTFV. In June 1987, the

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

imports of malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Japan, and in August 1987, the Commission determined
 The Commission rejected arguments presented in the Japan/Thailand investigations that the domestic like 21

product should be defined to also include grooved and/or non-malleable pipe fittings. Certain Malleable Cast-Iron

Pipe Fittings from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-347 (Final), USITC Publication 1987, June 1987, and Certain Malleable

Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Thailand, Inv. No. 731-TA-348 (Final), USITC Publication 2004, August 1987.

 Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-278- 22

280 (Review) and 731-TA-347-348 (Review), USITC Publication 3274, February 2000.

 Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-278-280 23

(Final), USITC Publication 1845, May 1986; Certain Malleable Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Japan, Inv. No. 731-

TA-347 (Final), USITC Publication 1987, June 1987; and Certain Malleable Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Thailand,

Inv. No. 731-TA-348 (Final), USITC Publication 2004, August 1987.

 Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From Japan and the Republic of Korea: Revocation of Antidumping Duty 24

Orders, 70 FR 18368, April 11, 1005. 

 Non-malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-990 (Final), USITC Publication 3586, 25

March 2003, I-3. During the original investigation, petitioners argued that the duties put in place subsequent to the

Commission’s affirmative determination in the non-malleable fittings investigation created an incentive for Chinese

producers to shift production from non-malleable to malleable fittings, thereby increasing their exports of malleable

fittings to the United States. 

 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order on Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From the People’s 26

Republic of China, 73 FR 47887, August 15, 2008. 

I-8

that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of malleable cast

iron pipe fittings from Thailand.21

On January 4, 1999, the Commission instituted reviews to determine whether revocation of the

antidumping duty orders on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Brazil, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and

Thailand would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry. 

After conducting full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act, the Commission determined that

revocation of the antidumping duty orders covering malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Brazil, Taiwan,

and Thailand would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in

the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time and that revocation of the antidumping duty orders

concerning malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Japan and Korea would be likely to lead to continuation

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

time. In each of the original investigations, the Commission had defined the domestic like product as 22

all malleable cast iron pipe fittings other than grooved. In the reviews, no party argued for a different 23

domestic like product definition. The Commission found no need to revisit its original determinations

concerning domestic like product and adopted the same definition as in the original determinations. In

2005, because the domestic interested parties did not participate in the sunset review, Commerce revoked

the antidumping duty orders on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Korea and Japan.24

On February 21, 2002, Anvil and Ward filed a petition with the Commission and Commerce

alleging that the non-malleable iron pipe fittings industry in the United States was being materially

injured and threatened with material injury by reason of imports from China. In March 2003, the

Commission determined that an industry in the United States was threatened with material injury by

reason of imports from China of non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings that were found by Commerce to be

sold in the United States at less than fair value. The Commission further determined that it would not

have found material injury but for the suspension of liquidation. Following affirmative determinations 25

by the Commission and Commerce during the review investigation, the antidumping duty order was

continued in 2008. 

26
 Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 27

69376, December 12, 2003. The excluded metal compression coupling consists of a coupling body, two gaskets, and

two compression nuts. These products range in diameter from 1⁄2 inch to 2 inches and are produced only in a

galvanized finish. This excluded product is imported under HTS number 7307.19.90.80. 

 The written description provided above is dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage. The HTS 28

classification is provided for convenience and for Customs purposes only.

 Malleable fittings imported into the United States have a “free” column 1-special duty rate for eligible goods 29

under the following programs: Generalized System of Preferences, United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement,

United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, North American Free Trade Agreement (Canada

and Mexico), United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement, Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, United

States-Israel Free Trade Area, Andean Trade Preference Act, United States-Jordan Free Trade Area Implementation

Act, Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, United

States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, and United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. 

Eligible imports under the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement enter under a rate of 3.4 percent ad

valorem.

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations duty status. 30

 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, 31

December 2003, p. 6.

I-9

THE PRODUCT

Scope

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

For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain malleable iron pipe fittings,

cast, other than grooved fittings, from the People’s Republic of China. Excluded from

the scope of this order are metal compression couplings.27

Commerce has not received any requests for scope rulings since the original antidumping duty

order date. 

U.S. Tariff Treatment

Subject malleable fittings are provided for in subheading 7307.19.90 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) and are imported under statistical reporting numbers 28

7307.19.9030 (unions), 7307.19.9060 (other, threaded), and 7307.19.9080 (other). Malleable fittings that

are the product of China enter the United States at a column 1-general duty rate of 6.2 percent ad

valorem; a special duty rate of free applies to particular preference- or FTA-eligible goods of other

countries, and the column 2 duty rate is 45 percent ad valorem. 

29 30

Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry

The domestic like product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in

the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the subject merchandise. In its original

determination, the Commission defined the domestic like product as all malleable fittings other than

grooved fittings, co-extensive with the scope. The domestic interested parties indicated in their

31

response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this review that they agree with the definition of the
 Response of domestic interested parties, December 23, 2008, p. 12. 32

 *** reporting U.S. producers directly imported or purchased imports of malleable fittings during the period 33

examined in the original investigation and *** indicated *** corporate relationships with firms that engaged in

importing, exporting, or producing the subject merchandise in China.

 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, 34

December 2003, p. 6. 

 Response of domestic interested parties, December 23, 2008, p. 12. 35

 Short tons. Throughout the remainder of this report, ton will mean short ton unless indicated otherwise. 

36

 Much of the industry information presented throughout this section of the report is from the report issued in the 37

final investigation, Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication

3649, December 2003.

 Iron Castings Handbook, Charles F. Walton (Ed.), Gray and Ductile Iron Founder’s Society, 1971, pp. 94, 38

114.

I-10

domestic like product as set out in the Commission’s notice of institution and its final determination in

the original investigation.32

The domestic industry is the collection of U.S. producers as a whole of the domestic like product,

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

the total domestic production of the product. The original investigation resulted from a petition filed by

Anvil and Ward on October 30, 2002. U.S. industry data presented in the Commission’s staff report in

the original investigation were based on the questionnaire responses of three firms, Anvil, Ward, and

Buck Co., Inc. (“Buck”). These firms were believed to have accounted for virtually all U.S. production

of finished malleable fittings during 2002. In the aggregate, petitioners Anvil and Ward accounted for

*** of reported U.S. production of malleable fittings during 2002, whereas Buck accounted for the

remaining *** percent. There were no related party issues identified in the original investigation. 

33

The Commission defined the domestic industry as all U.S. producers of malleable fittings

corresponding to the scope. The domestic interested parties indicated in their response to the 34

Commission’s notice of institution in this review that they agree with the definition of the domestic

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

investigation. 

35

The domestic interested parties participating in this review indicated in their response to the

Commission’s notice of institution that the structure of the domestic industry has not changed

substantially since the original investigation. That is, they indicated that Anvil, Ward, and Buck remain

the only domestic producers of malleable fittings and that Anvil and Ward together accounted for 90-95

percent of domestic production of malleable fittings during 2007. However, unlike in the original

investigation, domestic producer *** is now a related party. Through its related firm, ***, *** imported

*** tons of subject malleable fittings from China with a value of (***) in 2007. These imports

36

accounted for *** of U.S. imports of malleable fittings from China in 2007 and *** percent of ***

domestic production. The domestic interested parties reported that there are no other related parties that

import the subject merchandise from China.

Physical Characteristics and Uses37

Pipe fittings are generally used for connecting the bores of two or more pipes or tubes,

connecting a pipe to some other apparatus, and changing the direction of fluid flow. They are also used

for closing a pipe. The material from which the subject fittings are made, cast iron, is a general term for

alloys which are primarily composed of iron, carbon (more than 2 percent), and silicon. Made to the 38

American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) and the American Society of Mechanical
 White iron (so-called because of the color of the fractured surface of the cast iron) is sometimes called chilled 39

iron because it is produced by a rapid solidification process. During this process, carbon and iron elements remain

3

chemically combined in colonies of iron carbide (Fe C), which contains 6.67 percent carbon by weight and is formed

more readily than graphite because iron and carbon atoms are not completely separated in the structure. This results

in a hard and brittle cast, which has superior abrasion resistance but is normally unmachinable. Iron Castings

Handbook, Charles F. Walton (Ed.), Gray and Ductile Iron Founder’s Society, 1971, pp. 55, 94, 114-115.

 The overall cooling process takes from 25 to 40 hours to complete. Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China, 40

Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, December 2003, pp. I-5-I-6. 

 Iron Castings Handbook, Charles F. Walton (Ed.), Iron Castings Society, 1981, p. 302. 

41

 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, December 42

2003, pp. I-5-I-6.

 The term “gray” is given because of the gray color of the fractured surface of the cast iron. 43

I-11

Engineers (“ASME”) specifications, iron castings exhibit mechanical properties which are determined by

the cooling rate during and after solidification, by chemical composition, by heat treatment, by design,

and by the nature of the molding technique. During the cooling and solidification processes, carbon is

segregated within the crystalline structure of the iron in the form of iron carbide or graphite, resulting in

different types of cast irons with different physical properties.

There are three basic metallurgical types of cast iron pipe fittings - namely, malleable, nonmalleable (or gray iron), and ductile fittings. These types of fittings and the cast iron from which they

are made are discussed below. 

Malleable Fittings

Malleable iron is initially cast as white iron which, after casting, is subject to a lengthy 39

annealing process which strengthens the cast iron. The annealing process consists of rapidly heating the

casting to approximately 1,750EF, followed by a slow controlled cooling period. This annealing

40

process distinguishes the product from non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings in microstructure and

physical characteristics. Specifically, annealing improves the machinability, ductility, and durability of

the metal by reducing its brittleness. The overall production and heat treatment process performed on

malleable iron fittings distinguishes the product from non-malleable cast iron pipe fittings in chemical

composition, microstructure, material strength, size, and weight. Malleable iron can be specified either

by its tensile properties or by hardness of the casting.41

The principal uses of malleable fittings are in gas lines, piping systems of oil refineries, and

building gas and water systems. In some applications, malleable fittings may be substituted for nonmalleable fittings, but due to the higher cost of the product, such substitution is uneconomical. Malleable

fittings are available in many configurations, the most common being 90-degree elbows, tees, couplings,

crosses, and unions. They are produced in both black (non galvanized) and galvanized form. Malleable 42

fittings are lighter, thinner, stronger, and less brittle than non-malleable cast iron fittings and are used

where shock and vibration resistance is required and where fittings are subject to quick temperature

changes.

Non-Malleable Fittings 

Non-malleable or gray cast iron is defined by the ASTM as cast iron that has fine graphite

43

flakes which are formed during cooling. Gray iron has excellent machinability, wear resistance, and high
 Any time a piece of iron is pulled apart along its length by force, it will be elongated. The stress (or force per 44

unit, measured in pounds per square inch (“psi”) of the cross section of the iron piece) that results in a specified limit

of permanent strain (or the change per unit of length measured in percent) is called the yield strength. Yield strength

is the maximum load that induces a permanent strain in a material, usually at 0.2 percent above the limit. Iron

Castings Handbook, Charles F. Walton (Ed.), Gray and Ductile Iron Founder’s Society, 1971, pp. 205, 668.

 The maximum load a piece of metal will withstand prior to fracture. 45

 Iron Castings Handbook, Charles F. Walton (Ed.), Gray and Ductile Iron Founder’s Society, 1971, pp. 205, 

46

248.

 Ductile fittings are thinner and lighter than gray fittings. 47

 The vast majority of grooved fittings are manufactured using ductile iron. At the time of the original 48

investigation, Anvil produced grooved ductile fittings and Ward did not. Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China,

Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, December 2003, p. I-7.

I-12

hardness value. Yield strength, however, is not a significant property of gray iron. Gray irons exhibit

44

no elastic behavior and are comparatively weak, with a tensile strength ranging from 20,000 to 58,000 45

pounds per square inch (“psi”). The graphite flakes dominate the properties of this material, weakening

the metallic matrix and causing fractures under stress. Fittings produced from non-malleable iron are

used primarily in fire protection/sprinkler systems, but are also sometimes used in the steam conveyance

systems installed in buildings. 

Ductile Fittings

Ductile iron is the latest addition to the family of cast irons, dating from 1940. It is sometimes

referred to as nodular iron or spheroid iron because, as defined by the ASTM, it is a cast iron that has a

very small but definite amount of magnesium added in the liquid state so as to induce the formation of

graphites as spheroids or nodules which remain in the as-cast iron. The characteristics of the particular

ductile fittings are derived from the metallurgical differences imparted during the production process. 

Ductile iron has the ductility of malleable iron and the corrosion resistance of alloy cast iron. It

compares in strength and elastic properties with cast steel and can be stronger than malleable iron, with a

tensile strength ranging from 60,000 to 100,000 psi. Ductile iron fittings are superior to gray cast iron 46

fittings in elastic properties, impact resistance, yield strength/weight, and wear resistance; they are 47

comparable to such fittings in castability, surface hardenability, and corrosion resistance, and are inferior

in ease of machining, vibration damping, and cost of manufacture.

Grooved Fittings

Grooved fittings are specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation. Grooved fittings

are produced from ductile or malleable cast iron and are a different type of fitting from threaded or

flanged fittings in that a split coupling attaches to a circumferential groove near the end of each piece to

be joined. A gasket inside the coupling serves as a seal for the pipe and the coupling. Grooved fittings 48

are used for the same purpose for which threaded or flanged fittings are used.

Manufacturing Process

Cast iron pipe fittings are manufactured using a technologically mature process. It begins with

the making of molten iron in a foundry with fuel provided by foundry coke or an electric furnace. The

raw materials are scrap steel, iron scrap, and other materials such as silicon carbide and carbon. The
 Response of domestic interested parties, December 23, 2008, p. 2. 49

 Further, Anvil stated at the conference that its grooved fittings are made in the same production facility as its

50

malleable fittings. It stated that in most cases they are not manufactured using the same equipment, but that they

could be made on the same equipment. Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final),

USITC Publication 3649, December 2003, p. I-8.

 ***. Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final): Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China-- Staff Report, INV-AA-171, 51

November 7, 2003, p. I-11. 

 Ibid. p. I-11. 

52

 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, 53

December 2003, p. V-1; Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final): Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China-- Staff Report,

INV-AA-171, November 7, 2003, p. V-1. 

I-13

molten iron for cast iron fittings contains approximately 3.5 percent carbon, 2.5 percent silicon, and 0.5

percent manganese by weight, but may vary. 

The casting process begins with the making of a pattern, which has the same external form and

shape as the designed fitting. Sand casting is the predominant method used in the making of malleable

fittings. Molding sand, after being mixed with a binder, is spread around the pattern in a mold, and then

rammed by a machine to compact the sand. The pattern is then withdrawn, leaving a mold cavity in the

sand. Solid molded sand cores are inserted to form the internal shape of the fitting. Two mold halves are

put together with the core in the center. A system of gates, risers, and vents is provided in the casting

cavity to ensure a smooth flow of the molten iron into the mold cavity under gravity. To form the shape

of the fittings, molten iron is poured into the mold cavity. After the iron solidifies, the red-hot fittings are

shaken out of the sand on a shaker table or belt and allowed to cool for four to five hours.

The specific chemical compositions and manufacturing processes of malleable, non-malleable,

and ductile iron fittings differ somewhat, although all are comprised mainly of iron. Cast iron pipe

fittings are available in similar configurations and all are produced using sand casting; however, the

specific molds for the individual castings are reportedly not interchangeable. After casting, the

production of non-malleable and ductile cast iron pipe fittings is essentially complete, except for cooling,

cleaning, and, if necessary, machining, threading, or finishing. In contrast, malleable fittings are

subjected to an additional process of annealing and controlled cooling after casting. This additional

process makes malleable fittings more expensive to produce per pound than both the ductile and nonmalleable ones. Malleable fittings are employed when shock and vibration resistance is required and the

fittings must withstand quick temperature changes.49

The basic manufacturing processes and technologies for iron castings are well-established and

are similar throughout the world. Differences lie mainly in the extent of the application of automatic

equipment and ancillary operations such as environmental control facilities.

During the original investigation, in response to questions on whether it produces other products

on the same machinery and equipment, and using the same production and related workers used to

produce malleable fittings, Anvil responded that ***. Buck reported that ***. Ward reported that 50 51

***.52

Raw Materials

The basic raw materials used in the production of malleable fittings are scrap steel, iron scrap,

silicon carbide and carbon. During the Commission’s final phase investigation, U.S. producers reported

that raw material costs to produce malleable fittings accounted for *** percent of the cost of goods sold

in 2000, *** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002, and *** percent in the first half of 2003. In 2008, 53

estimated raw materials used in all of Anvil’s manufacturing as a percentage of cost of sales were 23
 Mueller Water Products, 2008 Annual Report, p. 13. 

54

 Ibid. Overview, p. 2. 

55

 Ibid. p. 30. 56

 Ibid. 

57

 Ibid. 

58

 Ibid. Overview, p. 3. 

59

 Ward company website, News & Alerts, Price Increase-Malleable and Cast Iron Pipe Fittings, April 1, 2008, 60

April 25, 2008, and September 12, 2008, found at http://www.wardmfg.com/NewsDetails.aspx. 

 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, December 61

2003, pp. 8, I-7. 

 Ibid. pp. 3-7. 

62

 Ibid. pp. II-10-II-12. 

63

 Ibid. 

64

I-14

percent. According to Anvil’s parent company, “there was unprecedented cost increase in 2008 for the 54

raw materials we used to produce our products. For example, the cost of the primary raw material that

we use, scrap iron, at its peak rose 134.4 percent year-over-year, and the cost of other key raw materials

increased as much as 56 percent. In fiscal 2008 the average cost of scrap iron was significantly higher 55

compared to fiscal 2007. However, toward the end of fiscal 2008, scrap iron prices in particular began

declining but Mueller expects raw material costs to remain volatile. 

56

During 2008, both Anvil and Ward implemented price increases to help offset the rising raw

material costs. But by the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008 Anvil’s sales price increases exceeded higher raw

material and purchased component costs. Anvil intends to maintain the sales price increases realized 57

during fiscal year 2008. Going forward, Anvil expects that costs will continue to be volatile but is

58

hopeful that its purchase costs will remain below the peak levels it experienced in 2008.59

Ward made three public price increase announcements for malleable fittings in 2008 and

attributed them all to “continuing increases in our raw material and energy costs.” The first price

increase, announced on April 1, was of 7 percent, the second, announced on April 25, was of 9 percent,

and the third announcement was made on September 12 of 6 percent.60

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

Malleable fittings are produced for the U.S. market to three separate, uniform specifications: a

material specification (ASTM), a dimensional specification (ANSI and ASME), and a thread

specification. Malleable fittings manufactured in the United States and those manufactured in China that

subsequently are sold in the U.S. market meet these standards. During the period examined in the 61

original investigation, the Commission found that “subject fittings are substitutable” and that “subject

imports are fully competitive with the domestic like product on quality.” U.S. producers and importers

62

responding to Commission questionnaires in the original investigation largely agreed that malleable

fittings produced in the United States, China, and other nonsubject countries were interchangeable. The 63

few importers that disagreed cited a price differential or special technical specifications. The 64

Commission found that “customers in the past, prior to the period of investigation, perceived quality

differences between the two ***, but this perception, and any quality gap that existed, have essentially
 Ibid. p. 7. 65

 Response of domestic interested parties, December 23, 2008. 66

 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, 67

December 2003, p. II-7.

 Ibid. pp. 7-9. 

68

 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, December 69

2003, p. II-1. 

 Ibid. p. 3. 

70

 U.S. producers’ sales to wholesalers accounted for *** percent of the total quantity sold in 2000 and *** 71

percent in 2001. Individually, Anvil sold *** percent of its total quantity of malleable fittings to retailers in 2000,

*** percent in 2001, and *** percent in 2002. During the first half of 2003, Anvil sold *** percent of its total

quantity of malleable fittings to retailers. Ward *** malleable fittings to retailers during the period examined.

I-15

dissipated.” The domestic interested parties in this review did not address interchangeability in their

65

response to the Commission’s notice of institution.66

Substitute Products

 In the final phase of the original investigation, the Commission reported that 10 out of 23

importers that provided a response to the Commission’s questionnaire indicated that there were no

substitutes for malleable fittings, three reported a lack of information, and the remaining 10 reported that

various types of hoses, piping, flexible tubing, and plastic fittings could be used as substitutes for

malleable fittings. Of the ten importers that listed substitute products, four indicated that substitute

products had reduced demand for malleable fittings. Twenty-eight purchasers addressed the issue of

substitution in the final phase investigation, with 17 reporting no substitutes and 11 reporting one or

more substitutes. The most common responses regarding substitutes again fell into the categories of

plastic tubing, flexible tubing, stainless steel tubing, and copper tubing. Five of the purchasers listing

substitute products reported that substitutes have reduced demand for malleable products, three

purchasers reported that substitutes have not affected demand, two purchasers did not provide an answer,

and one purchaser indicated that the impact of substitutes on demand could not yet be quantified.67

Substituting the subject product for other products was also addressed and the Commission concluded

that “in some applications, malleable fittings may be substituted for nonmalleable fittings, but due to the

higher cost of the malleable product, such substitution is uneconomical.”68

Channels of Distribution

The U.S. market for malleable fittings is divided into two channels, wholesale and retail. 

Broadly speaking, the wholesale segment supplies building contractors while the retail segment is

composed of hardware stores, both national chains and small, local hardware stores. During the final 69

investigation, the Commission concluded that the domestic like product and subject imports compete

directly in both channels.70

U.S. producers of malleable fittings typically sell to wholesalers, which in turn sell to

distributors, retail outlets, or directly to end users. While U.S. producers sold approximately *** percent

of their malleable fittings to wholesalers in 2002, importers of malleable fittings from China reported 71

that sales to wholesalers accounted for 55.0 percent of their total quantity sold in 2002. In 2000 and
 These statistics are based upon quantity information for the eight malleable fitting products reported in the 72

importer questionnaires. Fifteen of 24 importers provided usable quantity data for the wholesale market; not all

importers provided data for all periods and/or products.

 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, December 73

2003, p. 3. 

 Ibid. 74

 Mueller Water Products, 2008 Annual Report, p. 14. 

75

 Anvil company website, Frequently Asked Questions, Q16, found at 76

http://www.anvilintl.com/about/index.php?PG=faq&QN=16; Ward company website, About Us, found a

http://www.wardmfg.com/aboutus.aspx. 

 Mueller Water Products, 2008 Annual Report, p. 6. 

77

 Ibid. p. 14. 

78

 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, December 79

2003, pp. 11-12. 

I-16

2001, these same importers reported that sales to the wholesale market were 56.2 and 60.7 percent,

respectively.72

During the original investigation there was an increasing overlap in customers between the two

channels. Large hardware chains began to routinely offer malleable fittings to contractors, who

traditionally purchased from wholesalers rather than retailers. Based on this evidence the Commission

concluded that the line between the two segments was blurring. 

73

The Commission also observed that both channels, wholesale and retail, experienced

consolidation in recent years. For example, The Home Depot, Inc. acquired National Waterworks 74

Holdings, Inc. in 2005, and then acquired Hughes Supply Inc. in March 2006. These businesses have

been merged into one entity operating as HD Supply, which became an independent company in August

2007. Mueller Water Products (“Mueller”), Anvil’s parent company, reports that this consolidation

resulted in two of its three historically largest distributors being combined under common control and

that if consolidation among distributors continues, pricing pressure may result, which could lead to a

decline in sales and profitability.75

Both Anvil and Ward have established nationwide distributor networks for their total product

lines, including malleable fittings. Anvil reports that there are over 5,000 distributors nationwide and

Ward claims that its distributor network maintains inventories in thousands of locations across the United

States and Canada. Anvil’s sales in the United States are primarily to distributors who then sell its 76

products to a wide variety of end users including commercial contractors. Anvil’s parent company, 77

Mueller, reported that approximately 24 percent of its fiscal 2008 net sales were to its three largest

distributors: HD Supply, Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., and American Water Works Supply. Mueller

reportedly does not have written contracts with any of its major distributors. 

78

Pricing

During the period examined in the original investigation, the Commission found underselling by

the subject imports to be consistent and significant. Nevertheless, the Commission did not find price

suppression or depression. Rather, the pricing data showed that prices for the domestic product increased

over the period of investigation, notwithstanding the overall decline in apparent U.S. consumption. 

79

In the Commission’s original investigation, the questionnaire data showed that prices for

domestic malleable fittings increased over the period of investigation from *** percent to *** percent for

product sold to retailers and from *** percent to *** percent for product sold to wholesalers,
 Ibid. p. V-29, Table V-17; Confidential views of the Commission, p. 15. 

80

 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, December 81

2003, p. 3. 

 Product number *** was defined as ***. Ibid. 82

 Product number *** was defined as ***. Ibid. 

83

 Product number *** was defined as ***. Ibid. 

84

 Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final): Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China-- Staff Report, INV-AA-171, 85

November 7, 2003, pp. V-3-V-20. 

 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, December 86

2003, p. II-9. 

 Mueller Water Products, 2008 Annual Report, pp. 9, 14. 

87

 A fourth firm, Lancaster Malleable Casting Co. (“Lancaster”), believed to be a ***, indicated that it intended 88

to permanently shut down its production of malleable fittings on or about March 30, 2003. Malleable Iron Pipe

Fittings From China, Confidential Staff Report, INV-AA-171, November 7, 2003, p. III-1, fn. 1. Lancaster was

founded in 1910 but by 2000 was trying to reinvent itself and compete with a growing technology that allows

companies that once depended upon foundries to make their casting, to do the work themselves. Finger, John R.,

Casting a future, Central Penn Business Journal, February 4, 2000, found at http://www.allbusiness.com/northamerica/united-states-pennsylvania. 

 Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final): Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China-- Staff Report, INV-AA-171, 89

November 7, 2003, pp. III-1-III-2, Table III-1. 

I-17

notwithstanding the overall decline in apparent U.S. consumption. Prices for malleable fittings from 80

China decreased overall and the Commission observed that the growing price disparity would likely

heighten demand for subject imports and accelerate penetration of the market by subject imports.81

During the original investigation the Commission collected pricing data for sales to retail and

wholesale purchasers of eight products. Domestic producers sold product number *** for *** of $*** 82

per ton to retailers and $*** per ton to wholesalers and product number *** for *** of $*** per ton to 83

retailers and $*** per ton to wholesalers. Importers reported the lowest prices for product number ***84

with sales of $*** per ton to retailers and $*** per ton to wholesalers and the highest prices for product

number *** with sales of $*** per ton to retailers and $*** per ton to wholesalers. 

85

In the original investigation, purchasers identified the three major factors considered by their

firm in deciding from whom to purchase malleable fittings. Quality and price were considered the most

important; quality was ranked first most frequently and price was ranked both second and third most

frequently. According to its parent, Mueller, “Anvil’s products in particular compete on the basis of 86

price” and “the competitive environment for Anvil’s products is highly competitive, price sensitive and

vulnerable to the increased acceptance of products produced in perceived low-cost countries, such as

China and India.”

87

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

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

responses of three domestic producers that accounted for almost all U.S. production of malleable

fittings. The three U.S. producers that participated in the original investigation and their shares of total 88

domestic production during 2002 were as follows: Anvil (*** percent), Buck (*** percent), and Ward

(*** percent).89
 Response of domestic interested parties, December 23, 2008, p. 10. 90

 Mueller is a leading North American manufacturer and marketer of a broad range of water infrastructure and 91

flow control products for use in water distribution networks and treatment facilities. It also acts as a distributor for

products that are manufactured by other companies. Its broad product portfolio includes engineered valves,

hydrants, ductile iron pipe, and pipe fittings, which are used by municipalities as well as by the commercial and

residential construction, oil and gas, HVAC, and fire protection industries. Mueller reported fiscal 2008 net sales of 

$1.86 billion and is comprised of three main operating segments: Mueller Co., U.S. Pipe, and Anvil. Based in

Atlanta, GA, the company employs, as of September 2008, approximately 6,500 people, of whom about 5,850

people worked in the United States. Mueller Water Products, Inc., 2008 Annual Report.

 Anvil company website, Timeline, found at 92 http://www.anvilintl.com/about/index.php?PG=timeline. 

 Anvil company website, About Anvil, Frequently Asked Questions, Q5, found at 93

http://www.anvilintl.com/about/index.php?PG=faqs&QN=5. 

 Anvil company website, About Anvil, Frequently Asked Questions, Q7, found at 94

http://www.anvilintl.com/about/index.php?PG=faqs&QN=5. 

I-18

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

producers of malleable fittings: Anvil, Buck, and Ward. Anvil and Ward responded to the 90

Commission’s notice of institution of this review; Buck is not participating. Details regarding each

firm’s location and company shares of 2002 and 2007 total domestic production of malleable fittings are

presented in table I-3. 

Table I-3

Malleable fittings: U.S. producers, locations, and company shares of 2002 and 2007 total domestic

production

Firm Location

Share of 2002 reported

production (percent)

Estimated share of 2007

domestic production

(percent)

Anvil Columbia, PA *** ***

Buck Quarryville, PA *** ( )

1

Ward Blossburg, PA *** ***

 Total

100.0 100.0

 Not available. 1

Source: Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final): Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China-- Staff Report, INV-AA-171, November 7, 2003,

Table III-1. Response of domestic interested parties, December 23, 2008, exh. 10. 

Anvil

Anvil is headquartered in Portsmouth, NH, and is wholly owned by Mueller of Atlanta, GA.91

Anvil’s predecessor, Grinnell, began producing and selling pipe products in the 1850's. In 2000, Tyco

sold the distribution and manufacturing operations known as Grinnell, and they were renamed Anvil

International. Today, Anvil manufactures and sells piping connections and support systems including 92

fittings, flanges, unions, couplings, nipples, valves, pipe hangers and supports. The primary markets for 93

these products are: heating, ventilating and air conditioning (“HVAC”)/industrial, plumbing, fire

protection, mining, oil field, offshore, process and industrial piping, original equipment manufacture

(“OEM”), power plants, and water and waste water treatment. The company operates 11 manufacturing 94

facilities in the United States and Canada, which include foundry, machining, fabrication, assembly,

testing, and painting operations. Anvil reported that it utilizes highly automated vertical and horizontal
 Mueller Water Products, 2008 Annual Report, p. 8. 95

 Ibid. pp. 6-8. 96

 Mueller Water Products, 2008 Annual Report, p. 4. 97

 Ibid. p. 2. 

98

 Mueller Water Products company website, Press Release, found at http://phx.corporate- 99

ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=1966666666762&p=irol-news.Art. 

 Buck company website, A Look Back, found at http://www.buckcompany.com/Buck History.aspx. 

100

 Buck company website, Home, found at http://www.buckcompany.com/Buck History.aspx. 

101

 Buck company website, Casting Applications, found at http://www.buckcompany.com/Buck History.aspx. 

102

 Gibbs, Shea, Bucking up to go lean, Modern Casting, October 1, 2006, found at 103

http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/plastics-rubber-products/. 

 Ward company website, About Us, found at 104 http://www.wardmfg.com/aboutus.aspx. 

I-19

green sand molding equipment and computer controlled machines. The company expects to continue to

invest in modern manufacturing technology to maintain its competitiveness in quality and productivity.95

Through its network of wholesale distributors, which are serviced through regional distribution centers,

Anvil’s products are sold to end users, including commercial construction contractors, municipalities,

publicly and privately owned water and wastewater utilities, and gas utilities.96

Anvil’s net sales of all products were $595.2 million, $555.8 million, and $534.6 million in fiscal

2008, 2007, and 2006, respectively. In 2008, Anvil’s number one product line was pipe fittings and

97

couplings followed by a tie between grooved products and pipe hangers.98

Recently Anvil’s parent company announced steps to reduce costs and to match production with

market demand. These steps include temporary plant shutdowns, pay reductions of 20 percent for

members of the board and most executive officers, and reductions in base pay and/or reduced workweeks

for other salaried employees.99

Buck

Buck, which is located in Quarryville, PA, began in 1951 as a small ferrous foundry. It expanded

and upgraded to include a non-ferrous foundry in 1953 and ductile and gray iron casting was added in

1969. Today Buck describes itself as “a jobbing foundry that has the unique ability to produce 100

medium and long run casting orders in a variety of metals.” Buck casts malleable, ductile and gray 101

iron ferrous alloys as well as non-ferrous alloys for a variety of markets including construction, fittings,

valves, tools and hardware, railroad and transit, automotive, recreation, and agriculture. According to 102

Buck’s president, Dick McGinn, “With foundries continuing to close, we believe there is a growing need

for nonferrous castings.” To obtain new work, Buck added three pieces of equipment and five furnaces

to its aluminum and brass operation in 2006. In 2004, nonferrous castings made up 11 percent of the

company’s business and by mid-2006 had grown to 26 percent of sales.103

Ward

Ward, headquartered in Blossburg, PA, was founded in 1924. Initially a small cast iron steam

and drainage fittings producer, in 1928 malleable iron fittings were introduced. Ward produces a full

104

line of malleable pipe fittings and unions, cast iron pipe fittings, and nipples, along with corrugated
 Ward company website, Product Info, found at 105 http://www.wardmfg.com/. 

 When a trade ruling made it no longer financially feasible for HML to export malleable iron fittings to the 106

United States, an important market for HML, the company sought a domestic pipe fitting business to acquire and

chose Ward. Lessiter, Michael J., ACP: Ward manufacturing’s new state-of-the-art foundry, Modern Casting,

found at http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/fabricated-metal-product, Ward Manufacturing website at

http://www.wardmfg.com/; and Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. website at http://www.hitachimetals.com/. 

 Ward company website, History, found at 107 http://www.wardmfg.com/aboutus.aspx. 

I-20

stainless steel gas piping systems. In 1990, Ward was acquired by Tokyo-based Hitachi Metals Ltd. 105

(“HML”) and today is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd. In 2006, Ward 106

acquired Wisconsin Nipple and Fitting Corp. of Milwaukee, WI, a manufacturer of carbon welded and

seamless pipe nipples for the industrial pipe-valve-fittings market, and stainless steel and brass nipples

for sprinkler and plumbing applications.107

Table 1-4

Malleable fittings: U.S. producers, alloys, melting furnace, production processes, products, and

end-use applications

Firm Alloys Melting furnace

Production

processes Products

End-use

applications

Anvil1

•Malleable iron

•Non-malleable iron •Electric furnace

•Gas hardened/

cold box

•Green sandhorizontally parted

•Green sandvertically parted

•Fittings, groove

fittings, unions,

couplings, hangers,

nipples, valves, forged

steel fittings

•Maximum weight: 30

pounds

•O.D. size: 1/8" to 4"

•HVAC, plumbing,

mechanical, fire

protection,

mining, oil,

natural gas

Buck2

•Malleable iron

•Non-malleable iron

•Ductile iron

•Aluminum and

copper based alloys •Electric furnace

•Gas hardened/

cold box

•Green sandhorizontally parted

•Fittings, valves, tools,

hardware

•Maximum weight: 70

pounds 

•Automotive,

railroad and

transit, electric

utility,

construction,

recreation,

agriculture, 

conveying,

ornamental items

Ward

•Malleable iron

•Non-malleable iron

•Ductile iron •Cupola

•Green sandhorizontally parted

•Fittings, pipe unions,

plugs and bushings,

beam and C clamps,

flanges, unions

•Maximum weight: 30

pounds

•O.D. size: 1/8" to 4"

•HVAC, plumbing,

oil, natural gas,

sprinkler

systems,

automotive

 A subsidiary of Mueller Water Products, headquartered in Atlanta, GA.

1 

 A subcontractor of Anvil and Ward. 2

Source: American Foundry Society (AFS) and company websites.
 Response of domestic interested parties, December 23, 2008, p. 11. 108

 This decrease in capacity was ***. Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), 109

USITC Publication 3649, December 2003, p. III-2; Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final): Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings

From China-- Staff Report, INV-AA-171, November 7, 2003, p. III-2, fn. 2. 

 Ibid. p. III-4. 

110

 Ibid. p. III-4. 

111

 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, 112

December 2003, p. VI-1-VI-2. 

 Response of domestic interested parties, December 23, 2008, pp. 6-7. 

113

 Ibid. p. 7. 

114

I-21

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

Data reported by U.S. producers of malleable fittings in the Commission’s original investigation

and in response to its five-year review institution notice are presented in table I-5. Data presented for

2000-02 and January-June 2002 and 2003 were provided by three producers (Anvil, Buck, and Ward)

that were believed to have represented nearly 100 percent of the U.S. production of malleable fittings

during 2002. Data presented for 2007 were provided by two producers (Anvil and Ward) that are

believed to have represented 90-95 percent of U.S. malleable fitting production during the period of

review.108

Table I-5

Malleable fittings: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 2000-02, January-June

2002, January-June 2003, and 20071

* * * * * * *

During the period examined in the original investigation, the domestic industry producing

malleable fittings experienced a *** percent decline in capacity. Total U.S. production of malleable 109

fittings decreased by *** percent from 2000 to 2002. U.S. shipment volume similarly decreased by ***

percent overall, although unit values peaked at $*** per ton in 2002, the year in which the capacity

utilization rate was lowest. Transfers to related firms and internal shipments ***. The industry’s 110

export shipments, averaged only about *** percent of total shipment volume and were made exclusively

by *** to ***. Average hours worked decreased during the period examined, and hourly wages 111

increased steadily by relatively small increments. The operating income margin decreased and the

volume of total net sales declined from 2000 to 2002. The average cost of goods sold (“COGS”)

increased faster than the rise in average unit value of sales, resulting in a lower gross profit. Moreover,

the selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses in absolute dollars declined but increased per

ton due to the lower volume, contributing to the lower operating income in 2002. 

112

During the period examined in this five-year review (2003-07), production volume, U.S.

commercial shipment volume, value, and unit value, and operating income for calendar year 2007 are the

only industry indicators available. U.S. production in 2007 was lower than production during the

original investigation, by *** percent compared to 2000 and by *** percent compared to 2002.

Anvil and Ward claim to have significant reductions in malleable fittings capacity utilization

rates in latter 2008, a trend they say will accelerate in 2009 even with the continuation of the order.113

Both producers operate a single foundry and cannot reduce costs by curtailing operations at one of

multiple units. Anvil reported that as a result of reduced demand for its products, many manufacturing 114

facilities are operating at volumes less than their optimal capacity. These and similar inefficiencies result

in higher per unit labor and overhead costs than under optimal operating conditions. These conditions
 Mueller Water Products, 2008 Annual Report, p. 30. 115

 Response of domestic interested parties, December 23, 2008, p. 6. 116

 Ibid. 

117

 Ibid. pp. 6, 10. The domestic interested parties reported ***. 118

 Ibid. p. 6. 119

 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, 120

December 2003, p. IV-1.

 Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final): Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China-- Staff Report, INV-AA-171, 121

November 7, 2003, p. III-6. 

 Response of domestic interested parties, December 23, 2008, p. 11. 

122

 Response of domestic interested parties, December 23, 2008, exh. 8. 123

I-22

may continue until there is significant improvement in demand for Anvil’s products or the company takes

further steps to reduce capacity.115

In their response to the Commission’s notice of institution, the domestic producers stated that the

antidumping duty order on imports of malleable fittings from China has had a significant beneficial

impact on the domestic industry because the order curtailed the increase of imports during a period of

increasing demand. The antidumping duty order, they claim, allowed the domestic industry “to stabilize

after years of deteriorating operations by obtaining a portion of the demand increase between 2003 and

2007.”116

The domestic interested parties noted in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution

in this review that despite stabilization following the order, the domestic industry continues to be

vulnerable to unfairly traded imports because of the current business climate, namely the reduction in

demand for malleable fittings. The domestic industry also argues that it has not experienced a significant

recovery since 2002, in part due to the decline in residential and commercial building markets. In their

117

response to the notice of institution, Anvil reported that it *** and Ward *** in 2007. Their

118

performance was attributed, in part, to an “inability to pass through significant increases in raw material,

energy, and labor benefit costs during the period of review.”

119

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

U.S. Imports

During the original investigation, 24 firms provided requested trade data to the Commission.

However, because the volume of imports reported in questionnaire responses was well below that of the

official import statistics, official import statistics as compiled by Commerce were presented in the final

staff report. *** of the three U.S. producers of malleable fittings ***. *** is the only domestic

120 121

producer that imported the subject product during the review period. *** related party imports were ***

tons at a cost of $*** in 2007.122

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

parties listed the following seven companies that they believe to be importers of subject merchandise

from China: B&K Industries, Inc.; JDH Pacific Inc.; LDR Industries, Inc.; Matco-Norca; PanNext

Fittings Corp.; Smith-Cooper International; and Star Pipe Products Co. Table I-6 below provides 123

publicly available information on each company. 
I-23

Table I-6

Malleable fittings: Importer, headquarters, business, and products

Importer Headquarters Business Products

B&K Industries Elk Grove, IL

•Claims to be the largest import

distributor of residential

plumbing products in the U.S.

•105,000 sq ft facility in IL

•7 distribution points in U.S. •Residential plumbing products

JDH Pacific Norwalk, CA

•5 warehouses in U.S. (CA, OK,

PA, TX, WI)

•China branch offices in Beijing,

Shanghai

•Construction castings; fittings,

automotive, electric machine

and flow control casting

LDR Industries Chicago, IL

•250,000 sq ft manufacturing

and distribution facility in IL

•Facilities in FL, and 3 cities in

China

•Plumbing products; malleable

fittings, nipples, pipe

Matco-Norca Brewster, NY

•Claims to be the largest

independent distributor of

malleable fittings, steel nipples,

valves and plumbing specialties

in the U.S.

•Warehouse and distribution in

CA, TX •Sells Chinese and Thai fittings

PanNext Fittings

Corp. Houston TX

•Affiliated with PanNext Pipe

Fitting Co., Ltd., a producer in

China ( )

1

Smith-Cooper Intl. Commerce, CA ( )

1

•Malleable iron pipe fittings,

couplings, flanges, nipples, 

valves

•Sells Chinese and Thai fittings

Star Pipe Products Houston, TX 2

•Manufactures and distributes

iron products for the water and

wastewater industry. 

•14 distribution centers (13 U.S.,

1 Canada)

•Fittings, castings, joint

restraints

Table continued on next page. 
 In 2002, the majority of imports from nonsubject countries came from Thailand, which accounted for 18.2 124

percent of the volume of total imports of malleable fittings and 49.9 percent of the volume of imports from

nonsubject countries. Also, imports from Mexico accounted for 9.5 percent of the volume of total imports in 2002

and 25.9 percent of the volume of imports from nonsubject countries.

I-24

Table I-6--Continued

Malleable fittings: Importer, headquarters, business, and products

 Not available. 

1

 ***. 

 2

Source: Company websites, http://www.bk-ind.com/BK/index.html, http://www.jdhpacific.com/history.html,

http://www.ldrind.com/Contact.html, http://www.matco-norca.com/, http://www.pannext.com/contact/contact.html,

http://www.smithcooper.com/malleable_iron.htm, http://www.starpipeproducts.com/. 

Malleable fittings import data for annual periods 2000-07 are presented in table I-7. The volume

of U.S. imports of malleable fittings from China increased by 54.2 percent from 2000 to 2002, declined

slightly from 2000 to 2001, and then increased by 54.8 percent from 2001 to 2002. The trend was similar

for the value of U.S. imports from China. The quantity of imports from nonsubject countries increased

by 19.6 percent from 2000 to 2002, decreased by 5.4 percent from 2000 to 2001, but then increased by 124

26.5 percent in 2002. The value of imports from nonsubject countries increased by 65.8 percent from

2000 to 2002.

Since the period of the original investigation, the volume of U.S. imports of malleable fittings

from China increased by 37.6 percent, from 2003-07, while the value of these imports increased by 91.2

percent. From 2003-07, the quantity of imports from nonsubject countries decreased overall by 40.5

percent, and the value of imports from nonsubject countries decreased by 14.0 percent. 
 Mexico accounted for the largest share of malleable fittings imports in 2005, 21.1 percent. 125

I-25

Table I-7

Malleable fittings: U.S. imports, by source, 2000-071

Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Quantity (short tons)

China 13,492 13,443 20,809 18,210 21,310 25,780 28,858 25,065

 All Others 9,988 9,446 11,946 16,540 21,525 21,490 13,776 9,838

1

 Total imports 23,480 22,889 32,755 34,750 42,835 47,270 42,634 34,903

Value ($1,000)

China 21,029 20,395 30,276 24,354 26,539 35,250 41,880 46,577

 All Others 24,636 22,253 40,837 54,139 73,226 67,494 53,411 46,568 1

 Total imports 45,665 42,649 71,113 78,493 99,764 102,744 95,291 93,145

Unit value (per short ton)

China $1,559 $1,517 $1,455 $1,337 $1,245 $1,367 $1,451 $1,858

 All Others $2,466 $2,356 $3,418 $3,273 $3,402 $3,141 $3,877 $4,734 1

 Average total imports $1,945 $1,863 $2,171 $2,259 $2,329 $2,174 $2,235 $2,669

Share of quantity (percent)

China 57.5 58.7 63.5 52.4 49.7 54.5 67.7 71.8

 All Others 42.5 41.3 36.5 47.6 50.3 45.5 32.3 28.2 1

 Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 The largest “other” sources and their respective shares of the total quantity of imported malleable fittings during 2007 include 1 

the following: Thailand (12.5) percent, Taiwan (4.8 percent), Mexico (4.3 percent), and Canada (3.3 percent).

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

Source: Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, December 2003. Table

IV-2; Official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting numbers 7307.19.9030, 7307.19.9060, and 7307.19.9080 (2003-07). 

Leading Nonsubject Sources of Imports

During the period for which data were collected, imports of malleable fittings entered the United

States from a variety of sources. Canada, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and Thailand were the largest

nonsubject sources of imports during 2000-07, together accounting for 26.0 percent of total U.S. imports

and 92.3 percent of nonsubject U.S. imports during 2007. The single largest nonsubject source of

malleable fittings during 2000-07 was Thailand, which accounted for the largest share of imports in every

year, except 2005, and 12.5 percent of total U.S. imports of malleable fittings during 2007. Other 125

relatively large nonsubject sources and their respective shares of the total quantity of imported malleable

fittings during 2007 include the following: Canada (3.3 percent), Mexico (4.3 percent), and Taiwan (4.8

percent). During the period examined by the Commission in the final phase of the original investigation,

the total quantity of imports of malleable fittings from all nonsubject sources increased by 19.6 percent
I-26

from 9,988 tons in 2000 to 11,946 tons in 2002. This upward trend continued in 2003 and nonsubject

imports reached their highest volume in 2004. This upward trend then reversed, and since 2004,

nonsubject imports have decreased by 54.3 percent. The average unit value of all nonsubject imports rose

irregularly from $2,466 per ton in 2000 to $3,418 per ton in 2002, and again from $3,273 per ton in 2003

to $4,734 per ton in 2007. The unit values of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries were consistently

higher than the average unit values of subject imports from China, ranging from a low of $839 per ton in

2001 to a high of $2,876 per ton in 2007.

Ratio of Imports to U.S. Production

Information concerning the ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production of malleable fittings is

presented in table I-8. Subject imports of malleable fittings from China amounted to *** percent of U.S.

production during 2000, increased to *** percent during 2001, and then nearly doubled to *** percent in

2002. Subject imports of malleable fittings from China were equivalent to *** percent of U.S.

production during 2007. The ratio of nonsubject imports to domestic production increased during the

period examined in the final phase of the Commission’s original investigation and by 2007 nonsubject

imports amounted to *** percent of U.S. production.

Table I-8

Malleable fittings: Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production, by sources, 2000-02, January-June

2002, January-June 2003, and 20071

* * * * * * *

Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares are presented in table I-9. The volume of

apparent U.S. consumption of malleable fittings declined by *** percent between 2000 and 2002.

Apparent consumption quantity in 2007 was less than apparent consumption during the original period,

2000-02, and was *** percent less than apparent consumption in 2002. 

The domestic producers’ market share based on quantity fell from *** percent in 2000 to ***

percent in 2001, and decreased further to *** percent in 2002 and reached *** percent in the first six

months of 2003. The subject imports from China gained market share from *** percent in 2000 to ***

percent in 2002, but China’s market share during January-June 2003 was lower at *** percent than that

reported for the comparable period in 2002. The domestic malleable fittings industry in 2007 held an

estimated *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption on the basis of quantity and an estimated ***

percent on the basis of value. On the other hand, China held a *** percent share of the U.S. market in

2007 on the basis of quantity and other sources held a *** percent share.

Table I-9

Malleable fittings: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption,

2000-02, January-June 2002, January-June 2003, and 2007

* * * * * * *

Domestic demand for malleable fittings in the United States is derived from the demand for the

systems that incorporate malleable fittings. The demand for systems that incorporate malleable fittings
 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, 126

December 2003, p. 7. 

 Response of domestic interested parties, December 23, 2008, p. 3. 

127

 The decrease in building is tied to the recession that economists say started in December 2007 when the U.S. 128

economy reached a peak after 73 months of expansion. Ibid. p. 3, and exh. 1, 5.

 Mueller Water Products, 2008 Annual Report, p. 13. 

129

 Ibid. pp. 12, 30. 

130

 Mueller Water Products, 2008 Annual Report, Overview, p. 3. 

131

 Slow Growth Forecast, Modern Casting, January 2009, p. 34. 132

 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, 133

December 2003, p. VII-4.

 During the original investigation, *** questionnaire response also indicated that antidumping duties were 134

imposed on malleable fittings from China by Turkey in April 2000 and by Argentina in April 2003. Inv. No. 731-

TA-1021 (Final): Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China-- Staff Report, INV-AA-171, November 7, 2003, p.

VII-4, fn. 22. 

 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, 135

December 2003, p. VII-4.

I-27

tends to follow demand for new and retrofit construction in the residential and commercial/industrial

building markets.126

The domestic interested parties indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of

institution that competitive conditions in the domestic malleable fittings industry have changed little

since the original investigation. Pointing to the correlation between malleable fittings demand and

construction, they credit the dramatic contraction of building markets with the decrease in demand for

malleable fittings. The domestic producers refer to National Association of Home Builders’ data to 127

show that total housing starts fell to a 25-year low in September 2008 and compared to September 2007

were down by 31.1 percent. Remarking on non-residential construction, Anvil’s parent company 128

expects decreased non-residential construction activity in 2009 compared to 2008, especially in the latter

part of the year. According to Mueller, independent forecasts for 2009 non-residential construction

activity indicated a decline of 5 percent to 6 percent compared to 2008.129

Although residential and non-residential construction activity is cyclical, it is unclear when the

current decline will subside. Because Anvil’s products are typically used towards the completion of a 130

construction project, it believes that it will see the bottom of the housing market before the economy in

general. However, Anvil’s parent company expects to see a delay in recovery of spending on residential

infrastructure, because the existing supply of developed land where the water infrastructure has already

been installed will need to be sold before new residential development is likely to begin. According to 131

Modern Casting, from 2008 through 2010, the market for steel valves and fittings will decrease by 7.8

percent and the long term average annual growth rate will be zero percent because of high import

quantities.132

ANTIDUMPING ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

On August 18, 2000, the European Union (“EU”) reportedly imposed antidumping duties of 49.4

percent ad valorem on malleable fittings from China. “Malleable iron connections” from China are also

subject to an antidumping duty order in Mexico. In October 2002, Brazil reportedly imposed an 133

antidumping duty order on malleable fittings from China. Finally, in April 2003, Argentina reportedly

134

imposed an antidumping duty order on malleable fittings from China. In their response to the 135

Commission’s notice of institution, the domestic producers stated that to the best of their knowledge,
 Response of domestic interested parties, December 23, 2008, p. 8. 

136

 Response of domestic interested parties, December 23, 2008, pp. 8-9. 

137

 Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final): Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China-- Staff Report, INV-AA-171, 138

November 7, 2003, p. VII-1.

 Response of domestic interested parties, December 23, 2008, exh. 9. 139

 Response of domestic interested parties, December 23, 2008, exh. 6. 140

 Bai Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd., Owner, FindOwner Search, found at 141

http://www.findownersearch.com/owner/beijing-sai-lin-ke-hardware. 

 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, News from CPSC, Release #08-205, March 4, 2008, found at 142

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08205.html. 

 Huang Shan & Co. law firm website, International Trade Practice, Representative Cases, Malleable Iron Pipe 143

Fittings, found at http://www.hslegal.com.cn/practice.php?id=02. 

I-28

they believe that orders from Argentina, Brazil, the EU and Turkey have expired. However, Argentina 136

initiated a new dumping investigation on October 31, 2008 that includes the subject product. The

domestic interested parties argue that sunsetting the order in Argentina led to a renewed import surge and

a new investigation and caution that this predicts what could happen in the United States.137

THE SUBJECT INDUSTRY IN CHINA

In the original investigation, the Commission transmitted foreign producer questionnaires to ten

firms believed to produce the subject fittings in China, and four exporters. Four producers and two

exporters responded to the Commission’s request for information during the original investigation.

These producers’ exports of the subject merchandise to the United States accounted for approximately

*** percent of total U.S. imports of malleable fittings from China during 2002.138

The Commission did not receive any responses to its notice of institution in this review from

Chinese producers of the subject merchandise. However, the domestic interested parties’ response to the

Commission’s notice of institution listed five known producers of malleable fittings in China that have

exported the subject merchandise to the United States or other countries since 2002: Beijing Sai Lin Ke

Hardware Co., Ltd; Chengde Malleable Iron General Factory; Jinan Meide Casting Co., Ltd.; Langfang

Pannext Pipe Fitting Co., Ltd.; and SCE Co., Ltd. Publicly available information on the operations of 139

these firms is presented below. 

On its company website, Jinan Meide Casting Co., Ltd. (“JMC”), claims to be the largest pipe

fittings manufacturer in the world with annual production of more than 140,000 metric tons (equivalent

to 154,322 short tons) and a production history of five decades. The company has foundries in Pingyin,

Xiaozhi, and Kongcun. JMC manufactures a “complete line of malleable iron pipe fittings” in addition

to related products, ductile iron grooved couplings and fittings, steel pipe nipples and merchant

couplings, ductile iron threaded fittings, and cast iron threaded fittings.140

Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd. (“Sai Lin Ke Hardware”), owns the SLK brand of

plumbing fittings of black malleable iron and galvanized metal. Sai Lin Ke Hardware was the target of 141

a national product recall in March 2008 by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission because a gas

connector produced by the company posed a fire and explosion hazard due to leaks of propane and/or

natural gas.142

Langfang Pannext Pipe Fitting Co., Ltd. (“Langfang”), was described as the second largest

Chinese producer/exporter of malleable fittings in the original Commerce investigation. It is located in 143

Langfang city, Hebei province. It produces malleable iron pipe fittings and bronze pipe fittings. Its
 Langfang Pannext Pipe Fitting Co., Ltd. company website, About Us, found at 144

http://www.chinamarket.com.cn/web/en/seller/detail26911085.html. 

 SCE company website, About, found at 145 http://www.nbsce.com/en/html/about.html. 

 SCE company website, Products, found at 146 http://www.nbsce.com/en/html/products.html. 

 SCE company website, Company Profile, found at 147 http://www.nbsce.com/en/html/company.html. 

 Luquan company website, Company Profile, found at 148 http://samluquan.en.ecplaza.net/; Luquan company

profile on Alibaba.com, found at http://hebeimalleable.en.alibaba.com/aboutus.html. 

 Shijiazhuang company website, Company Profile, found at 149 http://upro.en.ecplaza.net. 

 Fortune Industrial company website, Company Profile, found at 150 http://fortune003.en.ecplaza.net/about.asp. 

 Zee Pipe company website, Company Profile, found at 151 http://www.zeecorp.cn/about.htm. 

 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, 152

December 2003, p. VII-1, fn. 3.

 42 Census of World Casting Production-2007, Modern Casting, Staff Report, December 2008, pp. 25-27. 153 nd

 Kirgin, Ken. American Foundry Society Inc., Modern Casting, Vol. 98, April 1, 2008, p. 49. 

154

I-29

production capacity for malleable fittings is 500 metric tons per month (equivalent to 551.15 tons per

month and 6,613.8 tons per year).

144

SCE Co. Ltd. (“SCE”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of SCE (Holding) Ltd. It specializes in 145

manufacturing a range of hardware products for the plumbing, heating and building markets. The

company website lists fittings among its products, specifically brass, copper, bronze and plastic fittings

but does not include cast iron fittings in the list. It also produces brass, copper, and bronze valves and

ball valves. SCE reports that it has 325 workers employed at its factory, a sales volume of $400 to 146

$600 million, and that it exports 95 to 98 percent of its production.147

Publicly available information on Chengde Malleable Iron General Factory was not available. 

However, information on four other potential producers/exporters of malleable fittings in China was

collected. The first three are located in Hebei province and the fourth is located in neighboring Shanxi

province. Luquan Zhandao Qiaoxi Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd. (“Luquan”), founded in 1998,

produces malleable cast iron pipe fittings and malleable iron threaded fittings. Shijiazhuang Upro

148

Trade Co. Ltd. (“Shijiazhuang”) manufactures and exports malleable iron pipe fittings as well as roofing

nails, wire mesh, and galvanized/black wire. It claims that last year’s sales, presumably 2008, were $2.35

million. Fortune Industrial & Trading Co., Ltd. (“Fortune Industrial”), founded in 1981, produces 149

malleable iron pipe fittings and exports 90 to 100 percent of its production. Taigu Zee Pipe Equipment 150

Co., Ltd. (“Zee Pipe”), manufactures malleable iron pipe fittings and valves and has a reported annual

production of more than 10,000 metric tons (11,023 tons). The exact number of foundries in China 151

was not provided to the Commission, nor is the number publicly available; however, during the hearing

held in connection with the original investigation, one witness testified that there were in excess of 25

producers of malleable fittings in China.152

In 2008 an estimated 26,000 metalcasting plants, including iron, steel and nonferrous, were in

operation in China. Of these plants, more than half are operated by state-owned enterprises as captive 153

producers. In 2007, China produced 535,316 metric tons of malleable iron (590,079 tons). In 2004, 154

China was the top producer of castings in the world. That year it produced 4 million tons more than the

number two country, the United States. Today, China’s production of metal castings doubles that of the

United States. With 31.3 million tons of metal cast, it makes up a third of total global production. China
 Ibid. pp. 25-27. 155

 42 Census of World Casting Production-2007, Modern Casting, Staff Report, December 2008, p. 27. 156 nd

 JMC, Pannext, Tangshan, SCE, Shandong KM, and SLK estimated at the time of the Commission’s original 157

investigations that together they accounted for *** percent of total malleable fittings production in China. Malleable

Iron Pipe Fittings From China-- Staff Report, INV-AA-171, November 7, 2003, p. VII-1, fn. 3. 

 Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China: Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final), USITC Publication 3649, 158

December 2003, p. II-5; Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Final): Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From China-- Staff Report,

INV-AA-171, November 7, 2003, pp. II-8-II-9. 

 Home market demand may benefit from continued industrialization and trends toward multiple bathrooms and 159

larger kitchens in residential buildings and further penetration of such items as bathtubs and showers in Chinese

homes. Focus on the Plumbing Fixtures and Fittings Market in China, Business Wire, January 14, 2009, found at

http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/economic. 

I-30

saw an 11 percent gain in 2007, capping a 92 percent growth in the last five years. Of the top ten

155

metalcasting countries, ranked by tons produced annually, China is the least productive with an average

of 1,202 tons produced per metalcasting plant in 2007 (versus 5,548 for the United States and 9,799 for

Germany, the most productive country).156

Malleable Fittings Operations

Table I-10 presents trade data for the Chinese malleable fittings industry compiled during the

original investigation and U.S. imports from China in 2007. As these data show, Chinese production

increased throughout the period for which data were collected in the original investigation. Moreover,

the Chinese producers also reported in their questionnaire responses in the original investigation that they

forecasted production to increase further in 2003 and 2004 over the 2002 level. During the period

examined in the original investigation, the Chinese producers operated their facilities at relatively high

aggregate capacity utilization rates ranging from *** to *** percent.

Table I-10 includes data provided by four producers of malleable fittings in China during the

Commission’s original investigations: JMC, Pannext, Shandong KM, and Tangshan. These producers’

exports of the subject merchandise to the United States accounted for approximately *** percent of the

total U.S. imports of malleable fittings from China during 2002. *** was the largest of the reporting 157

Chinese producers. 

Table I-10

Malleable fittings: China’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2000-02, JanuaryJune 2002, January-June 2003, and 20071

* * * * * * *

Reporting Chinese producers’ average capacity to produce malleable fittings increased by ***

percent from *** tons in 2000 to *** tons by the end of 2002, and increased by *** percent from ***

tons in interim (January-June) 2002 to *** tons in interim 2003. While Chinese production of malleable

fittings increased by *** percent from *** tons in 2000 to *** tons in 2002, interim period production

remained constant at approximately *** tons. As a result, reported Chinese capacity utilization declined

*** from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent by the end of 2002, and decreased from *** percent in

interim 2002 to *** percent in interim 2003. Home market shipments accounted for more than *** of 158

total shipments in each year and partial year for which data were collected.159
 Response of domestic interested parties, December 23, 2008, pp. 7-8. 160

I-31

In their response to the Commission’s notice of institution, the domestic producers reiterated the

Commission’s finding in the original investigation that “China’s malleable fittings industry is export

oriented,” and argued that the current dumping margins have not allowed Chinese producers to increase

their capacity utilization to the level they desire, even though imports have increased over the period of

review. Therefore, they conclude, in the absence of the dumping order imports from China will surge.160
 
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

65292 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 213 / Monday, November 3, 2008 / Notices 

ASTM A506, A507). 

• Non–rectangular shapes, not in 

coils, which are the result of having 

been processed by cutting or 

stamping and which have assumed 

the character of articles or products 

classified outside chapter 72 of the 

HTSUS. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at 

subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 

7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 

7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 

7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 

7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 

7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 

7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 

7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 

7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 

7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 

7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 

7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 

7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 

7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 

7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 

7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 

7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. 

Certain hot–rolled carbon steel covered 

by this order, including: vacuum– 

degassed fully stabilized; high–strength 

low–alloy; and the substrate for motor 

lamination steel may also enter under 

the following tariff numbers: 

7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 

7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 

7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 

7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 

7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 

7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 

7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 

7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise 

may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 

7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 

7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 

7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

merchandise subject to this order is 

dispositive. 

Rescission of Administrative Review 

On August 20, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register its 

intent to rescind the administrative 

review in part. See Notice of Intent to 

Rescind, 73 FR 49169. In that notice we 

stated that since our examination of the 

entry data from U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection for Ispat, JSW, and 

Tata confirmed each of their assertions 

that they did not have shipments to the 

United States during the POR, we 

intended to rescind this review with 

respect to these three companies. On 

September 2, 2008, we sent our Draft 

Notification of Rescission to interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

our intent to rescind the administrative 

review with regard to Ispat, JSW, and 

Tata. No comments were received. 

Consequently, the Department 

continues to treat Ispat, JSW, and Tata 

as non–shippers for the purpose of this 

review. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the 

Department may rescind an 

administrative review with respect to a 

particular exporter or producer if the 

Department concludes that during the 

POR there were no entries, exports, or 

sales of the subject merchandise. 

Because there is no record evidence of 

entries, exports or sales of the subject 

merchandise by Ispat, JSW and Tata, we 

are rescinding this review in part. 

As a result of the rescission of the 

administrative review, in part, with 

respect to Ispat, JSW, and Tata, only one 

respondent, Essar, remains in this 

review. 

We are issuing this notice in 

accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act and section 

351.213(d)(4) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

Dated: October 28, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–26158 Filed 10–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping duty orders listed below. 

The International Trade Commission 

(‘‘the Commission’’) is publishing 

concurrently with this notice its notice 

of Institution of Five-year Review which 

covers the same orders. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 3, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230. For 

information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) 

and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). 

Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of Sunset 

Reviews is set forth in the Department’s 

Policy Bulletin 98.3 - Policies Regarding 

the Conduct of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

duty order: 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department Contact 

A–570–881 ........................... 731–TA–1021 PRC Malleable Cast IronPipe Fittings Sergio Balbontin (202) 482–6478 

A–588–862 ........................... 731–TA–1023 Japan Ceramic Station Post Insulators Brandon Farlander (202) 482–0182 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and regulations, the 

Department schedule for Sunset 

Reviews, a listing of past revocations 

and continuations, and current service 

lists, available to the public on the 

Department’s sunset website at the 

following address: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

sunset/. 

All submissions in these Sunset 

Reviews must be filed in accordance 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 213 / Monday, November 3, 2008 / Notices 65293 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

with the Department’s regulations 

regarding format, translation, service, 

and certification of documents. These 

rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103 (c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required from Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The required contents of the notice of 

intent to participate are set forth at 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance 

with the Department’s regulations, if we 

do not receive a notice of intent to 

participate from at least one domestic 

interested party by the 15-day deadline, 

the Department will automatically 

revoke the order without further review. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order–specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order–specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 

(c). 

Dated: October 23, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–26160 Filed 10–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE: 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Generic Request 

for Customer Service-Related Data 

Collections 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST). 

ACTION: Notice. 
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 213 / Monday, November 3, 2008 / Notices 65401 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 09–5–191, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in the Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(11) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 24, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–25839 Filed 10–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1021 (Review)] 

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From 

China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on imports of malleable cast iron pipe 

fittings from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports for 

malleable cast iron pipe fittings from 

China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is December 23, 2008. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

January 16, 2009. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: November 3, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On December 12, 2003, 

the Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

malleable cast iron pipe fittings from 

China (68 FR 69376). The Commission 

is conducting a review to determine 

whether revocation of the order would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to the 

domestic industry within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. It will assess the 

adequacy of interested party responses 

to this notice of institution to determine 

whether to conduct a full review or an 

expedited review. The Commission’s 

determination in any expedited review 

will be based on the facts available, 

which may include information 

provided in response to this notice. 

Definitions. The following definitions 

apply to this review: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year review, as defined 

by the Department of Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in this review 

is China. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determination, the Commission found 

one Domestic Like Product consisting of 

all malleable fittings other than grooved 

fittings, co-extensive with the scope. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determination, 

the Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as all producers of malleable 

fittings corresponding to the scope. 

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

antidumping duty order under review 

became effective. In this review, the 

Order Date is December 12, 2003. 

(6) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the review and public 

service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the review as parties must 

file an entry of appearance with the 

Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the review. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official recently has advised that a fiveyear review is no longer considered the 

‘‘same particular matter’’ as the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 

207, the post employment statute for 

Federal employees, and Commission 

rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are no 

longer required to seek Commission 

approval to appear in a review under 

Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if 

the corresponding underlying original 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
65402 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 213 / Monday, November 3, 2008 / Notices 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list. Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the review. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification. Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with this 

review must certify that the information 

is accurate and complete to the best of 

the submitter’s knowledge. In making 

the certification, the submitter will be 

deemed to consent, unless otherwise 

specified, for the Commission, its 

employees, and contract personnel to 

use the information provided in any 

other reviews or investigations of the 

same or comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions. Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is December 23, 2008. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct an 

expedited or full review. The deadline 

for filing such comments is January 16, 

2009. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of sections 

201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s 

rules and any submissions that contain 

BPI must also conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6 and 

207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The 

Commission’s rules do not authorize 

filing of submissions with the Secretary 

by facsimile or electronic means, except 

to the extent permitted by section 201.8 

of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 

67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, 

in accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the review you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information. Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determination in the review. 

Information to be Provided in 

Response to this Notice of Institution: 

As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes 

any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in this review by providing information 

requested by the Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in the Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Date. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2007 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/ 

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/ 

which are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2007 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 213 / Monday, November 3, 2008 / Notices 65403 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2007 

(report quantity data in short tons and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country since the Order 

Date, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in the Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(11) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: October 24, 2008. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–25841 Filed 10–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act 

(‘‘CERCLA’’) 

Pursuant to Section 122(d)(2) of 

CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(d)(2), notice is 

hereby given that on October 22, 2008, 

a proposed Consent Decree in United 

States of America v. Domtar Paper 

Company LLC, Civil Action No. 4:08– 

cv–179, was lodged with the United 

States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina. 

In this action the United States sought 

to require the Defendant Domtar Paper 

Company LLC to conduct remedial 

design and remedial action to address 

releases and threatened releases of 

hazardous substances at the Domtar 

Paper Company LLC (formerly 

Weyerhaeuser Company) Plymouth 

Wood Treating Plant Superfund Site 

(‘‘Site’’) near the town of Plymouth in 

Martin County, North Carolina. The 

United States also sought to recover 

certain past and future costs incurred by 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’) during the performance of 

response actions at the Site. 

Under the Consent Decree, the 

Defendant will perform the remedial 

design and remedial action at Operable 

Unit #4, which consists of the sediments 

and surface waters in Welch Creek and 

its associated wetlands, pursuant to the 

September 26, 2007 Record of Decision 

(ROD). The remedy provides for the 

placement of a thin layer of clean sand 

capping the upstream reach of the creek; 

long-term monitoring and maintenance 

of the cap; monitoring sediment 

mobility in the less-contaminated 

midstream reach of the creek; long-term 

testing and monitoring of sediments, 

surface water, and biota to document 

the performance of the remedy; and 

institutional controls to ensure public 

health and maintain the integrity of the 

remedy. The Defendant will also 

reimburse the Hazardous Substance 

Superfund for EPA’s response costs 

incurred after March 5, 2007 at or in 

connection with Operable Unit 4. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the Consent Decree. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States of America v. Domtar Paper 

Company LLC, Civil Action No. 4:08– 

cv–179 (E.D.N.C.), DOJ Ref. 90–11–3– 

07838/2. 

The Consent Decree may be examined 

at the Office of the United States 

Attorney, Eastern District of North 

Carolina, 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 

800, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601, and 

at EPA Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 

61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 

30303. During the public comment 

period, the Consent Decree may also be 

examined on the following Department 

of Justice Web site: http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.htm. A copy 

of the Consent Decree may also be 

obtained by mail from the Consent 

Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a 

request to Tonia Fleetwood 

(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. 

(202) 514–0097, phone confirmation 

number (202) 514–1547. In requesting a 

copy from the Consent Decree Library, 

please refer to United States of America 

v. Domtar Paper Company LLC, Civil 

Action No. 4:08–cv–179 (E.D.N.C.), DOJ 

Ref. 90–11–3–07838/2, and enclose a 

check in the amount of $65.75 (25 cents 

per page reproduction cost) payable to 

the U.S. Treasury. 

Henry Friedman, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment & Natural 

Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. E8–26070 Filed 10–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

Notice is hereby given that on October 

28, 2008, a proposed consent decree in 

United States of America and the State 

of Kansas v. Magellan Ammonia 

Pipeline et al. Civil Action No. 08–cv– 

2532, was lodged with the United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas. 

The Complaint, filed by the Plaintiffs 

who are Trustees for natural resources, 

alleges that the Defendants are liable 

under Section 107 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 32 / Thursday, February 19, 2009 / Notices 7703 

determined to review (1) the ALJ’s 

finding that the respondents infringe 

claim 23 of the ‘074 patent 

[CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 

DELETED]; and (2) the ALJ’s finding 

that the respondents induce their 

customers to infringe claim 23 of the 

‘074 patent. The Commission has 

determined not to review any other 

issue decided in the ID. 

The parties are requested to brief their 

positions on the issues under review 

with reference to the applicable law and 

the evidentiary record. In connection 

with its review, the Commission is 

particularly interested in responses to 

the following: 

[CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 

DELETED] 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this investigation, the 

Commission may (1) issue an order that 

could result in the exclusion of the 

subject articles from entry into the 

United States, and/or (2) issue one or 

more cease and desist orders that could 

result in the respondent(s) being 

required to cease and desist from 

engaging in unfair acts in the 

importation and sale of such articles. 

Accordingly, the Commission is 

interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the form of 

remedy, if any, that should be ordered. 

If a party seeks exclusion of an article 

from entry into the United States for 

purposes other than entry for 

consumption, the party should so 

indicate and provide information 

establishing that activities involving 

other types of entry either are adversely 

affecting it or likely to do so. For 

background, see In the Matter of Certain 

Devices for Connecting Computers via 

Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, 

USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) 

(Commission Opinion). 

If the Commission contemplates some 

form of remedy, it must consider the 

effects of that remedy upon the public 

interest. The factors the Commission 

will consider include the effect that an 

exclusion order and/or cease and desist 

orders would have on (1) the public 

health and welfare, (2) competitive 

conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. 

production of articles that are like or 

directly competitive with those that are 

subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. 

consumers. The Commission is 

therefore interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the 

aforementioned public interest factors 

in the context of this investigation. 

If the Commission orders some form 

of remedy, the U.S. Trade 

Representative, as delegated by the 

President, has 60 days to approve or 

disapprove the Commission’s action. 

See Presidential Memorandum of July 

21, 2005, 70 Federal Register 43251 

(July 26, 2005). During this period, the 

subject articles would be entitled to 

enter the United States under bond, in 

an amount determined by the 

Commission and prescribed by the 

Secretary of the Treasury. The 

Commission is therefore interested in 

receiving submissions concerning the 

amount of the bond that should be 

imposed if a remedy is ordered. 

Written Submissions: The parties to 

the investigation are requested to file 

written submissions on the issues 

identified in this notice. Parties to the 

investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties are encouraged to file written 

submissions on the issues of remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding. Such 

submissions should address the ALJ’s 

recommendation on remedy and 

bonding set forth in the RD. 

Complainants and the IA are also 

requested to submit proposed remedial 

orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. Complainants are also 

requested to state the dates that the 

patents at issue expire and the HTSUS 

numbers under which the accused 

products are imported. The written 

submissions and proposed remedial 

orders must be filed no later than close 

of business on Tuesday, February 24, 

2009. Reply submissions must be filed 

no later than the close of business on 

Tuesday, March 3, 2009. No further 

submissions on these issues will be 

permitted unless otherwise ordered by 

the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document and 12 

true copies thereof on or before the 

deadlines stated above with the Office 

of the Secretary. Any person desiring to 

submit a document to the Commission 

in confidence must request confidential 

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 210.6. 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 

sections 210.42–46 and 210.50 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and 

210.50). 

Issued: February 11, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–3460 Filed 2–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1021 (Review)] 

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From 

China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited fiveyear review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on malleable cast iron pipe 

fittings from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of an expedited 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty order on malleable cast iron pipe 

fittings from China would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATE: Effective Date: February 6, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dana Lofgren (202–205–2539), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On February 6, 2009, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

responses to its notice of institution (73 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
7704 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 32 / Thursday, February 19, 2009 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

FR 65401, November 3, 2008) of the 

subject five-year review were adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group responses were inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report. A staff report containing 

information concerning the subject 

matter of the review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on March 4, 2009, 

and made available to persons on the 

Administrative Protective Order service 

list for this review. A public version 

will be issued thereafter, pursuant to 

section 207.62(d)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to this review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution, and any party other 

than an interested party to the review 

may file written comments with the 

Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before March 

10, 2009 and may not contain new 

factual information. Any person that is 

neither a party to the five-year review 

nor an interested party may submit a 

brief written statement (which shall not 

contain any new factual information) 

pertinent to the review by March 10, 

2009. However, should the Department 

of Commerce extend the time limit for 

its completion of the final results of its 

review, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II(C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the review must be 

served on all other parties to the review 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: February 11, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–3461 Filed 2–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1140 (Final)] 

Uncovered Innerspring Units from 

China; Determination 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject investigation, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(Commission) determines, pursuant to 

section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured by reason of imports 

from China of uncovered innerspring 

units, provided for in subheading 

9404.29.90 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States, that have 

been found by the Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(LTFV). 

Background 

The Commission instituted this 

investigation effective December 31, 

2007, following receipt of a petition 

filed with the Commission and 

Commerce by Leggett & Platt, Inc., 

Carthage, MO. The final phase of the 

investigation was scheduled by the 

Commission following notification of a 

preliminary determination by 

Commerce that imports of uncovered 

innerspring units from China were being 

sold at LTFV within the meaning of 

section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of 

the final phase of the Commission’s 

investigation and of a public hearing to 

be held in connection therewith was 

given by posting copies of the notice in 

the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 

Washington, DC, and by publishing the 

notice in the Federal Register of August 

20, 2008 (73 FR 49219). The hearing was 

held in Washington, DC, on October 22, 

2008, and all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in 

person or by counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determination in this investigation to 

the Secretary of Commerce on February 

11, 2009. The views of the Commission 

are contained in USITC Publication 

4061 (February 2009), entitled 

Uncovered Innerspring Units from 

China: Investigation No. 731–TA–1140 

(Final). 

Issued: February 11, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–3462 Filed 2–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1103–0090] 

Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services; Agency Information 

Collection Activities: Extension of 

Currently Approved Collection; 

Comments Requested 

ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: Making 

Officer Redeployment Effective (MORE) 

Grant Closeout Report. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS) will be submitting the 

following information collection request 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed 

information collection is published to 

obtain comments from the public and 

affected agencies. 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 

for an additional 30 days for public 

comment until March 23, 2009. This 

process is conducted in accordance with 

5 CFR 1320.10. 

Written comments and/or suggestions 

regarding the items contained in this 

notice, especially the estimated public 

burden and associated response time, 

should be directed to the Office of 

Management and Budget, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention Department of Justice Desk 

Officer, Washington, DC 20503. 

Additionally, comments may be 

submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 

395–5806. Written comments and 

suggestions from the public and affected


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
 
B-1

APPENDIX B

THE COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from China

Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Review)

On February 6, 2009, the Commission determined that it should proceed to an expedited

review in the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B). 

The Commission determined that the domestic producer response filed jointly by Anvil

International, Inc. and Ward Manufacturing, Inc. was individually adequate. The Commission

further determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate because these

producers account for a majority of the domestic production of malleable cast iron pipe fittings.

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested party in the

review and, therefore, determined that the respondent interested party group response was

inadequate.

Given the absence of an adequate respondent interested party group response, or any

other circumstances that might warrant proceeding to a full review, the Commission determined

to conduct an expedited review. A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the

Office of the Secretary and the Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov).
 
C-1

APPENDIX C

TABLE C-2 FROM THE COMMISSION’S STAFF REPORT IN THE FINAL

PHASE OF THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION

Table GI 

Malleable Iron plpe Rttlngs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-2002, JanuaryJune 2002, and JanuaryJune 2003 

(Quantipshort tons. vaIue=l,OOO dollars. unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=penent. except where noted) 

Reported data Period changes 

JanualyJune Jan.-June 

Item 2000 2001 2002 2002 2003 20002002 20002001 2001-2002 2002-2003 

U.S. consumption quantity: ... ..* ff. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... f.. ... ... m ... ... f.. ... Amount .................... Producers' share (1). ......... 

Importers' share (1): 

China ..................... 

All other sources. ........... Total imports. ............. 

... ... ... ... ... m ... ... ... ... ..I ... f.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... f.. ... U.S. consumption value: ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 0 *.. ... ... Amount. .................... 

Producers' share (1). ......... Importers'share (1): 

China ..................... 

All other sources. ........... 

... ... ... ... ... ... ... m ... ... - ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Total imports. ........ 

US. imports from: 

China: 

Value ..................... Unit value. ................ 

Ending inventory quantity ...... 

Quantity ................... Value ..................... Unit value. ................ Ending inventory quanlity ...... 

Quantity ................... Value ..................... Unit value. ................ Ending inventory quantity ...... 

All mer 5w~ces: 

All sources: 

us. pmducers': 

Average capacity quantity. ..... Production quantity. .......... 

Capacity utilization (1). ........ US. shipments: 

Quantity ................... Value ..................... Unit value. ................ 

Quantity ................... 

Value ..................... 

Unit value. ................ 

Ending inventory quanlity ....... Inventoriedtolal shipments (1) ... Production workers. .......... Hours worked (1,000s). ........ Wages paid (S1,OWs). ........ Hou~wages ................ Productivity (lond1.000 hours) . . 

Unit labor costs .............. Net sales: 

Export shipments: 

Value ..................... Unit value. ................ Cost of goods sold (COGS). .... Gross profit or (loss). ......... 

SOU expenses.. ........... 

Operating income or (loss) ...... 

Unit COGS ................. 

Unit SGU expenses, ......... 

Unit operating income or (loss) . . 

COGSlsales (1). ............. 

Operating income or (ImY 

sales (1). ................. 

Capital expendaures .......... 

... 

13.492 

21,029 

$1.558.66 ... 

9,988 

24.636 

4.466.47 ... 

23.480 

45.665 

$1,944.84 ... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

m 

... 

- 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

13.443 

20.395 

$1,517.20 L. 

9.446 

22.253 

4.355.89 ... 

22,889 

42.649 

$1.863.32 ... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

f.. 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... ...' 

m 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

20.809 

30.276 

$1.454.95 ... 

11,946 

40,837 

$3.418.46 ... 

32.755 

71,113 

4,171.06 ... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

8.954 

13.385 

$1.494.93 ... 

4.968 

17,259 

$3,474.02 ... 

13,922 

30,614 

4.201.17 ... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

*** 

... 

... 

... 

... 

(I. 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

m 

... 

... 

9.505 

13,155 

$1.384.03 ... 

8.290 

25,655 

$3.094.69 ... 

17.795 

38,810 

$2,180.96 ... 

... 

I. 

... 

I. 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

..* 

... 

... 

L. 

... 

... 

f.. 

.I 

... *.. 

... 

(I.. 

... 

... 

... 

.f* 

f.. 

54.2 

44.0 

-6.7 

... 

19.6 

65.8 

38.6 

... 

39.5 

55.7 

11.6 

... 

... 

.+ 

... 

... 

... 

f.. 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

.a 

... 

... 

.I 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

.I 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

-0.4 

-3.0 

-2.7 

I. 

-5.4 

-9.7 

-4.5 

... 

-2.5 

-6.6 

-4.2 

m 

... 

... 

... 

... 

f.. 

I. 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

LO 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

m 

... 

(I.. 

... 

... 

... 

... 

54.8 

48.4 

-4.1 

... 

26.5 

83.5 

45.1 

*.. 

43.1 

66.7 

16.5 

... 

... 

... 

"(I 

... 

... 

.I 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

(I.. 

... 

... 

... 

... 

6.2 

-1.7 

-7.4 

... 

66.9 

48.6 

-10.9 ... 

27.8 

26.6 

-0.9 

... 

... 

... 

I. 

I. 

... 

... 

... 

*.. 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

f.. 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

t.. 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... (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 lo 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 unrwnded figures 

Source: Compiled from data submilled in response to Commission questionnaires. 

G3