U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4242 July 2011

Washington, DC 20436

PAPER CLIPS FROM CHINA

Investigation No. 731-TA-663 (Third Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson, Vice Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Elizabeth Haines, Investigator 

Karen Taylor, Industry Analyst 

Gracemary Roth-Roffy, Attorney 

Elizabeth Haines, Acting Supervisory Investigator 
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4242 July 2011

PAPER CLIPS FROM CHINA

Investigation No. 731-TA-663 (Third Review)

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

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

The original investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

 The first five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

The second five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Commerce’s final results of expedited sunset review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Descriptions and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

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

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

The U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

U.S. capacity, production, capacity utilization, U.S. commercial shipments,

and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

The industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Antidumping duty orders in third-country markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Appendix

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

B. Statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-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.

i

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

 Investigation No. 731-TA-663 (Third Review) 

 PAPER CLIPS FROM CHINA 

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States 

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

1930 (19 U.S.C. ' 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on paper clips 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 January 3, 2011 (76 F.R. 171) and determined on April 8, 

2011, that it would conduct an expedited review. 

 

 

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

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 paper clips from China

would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States

within a reasonably foreseeable time.

I. BACKGROUND

In November 1994, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was

materially injured by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of paper clips from China.1

 That

same month, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued an antidumping duty order on paper

clips from China.2

In December 1999, the Commission instituted the first five-year review of the antidumping duty

order on paper clips,3

 and on March 3, 2000, the Commission voted to conduct an expedited review.4 In

July 2000, the Commission determined that revocation of the order would be likely to lead to

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

foreseeable time.5

 Commerce issued a continuation of the order on paper clips from China in August

2000.6

 

The Commission instituted the second five-year review of the antidumping duty order at issue on

July 1, 2005.7

 On October 4, 2005, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited

review.8

 On January 17, 2006, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order

would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States

within a reasonably foreseeable time.9

 Commerce subsequently issued a continuation of the antidumping

duty order on China.10

The Commission instituted the instant review on January 2, 2011.11 Domestic producers ACCO

Brands USA, LLC (“ACCO”) and Officemate International Corp. (“OIC”) (collectively “domestic

interested parties”) filed responses to the notice of institution. On April 8, 2011, the Commission

determined that the domestic interested party response was adequate and the respondent interested party

response was inadequate. In the absence of an adequate respondent interested party group response or

 1 Certain Paper Clips from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-663 (Final); USITC Pub. 2829

(Nov. 1994) at I-3 (“Original Determination”). All citations are to the published version of the determination unless

otherwise noted. 

 2 59 Fed. Reg. 60606 (Nov. 25, 1994).

 3 64 Fed. Reg. 67329 (Dec. 1, 1999).

 4 65 Fed. Reg. 15010 (March 20, 2000).

 5 Paper Clips from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-663 (Review), USITC Pub. 3330 (July 2000) (“First-Review”) at 3.

All citations are to the published version of the determination unless otherwise noted. 

 6 65 Fed. Reg. 47518 (Aug 25, 2000). 

 7 70 Fed. Reg. 38202 (July 1, 2005).

 8 70 Fed. Reg. 61157 (Oct. 20, 2005).

 9 Paper Clips from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-663 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3834 (Jan. 2006) (“SecondReview Determination”) at 3. All citations are to the published version of the determination unless otherwise noted. 

 10 71 Fed. Reg. 6269 (Feb. 7, 2006). 

 11 76 Fed. Reg. 171 (Jan. 3, 2011).

3
any other circumstances warranting a full review, the Commission determined to conduct an expedited

review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.12 

No respondent interested party has provided any information or argument to the Commission.

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.”13 The Act defines the “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or

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

under this subtitle.”14 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the like product

definition from the original determination and any previous reviews, and consider whether the record

indicates any reason to revisit that definition.15

In its expedited third five-year review determination, Commerce defined the subject merchandise

as follows:

The products covered by this order are certain paper clips, wholly of wire of base metal, whether

or not galvanized, whether or not plated with nickel or other base metal (e.g., copper), with a

wire diameter between 0.025 inches and 0.075 inches (0.64 to 1.91 millimeters), regardless of

physical configuration, except as specifically excluded. The products subject to this order may

have a rectangular or ring-like shape and include, but are not limited to, clips commercially

referred to as No. 1 clips, No. 3 clips, Jumbo or Giant clips, Gem clips, Frictioned clips, Perfect

Gems, Marcel Gems, Universal clips, Nifty clips, Peerless clips, Ring clips, and Glide-On clips.

The products subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheading 8305.90.3010 of

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”).

Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are plastic and vinyl covered paper clips, 

 butterfly clips, binder clips, or other paper fasteners that are not made wholly of wire of base 

 metal and are covered under a separate subheading of the HTSUS.16

 12 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3). Explanation of Commission Determination of Adequacy at Confidential Staff Report

Memorandum INV. JJ-061 (“CR”) and Public Staff Report Certain Paper Clips from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-663

(Third Review), USITC Pub. 4242 (July 2011) (“PR”) at I-9. Appendix B. Commissioners Daniel R. Pearson and

Shara L. Aranoff found that circumstances warranted conducting a full review of the antidumping duty order and

therefore voted to conduct a full review. CR/PR at Appendix B n.1.

 13 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 apply to the entire subtitle containing the

antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677.

 14 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v.

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

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

91 (1979).

 15 See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan and the United

Kingdom, Inv. No. 701-TA-380-382 and 731-TA-797-804 (Review), USITC Pub. 3788 (July 2005) at 6; Crawfish

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

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

 16 76 Fed. Reg. 26242 (Jan. 3, 2011).

4
In the original investigation and the first and second five-year reviews, the Commission defined a

single domestic like product consisting of certain wire paper clips.17 There is no new information

obtained during this third five-year review that suggests a reexamination of the Commission’s definition

of domestic like product is warranted. The domestic interested parties agree that the Commission should

define the domestic like product as certain wire paper clips coextensive with the scope, as it had in the

original investigation and prior reviews. We therefore again define the domestic like product as certain

wire paper clips coextensive with Commerce’s scope for the reasons stated in the original determination

and the first and second five-year reviews.

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.”18 

In the original investigation, and in the first and second-five year reviews, the Commission

defined the domestic industry as all domestic producers of certain wire paper clips.19 The domestic

interested parties identify the following three firms as current U.S. manufacturers of certain wire paper

 17 Original Determination at I-7. In the original investigation, the Commission considered whether the definition

of the domestic like product should include other types of paper fasteners such as plastic paper clips and binder clips. 

The Commission found that certain wire paper clips and other paper fasteners share common uses, namely to hold

the paper together temporarily, and had common channels of distribution. It, however, found more differences than

similarities. The Commission observed that paper clips and other paper fasteners generally were manufactured using

different processes on different equipment, had somewhat limited interchangeability, and were perceived by market

participants as not being practical substitutes for one another. Accordingly, the Commission found a single domestic

like product consisting of certain wire paper clips, coextensive with Commerce’s scope. Original Determination at

13. 

In the first and second five-year reviews, the Commission defined the domestic like product as certain wire

paper clips, coextensive with the scope, as it had in the original investigation. First-Review Determination at 5;

Second- Review Determination at 4-5. In each review, the Commission noted that there was no new information

that suggested a re-examination of the definition of the like product was warranted and that domestic producers

agreed with the Commission’s definition of domestic like product. Id.

 18 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to

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

consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market, 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).

 19 Original Determination at I-7. In the original investigation, the Commission found that ACCO and

Labelon/Noesting (“Noesting”) qualified as related parties due to their importation of subject merchandise during the

period of investigation, but did not find that circumstances warranted their exclusion from the domestic industry. In

the first five-year review, the Commission defined the domestic industry to include all domestic producers of certain

paper clips, ACCO, OIC (formerly Noesting), and “possibly” Work Services. The Commission noted that it could

not address any related party issue given the limited information in the record. First-Review Determination at 5. In

the second five-year review, the Commission again defined the domestic industry to include all domestic producers

of certain wire paper clips, including ACCO, OIC, Advantus Corporation, and “probably” Work Services.” Second

Five-Year Review Determination at 5-6. The Commission observed that the record did not indicate that any of these

firms qualified as a related party. Id.

5
clips: ACCO, OIC, and Advantus.20 There is no new evidence presented in this review that would

warrant a different definition of domestic industry from the original investigation and the prior reviews,

and no party in this review disagrees with this conclusion. Accordingly, we define the domestic industry

as all domestic producers of certain wire paper clips. 

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.”21 The SAA states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a

counter-factual 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.”22 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in

nature.23 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the sunset review

provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.24

25 26

 20 Section 771(4)(B) of the Act 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 that are themselves

importers. No related party issue is raised in this review with respect to ACCO, OIC or Advantus. CR at I-11-I-12,

PR at I-9.

 21 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

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

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

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

that were never completed.” SAA at 883. 

 23 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

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

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

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

SAA at 884.

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

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v.

United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s

opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals

(Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, 26 CIT 1059 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of

continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002) (“‘likely’ is

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

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

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

Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review) and

(continued...)

6
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.”27 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.”28

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 order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”29 It

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

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

industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated,

and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).30

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

contains limited new information with respect to the paper clip industry in China, as well as limited

information on the paper clip market during the period of review. Accordingly, in reaching our

determination, we rely as appropriate on the facts available from the original investigation and prior

reviews and the limited new information on the record in this review.31 32

 25 (...continued)

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

 26 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, Inv.

No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

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

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

addresses this issue.

 27 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

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

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

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

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

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

 29 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 30 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). There have been no duty absorption findings by Commerce with respect to the order

under review. 76 Fed. Reg. 26242 (May 6, 2011). 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.

 31 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

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

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

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

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

Commerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). See Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 2001) (“[T]he ITC correctly responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification

procedures for the evidence before it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of a

Commission investigation.”).

 32 Chairman Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

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

(continued...)

7
B. Conditions of Competition and Business Cycle

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

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

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”33

1. The Original Investigation

In the original investigation, the Commission noted that paper clips are a common office supply

product and are generally made from steel wire. The Commission found that the paper clip industry was

mature, with little product innovation. It also found that there was significant direct competition between

domestically produced paper clips and paper clips from China, and that this competition was based

primarily on price, as there were few quality distinctions between the domestic like product and the

subject merchandise. The Commission concluded that the U.S. market for paper clips was changing

because the U.S. market increasingly consisted of large discount retailers of office supply products,

causing producers to shift sales to those retailers. Additionally, the Commission noted that paper clips

were often “bundled” with other office products under a single purchase order.34 

2. The Prior Reviews 

In the expedited first five-year review, the Commission observed that many of the conditions of

competition it found in the original investigation had not changed. In particular, the Commission found

that the paper clip industry remained mature and that the market increasingly consisted of large discount

retailers. The Commission further noted that significant price competition continued to exist between the

domestic like product and the subject merchandise. It also found that price remained a significant factor

in purchasing decisions, noting that ACCO, the largest domestic producer, characterized price as the most

important factor in purchasing decisions. Finally, the Commission found that the domestic like product

and subject imports continued to be substitutable.35 

In the second five-year review, the Commission identified a number of conditions of competition

relevant to its analysis. Initially, the Commission found that demand for paper clips, as measured by

apparent U.S. consumption, had decreased since the first review, but remained comparable to demand

levels in the last two years of the original period of investigation.36 

 32 (...continued)

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

the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does

not automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the

level of participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors

and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes

determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 33 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 34 Original Determination at I-8-I-9. Nearly all purchasers reported that they purchased paper clips bundled with

other office supplies. Id. at I-9.

 35 First-Review Determination at 7-10.

 36 Second-Review Determination at 8, Confidential Version at 10. Apparent U.S. consumption was *** units in

1992 and *** units in 1993. Apparent U.S. consumption was *** units in 1998 and *** units in 2004, respectively. 

(continued...)

8
The Commission further found that domestic producers supplied most of the U.S. market, with

domestic producers’ shipments accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption.37 The

Commission noted that ACCO continued to be the dominant domestic producer of paper clips in 2004,

accounting for *** percent of U.S. production of paper clips for that year.38 The Commission observed

that the U.S. market was also supplied by subject and nonsubject imports. It observed that total import

volume was 2.2 billion units in 2004, with subject imports accounting for more than half of total

imports.39 

The Commission also found that several of the competitive conditions in the original

investigation and first review continued to be applicable to the U.S. paper clips market. Specifically, it

pointed out that large discount office retailers remained the most important purchasers of domestically

produced paper clips. The Commission further noted that paper clips continued to be purchased together

with other office supplies and that price remained the most important factor in purchasing decisions.40 . 

The Commission found that a number of conditions of competition had changed. Specifically, the

Commission found that paper clip prices had increased as subject import volume declined. The

Commission also found changes to the conditions of competition based on unrefuted statements of ACCO

and OIC. Although OIC was an importer of subject merchandise in the original period of investigation,

it since had become a domestic producer. ACCO maintained and there was no contrary evidence

rebutting that these “large, commercial buyers of paper clips, were likely to purchase paper clips together

with other office supply products from China due to the fact that paper clips, with their relatively heavy

weight to volume ratio, can balance out the total weight of a shipping container to the maximum weight

allowed.”41 Finally, the Commission noted that there was a significant increase in the price of steel wire,

the principal raw material used in the production of paper clips, during the second review period.42 

 36 (...continued)

Id.

 37 Second-Review Determination at 8, Confidential Version at 10.

 38 Second-Review Determination at 8, Confidential Version at 10-11.

 39 Second-Review Determination at 9.

 40 Second-Review Determination at 9.

 41 Second-Review Determination at 9.

 42 Second-Review Determination at 9.

9
3. The Current Review

In this review, we find the following conditions of competition relevant to our analysis.

Paper clips are a common office supply product generally made from steel wire and are used to

temporarily hold papers together.43 As the Commission found in the original investigation and prior fiveyear reviews, the paper clip market is a mature one with little product innovation.44

Demand for paper clips reportedly is tied to the health of the overall U.S. economy. According to

OIC, the 2008 downturn in the U.S. economy affected demand for paper clips.45 Apparent U.S.

consumption of paper clips decreased from *** units in 2004 to *** units in 2010.46

The U.S. paper clips market continues to be supplied by domestic producers, subject imports, and

nonsubject imports. The record indicates that the domestic industry is limited to just three producers:

ACCO, CIO, and Advantus.47 ACCO continues to be the predominant U.S. producer of paper clips,

accounting for *** percent of total U.S. production of paper clips in 2010.48 

Following the imposition of the order, the domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S.

consumption increased, from *** percent in 1993 to *** percent in 1998, and then remained stable

thereafter (*** percent in 2004, and *** percent in 2010).49 During the period of the original

investigation, subject imports accounted for approximately *** of apparent U.S. consumption. After the

imposition of the order, subject import market share fell to just *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption

in 1998.50 Subject import market share, however, then increased, accounting for *** percent of apparent

U.S. consumption in 2004 and *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2010.51 In contrast, the

market share held by nonsubject imports increased following the imposition of the order, from ***

percent in 1993 to *** percent in 1998.52 Nonsubject market share then decreased from *** percent in

2004 to *** percent in 2010.53 The primary sources of nonsubject paper clips in 2010 were Colombia and

Taiwan.54

As the Commission found in the original investigation and prior reviews, the domestic like

product and subject imports are highly substitutable and directly compete primarily based on price.55

Large discount retailers of office supply products, such as Office Depot, Office Max, and Staples, which

continue to bundle their office supply purchases, account for a large share of the U.S. market.56

Based on the limited record evidence, we find that the current conditions of competition in the

paper clips market are not likely to change significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future. Thus, we

find that these conditions of competition provide us with a reasonable basis on which to assess the likely

effects of revocation of the order in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

 43 CR at I-5, PR at I-4.

 44 CR at I-9, PR at I-5.

 45 OIC Response to the Notice of Institution at 9.

 46 CR/PR at Table I-5. Apparent U.S. consumption was *** units in 1993 and *** units in 1998. 

 47 CR at I-11, PR at I-9.

 48 CR at I-11, PR at I-9.

 49 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 50 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 51 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 52 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 53 CR/PR at Table I-5. 

 54 CR/PR at Table I-5 n.3.

 55 CR at I-6, PR at I-5, I-8; ACCO Response to the Notice of Institution at 5.

 56 CR at I-9-I-10, PR at I-5, I-8.

10
C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if an 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.57 In

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

factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the

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

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

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

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

products.58

1. The Original Investigation

 During the period examined in the original investigation, subject import volume increased

irregularly from 4.2 billion units in 1991 to 4.9 billion units in 1993, and accounted for approximately

*** of the U.S. market.59

2. Prior Reviews

In the first five-year review, the Commission found that, following the imposition of the order in

November 1994, subject imports declined substantially, from 4.9 billion units in 1993 to 164 million units

in 1998.60 Additionally, it emphasized that subject imports accounted for only *** percent of apparent

U.S. consumption in 1998, compared to *** percent in 1993.61 According to the Commission, this drop in

subject import volume indicated that the antidumping duty order had led to the reduced presence of

subject imports in the U.S. market.62 

 In the second five-year review, the Commission found that subject import volume steadily

increased from 2001 (339 million units) to 2004 (1.1 billion units).63 Although the volume of subject

imports was considerably higher in 2004 than in 1998, the Commission concluded that subject import

volume remained well below levels observed in the original investigation.64 Additionally, the

Commission found that subject import market share in 2004 remained substantially lower than prior to the

imposition of the order.65

 57 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 58 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A) to (D).

 59 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 60 Original Determination at I-11; CR/PR at Table I-5.

 61 First-Review Determination at 9; CR/PR at Table I-5. 

 62 First-Review Determination at 9; CR/PR at Table I-5. 

 63 Second-Review Determination at 10.

 64 Second-Review Determination at 10-11; CR/PR at Table IV-5. 

 65 Second-Review Determination at 10-11; CR/PR at Table IV-5. 

11
The Commission cited several factors in support of its conclusion that the volume of subject

imports was likely to be significant if the order was revoked.66 First, although the volume and market

share of subject imports had decreased substantially after the imposition of the order, the volume and

market share of subject imports had recently increased. Second, based on the available record evidence,

the Commission found that Chinese producers had significant production capacity that could be used to

increase exports to the U.S. market. Specifically, the Commission noted that ACCO identified 12 

Chinese producers of paper clips, double the number of Chinese producers at the time of original

investigation. Moreover, according to OIC, paper clip production in China required little technology and

capital. As a result, production capacity could be expanded with the addition of inexpensive equipment

and labor.67 

The Commission also found that certain conditions of competition would make an increase in

subject imports likely if the order was revoked.68 Large office supply retailers began sourcing paper clips

domestically only after the imposition of the order. Given that these office supply retailers had existing

supply relationships with Chinese producers and exporters, they were likely source their paper clips from

China if the order were revoked. Additionally, office supply retailers were increasingly purchasing paper

clips as part of a bundle of office supply products. The Commission therefore concluded that, in some

instances, office supply retailers would likely source paper clips from China in order to maximize the

weight of a shipping container with paper clips.69 

3. The Current Review

Several factors support the conclusion that subject import volume is likely to be significant in the

event of revocation of the order. 

In the current review, subject import volume and market share were at higher levels than seen in

prior reviews, but remained well below levels observed in the original investigation.70 Subject import

volume and market share have increased since the first review, even with the order in place. Subject

import volume was 164 million units in 1998, 1.1 billion units in 2004, and 1.2 billion units in 2010.71 

Subject import market share had a similar trend; it was *** percent in 1998, *** percent in 2004, and ***

percent in 2010.72 These increases occurred despite a decrease in demand from 2004 to 2010.73 Thus, it

is evident that subject imports have once again increased their presence in the U.S. market and Chinese

exporters have been able to increase their exports to the United States rapidly, even with the antidumping

duty order in place.

Because of the lack of participation by Chinese producers and importers of subject merchandise,

the Commission has limited information on the Chinese industry in this review. In the second five-year

 66 Second-Review Determination at 11.

 67 Second-Review Determination at 11.

 68 Second-Review Determination at 11.

 69 Second-Review Determination at 11-12.

 70 For example, subject import volume was 4.9 billion units in 1993 as compared to 1.2 billion units in 2010.

CR/PR at Table I-5.

 71 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 72 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 73 CR/PR at Table I-3. The ratio of subject imports to domestic production was much higher in the original

investigation than in the review periods, although it has increased in each subsequent review. It was *** percent in

1991, *** percent in 1992, and *** percent in 1993 (the original investigation). It was *** percent in 1998, ***

percent in 2004, and *** percent in 2010 (review periods). Calculated from CR/PR at Table I-2 and I-3. 

12
review, the domestic interested parties reported that there were 12 producers of paper clips in China,

which was double the number of producers reported to exist at the time of the original investigation.74

There is no information indicating that the total number of producers in China has decreased since the last

review. Additionally, ACCO maintains that production capacity in China is at least at the same level as it

was during the original investigation, and that Chinese producers have available capacity.75 As it did in

the second review, OIC reports that production of paper clips in China requires little technology and

capital, and such production could be expanded easily with the addition of inexpensive equipment and

additional labor.76 Accordingly, we find that the record indicates that there is significant production

capacity in China to manufacture paper clips.77

We further find that certain conditions of competition would enable subject import volume to

increase significantly if the order were revoked. Specifically, large discount retailers such as Office

Depot, Office Max, and Staples continue to account for a large and growing share of paper clip

purchases.78 These large discount retailers are known to have bundled their office supply purchases in the

past and are reportedly sourcing office supplies such as binder clips from China.79 Since these customers

have pre-existing supply relationships with Chinese producers and exporters, these retailers would likely

source paper clips from China as well if the order were revoked. Moreover, given the importance of price

in paper clip purchases, U.S. purchasers would likely switch to low-priced subject imports for their

supply needs.80

We note that, based on the available record, paper clips from China are not subject to import

investigations in any third country markets.81 Although there is no evidence of any trade barriers in third

country markets, the presence of subject imports in the U.S. market has increased since the imposition of

the order, indicating the importance of the U.S. market to Chinese producers. Thus, we find that Chinese

producers are likely to direct available capacity to the United States in the event of revocation. 

Based on subject imports’ volume and market share, the subject imports’ increasing presence in

the U.S. market during the current review, the reported size of the industry and available capacity in

China, and the likelihood that large office supply retailers would likely switch to low-priced subject

imports, we find that Chinese producers would likely increase their exports to the United State to a

significant level and regain significant market share if the antidumping duty order were revoked. Thus,

we find that the likely volume of subject imports, both in absolute terms and as a share of the U.S. market,

would be significant if the order were revoked.

 74 Second-Review Determination at 11.

 75 ACCO’s Response to the Notice of Institution at 3.

 76 OIC’s Response to the Notice of Institution at 3-4.

 77 We do not have information on whether the Chinese producers can shift production from other products to

paper clips, or on inventories of paper clips in China. CR at I-17, PR at I-14.

 78 CR at I-10, PR at I-8.

 79 CR at I-9-I-10, ACCO Response to Notice of Institution at 9.

 80 CR at I-9-10.

 81 CR at I-18.

13
D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

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

for the domestic like product.82

1. The Original Determination

 In the original investigation, the Commission observed that subject imports from China and the

domestic like product competed primarily on the basis of price.83 It also found that low prices for subject

imports had prevented domestic prices from increasing commensurate with increases in the cost of carbon

steel wire, the primary raw material in the production of paper clips.84 The Commission concluded that

subject imports had depressed domestic prices in 1991 and suppressed domestic prices to a significant

degree during the period of investigation.85 

2. The Prior Reviews

In the first five-year review, the Commission found that pricing patterns in the original

investigation and first review period indicated that, if the order were revoked, there would likely be

significant underselling by the subject imports to regain market share lost to domestically produced paper

clips. Additionally, given the high substitutability between the domestic like product and subject imports

and the importance of price in purchasing decisions, the Commission found that the likely increases in

subject import volume would likely drive down domestic prices since domestic producers would be

forced to cut prices to compete. The Commission therefore concluded that subject imports would likely

have significant depressing or suppressing effects on prices for the domestic like product.86 

In the second five-year review, the Commission found that, if the order were revoked, significant

volumes of subject imports would likely significantly undersell the domestic like product. This

underselling would likely have significant depressing or suppressing effects on the prices of the domestic

like product within a reasonably foreseeable time. In support of its finding of likely significant price

effects, the Commission noted that, before the imposition of the order, subject imports entered the U.S.

market in significant volumes at AUVs far below that of the domestic like product and the AUVs of the

domestic like product declined. It emphasized that after the antidumping duty order was imposed, the

AUVs for both the domestic like product and subject imports increased. Additionally, the Commission

noted that the domestic like product and subject imports are highly substitutable and direcl primarily

based on price. As a result, the Commission found that “aggressive pricing of subject imports would

 82 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that, “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

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

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

at 886.

 83 Original Determination at I-11.

 84 Original Determination at I-12-I-13.

 85 Original Determination at I-12.

 86 First-Review Determination at 10. 

14
likely be successful in lowering domestic prices to large discount office supply retailers that are already

purchasing office supplies from China.”87 

With respect to price suppression, the Commission pointed out that the cost of steel wire, the

primary raw material for paper clips, had increased since the first five-year review. In the original

investigation, the Commission noted that domestic producers had been unable to raise prices

commensurate with increases in carbon steel costs because of the presence of subject imports. The

Commission concluded in the second review that, if the order were revoked, domestic producers would

once again be unable to raise their prices in response to any cost increases. Accordingly, the Commission

determined that subject imports likely would have significant suppressing effects on the prices for the

domestic like product within a reasonably foreseeable time.88

3. The Current Review

There is no new product-specific pricing information on the record. As noted above, paper clips

are highly substitutable and price remains the principal determinant in making a sale in the U.S. market.89

Although we continue to be mindful of possible product mix issues, the record of this review

indicates that AUVs of the subject imports were *** at $*** per unit in 2010 compared with AUVs of the

U.S. producers’ U.S. commercial shipments, which were $*** per unit.90 As was noted in the second

review, AUVs for subject imports from China were consistently lower than for the domestic like product

during the original investigation and it was only after the order was imposed that the AUVs for the

subject imports were higher than the AUVs reported for the domestic like product.91 

 If the order were revoked, the likely significant volume of aggressively priced subject imports in

the U.S. market would likely adversely affect U.S. prices. As noted above, large discount retailers of

office supplies are already purchasing other office supplies from China. Given the importance of price

and the high substitutability of subject imports and the domestic like product, if the order were revoked,

these retailers would be likely to source paper clips from China as well. Domestic producers would likely

be forced to cut their prices or lose critical U.S. market share.

Thus, if the order were revoked, we find the likely significantly increasing subject imports from

China would enter the U.S. market at aggressive prices in order to further increase their market share in

this market. In response, domestic producers either would have to reduce their prices or relinquish market

share. 

For the reasons stated above, we find that upon revocation of the order, subject imports from

China would be likely to enter the United States at prices that would likely undersell the domestic like

product and that would likely have significant suppressing or depressing effects on U.S. producers’

prices.

 87 Second-Review Determination at 13.

 88 Second-Review Determination at 13. 

 89 CR/PR at I-10.

 90 CR/PR at Tables I-4, I-5, I-8. 

 91 Second-Review Determination at 13.

15
E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports92

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

under review were revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are

likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to the

following: (1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments,

and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages,

growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing

development and production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more

advanced version of the domestic like product.93 All relevant economic factors are to be considered

within the context of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

industry.94 As instructed by the statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the

state of the domestic industry is related to the order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to

material injury if the order were revoked.

1. The Original Determination

In the original investigation, the Commission found that, while subject import volume declined

toward the end of the period of investigation, subject import market penetration was close to *** percent

throughout the period. In response to price pressure from subject imports, the Commission found that

ACCO lowered prices and shifted its marketing emphasis to less-expensive products to maintain market

share. It noted that the data and trends for the domestic industry as a whole correlated with the experience

of ACCO. According to the Commission, the domestic industry’s data reflected that ACCO’s aggressive

pricing strategy was working, as domestic producers’ shipments, production, and market share increased

from 1992 to 1993. At the same time, the domestic industry’s financial performance improved from

operating losses in 1991 and 1992 to operating income in 1993. Despite this improvement, the

Commission found that prices remained at depressed levels even though raw material costs increased in

the latter part of the period of investigation. Given the continuing price pressure from subject imports, the

Commission found that the domestic industry’s financial and other performance indicators, including

production, capacity utilization, and employment, took a downward turn in interim 1994 compared to

interim 1993.95 

 92 Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of

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

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

or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. In its expedited third-review determination, Commerce concluded that

revocation of the antidumping duty order on paper clips from China would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average margins: Shanghai Lansheng Corp. (57.64 percent),

Zhejiang Light Industrial Products Import & Export Corp. (46.01 percent), Zhejiang Machinery and Equipment

Import and Export Corp. (60.70 percent), and PRC-wide (126.94 percent). 76 Fed. Reg. 26242 (May 6, 2011).

 93 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 94 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 95 Original Determination at I-13-I-14.

16
2. The Prior Reviews 

 

In the first five-year review, the Commission found that the order had a positive effect on the

domestic industry’s performance. Given the marked improvement in industry performance, the

Commission determined that the domestic industry was not then in a vulnerable state. The Commission

nonetheless found that, if the order were revoked, the likely increases in the volume and market

penetration of low-priced subject imports, and their likely price depressing and suppressing effects, would

likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry’s production, shipment, sales, and

revenue levels.96 Accordingly, the Commission found that the reduction in the industry’s production,

sales, and revenue levels would likely have a direct adverse impact on the domestic industry’s

employment and profitability as well as its ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital

investments.97 

In the second five-year review, the Commission determined that, if the antidumping duty order

were revoked, subject imports from China would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. Initially, the Commission noted that the antidumping duty

order continued to have a positive effect on the performance of the domestic industry. It was unable to

determine, however, if the industry was in a vulnerable state, because there was no information on many

of the financial and trade indicators that the Commission considers in making this determination. 

The Commission concluded that revocation of the antidumping duty order would lead to

significant increases in the volume of subject imports at prices that would undersell the domestic like

product and significantly depress U.S. prices, and that the volume and price effects of the subject imports

would have a significant negative impact on the domestic industry and would likely cause the domestic

industry to lose market share.98 The Commission explained that the likely price and volume decreases

would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production, shipment, sales, and revenue levels of

the domestic industry.99 Accordingly, the Commission found that the reduction in the industry’s

production, sales, and revenue levels would 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.100

3. The Current Review

In this expedited review, the record includes limited information on the domestic industry’s

condition. We collected 2010 data for several performance indicators, but we have no data on the

industry’s performance from 2005 to 2009. The limited evidence in this expedited review is insufficient

for us to determine whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of

material injury in the event of revocation of the order. 

 Although there are no capacity or capacity utilization data for the domestic industry from the

prior reviews, the data show that in 2010 the domestic industry’s production capacity was *** units and

its capacity utilization rate was *** percent.101 The data show that, compared with the data collected in

 96 First-Review Determination at 14. 

 97 First-Review Determination at 14. 

 98 Second-Review Determination at 14-15. 

 99 Second-Review Determination at 15. 

 100 Second-Review Determination at 15. 

 101 CR/PR at Table I-2. During the original investigation, in 1993, the domestic industry’s capacity was *** units

(continued...)

17
the last review, the domestic industry’s market share remains stable,102 while its production and U.S.

shipments have decreased.103 

Although comparisons with the last two reviews were not available, the domestic industry’s

operating income was $*** in 2010, which is substantially higher than that for all three years examined in

the original investigation.104

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

original investigation, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain wire paper clips

from China would likely lead to a significant increase in the volume of subject imports. In addition,

subject imports would significantly undersell the domestic product, resulting in significant depression

and/or suppression of U.S. producers’ prices for the domestic like product. We find that the intensified

price competition with subject imports that would likely occur after revocation of the order would likely

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

likely lose market share to low-priced subject imports and would likely obtain lower prices because of

competition from subject imports, which would adversely impact its production, shipments, sales, and

revenues. These reductions would likely have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and

employment levels, as well as its ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital

investments.

We have also considered the role of other factors, such as declining demand in the U.S. market

and the presence of nonsubject imports, so as not to attribute likely injury from such factors to subject

imports. In regard to demand, although apparent U.S. consumption was lower in 2010 than in 2004,105

the domestic industry’s market share remained the same and its performance appears to have been

relatively healthy. Moreover, subject imports have continued to increase market share in a declining

market. In regard to nonsubject imports, although the volume and market share of subject imports was

higher in 2010 than in 2004, the volume and market share of nonsubject imports, which was low in 2004,

was even lower in 2010.106 

Accordingly, notwithstanding the decline in demand and the presence of nonsubject imports in

the U.S. market, we find that subject imports of paper clips are likely to have a significant adverse impact

on the domestic industry in the event of revocation of the antidumping duty order.

CONCLUSION

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

clips 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.

 101 (...continued)

and the domestic industry’s capacity utilization was *** percent. CR/PR at Table 1-2.

 102 The domestic industry’s market share was *** percent in 2004 and *** percent in 2010. CR/PR at Table I-5.

 103 The domestic industry’s production decreased from *** units in 2004 to *** units in 2010, as its U.S.

commercial shipments decreased from *** units in 2004 to *** units in 2010. CR/PR at Table I-2.

 104 CR/PR at Table I-2.

 105 CR/PR at Table I-5. 

 106 CR/PR at Table I-5. 

18
INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Background

On January 2, 2011, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”),1

 as

amended, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) gave notice that it had instituted a

five-year review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on paper clips from

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

foreseeable time.2 3

 On April 8, 2011, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party

group response to its notice of institution was adequate.4

 The Commission also determined that the

respondent interested party group response was inadequate.5

 The Commission found no other

circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review.6

 Accordingly, the Commission determined

that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.7 8

 The Commission 

voted on this review on June 29, 2011, and notified Commerce of its determination on July 12, 2011. 

Information relating to the background of the review is presented in the tabulation below.

 1 19 U.S.C. §1675(c). 

 2

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

Commission. 76 FR 171, January 3, 2011. Copies of the Commission’s Federal Register notices are presented in

app. A. 

 3

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

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

notice of institution. 76 FR , 89, January 3, 2011. 

 4

 The Commission received two submissions in response to its notice of institution for the subject review. They

were filed on behalf of ACCO Brands USA, LLC (“ACCO”) and Officemate International Corp. (“OIC”), domestic

producers of paper clips.

 5

 The Commission received no responses to its notice of institution from respondent interested parties.

 6

 A copy of the Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy is presented in app. B. 

 7

 Commissioners Shara L. Aranoff and Daniel R. Pearson dissenting.

 8

 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3). See the Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov) for Commissioner votes on

whether to conduct an expedited or full review. 

I-1
Effective date Action Federal Register citation

November 25, 1994 Commerce’s original antidumping duty order issued 59 FR 60606

August 15, 2000 Commerce’s continuation of antidumping duty order after

first expedited five-year review

65 FR 49784

February 7, 2006 Commerce’s continuation of antidumping duty order after

second expedited five-year review

71 FR 6269

January 3, 2011 Commission’s institution of third review 76 FR 171

April 8, 2011

Commission’s decision to conduct expedited third review

Not applicable

May 6, 2011 Commerce’s final results of expedited third review 76 FR 26242

May 31, 2011 Commission’s scheduling of the third expedited review 76 FR 31360

June 29, 2011 Commission’s vote Not applicable

July 12, 2011 Commission’s determination to Commerce Not applicable

Source: Cited Federal Register notices. 

THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION

On November 29, 1993, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

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

imports sold at less than fair value (“LTFV”) from China.9

 In November 1994, the Commission

determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured or threatened with material injury

by reason of LTFV imports of paper clips from China.10 The Commission defined the like product as

“certain paper clips,” as described in Commerce’s scope of investigation. The Commission also found the

relevant industry to consist of producers of that like product.11

THE FIRST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

On December 1, 1999, the Commission instituted the first five-year sunset review of the

antidumping duty order on paper clips from China.12 On March 3, 2000, the Commission determined that

it would conduct an expedited review.13 On June 28, 2000, Commerce determined that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on paper clips would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.14 On August 2, 2000, the

Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on paper clips would be likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

 9 The petition was filed by counsel for ACCO and Labelon/Noesting Co. (“Noesting”).

 10 Certain Paper Clips from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-663 (Final), USITC Publication 2829, November 1994, p. 1. 

 11 Original Report, p. I-7. The Commission found ACCO and Noesting to be related parties because each firm

imported subject merchandise during the period of investigation. It concluded, however, that appropriate

circumstances did not exist to exclude either firm from the domestic industry. Id., pp. I-7 and I-8.

 12 64 FR 67320.

 13 65 FR 15010, March 20, 2000.

 14 65 FR 41434, July 5, 2000.

I-2
reasonably foreseeable time.15 On August 15, 2000, Commerce published its notice of continuation of the

antidumping duty orders.16

THE SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

On July 1, 2005, the Commission instituted the second five-year sunset review of the

antidumping duty order on paper clips from China.17 On October 4, 2005, the Commission determined

that it would conduct an expedited review.18 On November 7, 2005, Commerce determined that

revocation of the antidumping duty order on paper clips would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.19

On January 23, 2006, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be

likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time.20 On February 7, 2006, Commerce published its notice of continuation of

the antidumping duty order.21

COMMERCE’S FINAL RESULTS OF EXPEDITED SUNSET REVIEW

On May 6, 2011, Commerce published in the Federal Register its finding that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on paper clips from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping.22 The weighted-average dumping margins (in percent ad valorem), as reported by Commerce,

for the original investigations, the first five-year review, the second five-year review, and the third fiveyear review, are presented in the table I-1.

Table I-1

Paper clips: Weighted-average dumping margins, as reported by Commerce, for the original

investigation, the first five-year review, the second five-year review, and the third five-year review,

by firm

Firm

Original

First

review

Second

review

Third

review

Margin (percent)

Shanghai Lansheng Corp. 57.64 57.64 57.64 57.64

Zhejiang Light Industrial Products Import & Export Corp. 46.01 46.01 46.01 46.01

Zhejiang Machinery and Equipment Import & Export Corp. 60.70 60.70 60.70 60.70

PRC-wide 126.94 126.94 126.94 126.94

Source: Various Federal Register notices.

 15 65 FR 47518.

 16 65 FR 49784.

 17 70 FR 38202.

 18 70 FR 61157, October 20, 2005. 

 19 70 FR 67433.

 20 71 FR 3541.

 21 71 FR 6269.

 22 Paper Clips from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the

Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 26242 (May 6, 2011).

I-3
THE PRODUCT

Scope

In its second continuation order, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as follows:

“The products covered by this order are certain paper clips, wholly of wire of base metal,

whether or not galvanized, whether or not plated with nickel or other base metal (e.g., copper),

with a wire diameter between 0.025 inches and 0.075 inches (0.64 to 1.91 millimeters),

regardless of physical configuration, except as specifically excluded. The products subject to this

order may have a rectangular or ring-like shape and include, but are not limited to, clips

commercially referred to as No. 1 clips, No. 3 clips, Jumbo or Giant clips, Gem clips, Frictioned

clips, Perfect Gems, Marcel Gems, Universal clips, Nifty clips, Peerless clips, Ring clips, and

Glide-On clips. The products subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheading

8305.90.3010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Specifically

excluded from the scope of this order are plastic and vinyl covered paper clips, butterfly clips,

binder clips, or other paper fasteners that are not made wholly of wire of base metal and are

covered under a separate subheading of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheading is

provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this

order is dispositive.”

The subject product is classified under the HTS subheading 8305.90.30 (statistical reporting number

8305.90.3010); and enters under the column 1-general rate of free duty. The HTS subheading is provided

for convenience and for Customs purposes, but Commerce’s written description of the merchandise is

dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.

Description and Applications23

Paper clips are steel wire products that have been formed in such a way as to provide spring-like

tension when used to hold pieces of paper together. These rectangular-shaped products, which are among

the most commonly used office supplies in the world, are generally manufactured from steel wire, 

whether or not galvanized, and whether or not plated with nickel, copper, or other base metals, or coated

with vinyl. Although paper clips are produced in a variety of sizes with different wire diameters, the most

commonly used products fall within three categories commercially referred to as No. 1 clips, No. 3 clips,

and giant or jumbo clips. The wire diameters of No. 1 clips range between 0.034 inch and 0.036 inch,

while the wire diameter of No. 3 clips is 0.034 inch. For jumbo clips, the wire diameters range between

0.046 inch and 0.050 inch. See figure I-1 for illustrations of the subject paper clips; also see figure I-2 for

illustrations of other paper fasteners.

 23 Information in this section was taken from Certain Paper Clips from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No.

731-TA-663 (Final), USITC Publication 2829, November 1994, p. II-4 - II-5.

I-4
Marketing24

Paper clips manufactured in China at the time of the original investigation were reported to be

nickel plated after the forming process, which is a more time consuming and labor intensive process than

that employed in the United States. U.S. paper clips are manufactured from wire that has been

electrogalvanized by the wire manufacturer. Also, ***. Petitioners in the original investigation stated,

however, that paper clips produced in the United States were essentially the same in terms of quality and

function as those imported from China. The average customer would not perceive any difference

resulting from the differences in coating and wire size. The Commission indicated in its views in the

original investigation that “{t}here are few quality distinctions between the products, although a few

purchasers indicated quality problems with Chinese clips. Information from purchasers revealed that

quality is not a major competitive issue; instead, price is the primary factor they consider when

purchasing paper clips.”25 Also, nearly all U.S. suppliers reported that domestic and imported Chinese

paper clips are used interchangeably.

U.S. producers sold paper clips to virtually all channels of distribution within the office products

industry, including mass marketers, warehouse clubs, office super stores, wholesalers, mail order

catalogs, dealers, and the U.S. Government. Responding importers sold the subject merchandise to many 

of the same channels. During the original investigation, ACCO reported ***.26 The responding U.S.

importers reported that the majority of Chinese paper clips were sold through contracts that typically

fixed the price for 6-12 months.

Prices were primarily determined by the volume purchased. Other factors that impacted price

were the type of clip, clip quality (i.e., finish characteristics, wire strength and gauge, and consistency),

and required packaging (i.e., blister-wrapped packages for retail sale or boxed in bulk).27 Customers

could also receive advertising allowances and supplemental discounts for their overall purchases of office

products. Nearly all of the purchasers that completed Commission questionnaires reported buying paper

clips as part of a “bundle” of standard office supplies. They indicated, however, that the prices of the

paper clips were determined independently of the prices for the other products included in the bundle.28

As indicated earlier, the Commission noted in its original views that the paper clip industry was

mature. In contrast, “the market for paper clips has changed in that large discount retailers of office

supply products have increased in number, causing producers to shift sales to these chains. The record

indicates that it may be more costly for producers to compete in this new segment of the retail market

because there are greater marketing and advertising expenses.”29 ACCO reported that “large commercial

buyers of paper clips recently have started sourcing various office supply products, such as binder clips,

carded clips, and specialty items from China.”30 It argues that “{g}iven these new 

 24 Unless otherwise noted, information in this section was taken from Staff Report, (INV-CC-208), 

December 8, 2005.

 25 Certain Paper Clips from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-663 (Final), USITC Publication

2829, November 1994, p. I-11.

 26 ***. 

 27 Delivery costs were not considered to be an important factor.

 28 The Commission found that, although bundling is a common method of selling paper clips, “it does not affect

the prices for paper clips.” Certain Paper Clips from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-663 (Final),

USITC Publication 2829, November 1994, pp. I-8 and I-9.

 29 Ibid., p. I-8.

 30 ACCO’s response to the Commission’s Notice of Institution for the second review, p. 10. 

I-5
Figure I-1

Paper Clips: Types of Paper Clips

Source: Certain Paper Clips from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-663 (Final), USITC Publication

2829, November 1994, p. II-6.

I-6
Figure I-2

Illustration of Other Paper Fasteners

Source: Certain Paper Clips from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-663 (Final), USITC Publication

2829, November 1994, p. II-7.

I-7
purchasing relationships, these large commercial buyers likely would source paper clips from China if the

order were revoked.”31

According to OIC., “{p}aper clips are a commodity product, with no quality of brand

differentiation among producers, and are sold largely on the basis of price.”32 Large discount office

retailers such as Office Depot, Office Max, and Staples continue to be leading purchasers of paper clips.33

In this review, both ACCO and OIC allege that revocation of the antidumping duty order will injure the

domestic industry.34

Manufacturing Processes35

The manufacture of certain paper clips begins when purchased wire is drawn down to a

predetermined size on high-speed wire drawing machines and recoiled on large spools. The wire is then

drawn from the spools and bent in several places by wedges positioned in a rotary forming device. After

bending to form the paper clip the wire is cut and the paper clips are packaged.

The equipment used to manufacture paper clips in the United States and China is dedicated to

making either No. 1 clips, No. 3 clips, or jumbo clips. Although producers in both countries are capable

of adjusting their equipment to accommodate different wire sizes, wire-forming machines can not be used

interchangeably produce different size clips without considerable retooling adjustments.

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

In its original determination, and in its first and second review determinations, the Commission

defined the domestic like product as certain paper clips, coextensive with Commerce’s scope, and it found

the domestic industry to consist of all domestic producers of paper clips.36 In its notice of institution in

the current five-year review, the Commission solicited comments from interested parties regarding the

appropriate domestic like product and domestic industry.37 ACCO and OIC, in their responses to the

Commission’s notice of institution in the current review, indicated that they agreed with the

Commission’s definitions of domestic like product and domestic industry.38

 31 Ibid. 

 32 OIC’s response to the Commission’s Notice of Institution for the current review, p. 4.

 33 Ibid., p. 7.

 34 ACCO’s and OIC’s responses to the Commission’s Notice of Institution for the current review. 

 35 Information on manufacturing processes taken from Certain Paper Clips from the People’s Republic of China,

Inv. No. 731-TA-663 (Final), USITC Publication 2829, November 1994, p. II-5.

 36 Certain Paper Clips from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-663 (Final), USITC Publication

2829, November 1994; Paper Clips from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-663 (Review), USITC Publication 3330, July

2000; and Paper Clips from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-663 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3834, January 2006. 

 37 Institution of a Five-Year Review Concerning the Antidumping Duty Order on Paper Clips from China, 76 FR

171, January 3, 2011.

 38 ACCO’s response to the Commission’s Notice of Institution, p. 9 and OIC’s response to the Commission’s

Notice of Institution, p. 9.

I-8
U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

During the original investigation, there were four firms producing paper clips in the United

States, with ACCO accounting for *** percent of total U.S. production. The other manufacturers

consisted of Noesting, Work Services, and Trico Manufacturing Corp. During the second review, other

U.S. producers of paper clips were OIC (Edison, NJ), Advantus Corp (Jacksonville, FL) and Work

Services (Wichita Falls, TX). During this third review, two firms provided the Commission with

responses to its notice of institution, ACCO and OIC. The only other identified U.S. producer is

Advantus.39 During all three reviews ACCO described itself as the “predominant” U.S. producer of paper

clips, accounting for *** percent of U.S. production.40

During the first review, ACCO reported that OIC was formerly a significant importer of paper

clips from China, but that since the order was imposed OIC became a domestic manufacturer of paper

clips in order to stay in the business. During the original investigation, both ACCO and Noesting

imported paper clips from China. The Commission, however, determined not to exclude either firm from

the domestic industry as related parties. Both ACCO and OIC indicated in their response that there are no

known related parties.

U.S. Capacity, Production, Capacity Utilization,

U.S. Commercial Shipments, and Financial Data

Data reported by U.S. producers of paper clips in the Commission’s original investigation and in

response to its institution notices for the three reviews are presented in table I-2.41 

U.S. Imports

During the original investigation, the Commission identified 26 U.S. importers that imported

more than $50,000 each of the subject merchandise in fiscal years 1991-1993. Of these importers, 14

responded to the Commission questionnaires. The majority of the responding firms were

wholesales/distributors that stocked the product and then sold to retail stores. Other importers were large

mass merchandisers or “superstores.” However, during the three review periods, it reportedly was the

superstores which increasingly dominated the market, taking sales away from wholesalers.

In this third review, ACCO stated that it was not specifically aware of any current importers of

paper clips from China but noted that Zhejiang Light Industrial Products Import & Export Corp. must

have imported some subject merchandise since the imposition of the antidumping duty order as it

requested an administrative review for the 1997-1998 review year.42 OIC indicated in its response that it

had no information regarding known and currently operating U.S. importers of paper clips from China. 

Data regarding U.S. imports of paper clips, as reported by Commerce, are presented in tables I-3 and I-4. 

 39 Advantus sells paper clips under the GEM brand. OIC response, p. 6. GEM Office Products was formerly

known as Labelon/Noesting.

 40 ACCO response (First Review) p. 9, (Second Review) pp. 2, 8, (Third Review) p. 2, 6.

 41 As was the case in the first and second reviews, there is no current pricing data available for the subject

product.

 42 This request for administrative review was subsequently withdrawn.

I-9
Table I-2

Paper clips: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, capacity utilization, U.S. commercial shipments,

and financial data, 1991-1993, January-June 1993-1994, 1998, 2004, and 2010 

Item Original investigation First

review

Second

review

Third

review

1991 1992 1993

January-June

1998 2004 2010

1993 1994

Capacity (million units) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production (million units) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Capacity utilization (percent) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. Commercial shipments:

 Quantity (million units) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

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

 Unit value (per 1,000 units) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Net sales ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

COGS ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Gross profit or (loss) ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

SG&A expenses ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Operating income or (loss)

($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1

 Not available.

Note.–Data gathered during the original investigation were believed to represent *** U.S. production. Of the four U.S. producers

of subject paper clips, only Trico did not respond to the Commission’s questionnaire. Further, during the original investigation,

ACCO represented over *** percent of total U.S. production. During the first review, data reported by ACCO were adjusted

upward to account for the remaining U.S. producers. In the second and current review, ACCO and OIC accounted for almost all

U.S. production.

Source: Original Report, tables 2 and 3; ACCO response (First Review), as adjusted, pp 10-11; ACCO response (Second

Review), p. 9 and OIC supplemental response (Second Review), p. 1; ACCO response (Third Review), p. 8 and OIC

supplemental response (Third Review), p. 2. 

I-10
Table I-3

Paper clips: U.S. imports, by source, 1991-1993, January-June 1993-1994, 1998, 2004, and 2010 

Item Original investigation First

review

Second

review

Third

review

1991 1992 1993

January-June

1998 2004 2010

1993 1994

Quantity (million units)1

China 4,189 5,623 4,857 2,387 2,200 164 1,137 1,197

Hong Kong 1,002 1,476 73 34 0 1 3 0.1

 Subtotal 5,191 7,099 4,930 2,421 2,200 165 1,140 1,197

Other sources2 1,519 1,042 736 397 446 2,262 1,060 397

 Total 6,710 8,142 5,666 2,818 2,646 2,427 2,200 1,595

Value ($1,000 dollars)

China 3,911 5,494 4,482 2,182 2,077 459 2,267 3,342

Hong Kong 953 1,261 65 310282

 Subtotal 4,864 6,755 4,547 2,213 2,077 461 2,274 3,344

Other sources2 3,223 2,121 1,704 879 1,238 3,621 1,942 1,112

 Total 8,087 8,877 6,251 3,093 3,315 4,082 4,216 4,456

Unit value (dollars per 1,000 units)

China $0.93 $0.98 $0.92 $0.91 $0.94 $2.80 $1.99 $2.79

Hong Kong 0.95 0.85 0.89 0.92 - 2.01 2.45 25.01

 Average 0.94 0.95 0.92 0.91 0.94 2.79 1.99 2.79

Other sources2 2.12 2.04 2.31 2.21 2.78 1.60 1.83 2.80

 Average 1.21 1.09 1.10 1.10 1.25 1.68 1.92 2.79

 1

 Official import quantities were converted from kilograms to units by dividing the number of kilograms by a conversion factor

of 0.0007284. This conversion factor was supplied by petitioners during the original investigation.

 2 The primary “other source” during 1991-1994 was Taiwan. The primary “other sources” during 1998, 2004, and 2010 were

Colombia and Taiwan.

Note.–The applicable HTS number is 8305.90.3010. This HTS category includes products outside the scope of this review. 

Therefore imports may be somewhat overstated.

Source: Official Commerce statistics. 

I-11
Table I-4

Paper clips: U.S. imports, by source, 2005–10

Item Calendar year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (million units)1

China 829 544 424 569 457 1,197

Hong Kong 2 10 4 0.3 2 0.1

 Subtotal 831 554 428 570 459 1,197

Other sources2 765 906 867 614 448 397

 Total 1,596 1,459 1,295 1,184 906 1,595

Value ($1,000 dollars)

China 2,000 1,543 1,427 2,941 1,988 3,342

Hong Kong 4 47 8 4 19 2

 Subtotal 2,004 1,590 1,435 2,945 2,007 3,344

Other sources2 1,275 1,550 1,554 1,263 1,061 1,112

 Total 3,279 3,140 2,989 4,208 3,068 4,456

Unit value (dollars per 1,000 units)

China $2.41 $2.84 $3.37 $5.17 $4.35 $2.79

Hong Kong 2.59 4.77 1.85 12.75 12.63 25.01

 Average 2.41 2.87 3.35 5.17 4.38 2.79

Other sources2 1.67 1.71 1.79 2.06 2.37 2.80

 Average 2.05 2.15 2.31 3.55 3.39 2.79

 1

 Official import quantities were converted from kilograms to units by dividing the number of kilograms by a conversion factor

of 0.0007284. This conversion factor wasr supplied by petitioners during the original investigation.

 2 The primary “other source” during 1991-1994 was Taiwan. The primary “other sources” during 1998, 2004, and 2010 were

Colombia and Taiwan.

Note.–The applicable HTS number is 8305.90.3010. This HTS category includes products outside the scope of this review. 

Therefore imports may be somewhat overstated.

 

Source: Official Commerce statistics. 

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND U.S. MARKET SHARES

Table I-5 presents apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares for the period of the

Commission’s original investigation and the three reviews. In 2010, domestic production of paper clips

accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption and imports from China accounted for ***

percent.

I-12
Table I-5

Paper clips: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and

U.S. market shares, 1991-1993, January-June 1993-1994, 1998, 2004, and 2010 

Item Original investigation First

review

Second

review

Third

review

1991 1992 1993

January-June

1998 2004 2010

1993 1994

Quantity (million units)1

U.S. producers’ U.S.

 shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports

 China 4,189 5,623 4,857 2,387 2,200 164 1,137 1,197

 Hong Kong 1,002 1,476 73 34 0 1 3 0.1

 Subtotal 5,191 7,099 4,930 2,421 2,200 165 1,140 1,197

 All other sources3 1,519 1,042 736 397 446 2,262 1,060 397

 Total 6,710 8,142 5,666 2,818 2,646 2,427 2,200 1,595

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Share of consumption (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

 shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports

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

 Hong Kong *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Subtotal *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

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

 1

 Official import quantities were converted from kilograms to units based on a conversion factor supplied by petitioners during

the original investigation.

 2

 Less than 0.1.

 3 The primary “other source” during 1991-1994 was Taiwan. The primary “other sources” during 1998, 2004, and 2010 were

Colombia and Taiwan.

Source: Official Commerce statistics. 

I-13
THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Petitioners alleged during the original investigation that there were at least two factories

producing subject paper clips in China, one separate firm exporting paper clips, and four additional firms

that both produced and exported the subject products. During its final investigation, Commerce verified

the responses of three manufacturers (Jiaxing Stationery Pins, Shanghai Stationery Pins, and Wuyi), as

well as those of three exporters (Shanghai Lansheng, ZIP, and ZMEC). Another exporter (Abel

Industries) indicated that it would not participate in Commerce’s investigation. No information on the

Chinese paper clips industry was provided to the Commission during the original investigation either by

these firms or by any of the organizations contacted by the Commission staff.

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this third review, ACCO listed 12

firms that it believes have either produced paper clips in the past or are current producers of paper clips in

China.43 The Chinese interested parties did not participate at the Commission or at Commerce during the

first or second review, nor did such parties participate at either agency during the institution phase of this

third review. As was the case in the first and second reviews, ACCO indicated in its response to the

Commission’s notice of institution that it is not aware of specific information regarding current Chinese

paper clip capacity, production, capacity utilization, or inventories. However, ACCO again indicated that

it is generally aware that the capacity to produce paper clips at the level prior to the antidumping order

continues to exist in China, that it is currently not employed and therefore available to be directed at the

United States. OIC indicated that it does not have any information regarding Chinese producers of paper

clips.

 

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

Based on available information, subject paper clips from China have not been subject to any other

import relief investigations in any other country.

 43 The 12 producers include the following: Tat Wing International Industrial Co., Ltd. (HK); Abel Industries HK

LTD.-Shenzen Special Economic Zone; Ningbo Haisu Wenhua Stationery Factory; Teco (Ningbo) Co. Ltd.; Ningbo

Tiger Hardware & Daily-Use Manufacture Co. Ltd.; Shaoxing Yuanfa Stationery And Sports Materials Co., Ltd.;

Rosary Stationery Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Zhenhai Yonsheng Head Ornaments Co., Ltd.; Ninghai ZhenDa Metal Products

Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Caihong Rubber & Plastic Co., Ltd.; Sincere Stationery & Gift Co., Ltd. and Chungkju Resources

Ltd.

I-14

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-1

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Notices 171 

1 1 No 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. 11–5–237, 

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. 

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 2010 (report quantity data 

in units and value data in U.S. dollars). 

If you are a trade/business association, 

provide the information, on an aggregate 

basis, for the firms which are members 

of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2010 

(report quantity data in units and value 

data in U.S. dollars, landed and dutypaid at the U.S. port but not including 

antidumping duties). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Products that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country after 2004, 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 Products 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(13) (Optional) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like 

Products and Domestic Industries; if you 

disagree with either or both of these 

definitions, please explain why and 

provide alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are 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: December 22, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32699 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–663 (Third 

Review)] 

Paper Clips From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on paper clips 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 paper clips 

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 February 2, 2011. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

March 18, 2011. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this review 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207), as most recently amended at 74 FR 

2847 (January 16, 2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: January 3, 2011. 

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 November 25, 1994, 

the Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Commerce’’) issued an antidumping 

duty order on imports of paper clips 

from China (59 FR 60606). Following 

five-year reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective August 15, 2000, 

Commerce issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

paper clips from China (65 FR 49784). 

Following second five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective February 7, 2006, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
172 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Notices 

paper clips from China (71 FR 6269). 

The Commission is now conducting a 

third 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 and its expedited first 

and second five-year review 

determinations, the Commission 

defined the Domestic Like Product as 

certain wire paper clips, coextensive 

with Commerce’s 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 

and its expedited first and second fiveyear review determinations, the 

Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry to consist of all domestic 

producers of paper clips. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the review and public 

service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the review as parties must 

file an entry of appearance with the 

Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the review. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official has advised that a five-year 

review is not considered the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the corresponding 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees, and Commission rule 

201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are not 

required to seek Commission approval 

to appear in a review under Commission 

rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the review. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification.—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with this 

review must certify that the information 

is accurate and complete to the best of 

the submitter’s knowledge. In making 

the certification, the submitter will be 

deemed to consent, unless otherwise 

specified, for the Commission, its 

employees, and contract personnel to 

use the information provided in any 

other reviews or investigations of the 

same or comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is February 2, 2011. 

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 March 18, 

2011. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of sections 

201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s 

rules and any submissions that contain 

BPI must also conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6 and 

207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The 

Commission’s rules do not authorize 

filing of submissions with the Secretary 

by facsimile or electronic means, except 

to the extent permitted by section 201.8 

of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 

67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, 

in accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the review you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information.—Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determination in the review. 

Information to be Provided in 

Response to this Notice of Institution: 

As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes 

any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address) and name, telephone number, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Notices 173 

fax number, and E-mail address of the 

certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in this review by providing information 

requested by the Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

§ 1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in the Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

2004. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and E-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2010, except as noted 

(report quantity data in units and value 

data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you 

are a union/worker group or trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms in which your workers are 

employed/which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); 

(d) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s); and 

(e) The value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2010 (report quantity data 

in units and value data in U.S. dollars). 

If you are a trade/business association, 

provide the information, on an aggregate 

basis, for the firms which are members 

of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2010 

(report quantity data in units and value 

data in U.S. dollars, landed and dutypaid at the U.S. port but not including 

antidumping duties). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country after 2004, 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
174 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Notices 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(13) (optional) A statement of whether 

you agree with the above definitions of 

the Domestic Like Product and Domestic 

Industry; if you disagree with either or 

both of these definitions, please explain 

why and provide alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 22, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32698 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Office of Justice Programs 

[OJP (NIJ) Docket No. 1541] 

NIJ Draft Metal Detector Standards for 

Public Safety 

AGENCY: National Institute of Justice. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments on the Draft Metal Detector 

Standards for Public Safety. 

SUMMARY: In an effort to obtain 

comments from interested parties, the 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, National Institute of 

Justice (NIJ) will make available to the 

general public the following draft 

standards for metal detectors: 

1. Walk-through Metal Detector 

Standard for Public Safety. 

2. Hand-held Metal Detector Standard 

for Public Safety. 

The opportunity to provide comments 

on these voluntary standards is open to 

industry technical representatives, law 

enforcement agencies and organizations, 

research, development and scientific 

communities, and all other stakeholders 

and interested parties. Those 

individuals wishing to obtain and 

provide comments on the draft standard 

under consideration are directed to the 

following Web site: http:// 

www.justnet.org. 

Please note that all comments 

received are considered part of the 

public record and may be made 

available for public inspection online. 

Such information includes personal 

identifying information (such as name 

and address) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter. 

If you wish to submit personal 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) as part of your 

comment, but do not wish for it to be 

posted online, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You also must locate 

all the personal identifying information 

you do not wish to be posted online in 

the first paragraph of your comment and 

clearly identify what information you 

would like redacted. 

If you wish to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment but do not wish for it to be 

posted online, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You also must 

prominently identify confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. If a comment has 

so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

may not be posted online. 

Personal identifying information and 

confidential business information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will be placed in the agency’s public 

docket file (which will be made 

available for public inspection upon 

request), but not posted online. 

DATES: The comment period will be 

open from January 1, 2011, to February 

15, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Casandra Robinson, by telephone at 

202–305–2596 [Note: this is not a tollfree telephone number], or by e-mail at 

casandra.robinson@usdoj.gov. 

John H. Laub, 

Director, National Institute of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33081 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–74,575; TA–W–74,575D] 

International Business Machines (IBM), 

Global Sales Operations Organization, 

Sales and Distribution Business 

Manager Roles; One Teleworker 

Located in Charleston, WV; 

International Business Machines (IBM), 

Global Sales Operations Organization, 

Sales and Distribution Business Unit, 

Relations Analyst and Band 8 Program 

Manager Roles; One Teleworker 

Located in Louisville, KY; Amended 

Certification Regarding Eligibility To 

Apply for Worker Adjustment 

Assistance 

In accordance with Section 223 of the 

Trade Act of 1974, as amended (‘‘Act’’), 

19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor 

issued a Certification of Eligibility to 

Apply for Worker Adjustment 

Assistance on November 12, 2010, 

applicable to workers of International 

Business Machines (IBM), Global Sales 

Operations Organization, Sales and 

Distribution Business Unit, Relations 

Analyst and Band 8 Program Manager 

Roles, one teleworker location in 

Charleston, West Virginia. The notice 

was published in the Federal Register 

on November 23, 2010 (75 FR 71460). 

The workers provide Relations Analyst 

and Band 8 Program Manager services. 

At the request of the petitioner, the 

Department reviewed the certification 

for workers of the subject firm. 

New findings show that worker 

separations occurred during the relevant 

time period affecting one teleworker in 

Louisville, Kentucky of International 

Business Machines (IBM), Global Sales 

Operations Organization, Sales and 

Distribution Business Unit, Relations 

Analyst and Band 8 Program Unit. The 

teleworker in Louisville, Kentucky 

provided Relations Analyst and Band 8 

Program Manager services. 

Accordingly, the Department is 

amending the certification to include 

one teleworker in Louisville, Kentucky 

of International Business Machines 

(IBM), Global Sales Operations 

Organization, Sales and Distribution 

Business Unit, Relations Analyst and 

Band 8 Program Unit. 

The intent of the Department’s 

certification is to include all workers of 

the subject firm who were adversely 

affected by a shift of services like or 

directly competitive with the Relations 

Analyst and Band 8 Program Manager 

services supplied by the workers to a 

foreign country. 

The amended notice applicable to 

TA–W–74,575 is hereby issued as 

follows: 

All workers of International Business 

Machines (IBM) Global Sales Operations 

Organization, Sales and Distribution 

Business Unit, Relations Analyst and Brand 

8 Program Manager Roles, one teleworker 

located in Charleston, West Virginia (TA–W– 

74,575); International Business Machines 

(IBM), Global Sales Operations Organization, 

Sales and Distribution Business Unit, 

Relations Analyst and Brand 8 Program 

Manager Roles, one teleworker located in 

Dallas, Texas (TA–W–74,575A); International 

Business Machines (IBM), Global Sales 

Operations Organization, Sales and 

Distribution Business Unit, Relations Analyst 

and Brand 8 Program Manager Roles, two 

teleworkers located in Atlanta, Georgia (TA– 

W–74,575B); International Business 

Machines (IBM), Global Sales Operations 

Organization, Sales and Distribution 

Business Unit, Relations Analyst and Brand 

8 Program Manager Roles, one teleworker 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
26242 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2011 / Notices 

1See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Paper 

Clips From the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 

60606 (November 25, 1994). 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0747. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

At the request of interested parties, 

the Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on polyethylene retail carrier bags from 

Thailand for the period August 1, 2009, 

through July 31, 2010. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 60076 

(September 29, 2010). The preliminary 

results of this administrative review are 

currently due no later than May 3, 2011. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

the Department to complete the 

preliminary results within 245 days 

after the last day of the anniversary 

month of an order for which a review 

is requested and the final results within 

120 days after the date on which the 

preliminary results are published in the 

Federal Register. If it is not practicable 

to complete the review within these 

time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act allows the Department to extend the 

time limit for the preliminary results to 

a maximum of 365 days after the last 

day of the anniversary month. 

We determine that it is not practicable 

to complete the preliminary results of 

this review by the current deadline of 

May 3, 2011, because we require 

additional time to analyze complex cost 

issues raised by the petitioner in this 

administrative review. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), we 

are extending the time period for issuing 

the preliminary results of this review by 

15 days to May 18, 2011. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: May 2, 2011. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11124 Filed 5–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–826] 

Paper Clips From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

Expedited Sunset Review of 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 3, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated the third sunset 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on paper clips from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘the Act’’). Based on the 

notice of intent to participate and 

adequate substantive response filed by a 

domestic interested party, and the lack 

of response from any respondent 

interested party, the Department 

conducted an expedited (120-day) 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on paper clips from the PRC, 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). 

As a result of this sunset review, the 

Department finds that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping, at the levels indicated in the 

‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice, infra. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 6, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Krisha Hill or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4037 or (202) 482– 

0650, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 25, 1994, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on paper clips from the PRC.1 On 

January 3, 2011, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

third sunset review of the antidumping 

duty order on paper clips from the PRC 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review, 76 FR 89 (January 3, 2011). On 

January 10, 2011, the Department 

received a notice of intent to participate 

from ACCO Brands USA LLP (‘‘ACCO’’), 

a domestic interested party, within the 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). ACCO claimed 

interested parties status under section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, as a producer in the 

United States of a domestic like 

product. On February 2, 2011, the 

Department received a complete and 

adequate substantive response from 

ACCO within 30 days of publication of 

the initiation. The Department did not 

receive a response from any respondent 

interested parties to this proceeding. As 

a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department 

conducted an expedited (120-day) 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on paper clips from the PRC. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

certain paper clips, wholly of wire of 

base metal, whether or not galvanized, 

whether or not plated with nickel or 

other base metal (e.g., copper), with a 

wire diameter between 0.025 inches and 

0.075 inches (0.64 to 1.91 millimeters), 

regardless of physical configuration, 

except as specifically excluded. The 

products subject to the order may have 

a rectangular or ring-like shape and 

include, but are not limited to, clips 

commercially referred to as No. 1 clips, 

No. 3 clips, Jumbo or Giant clips, Gem 

clips, Frictioned clips, Perfect Gems, 

Marcel Gems, Universal clips, Nifty 

clips, Peerless clips, Ring clips, and 

Glide-On clips. The products subject to 

the order are currently classifiable 

under subheading 8305.90.3010 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

of the order are plastic and vinyl 

covered paper clips, butterfly clips, 

binder clips, or other paper fasteners 

that are not made wholly of wire of base 

metal and are covered under a separate 

subheading of the HTSUS. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

A complete discussion of all issues 

raised in this sunset review is provided 

in the accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum (‘‘I&D Memo’’), 

dated concurrently with this notice. The 

issues discussed in the I&D Memo 

include the likelihood of continuation 

or recurrence of dumping and the 

magnitude of the margins likely to 

prevail if the order is revoked. Parties 

can obtain a public copy of the I&D 

Memo from the Central Records Unit, 

room 7046, of the main Commerce 

building. In addition, a complete public 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2011 / Notices 26243 

1The Evraz Group includes OAO Vanady-Tula, 

East Metals S.A., and East Metals N.A. 

version of the I&D Memo can be 

accessed directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the I&D Memo are 

identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on paper clips from the PRC 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping at the 

following weighted-average margins: 

Manufacturers/exporters/producers 

Weightedaverage margin 

(percent) 

Shanghai Lansheng Corporation ..................................................................................................................................................... 57.64 

Zhejiang Light Industrial Products Import & Export Corporation .................................................................................................... 46.01 

Zhejiang Machinery and Equipment Import & Export Corporation ................................................................................................. 60.70 

PRC-wide Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................ 126.94 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: April 26, 2011. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11126 Filed 5–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–821–807] 

Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry 

on Antidumping Duty Order on 

Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium 

From the Russian Federation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

AMG Vanadium, Inc. (AMG Vanadium), 

the Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is initiating an 

anticircumvention inquiry to determine 

whether imports of vanadium pentoxide 

from the Russian Federation (Russia) 

that is converted into ferrovanadium in 

the United States are circumventing the 

antidumping duty order on 

ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium 

(ferrovanadium) from Russia. See Notice 

of Antidumping Order: Ferrovanadium 

and Nitrided Vanadium From the 

Russian Federation, 60 FR 35550 (July 

10, 1995). 

DATES: Effective Date: May 6, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Goldberger or Rebecca Trainor, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4136 or (202) 482– 

4007, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 25, 2011, AMG 

Vanadium submitted a request that the 

Department initiate an 

anticircumvention inquiry (AMG 

Request), pursuant to section 781(a) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), and 19 CFR 351.225(c) and (g), to 

determine whether imports of vanadium 

pentoxide from Russia that is processed 

into ferrovanadium in the United States 

are circumventing the antidumping duty 

order on ferrovanadium from Russia. 

Specifically, AMG Vanadium alleges 

that the Evraz Group 1 is importing 

vanadium pentoxide, an intermediate 

product used in the production of 

ferrovanadium, from its Russian affiliate 

OAO Vanady-Tula. The imported 

vanadium pentoxide is then tollconverted into ferrovanadium in the 

United States by an unaffiliated 

processor (which never takes title), prior 

to sale in the United States. AMG 

Vanadium alleges that this trade pattern 

is circumventing the antidumping duty 

order within the meaning of section 

781(a) of the Act. 

AMG Vanadium further claims that: 

(1) The ferrovanadium sold in the 

United States is of the same class or 

kind of merchandise as the 

ferrovanadium that is subject to the 

order; (2) the ferrovanadium is 

completed or assembled in the United 

States from parts or components 

produced in Russia; (3) the process of 

converting vanadium pentoxide to 

ferrovanadium in the United States is 

minor or insignificant; and (4) the value 

of the Russian vanadium pentoxide 

constitutes a significant portion of the 

value of the finished ferrovanadium 

sold in the United States. Accordingly, 

AMG Vanadium requests that the 

Department include within the scope of 

the ferrovanadium order vanadium 

pentoxide manufactured in Russia, 

regardless of form, that is produced, 

exported, or imported by the Evraz 

Group or any of its affiliates. 

In response to the Department’s 

March 9, 2011, request, on March 16, 

2011, AMG Vanadium provided 

additional information pertinent to its 

anticircumvention inquiry request 

(March 16 Submission). 

On March 25, 2011, the Evraz Group 

filed comments opposing AMG 

Vanadium’s circumvention allegation 

on the grounds that the Department is 

legally precluded from including 

vanadium pentoxide in the scope of the 

order. The Evraz Group included in its 

submission calculations performed 

using a cost-based methodology, as an 

alternative to the value-based 

methodology used by AMG Vanadium, 

arguing that AMG Vandium’s approach 

leads to misleading results. Between 

April 1 and 22, 2011, AMG Vanadium 

and the Evraz Group submitted 

additional comments with respect to 

whether the Department should initiate 

this anticircumvention inquiry. The 

Department met with representatives of 

AMG Vanadium and the Evraz Group on 

March 3, and April 5, 2011, 

respectively, to discuss the request. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the 

antidumping duty order are 

ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium, 

regardless of grade, chemistry, form or 

size, unless expressly excluded from the 

scope of this order. Ferrovanadium 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
31360 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / 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. 

2Commissioners Shara L. Aranoff and Daniel R. 

Pearson dissenting. 

3The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by ACCO Brands USA, LLC and 

Officemate International Corp. to be individually 

adequate. Comments from other interested parties 

will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Sue E. Masica, 

Regional Director, Alaska. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13242 Filed 5–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–GY–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–663 Third 

Review] 

Paper Clips From China; Scheduling of 

an Expedited Five-Year Review 

Concerning the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Paper Clips From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

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 paper clips 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). 

DATES: Effective Date: April 8, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Haines (202–205–3200), 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 April 8, 2011, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (76 

FR 171, January 3, 2011) of the subject 

five-year review was adequate and that 

the respondent interested party group 

response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.2

Staff report. A staff report containing 

information concerning the subject 

matter of the review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on June 8, 2011, 

and made available to persons on the 

Administrative Protective Order service 

list for this review. A public version 

will be issued thereafter, pursuant to 

section 207.62(d)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,3 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 June 13, 

2011 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 June 13, 2011. 

However, should the Department of 

Commerce extend the time limit for its 

completion of the final results of its 

review, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the review must be 

served on all other parties to the review 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determination.—The Commission has 

determined to exercise its authority to 

extend the review period by up to 90 

days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: May 24, 2011. 

By order of the Commission. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13383 Filed 5–27–11; 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 

Notice is hereby given that on May 16, 

2011, a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States and State of Texas v. 

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., et al., 

Civil Action No. 4–07–CV–3795, was 

lodged with the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Texas. 

In this action the United States, on 

behalf of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, and 

the State of Texas, on behalf of the 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality (‘‘TCEQ’’), sought, pursuant to 

Sections 107 and 113 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9607 and 

9613, seeking reimbursement of 

response costs incurred or to be 

incurred for response actions taken at or 

in connection with the release or 

threatened release of hazardous 

substances at three facilities located in 

Webster, Texas (the ‘‘Webster Site’’), 

Odessa, Texas (the ‘‘Odessa Site’’), and 

Houston, Texas (the ‘‘Tavenor Site’’), 

known collectively as the ‘‘Gulf Nuclear 

Sites’’ or ‘‘Sites’’ as well as declaratory 

relief. 

The United States and the State have 

negotiated a Consent Decree with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES


APPENDIX B

STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in 

Paper Clips from China

Inv. No. 731-TA-663 (Third Review)

On April 8, 2011, 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).1

The Commission received submissions from two domestic interested parties in response

to the notice of institution. The two responses were filed by ACCO Brands USA, LLC and

Officemate International Corporation, domestic producers of paper clips. The Commission

found the individual responses to be adequate, and determined that because the responding

producers accounted for a substantial percentage of U.S. production, the domestic interested

party group response was adequate.

The Commission received no response from any respondent interested party, and

therefore determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. In the

absence of an adequate respondent interested party group response or any other circumstances

warranting 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 (www.usitc.gov).

1

 Commissioners Daniel R. Pearson and Shara L. Aranoff found that circumstances

warranted conducting a full review of the antidumping duty order and therefore voted to conduct

a full review.