U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4097 August 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Woven Electric Blankets from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1163 (Preliminary)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Joshua Kaplan, Investigator

Dawn Heuschel, Industry Analyst

Joshua Levy, Economist

David Boyland, Accountant

Karl von Schriltz, Attorney

Lita David-Harris, Statistician

Elisabeth Ferland, Investigatory Intern

George Deyman, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

Andrea Boron, Industry Analyst

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4097 August 2009

Woven Electric Blankets from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1163 (Preliminary)

i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Separate views of Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

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

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

WEBs and electric mattress pads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Knit electric blankets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Woven shells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

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

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

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

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

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

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

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-5

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

Comparison of the U.S.-produced and imported WEBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6

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

U.S. producer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization ................................... III-1

U.S. producer’s shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

U.S. producer’s inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

U.S. producer’s imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-2

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

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

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

Negligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3
ii

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

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

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

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

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Part VI: Financial experience of the U.S. producer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

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

Operations on woven electric blankets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-2

Cost of good sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Financial results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

Capital expenditures, research and development expenses, assets, and return on investment . . . VI-4

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-5

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

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

U.S. inventories of woven electric blankets from China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-1

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

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

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

Appendixes

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

B. Calendar of the Commission’s July 21, 2009 conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

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

published and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.
 1

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

 2

 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson determines that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United

States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports from China of woven electric blankets.

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1163 (Preliminary)

WOVEN ELECTRIC BLANKETS FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigation, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. § 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is

materially injured by reason of imports from China of woven electric blankets, provided for in

subheading 6301.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold

in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).2

COMMENCEMENT OF FINAL PHASE INVESTIGATION

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

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

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

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

preliminary determination in the investigation under section 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary

determination is negative, upon notice of an affirmative final determination in that investigation under

section 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the

investigation need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigation. Industrial

users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer

organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty

investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all

persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigation.

BACKGROUND

On June 30, 2009, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by Sunbeam

Products, Inc. doing business as Jarden Consumer Solutions, Boca Raton, FL, alleging that an industry in

the United States is materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of woven electric blankets from China. 

Accordingly, effective June 30, 2009, the Commission instituted antidumping duty investigation No.

731-TA-1163 (Preliminary).

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

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

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

of July 7, 2009 (74 FR 32192). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2009, and all

persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

 1

 Vice Chairman Pearson determines that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is

threatened with material injury by reason of imports of WEBs from the People’s Republic of China that are allegedly

sold in the United States at less than fair value. See Separate Views of Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson. He joins

the majority opinion through Section V(A), Conditions of Competition, except as noted herein.

 2

 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a) (2000); see also American Lamb Co. v. United States, 785 F.2d 994, 1001-04

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

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

 3

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

(Fed. Cir. 1994).

 4

 Confidential Staff Report (“CR”) at I-1, 3; Public Staff Report (“PR”) at I-1-2.

 5

 CR at I-6 n.14; PR at I-5 n.14.

 6

 See CR at B-4; PR at B-4 (Leslie Hearn, Senior Buyer, JCPenney, appeared on behalf of the Coalition at the

conference). Hung Kuo and Biddeford filed a joint post-conference brief.

1

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in the preliminary phase of this investigation, we find that there is a

reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of

woven electric blankets (“WEBs”) from the People’s Republic of China that are allegedly sold in the

United States at less than fair value.1

I. THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS

The legal standard for preliminary antidumping and countervailing duty determinations requires

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

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

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

of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.2

 In applying this standard, the Commission weighs the evidence

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

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

arise in a final investigation.”3

II. BACKGROUND

The antidumping duty petition in this investigation was filed on June 30, 2009 by Sunbeam 

Products, Inc. (“Sunbeam”), doing business as Jarden Consumer Solutions (“Jarden”), the sole domestic

producer of woven electric blankets (“WEBs”).4

 Milliken & Company (“Milliken”), *** domestic

producer of the fabric shells used by Jarden in the production of WEBs, filed post-conference comments

in support of the petition but did not attend the staff conference.5

 Respondents that participated in the

staff conference and filed post-conference briefs in the preliminary phase of this investigation were

Chinese producer Hung Kuo Electronic (Shenzhen) Company Limited (“Hung Kuo”) and importer

Biddeford Blankets, LLC (“Biddeford”), and the Ad Hoc Coalition of Blanket Importers (the

“Coalition”), which includes importer and purchaser J.C. Penney Purchasing Corporation (“JCPenney”).6

Perfect Fit Industries (“Perfect Fit”), an importer of nonsubject electric blankets, participated in the staff

conference but did not submit a post-conference brief. 

 
 7

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 8 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 9

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

 10 See, e.g., Cleo, Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v. Department of

Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455

(1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed.

Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts

of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of factors including the following: (1) physical

characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions

of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where

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

Trade 1996).

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

 12 Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49; see also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979)

(Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion as to

permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article are

not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent

consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”).

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

class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 688 F.

Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919 (1989).

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

single like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298

n.1 (“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s {like product} determination.”); Torrington,

747 F. Supp. at 748-52 (affirming the Commission’s determination defining six like products in investigations where

(continued...)

2

III. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

A. In General

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

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

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”7

 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a whole of a domestic like

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

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”8

 In turn, the Tariff Act defines “domestic like

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

with, the article subject to an investigation ... .”9

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

determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.10 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.11 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.12

Although the Commission must accept the determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is subsidized or sold at less than fair

value,13 the Commission determines what domestic product is like the imported articles Commerce has

identified.14 The Commission must base its domestic like product determination on the record in this
 14 (...continued)

Commerce found five classes or kinds).

 15 See, e.g., Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1304-05 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000);

Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 693 F. Supp. 1165,

1169 n.5 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988); Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 1075, 1087-88 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1988).

 16 Certain Woven Electric Blankets from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigations, Case No. A-570-951, 74 Fed. Reg. 37,001, 37,005 (July 27, 2009).

 17 CR at I-3, 5-6; PR at I-2, 4-5.

 18 CR at I-6; PR at I-5.

 19 CR at I-3, 6, 9; PR at I-2, 5-6.

3

investigation. The Commission is not bound by prior determinations, even those pertaining to the same

imported products, but may draw upon previous determinations in addressing pertinent domestic like

product issues.15

B. Product Description

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

investigation as follows:

The scope of this investigation covers finished, semi-finished, and unassembled woven

electric blankets, including woven electric blankets commonly referred to as throws, of

all sizes and fabric types, whether made of man-made fiber, natural fiber or a blend of

both. Semi-finished woven electric blankets and throws consist of shells of woven fabric

containing wire. Unassembled woven electric blankets and throws consist of a shell of

woven fabric and one or more of the following components when packaged together or in

a kit: (1) Wire; (2) controller(s). The shell of woven fabric consists of two sheets of

fabric joined together forming a “shell.” The shell of woven fabric is manufactured to

accommodate either the electric blanket’s wiring or a subassembly containing the electric

blanket’s wiring (e.g., wiring mounted on a substrate). A shell of woven fabric that is not

packaged together, or in a kit, with either wire, controller(s), or both, is not covered by

this investigation even though the shell of woven fabric may be dedicated solely for use

as a material in the production of woven electric blankets. The finished, semi-finished

and unassembled woven electric blankets and throws subject to this investigation are

currently classifiable under subheading 6301.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for

convenience and customs purposes, only the written description of the scope is

dispositive.16

WEBs consist of a woven fabric shell, made of manmade fibers, natural fibers, or a blend of the

two, containing a heat-producing wire whose temperature is controlled by means of one or more

thermostats or controllers.17 They are produced in standard bedding sizes, including twin, full, queen, and

king, and also as throws in smaller sizes.18 WEBs are generally used to keep resting or sleeping

individuals warm.19 The scope includes “semi-finished” WEBs, comprised of a fabric shell containing

wire, and “unassembled” WEBs, comprised of a fabric shell packaged with either wire or controllers, or

both wire and controllers, but not fabric shells alone. 
 20 Conference Transcript (“Conference Tr.”) at 58 (Jarden requested to address whether fabric shells should be

included in the domestic like product pursuant to the Commission’s semi-finished products analysis), (Altschuler)

(agreeing to do so); Jarden’s Post-Conference Brief (“Jarden’s PCB”), Exhibit 1 at 1-4. 

 21 See Conference Tr. at 16 (Altschuler).

 22 Jarden’s PCB at 3-4.

 23 See Jarden’s PCB at 4.

 24 Jarden’s PCB at 4-5. Specifically, Jarden argues that the different physical characteristics and uses of WEBs

and electric mattress pads limit their interchangeability, that the two products are produced in separate facilities

using different production processes and employees, that the two products are perceived differently by customers

and producers, and that electric mattress pads are generally more expensive than WEBs. See id. at 4-8. In Jarden’s

view, the two products share only similar channels of distribution. Id. at 6. 

 25 Milliken’s Post-Conference Brief (“Milliken’s PCB”) at 2-3 (arguing that the labor intensity of knit fabric shell

production precludes the domestic production of either knit fabric shells or knit electric blankets, making the

collection of data on such products a pointless exercise).

4

 C. Like Product Analysis

In the preliminary phase of this investigation, Jarden argues that the Commission should define a

single domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope of the investigation, which includes WEBs

as well as semi-finished and unassembled WEBs. Jarden also maintains that the definition should not be

expanded to include fabric shells.20 Respondents counter that the Commission should expand the

domestic like product definition to encompass products -- electric mattress pads and knit electric blankets

-- that are not included in the scope of the investigation. 

We define a single domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope for purposes of the

preliminary phase of this investigation, as further explained below.

1. Whether the Commission Should Define a Single Domestic Like Product

Encompassing Products Outside the Scope of the Investigation

a. Arguments of the Parties

i. Petitioner’s Arguments

Jarden argues that the Commission should define the domestic like product as coextensive with

the scope of the investigation, which excludes non-woven and knit electric blankets.21 It contends that the

Commission cannot expand the domestic like product to encompass non-woven and knit electric blankets

as a legal matter because there is no domestic production of such products and the domestic like product

cannot be defined to include products not made domestically.22 As a factual matter, Jarden argues that

non-woven and knit electric blankets do not compete with WEBs because they look and feel differently

than WEBs and are generally more expensive.23 Although conceding that electric mattress pads are

produced domestically by WestPoint Stevens, Jarden argues that the record does not support their

inclusion within the domestic like product definition under the Commission’s six domestic like product

factors given the “extreme” differences between electric mattress pads and WEBs.24 Milliken argues that

the Commission should not expand the definition of the domestic like product to include knit electric

blankets given the substantial differences in the processes used to manufacture woven and knit fabric

shells.25
 26 Biddeford’s Post-Conference Brief (“Biddeford’s PCB”) at 2-3; Coalition’s Post-Conference Brief

(“Coalition’s PCB”) at 2.

 27 See Biddeford’s PCB at 4-8; Coalition’s PCB at 4.

 28 See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from China and Israel, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-403 and 731-TA-895-96 (Final), USITC

Pub. 3467 (Nov. 2001) at 8, n. 34; Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F.Supp. 744, 748-9 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990),

aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (holding that the Commission is not legally required to limit its like product to

the like product advocated by the petitioner, co-extensive with the scope).

 29 CR at I-8-9; PR at I-5-6.

 30 See, Certain Lined Paper School Supplies, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-442-443 (Preliminary) and 731-TA-1095-1097

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3811 (October 2005) at 15 n.50; Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products from Australia,

India, Japan, Sweden, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-965, -971-72, -979, and -981 (Final), USITC Pub. 3536

(September 2002) at 10 n.30; Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam, Inv. No. 731-TA-1012 (Preliminary),

USITC Pub. 3533 (August 2002) at 5; Ferrovanadium from China and South Africa, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-986-987

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3484 (January 2002) at 5 n.17, 6 & n.26 (“Highveld argued that the domestic like

product should be broadened beyond the merchandise described in the scope to include nitrided vanadium, a product

not produced in the United States . . . Because nitrided vanadium was not produced in the United States during the

period of investigation, we do not include it in the domestic like product.”); Silicomanganese from India,

Kazakhstan, and Venezuela, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-929-931 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3427 (May 2001) at 4-5 & n.15.

 31 CR at I-8 & n.19; PR at I-6 & n.19.

5

ii. Respondents’ Arguments

Biddeford and the Coalition argue that the domestic like product definition should be expanded

beyond the scope of the investigation to include electric mattress pads as well as knit electric blankets and

other heated bedding products to the extent that they are produced in the United States.26 They argue that

all heated bedding products have an identical use, have similar features, are made of the same “basic

materials,” are interchangeable, are distributed through the same channels of distribution, are perceived as

similar by customers and producers, and are priced “very similarly.”27

 b. Analysis

The Commission may, where appropriate, include domestic articles in the domestic like product

that are in addition to those described in the scope of investigation.28 

As an initial matter, we do not expand the domestic like product definition to include knit electric

blankets and other heated bedding products that are not produced in the United States.29 30 We have,

however, considered whether to expand the domestic like product beyond the scope of the investigation to

include electric mattress pads under the six domestic like product factors analysis.31 Because we find a

clear dividing line separating WEBs and electric mattress pads, as discussed below, we define a single

domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope of the investigation and does not include electric

mattress pads. 

Physical characteristics and uses

WEBs and electric mattress pads share some physical characteristics and uses at a broad level. 

Both are used to keep resting or sleeping individuals warm, and both consist of fabric shells, heating wire,
 32 CR at I-9-10; PR at I-6.

 33 CR at I-10; PR at I-7.

 34 CR at I-6, 11; PR at I-5, 7.

 35 CR at I-11; PR at I-7; Jarden’s PCB at 6.

 36 See CR at I-9-10; PR at I-6-7.

 37 See CR at I-9-10; PR at I-6-7.

 38 Importers reported that electric mattress pads are a good substitute for WEBs. CR at II-7; PR at II-5.

 39 CR at I-8 n.19, III-1; PR at I-6 n.19, III-1 (WestPoint Stevens produces electric mattress pads in ***, while

Jarden produces WEBs in Waynesboro, MS).

 40 CR at I-10-11; PR at I-7. Respondents have adduced no evidence to support their claim that the same

equipment and employees “can,” with minor adjustments, be used to produce WEBs and electric mattress pads. We

note that ***. Trip Notes, Field Visit to Sunbeam Plant, July 9, 2009 (“Trip Notes”), at 1.

 41 CR at I-10; PR at I-7.

 42 CR at I-7, 10; PR at I-5, 7.

 43 CR at I-10; PR at I-7; Jarden’s PCB at 7 (noting that electric mattress pads are quilted on large quilting

machines).

6

a controller of some kind, and a power cord.32 Both are produced in the same standard sizes (i.e., twin,

full, queen, and king).33 

On closer inspection, however, the physical characteristics and uses of WEBs and electric

mattress pads differ in many respects. Consumers may use WEBs, which include woven electric throws,

at any location near a power outlet, as on a couch, whereas electric mattress pads are designed to snugly

fit over mattresses.34 Conversely, WEBs may not be used on mattresses because placing objects on top of

WEBs would pose a safety hazard, as indicated in the instructions accompanying WEBs.35 

In terms of physical characteristics, WEBs are designed to be pleasing to the eye, being produced

in a wide variety of fashionable colors and designs, and soft to the touch, given that they touch the skin.36

Mattress pads, by contrast, are generally made of smooth, white, quilted fabric, because they are used

beneath bed linens and are thus not visible or touched by consumers.37 

Interchangeability

WEBs and electric mattress pads are interchangeable insofar as consumers can use either product

to stay warm in bed.38 Yet, electric mattress pads are not interchangeable with WEBs for use in locations

other than a bed. Moreover, consumers would not use a WEB instead of an electric mattress pad to cover

a mattress for reasons of safety, and consumers would not use an electric mattress pad instead of a WEB

to cover themselves for reasons of aesthetics and comfort. 

Common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees

Jarden and WestPoint Stevens produce WEBs and electric mattress pads, respectively, in separate

facilities with different employees.39 Both producers report that the production processes for the two

products also differ.40 For example, the fabric shells used to produce WEBs are napped and chemically

treated to impart a soft hand (i.e., feel), whereas the fabric used to produce electric mattress pads is not.41

Jarden ***.42 ***, WestPoint Stevens reportedly glues or sews the wire to a substrate before inserting it

between two layers of fabric and quilting the two pieces together on quilting machines.43 
 44 CR at I-12; PR at I-8.

 45 See CR at I-12; PR at I-8.

 46 CR at I-12; PR at I-8 (citing Conference Tr. at 78 (Pacheco)).

 47 CR at I-13-14; PR at I-9.

 48 Biddeford’s PCB at 8.

 49 As a practical matter, we also lack the data necessary to perform our analysis with respect to a domestic

industry that includes producers of electric mattress pads because the questionnaires sent to producers focused on

woven electric blankets rather than electric mattress pads. We urge any party that wants to argue for a different

domestic like product definition in the final phase of this investigation to request the collection of data on that

product in their comments on the Commission’s draft questionnaires. 

7

Channels of distribution

WEBs and electric mattress pads are sold through similar channels of distribution, being sold by 

producers to retail distributors.44

Customer and producer perceptions

Although there is limited information on the record, customer and producer perceptions of WEBs

and electric mattress pads would be expected to reflect their differences and similarities in terms of

physical characteristics and uses, addressed above. Although customers and producers might perceive

both products as “heated bedding items,” they would clearly understand that WEBs are meant to be seen

and felt on top of the user whereas electric mattress pads are meant to be affixed to a mattress under bed

linens.45 Evidence that electric mattress pads are generally purchased by a younger demographic than

WEBs also suggests that customer perceptions of WEBs and electric mattress differ.46 

Price

The record contains limited and conflicting evidence on the relative prices of WEBs and electric

mattress pads. Although Jarden claims that electric mattress pads are generally more expensive than

WEBs, ***.47 Biddeford contends that all heated bedding products, including WEBs and electric mattress

pads, are priced very similarly.48

Conclusion

There are more differences than similarities between WEBs and electric mattress pads in terms of

the Commission’s six domestic like product factors. Apart from a few broad similarities, the physical

characteristics and uses of WEBs differ from those of electric mattress pads in key respects, limiting their

interchangeability in the same end uses. These differences would also be reflected in customer and

producer perceptions of the products. WEBs and electric mattress pads are produced in different facilities

with different production processes and employees. The only similarity that WEBs and electric mattress

pads share completely is in their channels of distribution. There is insufficient evidence on the record of

the preliminary phase of this investigation to draw any conclusions with respect to price. 

In sum, the differences between WEBs and electric mattress pads are such that a clear dividing

line can be drawn separating WEBs from electric mattress pads. Accordingly, we do not expand the

domestic like product definition beyond the scope of the investigation to encompass electric mattress

pads.49 
 50 Jarden’s PCB at 8, Exhibit 1 at 1-2.

 51 Jarden’s PCB, Exhibit 1 at 2.

 52 Jarden’s PCB, Exhibit 1 at 2.

 53 Jarden’s PCB, Exhibit 1 at 2.

 54 Jarden’s PCB, Exhibit 1 at 3.

 55 Jarden’s PCB, Exhibit 1 at 3.

 56 Specifically, Jarden is the only domestic producer that manufactures wire and inserts it into fabric shells to

produce semi-finished WEBs and the only domestic producer that processes the three elements of unassembled

WEBs, namely fabric shells, controllers, and wire. CR at I-3, 7-8, III-1; PR at I-2, 5, III-1. We note that ***. Trip

Notes at 3.

8

2. Whether the Commission Should Define the Domestic Like Product to

Include Fabric Shells Pursuant to a Semi-Finished Products Analysis

a. Petitioner’s Argument

Jarden argues that an examination of the Commission’s semi-finished product factors does not

support expansion of the domestic like product to include fabric shells.50 First, it argues that while fabric

shells are currently dedicated to the production of WEBs, they could also be used as regular blankets.51

Second, it claims that there are separate markets for fabric shells and WEBs, with shells sold to WEB

producers and WEBs sold to retailers.52 Third, it claims that there are “vast” differences between fabric

shells and WEBs in terms of their physical characteristics and functions.53 Fourth, Jarden reports that

fabric shells represent only *** percent of the total cost of producing WEBs and *** percent of their

market value.54 Finally, it claims that fabric shells undergo a significant transformation into WEBs

through a five-step production process that includes napping, chemical treatment, wire insertion,

assembly and finishing, and packaging.55 

No other party has commented on the issue of whether the domestic like product should include

semi-finished fabric shells.

b. Analysis

In a semi-finished product analysis, the Commission examines the following factors: (1) whether

the upstream article is dedicated to the production of the downstream article or has independent uses; (2)

whether there are perceived to be separate markets for the upstream and downstream articles; (3)

differences in the physical characteristics and functions of the upstream and downstream articles; (4)

differences in the costs or value of the vertically differentiated articles; and (5) significance and extent of

the processes used to transform the upstream articles into the downstream articles.

At the outset, we note that Jarden has included semi-finished and unassembled WEBs within the

scope of the investigation without arguing that either product should be included within the domestic like

product pursuant to the Commission’s semi-finished products analysis. As a practical matter, the sole

domestic producer of WEBs is also the sole domestic producer of semi-finished and unassembled WEBs

and there are no known uses for the semi-finished and unassembled product other than the production of

finished WEBs.56 Because a determination of whether to include semi-finished and unassembled WEBs

in the domestic like product would have no impact on the definition of the domestic industry in this

investigation, we decline to discuss the issue further. By contrast, the inclusion of fabric shells in the

domestic like product would result in the inclusion of Milliken in the domestic industry definition ***

domestic producer of fabric shells. For purposes of the preliminary phase of this investigation, we do not
 57 Jarden’s PCB, Exhibit 1 at 2; Milliken’s PCB at 1. That woven shells could theoretically be used as regular

blankets is immaterial because Jarden concedes, and Milliken confirms, that all woven shells are used in the

production of WEBs. Id.

 58 Milliken’s PCB at 1; see also Jarden’s PCB, Exhibit 1 at 2 (stating that “shells of woven fabric are normally

dedicated to the production of the woven electric blankets.”).

 59 CR at I-6-7; PR at I-5; Conference Tr. at 21 (Sullivan).

 60 CR at I-7-8; PR at I-5.

 61 Jarden’s PCB, Exhibit 1 at 3.

 62 CR at I-7; PR at I-5.

 63 CR at I-7; PR at I-5; Conference Tr. at 21 (Sullivan). 

9

include fabric shells within the domestic like product based on the following analysis of our semi-finished

product factors.

Dedicated production

Fabric shells are an intermediate product dedicated to the production of WEBs, with no other

current uses.57

Separate markets

There is no known separate market for fabric shells. All shells produced by Milliken are sold to

Jarden for use in the production of WEBs.58 

Differences in characteristics and functions 

There are more differences than similarities in the characteristics and functions of fabric shells

and WEBs. Fabric shells are a semi-finished product consisting of two layers of woven fabric with

integral channels for the insertion of heating wire, wound into large rolls for delivery to WEB

producers.59 WEBs are a consumer electronic product consisting of a blanket made from a fabric shell

that has been napped and chemically treated; assembled with a wire, a module board encased in a plastic

housing, and a power cord; and packaged with an electronic control device for shipment to retailers and

ultimate sale to consumers.60 Nevertheless, the function of a fabric shell is integral to the function of a

WEB in contributing to the WEB’s ability to keep a user warm. 

Differences in costs or value 

Jarden reports that fabric shells represent *** percent of the cost of producing WEBs and ***

percent of their retail value.61

Significance of transformation 

The transformation of fabric shells into WEBs entails five production steps. First, the fabric shell

is napped by being drawn through rollers bristling with brush-like wires that comb the fibers and impart a

soft hand to the fabric.62 Second, the napped fabric shell is chemically treated to set the fibers and

improve the blanket’s appearance.63 Third, a heating wire is automatically inserted into the blanket using
 64 CR at I-7; PR at I-5.

 65 CR at I-7-8; PR at I-5; Conference Tr. at 23 (Sullivan).

 66 CR at I-8; PR at I-5.

 67 CR at I-8; PR at I-5.

 68 As with heated mattress pads, we lack the data necessary to perform our analysis with respect to a domestic

industry that includes producers of fabric shells. 

 69 We note that further references to “WEBs” include semi-finished and unassembled WEBs within the scope,

although there were no reported U.S. shipments of semi-finished or unassembled WEBs. 

 70 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 71 CR at I-3, III-1; PR at I-2, III-1. 

 72 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

10

proprietary technology.64 Jarden produces its own heating wire using a proprietary process.65 Fourth, the

WEB is assembled with a regulatory label, module board, and trim, and then tested.66 Finally, the WEB is

packaged with an electronic control device and placed in inventory.67

Conclusion

The evidence on whether to include fabric shells within the definition of the domestic like

product is mixed. On the one hand, all fabric shells are used in the production of WEBs, there is no

separate market for fabric shells, and fabric shells represent a significant proportion of the cost and value

of WEBs. On the other hand, there are significant differences in the characteristics and functions of

woven shells and WEBs, and woven shells undergo a significant transformation to become WEBs. On

balance, we find that the evidence in the preliminary phase of this investigation does not support the

inclusion of fabric shells within the domestic like product definition.68 We intend to revisit this issue in

any final phase investigation. 

In sum, we define a single domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope of the

investigation defined by Commerce, comprised of WEBs as well as semi-finished and unassembled

WEBs.69

IV. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

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

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

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”70 In defining the domestic industry, the

Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic production of

the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market. 

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

domestic producer, Jarden.71

A. Related Parties

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

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

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

related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers.72 Exclusion
 73 See CR/PR at Table III-4; 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 74 CR/PR at Table III-4. *** imports of WEBs from China were *** units in 2006, equivalent to *** percent of

its domestic production, *** units in 2007, equivalent to *** percent of its domestic production, *** units in 2008,

equivalent to *** percent of its domestic production, and *** in both interim periods. CR/PR at Table III-4. ***. 

Id. at Table III-4 n.1. 

 75 See 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid (HEDP) from China and India, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1146-

1147 (Final), USITC Pub. 4072 (April 2009) at 6; Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1046

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3620 (August 2003) at n. 20; Industrial Nitrocellulose from Brazil, China, France,

Germany, Japan, Korea, the United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-96 and 439-445 (Review), USITC

Pub. 3342 (August 2000) at 8; Drafting Machines from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-432 (Review), USITC Pub. 3252

(November 1999) at 5.

 76 Based on questionnaire responses, subject imports from China accounted for 100 percent of all known imports

of WEBs during the most recent 12-month period preceding the filing of the petition for which data are available. 

CR at IV-4-5; PR at IV-3. Because subject imports were well above the statutory negligibility threshold, we find

that subject imports are not negligible under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24).

 77 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

 78 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

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

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

 79 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 80 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 81 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

11

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

investigation. 

Jarden qualifies as a related party because it was an importer of subject merchandise from China

during the period examined.73 We find that circumstances do not warrant the exclusion of Jarden from the

domestic industry because Jarden’s interests primarily lie in domestic production rather than importation;

its ratio of subject imports to domestic production was low, ranging from *** to *** percent during the

period examined;74 and it is the petitioner. In addition, the Commission’s practice has been not to exclude

a related party where that producer is the sole U.S. producer.75 Accordingly, we define the domestic

industry as Jarden, the only domestic producer of the domestic like product.

V. REASONABLE INDICATION OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF

IMPORTS OF SUBJECT MERCHANDISE FROM CHINA76

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

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

injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the imports under investigation.77 In making this

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

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

the context of U.S. production operations.78 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not

inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”79 In assessing whether there is a reasonable indication that

the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports, we consider all relevant

economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.80 No single factor is

dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”81
 82 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

 83 Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484-85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he statute does not

‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’g 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1996).

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

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

requirement.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This was further ratified in

Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the Federal Circuit, quoting

Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997), stated that “this court requires evidence in

the record ‘to show that the harm occurred “by reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a minimal or

tangential contribution to material harm caused by LTFV goods.’” See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458

F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir.

2001).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

unfair imports.”); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“{T}he

Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports ... . Rather, the

Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject

imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha de Chile AG v. United States, 180

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

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

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

(continued...)

12

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

indication that the domestic industry is “materially injured by reason of” unfairly traded imports,82 it does

not define the phrase “by reason of,” indicating that this aspect of the injury analysis is left to the

Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion.83 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject

imports and material injury to the domestic industry, the Commission examines the facts of record that

relate to the significance of the volume and price effects of the subject imports and any impact of those

imports on the condition of the domestic industry. This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard

must ensure that subject imports are more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a

sufficient causal, not merely a temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.84

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

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

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

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

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

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

statutory material injury threshold.85 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.86 Nor does the
 86 (...continued)

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

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

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

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

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

harmful effects on domestic market prices.”). 

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

 88 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1381 (“an affirmative material-injury determination under the statute

requires no more than a substantial-factor showing. That is, the ‘dumping’ need not be the sole or principal cause of

injury.”).

 89 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877-78; see also id. at 873 (“While the Commission may not enter an affirmative

determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of’ subject imports, the

Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that determination ... . {and has} broad

discretion with respect to its choice of methodology.”) citing United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d

1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and S. Rep. 96-249 at 75.

 90 Commissioner Pinkert does not join this paragraph or the following four paragraphs. He points out that the

Federal Circuit, in Bratsk, 444 F.3d 1369, and Mittal, held that the Commission is required, in certain circumstances,

to undertake a particular kind of analysis of nonsubject imports. Mittal explains as follows:

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

aspect of the problem if it failed to consider whether non-subject or non-LTFV imports would have

replaced LTFV subject imports during the period of investigation without a continuing benefit to the

domestic industry. 444 F.3d at 1369. Under those circumstances, Bratsk requires the Commission to

consider whether replacement of the LTFV subject imports might have occurred during the period of

investigation, and it requires the Commission to provide an explanation of its conclusion with respect to

that factor.

542 F.3d at 878.

 91 Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at

879 (“Bratsk did not read into the antidumping statute a Procrustean formula for determining whether a domestic

injury was ‘by reason’ of subject imports.”).

 92 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875-79.

13

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

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

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.87 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.88

Assessment of whether material injury to the domestic industry is “by reason of” subject imports

“does not require the Commission to address the causation issue in any particular way” as long as “the

injury to the domestic industry can reasonably be attributed to the subject imports” and the Commission

“ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”89 90 Indeed, the

Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid

adherence to a specific formula.”91

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

where the relevant “other factor” was the presence in the market of significant volumes of pricecompetitive nonsubject imports. The Commission interpreted the Federal Circuit’s guidance in Bratsk as

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

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

imports.92 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether nonsubject imports might have

replaced subject imports without any benefit to the U.S. industry. The Commission applied that specific
 93 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 875-79 & n.2 (recognizing the

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

 94 Commissioner Lane also refers to her dissenting views in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip

from Brazil, China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1131-1134 (Final), USITC Pub.

4040 (Oct. 2008), for further discussion of Mittal Steel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 96 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873; Nippon Steel Corp., 458 F.3d at 1350, citing U.S. Steel Group, 96 F.3d at 1357;

S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (“The determination of the ITC with respect to causation is ... complex and difficult, and is a

matter for the judgment of the ITC.”).

 97 We provide in the discussion of impact in section V.D. below an analysis of other factors alleged to have

caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry. 

 98 Vice Chairman Pearson does not join this paragraph, having instead determination that there is a reasonable

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

China that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value. 

14

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

and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

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

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

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

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

injury from nonsubject imports or other factors to subject imports.93 Accordingly, we do not consider

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

subsequent to Bratsk.

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

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

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

non-attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.94 95

The question of whether the material injury threshold for subject imports is satisfied

notwithstanding any injury from other factors is factual, subject to review under the substantial evidence

standard. Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s

institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.96 97

For the reasons stated below, we find that there is a reasonable indication that the domestic

industry producing WEBs is materially injured by reason of subject imports from China that are allegedly

sold at less than fair value in the United States.98

A. Conditions of Competition

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis in the preliminary phase of this

investigation.
 99 CR at II-5; PR at II-3-4; Jarden’s PCB at 12; Conference Tr. at 26 (Pacheco), 164, 168 (Porter) (testifying that

the WEB market is “highly seasonal”); Coalition’s PCB at 6-7.

 100 CR at III-4; PR at III-2; Conference Tr. at 35, 37 (S. Kaplan). 

 101 Jarden’s PCB at 12.

 102 CR at V-2; PR at V-1; Conference Tr. at 26 (Sullivan).

 103 CR at V-2; PR at V-1; Conference Tr. at 26 (Sullivan).

 104 CR at V-2; PR at V-1; Conference Tr. at 26-27 (Sullivan).

 105 CR at II-1, V-2; PR at II-1, V-1; Conference Tr. at 27 (Sullivan).

 106 CR at V-2; PR at V-1; Conference Tr. at 168 (Porter) (“As it was earlier defined, we operate in the same

manner Sunbeam does. It’s really purchase orders. There’s no contracts. We don’t have any contracts long term. 

It’s a seasonal business reviewed every year and then reviewed the next year for the next year.”).

 107 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 108 CR at II-5; PR at II-4.

 109 CR at II-5; PR at II-4. 

 110 CR at II-1; PR at II-1.

 111 Jarden’s PCB at 11; Conference Tr. at 35 (S. Kaplan). 

15

1. Demand Conditions 

All parties agree that WEB demand is highly seasonal, with WEB sales concentrated in the fall

and winter months and peaking during the holiday season.99 WEB production, however, takes place year

round, with producers building inventories during the first half of the year according to projections of

demand in the second half of the year.100 Shipments to customers begin in the late summer and continue

through the fall.101 

Jarden determines its WEB production in the first half of every year based upon line reviews

conducted with its customers at the end of the preceding year.102 Pursuant to this process, Jarden meets

with each customer in November, approximately one year prior to the season at issue, and establishes that

customer’s anticipated needs for the upcoming season in terms of quantities, assortments, and prices.103

Based on these non-binding demand forecasts, Jarden plans its WEB production for the coming year and

builds inventories as necessary to satisfy projected demand.104 Throughout the year, but primarily in the

second half of each year, Jarden receives purchase orders from customers that are legally binding.105

Biddeford reportedly undertakes a similar sales process with its customers.106

 Apparent U.S. consumption of WEBs declined by *** percent during the period of investigation,

from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007 and *** units in 2008.107 Apparent U.S. consumption was

*** units in January-March 2008 and *** units in January-March 2009. When asked how demand for

WEBs in the U.S. market has changed since 2006, Jarden and 2 of 17 importers reported that it had

declined, five importers reported that it had increased, five importers reported that it was unchanged, and

five importers reported that it had fluctuated.108 Reasons given by Jarden and responding importers for

declining or fluctuating WEB demand since 2006 included changes in the weather, competition from

substitute products, retail distributors closing or consolidating outlets, and the maturity of the WEB

market.109 

The U.S. market for WEBs is characterized by a small number of large customers.110 Due to the

one-year lag between negotiations with a customer and deliveries to that customer, Jarden claims that it

can be two years before lost business is regained.111

There is some evidence that the increasing popularity of knit electric blankets may partly account

for the decline in apparent U.S. consumption of WEBs during the period examined. Responding
 112 CR at I-14, II-7; PR at I-9, II-4.

 113 Biddeford’s PCB at 10; Conference Tr. at 171 (Porter) (“We have also seen, in our company, the knitted-fleece

blankets and throws trending dramatically up in recent years, as far as volume goes, and it’s at the expense of woven

electric blankets and throws, and it’s consumer preference and retailer preference.”); Coalition’s PCB at 9. 

Biddeford also submitted evidence that Jarden’s overall sales of electric blankets, including knit electric blankets,

increased even as its sales of WEBs declined. See Biddeford’s PCB at 16, Exhibit 7 (Home Textiles Today reported

that Jarden’s “automatic blanket” revenues were flat from 2006 to 2007 and up 11 percent from 2007 to 2008);

CR/PR at Table VI-1 (Jarden’s net WEB sales declined from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2008). 

 114 Conference Tr. at 53 (Pacheco).

 115 CR/PR at Table III-1; CR at III-2; PR at III-1; Conference Tr. at 41 (S. Kaplan).

 116 CR at VI-8; PR at VI-3.

 117 CR at IV-3; PR at IV-2; CR/PR at Tables IV-2, 3.

 118 CR at IV-1; PR at IV-1; Conference Tr. at 194 (Layton); Biddeford’s PCB at 18.

 119 See CR at II-7-9; PR at II-5-6; CR/PR at Tables II-2-3; see also Jarden’s PCB at Exhibits 1-C, 1-H, and 2 (email correspondence indicating that ***).

 120 CR/PR at Table II-3.

 121 CR/PR at Table II-2.

16

importers reported that knit electric blankets are substitutable for WEBs,112 and Biddeford and the

Coalition argued that knit electric blanket sales have increased at the expense of WEB sales since 2006.113

On the other hand, Jarden testified at the conference that its sales of knit electric blankets have not

cannibalized sales of WEBs.114 

In any final phase of this investigation, we intend to explore further the impact of knit electric

blankets and the recession on WEB demand in the U.S. market. 

2. Supply Conditions

Jarden was the only domestic producer of WEBs during the period examined, and its capacity

increased by *** percent between 2006 and 2008 as Jarden’s replacement of worn-out equipment

increased production efficiency and reduced bottlenecks.115 As noted above, Jarden produces WEBs yearround but sells WEBs primarily in the second half of the year. Variable costs, including the cost of raw

materials, make up *** of the domestic industry’s cost of goods sold.116

The only other known source of WEBs in the U.S. market is China, as there were no imports or

U.S. shipments of WEBs from nonsubject countries during the period examined.117 *** subject imports

over the period examined appear to have been sourced from Hung Kuo, a Chinese producer affiliated with

Biddeford.118 

3. Substitutability

The record indicates that there is at least a moderate degree of substitutability between domestic

and subject imported WEBs and that price is an important consideration, though not necessarily the most

important consideration, in purchasing decisions.119 Most responding producers and importers reported

that subject imports are “always” used interchangeably with the domestic like product.120 When asked

whether differences other than price are significant in their sales of PRCBs, Jarden replied *** 4 of 13

responding importers replied “always” and another four replied “frequently.”121 Non-price factors cited

by responding importers included branding (i.e., the option to sell Biddeford blankets under the Biddeford
 122 CR at II-8-9; PR at II-6; Conference Tr. at 134-36 (Porter), 141 (Hearn).

 123 See Biddeford’s PCB at 19-21, Exhibit 10; Coalition’s PCB at 7-8.

 124 Jarden’s PCB at 9-10; Milliken’s PCB at 3-5 (noting that the fabric shells used by Jarden are heavier than the

fabric shells used by Biddeford); Conference Tr. at 50 (Pacheco) (“With regards to quality, we feel that our quality is

the best, given our proprietary technologies and processes in our facility, with our wiring and our heat technology

really being at the forefront.”), 50 (Sullivan) (“Our product, compared to the competition, heats up faster and stays

hotter longer, and this is based on some thermograms that we have taken . . . .”), 51 (Sullivan), 120-21 (Sullivan and

Pacheco) (testifying that Jarden’s WEBs feature localized shutoff in response to possible fire hazards).

 125 We base our analysis of subject import volume on importers’ questionnaire responses, which were received

from all firms believed to be large importers of WEBs. CR at IV-3; PR at IV-1. We do not rely on the volume of

imports reported under HTSUS 6301.10.00 because those data are known to include a substantial proportion of knit

and non-woven electric blankets, which are outside the scope of this investigation. CR at IV-3; PR at IV-1-2. 

Biddeford and the Coalition argue that the Commission should analyze subject import volume by reducing

the total volume of imports from China under HTSUS 6301.10, including subject and nonsubject electric blankets,

by an estimate of the quantity of nonsubject electric blankets imported from China based on importer questionnaire

responses, the Customs Net Import File (“CNIF”), re-exports by ***, and imports by ***, which Biddeford believes

to consist entirely of knit electric blankets. Biddeford’s PCB at 10-12; Coalition’s PCB at 10-11. We reject this

approach for two reasons. 

First, respondents’ approach yields an estimate of subject import volume that is inconsistent with both the

trend and the quantity of Hung Kuo’s reported WEB exports to the United States, which should account for ***

WEB imports from China by Biddeford’s own admission. Compare Biddeford’s PCB at 11 with CR/PR at Table

VII-1 (Biddeford’s estimate of subject import volume is nearly *** percent higher than the volume of WEB exports

to the United States reported by Hung Kuo); see also Biddeford’s PCB at 18 (claiming that Hung Kuo and Biddeford

accounted for *** percent of subject imports over the period examined); Conference Tr. at 194 (Layton) (testifying

that Biddeford believes itself to account for all subject imports over the period examined). By contrast, the volume

of subject imports reported by responding importers is within *** percent of the volume of WEB exports to the

United States reported by Hung Kuo. CR at IV-1; PR at IV-1. 

Second, Biddeford’s estimate of subject import volume is predicated on pure speculation that *** imports

under HTSUS 6301.10 consisted entirely of non-woven electric blankets and would assume, without evidence, that

all imports under HTSUS 6301.10 by importers that did not complete questionnaire responses consisted entirely of

WEBs. Because responding importers reported only imports of WEBs, we find that importers’ questionnaire

responses provide a more accurate accounting of actual subject import volume over the period examined than the

methodology proposed by respondents. 

17

brand, a private label, or the Sealy brand), lower delivery costs in the case of direct importers, more fabric

shell design options, electronics, packaging, delivery times, and warranties.122 

As detailed in section V.D. below, respondents argue that subject imports are qualitatively

superior to the domestic like product and that purchasers switched from the domestic like product to

subject imports for primarily non-price reasons.123 Jarden and Milliken counter that the quality of

domestically produced WEBs is comparable or superior to that of subject imported WEBs, and Jarden

argues that price, including incentive programs, has become increasingly important to purchasers in the

U.S. market.124 We intend to further examine the importance of price in the WEB market, and any nonprice factors, including branding, that distinguish subject imports from the domestic like product, in any

final phase of this investigation. 

B. Volume of Subject Imports125

Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume

of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to
 126 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 127 See CR at VI-1-2; PR at VI-1.

 128 CR/PR at Table IV-2. The volume of subject imports was *** units in January-March 2008 and *** units in

January-March 2009. Id.

 129 CR/PR at Tables IV-3-4. The volume of subject import shipments was *** units in January-March 2008, or

*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, and *** units in January-March 2009, or *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption. Id. It is not entirely clear how the volume of subject import shipments increased *** over the period

examined when the volume of subject imports did not increase. We intend to explore this issue further in any final

phase of this investigation. 

 130 CR/PR at Table IV-5. The ratio of subject imports to U.S. production was *** percent in January-March 2008

and *** percent in January-March 2009. Id.

 131 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 132 See CR at II-7-10; PR at II-5-7; CR/PR at Tables II-2-3.

18

production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”126 Since few WEB sales are made in the

first half of the year, due to the seasonality of the WEB market, we find that interim data from JanuaryMarch 2008 and 2009 are of limited probative value and attach little weight to such data.127

During the period of investigation, the volume of subject imports remained relatively stable at

*** units in 2006, *** units in 2007, and *** units in 2008.128 The volume of subject import shipments,

however, increased by *** percent, from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007 and *** units in 2008, as

subject imports increased their share of apparent U.S. consumption from *** percent in 2006 to ***

percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008.129 Because there were no nonsubject imports in the U.S. market,

the significant increase in subject import market share came entirely at the expense of the domestic

industry. As subject imports increasingly displaced domestic shipments from the U.S. market, the ratio of

subject imports to domestic production increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and

*** percent in 2008.130 

For purposes of the preliminary phase of this investigation, we find that subject import volume is

significant in absolute terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States. We also

find the increase in subject import shipments and market share over the period examined to be significant.

C. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

Section 771(C)(ii) of the Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of subject imports, 

the Commission shall consider whether – (I) there has been significant price underselling by the

imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States,

and (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant

degree.131

As addressed in section VI.A.2.c. above, the record indicates that there is at least a moderate

degree of substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product and that price is an

important consideration, though not necessarily the most important consideration, in purchasing

decisions.132 

Jarden and two importer/distributors provided usable quarterly net U.S. f.o.b. selling price data,

and eight importer/retailers provided usable quarterly purchase price data for three products, although not
 133 CR at V-4; PR at V-2-3. There were no reported subject import shipments of product 3. CR/PR at Table V-3.

 134 CR at V-4; PR at V-3.

 135 See CR at V-3, 11 n.11; PR at V-2, 4 n.11; CR/PR at Tables V-1-3. Jarden argues that, in this investigation,

the Commission should compare U.S. producer sales prices to retailers with retailers’ direct import purchase prices. 

CR at V-11 n.11; PR at V-4 n.11. We invite the parties to comment on how the Commission should collect and

analyze pricing data, including purchase price data, in their comments on the Commission’s draft questionnaires in

any final phase of this investigation. 

 136 See CR/PR at Table V-5.

 137 See CR/PR at Tables V-1-3. The parties agree that incentive programs, including mark-down dollars, return

allowances, volume rebates, cooperative advertising funds, and safety stocks, have long been a fixture of the WEB

market. CR at V-2-3; PR at 2; Conference Tr. at 27 (Sullivan); Biddeford’s PCB, Exhibit 16 at 1-2; Coalition’s PCB

at 14. Jarden argues that importers of subject merchandise have offered increasingly generous incentive programs to

capture market share, forcing Jarden to ***. Jarden’s PCB, Exhibit 1 at 5, Exhibit 1-B; Conference Tr. at 27-29

(Sullivan); CR/PR at Table VI-1. Jarden also urges the Commission to ensure that incentive programs have been

deducted from the selling and purchase prices reported by importers, so as to permit an accurate comparison between

subject import prices and domestic prices. Jarden’s PCB at 10; Conference Tr. at 30 (Sullivan). Biddeford claims

that the selling prices that it reported to the Commission are net of all incentive programs and that the value of such

programs was low during the period examined. Biddeford’s PCB, Exhibit 16 at 1-2, Exhibit 16-A. We intend to

further examine the role and extent of incentive programs in the WEB market in any final phase of this investigation. 

 138 Because WEB sales were concentrated in the third and fourth quarters of every year, we analyze the trend in

domestic prices over the period examined by comparing prices in the third quarter of 2006 with prices in the fourth

quarter of 2008. Jarden and the Coalition agree that pricing data from the third and fourth quarters of each year are

most probative for the Commission’s pricing analysis. Jarden’s PCB at 16; Coalition’s PCB at 13.

 139 CR/PR at Tables V-1-2.

 140 CR/PR at Table V-3. We find further evidence that subject import underselling depressed domestic prices to a

significant degree in the fact that domestic prices for product 3 increased by *** percent between the third quarter of

2006 and the fourth quarter of 2008, from $*** per unit to $*** per unit, in the absence of any subject import

shipments of the product. CR/PR at Table V-3. We also note that subject import underselling during the fourth

quarters of 2006 and 2007, when Jarden undertook the line review process with its customers, may have had some

(continued...)

19

all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.133 Pricing data reported by these firms

accounted for *** percent of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments and *** percent of subject import

shipments in 2008.134 The purchase price data (direct imports accounted for *** percent of the volume of

subject imports), however, are at a different level of trade than the selling price data collected on the

domestic like product and hence were not utilized in our underselling analysis.135 

The f.o.b. selling price data available in the preliminary phase of this investigation show a mixed

pattern of subject import underselling and overselling during the period examined. Subject imports

undersold the domestic like product in 15 of 26 quarterly comparisons, or 57.7 percent of the time, at

margins ranging from 0.2 to 28.8 percent, but underselling was confined to 2006 and 2007.136 Although

subject imports oversold the domestic like product in 2008, the purchase prices reported by

importer/retailers were lower than the selling prices reported by importer/distributors for that year,

suggesting that subject imports generally remained price-competitive with the domestic like product.137 

The record further suggests that subject import underselling and the competitive purchase prices

reported by importer/retailers depressed and suppressed prices for the domestic like product. Between the

third quarter of 2006 and the fourth quarter of 2008,138 domestic prices for product 1 declined by ***

percent, from $*** per unit to $*** per unit, and domestic prices for product 2 declined by *** percent,

from $*** per unit to $*** per unit.139 The decline in domestic prices between 2006 and 2007 was

accompanied by pervasive subject import underselling, according to the available data.140 141 
 140 (...continued)

influence on the prices that Jarden received during the 2007 and 2008 seasons, respectively.

 141 Chairman Shara L. Aranoff does not join the following paragraph or find that subject imports suppressed

prices for the domestic like product. Given the change in the domestic industry’s product mix from 2006 to 2008,

she finds the record unclear on these questions and will re-examine them in any final investigation. See CR at VI-6-

7; PR at VI-2.

 142 CR/PR at Tables VI-1-2; see also Jarden’s PCB at Exhibit 1-A (providing a breakdown of Jarden’s increased

production costs by factor of production); Conference Tr. at 31 (Pacheco).

 143 CR/PR at Tables VI-1-2. 

 144 CR at VI-2 n.8; PR at VI-2 n.8; Jarden’s PCB at Exhibit 1-I.

 145 CR/PR at Tables V-6-7; CR at V-15; PR at V-5. ***. CR at V-15; PR at V-5.

 146 See ***.

 147 CR at V-12 n.12; PR at V-4 n.12. 

 148 CR at V-15; PR at V-5.

 149 Commerce initiated this antidumping duty investigation based on estimated dumping margins ranging from

128.32 percent to 394.55 percent. 74 Fed. Reg. at 37,004.

 150 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission

considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in

some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing

difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”)

 151 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-

TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3155 at 25 n.148 (Feb. 1999).

20

We also find evidence that Jarden was unable to recoup its increasing costs through higher prices

during the period, with the average unit value of Jarden’s net sales declining by *** percent even as its

unit cost of goods sold (“COGS”) increased by *** percent.142 As a result, the ratio of Jarden’s COGS to

net sales increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008.143 Thus, it

appears that Jarden was increasingly caught in a cost-price squeeze. However, we recognize that the

decline in the average unit value of Jarden’s net sales, and the corresponding increase in its COGS to net

sales ratio, may partly reflect a change in Jarden’s product mix and will examine the issue further in any

final investigation.144 

Of *** lost sales allegations totaling $*** and *** lost revenue allegations totaling $***, *** lost

sales allegation, totaling $***, was confirmed in part.145 ***,146 a JCPenney buyer testified at the

conference that price was a consideration in JCPenney’s decision to switch to subject imports, although

not the most important consideration.147 ***.148 We intend to further investigate Jarden’s lost sales and

revenue allegations in any final phase of this investigation.

D. Impact of the Subject Imports149

Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Act provides that the Commission, in examining the impact of the

subject imports on the domestic industry, “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a

bearing on the state of the industry.”150 These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity

utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, profits, cash flow, return on investment,

ability to raise capital, research and development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor

is dispositive and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”151
 152 CR/PR at Tables VI-1, C-1. Domestic industry production was *** percent lower in interim 2009, at ***

units, than in interim 2008, at *** units. Id.

 153 CR/PR at Tables III-1, C-1; Conference Tr. at 41 (S. Kaplan). Domestic industry capacity was *** units in

both interim 2008 and interim 2009. CR/PR at Table III-1.

 154 CR/PR at Tables III-1, C-1. The domestic industry’s rate of capacity utilization was lower in interim 2009, at

*** percent, than in interim 2008, at *** percent. Id.

 155 CR/PR at Tables III-5, C-1. Domestic industry employment was *** percent lower in interim 2009, at ***

PRWs, than in interim 2008, at *** PRWs, while hours worked were *** percent lower and wages paid were ***

percent lower. Id.

 156 CR/PR at Tables IV-3, VI-1, C-1. The domestic industry’s net sales volume was *** units in interim 2008 and

*** units in interim 2009. Id. Its U.S. shipments by volume were also *** units in interim 2008 and *** units in

interim 2009. Id.

 157 CR/PR at Table IV-4. The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity was ***

percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009. Id.

 158 CR/PR at Tables VI-1, C-1. The domestic industry’s net sales value was *** in interim 2008 and *** in

interim 2009. Id.

 159 CR/PR at Tables VI-1, C-1. The domestic industry’s operating income was *** in interim 2008 and *** in

interim 2009. Id. We note that the seasonality of WEB sales makes operating profit margin data for interim 2008

and 2009 meaningless. Id. at Tables VI-1 n.2, C-1 n.3.

 160 CR/PR at Table VI-4. We note that, due to the seasonality of WEB sales, return on investment data for interim

2008 and 2009 are not useful for our analysis. Id. at Table VI-4 n.2. 

21

Based on the record of the preliminary phase of this investigation, we find that the domestic

industry’s performance declined over the period of investigation according to most measures. Due to the

seasonality of the WEB market, addressed in section V.A.1. above, we attach little weight to data from

the interim periods.

Domestic industry production declined by *** percent, from *** units in 2006 to *** units in

2007 and *** units in 2008.152 Domestic industry capacity, however, increased by *** percent, from ***

units in 2006 to *** units in 2007 and *** units in 2008, due to efficiency gains and debottlenecking.153

The domestic industry’s declining production, *** its increasing capacity, drove down its rate of capacity

utilization from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008.154

The domestic industry’s declining production took a significant toll on employment, hours

worked, and wages. Between 2006 and 2008, domestic industry employment declined by *** percent,

from *** production related workers (“PRWs”) in 2006 to *** PRWs in 2007 and *** PRWs in 2008,

while hours worked declined by *** percent and wages paid declined by *** percent.155 

The domestic industry’s net sales volume declined by *** percent, from *** units in 2006 to ***

units in 2007 and *** units in 2008, while its U.S. shipment volume declined by *** percent, from ***

units in 2006 to *** units in 2007 and *** units in 2008.156 The domestic industry’s share of apparent

U.S. consumption by quantity declined from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent

in 2008.157

Due to a *** decline in the average unit value of Jarden’s shipments, the *** percent decline in

the domestic industry’s net sales volume was exceeded by the *** percent decline in the domestic

industry’s net sales value, from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2007 and $*** in 2008.158 The domestic

industry’s operating income declined *** percent, from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2007 and $*** in 2008,

while its operating profit margin declined from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and ***

percent in 2008.159 Its return on investment declined ***, from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in

2007 and *** percent in 2008.160 Capital expenditures and research and development expenditures,
 161 CR/PR at Table VI-4. Domestic industry capital expenditures were *** in interim 2008 and interim 2009,

while its research and development expenditures were $*** in interim 2008 and $*** in interim 2009. Id.

 162 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 163 See, e.g., Conference Tr. at 54 (S. Kaplan) (testifying that the increase in WEB demand from consumers

seeking to reduce energy costs has been “swamped” by the reduction in WEB demand resulting from the recession),

60 (Pacheco) (testifying that WEB demand declined “somewhat” due to the recession, but “it hasn’t fallen as greatly

as you would have expected, given the retail price points of these products . . . .”). 

 164 See Biddeford’s PCB at 9; Coalition’s PCB at 9; Conference Tr. at 171 (Porter); but see Conference Tr. at 53

(Pacheco). 

 165 Conference Tr. at 138-142 (Hearn). The JCPenney buyer also testified that the customer return rate for

Biddeford blankets is lower than that for Jarden’s blankets, that Biddeford offers greater purchasing flexibility, and

that Biddeford’s corporate affiliation with Chinese WEB producer Hung Kuo allows for production efficiency and

quality control. See id.; see also Coalition’s PCB at 8 n.33 (noting that the return rate for Jarden’s WEBs was ***

percent higher than the return rate for Biddeford’s WEBs). We note that JCPenney did not follow through on its

promise, in response to a specific request from Commission staff, to report the premium it paid for qualitatively

superior Biddeford WEBs imported from China relative to the domestically produced WEBs they replaced. See Tr.

at 155 (Mr. von Schriltz: “I’m wondering, when you decided to make the switch from Sunbeam to Biddeford

blankets, how much more did you pay for the Biddeford blankets over the Sunbeam blankets that were replaced?” 

Ms. Hearn: “I would rather not talk about that in here.” Mr. von Schriltz: “Could you respond in your postconference brief, please?” Ms. Hearn: “Yes.”). The Coalition, of which JCPenney is a member, did not respond to

this request in its post-conference brief. 

 166 Biddeford’s PCB at 17-21, Exhibit 10. Specifically, Biddeford contends that the WEBs it imports from China

are superior to Jarden’s WEBs in offering superior fabric quality, with 32 picks per inch versus Jarden’s 28 picks per

inch; one inch in additional length and two inches in additional width; a five-inch binding versus Jarden’s three-inch

(continued...)

22

however, fluctuated between 2006 and 2008, with the former up by *** percent and the latter down by

*** percent.161 

For purposes of the preliminary phase of this investigation, we find a sufficient causal nexus

between subject imports and the deteriorating condition of the domestic industry to warrant an affirmative

determination. Subject imports increased their market share by *** percentage points between 2006 and

2008 at the direct expense of the domestic industry, since there were no nonsubject imports in the U.S.

market during the period.162 We have also found some evidence of subject import underselling and that

subject import underselling and the competitive purchase prices reported by importer/retailers depressed

and suppressed domestic prices.

We have considered whether there are other factors that have had an impact on the domestic

industry. We recognize that the *** percent decline in apparent U.S. consumption between 2006 and

2008 may have contributed to the domestic industry’s deteriorating performance during the period of

investigation.163 Respondents argue that WEB demand declined in part as increased sales of knit electric

blankets cannibalized WEB sales, though Jarden disputes this claim.164 We intend to further examine the

impact of the recession and knit electric blankets on WEB demand in any final phase of this investigation

to ensure that we do not attribute to subject imports the effects of any adverse demand conditions.

Respondents have identified several additional factors that in their view account for Jarden’s

declining performance over the period examined. A buyer for JCPenney testified at the conference that

her decision to switch from the domestic like product to subject imports was motivated primarily by nonprice factors, such as the superior quality of Biddeford’s blankets and Biddeford’s offer to make

JCPenney the exclusive retailer of Sealy brand WEBs, among other things.165 Similarly, Biddeford argues

that retailers have switched to subject imports not because they are lower priced but because they are

qualitatively superior to the domestic like product in numerous respects.166 Jarden disputes these
 166 (...continued)

binding; surging on three sides versus Jarden’s surging on one side; a thinner, more flexible wire; a five-year

warranty versus Jarden’s two-year warranty; a 10-setting controller versus Jarden’s three-setting controller; and a

longer cord. Biddeford’s PCB at 19-21, Exhibit 10.

 167 See Jarden’s PCB at 9-10; Conference Tr. at 50-51 (Pacheco), 50-51 (Sullivan). Specifically, Jarden claims

that its WEBs heat up faster and stay hotter longer than subject imports. Id. It also claims that its WEBs utilize a

proprietary technology that shuts off only those portions of the blanket that are in danger of overheating, whereas

competing blankets utilize a “global control” that shuts off the entire blanket if any part of the blanket is in danger of

overheating. Id. At the conference, a witness for Biddeford confirmed that Biddeford’s WEBs utilize a global

control. Conference Tr. at 162 (Porter). Jarden also submitted evidence that ***. Jarden’s PCB at 10, Exhibit 2. 

 168 Milliken’s PCB at 3-5.

 169 Biddeford’s PCB at 22; Conference Tr. at 134-35 (Porter). 

 170 Biddeford’s PCB at 21; Conference Tr. at 134-35 (Porter).

 171 Jarden’s PCB at 11 (citing Exhibit 2). Jarden reports that it has produced WEBs under the Lands’ End and

Therapedic brand names at the request of retailers. Id. In addition, there is evidence on the record that ***. 

Jarden’s PCB, Exhibit 1-F, at 2. A witness for Biddeford testified at the conference that his attempts to sell subject

imported WEBs to Wal-Mart have failed in part because of Wal-Mart’s preference for the Sunbeam brand. 

Conference Tr. at 158 (Porter). 

23

arguments and claims that the quality of its domestically produced WEBs is comparable or superior to

that of subject imports, emphasizing its allegedly superior heating technology.167 Milliken claims that the

fabric shells it produces for Jarden are comparable or superior in quality to those used in the WEBs that

Biddeford imports from China.168 

Biddeford also argues that Jarden’s focus on Wal-Mart and its insistence that all retailers carry

the same range of Sunbeam-branded WEBs has undermined Jarden’s ability to sell WEBs to other

retailers, which have no desire to compete head-to-head with Wal-Mart on price.169 Biddeford claims that

its greater branding flexibility enables retailers to distinguish their WEBs from those sold by Wal-Mart.170

Jarden counters that *** and that it is willing to provide retailers with WEBs produced under their own

private labels.171 In any final phase of this investigation, we intend to explore further any non-price

factors that allegedly distinguish subject imports from the domestic like product. 

In sum, the record in the preliminary phase of this investigation indicates an apparent causal

nexus between subject imports and the adverse condition of the domestic industry, thus demonstrating a

reasonable indication of material injury by reason of subject imports. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record in the preliminary phase of this investigation,

we find that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by

reason of subject imports of WEBs from China that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair

value.

 1

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 2

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 3

 These factors are as follows:

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the

exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional

exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise

indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to

produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products,

 * * *

(VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the

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

product, and

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability that there is likely to be material

injury by reason of imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually

being imported at the time).

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(I). To organize my analysis, I discuss the applicable statutory threat factors using the same

volume/price/impact framework that applies to a material injury analysis. Statutory threat factors (II), (III), (V), and

(VI) are discussed in the analysis of subject import volume. Statutory threat factor (IV) is discussed in the price

(continued...)

25

SEPARATE VIEWS OF VICE CHAIRMAN DANIEL R. PEARSON

I concur with the majority’s discussion of the domestic like product in Section III, the discussion

of the domestic industry in Section IV, the discussion of legal standards in Section V (except where

noted), and the discussion of conditions of competition in Section V(A). I find, however, that there is a

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

subject imports of WEBs from China that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value.

I. REASONABLE INDICATION OF THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF

IMPORTS OF SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Section 771(7)(F) of the Tariff Act directs the Commission to determine whether the U.S.

industry is threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing whether “further

dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would

occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted.”1

 The Commission may not make

such a determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition,” and considers the threat factors “as

a whole” in making its determination whether dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether

material injury by reason of subject imports would occur unless an order is issued.2

 In making our

determination, we consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to these investigations.3
 3

 (...continued)

effects analysis, and statutory threat factors (VIII) and (IX) are discussed in the impact analysis. Statutory threat

factor (I) is inapplicable, as no countervailable subsidies were alleged. Statutory threat factor (VII) is inapplicable,

as no imports of agricultural products are involved in this investigation.

 4

 Majority Views (business proprietary version) at 25-26.

 5

 Majority Views (business proprietary version) at 25 n.125.

 6

 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 7

 CR/PR at Table C-1. Subject imports, on the other hand, declined irregularly over the period examined,

declining initially from *** units in 2006, to *** units in 2007, before increasing to *** units in 2008, for a decline

of *** percent over the period examined. CR/PR at Table IV-2. Because I expect that—in a highly seasonal sector

such as this one—subject import shipments will be more relevant to the domestic industry than subject imports, I

will focus on trends in subject import shipments. I concur with the majority’s intent to revisit this question in any

final phase investigation. Majority Views (business proprietary version) at 26 n.129.

 8

 CR/PR at Table C-1. The market share of subject imports in apparent U.S. consumption increased irregularly,

rising initially from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, before declining *** to *** percent in 2008, an

overall increase of *** percentage points. CR/PR at Tables IV-2 & IV-3.

 9

 CR/PR at Table C-1. The ratio of subject imports to domestic production, by quantity, increased steadily over

the period, from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 10 CR/PR at Table VII-2.

 11 Conference Tr. at 164 (Porter); see Petitioner’s Post-Conference Brief at 25.

 12 CR at II-5 to II-6; PR at II-3 to II-4.

26

A. Likely Volume of the Subject Imports

I concur with the majority’s position that data collected in interim 2009 are of limited probative

value and I also attach little, if any, weight to this period.4

 I also concur with the majority’s decision to

base its analysis of subject import volume on importers’ questionnaire responses and share its doubts

regarding the respondents’ suggested approach to calculating volume.5

My analysis of the likely future volume of subject imports begins with trends observed over the

period examined. In quantity terms, apparent U.S. consumption declined irregularly over the period

examined. From *** units in 2006, U.S. consumption fell to *** units in 2007, before rising *** to ***

units in 2008, for an overall decline of *** percent.6

 Despite the falling demand, shipments of subject

imports increased steadily over the period, from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2008, an overall

increase of *** percent.7

 The market share of subject import shipments in apparent U.S. consumption

increased steadily from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008.8

 Because there are no known

nonsubject imports, all of the market share gained by the subject import shipments, *** percentage points,

was necessarily lost by the domestic industry.9

 

The increasing volume of subject import shipments was accompanied by fluctuating, but

relatively high, levels of inventories held by importers. The ratio of inventories held by U.S. importers to

U.S. shipments of subject imports increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, before

falling to *** percent in 2008.10 The large stock of inventories held by U.S. importers likely reflects a

business strategy described by respondents as “safety stock.”11

In addition to examining the trends of subject imports over the period examined, I have also

analyzed the likely future volume of subject imports in the context of expected demand for woven electric

blankets (WEBs) over the next year. I note that expected demand for WEBs depends on diverse factors

such as energy prices, the severity of winter weather, trends in consumer preferences for substitute

products, and the pace of recovery from the current recession.12 Given that the U.S. market for WEBs is
 13 CR at II-5; PR at II-3.

 14 CR/PR at Tables VII-1 & C-1.

 15 CR/PR at Table VII-1.

 16 CR/PR at VII-1. It appears that *** may account for *** reported subject Chinese imports. Id.

 17 CR/PR at Table VII-1. 

 18 CR/PR at VII-1 n.1.

 19 See Petitioner’s Post-Conference Brief at 21-23.

 20 CR at VII-5; PR at VII-2. No imports entered the United States from the next two largest exporters of electric

blankets, the Czech Republic and Indonesia, which together held 26 percent of world exports. Id.

 21 It was estimated that subject WEBs constitute about 60 percent of imports within the basket HTS category. 

CR/PR at IV-1.

 22 See Petitioner’s Post-Conference Brief at 24-25.

 23 CR/PR at II-1 & Table II-1.

27

described as “mature,”13 combined with current recessionary pressures, I expect demand for WEBs to be

flat or slightly declining.

In considering the likely volume of subject imports in the U.S. market, I observe that although

reported capacity utilization in China has increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008, this

still leaves *** units of unused capacity, a quantity that would constitute *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption in 2008.14 This excess capacity has added importance because the record contains evidence

that the Chinese industry is *** export-oriented and that *** of its exports of WEBs are sent to the United

States.15

I further observe that while *** accounts for the *** of reported U.S. imports,16 and that ***17 it

is also the case that the Commission received questionnaire responses from only 3 of the 31 Chinese firms

contacted. Among those not responding to the Commission’s questionnaires were *** Chinese firms that

are known exporters to the United States (***).18 Given the response rate of the Chinese producers to the

Commission’s questionnaire, it is possible that the picture the Commission currently has of the Chinese

WEBs industry is incomplete.19 Additionally, according to the Global Trade Atlas, China was, on a value

basis, “by far the largest exporter [of electric blankets], with approximately 61 percent of total exports

during [2008] . . . .”20 Although this Global Trade Atlas category contains nonsubject merchandise, this is

an indication that the capacity of subject producers in China may be larger than is shown by the

Commission’s data. The Global Trade Atlas’s Chinese export data, to the extent that exports of

nonsubject electric blankets are included,21 provides a basis to conclude that there is at least the potential

for Chinese product-shifting from nonsubject electric blankets into subject WEBs.22

Thus, for the purposes of the preliminary phase of this investigation, I find a reasonable

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

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

subject imports’ market share will be substantial.

B. Likely Price Effects of the Subject Imports

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

the period examined and likely developments in the imminent future in light of key conditions of

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

WEBs are at least moderately substitutable and that most sales of both the domestic like product and

subject imports are made to retailers.23

The Commission collected quarterly pricing data for three WEB products. Usable pricing data
 24 CR at V-4; PR at V-3.

 25 CR at V-3 to V-4; PR at V-2.

 26 CR at V-11; PR at V-4.

 27 CR/PR at Tables V-1 & V-2. When comparing U.S. sales prices with Chinese purchase prices, a similar

pattern is observed. For Product 1, 7 of 12 comparisons show the U.S. sales price to be higher than the Chinese

purchase price, with 6 of those 7 occasions being in either 2006 or 2007. For Product 2, 9 of 12 comparisons show

the U.S. sales price to be higher than the Chinese purchase price, with 6 of those 9 occasions being in the first two

years of the period (2006 and 2007). Id.; CR at V-11 n.11; PR at V-4 n.11.

 28 I also intend to examine any role that *** may have played, as *** in influencing the price trends. See

Respondent Biddeford/Hung Kuo/Ongain’s Post-Conference Brief at 25-27.

 29 CR/PR at Table C-1. But see CR at VI-9; PR at VI-3 (stating that “changes in product mix during the period”

make the increase in this ratio less reliable).

 30 CR/PR at Table V-6; CR at V-12; PR at V-4.

 31 CR/PR at Table V-7; CR at V-12; PR at V-4.

28

for sales were provided by Jarden and two importer/distributors, and eight importer/retailers provided

usable purchase price data, together accounting for *** percent of the U.S. producer’s shipments of

WEBs and *** percent of subject import shipments from China in 2008.24 Product 1 was a twin-size

WEB with a shell made from 100-percent synthetic fabric. Product 2 was a queen-size WEB with a shell

made from 100-percent synthetic fabric. Product 3 was a twin-size WEB with a shell made from a blend

of synthetic and natural fibers.25 No subject imports were recorded in product 3 and so no price

comparisons were available for this product.

The evidence of underselling and overselling by subject imports was mixed for products 1 and 2. 

Subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 15 of 26 quarterly pricing comparisons by margins

ranging from 0.2 to 28.8 percent.26 I note that all but one of the quarterly comparisons showing

underselling by subject imports occurred in the first two years of the period (2006 and 2007). For the

quarterly comparisons in 2008 and 2009, fully 9 of the 10 showed overselling by subject imports.27

There is mixed evidence on the record indicating price depression. While prices of domestic

products product 1 and product 2 generally showed decreasing trends over the period, this was not the

case for product 3, which was flat or increasing after one initially high quarter. I will examine, in any

final phase investigation, the role of subject imports in any price suppression.28 There is some evidence

of price suppression on the record of this preliminary phase investigation. The ratio of the domestic

industry’s cost of goods sold (“COGS”) to net sales increased steadily over the period examined. The

COGS/net sales ratio was *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, and *** percent in 2008, indicating

that the domestic industry was unable to raise prices sufficiently to offset rising raw material and other

costs.29 I intend to examine, in any final phase investigation, the role of subject imports in any price

suppression.

Of the *** lost sales allegations totaling $***, the Commission was able to confirm allegations

totaling $***.30 Of lost revenue allegations totaling $***, the Commission was ***.31

As subject imports are likely to enter the U.S. market in significant volumes and hold significant

market share in the reasonably foreseeable future, this is likely to lead to adverse price effects that were

only nascent in the period examined. I intend to examine more closely the price effects of the subject

imports in any final phase investigation.

C. Likely Impact of the Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry

Between 2006 and 2008, the domestic WEB industry saw some declines in its performance

indicators. Production, capacity utilization, shipments, and employment all declined steadily throughout
 32 Production was *** units in 2006, *** units in 2007, and *** units in 2008. Capacity utilization was ***

percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, and *** percent in 2008. Domestic shipments were *** units in 2006, ***

units in 2007, and *** units in 2008. Production-related workers totaled *** in 2006, *** in 2007, and *** in 2008. 

Hours worked totaled *** in 2006, *** in 2007, and *** in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 33 Operating profit was $*** in 2006, $*** in 2007, and $*** in 2008. The domestic industry’s ratio of

operating income to net sales was *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, and *** in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 34 U.S. industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, and ***

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

 35 CR at VI-10 to VI-11; PR at VI-4; see Petitioner’s Post-Conference Brief at 25-26. Commission data shows

an irregularly declining trend for total R&D expenditures by the domestic industry. R&D expenses initially rose

from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2007, before declining to $*** in 2008, for an overall decrease of *** percent. CR/PR

at Table VI-4.

 36 Production capacity was *** units in 2006, *** units in 2007, and *** units in 2008. Productivity (units/1,000

hours) was *** in 2006, *** in 2007, and *** in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 37 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 38 E.g., CR at I-11 to I-12, I-14, & II-6 to II-7; PR at I-7, I-9, & II-4.

 39 CR at II-8 & V-12 n.12; PR at II-5 & V-4 n.12. 

 40 CR at II-7 to II-8; PR at II-5 to II-6.

29

this period.32 The domestic industry’s financial results also weakened, although it recorded *** operating

margins throughout the 2006-08 period, including in 2008, at a time when many business concerns were

hobbled by the recessionary environment.33 As mentioned above, because of the absence of nonsubject

imports, the domestic industry’s market share declined at the same rate as the market share of subject

imports increased.34 There also were some negative trends in existing development and production efforts

of the domestic industry.35 Production capacity and productivity, however, saw steady increases over the

period.36 I view the data for the 2006-08 period in the context of the general decline in demand for WEBs

over this period. As noted above, apparent U.S. consumption of WEBs declined by *** percent over the

2006-08 period.37 I intend to examine in any final phase investigation the extent to which this decline in

demand, and the general recessionary environment in the United States, were responsible for the domestic

industry’s difficulties.

I find that, based on these data, and in light of the current economic conditions, the domestic

industry is unlikely to perform as well in the near term as it did during the period examined. Nonetheless,

given the industry’s performance, albeit with declines, throughout the period, I do not find that the

domestic industry is currently in a vulnerable state.

For purposes of this preliminary phase investigation, I find that there likely will be a causal nexus

between the subject imports and an imminent adverse impact on the domestic industry. This conclusion

is based on the declines in the industry’s trade and employment data discussed above and my finding that

the volume of subject imports is likely to increase substantially from its 2008 level in an imminent time

frame, thereby reducing the industry’s levels of production, employment, and profitability.

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

domestic industry. First, various arguments were made by parties on the role that increased demand for

substitute products, such as knitted fleece electric blankets and heated mattress pads, had on declining

demand for WEBs.38 Second, arguments were also presented by respondents that there were differences

in customer return rates between the subject imports and the domestically produced product.39 Finally,

arguments were made by both parties regarding the influence of product branding on the purchasing

decisions of major retail customers.40 In any final phase investigation, I will explore all of these issues

further.
30

Consequently, I conclude for the purposes of the preliminary phase of this investigation that there

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

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

material injury by reason of subject imports.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record in the preliminary phase of this investigation, I

find that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is threatened with material

injury by reason of subject imports of WEBs from China that are allegedly sold in the United States at less

than fair value.
 1

 See the section entitled “The Subject Merchandise” in Part I of this report for a complete description of the

merchandise subject to this investigation.

 2 Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation are presented in app. A.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

This investigation results from a petition filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce

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

Products, Inc. doing business as Jarden Consumer Solutions (“Jarden”), Boca Raton, FL, on June 30,

2009, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material

injury by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of woven electric blankets (“WEBs”)1

 from

China. Information relating to the background of the investigation is provided below.2

Effective date Action

June 30, 2009 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission

investigation (74 FR 32192, July 7, 2009)

July 21, 2009 Commission’s conference1

July 27, 2009 Commerce’s notice of initiation (74 FR 37001)

August 13, 2009 Date of the Commission’s vote

August 14, 2009 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce

August 21, 2009 Commission’s views transmitted to Commerce

 1 A list of witnesses that appeared at the conference is presented in app. B.

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in

making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission--

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II)

the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States

for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only

in the context of production operations within the United States; and . . .

may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of

imports.

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

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission

shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any
 3

 Petition, p. 4.

I-2

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

or consumption in the United States is significant.

. . .

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

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

price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the

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

imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph

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

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

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

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

. . . 

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

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

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

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

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

on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

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

investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping.

Organization of the Report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, alleged dumping margins,

and domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of competition and

other relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the U.S. industry,

including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Part IV presents

information on the volume of imports of the subject merchandise. Part V presents information on the

pricing of U.S.-produced and imported subject merchandise. Part VI presents information on the

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

obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat of material injury as well as

information regarding nonsubject countries.

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

WEBs consist of a shell of woven fabric made of synthetic or natural fiber, or a blend of synthetic

and natural fiber, which contains heat-producing wire whose temperature is controlled by one or more

thermostats or controllers. Such blankets are used mostly as bedding articles to keep sleeping or resting

individuals warm.3

 The sole known U.S. producer of WEBs is Jarden, while a leading producer of WEBs

outside the United States is Hung Kuo Electronic (Shenzhen) Company Limited (“Hung Kuo”) of China. 
 4

 Conference transcript, p. 134 (Porter).

 5

 The HTS subheading under which WEBs are classified, 6301.10.00, is a “basket” category and contains certain

products, such as knit and any other non-woven electric blankets, that are not within the scope of this investigation. 

As such, official import statistics based upon this subheading would overstate imports of the subject merchandise. 

 6 Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty

Investigation, 74 FR 37001, July 27, 2009.

I-3

The leading U.S. importers of WEBs from China are ***. There are no known importers of WEBs into

the United States from countries other than China. The single-largest purchaser of WEBs is Wal-Mart.4

Apparent U.S. consumption of WEBs totaled approximately *** units with a value of $*** in

2008. Jarden’s U.S. shipments of WEBs totaled approximately *** units ($***) in 2008, accounting for

*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. shipments of

imports totaled *** units ($***) in 2008, accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by

quantity and *** percent by value. 

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in the investigation is presented in appendix C, table C-1. Except as

noted, U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire response of Jarden, which accounted for all

known U.S. production of WEBs during the period for which data were collected (calendar years 2006-08

and the first quarters of 2008 and 2009). U.S. imports are based on importer questionnaire responses.5

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

WEBs have not been the subject of prior countervailing or antidumping duty investigations in the

United States.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF ALLEGED SALES AT LTFV 

On July 27, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its

antidumping duty investigation on WEBs from China.6

 Commerce has initiated its antidumping duty

investigation based on estimated dumping margins of 128.32-394.55 percent.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of this investigation as follows:

The scope of this investigation covers finished, semi-finished, and unassembled woven

electric blankets, including woven electric blankets commonly referred to as throws, of

all sizes and fabric types, whether made of man-made fiber, natural fiber or a blend of

both. Semi-finished woven electric blankets and throws consist of shells of woven fabric

containing wire. Unassembled woven electric blankets and throws consist of a shell of

woven fabric and one or more of the following components when packaged together or in

a kit: (1) Wire; (2) controller(s). The shell of woven fabric consists of two sheets of

fabric joined together forming a “shell”. The shell of woven fabric is manufactured to

accommodate either the electric blanket’s wiring or a subassembly containing the electric

blanket’s wiring (e.g., wiring mounted on a substrate). A shell of woven fabric that is not
 7

 Ibid.

 8

 “Woven automatic blankets,” “woven warming blankets,” and “woven heated blankets” may be used as

synonyms for woven electric blankets. Petition, p. 3.

 9

 Made-up textile articles are articles made of textile materials in the finished state, ready for use without sewing

or other working. 

 10 Electric blankets may also be knitted; however, knitted blankets are not subject to this investigation.

I-4

packaged together, or in a kit, with either wire, controller(s), or both, is not covered by

this investigation even though the shell of woven fabric may be dedicated solely for use

as a material in the production of woven electric blankets.7

Tariff Treatment

WEBs are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) under

subheading 6301.10.00 and reported for statistical purposes under statistical reporting number

6301.10.0000. Table I-1 presents current ad valorem tariff rates for WEBs. Imports of WEBs from

China are dutiable at the general rate of 11.4 percent ad valorem.

Table I-1

WEBs: Tariff rates, 2009

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special Column 22

Rates (ad valorem)

6301

6301.10.0000

Blankets and traveling rugs:

 Electric blankets .....................................................

 

 

11.4% Free (BH,

CA, CL,

E*, IL, JO,

MX, P, PE,

SG), 

2.3% (MA),

8% (AU),

9.1% (OM)

(

3

)

77.5%

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

 2

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

 3

 General note 3(c)(i) defines the special duty program symbols enumerated for this provision. 

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

THE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

A WEB8 is a heat-generating blanket designed to be used as a bedding article. WEBs are madeup textile articles constructed of electrically powered, heat-producing wire inserted into a fabric shell.9

Each WEB is paired with an external, electronic control device, through which users control the WEB’s

temperature; controller types available include standard dial, dual-control, digital, and wireless models. 

The subject product is an electric blanket constructed with woven fabric (as opposed to knit or nonwoven

fabric).10 The woven fabric used to produce WEBs may be constructed from a variety of fibers, including
 11 Electric blankets are not produced with fabric wholly formed from natural fibers out of concerns about

flammability. The petitioner stated that ***. ***.

 12 Petition, p. 3. 

 13 Staff telephone interview with ***.

 14 ***.

 15 ***.

 16 ***.

 17 *** interview by Commission staff, July 9, 2009.

 18 ***. 

I-5

manmade fibers or varying blends of manmade and natural fibers.11 Commonly used fibers include

polyester, acrylic, polyester/acrylic blends, and polyester/cotton blends; price points and to a lesser extent

consumer preferences influence the choice of fiber. WEBs are produced and sold in various sizes,

including standard bedding sizes such as twin, full, queen, and king, as well as smaller throws.12

Users control WEB temperature through the use of an external, electronic temperature control

device. WEBs may also be used in other situations to keep resting or sitting individuals warm, as in the

case of a throw, as long as the article is meant to be pulled over, as opposed to under, the individual.13

Manufacturing Process

The manufacturing process for WEBs can be divided into four distinct stages. The first stage of

production involves weaving the blanket shell.14 The next stage involves napping and chemical treatment

of the blanket shell prior to insertion of the electric wire. The third stage involves insertion of the wire

into the blanket shell. The final stage consists of final blanket assembly and trim.

To construct the blanket shell, manmade fibers such as polyester or acrylic are first dyed and spun

into yarn. The yarn is then woven on a loom specifically designed to produce WEB shells. The yarn is

woven in a circular manner to form a plain weave, double cloth fabric, into which channels have been

created for the insertion of the wire. The sides of the fabric are woven on the loom, eliminating the need

for stitching at a later production stage. Additionally, the loom weaves in a cut line at the top and bottom

of the piece, which aids the WEB manufacturer in the cutting and wire insertion process. In contrast to

other broad woven fabric, which is sold by the yard, WEB fabric shells are sold in units (i.e., in units of

throw, twin, full, queen, and king-sized shells). WEB fabric shells are shipped in large continuous rolls,

ready for napping and chemical treatment. 

***15***16***.

***.17

***18***.

After the wire is inserted into the WEB, the product goes through a process of final assembly and

finishing. The wire is split, stripped, and attached to a module board control panel. A plastic housing is

placed around the module board, and trim is then sewn on the top and bottom of the blanket. Each WEB

is tested for wattage and performance. The WEB is then packaged in bags and vacuum-packed for

inventory. ***.

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic product(s) that are “like” the

subject imported product is based on a number of factors including: (1) physical characteristics and uses;

(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and

producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and (6) price. 
 19 WestPoint Home (WestPoint), produces electric mattress pads and the fabric used in the mattress pads in its

production facilities in ***. *** email message to Commission staff, July 29, 2009. 

 20 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 6. 

 21 Ibid. 

 22 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 7.

 23 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 6. 

 24 *** email message to Commission staff, July 29, 2009. 

 25 Respondent Biddeford’s postconference brief, p. 3. 

I-6

The petitioner contends that the Commission should find that WEBs constitute a single domestic

like product as identified by the petition, while respondents assert that electric mattress pads and other

types of heated bedding products, including knit electric blankets and other related heated bedding

products, should be included within the domestic like product definition, to the extent that the

Commission determines that there is U.S. production of such products. Respondents identified one U.S.

producer, WestPoint Home, of electric mattress pads.19 Commission staff, the petitioner, and respondents

have not identified domestic production of knit electric blankets, throws, or other heated bedding

products. Respondents have emphasized the similarities between WEBs and knit electric blankets,

despite the fact that there is no known domestic production of such products. As such, this section will

focus on a comparison of WEBs with electric mattress pads, utilizing the six aforementioned factors,

followed by a discussion of knit electric blankets. 

WEBs and Electric Mattress Pads

Physical Characteristics and Uses

The petitioner asserts that electric mattress pads radiate heat upward and are used strictly in

connection with a bed, as they are designed with elastic attachments that affix the product to the

mattress.20 Electric mattress pad shells are made of a smooth woven fabric and, as such, napping is not

required in order to impart a softer hand to the fabric.21 In addition, electric mattress pads require

additional padding to be inserted to ensure that the user does not feel the wire through the fabric.22 By

contrast, electric blankets and throws are used on top of the individual and not strictly confined to use on

a bed. WEBs come directly into contact with the user’s skin and are napped to create a softer texture. 

Unlike electric mattress pads, WEBs do not require the insertion of additional padding.23 Also, ***.24

Respondent Biddeford asserts that WEBs, electric mattress pads, knit electric blankets, and

related heated bedding products share almost identical physical characteristics and uses.25 According to

respondents, all heated bedding products, including WEBs, are used solely to keep resting or sleeping

individuals warm. WEBs and electric mattress pads are made of polyester or a blend of polyester and

cotton, while WEBs may also be made of acrylic or a blend of acrylic and either cotton or polyester. 

WEBs and electric mattress pads share the same features, including auto-shutoff, silent controls, prewarming, overheat protection, and dual controls for queen or king sizes.

Electric mattress pads and WEBs share some of the same physical characteristics and uses. ***. 

Similar to WEBs, electric mattress pads can be made of manmade or a blend of natural and manmade

fibers. While the fibers used in electric mattress pads and WEBs are similar (generally polyester, acrylic,

or cotton), the blanket shell construction differs. WEB shells are made of yarn which is woven into

fabric, while electric mattress pad shell construction consists of two outer layers of quilted woven fabric

filled with a non-woven polyester wadding. Whereas WEBs are offered in a variety of colors, electric
 26 Conference transcript, p. 64 (Pacheco), ***. 

 27 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 7. 

 28 ***. 

 29 ***. 

 30 ***. 

 31 Respondent Biddeford’s postconference brief, p. 7. 

 32 *** interview by Commission staff, July 9, 2009.

 33 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 6. 

 34 ***. 

 35 Respondent Biddeford’s postconference brief, p. 5. 

 36 *** importer questionnaire, July 20, 2009, p. 14.

I-7

mattress pads generally are limited to white.26 Electric mattress pads are mattress pads that have a heatproducing wire inserted inside. With the exception of throws, electric mattress pads are produced in the

same sizes as WEBs, such as twin, queen, and king. Electric mattress pads are affixed to the top of a

mattress and are meant to keep resting or sleeping individuals warm. 

Common Manufacturing Facilities and Production Employees

Petitioners state that the production processes for WEBs and electric mattress pads are different

and require the use of different equipment.27 For example, napping machines, which are used to nap

WEB fabric, are not used on electric mattress pad fabric.28 In addition, the wire insertion process for

WEBs and electric mattress pads differs and requires the use of different equipment. *** electric mattress

pad wires have first been sewn or glued to another piece of fabric, either manually or on a speciallydesigned piece of equipment, to form a substrate prior to insertion between the two outer pieces of

fabric.29 According to ***, electric mattress pads and WEBs are not produced with the same equipment.30

Respondents contend that common manufacturing facilities can be and are used to produce

electric mattress pads and other heated bedding products and that the same employees can be used to

produce these products. While minor adjustments in production equipment may be necessary, the

“similarities in production processes outweigh” the differences.31 In the past, for example, both WEBs

and electric mattress pads were produced ***.32

Interchangeability

Petitioners assert that WEBs and electric mattress pads are not interchangeable due to the

differences in physical characteristics and uses.33 WEBs are only intended for use over an individual,

while electric mattress pads are intended for use under an individual. If one were to use a WEB in place

of an electric mattress pad, that is, under a bed sheet and under an individual, it would pose a safety

hazard. Similarly, *** contends that WEBs and electric mattress pads are not interchangeable, as a WEB

is placed on top of a bed and an electric mattress pad is affixed to a mattress.34

Respondents state that WEBs are interchangeable with electric mattress pads, knit electric

blankets, and other heated bedding items.35 Further, respondents state that WEB manufacturers and

distributors market WEBs and other heated bedding items similarly. Several importers of WEBs

indicated in their questionnaire responses that other heated bedding products, such as knit electric

blankets and electric mattress pads, are substitutes for WEBs. Other importers, such as, for example, ***,

indicated that electric mattress pads are substitutable for WEBs.36
 37 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 7. 

 38 Conference transcript, p. 78 (Pacheco).

 39 ***. 

 40 Respondent Biddeford’s postconference brief, p. 7. 

 41 Respondent Biddeford’s postconference brief, p. 7. 

 42 ***. 

 43 Conference transcript, p. 77 (Pacheco).

 44 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 7.

 45 Respondent Biddeford’s postconference brief, p. 6. 

 46 Respondent Biddeford’s postconference brief, p. 6. 

 47 ***. 

I-8

Customer and Producer Perceptions

Petitioners contend that producers and customers do not perceive WEBs and electric mattress

pads as substitutes, and that customers do not perceive WEBs and electric mattress pads as

interchangeable due to their different physical characteristics and uses.37 Electric mattress pads are

generally purchased by a younger demographic than those that purchase WEBs.38 *** indicated that

customers perceive WEBs and electric mattress pads differently, as each product performs a different

function.39

Respondents assert that producers and customers perceive WEBs and other heated bedding

products as being “essentially the same,” claiming that WEBs and electric mattress pads are a “like”

product distinguishable from the retail perspective only in terms of personal preference.40 Both products

are heated bedding items and reportedly customers may select one product or another based upon a

personal preference for a particular fabric, color, or various other product options.41

Channels of Distribution

Both WEBs and electric mattress pads are sold to retail distributors, which then sell the products

to final consumers. Additional details regarding the channels of distribution of domestically produced

and imported WEBs are presented in Part II of this report, Conditions of Competition in the U.S. Market. 

According to ***, WEBs and electric mattress pads share the same channels of distribution.42 WEBs,

electric mattress pads, and other heated bedding products are generally sold at the retail level in the same

area of the store and displayed with other heated bedding products such as knit electric blankets and

throws.

The petitioner contends that the channels of distribution for WEBs and electric mattress pads

differ, and that they often deal with different buyers for WEBs and electric mattress pads.43 ***.44

Respondents assert that all heated bedding products, including WEBs, are sold through the same

distribution channels, which is by manufacturers and importers to retailers for in-store, catalogue, and

internet sale to consumers.45 Respondents maintain that producers advertise and distribute WEBs, electric

mattress pads, and other heated bedding products in the same manner, and retailers display and market

these products similarly in stores, catalogues, and websites.46 ***.47

Price 

The petitioner stated that WEBs cover a much wider range of price points than electric mattress

pads and that consequently there is “limited overlap” between prices of WEBs and electric mattress
 48 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 8. 

 49 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 8. 

 50 Conference transcript, p. 135 (Porter).

 51 ***.

 52 ***. 

 53 Respondent Biddeford’s postconference brief, p. 1. 

 54 Respondent Biddeford’s postconference brief, p. 1. 

 55 Milliken, written submission to the USITC, July 27, 2009, p. 3. ***.

 56 Milliken, written submission to the USITC, July 27, 2009, p. 2.

 57 Filament yarn is spun using filament fibers. Filament fibers are fibers of an indefinite length, such as silk. 

I-9

pads.48 The petitioner stated that electric mattress pads are usually higher-priced than WEBs and, as such,

the two products are differentiable on the basis of price.49

Respondents contend that heated bedding products, including WEBs and electric mattress pads,

are priced the same by producers and importers as well as by retailers.50 *** stated in its questionnaire

response that when knit electric blankets first entered the U.S. market, around 2004-05, retailers

capitalized on the novelty of the product and charged premium prices for knit electric blankets. Since

then, more suppliers have entered the U.S. market, which has led to increased competition and downward

pressure on prices of knit electric blankets. This, as well as the increasing popularity of electric mattress

pads, has reportedly resulted in downward pressure on prices of WEBs.51 ***.52 Raw materials such as

polyester and acrylic were more expensive during the early stages of the period for which data were

collected. 

Knit Electric Blankets 

Respondents and several large importers, including ***, stated in questionnaire responses that

knit electric blankets are substitutable for WEBs. Respondents assert that knit electric blankets compete

directly with WEBs and satisfy the six criteria the Commission uses to determine domestic like product;

however, they are unaware of production of knit electric blankets, or parts thereof, in the United States.53

They also claim that the trend in the consumer market is moving toward knit electric blankets, and

estimated that the volume of knit electric blanket imports increased by ***-percent during 2006-08.54

Milliken and Co. (“Milliken”), a textile manufacturer that produces the WEB fabric shell for

Jarden in its facilities in South Carolina, supports the petition and contends that the production process for

knit fabric for use in electric blankets is more labor-intensive than that for WEBs.55 The double cloth

woven fabric used in WEBs is woven on a loom specifically designed to weave the channels into the

fabric, leaving the fabric woven on the sides and open on the top and bottom. When the fabric is removed

from the loom, it is ready to be napped, chemically treated, and the wire inserted. By contrast, there are

several additional steps required in the production of knit fabric for use in electric blankets. The fabric is

flat knit in two separate pieces, which is then piece-dyed. The two separate pieces of fabric are then sewn

together on two sides, and the wire channels are sewn into the fabric. A layer of nonwoven fabric is then

inserted into the channels in order to ease the wire insertion, and a batting is added to bulk the fabric and

conceal the wire. 

In addition, the yarn used to knit fabric for use in electric blankets is different than the yarn used

to weave fabric for use in electric blankets.56 *** indicated that the yarn used for woven electric blankets

is thicker, larger spun yarn made from fibers that have already been dyed, while the yarn used for knit

electric blankets is thinner, undyed filament yarn.57
 58 Conference transcript, p. 58 (von Schriltz) and (Altschuler).

 59 Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1, pp. 1-4.

I-10

Woven Shells 

In addition to the information collected by Commission staff on electric mattress pads and knit

electric blankets, during the conference staff also requested that counsel to Jarden comment on fabric

shells with respect to their inclusion in the definition of the domestic like product. In reply, counsel

stated that Jarden was not requesting that fabric shells be included in this definition.58 

In its postconference brief, Jarden elaborated on its position. First, with respect to uses, Jarden

asserted that the shell can be used for purposes other than producing WEBs, including regular blankets. 

Second, with respect to markets, Jarden stated that fabric shells are only sold to blanket manufacturers,

while WEBs are sold to retailers and ultimately consumers. Third, with respect to characteristics and

functions, Jarden asserted that fabric shells lack many of the physical characteristics of WEBs, including

value-added components such as heat-producing wire and controllers, as well as lacking the same feel and

chemical treatment of WEBs. Jarden also claimed that the heat-generating function of WEBs

differentiates them from fabric shells, which do not perform this function. Fourth, with respect to value,

Jarden maintained that fabric shells constitute only about *** percent of the total cost of WEBs and about

*** percent of the average price of WEBs. Finally, Jarden described the transformation that is performed

on the fabric shells in order to turn them into WEBs (discussed previously in Part I of this report) as

“substantial.”59
 1

 Conference transcript, pp. 50-51 (Pacheco, S. Kaplan, and Sullivan), 106-107 (Pacheco), and pp. 128-131

(Porter).

 2

 Conference transcript, p. 28 (Pacheco) and p. 61 (S. Kaplan).

 3

 Conference transcript, pp. 31 and 64 (Pacheco) and pp. 34-35 (S. Kaplan). Biddeford’s postconference brief, p.

22.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

WEBs are consumer products that are differentiated by type and weave of fabric, size (e.g.,

throw, twin, full, queen, or king), color, type of wiring, type of control, and other factors.1

 U.S. demand

for WEBs is highly seasonal, with almost all purchases occurring during the second half of the year.2

 The

U.S. market for WEBs is characterized by a relatively small number of large retail customers.3

 Inventory

levels vary substantially over the year as WEBs are manufactured year-round for sale in the fall and

winter.

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

Jarden reported that it ***. U.S. importers of Chinese WEBs either sell the imported Chinese

WEBs to retailers or are retailers that import Chinese WEBs directly (table II-1). During 2006-08, direct

imports by retailers accounted for *** of U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of Chinese WEBs (quantity

basis).

Table II-1

WEBs: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of WEBs from China, by channels of distribution, 2006-08

*******

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

U.S. Supply

Based on available information, Jarden (the sole U.S. producer of WEBs) has the ability to

respond to changes in demand with *** in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced WEBs to the U.S.

market. The main contributing factors to the *** of supply responsiveness are ***.

Industry capacity

Jarden’s capacity increased by *** percent from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2008 and was

***. Capacity utilization fell from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008, and was *** percent in

the first quarter of 2009 compared to *** percent in the first quarter of 2008. Jarden’s *** units in 2008

indicates that Jarden *** in response to changes in U.S. demand.
 4

 One Chinese firm certified that it had not produced or exported WEBs since January 1, 2006. The Commission

did not receive information from the only other known Chinese suppliers of WEBs to the United States, *** and

***. For more information concerning the WEB industry in China, see Part VII of this report.

II-2

Alternative markets

Jarden’s exports of WEBs increased from *** percent of its total shipments in 2006 to ***

percent in 2008; ***. At these levels, the Jarden ***. Jarden exports WEBs to ***.

Inventory levels

Inventory levels vary dramatically over the year as WEBs are manufactured year-round for sale in

the fall and winter. Jarden’s end-of-period inventories, as a share of its total shipments, increased from

*** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, before falling to *** percent in 2008. These levels of

inventories suggest that Jarden *** in response to changes in demand.

Production alternatives

Jarden reported that ***.

Subject Imports from China

Based on available information, Chinese producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with *** changes in the quantity of shipments of WEBs to the U.S. market. The main

contributing factor to the *** degree of responsiveness of supply is ***.

Industry capacity

Two Chinese producers (Hung Kuo and Pace), representing an estimated *** percent of Chinese

WEB production and *** percent of Chinese WEB exports to the United States in 2008, provided useable

data in their foreign producer questionnaire responses.4

 Reported Chinese capacity was *** units in each

year during 2006-08. Chinese capacity utilization increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in

2008, as Chinese production increased by *** percent over the period. Chinese *** suggests that Chinese

producers have the ability to moderately increase their exports of WEBs to the United States in response

to changes in demand.

Alternative markets

The responding Chinese producers’ WEB exports to the United States increased by *** percent

during 2006-08, ***. ***, as Chinese exports to the United States accounted for ***.

Inventory levels

Reported year-end Chinese WEB inventory levels *** during the period. Year-end Chinese

inventories accounted for *** percent of Chinese total shipments during 2006-08. The ratios of

inventories to total shipments were *** as of March 31 of 2008 and 2009.
 5

 Conference transcript, pp. 54-55 (S. Kaplan and Pacheco) and 90-91 (Pacheco).

 6

 Conference transcript, pp. 26 and 91-92 (Pacheco).

 7

 ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, exhibit 1-F.

II-3

Production alternatives

Chinese producer Hung Kuo reports that ***. Hung Kuo reported that ***. Pace reported that

***.

Nonsubject Imports

There is no publicly available information regarding international production or exports of WEBs

during the period for which data were collected. There is some limited information available, however,

on electric blankets (woven, knit, and other non-woven blankets combined). According to Global Trade

Atlas statistics, the largest exporters of electric blankets in the world in 2008 were China, the Czech

Republic, and Indonesia. For more information concerning nonsubject-country production and exports of

WEBs, see Part VII of this report.

Demand

Based on available information, the overall demand for WEBs is likely to change moderately in 

response to changes in price. The primary factor influencing the elasticity of demand for WEBs is the

availability of substitute products, particularly knitted and any other non-woven electric blankets and

electric mattress pads.

Demand Characteristics

WEBs are used either to warm a bed or, in the case of throws, to warm people who are sitting or

lounging. Demand is therefore influenced by the weather and by the price of home heating oil (figure II1).5

 As a result, demand for WEBs is highly seasonal. Most WEBs are sold and used during the colder

months of the year, with sales occurring almost exclusively during the fall and winter months, particularly

during the winter holidays.6

 The U.S. producer and two of the 17 responding importers reported that

demand for WEBs had fallen since 2006, five importers reported that demand had increased, five

importers reported that demand was unchanged, and five importers reported that demand had fluctuated. 

Most firms reporting that demand had increased cited consumers buying WEBs to save money on heating

costs. Firms reporting fluctuating or declining demand cited changes in the weather, competition from

substitute products, retail distributors consolidating or closing store outlets, and the fact that the market

for WEBs was a mature market.7

 Available data indicate that apparent U.S. consumption of WEBs fell by

*** percent from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2008.
 8

 Conference transcript, pp. 54-55 (S. Kaplan and Pacheco).

 9

 Conference transcript, p. 176 (Layton).

 10 Conference transcript, pp. 171, 175-176 (Porter). Biddeford’s postconference brief, p. 14.

II-4

Figure II-1

U.S. No. 2 heating oil residential prices, by month, January 2006-March 2009

Note: The U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, collects and publishes data concerning

heating oil prices during the winter heating season, which extends from October through March of each year. Data for

residential prices for heating oil are only collected during the winter heating season.

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.

Business Cycles

Jarden maintains that the income effect of the recession (declining income) has overcome the

substitution effect of consumers trying to reduce their energy costs by using more electric blankets, which

has led to an overall decline in U.S. demand.8

 Respondents report that the recent economic downturn has

reduced demand both because it reduced consumers’ demand and because retailers are maintaining lower

inventories, which has also led to some loss of sales.9

Substitute Products

Jarden and 8 of the 17 responding importers reported substitutes for WEBs. These include other

heated bedding products such as knit electric blankets and electric mattress pads; non-heated bedding

products such as conventional non-electric blankets, thermal weave blankets, down comforters, other

comforters, flannel sheets, fleece sheets, and bedspreads, as well as non-heated throws and clothing. 

*** importers reported that knitted electric blankets and electric mattress pads, in particular, are good

substitutes. 

One of the seven responding importers reported that the price of substitutes affects the price of

WEBs. Respondents reported that more expensive, knit electric blankets have become increasingly

popular and increasingly compete with WEBs. Respondents also maintain that the price of knit electric

blankets has fallen, which in turn has reduced demand for and increased the price pressure on WEBs.10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

 2006 2007 2008 2009

(cents per gallon)
 11 Conference transcript, p. 34, (S. Kaplan).

 12 Conference transcript, pp. 134-135 and 159-160 (Porter).

 13 Conference transcript. p. 135 (Porter).

 14 Conference transcript, pp. 137-141 (Hearn).

 15 Conference transcript, pp. 130-131 (Porter).

 16 Biddeford reported that it offers a full range of different fabric blends and weaves. Biddeford offers several

fabric blends including 100 percent acrylic, 75/25 acrylic-polyester, 50/50 acrylic-polyester, and 100 percent

polyester. Biddeford’s weaves range from knitted fleece electric blankets to a woven jacquard electric blanket. 

Conference transcript, p. 145 (Porter). Jarden reported that it offers two fabric blends–100 percent synthetic

(polyester) fiber and a synthetic-cotton blend. Conference transcript, pp. 49 (Sullivan) and 69-70 (Pacheco).

 17 Only two importers responded for other country pairs. One importer reported that there were never differences

other than price while the other reported that there were frequently differences other than price.

II-5

Cost Share

WEBs are final consumer products that are not used in the production of other products.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported WEBs depends upon such factors as

relative prices, quality (e.g., grade standards, reliability of supply, return rates, etc.), and conditions of

sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, co-op advertising, buyback agreements, agreements on markdown

dollars, lead times between order and delivery dates, payment terms, product services, etc.). Based on

available information, staff believes that there is a moderate to high degree of substitution between

domestic and imported Chinese WEBs.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Jarden maintains that price is the key factor driving WEB purchasing decisions. Jarden

acknowledges that price is not the sole factor considered by purchasers, but maintains that price is now

the most important factor in WEB purchasing decisions.11 Respondents maintain that a number of

important factors, besides price, drive WEB purchasing decisions. Respondents argue that Jarden has

been very effective in selling WEBs to Wal-Mart, but only offers a limited number of brands to its

customers. As a result, other retailers such as J.C. Penney and Target would have to compete with WalMart almost exclusively on the basis of price if they wanted to carry Jarden’s WEBs.12 Respondents

maintain that imported Chinese WEBs allow retailers to differentiate their WEB products from WalMart’s WEB products by offering different brand names and higher quality products. Biddeford offers its

retail customers three brand options: the Sealy brand, the Biddeford brands, and private labels.13 J.C.

Penney maintains that Biddeford offers higher quality WEBs than Jarden, with higher thread counts,

different fiber contents offering a better feel, larger blankets, and lower return rates.14 Other differences

reported by respondents include longer warranties, greater number of settings on the controller, longer

electric cords, larger binding, sewing around three edges, thinner wires, and the availability of jacquard

weaving.15 16

Producers and importers were asked to provide information regarding the significance of

differences other than price for domestic, subject, and nonsubject WEBs (table II-2). *** differences

other than price for all country pairs. Most responding importers reported that there were always or

frequently differences other than price for U.S. and Chinese products.17 Differences reported include

branding (e.g., Biddeford offers exclusive branded product (Sealy) and *** chose to go with Jarden
 18 Biddeford reported that its turnaround time for replenishment of an order from inventory in its warehouse in

Mundelein, IL was 24 hours. Conference transcript, pp. 182-183 (Porter). Jarden reported that it normally has

inventory readily available for shipment within *** days. If the items are not in inventory and/or the retailer has a

special request, Jarden can produce and ship the product within *** days of receiving the order. Petitioner’s

postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 15.

 19 J.C. Penney reported that it has missed sales when business was better than expected because of problems

replenishing stock from Sunbeam (Jarden). Conference transcript, p. 166 (Hearn). 

II-6

Table II-2

WEBs: Perceived frequency of differences other than price between WEBs produced in the United

States and in other countries, by country pairs

Country pair

Number of U.S. producers

reporting

Number of U.S. importers

reporting

A FSNAFSN

 U.S. vs. China *** *** *** *** 4 4 1 4

 U.S. vs. other *** *** *** *** 0 1 0 1

 China vs. other *** *** *** *** 1 0 0 1

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

because its customers recognize the Sunbeam brand name); lower delivery costs if the importer imports

directly; design options for the blanket shell such as higher ppi (picks per inch), blend specifications,

weight of finished product, design of textile, weave of textile, and size of product (width and length);

electronics such as wiring, control settings, control display, and enhanced safety features; packaging and

inserts; delivery times;18 and warranties. Specific differences between U.S. and imported Chinese WEBS

reported by importers include ***; Chinese producers have distinct advantages in product range and

features; Chinese producers are better able to respond quickly to trends in product design; and the U.S.

manufacturer base is very small ***.19

Comparison of the U.S.-Produced and Imported WEBs

Producers and importers were requested to provide information regarding the interchangeability

of domestic, Chinese, and nonsubject-country WEBs and to discuss why any products may not be

interchangeable (table II-3). *** most importers responded that WEBs from each of the different country

sources were always interchangeable. Differences reported by importers included *** blankets have

enhanced safety features and appropriate higher prices that limit interchangeability with the domestic

product; China provides a broader range of products, with frequently updated features at a lower cost; and

China is more flexible and quickly responds to customer needs.
 20 On October 5, 2001, the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that Biddeford had

voluntarily recalled about 394,000 WEBs. CPSC, “CPSC, Biddeford Textile Corp. Announce Recall of Electric

Blankets,” October 5, 2001.

 21 Bilt-Safe Technologies is no longer in business. CPSC, “CPSC, Bilt-Safe Technologies Announce Recall of

Electric Blankets,” December 29, 2008.

 22 CPSC, “International Home Fashions and Bilt-Safe Technologies Recall “Classic Beautyrest” Electric Throws

Due to Fire Hazard,” August 15, 2007.

II-7

Table II-3

WEBs: Perceived interchangeability between WEBs produced in the United States and in other

countries, by country pairs

Country pair

Number of U.S. producers

reporting

Number of U.S. importers

reporting

AF S N A F S N

 U.S. vs. China *** *** *** *** 8 3 2 0

 U.S. vs. other *** *** *** *** 4 2 0 0

 China vs. other *** *** *** *** 4 2 0 0

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

*** WEBs had been subject to a recall notice or other safety issue since January 1, 2006.20

However, Chinese WEBs imported by Bilt-Safe Technologies were subject to a recall notice on

December 29, 2008.21 In addition, Classic Beautyrest electric throws imported by International Home

Fashions and Bilt-Safe and produced by the Chinese manufacturer Veken were subject to a recall notice

on August 15, 2007.22

 1

 The five U.S. companies to whom producer questionnaires were sent were ***. 

 2

 Presentation from Jarden plant visit, July 9, 2009.

 3

 Jarden’s questionnaire response, section II-2.

 4

 Conference transcript, p. 41 (S. Kaplan), and Jarden’s postconference brief, p. 18, fn. 6.

 5

 Apparent U.S. consumption during the first quarter of 2008 and 2009 was *** Jarden’s reported capacity during

these same periods, but this is mostly attributable to the seasonal nature of WEB demand.

III-1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCER’S PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§

1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the alleged margin of dumping was presented earlier in this

report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise, and pricing of

U.S.-produced WEBs, is presented in Parts IV and V. Information on the other factors specified is

presented in this section and/or Part VI and (except as noted) is based on the questionnaire response of

one firm, Jarden, that accounted for all known U.S. production of WEBs during the period for which data

were collected.

U.S. PRODUCER

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to five U.S. companies identified in the petition

and through independent research.1

 Out of these companies, Jarden provided useable data and the

remaining four certified that they had not produced WEBs since January 1, 2006. 

The petitioner and only known U.S. producer, Jarden, has corporate origins dating back to the

production of the first warming electric blanket by ***, which eventually became a part of the Jarden

Corporation. Jarden’s plant in Waynesboro, MS, the ***, was established in 1959 and is ***.2

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

 Production of WEBs decreased throughout the period for which data were collected, while

capacity increased during this period. The decrease in production during the first quarter of this year

relative to the same period in 2008 can be attributed to Jarden’s facility ***. ***.3

 The capacity

increases during this period can be attributed to continuous production efficiency improvements and

debottlenecking.4

 Jarden’s reported capacity was *** the level of apparent U.S. consumption of WEBs

in ***.5

 Jarden’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for WEBs are presented in table III-1. 

Table III-1

WEBs: Jarden’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCER’S SHIPMENTS

Data on Jarden’s shipments of WEBs are presented in table III-2. From 2006 to 2008, U.S. and

export shipments generally decreased on both a quantity and value basis, while average unit values
 6

 E-mail from ***, August 3, 2009. 

 7 See table VI-1 of this report for additional information on Jarden’s gross and net sales calculations.

 8

 Conference transcript, pp. 35-36 (S. Kaplan) and petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 12.

 9

 Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 5.

 10 Conference transcript, p. 32 (Pacheco).

III-2

increased in 2007 before declining in 2008. ***. Jarden reported *** shipment values for the *** as a

result of ***.6 7

Table III-2

WEBs: Jarden’s shipments, by types, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCER’S INVENTORIES

Data on end-of-period inventories of WEBs during the period for which data were collected are

presented in table III-3. *** inventory levels in the interim periods reflect the practice of building up

WEB stocks early in the year to be able to accommodate seasonal demand occurring later in the year.8

The *** increase in returns in the first quarter of 2009 relative to the same period of 2008 reflects

Jarden’s customer ***.9

Table III-3

WEBs: Jarden’s end-of-period inventories, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCER’S IMPORTS

Jarden’s imports of WEBs are presented in table III-4.

Table III-4

WEBs: Jarden’s imports, 2006-2008, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The number of production and related workers (PRWs), total hours worked, and hours worked

per PRW all decreased during the period for which data were collected. In the first quarter of 2009, the

number of PRWs and hours worked per PRW were approximately *** percent lower than in the same

period in 2008. This most recent decrease can be attributed to Jarden’s decision to operate on a half-time

basis in early 2009.10 Jarden’s employment data for WEBs are presented in table III-5. 

Table III-5

WEBs: Jarden’s employment-related data, 2006-2008, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
 1

 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition, along with firms that, based on a

review of data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), may have imported greater than one

percent of total imports under HTS subheading 6301.10.00 in any one year since 2006. Usable responses were

received from each of these companies with one percent or more of imports with the exception of *** and ***, both

of which are no longer in business. See questionnaire response from *** for information on the IHF bankruptcy and

“Amazon Earnings Miss a Beat” at

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2009/tc20090723_346712.htm for information on the LNT

bankruptcy. BusinessWeek article accessed July 30, 2009.

 2

 Calculated by dividing total reported WEB imports during the period for which data were collected of *** units

by U.S. imports from China under HTS subheading 6301.10.00 for the same period of 6,126,000 units.

 3

 Conference transcript, p. 52 (Pacheco).

 4

 E-mail from ***, July 27, 2009.

 5

 Calculated by dividing U.S. exports from Hung Kuo reported during the period from Jan. 1, 2006 through Jan.-

Mar. 2009 of *** by total reported WEB imports of 2,921,888 units during the same period. According to import

data provided by ***, ***, and *** in their questionnaire responses, *** and *** units are also known to have been

exported to the United States from China during this period (*** and *** in 2008) by *** and ***, respectively. 

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

Importer questionnaires were sent to 80 firms believed to be importers of subject WEBs, as well

as to all potential U.S. producers of WEBs.1

 Usable questionnaire responses were received from 16

companies, representing approximately *** percent of total subject and nonsubject electric blanket

imports from China between January 2006 and March 2009 under HTS subheading 6301.10.00, a

“basket” category.2

 There is no information available regarding exactly what share of this basket

category consists of WEBs, but witness testimony at the staff conference presented an estimate that 60

percent of the category consists of WEBs and the remainder consists of knit or other non-woven electric

blankets.3

 Additionally, Chinese producer Hung Kuo, which believes itself to be responsible for ***

Chinese exports of WEBs to the United States in 2008,4

 exported quantities within *** percent of total

reported WEB imports during the period for which data were collected.5

Table IV-1 lists all responding U.S. importers of WEBs from all sources, their locations, and their

shares of U.S. imports in 2008. Of the 16 companies reporting WEB imports, the 6 largest importers

accounted for over 90 percent of the reported quantity imported.

Table IV-1

WEBs: U.S. importers, U.S. headquarters, source of imports, and shares of imports in 2008

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTS

Table IV-2 presents data for U.S. imports of WEBs from China and all other sources.

Commission staff elected to use questionnaire responses to develop the import data presented in table

IV-2. The principal reason for electing to use questionnaire responses is that usable responses were

received from all of the firms believed to be large importers of WEBs. Although questionnaire responses

accounted for only *** percent of the quantity of imports from China under HTS subheading 6301.10.00
 6

 Import data reported by the following firms were used to create this dataset: ***. Two companies, *** and

***, provided import data that were not included in the dataset. *** only imported nonsubject blankets during the

period for which data were collected, while *** reported imports that were in fact purchases from ***, whose

imports were already accounted for in the dataset.

 7

 Sections 703(a)(1), 705(b)(1), 733(a)(1), and 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1), 1671d(b)(1),

1673b(a)(1), and 1673d(b)(1)).

 8

 Section 771(24) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)).

 9

 Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. No imports from countries other than

China were reported during the period for which data were collected.

IV-2

during the period for which data were collected, there are known to be substantial imports of knit electric

blankets and other non-woven electric blankets under that subheading. 

On both a quantity and value basis, WEB imports from China remained relatively stable during

2006-08, but were lower in January-March 2009 than in January-March 2008. Unit values of WEB

imports fluctuated little and there were no reported imports from countries other than China during this

period.6

Table IV-2

WEBs: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

NEGLIGIBILITY

The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports

of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.7

 Negligible imports are generally defined in the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as imports from a country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic

like product where such imports account for less than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise

imported into the United States in the most recent 12-month period for which data are available that

precedes the filing of the petition or the initiation of the investigation.8

 Imports from China accounted for

100 percent of total known imports of WEBs by both quantity and value during the 12-month period

ending March 2009.9

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of WEBs during the period of investigation are

shown in table IV-3. Apparent consumption decreased during the period for which data collected, ***.

Table IV-3

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

consumption, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share data are presented in table IV-4. The data reflect an increase in market share of

imported WEBs as a result of decreased U.S. producer shipments combined with increased imports from

China. 
IV-3

Table IV-4

WEBs: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March

2009

* * * * * * *

RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of imports to U.S. production of WEBs is presented in table

IV-5. The combination of a decrease in U.S. production during the period for which data were collected

and relatively steady imports during this same period resulted in an increase in the ratio of imports to

production. 

Table IV-5

WEBs: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratio of imports to U.S. production, 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

 1

 Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1-A.

 2

 Conference transcript, pp. 26-27 and 88-89 (Pacheco).

 3

 Conference transcript, p. 168 (Porter).

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

Jarden reported that the cost of the WEB shells, controls, and wires accounted for *** percent,

*** percent, and *** percent, respectively, of the total cost of production of WEBs in 2008. Jarden

reported that the absolute cost of ***. Jarden attributed the ***. ***.1

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Jarden *** purchase WEBs f.o.b. its plant in Waynesboro, MS. Biddeford, ***

importer/distributor, reported that U.S. inland transportation costs averaged *** percent, while the other

four responding importer/distributors reported that average transportation costs ranged from 1 to 5

percent. *** six of seven responding importer/distributors reported selling on an f.o.b. basis, and ***

three of seven responding importers reported that their customers arranged transportation. Jarden

reported that *** percent of its WEB sales were to customers located 1,000 miles or further from its

production facilities, and *** percent were within 101 to 1,000 miles. Biddeford reported that *** of its

WEBs are sold within 100 miles of its U.S. storage facilities; ***, the other five responding

importer/distributors reported that most of their sales were to customers located 100 miles or further from

their U.S. storage facilities. Jarden ***. Five responding importers/distributors reported selling

nationally and one reported selling in the Southeast region.

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Jarden reported that its sales process typically begins in November of each year with a line review

with its retail customers. The line review is the start of Jarden’s presentation of the next season’s

recommended assortment of WEBs, pricing, and forecasted volume. Jarden’s volume forecast takes into

account factors such as historical sales, expected retail foot traffic, consumer preferences and trends, and

the weather. At the end of the line review process, the pricing and volume are finalized and the business

for the year is awarded. While these commitments are not legally binding, they form the basis for

demand projections for the year and the terms generally do not change. Throughout the year, Jarden

receives legally binding orders through purchase orders.2

Biddeford reported that, similar to Jarden, it sells WEBs based on purchase orders and not based

on long-term contracts. Biddeford also reported that WEBs are a seasonal business that is subject to a

line review each year to determine demand projections for the following year.3
 4

 Jarden reported that mark-down dollars are funds provided to retailers to support liquidating existing inventory

in store at the end of this season. Safety stock refers to certain levels of inventory that the Chinese exporter carries

at its risk and warehouses to support in-stock levels at the stores should the sales exceed the forecast. Jarden argues

that it does not need to carry safety stock since it manufactures domestically and can react within the season since it

assembles to order. Conference transcript, p. 28.

 5

 Conference transcript, pp. 27-29 (Pacheco).

 6

 ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1-B. Jarden reported that the quantity of buy-backs ***. 

Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 5 and exh. 1-J.

 7

 Conference transcript, pp. 146-148 and 163-164 (Porter).

 8

 Biddeford offers several fabric blends including 100 percent acrylic, 75/25 acrylic-polyester, 50/50 acrylicpolyester, and 100 percent polyester. Conference transcript, p. 145 (Porter). Jarden reported that its WEB product

mix ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1-I. Biddeford reported that ***.

V-2

Sales Terms and Discounts

Jarden maintains that although customer incentive plans have existed for decades, the Chinese

importers have created or added to the programs to further enhance their offerings. Jarden contends that it

cannot sell WEBs without engaging in a bidding war of incentive programs started by importers of

Chinese WEBs. Jarden states that such incentive programs include various discounts and promotions

such as mark-down dollars or return allowances, volume rebates, cooperative advertising funds like

holiday discount promotions, and safety stocks.4

 Jarden maintains that, in recent years, importers of

Chinese WEBs have offered to buy back a much larger percentage of returns, which has forced Jarden to

increase its buy-back volumes to meet the Chinese competitive practices.5 6

Biddeford reported that its pricing policy is based on a “net-net” price that does not include any

advertising allowances or mark-down dollars, and if the retailer would like an advertising allowance or

mark-down dollars, those costs are added to the price. Biddeford reported that it has offered mark-down

dollars only in the last couple of years, and that there have been occasions when retailers have negotiated

more mark-down money from Biddeford after the sales agreement. Biddeford maintains that, during the

last six years, it has not participated in buy-backs in a meaningful way.7

***.

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers that are distributors of WEBs to provide

quarterly data for the total quantity and value of WEBs shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market

during January 2006 to March 2009. Retailers that imported WEBs directly from China were asked to

provide purchase price data. U.S. producers and importers that are distributors were asked to report net

values (i.e., gross sales values less all discounts, allowances, rebates, prepaid freight, and the value of

returned goods), f.o.b. their U.S. point of shipment. Retailers that imported WEBS directly were asked to

report net values, landed duty-paid. The products for which pricing data were requested are as follows:

Product 1.--100% synthetic woven electric blanket, twin size

Product 2.--100% synthetic woven electric blanket, queen size

Product 3.--Blend of synthetic and natural fibers woven electric blanket, twin size8

Jarden and two importer/distributors provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested

products, and eight importer/retailers provided usable purchase price data, although not all firms reported
 9

 *** provided usable sales price data for imports from China. The following retailers provided purchase price

data for their imports from China: ***. Importers did not report any sales nor purchases of product 3.

 10 Importer/distributor sales price data accounted for *** percent and importer/retailer purchase price data

accounted for *** percent of total subject imports in 2008.

V-3

pricing for all products for all quarters.9

 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for *** percent

of the U.S. producer’s shipments of WEBs and *** percent of subject imports from China in 2008.10

Price Trends

Price and quantity data for products 1-3 are presented in tables V-1 to V-3 and figure V-1. A

summary of price trends is presented in table V-4.

Table V-1

WEBs: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1 and margins

of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

*******

Table V-2

WEBs: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 and margins

of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

*******

Table V-3

WEBs: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic product 3 and margins of

underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

*******

Figure V-1

WEBs: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product, by quarters,

January 2006-March 2009

*******

Table V-4

WEBs: Summary of weighted-average prices for products 1-3 from the United States and China

*******
 11 Petitioner argues that, in this case, the Commission should compare U.S. producer sales prices to retailers with

retailers’ direct import purchase prices. ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 15 ***. Respondents maintain

that retailers incur additional costs when importing directly from China. For example, respondents note that retailers

that import directly incur all of the ocean and inland U.S. freight expenses. In addition, respondents note that

retailers that import directly are responsible for the duties assessed on imported WEBs from China. Biddeford’s

postconference brief, exh. 16, p. 3. As noted above, the purchase values reported by retailers that import WEBs

directly are landed duty-paid, and, therefore, include any associated ocean freight costs and customs duties.

 12 *** Leslie Hearn, senior buyer for J.C. Penney, testified at the Commission conference. Ms. Hearn

acknowledged that price is a factor in J.C. Penney’s WEB purchasing decisions, but stated that it is not the primary

factor. Ms. Hearn maintained that Biddeford’s WEBs were higher quality than Jarden’s WEBs, with a better

“hand,” tighter weave, greater length, and thinner wiring. Ms. Hearn reported that the return rates for Biddeford’s

WEBs were lower than the return rates for comparable Jarden WEBs. Ms. Hearn also testified that Biddeford holds

the license for the Sealy brand trademark for WEBs and offered J.C. Penney the opportunity to be the exclusive

retailer for Sealy-brand WEBs starting in 2009. Ms. Hearn maintained that J.C. Penney gained a tremendous

competitive advantage when it became the exclusive retailer for Sealy-brand WEBs because it can capitalize on

Sealy’s marketing campaigns as well as its own customers’ preexisting familiarity and comfort with Sealy-brand

products. Ms. Hearn maintained that, although cost is a factor, these non-price factors played a larger role in J.C.

Penney’s decision to source WEBs from Biddeford. Conference transcript, pp. 136-142.

V-4

Price Comparisons

Margins of underselling and overselling are presented in table V-5.11 As can be seen from the

table, sales prices for WEBs imported from China were below those for U.S.-produced WEBs in 15 of 26

instances; margins of underselling ranged from 0.2 to 28.8 percent. In the remaining 11 instances, sales

prices for WEBs from China were between 1.6 and 20.7 percent above prices for the domestic product. 

In 2006 and 2007, U.S. producer sales prices were higher than import sales prices in all but two quarters. 

In 2008, however, import sales prices were higher than U.S. producer sales prices in every quarter. In

2009, results were mixed; product 1 prices for imported product were higher than domestic prices but

prices of imported product 2 were lower than domestic prices.

Table V-5

WEBs: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins, January

2006-March 2009

Source

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

China 15 0.2 to 28.8 *** 11 1.6 to 20.7 ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

In the petition, Jarden reported instances of lost sales and revenues it experienced due to

competition from imports of WEBs from China since January 2006. The *** lost sales allegations totaled

*** and involved *** WEBs (table V-6) and the *** lost revenues allegations totaled *** and involved

*** WEBs (table V-7). Staff contacted all *** purchasers named in the allegations and a summary of the

information obtained follows.12
V-5

Table V-6

WEBs: U.S. producer’s lost sales allegations

*******

Table V-7

WEBs: U.S. producer’s lost revenue allegations

*******

***.

***.

***.

***.

***.

 1

 As identified in the parent company’s public financial statements, Consumer Solutions is one of three primary

business segments recognized by Jarden Corp., with the other two segments being Outdoor Solutions and Branded

Consumables. Jarden Corp. 2008 10-K, p. 1. Electric blankets are identified as one of Consumer Solutions’

principal products. ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 14.

 2

 While the primary sales channel is to retailers, testimony at the staff conference indicated that WEBs deemed

“excess and obsolete” are ultimately sold to third-party distributors. Conference transcript, pp. 84-85 (Pacheco). 

***. Staff field trip notes. 

 3

 ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1-J. E-mail from Jarden to auditor, July 31, 2009. ***. 

Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1-B. These items are discussed in more detail below. Safety stock, a program

incentive reportedly provided by importers of Chinese WEBs, is not offered by Jarden. Conference transcript, p. 97

(Pacheco). 

 4

 Conference transcript, p. 29 (Pacheco).

 5

 At the staff conference, a Jarden company official generally agreed with this assessment regarding the

usefulness of interim financial results in this case. Conference transcript, p. 104 (Wright). ***.

 ***.

 6

 Conference transcript, p. 26 (Pacheco). Petition, p. 6.

 7

 As supplemental information, footnote 1 to table VI-2 presents WEBs average per-unit gross sales values; i.e.,

Jarden’s WEBs average per-unit revenue prior to deductions for program incentives. 

 8

 Jarden’s product mix was characterized as being generally stable during the period examined. Conference

transcript, p. 98 (Pacheco). ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1-I. ***. 

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCER

BACKGROUND

The only known U.S. producer, Jarden, reported its financial results on WEBs on the basis of

U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”).1

 *** of WEBs revenue reflects U.S.

commercial shipments to retailers, while a *** share represents exports to ***.2

Program incentives, as described in a previous section of this report, represent *** deduction to

Jarden’s gross WEBs revenue.3

 According to the company, while program incentives are a normal part of

doing business in this industry, the magnitude of program incentives increased during the period

examined in response to Chinese competition.4

 

Although interim financial results are presented below, seasonality generally limits their

usefulness.5

 As discussed in a previous section of this report, WEBs sales take place primarily in the fall

and winter months, while production begins in the first part of the year in order to build up inventory

based on sales forecasts.6

 

OPERATIONS ON WOVEN ELECTRIC BLANKETS

Income-and-loss data for Jarden’s operations on WEBs are presented in table VI-1 and on an

average unit basis in table VI-2.7

 Table VI-3 presents a variance analysis of Jarden’s overall WEBs

financial results.8

 
 9

 USITC auditor preliminary notes.

 10 The decline in WEBs revenue was *** the decline experienced by the Consumer Solutions segment as a whole;

i.e., the Consumer Solutions segment’s total sales were 4.2 percent lower in 2008 compared to 2006, while WEBs

revenue was *** percent lower. According to narrative information accompanying Jarden’s public segment

financial results, the decline in the Consumer Solutions segment’s sales in 2008 compared to 2007 was “. . .

primarily due to weakness in domestic sales in most product categories, primarily as a result of overall economic

weakness at retail, partially offset by increased demand and improved pricing internationally (primarily Latin

America). The statement characterizing lower segment revenue in 2007 compared to 2006 referenced “weakness in

domestic sales.” Jarden 2008 10-K, pp. 40-43.

 11 Conference transcript, p. 31 (Pacheco).

 12 As reported to the Commission, ***. USITC auditor preliminary notes.

 ***. E-mail from Jarden to auditor, July 31, 2009. ***. 

 13 E-mail from Jarden to auditor, July 31, 2009. ***.

 

VI-2

Table VI-1

Results of operations on WEBs, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-2

Results of operations on WEBs (per unit), 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-3

Variance analysis of financial results on WEBs, 2006-08

* * * * * * *

Revenue

With regard to changes in WEBs sales volume during the full-year period, *** took place in

2007. Jarden attributed ***.9

 

While total WEBs sales volume declined between 2006 and 2008 (*** percent), the decline in the

absolute value of sales was larger (*** percent).10 At the staff conference, a company official stated that

“. . . Jarden has been forced to lower its prices, limit our price increases, despite rising costs, and expand

the incentive programs to keep our customers which forces down our net prices.”11 Based on the

information submitted by Jarden and as shown in table VI-1, the decline in total net sales value between

2006 and 2008 is due to ***. As shown in footnote 1 to table VI-2, average per unit gross sales value ***

during the full-year period: ***. As such, the decline in average per-unit net sales value is ***.12 As

noted below, the reduction in average per unit sales value also appears to explain part of the

corresponding increase in the WEBs COGS-to-sales ratio. 

Average per-unit gross sales value and net sales value (see table VI-2 and footnote 1 to table VI2) both increased in 2007 when WEBs sales volume declined by ***. In contrast, when the decline in

sales volume was *** in 2008, average per-unit gross sales value and net sales value declined. With

regard to this pattern, a Jarden company official stated that ***.13
 14 ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 14. E-mail from Jarden to auditor, July 31, 2009. 

 15 At the staff conference, a company official stated that the Waynesboro, MS plant “. . . produce{s} the wire

which is made of a copper alloy core assembly, and thermoplastic outer layers. The wire is manufactured in a

proprietary process that we developed and patented.” Conference transcript, p. 23 (Sullivan). ***. Petitioner’s

postconference brief, exh. 1-A. USITC Auditor preliminary notes. E-mail from Jarden to auditor, July 31, 2009.

 16 Ibid.

 17 E-mail from Jarden to auditor, July 31, 2009. Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1-A. 

 18 Conference transcript, p. 20 (Sullivan). 

 19 Conference transcript, p. 19 (Sullivan).

 20 ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1-A.

 21 ***. USITC auditor preliminary notes. 

VI-3

Cost of Goods Sold

Raw material costs made up *** percent of total WEBs cost of good sold (COGS) on a

cumulative basis, while direct labor and other factory costs represent *** percent and *** percent,

respectively.14

As shown in table VI-2, average per-unit raw material costs rose and fell during the period and

reached their highest full-year level in *** along with average sales value. This pattern is generally

consistent with supplemental information provided by Jarden which shows that the largest period-toperiod increase in product costs occurred in ***. As noted in a previous section of this report, the WEBs

*** components combined make up the majority of raw material costs and ranged from *** percent to

*** percent of total COGS during the full-year period. Other raw material costs represent ***.15 

Corresponding with overall higher average COGS in 2008 compared to 2006, Jarden attributed

increases in the relative share of ***. In contrast, the increase in the *** share of COGS in 2007 was

attributed to *** increases, while subsequent declines in 2008 and interim 2009 were attributed to ***.16

While input costs generally increased, changes in average per-unit COGS also reflect ***.17 The above

trends are generally consistent with the corresponding *** during the full-year period. 

While Jarden’s WEBs production is capital-intensive, as described by a company official,18 the

overall cost structure is ***. As noted above, *** component of COGS is raw material which is by

definition a variable cost. Direct labor, as would generally be expected, is also in large part variable. As

described by the company, the level of employment is augmented for seasonal packing and, in interim

2009, hours worked were reportedly reduced due to lower production levels.19 Based on supplemental

information provided by the company, *** percent to *** percent of other factory costs are fixed costs. 

This in turn indicates that fixed costs *** of total COGS during the full-year period. Consistent with an

overall cost structure in which fixed costs represent ***, WEBs average per-unit COGS, as shown in table

VI-2, ***.20 

As shown in table VI-1, the COGS-to-sales ratio increased throughout the period. The pattern of

change in average per-unit sales values indicates that the increase in the COGS-to-sales ratio in 2007 was

due primarily to a larger increase in average per-unit COGS compared to the corresponding increase in

average per-unit net sales value. In 2008, in contrast, the increase in the COGS-to-sales ratio appears to

have been more a function of a larger decline in average per unit net sales value compared to the

corresponding decline in average per-unit COGS. While the COGS-to-sales ratio clearly increased

between 2006 and 2008 and thereby reduced WEBs gross profit margins, attributing the increases

specifically to lower revenue and/or higher COGS is not possible due to changes in product mix during

the period.21
 22 In 2006, Jarden’s WEBs operations generated ***. Ibid.

 23 In contrast to and based on information in Jarden Corp.’s consolidated statement of cash flows, the parent

company’s analogous ratio of capital expenditures to depreciation and amortization was ***, ranging from a low of

84.2 percent to 103.6 percent. USITC auditor preliminary notes. ***.

 24 ***. 

 25 With regard to its capital expenditures, the company stated that ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 10-

13. 

 26 Conference transcript, p. 32 (Pacheco).

 27 According to the company, ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 10-13. 

 With regard to the cancellation of R&D projects, the company stated that ***. Ibid.

VI-4

Financial Results

As shown in table VI-1, Jarden began the period with *** operating income margins which

subsequently declined along with the level of absolute operating income.22 While SG&A

expenses as a percent of sales did increase somewhat during the period, the majority of the overall decline

in WEBs absolute operating income and operating income margins was due to declining sales volume and

the corresponding contraction of gross profit margins. As indicated above, the deterioration in gross

profit margins reflects a combination of factors related to both revenue and corresponding COGS. 

 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES, 

ASSETS, AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Data on capital expenditures, research and development (“R&D”) expenses, assets, and return on

investment are presented in table VI-4. 

Table VI-4

Operations on WEBs: Capital expenditures, R&D expenses, assets, and return on investment,

2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

While Jarden reported capital expenditures throughout the full-year period, the amounts reported

were *** the corresponding depreciation expense, ranging from a low of *** percent of depreciation

in *** expense to a high of *** percent in ***.23 *** capital expenditures were reported in interim 2008

or interim 2009.24 The nature of the projects reflected in the reported capital expenditures are described in

footnote 25 along with descriptions of capital expenditures suspended during the period examined.25

Table VI-4 shows that ***. In general, this appears to be consistent with testimony at the staff conference

which emphasized the importance of innovation and product development.26 Footnote 27 describes the

company’s R&D projects, as well R&D projects that were suspended during the period examined.27
VI-5

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual or anticipated negative effects

of imports of WEBs from China on their firms’ growth, investment, ability to raise capital, existing

development and production efforts (including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version

of the product), or the scale of capital investments. 

Actual Negative Effects

Jarden ***.

Anticipated Negative Effects

Jarden ***.

 1

 The only other known Chinese suppliers of WEBs to the United States, ***, did not provide the Commission

with information. *** is supplier to *** and *** is supplier to ***.

 2

 E-mail from ***, July 27, 2009.

 3

 Data provided by the petitioner estimate 2008 Chinese total electric blanket production (both WEBs and other

types) as 40.25 million units and 2008 Chinese electric blanket exports as 8.66 million units. Petitioner’s

postconference brief, exhibit 9. 

VII-1

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON

NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making threat determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(F)(i)). Information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented

in Parts IV and V and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’

existing development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the

subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any

other threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in third-country markets, follows. Also presented

in this section of the report is information concerning the WEB industry in nonsubject countries.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The Commission requested data from 31 firms in China believed to be possible producers of

WEBs. Of these firms, two producers, Hung Kuo and Pace Electric Co., Ltd. (“Pace China”) provided

questionnaire responses containing useable data, one firm certified that it had not produced or exported

WEBs since January 1, 2006, and 28 did not provide responses.1

 Hung Kuo estimated that in 2008 it

accounted for *** production of WEBs in China and *** exports of WEBs from China to the United

States.2

 Pace China estimated that it accounted for *** percent of production of WEBs in China and ***

percent of exports of WEBs from China to the United States in 2008. Reported exports of WEBs to the

United States by Hung Kuo and Pace in 2008 were *** the quantity of reported U.S. imports of WEBs

from China in that year.3

 Table VII-1 presents data for reported production and shipments of WEBs in

China.

Table VII-1

WEBs: China's reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2006-08

January-March 2008, January-March 2009, and projections for 2009 and 2010

* * * * * * *

U.S. INVENTORIES OF WOVEN ELECTRIC BLANKETS FROM CHINA

Reported inventories held by U.S. importers of subject merchandise from China are shown in

table VII-2.
 4

 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 2007-1552 at 17 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 18, 2008), quoting from

Statement of Administrative Action on Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. I at 851-52; see

also Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

 5

 Data compiled using Global Trade Atlas statistics showing global exports of HTS subheading 6301.10.00. 

Accessed July 29, 2009.

 6

 Imports from these countries accounted for less than one percent of the value of electric blanket imports into the

United States in 2008. Data compiled using USITC Dataweb statistics showing U.S. imports by value under HTS

(continued...)

VII-2

Table VII-2

WEBs: U.S. importers' end-of-period inventories of all imports, by source, 2006-08, January-March

2008, January-March 2009 

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of WEBs from China after March 31, 2009. Importers’ current orders of subject merchandise

from China are shown in table VII-3.

Table VII-3

WEBs: U.S importers' current orders, by quarter, April-December 2009

* * * * * * *

ANTIDUMPING INVESTIGATIONS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

There are no known antidumping (or countervailing duty) investigations on WEBs from China

reported in third-country markets. 

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury

“by reason of subject imports,” the legislative history states “that the Commission must examine all

relevant evidence, including any known factors, other than the dumped or subsidized imports, that may be

injuring the domestic industry, and that the Commission must examine those other factors (including nonsubject imports) ‘to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.’”4

There is no publicly available information regarding international production or exports of WEBs

during the period for which data were collected. There is some limited information available, however,

on electric blankets (woven, knit, and other non-woven blankets combined). According to Global Trade

Atlas statistics, the largest exporters of electric blankets in the world in 2008 were China, the Czech

Republic, and Indonesia. On a value basis China was by far the largest exporter, with approximately 61

percent of total exports during that year. The Czech Republic and Indonesia exported approximately 21

percent and 5 percent, respectively. On a quantity basis the Czech Republic was the largest exporter,

which implies that exported Czech electric blankets are on average of a much lower value than Chinese

blankets.5

 While China represents the large majority of electric blankets imports into the United States,

neither the Czech Republic nor Indonesia were responsible for imports of these blankets into the United

States during the period for which data were collected. The United States does import some electric

blankets from Denmark, Korea, and Cameroon, although these countries are not large exporters globally.6
 6

 (...continued)

subheading 6301.10.00. Accessed July 30, 2009. 

 7

 Conference transcript, pp. 150 (Hearn) and 151 (Porter).

VII-3

There is no information available on how much of these exports are WEBs as opposed to knit and other

non-woven blankets, as the tariff classification includes all three products. The lack of countries other

than China producing WEBs was also mentioned during the staff conference related to this investigation,

when respondent parties stated that they were unaware of any WEB production outside of China.7

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

32192 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS-R9-IA-2009-N0133; 96300-1671-0000- 

P5] 

Receipt of Applications for Permit 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications 

for permit. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, invite the public to 

comment on the following applications 

for permits to conduct certain activities 

with endangered species. The 

Endangered Species Act requires that 

we invite public comment on these 

permit applications. 

DATES: Written data, comments or 

requests must be received by August 7, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Documents and other 

information submitted with these 

applications are available for review, 

subject to the requirements of the 

Privacy Act and Freedom of Information 

Act, by any party who submits a written 

request for a copy of such documents 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Management 

Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, 

Room 212, Arlington, Virginia 22203; 

fax 703/358-2281. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Division of Management Authority, 

telephone 703/358-2104. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Endangered Species 

The public is invited to comment on 

the following applications for a permit 

to conduct certain activities with 

endangered species. This notice is 

provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Submit your written data, comments, or 

requests for copies of the complete 

applications to the address shown in 

ADDRESSES. 

Applicant: Duke University, Department 

of Evolutionary Anthropology, 

Durham, NC, PRT-215717 

The applicant requests a permit to 

acquire in interstate and foreign 

commerce and to import biological 

specimens from various non-human 

primate species (Order Primates), 

including all species of lemurids, 

prosimians, New and Old World 

monkeys, and apes for the purpose of 

scientific research. This notification 

covers activities to be conducted by the 

applicant over a five-year period. 

Applicant: Exotic Feline Breeding 

Compound, Inc., Rosamond, CA, PRT215034 

The applicant requests a permit to 

import one female captive-born Iranian 

leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor) 

from the ZooParc de Beauval, France, 

for the purpose of enhancement of the 

survival of the species. 

Applicant: Victoria E. Wobber, 

Cambridge, MA, PRT-207589 

The applicant requests a permit to 

import biological samples from wild 

bonobos (Pan paniscus) held at Lola ya 

Bonobo Sancturary, Kinshasa, 

Democratic Republic of Congo, and wild 

common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) 

held at Tchimpounga Chimpanzee 

Sanctuary, Pointe Noire, Congo 

Republic, for the purpose of scientific 

research. This notification covers 

activities to be conducted by the 

applicant over a 5 year period. 

The following applicants request a 

permit to import the sport-hunted 

trophy of one male straight horned 

markhor (Capra falconeri jerdoni) from 

the Torghar Conservation Project, 

Pakistan, for the purpose of 

enhancement of the survival of the 

species. 

Applicant: Jerry L. Brenner, West Olive, 

MI, PRT-217355 

Applicant: Barbara L. Sackman, Sands 

Point, NY, PRT-217353 

Applicant: Alan Sackman, Sands Point, 

NY, PRT 217349 

The following applicants request a 

permit to import the sport-hunted 

trophy of one male bontebok 

(Damaliscus pygargus pygargus) culled 

from a captive herd maintained under 

the management program of the 

Republic of South Africa, for the 

purpose of enhancement of the survival 

of the species. 

Applicant: James L. Scull, Rapid City, 

SD, PRT-213672 

Applicant: William R. Morgan III, 

Salisbury, MD, PRT-216076 

Applicant: Donald E. Coon, Sheridan, 

WY, PRT-216468 

Applicant: Wayne M. Pourciau, New 

Iberia, LA, PRT-217668 

Applicant: Thomas H. Blue, Eagle 

Springs, NC, PRT-211307 

Applicant: Arlan M. Buckmeier, 

Fairbanks, AK, PRT-211337 

Applicant: Kevin Atkinson, Northville, 

MI, PRT-217634 

Dated: June 26, 2009 

Lisa J. Lierheimer, 

Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, 

Division of Management Authority 

[FR Doc. E9–16003 Filed 7–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-55-S

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1163 

(Preliminary)] 

Woven Electric Blankets From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of antidumping 

investigation and scheduling of a 

preliminary phase investigation. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the institution of an 

investigation and commencement of 

preliminary phase antidumping 

investigation No. 731–TA–1163 

(Preliminary) under section 733(a) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) 

(the Act) to determine whether there is 

a reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured or threatened with material 

injury, or the establishment of an 

industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

imports from China of woven electric 

blankets (‘‘WEBs’’), provided for in 

subheading 6301.10.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States, that are alleged to be sold 

in the United States at less than fair 

value. Unless the Department of 

Commerce extends the time for 

initiation pursuant to section 

732(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must 

reach a preliminary determination in 

antidumping investigations in 45 days, 

or in this case by August 14, 2009. The 

Commission’s views are due at 

Commerce within five business days 

thereafter, or by August 21, 2009. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this investigation and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: June 30, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joshua Kaplan (202–205–3184), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32193 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—This investigation is 

being instituted in response to a petition 

filed on June 30, 2009, by Sunbeam 

Products, Inc. dba Jarden Consumer 

Solutions, Boca Raton, FL. 

Participation in the investigation and 

public service list.—Persons (other than 

petitioners) wishing to participate in the 

investigation as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the 

Commission’s rules, not later than seven 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Industrial users 

and (if the merchandise under 

investigation is sold at the retail level) 

representative consumer organizations 

have the right to appear as parties in 

Commission antidumping 

investigations. The Secretary will 

prepare a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to this investigation upon the expiration 

of the period for filing entries of 

appearance. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in this investigation available 

to authorized applicants representing 

interested parties (as defined in 19 

U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the 

investigation under the APO issued in 

the investigation, provided that the 

application is made not later than seven 

days after the publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Conference.—The Commission’s 

Director of Investigations has scheduled 

a conference in connection with this 

investigation for 9:30 a.m. on July 21, 

2009, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building, 500 E Street, 

SW., Washington, DC. Parties wishing to 

participate in the conference should 

contact Joshua Kaplan (202–205–3184) 

not later than July 17, 2009, to arrange 

for their appearance. Parties in support 

of the imposition of antidumping duties 

in this investigation and parties in 

opposition to the imposition of such 

duties will each be collectively 

allocated one hour within which to 

make an oral presentation at the 

conference. A nonparty who has 

testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the conference. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the 

Commission’s rules, any person may 

submit to the Commission on or before 

July 24, 2009, a written brief containing 

information and arguments pertinent to 

the subject matter of the investigation. 

Parties may file written testimony in 

connection with their presentation at 

the conference no later than three days 

before the conference. If briefs or 

written testimony contain BPI, they 

must conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in 

II(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the investigation must 

be served on all other parties to the 

investigation (as identified by either the 

public or BPI service list), and a 

certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: This investigation is being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.12 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: July 1, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–15919 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission 

Commencement of Claims Program 

AGENCY: Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission of the United States. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

commencement by the Foreign Claims 

Settlement Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) of a program for 

adjudication of certain categories of 

claims of United States nationals against 

the Government of Libya, as defined 

below, which were settled under the 

‘‘Claims Settlement Agreement Between 

the United States of America and the 

Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab 

Jamahiriya’’ (‘‘Claims Settlement 

Agreement’’) effective August 14, 2008. 

DATES: These claims can now be filed 

with the Commission and the deadline 

for filing will be July 7, 2010. The 

deadline for completion of this claims 

adjudication program will be July 7, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jaleh F. Barrett, Chief Counsel, Foreign 

Claims Settlement Commission of the 

United States, 600 E Street, NW., Room 

6002, Washington, DC 20579, Tel. (202) 

616–6975, FAX (202) 616–6993. 

Notice of Commencement of Claims 

Adjudication Program 

Pursuant to the authority conferred 

upon the Secretary of State and the 

Commission under subsection 4(a)(1)(C) 

of Title I of the International Claims 

Settlement Act of 1949 (Pub. L. 455, 

81st Cong., approved March 10, 1950, as 

amended by Public Law 105–277, 

approved October 21, 1998 (22 U.S.C. 

1623(a)(1)(C))), the Foreign Claims 

Settlement Commission hereby gives 

notice of the commencement of a 

program for adjudication of categories of 

claims of United States nationals against 

the Government of Libya. These claims, 

which have been referred to the 

Commission by the Department of State 

by letter dated January 15, 2009, are 

defined as: 

Category A: This category of claims shall 

consist of claims by U.S. nationals who were 

held hostage or unlawfully detained in 

violation of international law, provided that 

(1) the claimant meets the standard for such 

claims adopted by the Commission; (2) the 

claim was set forth as a claim for injury other 

than emotional distress alone by the claimant 

named in the Pending Litigation; (3) the 

Pending Litigation against Libya has been 

dismissed before the claim is submitted to 

the Commission; and (4) the claimant did not 

receive an award pursuant to the referral of 

December 11, 2008. 

Category B: This category shall consist of 

claims of U.S. nationals for mental pain and 

anguish who are living close relatives of a 

decedent whose death formed the basis of a 

death claim compensated by the Department 

of State provided that (1) The claim was set 

forth as a claim for emotional distress, 

solatium, or similar emotional injury by the 

claimant named in the Pending Litigation; (2) 

the claimant is not eligible for compensation 

from the associated wrongful death claim, 

and the claimant did not receive any 

compensation from the wrongful death claim;

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 37001 

1See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping 

Duties: Certain Woven Electric Blankets from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated June 30, 2009 

(‘‘Petition’’). 

2See Memorandum from Dana Griffies to the File, 

regarding Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Certain Woven Electric 

Blankets from the People’s Republic of China: 

Suggested Scope Changes, dated July 16, 2009, and 

Memorandum from Howard Smith to the File, 

regarding Telephone Conversations with Petitioner, 

dated July 16, 2009, and Memorandum from Drew 

Jackson to the File, regarding Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Certain 

Woven Electric Blankets from the People’s Republic 

of China: Suggested Scope Changes, dated July 17, 

2009. 

may count toward the actual amount of 

extension that the Commissioner of 

Patents and Trademarks may award, 

APHIS’ determination of the length of a 

regulatory review period for a veterinary 

biologic will include all of the testing 

phase and approval phase as specified 

in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(5)(B). 

APHIS recently licensed for 

production and marketing the veterinary 

biologic NAHVAX® Marek’s Disease 

Vaccine. Subsequent to this approval, 

the Patent and Trademark Office 

received a patent term restoration 

application for NAHVAX® Marek’s 

Disease Vaccine (U.S. Patent No. 5, 965, 

138) from Schering Plough Animal 

Health Corporation, and the Patent and 

Trademark Office requested APHIS’ 

assistance in determining this patent’s 

eligibility for patent term restoration. In 

a letter dated February 2, 2009, APHIS 

advised the Patent and Trademark 

Office that this veterinary biologic had 

undergone a regulatory review period 

and that the approval of NAHVAX®

Marek’s Disease Vaccine (Marek’s 

Disease Vaccine, Serotypes 1 & 3, Live 

Herpesvirus Chimera) represented the 

first permitted commercial licensing or 

use of the product. Subsequently, the 

Patent and Trademark Office requested 

that APHIS determine the product’s 

regulatory review period. 

APHIS has determined that the 

applicable regulatory review period for 

NAHVAX® Marek’s Disease Vaccine is 

1,539 days. Of this time, 0 days 

occurred during the testing phase of the 

regulatory review period, and 1,539 

days occurred during the approval 

phase. These periods were derived from 

the following dates: 

1. The date the application for a 

license was initially submitted for 

approval under the Virus-Serum-Toxin 

Act: July 14, 2004. APHIS has verified 

the applicant’s claim that the 

application was initially submitted on 

July 14, 2004. 

2. The date the license was issued: 

September 29, 2008. APHIS has verified 

the applicant’s claim that the license for 

the commercial marketing of the vaccine 

was issued on September 29, 2008. 

This determination of the regulatory 

review period establishes the maximum 

potential length of a patent extension. 

However, the U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office applies several 

statutory limitations in its calculations 

of the actual period for patent extension. 

In its application for patent extension, 

this applicant seeks 1,539 days of patent 

term extension. 

Section 124.22 of the regulations 

provides that any interested person may 

request a revision of the regulatory 

review period determination within 30 

days of the date of this notice (see DATES

above). The request must specify the 

following: 

• The identity of the product; 

• The identity of the applicant for 

patent term restoration; 

• The docket number of this notice; 

and 

• The basis for the request for 

revision, including any documentary 

evidence. 

Further, under § 124.30 of the 

regulations, any interested person may 

file a petition with APHIS, no later than 

180 days after the date of this notice (see 

DATES above), alleging that a license 

applicant did not act with due diligence 

in seeking APHIS approval of the 

product during the regulatory review 

period. The filing, format, and content 

of a petition must be as described in the 

regulations in ‘‘Subpart D–Due 

Diligence Petitions’’ (§§ 124.30 through 

124.33). 

Authority: 35 U.S.C. 156. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of 

July 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–17795 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–951] 

Certain Woven Electric Blankets From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Drew Jackson at (202) 482–4406 or 

Rebecca Pandolph at (202) 482–3627, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On June 30, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received an 

antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition 

concerning imports of certain woven 

electric blankets (‘‘woven electric 

blankets’’) from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) filed in proper form by 

Jarden Consumer Solutions 

(‘‘Petitioner’’).1 On July 2, 2009, the 

Department issued a request to 

Petitioner for additional information 

and for clarification of certain areas of 

the Petition. Based on the Department’s 

request, Petitioner filed a supplement to 

the Petition on July 8, 2009 

(‘‘Supplement to the Petition’’). On July 

10, 2009, the Department requested 

further information from Petitioner, 

including suggested refinements to the 

scope. Based on the Department’s 

request, Petitioner filed a second 

supplement to the Petition on July 14, 

2009 (‘‘Second Supplement to the 

Petition’’). Based on conversations with 

Petitioner regarding scope and certain 

other clarifications, Petitioner filed a 

supplement to the Petition on July 15, 

2009 (‘‘Third Supplement to the 

Petition’’).2 On July 17, 2009, we 

received a submission on behalf of a 

U.S. importer of woven electric blankets 

and its affiliated Chinese producer and 

exporter, both interested parties to this 

proceeding as defined in section 

771(9)(A) of the Act. This submission 

challenged the definition of the 

domestic like product. Petitioner filed 

its reply to this challenge on July 20, 

2009. 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’), Petitioner alleges that imports 

of woven electric blankets from the PRC 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value, 

within the meaning of section 731 of the 

Act, and that such imports materially 

injure, and threaten further material 

injury to, an industry in the United 

States. 

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioner is 

an interested party, as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, and has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the investigation 

that it requests the Department to 

initiate (see ‘‘Determination of Industry 

Support for the Petition’’ below). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
37002 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 

3See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 

2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. 

v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), 

aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492 

U.S. 919 (1989). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are woven electric 

blankets from the PRC. For a full 

description of the scope of the 

investigation, please see the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ in Appendix I of this 

notice. 

Comments on the Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope of the investigation 

with Petitioner to ensure that it is an 

accurate reflection of the products for 

which the domestic industry is seeking 

relief. Moreover, as discussed in the 

preamble to the Department’s 

regulations (Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding the 

product coverage of the scope. The 

Department encourages all interested 

parties to submit such comments by 

August 10, 2009, the first business day 

after twenty calendar days from the 

signature date of this notice. Comments 

should be addressed to Import 

Administration’s APO/Dockets Unit, 

Room 1870, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

The period for scope consultations is 

intended to provide the Department 

with ample opportunity to consider all 

comments and to consult with parties 

prior to the issuance of the preliminary 

determination in this investigation. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for the Antidumping Duty 

Questionnaire 

We are requesting comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

woven electric blankets to be reported 

in response to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire. This 

information will be used to identify the 

key physical characteristics of the 

subject merchandise in order to more 

accurately report the relevant factors of 

production, as well as to develop 

appropriate product reporting criteria. 

Interested parties may provide any 

information or comments that they 

believe are relevant to the development 

of an accurate listing of physical 

characteristics. Specifically, they may 

provide comments as to which 

characteristics are appropriate to use as 

(1) general product characteristics and 

(2) the product reporting criteria. We 

note that it is not always appropriate to 

use all product characteristics as 

product reporting criteria. We base 

product reporting criteria on meaningful 

commercial differences among products. 

In other words, while there may be 

some physical product characteristics 

utilized by manufacturers to describe 

woven electric blankets, it may be that 

only a select few product characteristics 

take into account commercially 

meaningful physical characteristics. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing the 

product characteristics for the 

antidumping duty questionnaire, we 

must receive comments at the abovereferenced address by August 10, 2009. 

Additionally, rebuttal comments must 

be received by August 17, 2009. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) Poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

industry. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is 

responsible for determining whether 

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product (section 

771(10) of the Act), they do so for 

different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law.3

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioner did not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. On July 17, 2009, 

Biddeford Blankets, LLC (‘‘Biddeford’’) 

a U.S. importer of woven electric 

blankets, and Hung Kuo Electronics 

(Shenzhen) Company Limited (Hung 

Kuo), Biddeford’s affiliated PRC 

producer and exporter of woven electric 

blankets, submitted a letter challenging 

the definition of the domestic like 

product, and requesting that the 

Department delay its initiation. 

Specifically, Biddeford and Hung Kuo 

argue that the domestic like product, as 

defined in the Petition, is overly narrow 

and should include, at a minimum, 

electric mattress pads. In addition, 

Biddeford and Hung Kuo state that 

Westpoint Stevens, a U.S. manufacturer 

and seller of electric mattress pads 

should be polled to determine whether 

it supports or opposes the Petition. 

Further, Biddeford and Hung Kuo 

request that the Department confirm 

Petitioner’s claim that while non-woven 

electric blankets could be an acceptable 

substitute for woven electric blankets, 

non-woven electric blankets are not 

produced in the United States. Both 

Biddeford and Hung Kuo are interested 

parties to this proceeding as defined in 

section 771(9)(A) of the Act. On July 20, 

2009, Petitioner filed its reply to this 

challenge, stating that Biddeford and 

Hung Kuo failed to provide any specific 

evidence supporting their claim, and 

limited their discussion to only a 

cursory analysis of the factors used to 

make a like product determination. We 

have analyzed these comments, and 

based on our analysis of the information 

submitted on the record, we have 

determined that woven electric blankets 

constitute a single domestic like product 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 37003 

4For a discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Woven 

Electric Blankets from the PRC (‘‘Initiation 

Checklist’’) at Attachment II (‘‘Industry Support’’), 

dated concurrently with this notice and on file in 

the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117 of 

the main Department of Commerce building. 

5See Petition, at 2–3, Exhibit 2, and Supplement 

to the Petition, at 3–4, and Exhibit S1. 

6See id; see also Initiation Checklist at 

Attachment II, Industry Support. 

7See Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, and 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

8See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

9See id. 

10See id. 

11See Petition, at 11–12, 15–26, Exhibits 2, 18, 

20–24, and Supplement to the Petition, at 11, and 

Exhibits S12–S15. 

12See Initiation Checklist at Attachment III. 

13See Initiation Checklist at 6 for details. 

14See Petition, at 8, and Exhibit 2, and 

Supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit S1, and Third 

Supplement to the Petition, at 2, and Exhibits S3– 

1 and S3–2. 

15See Initiation Checklist for further discussion. 

16See Petition, at 8, and Exhibit 2. 

17See Petition, at 7. 

18See Petition, at 7; see also Memorandum from 

the Office of Policy to David M. Spooner, Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, regarding The 

People’s Republic of China Status as a Non-Market 

Economy, dated May 15, 2006. This document is 

available online at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/ 

prc-nme-status/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf. 

and we have analyzed industry support 

in terms of that domestic like product.4

In determining whether Petitioner has 

standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of 

the Act, we considered the industry 

support data contained in the Petition 

with reference to the domestic like 

product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section above and 

Appendix I of this notice. To establish 

industry support, Petitioner provided its 

2008 production of the domestic like 

product and compared this to the 

estimated total production of the 

domestic like product for the entire 

domestic industry.5 Petitioner 

calculated total domestic production 

based on its own production plus data 

estimates for two non-petitioning 

companies that may have been 

producing the domestic like product in 

the United States in 2008.6

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department, including a search of 

the Internet, indicates that Petitioner 

has established industry support. First, 

the Petition established support from 

domestic producers (or workers) 

accounting for more than 50 percent of 

the total production of the domestic like 

product and, as such, the Department is 

not required to take further action in 

order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 

polling).7 Second, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product.8 Finally, the domestic 

producers (or workers) have met the 

statutory criteria for industry support 

under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act 

because the domestic producers (or 

workers) who support the Petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition. Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the Petition 

was filed on behalf of the domestic 

industry within the meaning of section 

732(b)(1) of the Act.9

The Department finds that Petitioner 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioner is 

an interested party (e.g., domestic 

producer) as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and has 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

investigation that it is requesting that 

the Department initiate.10

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioner alleged that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than normal 

value (‘‘NV’’). In addition, Petitioner 

alleged that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 

Petitioner contended that the 

industry’s injured condition is 

illustrated by reduced market share, 

increased import penetration, 

underselling and price depressing and 

suppressing effects, lost sales and 

revenue, reduced production, 

shipments, capacity, and capacity 

utilization, reduced employment, and 

an overall decline in financial 

performance.11 We have assessed the 

allegations and supporting evidence 

regarding material injury, threat of 

material injury, and causation, and have 

determined that these allegations are 

properly supported by adequate 

evidence and meet the statutory 

requirements for initiation.12

Period of Investigation 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1), because the Petition was 

filed on June 30, 2009, the anticipated 

period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

October 1, 2008, through March 31, 

2009. 

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value 

The following is a description of the 

allegation of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department has based 

its decision to initiate an investigation 

of woven electric blankets from the PRC. 

The sources of data for the deductions 

and adjustments relating to U.S. price 

and NV are discussed in the Initiation 

Checklist. Should the need arise to use 

any of this information as facts available 

under section 776 of the Act, we may 

reexamine the information and revise 

the margin calculations, if appropriate. 

U.S. Price 

Petitioner obtained constructed export 

prices (‘‘CEP’’) 13 for woven electric 

blankets in four standard sizes: Twin, 

full, queen, and king. These prices were 

based on U.S. offers for sale of woven 

electric blankets manufactured in the 

PRC.14 Petitioner presented an affidavit 

attesting that the offers were made 

during the POI.15

To calculate the net U.S. price, 

Petitioner did not deduct from the 

starting U.S. prices any CEP selling 

expenses or movement expenses other 

than the U.S. customs duty of 11.40 

percent that is imposed on woven 

electric blankets upon importation into 

the United States.16 This approach is 

conservative in that it does not 

understate the net U.S. price. 

Normal Value 

According to Petitioner, since the PRC 

is a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country, it based NV on factors of 

production and surrogate values.17 In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, the presumption of NME status 

remains in effect until revoked by the 

Department. The presumption of NME 

status for the PRC has not been revoked 

by the Department and, therefore, 

remains in effect for purposes of the 

initiation of this investigation.18

Accordingly, the NV of the product is 

appropriately based on factors of 

production valued in a surrogate market 

economy country, in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act. In the course 

of this investigation, all parties will 

have the opportunity to provide relevant 

information related to the issues of the 

PRC’s NME status and the granting of 

separate rates to individual exporters. 

Petitioner used India as the surrogate 

country because it claimed India is at a 

level of economic development 

comparable to that of the PRC and is a 

significant producer of woven electric 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
37004 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 

19See Petition, at 8, and Supplement to the 

Petition, at 5 and Exhibit S5. 

20See Petition, at 8. 

21See Supplement to the Petition, at 5 and 

Exhibit S5. 

22See Supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit S4; 

see also Second Supplement to the Petition, at 

Exhibit S2–3. 

23See Petition, at 9, and Exhibit 8, and 

Supplement to the Petition, at 9, and Exhibit S1. 

24See Petition, at 8. 

25See Petition, at 9–10, and Exhibit 10, and 

Supplement to the Petition, at 5–7, and Exhibit S7, 

and Second Supplement to the Petition, at 2, and 

Exhibits S2–1 and S2–3. 

26See Petition, at 9, and Supplement to the 

Petition, at 7, and Exhibit S8. 

27See Petition, at 9, and Exhibits 9 and 10; see 

also Supplement to the Petition, at 5–7, and Exhibit 

S6. 

28See Petition, at 10, and Exhibit 12. 

29See Petition, at 10, and Exhibits 14 and 15; see 

also Supplement to the Petition, at 7–8, and 

Exhibits S4 and S7. 

30See Petition, at 10, and Exhibit 13, and Second 

Supplement to the Petition, at 2–3, and Exhibit S2– 

4. 

31See Supplement to the Petition, at 9–10, and 

Exhibit S11. 

32See Petition, at 10–11 and Exhibit 16, and 

Supplement to Petition, at 9–10, and Second 

Supplement to the Petition, at 3. 

33See Second Supplement to Petition, at S2–3. 

34See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions 

Governing Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 73 FR 74930 (December 10, 2008). 

35See id. at 74931. 

blankets.19 In support of this claim, 

Petitioner referenced the Department’s 

previous findings that India is at a level 

of development comparable to the 

PRC,20 and provided the names of a 

number of Indian manufacturers/ 

suppliers of electric blankets, and U.N. 

data showing that India exported 53.197 

metric tons of electric blankets during 

2007.21

After examining the information 

provided by Petitioner, the Department 

has determined that the use of India as 

a surrogate country is appropriate for 

purposes of initiation. However, after 

initiation of the investigation, interested 

parties will have the opportunity to 

submit comments regarding surrogate 

country selection and, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided 

an opportunity to submit publicly 

available information to value factors of 

production within 40 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

Petitioner calculated NVs and 

dumping margins using the 

Department’s NME methodology as 

required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) 

and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioner 

calculated NVs for woven electric 

blankets of four standard sizes: Twin, 

full, queen, and king.22 Petitioner 

asserted that the production process and 

consumption quantities it used in 

manufacturing woven electric blankets 

are similar to those used by the PRC 

manufacturer of the woven electric 

blankets for which it obtained the U.S. 

price quotes noted above.23 Petitioner 

stated that it employed a conservative 

methodology in calculating NV by only 

valuing the major components of woven 

electric blankets, namely the shell of 

woven fabric, binding, wire, and 

controller.24

Petitioner valued the factors of 

production using reasonably available, 

public surrogate country data, including 

Indian import data from the Indian 

Ministry of Commerce, published in the 

Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of 

India as compiled by the Global Trade 

Atlas (‘‘GTA’’), the internet version of 

the Word Trade Atlas, available at 

http://www.gtis.com/gta. Petitioner used 

GTA data for the period August 2008, 

through January 2009, the most recent 

six months of data available at the time 

of the filing of the Petition.25 In 

addition, Petitioner used exchange rates, 

as reported by the Federal Reserve, to 

convert Indian Rupees to U.S. Dollars.26

Petitioner valued shells of woven 

fabric, binding, wire, controllers, and 

packing cartons using GTA data.27

Petitioner valued direct labor and 

packing labor using the wage rate data 

published on the Department’s Web site, 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/ 

05wages-051608.html#table1.28

Petitioner valued electricity using 

Indian electricity rates from the Central 

Electricity Authority in India for 2006.29

Petitioner valued brokerage and 

handling costs using an average of costs 

incurred by Essar Steel Limited, Agro 

Dutch Industries Limited, and Kerjiwal 

Paper Ltd., three Indian companies that 

participated in antidumping duty 

proceedings before the Department. 

Petitioner adjusted these values for 

inflation using wholesale price index 

data published by the International 

Monetary Fund, which is available 

online at http://www.imfstatistics.org/ 

imf/.30

Petitioner based factory overhead, 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses, and profit, on financial data 

for large public limited companies as 

reported by the Reserve Bank of India 

(‘‘RBI’’).31 Although Petitioner searched 

the internet, fee-based databases (e.g., 

Dun and Bradstreet, Hoovers) and 

records of the Indian Ministry of 

Company Affairs, Petitioner was unable 

to locate company-specific financial 

data for, or aggregate industry financial 

data that specifically include, Indian 

producers of woven electric blankets.32

Given that the only financial data 

reasonably available to Petitioner at this 

time are the RBI data, the Department 

has accepted the use of RBI data for the 

purposes of initiation. See Section 732 

(b)(1) of the Act. 

Fair-Value Comparisons 

The data provided by Petitioner 

provide a reason to believe that imports 

of woven electric blankets from the PRC 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value. 

Based on comparisons of net U.S. prices 

to NVs, Petitioner calculated estimated 

dumping margins ranging from 128.32 

percent to 394.55 percent.33

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation 

Based upon our examination of the 

Petition concerning woven electric 

blankets from the PRC and other 

information reasonably available to the 

Department, the Department finds that 

the Petition meets the requirements of 

section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are 

initiating an antidumping duty 

investigation to determine whether 

imports of woven electric blankets from 

the PRC are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value. In accordance with section 

733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, unless 

postponed, we will make our 

preliminary determination no later than 

140 days after the date of this initiation. 

Targeted-Dumping Allegations 

On December 10, 2008, the 

Department issued an interim final rule 

for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 

351.414(f) and (g), the regulatory 

provisions governing the targeteddumping analysis in antidumping duty 

investigations, and the corresponding 

regulation governing the deadline for 

targeted-dumping allegations, 19 CFR 

351.301(d)(5).34 The Department stated 

that ‘‘{w}ithdrawal will allow the 

Department to exercise the discretion 

intended by the statute and, thereby, 

develop a practice that will allow 

interested parties to pursue all statutory 

avenues of relief in this area.’’ 35

In order to accomplish this objective, 

interested parties that wish to make a 

targeted-dumping allegation in this 

investigation pursuant to section 

777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, should submit 

such an allegation to the Department no 

later than 45 days before the scheduled 

date of the preliminary determination. 

Respondent Selection 

The Department will request quantity 

and value information from the 

exporters and producers listed with 

complete contact information in the 

Petition. The quantity and value data 

received from NME exporters/producers 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 37005 

36See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless 

Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); and Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist 

Canvas From the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 

21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). 

37See Import Administration Policy Bulletin, 

Number: 05.1, ‘‘Separate-Rates Practice and 

Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations involving Non-Market Economy 

Countries,’’ dated April 5, 2005, available on the 

Department’s website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/ 

bull05-1.pdf (‘‘Policy Bulletin, Number: 05.1’’); see 

also Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel 

Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea and the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 23188, 

23193 (April 29, 2008) (‘‘Certain Circular Welded 

Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the PRC’’). 

38See Policy Bulletin, Number: 05.1; see also 

Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line 

Pipe from the PRC, 73 FR at 23193. 

will be used to select mandatory 

respondents. 

The Department requires respondents 

to submit a response to both the 

quantity and value questionnaire and 

the separate-rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate-rate status.36

Appendix II of this notice contains the 

quantity and value questionnaire that 

must be submitted by all NME 

exporters/producers no later than 

August 11, 2009. In addition, the 

Department will post the quantity and 

value questionnaire along with filing 

instructions on its website, at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html. 

Separate Rates 

In order to obtain separate-rate status 

in an NME investigation, exporters and 

producers must submit a separate-rate 

status application.37 The specific 

requirements for submitting the 

separate-rate application in this 

investigation are outlined in detail in 

the application itself, which will be 

available on the Department’s Web site 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlightsand-news.html on the date of 

publication of this initiation notice in 

the Federal Register. The separate-rate 

application will be due sixty (60) days 

from the date of publication of this 

initiation notice in the Federal Register. 

As noted in the ‘‘Respondent Selection’’ 

section above, the Department requires 

that respondents submit a response to 

both the quantity and value 

questionnaire and the separate rate 

application by the respective deadlines 

in order to receive consideration for 

separate rate status. 

Use of Combination Rates in an NME 

Investigation 

The Department will calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. The 

Separate Rates/Combination Rates 

Bulletin states: 

{w}hile continuing the practice of assigning 

separate rates only to exporters, all separate 

rates that the Department will now assign in 

its NME investigations will be specific to 

those producers that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation. Note, 

however, that one rate is calculated for the 

exporter and all of the producers which 

supplied subject merchandise to it during the 

period of investigation. This practice applies 

both to mandatory respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate rate as well 

as the pool of non-investigated firms 

receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of combination 

rates because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one or more 

producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to 

an exporter will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in question and 

produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation.38

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), a copy of the public version 

of the Petition has been provided to the 

representatives of the Government of the 

PRC. Because of the large number of 

producers/exporters identified in the 

Petition, the Department considers the 

service of the public version of the 

Petition to the foreign producers/ 

exporters satisfied by the delivery of the 

public version to the Government of the 

PRC, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

no later than August 14, 2009, whether 

there is a reasonable indication that 

imports of woven electric blankets from 

the PRC materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, a U.S. industry. A 

negative ITC determination covering all 

classes or kinds of merchandise covered 

by the Petition would result in the 

investigation being terminated. 

Otherwise, this investigation will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: July 20, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation covers 

finished, semi-finished, and unassembled 

woven electric blankets, including woven 

electric blankets commonly referred to as 

throws, of all sizes and fabric types, whether 

made of man-made fiber, natural fiber or a 

blend of both. Semi-finished woven electric 

blankets and throws consist of shells of 

woven fabric containing wire. Unassembled 

woven electric blankets and throws consist of 

a shell of woven fabric and one or more of 

the following components when packaged 

together or in a kit: (1) Wire; (2) controller(s). 

The shell of woven fabric consists of two 

sheets of fabric joined together forming a 

‘‘shell.’’ The shell of woven fabric is 

manufactured to accommodate either the 

electric blanket’s wiring or a subassembly 

containing the electric blanket’s wiring (e.g., 

wiring mounted on a substrate). 

A shell of woven fabric that is not 

packaged together, or in a kit, with either 

wire, controller(s), or both, is not covered by 

this investigation even though the shell of 

woven fabric may be dedicated solely for use 

as a material in the production of woven 

electric blankets. 

The finished, semi-finished and 

unassembled woven electric blankets and 

throws subject to this investigation are 

currently classifiable under subheading 

6301.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). 

Although the HTSUS subheading is provided 

for convenience and customs purposes, only 

the written description of the scope is 

dispositive. 

Appendix II—Office of AD/CVD 

Enforcement 

Quantity and Value Questionnaire 

Requester(s): {insert name of company}: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

{company address} 

lllllllllllllllllllll

{contact name and title} 

lllllllllllllllllllll

{contact telephone number} 

lllllllllllllllllllll

{contact fax number} 

lllllllllllllllllllll

{contact e-mail address} 

Representation: {insert name of counsel 

and law firm and contact info} 

Case: Certain Woven Electric Blankets from 

the People’s Republic of China. 

Period of Investigation: October 1, 2008 

through March 31, 2009. 

Publication Date of Initiation: {insert 

publication date}. 

Officials in Charge: 

Howard Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Telephone: (202) 

482–5193, Fax: (202) 482–5105, E-mail 

Address: Howard_Smith@ita.doc.gov. 

Drew Jackson, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Telephone: (202) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
37006 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 

39 If your company did not produce the 

merchandise under investigation, we request that 

these questions be immediately forwarded to the 

company that produces the merchandise and 

supplies it to you or your customers. 

40Please use the invoice date when determining 

which sales to include within the period noted 

above. Generally, the Department uses invoice date 

as the date of sale, as that is when the essential 

terms of sale are set. If you believe that another date 

besides the invoice date would provide a more 

accurate representation of your company’s sales 

during the designated period, please report sales 

based on that date and provide a full explanation. 

482–4406, Fax: (202) 482–5105, E-mail 

Address: Drew_Jackson@ita.doc.gov. 

Rebecca Pandolph, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Telephone: 202– 

482–3627, Fax: (202) 482–5105, E-mail 

Address: 

Rebecca.Pandolph@mail.doc.gov. 

Filing Address: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, International Trade 

Administration, Import Administration, 

APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20230, Attn: Drew Jackson, Rebecca 

Pandolph. 

On July 21, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) announced its 

decision to initiate an antidumping duty 

investigation to determine whether certain 

woven electric blankets from the PRC are 

being sold in the United States at less than 

fair value during the period of investigation 

of October 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009. 

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), directs the 

Department to calculate individual dumping 

margins for each known exporter and 

producer of the subject merchandise. Where 

it is not practicable to examine all known 

producers/exporters of subject merchandise, 

as is the case in investigation, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the Department 

to examine either (1) a sample of exporters, 

producers or types of products that is 

statistically valid based on the information 

available at the time of selection; or (2) 

exporters and producers accounting for the 

largest volume of the subject merchandise 

from the exporting country that can be 

reasonably examined. 

In advance of the issuance of the full 

antidumping questionnaire, we ask that you 

respond to Attachments I of this Quantity 

and Value Questionnaire requesting 

information on production and the quantity 

and U.S. dollar sales value of all your sales 

to the United States during the period 1, 2008 

through March 31, 2009, covered by the 

scope of this investigation (see Attachment 

II), produced in the PRC.39 A full and 

accurate response to the Quantity and Value 

Questionnaire from all participating 

respondents is necessary to ensure that the 

Department has the requisite information to 

appropriately select mandatory respondents. 

The Department is also requiring all firms 

that wish to qualify for separate-rate status in 

this investigation to complete a separate-rate 

status application as described in the Notice 

of Initiation. In other words, the Department 

will not give consideration to any separaterate status application made by parties that 

fail to timely respond to the Quality and 

Value Questionnaire or fail to timely submit 

the requisite separate-rate status application. 

To allow for the possibility of sampling 

and to complete this segment within the 

statutory time frame, the Department will be 

limited in its ability to extend the deadline 

for the response to the Quantity and Value 

Questionnaire. 

A definition of the scope of the 

merchandise subject to this review is 

included in Attachment II, and general 

instructions for responding to this Quantity 

and Value Questionnaire are contained in 

Attachment III. Your response to this 

questionnaire may be subject to on-site 

verification by Department officials. 

Format for Reporting Quantity and Value of 

Sales 

In providing the information in the chart 

below, please provide the total quantity in 

pieces/units, and kilograms, and total value 

(in U.S. dollars) of all your sales to the 

United States during the period 1, 2008 

through March 31, 2009, covered by the 

scope of this investigation (see Attachment 

II), produced in the PRC.40

• Please include only sales exported by 

your company directly to the United States. 

• Please do not include any sales of subject 

merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in 

your figures. 

Additionally, if you believe that you 

should be treated as a single entity along 

with other named exporters, please complete 

the chart, below, both in the aggregate for all 

named parties in your group and, in separate 

charts, individually for each named entity. 

Please label each chart accordingly. 

Market: United States 

Total quantity in terms 

of number of blankets 

and/or throws 41

Total quantity 42

(in kilograms) Terms of sale 43 Total value 44($U.S.) 

1. Export Price 45 ............................................

2. Constructed Export Price 46 .......................

3. Further Manufactured 47 .............................

Total ........................................................

41 If any conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and source. 42 If any conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and source. 43To the extent possible, sales values should be reported based on the same terms (e.g., FOB). 44Values should be expressed in U.S. dollars. Indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and sources. 45Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs before the goods are imported 

into the United States. 46Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs after importation. 

However, if the first sale to the unaffiliated person is made by a person in the United States affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies even if the sale occurs prior to importation. Do not report the sale to the affiliated party in the United States, rather report the 

sale made by the affiliated party to the unaffiliated customer in the United States. If you have further manufactured sales, please report them 

under Item 3, rather than under Item 2. 47 ‘‘Further manufactured’’ refers to merchandise that undergoes further manufacture or assembly in the United States before sale to the first 

unaffiliated customer. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 37007 

1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 36561 (June 24, 2005). 

2See Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of New 

Shipper Review, 74 FR 5639 (January 30, 2009). 

3See Memorandum regarding ‘‘Request for 

Surrogate Country Selection: 06/2008 - 11/2008 

New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 

People’s Republic of China’’ (February 11, 2009). 

4See the Memorandum regarding ‘‘Request for a 

List of Surrogate Countries for a New Shipper 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China’’ (February 12, 2009) (‘‘Surrogate 

Country List’’). 

5See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

27104, 27105 (June 8, 2009) (unchanged in the final 

results); and Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from 

the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

32118, 32120 (July 7, 2009) (unchanged in the final 

results). 

[FR Doc. E9–17871 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–898 

Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of June 2008 

through November 2008 Semi–Annual 

New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 30, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) initiated a new shipper 

review (‘‘NSR’’) of the antidumping 

duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates 

(‘‘chlorinated isos’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The period 

of review (‘‘POR’’) for this NSR is June 

1, 2008, through November 30, 2008. 

This NSR covers one producer/exporter 

of the subject merchandise, Juancheng 

Kangtai Chemical Company, Ltd. 

(‘‘Kangtai’’). We preliminarily determine 

that Kangtai did not make sales in the 

United States at prices below normal 

value (‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to 

liquidate entries of merchandise 

exported by Kangtai, during the POR 

without regard to antidumping duties. 

We invite interested parties to comment 

on these preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit 

Astvatsatrian 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) 482–6412 or (202) 482– 

0650, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 24, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on chlorinated 

isos from the PRC.1 On December 22, 

2008, Kangtai, a foreign producer/ 

exporter of subject merchandise, 

requested that the Department conduct 

an NSR of sales of its subject 

merchandise during the POR. On 

January 30, 2009, the Department 

initiated an NSR of Kangtai.2

On February 2, 2009, the Department 

issued its antidumping duty 

questionnaire to Kangtai. On February 

11, 2009, the Department requested that 

the Office of Policy provide a list of 

surrogate countries for this NSR.3 On 

February 12, 2009, the Office of Policy 

issued its list of surrogate countries.4

On April 24, 2009, the Department 

issued a letter to interested parties 

seeking comments on surrogate country 

selection and surrogate values. On May 

15, 2009, Kangtai submitted comments 

regarding the selection of a surrogate 

country. 

On February 20, 2009, Kangtai 

submitted its section A questionnaire 

response (‘‘AQR’’). On March 11, 2009, 

Kangtai submitted its sections C and D 

questionnaire responses (‘‘CQR and 

DQR’’). On March 27, 2009, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to Kangtai. On April 14, 

2009, Kangtai submitted its 

supplemental questionnaire response. 

On May 29, 2009, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Kangtai. On June 12, 2009, Kangtai 

submitted its supplemental 

questionnaire response. On June 9, 

2009, the Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to Kangtai. 

On June 22, 2009, Kangtai submitted its 

supplemental questionnaire response. 

On June 26, 2009, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Kangtai. On July 6, 2009, Kangtai 

submitted its supplemental 

questionnaire response. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

chlorinated isos, as described below: 

Chlorinated isos are derivatives of 

cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated 

s–triazine triones. There are three 

primary chemical compositions of 

chlorinated isos: (1) 

trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl3(NCO)3), 

(2) sodium dichloroisocyanurate 

(dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3(2H2O), and (3) 

sodium dichloroisocyanurate 

(anhydrous) (NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated 

isos are available in powder, granular, 

and tableted forms. The order covers all 

chlorinated isos. Chlorinated isos are 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, 

2933.69.6050, 3808.40.50, 3808.50.40 

and 3808.94.50.00 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). The tariff classification 

2933.69.6015 covers sodium 

dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and 

dihydrate forms) and 

trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff 

classifications 2933.69.6021 and 

2933.69.6050 represent basket categories 

that include chlorinated isos and other 

compounds including an unfused 

triazine ring. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Non–Market Economy Country 

The Department has treated the PRC 

as a non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country in all past antidumping duty 

investigations and administrative 

reviews and continues to do so in this 

case.5 No interested party in this case 

has argued that we should do otherwise. 

Designation as an NME country remains 

in effect until it is revoked by the 

Department. See Section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’). 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is reviewing 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it, in most 

instances, to base NV on the NME 

producer’s factors of production 

(‘‘FOPs’’). The Act further instructs that 

valuation of the FOPs shall be based on 

the best available information in the 

surrogate market economy country or 

countries considered to be appropriate 

by the Department. See section 773(c)(1) 

of the Act. When valuing the FOPs, the 

Department shall utilize, to the extent 

possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in 

one or more market economy countries 

that are: (1) at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country; and (2) significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

See section 773(c)(4) of the Act. Further, 

the Department normally values all 

FOPs in a single surrogate country. See 

19 CFR 351.408(c)(2). The sources of the 

surrogate factor values are discussed


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES

B-1

APPENDIX B

CALENDAR OF THE COMMISSION’S JULY 21, 2009 CONFERENCE

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC CONFERENCE

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s conference:

Subject: Woven Electric Blankets from China

Inv. No.: 731-TA-1163 (Preliminary)

Date and Time: July 21, 2009 - 9:30 a.m.

The conference in connection with this investigation was held in the Main Hearing Room

(room 101), 500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC.

CONGRESSIONAL APPEARANCES:

Ethan Rabin, Legislative Director, Office of The Honorable Gene Taylor, U.S.

Representative, 4th Congressional District, Mississippi

OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioners

Philippe M. Bruno, Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Respondents 

Marguerite Trossevin, Jochum Shore & Trossevin, P.C.

Alexander W. Sierck, Cameron LLC

In Support of the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties:

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Sunbeam Products, Inc. doing business as Jarden Consumer Solutions

Stacie Pacheco, Senior Director of Marketing, Jarden Consumer Solutions

W. Mark Sullivan, Engineering Manager, Jarden Consumer Solutions

Patrick Wright, Director of Finance, Jarden Consumer Solutions

Seth Kaplan, Economist, The Brattle Group

Philippe M. Bruno, Esq. )

Irwin P. Altschuler, Esq. ) – OF COUNSEL

Rosa S. Jeong, Esq. )
B-4

In Opposition to the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties:

Cameron LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Perfect Fit Industries

Alexander W. Sierck, Esq. ) – OF COUNSEL

 

Mayer Brown LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Hung Kuo Electronic (Shenzhen) Company Limited

Biddeford Blankets, LLC

Mark Porter, President, Biddeford Blankets, LLC

Maurice Hebert, Vice President of Operations, Biddeford Blankets, LLC

Duane W. Layton, Esq. ) – OF COUNSEL

Jeffery C. Lowe, Esq. )

Jochum Shore & Trossevin, P.C.

Washington, DC

on behalf of

The Ad Hoc Coalition of Blanket Importers

Leslie Hearn, Senior Buyer, J.C. Penney Purchasing Corp. 

Marguerite Trossevin, Esq. ) – OF COUNSEL

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

Petitioners

Irwin P. Altschuler, Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Respondents

Jeffery C. Lowe, Mayer Brown LLP
 1

 The contents of Appendix C are being withheld from the public version of the report, as the information in this

appendix in its current form could reveal business proprietary information.

C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA1