U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4092 July 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Wire Decking from China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-466 and 731-TA-1162 (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

Christopher Cassise, Senior Investigator

Gerald Houck, Industry Analyst

Craig Thomsen, Economist

Justin Jee, Accountant

Steven Hudgens, Senior Statistician

Charles St. Charles, Attorney

James McClure, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

Keysha Martinez, Intern
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4092 July 2009

Wire Decking from China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-466 and 731-TA-1162 (Preliminary)

i

C O N T E N T S

Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. market summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

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

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

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

Nature of alleged countervailable subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

The subject product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

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

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

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

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

U.S. market characteristics and channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-3

Supply ................................................................... II-3

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-8

Lead times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-8

Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports ............ II-8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C O N T E N T S

Page

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

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

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

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

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

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

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

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

Raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

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

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

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

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

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-11

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

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

Operations on wire decking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

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

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

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

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

The industry in China .......................................................... VII-2

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

U.S. importers’ current orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-4

Antidumping and countervailing duty orders in third-country markets .................... VII-4

Information on producers in nonsubject countries .................................... VII-4
iii

C O N T E N T S

Page

Appendixes

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

B. List of conference witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

D. Quarterly price data for combined pricing products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Alleged effects of imports on U.S. producers’ existing development and production 

 efforts, growth, investment, and ability to raise capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-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)).

1

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-466 and 731-TA-1162 (Preliminary)

WIRE DECKING FROM CHINA

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

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

1930 (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States is materially injured, by reason of imports from China of wire decking, provided for

in subheading 9403.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be

sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) and subsidized by the Government of China.

COMMENCEMENT OF FINAL PHASE INVESTIGATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

On June 5, 2009, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by AWP Industries,

Inc., Frankfort, KY; ITC Manufacturing, Inc., Phoenix, AZ; J&L Wire Cloth, Inc., St. Paul, MN;

Nashville Wire Products Mfg. Co., Inc., Nashville, TN; and Wireway Husky Corp., Denver, NC, alleging

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

LTFV and subsidized imports of wire decking from China. Accordingly, effective June 5, 2009, the

Commission instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-466 and antidumping duty

investigation No. 731-TA-1162 (Preliminary).

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

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

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

of June 11, 2009 (74 FR 27823). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on June 26, 2009, and all

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

 1

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

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

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

 2

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

(Fed. Cir. 1994).

 3

 Confidential Staff Report, INV-GG-062 (“CR”) at III-1; Public Staff Report (“PR”) at III-1. U.S. producers

that did not respond were Complex Steel & Wire of Wayne, Michigan; Equipto, Inc. of Tatamy, Pennsylvania; and

Salco Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of Jackson, Michigan. CR/PR at III-1 n.1. 

 4

 CR/PR at III-1 n.1. 

 5

 CR/PR at IV-1. 

 6

 CR/PR at VII-3.

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

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

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

wire decking from China that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value and subsidized

by the Government of China. 

I. THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS

The legal standard for preliminary antidumping and countervailing duty determinations requires

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

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

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

of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.1

 In applying this standard, the Commission weighs the evidence

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

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

arise in a final investigation.”2

II. BACKGROUND

The antidumping and countervailing duty petition in these investigations was filed on June 5,

2009, by AWP Industries, Inc. (“AWP”) of Frankfort, Kentucky; ITC Manufacturing, Inc. (“ITC”) of

Phoenix, Arizona; J&L Wire Cloth, Inc. (“J&L”) of St. Paul, Minnesota; Nashville Wire Products Mfg.

Co., Inc. (“Nashville Wire”) of Nashville, Tennessee; and Wireway Husky Corp. (“Wireway”) of Denver,

North Carolina, domestic producers of wire decking (collectively, “petitioners”). Corporate

representatives of the petitioners, domestic producer Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”), foreign producer

Dalian Eastfound Metal Group (“Eastfound”) and U.S. importer Atlas Material Handling, Inc. (“Atlas”)

(Eastfound and Atlas referred to collectively herein as “respondents”) appeared at the staff conference. 

Counsel for these parties filed postconference briefs as well. 

Ten firms currently produce wire decking in the United States, of which seven responded to the

Commission’s questionnaire.3

 These questionnaire responses are estimated to account for 99 percent of

domestic production of wire decking in 2008.4

 The Commission received questionnaire responses from

nine U.S. importers of subject merchandise from China, believed to account for the majority of such

imports.5

 The Commission also received questionnaire responses from five Chinese producers/exporters,

which are believed to have accounted for *** percent of subject exports to the United States in 2008.6
 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

Commerce found five classes or kinds).

4

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 U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) 

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

value,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 these

investigations. The Commission is not bound by prior determinations, even those pertaining to the same
 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 CR at I-6-7, PR I-5-6. Commerce explained that wire decking enters the United States under several basket

categories in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has issued a

ruling (NY F84777) that wire decking is to be classified under HTS 9403.90.8040. Wire decking may also be

entered under HTS 7217.10, 7217.20, 7326.20, 7326.90 and 9403.20.0020. HTS numbers are provided for

convenience purposes only; the physical description provided above controls the scope coverage. Id.

 17 CR at I-8, PR at I-7. As noted in Commerce’s notice of institution, wire decking may also be referred to as

“pallet rack decking,” “wire rack decking,” “wire mesh decking,” or “bulk storage shelving.” CR at I-7, PR at I-6. 

(continued...)

5

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

product issues.15

B. Product Description and Analysis

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

investigations as follows:

welded-wire rack decking for industrial and other commercial storage racks or pallet rack

systems. It is produced from carbon or alloy steel wire that has been welded into a square

or rectangular mesh pattern. The wire may be galvanized or plated (e.g., chrome, zinc or

nickel coated), coated with paint, epoxy, or plastic, or uncoated (“raw”). Wire decking is

sold in a variety of wire gauges. The wire gauges used in the decking mesh are 0.105

inches (12 gauge) or greater. The wire may be drawn or rolled and may have a round,

square or other profile.

Wire mesh decking is reinforced with structural supports that may include sheet metal

support channels or additional wire or other structural supports. It is produced to various

profiles, including, but not limited to, a flat (flush) profile, an upward curved back edge

profile (“backstop”) or downward curved edge profile (“waterfalls”), depending on the

rack storage system. Wire decking may also be referred to as “pallet rack decking,”

“wire rack decking,” “wire mesh decking,” or “bulk storage shelving.” The wire decking

may or may not be anchored to the rack storage system. 

Wire decking’s open mesh design is intended to provide a low weight, high-strength

storage platform that allows light to pass through it. It also allows water to pass through

for fire protection systems, and as a result wire decking is usually mandated by insurance

companies and building codes for use in commercial and industrial storage systems.

The scope does not cover the metal rack system on which the wire decking is ultimately

installed. Also excluded from the scope is other wire mesh shelving that specifically

lacks any structural supports welded or otherwise affixed to it. Such wire mesh shelving

is known as “storage shelving” and might be used in a home or small business to store

files or other non-load bearing items.16

Wire decking consists of a steel wire mesh shelf with attached reinforcing members that is ready

to install as shelving on supporting rack framing in commercial and industrial storage systems.17 The
 17 (...continued)

The rack framing on which the decking rests is not within the scope of these investigations. 

 18 CR at I-9-10, PR at I-8-9.

 19 CR at I-10, PR at I-9.

 20 Id.

 21 CR at I-8, PR at I-7.

 22 Zinc-electroplated or hot-dipped decking is advantageous only in applications such as industrial food

refrigeration storage and outdoor warehousing, which constitute only 4 or 5 percent of domestic consumption. 

Conference Transcript at 72, 95-96 (Rollins). 

 23 For instance, an end user may prefer a flush profile simply because it permits the viewing of labels applied to

the front of the shelving, which could be problematic with the waterfall profile. CR at I-10, PR at I-9. Similarly, the

backstop design, although making it easier to prevent stored merchandise from sliding off the back of the shelving,

does not appear to be so distinct a feature of the decking as to render other profiles unsuited for use in the same

applications. 

 24 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 5. Most market participants reported that there are no substitute products

for wire decking. CR at II-12, PR at II-8.

6

most common profile of wire decking, “waterfall,” has a 90-degree downward curved edge that covers

about 1.5 inches of the outside of the support beams. The waterfall feature helps to hold the decking in

position. Other profiles include an upward bend at the back of the wire mesh surface to prevent material

from being pushed too far onto or off the shelf and a wire mesh surface that is simply flat or flush.18

 The size and spacing of the wire used in the mesh, as well as the number and characteristics of the

support members, determine the weight and load-bearing capacity of the decking. For instance, for the

most common size of decking, 42-inch by 46-inch, the weight of the section may range from 24 to 30

pounds, and its load-bearing capacity may range from 2,000 pounds to 3,500 pounds.19

Another feature of wire decking is the finish, which affects the appearance and the corrosion

resistance of the product. The product may be coated with a baked-on enamel paint or a baked-on spraypowder finish, or may be fabricated from galvanized (zinc-coated) products. Wire decking may also be

hot-dipped or electroplated with zinc after fabrication.20

Petitioners propose a single domestic like product that corresponds with the scope of the

investigations. No party opposes this definition of the domestic like product. We discuss below the

information in the record concerning the factors the Commission typically examines in defining the

domestic like product. 

Physical Characteristics and End Uses. Although it varies in terms of profile, coating,

dimensions, weight, and load-bearing characteristics, all wire decking consists of supported wire mesh

that serves as shelving on rack framing in warehouse, commercial, or industrial storage systems.21

Interchangeability. Wire decking with similar dimensions, profiles, and load-bearing

characteristics can be used interchangeably regardless of their finish or coating inasmuch as most wire

decking applications do not require a specific finish.22 Similarly, it appears that differences in profile do

not significantly affect the interchangeability of wire decking products that otherwise have similar

characteristics.23 Moreover, it also appears that solid shelving is not a direct substitute for wire decking

because wire decking has superior performance characteristics in terms of its relatively light weight, high

load-bearing capability, and openness which permits easy passage of light and water from fire protection

systems.24

Channels of Distribution. Channels of distribution are similar for all domestically produced wire

decking. The majority of domestic producers’ shipments, 68.0 percent in 2008, were sold to distributors,
 25 CR/PR at Table II-1, II-2. The percentages for distributors include system integrators, referred to as original

equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”), which build out warehouses and supply all material handling needs, including

wire decking. CR/PR at Table II-1 n.1. 

 26 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 27 CR at I-10, PR at I-9.

 28 Conference Transcript at 100 (Rollins), 182 (Kedaitis). As noted above, such zinc-electroplated or hot-dipped

decking is advantageous in only limited applications. Conference Transcript at 72, 95-96 (Rollins). 

 29 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 4.

 30 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 6.

 31 CR/PR at Tables V-1-6.

 32 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

7

with *** of the domestic producers *** selling the majority of its wire decking to distributors.25 The

remainder was sold directly to end users.26 

Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes, and Employees. The same production

processes, facilities, and employees are used in the production of wire decking of all profiles and

dimensions. The basic process consists of welding carbon or alloy wire into a grid pattern with an

electrical resistance welding process, after which the grid is shaped into the desired profile. Structural

supports are then welded to the bottom of the deck and the decking then undergoes a finishing operation. 

The finishing operation of the domestic product includes the application of either a baked-on enamel or a

baked-on powder coating.27 Where zinc-electroplating or hot-dipping finishing processes are involved,

domestic producers have tended to outsource these processes, which are heavily regulated.28 Although the

degree of automation of individual domestic producers may vary, this basic series of production steps is

common to all domestic production.29 

Producer and Customer Perceptions. Petitioners assert that producers and consumers perceive all

wire decking, regardless of wire gauge, structural support member type, coating, wire mesh pattern, or

dimensions, to be different forms of the same product and thus perceive wire decking to be different from

other shelving products.30 There is no record evidence to the contrary.

Price. Prices for the six domestically produced wire decking products on which the Commission

collected pricing data did not show any clear or consistent distinctions.31 

Conclusion. Because all wire decking has common physical characteristics and end uses, shares

common channels of distribution, is generally interchangeable, shares common production processes,

facilities, and employees, and appears to be perceived by producers and consumers to be the same

product, we find that all wire decking should be encompassed in a single domestic like product that is

coterminous with the scope of these investigations. 

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.”32 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 all domestic

producers of wire decking. 

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
 33 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 34 CR/PR at Table III-4.

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 36 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief, Exhibit 1 at 4. 

 37 Respondents’ Postconference Brief at 15. 

 38 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 39 CR/PR at Table III-4.

 40 CR at III-7, PR at III-5.

 41 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 42 CR/PR at Tables VI-2, C-1. 

 43 CR/PR at Tables VI-2, C-1. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

financially from their status as related parties. 

 46 CR/PR at Table III-4 n.1; Conference Transcript (Rudolph) at 39.

 47 CR/PR at Table III-4 n.1. 

8

related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers.33 Exclusion

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

investigation. In these investigations, two U.S. producers, J&L and Nashville Wire, reported that they

imported subject wire decking during the period examined.34 Thus, they may be excluded from the

industry if appropriate circumstances exist.35 Petitioners argue that neither J&L nor Nashville Wire

should be excluded from the domestic industry.36 Respondents state that they do not believe that the

subject imports of J&L and Nashville Wire were of sufficient magnitude to warrant their exclusion from

the domestic industry.37

 Nashville Wire is the largest domestic producer of wire decking, accounting for *** percent of

domestic production in 2008.38 Its imports of subject merchandise were equivalent to *** percent of its

production in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in January-March

(“interim”) 2009 compared with *** percent in interim 2008.39 Nashville Wire reported that it imported

subject merchandise “in an attempt to remain competitive with the low prices offered by Chinese

producers.”40 Nonetheless we find that Nashville Wire’s primary interest appears to be that of a domestic

producer because its imports were fairly small relative to its domestic production, it is the largest

domestic producer, and it is a petitioner in these investigations.41 Nashville Wire’s financial performance

was ***.42 Its financial performance, however, was ***.43 44 45 We therefore find that appropriate

circumstances do not exist to exclude Nashville Wire from the domestic industry.

 J&L accounted for *** percent of domestic production in 2008. Its imports were equivalent to

only *** percent of its production in 2006, *** percent in 2007, and *** percent in 2008 and interim

2009.46 It ceased importation after it was acquired by American Spring Wire in 2007.47 J&L reported that

it imported subject merchandise “in an attempt to remain competitive with the low prices offered by
 48 CR at III-7, PR at III-5.

 49 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 50 CR/PR at Table VI-2. 

 51 Negligibility under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24) is not an issue in these investigations. Based on questionnaire

response data and estimates by petitioners and respondents, U.S. imports of wire decking from China were

approximately 95 percent of total U.S. imports of wire decking for the entire period examined. CR at IV-5, PR at

IV-2.

 52 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

 53 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).

 54 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 55 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 56 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 57 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

 58 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).

9

Chinese producers.”48 It also is a petitioner in these investigations.49 Based on this evidence, we find that

J&L’s primary interest appears to be in domestic production. In addition, J&L’s financial performance

was ***,50 suggesting that it did not derive any concrete benefits, or operate in a manner that was different

from other domestic producers, as a result of its imports of subject merchandise. We therefore find that

appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude J&L from the domestic industry. 

For the reasons stated above, we define the domestic industry to include all domestic producers of

wire decking.

 V. REASONABLE INDICATION OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT

IMPORTS51

A. Legal Standards

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

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

injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the imports under investigation.52 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.53 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not

inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”54 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.55 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.”56

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,57 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.58 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
 59 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).

 60 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.

 61 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

(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.”). 

10

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.59

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.60 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.61 Nor does the

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

 63 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.”).

 64 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.

 65 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.

 66 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.”).

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

11

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.62 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.63

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.”64 65 Indeed, the

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

adherence to a specific formula.”66

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

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

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

and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

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

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

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

harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,’” and requires that the Commission not attribute injury
 68 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).

 69 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.

 70 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.

 71 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.”).

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

caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry. 

 73 CR at III-1, IV-1, VII-3; PR at III-1, IV-1, VII-3.

12

from nonsubject imports or other factors to subject imports.68 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.69 70

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.71 72

As noted above, the Commission has nearly complete data coverage for the domestic industry. 

The Commission also received completed questionnaire responses from nine importers that accounted for

a majority of subject imports and from five subject producers in China that accounted for an estimated

*** percent of exports of wire decking from China in 2008.73 For the reasons stated below, we find that

there is a reasonable indication that the domestic industry producing wire decking is materially injured by

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

subsidized by the Government of China.

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is a reasonable

indication of material injury by reason of subject imports.
 74 CR at II-9, PR at II-6; Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 7-8; Respondents’ Postconference Brief at 3-4.

 75 CR/PR at Table IV-4. The higher demand for wire decking early in the period examined reportedly resulted in

significant part from the growth of big-box retailers, such as Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Wal-Mart, whose

consumption is reported to have dropped off beginning in the fourth quarter of 2008. E.g., Transcript at 126-27

(Kedaitis). 

 76 CR/PR at Tables IV-5, C-1. 

 77 In 2008, the domestic producers’ production capacity was equal to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption. 

CR at III-2, PR at III-2. Domestic producers’ capacity was 495.4 million pounds in 2006, 515.4 million pounds in

2007 and 2008 and 128.9 million pounds in interim 2008 and interim 2009. CR/PR at Table III-2. 

 78 CR/PR at III-1 n.1, Table III-1.

 79 CR/PR at III-2 n.3; Conference Transcript at 53-59; Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 5. Nucor reports that it

also produces the rod from which it draws the wire. Conference Transcript at 58. 

 80 CR/PR at Tables IV-5, C-1.

 81 Respondents’ Postconference Brief at 1.

 82 Conference Transcript at 123, 126, 176 (Kedaitis); Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 25.

13

1. Demand Considerations

Because wire decking is used in pallet rack systems found in industrial and commercial

warehouses, demand for wire decking is derived primarily from demand for such rack systems, which in

turn is related to the economy’s industrial output level and, in particular, non-residential construction.74

When measured by apparent U.S. consumption, wire decking demand declined from *** pounds

in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007 and *** pounds in 2008, for a *** percent decline from 2006 to 2008. 

Apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent lower in interim 2009, at *** pounds, than in interim 2008,

at *** pounds.75

2. Supply Conditions

The domestic industry is the largest source of supply in the U.S. market. Domestic producers’

market share was *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, and *** percent in 2008. The industry’s

share was *** percent in interim 2009 compared with *** percent in interim 2008.76 U.S. producers’

production capacity exceeds domestic demand.77 Seven domestic producers accounted for 99 percent of

U.S. wire decking production in 2008, with three of those producers – Nashville Wire, ITC, and AWP –

accounting for approximately three-quarters of total domestic production.78 J&L, ITC, Nashville Wire,

and Nucor are “integrated” producers that draw wire rod into the wire they use in decking production

rather than purchasing the wire. AWP and Wireway are non-integrated firms that purchase the wire used

as the input in their decking production.79

The market share of subject imports fluctuated between years but increased overall from ***

percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008 and was *** percent in interim 2009 compared with *** percent in

interim 2008.80 Atlas is the largest reporting U.S. importer of subject wire decking, accounting for ***

percent of reported subject imports from China in 2008. Atlas is the exclusive North American importer

and distributor of wire decking from the Chinese producer Eastfound.81 Atlas has purchased wire decking

from U.S. producers in the past and reports that it continues to buy the domestic product when it cannot

obtain wire decking from China, when domestic producers can offer shorter lead times, or when a

domestic product is priced below subject imports.82 As discussed above, Nashville Wire, the largest U.S.
 83 CR/PR at Tables III-4, IV-2. 

 84 CR/PR at Table IV-2; Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 36; Respondents’ Postconference Brief at 4 n.1.

 85 CR/PR at Table II-3. 

 86 CR/PR at Table II-4. 

 87 Conference Transcript at 178-79 (Kedaitis). Respondents contend, however, that the less-automated Chinese

producers are better able than domestic producers to serve the other 15 percent of the market that is made up of

4,200 custom or lower-volume product lines. Respondents also argue that, because the Chinese producers

electrogalvanize their decking after the welding process, their decking can be used in outdoor applications and other

applications for which the domestic like product is not suitable. Respondents’ Postconference Brief at 17-18;

Conference Transcript at 125 (Kedaitis). Accordingly, respondents’ position appears to be that competition is

attenuated in 15 percent of the market. Petitioners respond that they are able to serve the entire U.S. market,

including the small portion consisting of the customized, lower-volume articles. CR/PR at III-2 n. 2. Domestic

producers cite the fact that ITC alone manufactures approximately *** stock keeping units (“SKUs” or individual

articles) and keeps *** of them in inventory and that AWP offers over 200 standard sizes and also quotes and

accepts orders for all non-standard, customized deck sizes with varying designs and configurations. Petitioners’

Postconference Brief at 13-15. Domestic producers also state that they are able to outsource fabricated decking that

is finished using electrogalvanizing, zinc-electroplating, or hot-dipping. As noted above, however, they state that

such finishes are advantageous only in limited decking applications – e.g., industrial food refrigeration storage

systems and outdoors – which account for only about 4 or 5 percent of domestic consumption. Conference

Transcript at 72, 100, 95-96 (Rollins). 

 88 Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 10, Exhibit 1 at 9; Conference Transcript at 171-72.

 89 CR at II-15; PR at II-10.

 90 CR/PR at III-2 n.2; Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 4-5; Conference Transcript at 72, 100, 95-96 (Rollins). 

See also Conference Transcript at 125 (Kedaitis); Respondents’ Postconference Brief at 17-18. 

14

producer of wire decking, also imports wire decking. It accounted for *** percent of total subject imports

in 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.83 

Petitioners and respondents agree that nonsubject imports, which account for approximately five

percent of total imports, were not a significant factor in the U.S. wire decking market during the period

examined.84

3. Interchangeability

There is a high degree of substitutability between the domestic like product and subject imports. 

All seven responding domestic producers reported that the domestic like product and subject imports are

always interchangeable, while all six responding importers reported that the domestic like product and

subject imports are always or frequently interchangeable.85 Six of seven domestic producers reported that

differences between the domestic like product and subject imports other than price are never important,

while three of six importers reported that such differences are sometimes or never important.86 

Furthermore, respondents assert that subject imports and the domestic like product compete for sales in

the 85 percent of the U.S. wire decking market made up by the nine most popular product lines.87 Wire

decking produced by both subject and domestic producers has been awarded the industry’s R-Mark

certifications for product quality,88 and both subject imports and domestic wire decking appear to meet

specifications for use by big-box retailers.89 As noted above, the available evidence indicates that

otherwise comparable wire decking, whether of U.S. or subject origin, can be used interchangeably

regardless of its finish or coating, with only a relatively small share of the market accounted for by

products requiring a specific finish.90 
 91 CR/PR at Table VI-3.

 92 CR/PR at V-1, Table VI-3.

 93 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 94 CR/PR at Table C-1. We rely primarily on the volume of shipments of subject imports, rather than subject

imports, because there are some disparities between the two measures and because apparent U.S. consumption and

market shares are based on shipments of imports rather than imports. The volume of subject imports was ***

pounds in 2006, *** pounds in 2007, *** pounds in 2008, *** pounds in interim 2008 and *** pounds in interim

2009. CR/PR at Table IV-2. 

 95 CR/PR at Table C-1. The ratio of subject imports to domestic production measured by quantity declined

slightly overall during the period examined, increasing from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, then

declining to *** percent in 2008. The ratio of subject imports to domestic production was *** percent in interim

2009 and *** percent in interim 2008. CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 96 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 97 Respondents assert that because a share of subject merchandise was imported by two domestic producers, the

significance of the volume of subject imports is substantially mitigated. Respondents’ Postconference Brief at

16-17. While respondents argue that subject merchandise imported by domestic producers benefitted those

(continued...)

15

4. Other Conditions

The domestic industry is a relatively high variable/low fixed cost industry, and raw materials

costs account for most of the industry’s total cost of goods sold (“COGS”).91 The main raw materials

used in the production of wire decking are hot-rolled sheet steel and steel wire rod. The prices for both of

these steel inputs increased significantly during the first half of 2008, peaked in July 2008, and decreased

thereafter. Steel and other raw materials accounted for 68.3 percent of the industry’s COGS in 2006 and

73.7 percent in 2008, but declined to 67.5 percent in interim 2009.92

C. Volume of Subject Imports

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

of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to

production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”93

From 2006 to 2007, notwithstanding the decline in apparent U.S. consumption, subject import

shipments increased by *** percent, from *** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007. Apparent U.S.

consumption continued to decline in 2008, when subject import shipments declined to *** pounds, a

decrease of *** percent. Subject import shipments were *** percent lower in interim 2009, at ***

pounds, than in interim 2008, at *** pounds. The decline in subject imports, however, was less than the

contemporaneous decline in apparent U.S. consumption; consumption was *** percent lower in interim

2008 than in interim 2008.94

 Because the decrease in demand outpaced the decrease in the volume of subject import shipments

over the period examined, the market share of subject imports increased. Subject import shipments

increased as a share of apparent U.S. consumption from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, then

declined to *** percent in 2008, a level above that in 2006. As demand plummeted in interim 2009 when

compared to interim 2008, the market share held by subject imports was higher, at *** percent, than in

interim 2008, at *** percent.95 The increase in subject imports’ market share came at the expense of

domestic producers. Domestic producers’ market share decreased from *** percent in 2006 to ***

percent in 2007. That market share lost to subject imports was only partially regained in 2008 when

domestic producers’ share increased to *** percent. Domestic producers’ market share was lower in

interim 2009, at *** percent, than in interim 2008, at *** percent.96 97 
 97 (...continued)

producers, the fact remains that the vast majority of subject merchandise was not imported by domestic producers. 

CR/PR at Table IV-1. Moreover, even the share imported by domestic producers competed with other domestic

producers for sales. Accordingly, we do not agree that the significance of the volume of subject imports is

substantially mitigated in these investigations.

 98 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 99 See also CR at II-12.

 100 The large majority of domestic producers reported that factors other than price are never important in sales of

wire decking. CR/PR at Table II-4. Although importers of subject merchandise attached greater significance to nonprice factors (id.), a witness on behalf of Atlas, which accounts for approximately three quarters of subject imports

(CR/PR at IV-1), testified at the conference that Atlas will purchase domestic wire decking when it is lower priced

than the subject imports. Conference Transcript at 126, 176 (Kedaitis) (stating that Atlas may also buy the domestic

product when the lead time or destination is more favorable). 

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

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

 103 CR/PR at Tables V-1-7. Respondents argue that, ***. Respondents’ Postconference Brief at 19-20. A

comparison of the two companies’ pricing data, however, indicates that ***. CR at V-19, PR at V-10.

 104 As noted above, testimony at the conference indicated that, for about 95 percent of the market, the specific

type of coating or finish on wire decking is irrelevant to customers. Conference Transcript at 94-95 (Rollins). 

Accordingly, Appendix D of the staff report presents pricing data for products 1 and 2 combined, products 3 and 4

combined, and products 5 and 6 combined, the only difference between the products in each group being the type of

coating or finish. Those data show underselling in all 39 quarterly comparisons by margins ranging from 8.2 percent

to 21.5 percent. CR/PR at Tables D-1 - D-3. In any final phase of these investigations, we will solicit parties’

comments on the appropriate products for use in quarterly price comparisons. 

16

For purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that volume of subject

imports is significant, both in absolute terms and relative to consumption in the United States. 

D. 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.98

As addressed in section V.B.3 above, the record indicates that there is a high degree of

substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product.99 Price is an important

consideration in wire decking purchasing decisions.100 

The Commission collected quarterly pricing data for six wire decking products.101 Usable pricing

data were provided by six domestic producers, accounting for 19.4 percent of domestic producers’

shipments during the period examined, and eight importers, accounting for 53.3 percent of shipments of

subject imports during the period.102 Subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 76 of 77

quarterly pricing comparisons by margins ranging from 2.0 percent to 54.3 percent.103 104 Accordingly,

we find that underselling was significant during the period examined. 

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

lost sales allegations and three lost revenue allegation were confirmed, totaling $*** and $***,
 105 CR at V-21; PR at V-11; CR/PR at Tables V-8, V-9.

 106 CR/PR at Table V-8.

 107 CR at V-27, PR at V-12. Respondents assert that Atlas, a U.S. importer and distributor, wins sales in large

part because it is more responsive to customers’ needs than domestic producers and has a more extensive distribution

network, which allows it to offer shorter lead times. See Respondents’ Postconference Brief at 21-22. For their part,

Petitioners dispute that Atlas offers a superior distribution network. Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 12. While

the record does not clearly resolve that question, disagreement as to what factors drive downstream sales does not

explain why Atlas has chosen to distribute mostly subject merchandise rather than domestic wire decking. In respect

to this issue, the record in these preliminary investigations indicates that price is a very important determinant, given

that the subject imports and domestic product are highly interchangeable, they compete head-to-head in the products

that make up 85 percent of sales, and there is also competition for sales of the numerous smaller-volume wire

decking products. Although Atlas asserts that it switched to purchasing subject merchandise prior to the period

examined out of concerns relating to quality (Conference Transcript at 122-25, 147-149 (Kedaitis)), the record

evidence does not support the existence of any significant quality differences during the period examined, and Atlas

concedes that it continues to purchase from domestic producers when they offer lower prices. Conference Transcript

at 126, 176 (Kedaitis). Based on the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that Atlas purchases subject imports

primarily for non-price reasons. 

 108 CR/PR at Tables V-1-6, Figure V-1.

 109 CR/PR at Table V-1-6.

 110 Commissioner Lane finds price suppression.

 111 CR/PR at Tables IV-3, C-1. Unit COGS was $0.49 in 2006, $0.48 in 2007, $0.60 in 2008, and $0.66 in

interim 2009 compared with $0.50 in interim 2008. Id. Unit net sales value was $0.56 in 2006, $0.55 in 2007, $0.65

in 2008, and $0.65 in interim 2009 compared with $0.55 in interim 2008. CR/PR at Table C-1. The difference

between unit COGS in interim 2008 and interim 2009 was partly attributable to an increase in factory overhead as

well as raw material costs. CR/PR at Table IV-3. 

 112 CR/PR at Tables IV-3. 

17

respectively.105 We note, however, that *** of *** purchasers involved in lost sales allegations did not

respond to the Commission staff’s attempts to confirm the allegations.106 Four of the 17 purchasers that

responded to the lost sales and lost revenue allegations reported that they had shifted purchases of wire

decking from U.S. producers to subject imports since January 1, 2006. Each of those four purchasers

identified price as the reason for the shift, with two of them reporting that quality, delivery times, and

service were also important factors in their purchasing decisions. Moreover, six of 15 responding

purchasers reported that since January 1, 2006, U.S. producers had reduced their prices in order to

compete with the prices of subject imports.107 

Prices for both the domestically produced product and subject imports fluctuated during the first

two years of the period examined. Prices for five of the six domestically produced products and all six

Chinese products peaked in 2008, when raw material prices peaked.108 Prices in the first quarter of 2009

for all six domestic pricing products were below the peak level, but above first quarter 2006 prices.109 In

light of this, we do not find significant price depression.

We do find, however, some evidence that subject import competition suppressed domestic like

product prices to a significant extent during the period examined.110 The domestic industry’s unit COGS

increased by $0.11, or 22.9 percent, from 2006 to 2008. Unit COGS was $0.16, or 31.2 percent, higher in

interim 2009 than in interim 2008.111 These increases in unit COGS were largely attributable to increased

raw material costs.112 Although domestic producers were able to increase prices to some extent over the

period examined, they were not able to increase them sufficiently to cover increased COGS. Domestic

producers’ unit net sales value increased by only $0.09, or 15.4 percent, from 2006 to 2008, and was only
 113 CR/PR at Tables IV-3, C-1. 

 114 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 115 Respondents claim that the domestic industry’s inability to recover COGS is attributable in part to domestic

producers’ ill-timed purchases of raw material inventories at prices higher than those prevailing at the time the

domestic wire decking was produced or sold. Respondents’ Postconference Brief at 13-15. Although one domestic

producer acknowledged the timing problem to a limited extent (Conference Transcript at 85-86 (Rollins)), petitioners

generally indicated that there is no real lag between domestic producers’ purchase of raw materials and production

of wire decking and that domestic producers do not have long-term contracts that lock them into raw material prices

that may be higher or lower than current market prices. Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 36-37, Exhibit 1

(response to question 7), & Exhibit 16; Conference Transcript at 84-86. In any final phase of these investigations,

we will look further into the extent to which fluctuations in raw material prices and the times at which raw materials

are purchased affect the industry’s performance. 

 116 Commerce initiated an antidumping duty investigation based on estimated dumping margins of 143.0 to 316.0

percent for wire decking from China. 74 Fed. Reg. 31691 (Jul. 2, 2009). Commerce initiated a countervailing duty

investigation on wire decking from China based on allegations of four loan subsidy programs, seven programs for

government provision of goods and services for less than adequate remuneration, five income and other direct taxes

programs, four indirect tax and tariff exemption programs, six grant programs, and six preferential income tax

subsidies for foreign invested entities. 74 Fed. Reg. 31700 (Jul. 2, 2009). Petitioners assert that many of these

Chinese government subsidies are export subsidies prohibited under Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement, which

have the effect of encouraging Chinese producers’ exportation of subject merchandise to the United States.

 117 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.”)

 118 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).

 119 CR/PR at Table III-2, C-1.

18

$0.10, or 17.4 percent, higher in interim 2009 than in interim 2008.113 Consequently, the domestic

industry was caught in a cost/price squeeze as its COGS to net sales ratio increased from 87.1 percent in

2006 to 92.7 percent in 2008. The COGS to net sales ratio was also higher in interim 2009, at 101.3

percent, than in interim 2008, at 90.7 percent.114 In light of some evidence of price suppression combined

with consistent underselling, we find that the significant volume of subject imports during the period

examined had significant adverse effects on domestic producers’ prices.115

E. Impact of the Subject Imports116

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.”117 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.”118

Based on the record of these preliminary phase investigations, we find that the domestic

industry’s performance declined over the period examined according to most measures. Domestic

industry production declined 10 percent between 2006 and 2008, from 304.6 million pounds in 2006 to

274.1 million pounds in 2008, and was 49.9 percent lower in interim 2009, at 37.4 million pounds, than in

interim 2008, at 74.5 million pounds.119 Domestic capacity increased 4.0 percent between 2006 and 2007,

from 495.4 million pounds to 515.4 million pounds in 2007 and 2008. Capacity was 128.9 million
 120 CR/PR at Tables III-2, C-1.

 121 CR/PR at Table III-2, C-1.

 122 CR/PR at Tables VI-1, C-1.

 123 CR/PR at Tables III-3, C-1. Producers’ inventories rose, on both an absolute and a relative basis, from 2006 to

2007. Inventories were higher in interim 2009 than in interim 2008. CR/PR at Table III-5. 

 124 CR/PR at Tables IV-4-5, C-1.

 125 CR/PR at Table III-7. Hours worked declined from 1.3 million in 2006 to 1.1 million in 2008, and were

148,000 in interim 2009 compared with 272,000 in interim 2008. Id. Labor productivity in pounds per hour

increased from 225.8 pounds in 2006 to 253.5 pounds in 2007, then declined to 245.8 pounds in 2008, a level 8.9

percent above that in 2006. Id. Productivity was 7.9 percent lower in interim 2009, at 252.7 pounds, than in interim

2008, at 274.5 pounds. Id.

 126 CR/PR at Tables VI-1, C-1.

 127 CR/PR at Tables VI-1, C-1. The 4.9 percent increase in selling, general, and administrative expenses between

2006 and 2008 also contributed to the decline in operating income between 2006 and 2008. Id. 

 128 CR/PR at Table VI-5, C-1. Research and development expenses increased from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2008,

but were lower in interim 2009, at $***, than in interim 2008, at $***. CR/PR at Table VI-5. 

19

pounds in both interim 2009 and interim 2008.120 The domestic industry’s rate of capacity utilization

decreased from 61.5 percent in 2006 to 53.2 percent in 2008, a decline of 8.3 percentage points, and was

28.8 percentage points lower in interim 2009, at 29.0 percent, than in interim 2008, at 57.8 percent.121 

The domestic industry’s net sales decreased from 318.1 million pounds in 2006 to 275.5 million

pounds in 2008, a decline of 13.4 percent, and were 49.4 percent lower in interim 2009, at 36.9 million

pounds, than in interim 2008, at 73.0 million pounds.122 The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments of wire

decking followed a similar trend, decreasing from 307.8 million pounds in 2006 to 265.2 million pounds

in 2008, a decrease of 13.8 percent, and were 48.8 percent lower in interim 2009, at 35.6 million pounds,

than in interim 2008, at 69.6 million pounds.123 The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S.

consumption decreased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, then increased to *** percent in

2008, a level *** percentage points lower than in 2006.124

Domestic industry employment declined 15.6 percent, from 652 workers in 2006 to 550 workers

in 2008. Employment was 37.9 percent lower in interim 2009, at 329 workers, than in interim 2008, at

530 workers.125 

Domestic producers’ net sales value declined from $178.8 million in 2006 to $166.1 million in

2007, a 7.1 percent decline. Then, as domestic producers increased their prices in 2008 in an effort to

recoup higher raw material costs, their net sales value returned to its 2006 level, increasing 7.7 percent in

2008 to $178.8 million. Domestic producers’ net sales value was 40.6 percent lower in interim 2009, at

$23.9 million, than in interim 2008, at $40.3 million.126 The domestic industry’s operating income

declined from $11.4 million in 2006, or 6.4 percent of sales, to $9.1 million in 2007, or 5.5 percent of

sales, then dropped to $837,000, or 0.5 percent of sales, in 2008. As previously discussed, although

COGS increased notably in 2008 because of increased raw material costs, average sales values increased

less rapidly due to price competition by the subject imports. As a result, operating income and operating

margins fell. This cost-price squeeze continued in interim 2009, and operating performance declined

further when compared to interim 2008. The domestic industry experienced a $2.9 million operating loss

in interim 2009, compared with operating income of $749,000 in interim 2008.127

The domestic industry’s capital expenditures declined from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2007, then

increased to $*** in 2008, a level *** percent lower than that in 2006. Its capital expenditures, however,

were *** percent higher in interim 2009, at $***, than in interim 2008, at $***.128 Its return on
 129 CR/PR at Table VI-7.

 130 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 131 The decrease in operating income between 2006 and 2008 was largely attributable to increased costs in the

amount of $33.0 million, which were only partially offset by price increases of $23.9 million. The decrease in

operating income in interim 2009 relative to interim 2008 was again attributable to the contrast between a $12.3

million cost increase and the $3.5 million price increase. CR/PR at Table VI-4.

 132 We note that, contrary to respondents’ claim, the volume of subject imports did not simply follow demand

trends. This is evidenced most notably by increased shipments of subject imports in 2007, when apparent U.S.

consumption declined, and by the increase in subject imports’ market share over the entire period examined at the

expense of the domestic industry. See CR/PR at Table C-1. Moreover, petitioners argue that, because the domestic

wire decking industry has low fixed costs, it does not require high capacity utilization rates to be profitable, even in

an economic downturn. They claim that, although the industry was thus able to remain profitable in prior economic

downturns in the face of lower demand, head-to-head competition with high volumes of low-priced imports from

China has prevented it from pricing at profitable levels during the current downturn. Petitioners’ Postconference

Brief at 32-36. 

 133 We also recognize, and the parties agree, that nonsubject imports were not a significant factor in the U.S.

market during the period inasmuch as they were estimated to account for no more than 5 percent of total imports of

wire decking over the period examined. Thus, it would appear that the injury to the domestic industry is by reason

of subject imports and is not caused by nonsubject imports. CR/PR at IV-1 (responding importers did not report any

imports from nonsubject countries), IV-3 (nonsubject imports were five percent of total imports during the period

examined). See also Respondents’ Postconference Brief at 4 n.1 (respondents stating that “it is apparent that imports

of wire decking from countries other than China are insignificant . . ..”); Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 36. 

 134 With respect to the analysis required by the Federal Circuit in Bratsk and Mittal, Commissioner Pinkert notes

that the parties agree that nonsubject imports accounted for less than five percent of total U.S. imports during the

period examined. CR at II-7. Thus, price-competitive nonsubject imports were not a significant factor in the U.S.

market.

20

investment declined from 8.8 percent in 2006 to 7.1 percent in 2007, then plummeted to 0.7 percent in

2008.129

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

between the subject imports and the deteriorating condition of the domestic industry. Subject imports

increased their market share in 2007 at the expense of domestic producers. Domestic producers were able

to regain a part of that lost market share in 2008, but at the expense of not being able to increase prices

sufficiently to cover increasing COGS.130 Subject imports consistently undersold the domestic like

product and contributed to the cost-price squeeze experienced by domestic producers over the period

examined.131 Thus, we conclude that, for purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, the

subject imports have had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.

We have considered whether there are other factors that may have had an adverse impact on the

domestic industry during the period examined. We recognize that the significant decline in apparent U.S.

consumption over the period examined may have had a role in the domestic industry’s deteriorating

performance during the period examined.132 In any final phase of these investigations, we intend to

explore further the role that any changes in demand played in the performance of the domestic industry in

order to ensure that we do not attribute to subject imports the effects of any adverse demand conditions.133

134

Consequently, we conclude for purposes of these preliminary phase investigations that there is a

causal nexus between the subject imports and the adverse condition of the domestic industry, which

demonstrates a reasonable indication that the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject

imports. 
21

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record in the preliminary phase of these

investigations, we find that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is

materially injured by reason of subject imports of wire decking from China that are allegedly sold in the

United States at less than fair value and are allegedly subsidized by the Government of China. 

 1

 A complete description of the imported product subject to these investigations is presented in the section

entitled The Subject Product located in Part I of this report.

 2 Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation are presented in app. A.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from a petition filed on June 5, 2009, by AWP Industries, Inc.

(“AWP”) of Frankfort, KY; ITC Manufacturing, Inc. (“ITC”) of Phoenix, AZ; J&L Wire Cloth, Inc.

(“J&L”) of St. Paul, MN; Nashville Wire Products Mfg. Co., Inc. (“Nashville Wire”) of Nashville, TN;

and Wireway Husky Corp. (“Wireway”) of Denver, NC, alleging that an industry in the United States is

materially injured and is threatened with continued material injury by reason of imports from China of

wire decking1

 that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) and subsidized

by the government of China. Information relating to the background of these investigations is provided

below.2

Effective date Action

June 5, 2009 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; Commission institutes investigations

(74 FR 27823, June 11, 2009)

June 26, 2009 Commission’s conference1

July 2, 2009 Initiation of countervailing duty investigation by Commerce (74 FR 31700)

July 2, 2009 Initiation of antidumping investigations by Commerce (74 FR 31691)

July 20, 2009 Commission’s vote

July 20, 2009 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

July 27, 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.
I-2

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 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

Information on the subject merchandise, alleged margins of dumping and subsidies, and domestic

like product is presented in Part I. Information on conditions of competition and other relevant economic

factors is presented in Part II. Part III presents information on the condition of the U.S. industry,

including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. The volume and pricing

of imports of the subject merchandise are presented in Parts IV and V, respectively. Part VI presents

information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. Information obtained for use in the

Commission’s consideration of the question of threat of material injury is presented in Part VII.
 3

 Export shipments reported by responding Chinese producers were equivalent to *** percent of U.S. imports

from China in 2008. Eastfound accounted for *** percent of total reported export shipments to the United States in

2008.

 4 Wire Decking from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation; 74 FR

31691, July 2, 2009.

I-3

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

The U.S. market for wire decking totaled *** pounds and approximately *** in 2008. Currently,

ten firms produce wire decking in the United States. Five of these firms are the petitioners and consist of

AWP, ITC, J&L, Nashville Wire, and Wireway. At least 9 firms have reported importing wire decking

from China since 2006, although Atlas Material Handling, Inc. (“Atlas”) accounted for the majority of

these imports throughout the period of investigation.

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of wire decking totaled 265 million pounds valued at $172

million in 2008, and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity (*** percent by

value). U.S. shipments of imports from China totaled *** pounds valued at $*** in 2008, and accounted

for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity (*** percent by value). U.S. shipments of

imports from all other sources combined are estimated to total *** pounds valued at $*** in 2008, and

accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity (*** percent by value). Wire

decking is generally used in commercial and industrial storage (warehouse) systems and consists of a wire

mesh self supported by steel support crossbeams. Wire decking is purchased by material handling

distributors, industrial shelf rack manufacturers, and big-box retailers.

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in these investigations is presented in appendix C, table C-1. U.S.

industry data are based on the questionnaire responses of the seven firms that accounted for virtually all

U.S. production of wire decking in 2008. Data for U.S. imports from China are compiled using responses

to U.S. importer questionnaires. Data for U.S. imports from nonsubject countries are estimated by both

petitioners and respondents to be approximately 5 percent of total U.S. imports. As no U.S. importer

reported U.S. imports from nonsubject countries, staff used this estimate of 5 percent of total U.S. imports

for volume and value of such imports. Data regarding the Chinese industry are based on 5 foreign

producer questionnaires. One producer in China, Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Products Co., Ltd

and its related company, Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd. (collectively “Eastfound”) accounted

for approximately *** percent of Chinese export shipments to the United States in 2008.3

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Wire decking has not been the subject of any prior antidumping or countervailing duty

investigations in the United States.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF ALLEGED SALES AT LTFV

On July 2, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its

antidumping investigations on wire decking from China. Commerce reported the estimated weightedaverage dumping margin for China to be 143.0 percent to 316.0 percent.4
 5

 Commerce has determined that the current nature of the economy in China does not create obstacles to applying

the necessary criteria in the countervailing duty law and initiated a countervailing duty investigation against China. 

See Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People’s Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Affirmative

Countervailing Duty Determination, 72 FR 17484, 17486 (April 9, 2007).

 6 Wire Decking from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation; 74 FR

31700, July 2, 2009.

I-4

NATURE OF ALLEGED COUNTERVAILABLE SUBSIDIES

On July 2, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its

countervailing duty investigation on wire decking from China.5

 In its notice, Commerce listed the

following programs alleged in the petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to producers of wire

decking in China:6

A. Loan Programs

1. Honorable Enterprises Program 

2. Preferential Loans for Key Projects and Technologies 

3. Preferential Loans as Part of the Northeast Revitalization 

4. Policy Loans for Firms Located in Industrial Zones in the City of Dalian in Liaoning Province

B. Government Provision of Goods and Services for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (“LTAR”)

1. Government Provision of Wire Rod for LTAR 

2. Government Provision of Hot-Rolled Steel for LTAR 

3. Government Provision of Zinc for LTAR 

4. Government Provision of Electricity for LTAR 

5. Provision of Land for LTAR for Firms Located in Designated Geographical Areas 

in the City of Dailan in Liaoning Province 

6. Provision of Water for LTAR for Firms Located in Designated Geographical Areas 

in the City of Dailan in Liaoning Province 

7. Provision of Electricity for LTAR for Firms Located in Designated Geographical Areas 

in the City of Dailan in Liaoning Province 

C. Income and Other Direct Taxes 

1. Income Tax Credits for Domestically Owned Companies Purchasing Domestically 

Produced Equipment 

2. Income Tax Exemption for Investment in Domestic “Technological Renovation” 

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

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

5. Income Tax Exemption for Investors in Designated Geographical Regions Within 

the Province of Liaoning 
I-5

D. Indirect Tax and Tariff Exemption Programs

1. Value Added Tax (“VAT”) Deductions on Fixed Assets 

2. Export Incentive Payments Characterized as “VAT Rebates” 

3. Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions for FIEs and Certain Domestic Enterprises Using Imported

Equipment in Encouraged Industries 

4. VAT Exemptions for Newly Purchased Equipment in the Jinzhou District 

E. Grant Programs 

1. “Five Points, One Line” Program 

2. Export Interest Subsidies 

3. The State Key Technology Project Fund. 

4. Subsidies for Development of Famous Export Brands and China World Top Brands 

5. Sub-Central Government Programs To Promote Famous Export Brands and China 

World Top Brands 

6. Exemption of Fees for Firms Located in Designated Geographical Areas in the 

City of Dailan in Liaoning Province 

F. Preferential Income Tax Subsidies for Foreign Invested Entities (“FIEs”) 

1. “Two Free, Three Half” Program 

2. Income Tax Exemption Program for Export-Oriented FIEs 

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

Foreign-Invested Enterprises 

4. Preferential Tax Programs for Foreign-Invested Enterprises Recognized as High or 

New Technology Enterprises 

5. Income Tax Subsidies for FIEs Based on Geographic Location 

6. VAT Refunds for FIEs Purchasing Domestically Produced Equipment 

THE SUBJECT PRODUCT

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations as follows:

{These investigations cover} welded-wire rack decking for industrial and other

commercial storage racks or pallet rack systems. It is produced from carbon or alloy

steel wire that has been welded into a square or rectangular mesh pattern. The wire may

be galvanized or plated (e.g., chrome, zinc or nickel coated), coated with paint, epoxy, or

plastic, or uncoated (“raw”). Wire decking is sold in a variety of wire gauges. The wire

gauges used in the decking mesh are 0.105 inches (12 gauge) or greater. The wire may

be drawn or rolled and may have a round, square or other profile.

Wire mesh decking is reinforced with structural supports that may include sheet metal

support channels or additional wire or other structural supports. It is produced to

various profiles, including, but not limited to, a flat (flush) profile, an upward curved

back edge profile (“backstop”) or downward curved edge profile (“waterfalls”),

depending on the rack storage system. Wire decking may also be referred to as “pallet

rack decking,” “wire rack decking,” “wire mesh decking,” or “bulk storage shelving.” 
 7

 See petition, exh. General-2. Atlas, the largest U.S. importer of wire decking from China, reported that ***.

I-6

The wire decking may or may not be anchored to the rack storage system. 

Wire decking’s open mesh design is intended to provide a low weight, high-strength

storage platform that allows light to pass through it. It also allows water to pass through

for fire protection systems, and as a result wire decking is usually mandated by insurance

companies and building codes for use in commercial and industrial storage systems.

The scope does not cover the metal rack system on which the wire decking is ultimately

installed. Also excluded from the scope is other wire mesh shelving that specifically

lacks any structural supports welded or otherwise affixed to it. Such wire mesh shelving

is known as “storage shelving” and might be used in a home or small business to store

files or other non-load bearing items. 

Wire decking enters the United States through several basket categories in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

has issued a ruling (NY F84777) that wire decking is to be classified under HTS

9403.90.8040. Wire decking may also be entered under HTS 7217.10, 7217.20, 7326.20,

7326.90 and 9403.20.0020. HTS numbers are provided for convenience purposes only;

the physical description provided above controls the scope coverage.

Tariff Treatment

During the period of investigation, wire decking has been classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) under subheading 9403.90.80 (statistical reporting number

9403.90.8040). This HTS subheading is a residual or “basket” subheading covering wire decking and

many other products. Petitioners observed that Customs has issued a ruling (NY F84777) which stated

that wire decking is properly imported under HTS 9403.90.8040, but contend that wire decking may have

also entered the United States under HTS 7217.10, 7217.20, 7326.20, 7326.90 and 9403.20.0020 during

the period of investigation.7

 Table I-1 depicts the HTS subheading under which wire decking is classified

and its tariff treatment.

Table I-1

Wire decking: Tariff treatment, 2009

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special Column 22

Rates (percent ad valorem)

9403 

 9403.90

 9403.90.80

 9403.90.8040

Other furniture and parts thereof:

 Parts:..........................................

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

 Of metal.............................

Free 45.0%

 1

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

 2

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

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2009).
 8

 Flanged channel support beams may be used with either box or step beams, and are sometimes referred to as

“universal” support beams for that reason.

I-7

Description and Applications

The subject product, wire decking, is a fabricated decking assembly used to form a shelf surface

in a rack storage system in warehouse, commercial, or industrial storage installations. The purpose is to

provide a surface upon which to place materials that may be on pallets, in containers, or in some other

form.

A decking section comprises a steel wire mesh shelf with attached reinforcing supports ready for

installation on supporting rack framing (Figure I-1). 

The wire mesh used for decking is usually 2 inches by 4 inches or 2 1⁄2 inches by 4 1⁄2 inches. The

reinforcing supports are normally roll-formed, hot-rolled steel supports having a “U” or “V” shape. 

However, decking sections with other forms of support, such as tube or solid bar would be included

within the scope. The decking supports are designed to rest on the front and rear support beams of the

rack framing. There are two types of support beams commonly used in storage rack systems: step beams

and box beams. A step beam has two horizontal surfaces, with the lower, inside surface providing a

support surface for the reinforcing members of the wire decking section, whereas a box beam is a simple

rectangular tube with only the top as a support surface. The support members of the wire decking are of

either a type suitable for only rack systems having step beams, (Figure I-2) or of a flanged design suitable

for rack systems having box beams (Figure I-3).8

 
 9

 Petitioners state that the domestic industry produces decking as small as 8 inches in depth. Petition, Vol. I, p. 8.

 10 Petition, Vol. I, p. 8.

 11 Petition, Vol. I, p. 8.

I-8

Common wire decking sizes range from 24 to 60 inches in depth and from 34 to 60 inches in width.9

 The

most common size, estimated to represent 35 to 60 percent of the market, is 42 inches in depth by 46

inches in width.10 Two wire decking sections of that size are used to shelve an 8-foot wide bay between

upright supports in a storage rack, and accommodate two standard pallets.11

Wire decking is produced in a number of styles. The most common, waterfall, has a wire mesh

deck surface that extends in the front and back across the top of the rack support beams and is formed

downward in a 90 degree bend to cover about 1.5 inches of the outside of the support beams. The

waterfall feature helps to hold the decking in position and minimizes the potential for accidental

displacement of the decking. Other designs, used with step beams, have a wire mesh surface that ends

inside the step of the beam and is flush with the upper surface of the beam (Figure I-4). Such a design

might be chosen if the user wanted an unobstructed front on the beams for the placement of labels, or

wanted a slightly lighter and less costly decking. Another alternative is an upward bend at the back of the
 12 Petition, Vol. II, p. 5.

 13 Petitioners’ post-conference brief, p. 15.

I-9

wire mesh surface to provide a stop, preventing material from being pushed too far onto the shelf or from

accidentally falling off the shelf.

The size and spacing of the wire used in the mesh, as well as the number and characteristics of the

support members, determine the load-bearing capacity of the decking. For the common 42 inch by 46

inch decking size mentioned above, the capacity may range from 2,000 pounds to 3,500 pounds. The

weight of a single section of decking in the 42 inch by 46 inch size may be from 24 pounds to 30 pounds.

Another feature of steel decking is the finish, which affects the appearance and the corrosion

resistance of the product. The product may be coated with a baked-on enamel paint or a baked-on spraypowder finish or be fabricated from galvanized (zinc-coated) products, or be hot-dipped or electroplated

with zinc after fabrication. According to petitioners, the zinc electroplated (after welding) finish is

common for Chinese wire decking, whereas U.S. producers generally use a painted or powder-coated

finish.12 Petitioners state that the finish is irrelevant to customers for the vast majority of sales;

nonetheless, all finishes are available from the U.S. industry.13

Finished wire decking is commonly stacked flat on a wooden pallet for shipping. U.S.

manufacturers of wire decking maintain inventory of common items in warehouses at their manufacturing

locations and in other locations for the purpose of providing quick delivery. Major importers of wire

decking from China also maintain inventory in selectively-located warehouses. 

Wire decking is purchased by big-box retailers for their own stores and warehouses, systems

integrators (companies that equip warehouses and commercial storage spaces and provide all materials

handling needs, including storage racks and decking), catalogue companies, and storage rack

manufacturers. 
 14 Conference transcript, p. 94 (Wagner).

 15 Some manufacturers purchase wire from independent wire drawing firms whereas other manufacturers

purchase wire rod and draw the wire to the required diameter as a part of the manufacture of wire decking. Those

manufacturers that draw wire may have other uses for drawn wire, including direct sale of wire, and fabricated

products such as wire mesh, baskets and others. See Conference transcript, pp. 54–59 (Rudolph, Caldwell, Wagner,

Chamberlin, Brandon, Selhorst).

 16 Coating powder is sprayed using an apparatus that causes individual particles of powder to be electrostatically

charged and to be attracted to, and cling to the cleaned decking.

 17 Wire decking produced from galvanized wire and galvanized sheet is not coated after welding.

 18 Petitioners’ postconference brief, Exhibit 9, p. 2.

 19 Petition, Vol. I, p. 11.

I-10

Manufacturing Processes

The wire mesh surface of wire decking is produced from steel wire and the support members are

produced from steel sheet. The weight of steel wire is about 60 percent and that of steel sheet is about 40

percent of the total steel used to manufacture wire decking.14

Steel wire in coil form15 is processed through a straighten-and-cut machine to produce individual,

straight wires of the lengths required for the cross wires of the wire mesh decking. Wire is fed from

multiple reels into a wire mesh welding machine and individual cross wires are joined by electricresistance welding at each intersection. Individual sections of decking are cut from the continuously

feeding wire mesh.

Hot-rolled sheet for the support members is received in coil of the required width, typically about

3.5 inches in width and 0.083 inches in thickness. The coiled material is processed through a roll-forming

machine to produce the “U” or “V” section for the support members. Individual support members are cut

to required length as the roll-formed section exits from the roll-forming machine. To produce flanged

support sections, individual support members are formed in a press to the required shape. The support

members and the formed wire mesh deck are placed in a fixture and electric-resistance welded at each

intersection of the support members with the cross wires. The waterfall and/or backstop features are

formed in a press.

After welding, the decking is coated with either a baked-on enamel or a baked-on powder

coating. Decking sections are transported by conveyor through a coating process. An enamel coating

line comprises a cleaning section to remove any residues from the surface, a heat drying oven, a cooling

section, a paint dip section, and a final curing section. A powder coating line comprises a cleaning

section, a drying section, an electrostatic powder spraying section,16 and a final heat curing section. Two

U.S. producers produce galvanized wire decking with a zinc rather than an enamel or powder coated

finish by utilizing galvanized wire and galvanized sheet.17 U.S. producers also have the ability to supply

zinc-electroplated (electrogalvanized) or hot-dip galvanized (after fabrication) wire decking through

outsourcing.18

The process for producing steel decking in China is believed to be essentially the same as that in

the United States, except that the operations are, in general, not as fully automated. Many Chinese

producers do not have painting or powder-coating lines; as a result, much Chinese product is electroplated

with zinc after fabrication, often by a toll-processing electroplater. 

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

No issues with respect to domestic like product have been raised in these investigations. The

petitioners proposed that the Commission define the domestic like product as all wire decking coextensive with the scope of the petition.19 Respondents concurred with petitioners that all wire decking
 20 Conference transcript, p. 134 (Levinson).

 21 Petition, Vol. I, p. 13.

I-11

constituted one domestic like product.20 Petitioners proposed that the Commission should find that there

is a single domestic industry producing wire decking.21

 1

 Conference transcript, p. 28 (Mack).

 2

 Conference transcript, p. 32 (Chamberlin).

 3

 Conference transcript, p. 33 (Chamberlin).

 4

 ***.

 5

 Conference transcript, p. 137 (Kedaitis). 

 6

 Conference transcript, p. 61 (Selhorst).

 7

 Conference transcript, pp. 186 and 189 (Kedaitis). Atlas is *** importer of wire decking from China.

 8

 Conference transcript, p. 138 (Kedaitis).

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS AND CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

Wire decking is sold for use in pallet shelving systems found in warehouses and other locations

where palletized loads are to be stacked vertically such as garden centers and at stores which organize

their goods in a warehouse-type manner. They could be typically found at big-box stores like Home

Depot or Lowe’s. 

Wire decking is sold to three types of customers: original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”),

distributors, and big-box stores such as Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Wal-Mart.1

 OEMs manufacture pallet

rack systems that incorporate wire decking, and, as such, act much like the other material handling

distributors which sell a variety of products such as forklifts, conveyors, automated systems, and other

warehouse requirements. One petitioner estimated there to be 1,300 to 1,400 material handling

distributors in the United States.2

 Wire decking is then typically sold to a downstream end user, and the

end users’ requirements may vary greatly. Wire decking could be part of an order for a new warehouse

complex, a replacement pallet rack system, or just a small number of replacement pieces. At the

conference, one petitioner testified that, “for a particular end user project, we may get more than one

inquiry from several different material handling distributors. The end user seeks the best bid from a

variety of material handling distributors, and each of those distributors or resellers will seek a variety of

bids from deck manufacturers and importers.”3

 

Sales of wire decking occur mostly to distributors, and since 2006, the proportion of sales to this

channel have been increasing after a span of several years of decreases due to the rapid growth in big-box

retailers earlier in the decade. One producer reported that ***.4

 In fact, for a few years in this decade,

Wal-Mart was the largest purchaser of wire decking in the United States.5

 A representative for producer

ITC testified that big-box stores typically purchase larger orders and orders of standard-size wire

decking.6

 Mr. Kedaitis of importer Atlas believes that the big-box stores may be importing directly, but

not the standard sizes which compromise the bulk of sales of wire decking.7

 He also testified that Atlas

does not sell directly to big-box retailers, in fact it reportedly avoids it. Instead, it sells mainly to firms

that are downstream of big-box retailers, such as those in the “middle sized automotive, pharmaceuticals,

specialty foods, footwear, {and} childrens clothing” industries.8

 The percentage of shipments from

producers and importers reported to go to distributors and end users is presented in table II-1, and the

percentage of shipments to big-box stores, distributors, and OEMs is presented in table II-2.
 9

 Conference transcript, p. 164 (Song).

II-2

Table II-1

Wire decking: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments of wire decking, by sources and

channels of distribution, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Item 2006 2007 2008 Jan.-Mar. 2008 Jan.-Mar. 2009

Share of reported shipments (percent)

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of wire decking to:

 Distributors1 63.8 64.9 68.0 69.0 66.8

 End users 36.2 35.1 32.0 31.0 33.2

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of wire decking from China:

 Distributors1 90.2 92.9 94.5 97.8 97.6

 End users 9.8 7.1 5.5 2.2 2.4

 1 Sales to distributors includes sales to OEMs.

Note.–Data for domestic producers include only U.S. commercial shipments.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table II-2

Wire decking: Petitioners’ 2008 percentages shipped to big-box stores, distributors, and OEMs,

2008

Firm Share of 2008 reported shipments1

 (percent)

Big-box stores Distributors OEMs

AWP *** *** ***

ITC *** *** ***

J&L *** *** ***

Nashville Wire *** *** ***

Wireway *** *** ***

 1 ***.

Source: Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 2, in response to staff question number 2.

Some of the most-commonly required varieties of wire decking are held in inventory for quick

order fulfillment. Mr. Song of Eastfound, the exclusive supplier of Atlas, reported that nine types of wire

decking (out of 4,200 that his firm produces in China) accounted for 85 percent of his firm’s shipments.9

 
 10 Conference transcript, pp. 68 (Chamberlin) and 70 (Rollins).

II-3

GEOGRAPHIC MARKETS

All seven U.S. producers reported selling wire decking nationwide, as well as five of seven

responding importers. The other two responding importers serve four regions: the Northwest, Southeast,

and West Coast for *** and Puerto Rico for ***. 

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

Seven producers of wire decking responded to the Commission’s questionnaire. The largest

producer is *** which accounted for *** percent of sales of domestically produced wire decking in 2008

on a quantity basis, followed by ***. In addition, *** responding U.S. producers imported wire decking

during the period of investigation.

Domestic Production

Based on available information, U.S. producers have the ability to respond to changes in demand

with moderate-to-large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced wire decking to the U.S.

market. The main contributing factors to the moderate-to-large degree of responsiveness of supply are the

availability of unused capacity, ample inventories, small levels of export shipments, and the existence of

some production alternatives.

Industry capacity

U.S. producers’ capacity rose by 4.0 percent in 2007 compared with 2006, but remained steady in

2008 and the first quarter of 2009. U.S. producers’ reported capacity utilization, however, decreased

steadily, from 61.5 percent in 2006 to 53.2 percent in 2008, and was 29.0 percent in the first quarter of

2009, compared with 57.8 percent in the first quarter of 2008 (see table III-2). Accordingly, U.S.

producers have ample excess capacity with which they could increase production of wire decking. 

Alternative markets

Wire decking is reportedly used in Canada, Mexico, the Middle East, and Europe.10 U.S.

producers’ export shipments as a percent of total shipments increased irregularly from *** percent in

2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008 (see table III-3). Exports as a percentage of total

shipments were lower in January to March 2009 (*** percent) than in January to March 2008 (***

percent). This level of exports during the period indicates that domestic producers are somewhat

constrained in their ability to shift shipments between the United States and other markets in response to

price changes. 

Inventory levels

U.S. producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, increased unevenly from 14.2 percent

in 2006 to 16.5 percent in 2008 (see table III-5). The ratio of inventories to total shipments was 

considerably higher in the first quarter of 2009 (25.7 percent) compared with the first quarter of 2008

(11.8 percent). Most of this increase, however, is due to the steep decrease in total shipments. Actual

inventories at the end of the first quarter of 2009 were higher than they were in the first quarter of 2008,
 11 Conference transcript, pp. 62 (Mack) and 154 (Kedaitis).

 12 Conference transcript, p. 62 (Mack).

 13 Conference transcript, p. 154 (Kedaitis).

 14 Petitioners' postconference brief, p. 36 (“Nonsubject imports are not a factor in the wire decking market.”);

Respondents' postconference brief, p. 4 fn. 1 (“It is apparent that import of wire decking from countries other than

China are insignificant and have not been included in respondents’ analysis.”). Petitioners' postconference brief,

exh. 1, p. 3.

 15 On a quantity basis.

 16 Conference transcript, p. 130 (Song).

II-4

but lower than at the end of 2008. These data indicate that U.S. producers have a moderate amount of

inventories to increase shipments to the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

All seven responding producers reported that they produce other products using the same

equipment, machinery, and/or production and related workers that they use to produce wire decking,

although wire decking constitutes more than 90 percent of the production capabilities for five of the seven

producers. Alternative products include: concrete reinforcement mesh, drawn wire, light duty shelving,

mining mesh, point-of-purchase display units, stem mesh, wire mesh containers, and other miscellaneous

mesh products.

Foreign Supply

The vast majority of wire decking imported into the United States comes from China. Because it

is imported in multiple basket categories in the HTSUS, it is difficult to determine which countries

besides China export wire decking to the United States. No importers responding to the Commission’s

importer questionnaires imported wire decking from any country besides China. At the conference, both

petitioners and respondents estimated nonsubject wire decking to constitute less than 5 percent of the

market.11 Mr. Mack of producer ITC stated that occasionally there will be imports of wire decking from

Canada or Mexico.12 Mr. Kedaitis of Atlas reported the existence of one producer in Mexico, and, at least

at one time, Canada.13 In total, petitioners reported that they believe three firms (2 in Canada and 1 in

Mexico) account for all of the U.S. imports from countries other than China. These firms include: ***. 

To the extent that there is production in, or imports from Canada or Mexico, they have had no effect on

the domestic wire decking market.14

U.S. imports of wire decking from China increased by *** percent between 2006 and 2007, then

decreased by *** percent in 2008 (see table C-1), and were *** percent lower in the first quarter of 2009

than the first quarter of 2008.15 Shipments of imports from China also increased between 2006 and 2007

(by *** percent) before decreasing by *** percent in 2008. Shipments of wire decking imported from

China were *** percent smaller in the first quarter of 2009 than in the first quarter of 2008. 

China

Industry Capacity--At the conference, Mr. Song of Eastfound testified that there are seven

companies in China that reportedly manufacture and export 90 to 95 percent of wire decking shipped to

the United States.16 According to five foreign producer questionnaire responses received by the

Commission, reported capacity in China decreased irregularly by *** percent between 2006 and 2008

(from *** in 2006 to *** in 2007 and *** in 2008). In addition, reported capacity in China was ***
 17 Conference transcript, p. 135 (Song).

 18 *** importer questionnaire response.

 19 Conference transcript, pp. 62 (Mack) and 154 (Kedaitis).

 20 See, e.g., conference transcript, p. 131 (Song) and petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 13-15.

 21 The R-mark is granted to a company’s individual deck, not the company in itself. Petitioners’ postconference

brief, exh. 10. 

 22 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 9.

 23 Conference transcript, p. 171 (Kedaitis).

II-5

percent lower in interim 2009 than interim 2008. Production increased *** percent from 2006 to 2007

(***), but decreased by *** percent in 2008 to ***. Wire decking production capacity in the first quarter

of 2009 is *** percent below capacity in the first quarter of 2008, and actual production is *** percent

lower. Whereas capacity utilization was at least *** percent through 2008, capacity utilization in China

was reportedly at *** percent in the first quarter of 2009. 

Alternative Markets--The share of China’s shipments of wire decking exported to the United

States, as a share of its total shipments, decreased irregularly from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in

2008. Principal alternative export markets identified by Chinese producers and exporters include Asia,

Australia, Canada, Guatemala, the EU, the Middle East, Papua New Guinea, Poland, and the UK. 

Shipments to the Chinese home market comprised less than one percent of total shipments for Chinese

producers in each year of the period of study. At the conference, Mr. Song reported that the Chinese

home market for wire decking is very small and disordered and uses wooden decking, not steel.17

Furthermore, importer *** has reported that “China does not use wire deck.”18 

Inventory Levels--The ratio of U.S. importers’ U.S. inventories of wire decking from China, as a

percentage of their total U.S. shipments of wire decking from China, increased irregularly from ***

percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008, and were *** percent in the first quarter of 2009 compared with

*** percent in the first quarter of 2008. 

Nonsubject Imports

As stated above, Canada and Mexico may have exported some wire decking to the United States

during 2006-08, but this is unconfirmed. Nonsubject imports reportedly account for five percent or less

of the domestic market for wire decking.19 

General Supply Conditions

Both petitioners and respondents report that wire decking can be produced in a wide variety of

dimensions, forms, and finishes.20 

When asked if there had been any changes in the product range or marketing of wire decking,

five of seven producers and five of seven responding importers reported that there have not been any

significant changes. Producer *** noted that there has been an increase in the availability of wire decking

from China, and producer *** described a decrease in advertising and marketing of wire decks. Importer

*** reported a large number of changes occurring in the wire decking market: “***.” 

Within the wire decking industry, the Rack Manufacturers Institute began granting an “R-Mark”

to certify that certain companies’ products that meet a number of certification requirements, and signifies

a commitment to manufacture to ANSI MH26.6 design and capacity specifications.21 Petitioners

reported that each petitioning firm has some or all of their products certified with an R-mark,22 and Mr.

Kedaitis of Atlas testified that Atlas is a member of R-mark as well.23 Petitioners noted that Atlas’s
 24 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 11, referencing conference transcript, p. 123 (Kedaitis) (reference to

quality concerns in 1998 or earlier).

 25 *** importer questionnaire response.

 26 Conference transcript, p. 80 (Chamberlin), and producer questionnaire responses of ***.

 27 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 3.

 28 All series are seasonally adjusted, and the new construction index is a seasonally-adjusted annual rate.

II-6

testimony with regard to quality concerns about the domestic manufacturers occurred before the period

examined in these investigations.24

Demand

U.S. Demand

Demand Characteristics

Wire decking is used in pallet rack systems in order to warehouse inventories and demand for

wire decking is directly related to the demand for pallet rack products.25 Thus, demand for wire decking

is derived primarily from the industrial output of the economy, and in particular investment in capital

expenditures, the construction of warehouses, and commercial real estate.26 Respondents also noted that

the demand for wire decking is “driven by the demand for wire racking and generally follows industrial

output and non-residential construction activity.”27 Figure II-1 shows indices of U.S. industrial

production, wholesale inventories, and non-residential office, commercial, and manufacturing new

construction for January 2006-March 2009.28

Figure II-1

Indices of U.S. industrial production, wholesale inventories, and non-residential office,

commercial, and manufacturing new construction for January 2006-March 2009

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (industrial production), and Department of Commerce,

Bureau of the Census (new construction and wholesale inventories).

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

140

160

2006200720 08

20 09

Index (Jan. 2006 = 100)

Indus trial produc tion

W h o le s a le in ve n to rie s

N ew offic e, c om m erc ial, and m anufac turing c ons truc tion
 29 One producer that noted that there was “no change” in demand stated that demand has decreased over the last

three quarters due to the current recession.

 30 In the ***. 

 31 *** provided a very detailed response to what has occurred, in its view, to demand in the wire decking market. 

It reported that:

“***.” ***. Furthermore, *** continued, “***.” ***. Atlas acknowledged a collapse in demand

for wire decking since October 2008, and a contraction in consumption of wire decking over the

period of investigation. Conference transcript, pp. 127-128 (Kedaitis) and respondents’

postconference brief, p. 4.

 32 *** added to its statement that it does not ship much outside the United States, so it cannot give a “good

answer.”

 33 One producer did not estimate the cost, and the other producer reported that, as a percentage of the cost of

warehouse shelving, wire decking accounts for 90 percent of the total cost. 

 34 The other two importers estimated the cost to be 99 and 100 percent of pallet rack decks.

II-7

From 2006 to 2008, apparent U.S. consumption of wire decking decreased by 12.6 percent in

terms of quantity. Producers and importers were asked specifically how the demand for wire decking in

the U.S. and worldwide markets has changed since 2006. All producers reported demand declining at

some point since 2006. Five producers noted a decrease in demand since 2006, while the other two noted

an increase (or a fluctuation), and then a decrease in mid-to-late 2008 as the present economic downturn

began. A majority of the producers that described demand as decreasing attributed the decrease to the

weakening economy.29 Four of six responding importers also noted a decrease, one reported no change,30

and one (***), an increase.31 Five importers described the wire decking industry as having been impacted

negatively by the economy. 

 In contrast, two of the three responding producers (***) reported that demand outside the United

States had not changed since 2006.32 The other producer (***) reported a decrease. Two of three

responding importers (***) reported increasing demand outside the United States, while *** reported

demand outside the United States had not changed or had even decreased. *** described expansion of

markets in Canada and Mexico. In contrast, *** conveyed that the market for wire decking in the EU has

slowed due to the global economic contraction. 

Cost Share

Wire decking is used as an accessory in a pallet rack system. Five of seven responding producers

estimate that wire decking accounts for between 10 and 33 percent of the final cost of a warehouse pallet

rack system.33 Six of eight importers estimated that it accounts for between 2 and 34 percent of the cost

of pallet rack systems.34 

Substitute Products

Six of seven producers and four of eight importers reported that there are no products that can be

used in place of wire decking. The lone dissenting producer reported that pallet supports and pallets

could be used in place of wire decking for warehouse shelving. Among the items noted by the four

importers that stated that substitutes for wire decking exist are: wood (reported by all four importers), no

decking (two importers), pallet supports, punch decking, and steel corrugated decking (one importer
 35 In its response, *** went into great detail about potential substitutes for wire decking:

“***.” ***. It further reported that the price of lower-priced cross-bars has “***.” ***.

 36 Conference transcript, p. 117 (Chamberlin).

 37 The following producers reported their shares sold out of inventory as follows: ***.

 38 The remaining producer, ***, stated that its lead time for orders from inventory are one week. Including ***

raises the industry average lead time to 2.3 days.

 39 These data do not include the response of ***, since it replied both “3 days” and “4 weeks.”

 40 The other importers reported sales out of inventory of ***.

II-8

each).35 In order to substitute for wire decking, at least 50 percent of the shelving has to be open in order

to meet fire code regulations.36

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported products depends upon such factors as

relative prices, quality, and conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and

delivery dates, payment terms, product services, etc.). Based on producer and importer questionnaire

responses, staff believes that on the whole, there is likely to be a high degree of substitution between wire

decking produced in the United States and that produced in China.

Lead Times

Producers reported a large variation in the share of their sales of wire decking that sold out of

inventory or was made on a produced-to-order basis. Responses ranged from “***” to “***” of wire

decking being sold out of inventory, with the remainder being sold on a produced-to-order basis.37 Lead

times for orders shipped out of inventory ranged from the same day to 3 days and averaged 1.5 days for

six of the seven producers.38 Lead times for shipments of wire decking that is produced-to-order ranged

from 2 to 6 weeks and averaged 3.5 weeks.39

The three largest importers, Atlas, Mighty Lift, and Nashville Wire, reported that *** percent of

their sales are out of inventory.40 Lead times for these orders were reported to be two days or less for four

importers. Additionally, importers *** reported lead times of “one week” and “less than one week.” Of

the remaining proportion that was sold on a produced-to order basis, importers reported lead times

ranging from 5 to 10 weeks and averaging 7.3 weeks.

Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports

Producers and importers were asked to assess the interchangeability of wire decking produced in

the United States, China, and nonsubject countries; responses are presented in Table II-3. The U.S.

producers and importers were nearly unanimous in stating that wire decking produced in the United States

is always interchangeable with wire decking from China and other countries, and that wire decking from

China is always interchangeable with that produced in other countries.
 41 Conference transcript, pp. 123-124 (Kedaitis).

II-9

Table II-3

Wire decking: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived degree of interchangeability of products

produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. China 7 0 0 0 5 1 0 0

U.S. vs. other countries 50005000

China vs. other countries 50004000

 1 Producers and importers were asked if wire decking produced in the United States and in other countries are

used interchangeably and to what degree.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

In addition, producers and importers were asked to assess how often differences other than price

were significant in sales of wire decking from the United States, China, and nonsubject countries (table II4). All producers reported that differences other than price are “sometimes” or “never” significant in their

sales of wire decking. *** added, “Price is paramount. Lead time and customer service sometimes are a

factor in any pairing.” Importers were more varied in their responses. *** noted two factors that always

affect sales of wire decking among countries: “Availability: Often customer needs wire deck in a very

short time. Whoever has the size and quantity in stock got the orders. Transportation Network: Since

wire deck is low value item, transportation costs play big role.” At the conference, Mr. Kedaitis of Atlas

stated that product color choice, customer service, and lead times have played a role in the wire decking

industry.41 

Table II-4

Wire decking: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than price in

sales of product produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. China 0 0 1 6 2 1 2 1

U.S. vs. other countries 00142011

China vs. other countries 00141101

 1 Producers and importers were asked if differences other than price between wire decking produced in the

United States and those produced in other countries were a significant factor in their firms’ sales of wire decking.

Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 42 Conference transcript, pp. 28, 63-64 (Mack) and 154-155 (Kedaitis).

 43 Conference transcript, pp. 63-65 (Mack).

 44 Conference transcript, p. 29 (Mack).

 45 Respondents’ postconference brief, exh. 5.

 46 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 13. 

II-10

There is a qualification process for most purchasers, or at least for big-box retailers according to

importer Atlas.42 Distributors do not require qualification, but rather the ability to meet specification,

especially capacity requirements. For safety and liability reasons, larger customers will scrutinize the

product a little more than other customers. In total, though, the process takes two to three weeks.43 In the

past eight months, one big-box retail store was able to qualify Mighty Lift’s imports from China and has

switched the majority of its wire decking purchases in the western United States from domestic

production to Mighty Lift.44

Respondents submitted declarations or e-mails from 13 purchasers noting that price is not the

only characteristic that matters in the wire decking market.45 Petitioners contend, however, that Atlas

drafted the declarations of the purchasers and petitioners submitted the draft declarations in their

postconference brief.46 Four of the 13 declarations did take this form.
 1

 Petitioners estimated that these seven firms accounted for approximately 99 percent of U.S. production of wire

decking in 2008. Petition, p. 5 and exh. General-1.

The three nonresponding U.S. producers include: (1) Complex Steel & Wire (Complex) of Wayne, MI,

which petitioners estimated produced *** pounds of wire decking in 2008; (2) Equipto, Inc. (Equipto) of Tatamy,

PA, which petitioners described as a *** U.S. producer of wire decking; and (3) Salco Engineering & Manufacturing

Co. (Salco) of Jackson, MI, which petitioners estimated produced *** pounds of wire decking in 2008. Complex

and Equito, although not responding to ITC’s questionnaire, did supply petitioners’ counsel with affidavits

expressing support for the petition. Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 6.

III-1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

Information presented in this section of the report is based on (except as noted) the questionnaire

responses of seven firms which accounted for the vast majority of U.S. production of wire decking in

2008. 

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producer’s questionnaires to 10 firms identified as U.S. producers of wire

decking by the petitioners. Seven U.S. producers submitted responses.1

 Table III-1 presents the list of

U.S. producers with each company’s U.S. production location, share of U.S. production in 2008, and

position on the petition.

Table III-1

Wire decking: U.S. producers, U.S. production locations, shares of U.S. production in 2008, and

positions on the petition

Firm Production location

Share of

production

(percent)

Position on the 

petition

AWP Frankfort, KY *** Petitioner

Cargotainer Adrian, MI *** ***

ITC Phoenix, AZ *** Petitioner

J&L1 St. Paul, MN *** Petitioner

Nashville Wire Nashville, TN *** Petitioner

Nucor Wire2 New Salem, PA *** Support

Wireway Denver, NC *** Petitioner

 1 ***.

 2

 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

None of the U.S. producers are related to foreign producers of the subject merchandise and none

are related to U.S. importers of the subject merchandise. In addition, as discussed in greater detail below,

two U.S. producers, J&L and Nashville Wire, directly imported the subject merchandise.
 2

 Petitioners stated that they have the capacity to serve the entire U.S. market including the 15 percent of the total

U.S. market that the parties agree is accounted for by customized wire decking. The remaining 85 percent of the

total U.S. wire decking market reportedly consists of approximately nine standard wire decking products which all

U.S. producers and producers in China manufacture and compete for sales. Petitioners postconference brief, pp. 8-9.

 3

 U.S. producers of wire decking are both “integrated and non-integrated.” J&L, ITC, Nashville Wire, and Nucor

are integrated as they purchase steel rod and within their production process draw it into wire. These firms reported

that drawing rod into wire allowed them some economies of scale and cost savings. Conference transcript, p. 59

(Caldwell). AWP and Wireway are non-integrated firms as they purchase the downstream wire. Other than this

starting point of rod or wire, U.S. producers stated that much of their production processes are similar. Petitioners’

postconference brief, p. 5; Conference transcript, pp. 53-59. 

 4

 Petitioners stated that the U.S. wire decking industry is a low fixed-cost industry; and therefore, does not need to

maximize capacity utilization to earn profits and can be profitable even at low utilization rates. Petitioners’

postconference brief, p. 34.

III-2

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Data on U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization are presented in table III-2. 

Total U.S. capacity increased from 2006 to 2008 by 4.0 percent and remained steady between JanuaryMarch 2008 and January-March 2009. ***. U.S. capacity volume accounted for *** percent of apparent

U.S. consumption of wire decking in 2008.2

 Total U.S. production of the subject product decreased by

10.0 percent from 2006 to 2008 and decreased by 49.9 percent between January-March 2008 and

January-March 2009.3

 Capacity utilization ranged from 29.0 percent in January-March 2009 to 61.5

percent in 2006.4

*** U.S. producers reported events that occurred during the period of investigation that would

have materially affected its production or capacity. ***. *** of the seven U.S. producers reported that

they produced other products using the same manufacturing equipment and/or production employees that

were used to produce wire decking. ***.
III-3

Table III-2

Wire decking: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-2008, JanuaryMarch 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Capacity (1,000 pounds)

AWP *** *** *** *** ***

Cargotainer *** *** *** *** ***

ITC *** *** *** *** ***

J&L *** *** *** *** ***

Nashville Wire *** *** *** *** ***

Nucor Wire *** *** *** *** ***

Wireway *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 495,433 515,433 515,433 128,858 128,858

Production (1,000 pounds)

AWP *** *** *** *** ***

Cargotainer *** *** *** *** ***

ITC *** *** *** *** ***

J&L *** *** *** *** ***

Nashville Wire *** *** *** *** ***

Nucor Wire *** *** *** *** ***

Wireway *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 304,553 300,268 274,148 74,519 37,355

Capacity utilization (percent)

AWP *** *** *** *** ***

Cargotainer *** *** *** *** ***

ITC *** *** *** *** ***

J&L *** *** *** *** ***

Nashville Wire *** *** *** *** ***

Nucor Wire *** *** *** *** ***

Wireway *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 61.5 58.3 53.2 57.8 29.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
III-4

U.S. PRODUCERS’ U.S. SHIPMENTS AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

As detailed in table III-3, the volume of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of wire decking

decreased by 13.8 percent from 2006 to 2008 and decreased by 48.8 percent between January-March

2008 and January-March 2009. The value of U.S. shipments also decreased by 0.8 percent and 39.9

percent, respectively, during the same time periods. ***. ***, reported export shipments ***. Other

export markets reported include ***. Export shipments from U.S. producers remained steady from 2006

to 2008, but decreased by *** percent from January-March 2008 to January-March 2009.

Table III-3

Wire decking: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2006-2008, January-March 2008, and JanuaryMarch 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. commercial shipments 307,797 290,572 265,218 69,618 35,618

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

 Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Value ($1,000)

1

U.S. commercial shipments 173,286 161,018 171,983 38,410 23,094

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

 Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per pound)

U.S. commercial shipments $0.56 $0.55 $0.65 $0.55 $0.65

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

 Average *** *** *** *** ***

Share of shipment quantity (percent)

U.S. commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 F.o.b. U.S. point of shipment.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 5

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 4; Conference transcript, p. 24 (Rollins) and p. 39 (Rudolph). 

Respondents stated that they do not believe these U.S. producers’ U.S. imports are of sufficient magnitude to

exclude them from the U.S. industry. Respondents, however, argued that Nashville Wire’s imports should not be

considered competing with, or negatively impacting, the U.S. industry. Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 15.

III-5

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES OF IMPORTS

Two of the seven U.S. producers, J&L and Nashville Wire, reported that they directly imported

wire decking from China during the period of investigation. These firms stated that they imported wire

decking from China “in an attempt to remain competitive with the low prices offered by Chinese

producers,” but claimed that their primary interest lies with domestic production.5

 Table III-4 presents

these firms’ direct imports of subject product from China, their U.S. production, and the ratio of their U.S.

imports to their U.S. production.

Table III-4

Wire decking: U.S. producers’ subject imports and purchases of subject imports, 2006-2008,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Item 2006 2007 2008

January-March

2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds); ratio to production (percent)

J&L:1

Production (quantity) *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from China (quantity) *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from China (ratio to production) *** *** *** *** ***

Nashville Wire:2

Production (quantity) *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from China (quantity) *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from China (ratio to production) *** *** *** *** ***

 1 J&L ceased the importation of wire decking from China subsequent to its sale to American Spring Wire Corp in

2007. Conference transcript, p. 39 (Rudolph).

 2

***. Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 39 and exh. 1, p. 4.

 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
 6

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 28. ***. U.S. producers’ questionnaire responses, question II-9.

III-6

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Data on end-of-period inventories of wire decking for the period of investigation are presented in

table III-5. Inventories as a share of production, U.S. and total shipments increased irregularly from 2006

to 2008 and increased sharply in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008.

Table III-5

Wire decking: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2006-2008, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 45,278 35,842 45,509 34,610 38,008

Ratio to production (percent) 14.9 11.9 16.6 11.6 25.4

Ratio to U.S. shipments (percent) 14.7 12.3 17.2 12.4 26.7

Ratio to total shipments (percent) 14.2 11.9 16.5 11.8 25.7

Note.--January-March ratios are calculated using annualized production and shipment data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Data provided by U.S. producers on the number of production and related workers (“PRWs”)

engaged in the production of wire decking, the total hours worked by such workers, and wages paid to

such PRWs during the period for which data were collected in these investigations are presented in table

III-6. From 2006 to 2008, the number of PRWs decreased by 15.6 percent and decreased by 37.9 percent

in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008, hours worked decreased by 17.3 percent, and decreased by

45.5 percent between the interim periods. From 2006 to 2008, wages paid decreased by 16.2 percent

(decreased by 38.5 percent between the interim periods), hourly wages increased by 1.4 percent (increased

by 13.0 percent between the interim periods), productivity increased by 8.9 percent (decreased by 7.9

percent between the interim periods), and unit labor costs decreased by 6.9 percent (increased by 22.7

percent between the interim periods).

ITC stated at the conference that it had undertaken temporary shutdowns and reductions in its

workforce during the period of investigation. In 2008 and 2009, it permanently laid off 42 employees. 

J&L also stated that recently it had temporarily laid off a number of production workers.6
III-7

Table III-6

Wire decking: Average number of production and related workers producing wire decking, hours

worked, hours worked per worker, wages paid to such employees, and hourly wages, productivity,

and unit labor costs, 2006-2008, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

PRWs (number) 652 611 550 530 329

Hours worked (1,000) 1,349 1,185 1,115 272 148

Hours worked per worker 2,070 1,939 2,028 512 449

Wages paid ($1,000) $21,718 $19,297 $18,209 $4,531 $2,787

Hourly wages $16.10 $16.29 $16.33 $16.69 $18.85

Productivity (pounds per hour) 225.8 253.5 245.8 274.5 252.7

Unit labor costs (per pound) $0.07 $0.06 $0.07 $0.06 $0.07

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 1

 The Commission sent questionnaires to 60 firms identified in the petition. Petitioners claimed that the

Commission has not received complete data on U.S. imports because many of the 60 firms listed in the petition as

U.S. importers did not submit responses to the Commission’s questionnaire. Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 17.

Petitioners do not attempt to quantify this alleged understatement of U.S. imports. It should be noted, however, that

the absolute volumes reported by U.S. importers that did respond to the Commission’s questionnaire are much larger

than the absolute volumes estimated in the petition. Compare Table IV-2 to Petition, exh. General-5. 

Respondents stated that they believed the universe of actual U.S. importers of wire decking to be

substantially smaller. At the conference, respondent witnesses testified that three U.S. importers accounted for

approximately 90 percent of U.S. imports from China during the period of investigation. These importers, listed

from largest to smallest, are: (1) Atlas, (2) Nashville Wire, and (3) Mighty Lift. Respondents claimed that the

remaining 10 percent of U.S. imports from China may be accounted for by smaller, independent importers and the

big-box retailers. Conference transcript, pp. 187-188 (Kedaitis, Levinson). 

Respondents also supplied trade data obtained from a private database depicting that these “other”

importers never accounted for more than 7.76 percent of exports from China. Respondents claimed the data show

that eight Chinese producers accounted for the vast majority of exports to the United States (ranging from 92.2

percent in interim 2009 to 98.6 percent in interim 2008) and that these exporters are the suppliers to Atlas, Nashville

Wire, and Mighty Lift. They claimed that the remaining volume accounts for “other” importers. Respondents’

postconference brief, exh. 2.

 2

 In addition to the nine usable responses (those respondents are shown in table IV-1), the Commission also

received 19 responses from firms indicating that they did not import wire decking during the period examined. These

firms included: ***.

 3

 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 1.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

The Commission sent importer questionnaires to 60 firms believed to be U.S. importers of wire

decking, as well as to all ten U.S. producers.1

 Usable questionnaire responses were received from nine

firms, which accounted for what is believed to be the majority of U.S. imports from China.2

 Data for U.S.

imports from China are compiled using the U.S. importer questionnaire responses received by the

Commission. By far the largest reporting U.S. importer, Atlas, accounted for *** percent of all reported

U.S. imports from China in 2008, and for the *** of reported U.S. imports from China throughout the

period of investigation. Atlas is the exclusive North American distributor and importer of wire decking

from the Chinese producer Eastfound.3

 U.S. importers submitting questionnaires to the Commission did

not report any U.S. imports from nonsubject countries during the period of investigation. Petitioners and

respondents agreed that U.S. imports from nonsubject countries were approximately 5 percent of total

U.S. imports throughout the period of investigation. Therefore, data for U.S. imports from nonsubject

countries are based on a 5 percent estimate of total U.S. import volume and value. 

Table IV-1 lists all responding U.S. importers of wire decking from China, their U.S. locations,

and their quantities of imports, by source, in 2008.

Table IV-1

Wire decking: Reported U.S. imports, by importers and by sources of imports, 2008

* * * * * * *
 4

 This decreasing trend differs from that of the estimated increasing trend of U.S. imports from China set forth in

the petition. Petition, p. 15.

 5

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 36 (“Nonsubject imports are not a factor in the wire decking market.”);

Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 4 fn. 1 (“It is apparent that imports of wire decking from countries other than

China are insignificant and have not been included in respondents’ analysis.”). Petitioners reported that they believe

three firms (2 in Canada and 1 in Mexico) account for all of the U.S. imports from countries other than China. These

firms include: ***. Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 3.

 6

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(ii).

 7

 Petitioners postconference brief, p. 7; Respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 3-4.

IV-2

U.S. IMPORTS

Table IV-2 shows that the volume of U.S. imports of wire decking from China remained steady

from 2006 to 2007 and then decreased by *** percent from 2007 to 2008 and decreased by *** percent

from January-March 2008 to January-March 2009.4

 The value of U.S. imports from China increased by

*** percent from 2006 to 2008, but decreased by *** percent between January-March 2008 and JanuaryMarch 2009. Based on a mutually agreed upon estimate by petitioners and respondents, the volume and

value of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries remained steady at approximately 5 percent of total U.S.

imports throughout the period of investigation.5

Table IV-2

Wire decking: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-2008, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

NEGLIGIBILITY

The Tariff Act of 1930 provides for the termination of an investigation if imports of the subject

product from a country are less than 3 percent of total imports, or, if there is more than one such country,

their combined share is less than or equal to 7 percent of total imports, during the most recent 12 months

for which data are available preceding the filing of the petition.6

 The share (in percent) of the total

quantity of U.S. imports from China for the entire period of investigation approximated 95 percent of

total U.S. imports based on U.S. import data compiled from the Commission’s questionnaire responses

and estimates agreed upon by petitioners and respondents, and thus, well above the 3 percent negligibility

threshold .

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data on apparent U.S. consumption of wire decking are presented in table IV-3. The quantity of

apparent U.S. consumption of the subject product decreased by *** percent from 2006 to 2008 and

decreased a further *** percent between January-March 2008 and January-March 2009. The value of

apparent U.S. consumption increased by *** percent from 2006 to 2008, but decreased by *** percent

between the interim periods. Petitioners and respondent agreed that U.S. consumption of wire decking is

tied closely to total U.S. industrial output and that the current recession has certainly dampened U.S.

industrial activities.7
IV-3

Table IV-3

Wire decking: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments and apparent

U.S. consumption, 2006-2008, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 307,797 290,572 265,218 69,618 35,618

U.S. importers‘ U.S. shipments

 from--

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

 All other countries *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports *** *** *** *** ***

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

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 173,286 161,018 171,983 38,410 23,094

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments

 from--

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

 All other countries *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports *** *** *** *** ***

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

Source: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and U.S. imports from China are compiled from data submitted in response to

Commission questionnaires. U.S. imports from nonsubject countries are compiled using an estimate which both petitioners and

respondents agree to be approximately 5 percent of total U.S. imports.
IV-4

U.S. MARKET SHARES

Data on U.S. market shares for wire decking are presented in table IV-4. From 2006 to 2007,

U.S. producers lost *** percentage points of market share based on quantity and *** percentage points

based on value. However, from 2007 to 2008, U.S. producers gained *** percentage points of market

share based on quantity and lost *** percentage points based on value. Between January-March 2008

and January-March 2009, U.S. producers lost *** percentage points of U.S. market share based on

volume and *** percentage points based on value. All of the U.S. industries market share gains and

losses came at the expense or gain of U.S. imports from China as both petitioners and respondent attested

that U.S. imports from nonsubject countries approximated 5 percent of total U.S. imports during the

period of investigation.

Table IV-4

Wire decking: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, 2006-2008, January-March 2008,

and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Data on the ratio of imports to U.S. production of wire decking are presented in table IV-5.

Table IV-5

Wire decking: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to production, 2006-2008,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Calendar year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. production 304,553 300,268 274,148 74,519 37,355

U.S. imports from--

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

 All other countries *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio of imports to U.S. production (percent)

U.S. imports from--

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

 All other countries *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports *** *** *** *** ***

Source: U.S. production and U.S. imports from China are compiled from data submitted in response to Commission

questionnaires. U.S. imports from nonsubject countries are compiled using an estimate which both petitioners and respondents

agree to be approximately 5 percent of total U.S. imports.
V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Materials

The main raw materials used in the production of wire decking are hot-rolled sheet steel and steel

wire rod which has been drawn. Steel and other raw materials accounted for 73.7 percent of the total cost

of goods sold (COGS) during 2008 (see Part VI: Financial Condition of U.S. Producers). The price of

steel wire rod fluctuated until the second half of 2007, and began to increase rapidly in the beginning of

2008 (figure V-1). Prices for both peaked in July 2008 and have been decreasing since then, with the

exception of an increase in the cost of steel wire rod in the last month for which data are available (May

2009). As such, steel and other raw materials accounted for 68.3 percent of COGS in 2006, but 73.7

percent by 2008, and fell to 67.5 percent in the first quarter of 2009.

Figure V-1

Steel wire rod and hot-rolled sheet: Average monthly U.S. prices, January 2006-May 2009

Source: Compiled from data published in Purchasing magazine, purchasingdata.com, Steel Price Transaction

Report.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2006

2007

2008

2009

Dollars per ton

Steel Wire Rod Hot-rolled sheet
 1

 Two producers reported inland transportation costs of ***, and one (***) reported a range of *** percent.

 2

 The other importer (*** )reported a range of *** percent.

 3

 Figures do not add to 100 percent due to rounding. Of the large importers, *** reported that *** percent of their

imports are shipped within 100 miles of their respective warehouses.

 4

 Multiple producers reported that they use more than one method of determining prices.

 5

 All producers and importers stated that they do not sell wire decking over the internet. Two firms noted that

leads may be generated via the internet, but sales normally occur via other methods.

 6

 As with the producers, multiple importers reported that they use more than one method of determining prices.

These data include producers who also import.

 7

 *** did not report whether prices or quantities were fixed.

V-2

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Four of seven U.S. producers reported that, generally, U.S. inland transportation costs ranged

from 5 to 12 percent of the total delivered cost of wire decking, and averaged 10.0 percent.1

 Five of six

responding importers reported that inland transportation costs ranged between 8 and 20 percent

(averaging 11.6 percent) of the total delivered cost of wire decking.2

All responding U.S. producers reported that they arranged delivery. Producers reported that they

shipped 12.5 percent of their wire decking less than 100 miles, 68.9 percent of their wire decking between

101 and 1,000 miles, and 18.5 percent of their wire decking more than 1,000 miles, based on a simple

average. Five of the seven responding importers reported that they arranged delivery. Based on a simple

average, the six responding importers reported shipping 56.2 percent of their wire decking less than 100

miles, 24.7 percent between 101 and 1,000 miles, and 19.2 percent more than 1,000 miles.3

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

The seven U.S. producers of wire decking reported that they use a variety of methods in

determining prices. The manner in which prices are determined can depend on the size of the customer. 

Overall, six producers use transaction-by-transaction negotiations, two have contracts for multiple

shipments (especially to large customers like ***), two use price lists combined with negotiation, and two

factor in costs plus a markup.4 5

Similarly, six producers use transaction-by-transaction negotiations, two use price lists combined

with negotiation, two factor in costs plus a markup, and one has contracts for multiple shipments

(especially to large customers like ***).6

 

Five of the seven producers reported that they sell their wire decking via long-term contracts and

short-term contracts, as well as on the spot market. The other two (***) reported that they only sell wire

decking on the spot market. Based on a simple average, 8.0 percent of U.S. producers’ sales are via longterm contracts (over 12 months in length), 20.7 percent of sales are via short-term contracts (12 months or

less in length), and 71.4 percent are spot sales. Five of seven responding importers sell wire decking

exclusively on a spot basis. Those that do not, (***), sell five percent on a long-term contract basis, and

one percent on a short-term contract basis, respectively.

*** long-term contracts are typically two years in length, and *** has *** that is one year in

length. All three noted that prices could be renegotiated during the contract. Two producers noted that

only prices are fixed.7

 No producers indicated that long-term contracts have a meet-or-release clause,

though *** stated that there is a three-month cancellation notice that can be given instead of price

renegotiation. Short-term contracts entered into by the three responding producers can vary in length
 8

 *** reported four-month long contracts as short-term contracts, and 12-month long contracts as long-term

contracts. Its short-term contracts do not ***.

 9

 *** reported that sometimes both price and quantity are fixed, whereas sometimes neither are fixed, and that

meet-or-release clauses are typically included in its short-term contracts.

 10 ***.

 11 These discounts are in addition to those previously mentioned for early payment, and include discounts given

for individual quotes of larger sales quantities.

 12 These discounts are in addition to those previously mentioned for early payment, and include discounts given

for individual quotes of larger sales quantities.

 13 Purchasers, however, reportedly consider size and capacity of the wire decking that they want to buy. 

Conference transcript, p. 75 (Chamberlin and Rollins). These pricing products cover wire deck with various

capacity limits. 

V-3

from 4 months (***) to a year (***).8

 Two of three responding producers reported that only prices are

fixed, that prices are renegotiable, and that meet-or-release clauses are not typically included.9

*** reported selling imported wire decking via long-term contracts that guarantee only price.10

Short-term contracts entered into by *** are typically 10 months in length, have prices which can be

renegotiated, and do not contain meet-or-release clauses. 

Sales Terms and Discounts

All producers and five of seven responding importers reported that sales terms for wire decking

are net 30 days. The other two importers require half of their payment upon placement of an order and

the other half upon delivery. Two of the seven producers and one importer stated that they give

discounts for early payment of *** percent. Six of seven producers reported that prices are generally

quoted on an f.o.b. basis, and the other, ***, quotes prices on both a delivered and f.o.b. basis. Among

responding importers, three generally quote f.o.b. prices, two reported that they generally quote delivered

prices, and one, ***, quotes prices using both methods.

With respect to discounts, five of seven producers reported offering some type of volume

discount on their sales of wire decking,11 and two reported that they do not offer discounts. Four of seven

responding importers reported giving quantity discounts and three reported that they do not offer

discounts.12

PRICE DATA

The Commission asked U.S. producers and importers of wire decking to provide quarterly data

for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of wire decking that was shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S.

market during the period January 2006 to March 2009. The products for which pricing data were

requested are as follows:13

Product 1.—Wire decking, 42”(depth) x 46”(width), flanged channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6

gauge wire, 2” to 2.5” by 4” to 4.5” grid spacing, coated with zinc or zinc oxide

Product 2.—Wire decking, 42”(depth) x 46”(width), flanged channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6

gauge wire, 2” to 2.5” by 4” to 4.5” grid spacing, uncoated or coated with a substance other

than zinc or zinc oxide

Product 3.—Wire decking, 42”(depth) x 46”(width), step channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6 gauge

wire, 2” to 2.5” by 4” to 4.5” grid spacing, coated with zinc or zinc oxide 
 14 Using sales values instead yields similar percentages. Quantities for these coverage data were derived using

the following weights available at Nashville Wire’s website: 25.5 lbs. per unit for products 1 and 2, 20.2 lbs. for

products 3 and 4, and 32.3 lbs. for products 5 and 6. 

http://www.nashvillewire.com/mh/wiredecking.asp?SubNavType=2#. These weights are reflective of units that have

capacities of 2500-2550 pounds, the most standard capacity. Conference transcript, pp. 75-76 (Rollins), p. 94

(Brandon), and p. 169 (Kedaitis), and ***. 

 15 Additionally, testimony was presented at the conference that the final coating does not matter for at least 95

percent of the market. Conference transcript, pp. 94-95 (Rollins). Appendix D presents pricing data for products 1

and 2 combined, products 3 and 4 combined, and products 5 and 6 combined, since the only factor than differentiates

each of these products is the final coating. The largest volumes of each size/type of imported Chinese wire decking

are of products 1, 3, and 5, whereas the largest volumes of each size/type of domestically produced wire decking are

of products 2, 4, and 6. 

 16 Conference transcript, p. 140 (Song).

V-4

Product 4.—Wire decking, 42”(depth) x 46”(width), step channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6 gauge

wire, 2” to 2.5” by 4” to 4.5” grid spacing, uncoated or coated with a substance other than

zinc or zinc oxide

Product 5.—Wire decking, 48”(depth) x 46”(width), flanged channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6

gauge wire, 2” to 2.5” by 4” to 4.5” grid spacing, coated with zinc or zinc oxide 

Product 6.—Wire decking, 48”(depth) x 46”(width), flanged channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6

gauge wire, 2” to 2.5” by 4” to 4.5” grid spacing, uncoated or coated with a substance other

than zinc or zinc oxide

Six U.S. producers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, along with

eight importers with sales of wire decking from China. In addition, importers were asked for data from

nonsubject countries, however, there were no reported sales of imported wire decking from nonsubject

countries. Not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. Pricing data for the six products

reported by these firms, shown in tables V-1 to V-6 and figures V-2 to V-7, accounted for 19.4 percent of

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of wire decking and 53.3 percent of U.S. imports of wire decking from

China in January 2006 to March 2009, on a quantity basis.14 15 At the conference, Mr. Song stated that

nine SKUs comprise approximated 85 percent of his firm’s sales.16 Three of these standard products are

apparently included among these six pricing products.
V-5

Table V-1

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1,1

and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

Period

United States China

Price

(per unit)

Quantity

(units)

Price

(per unit)

Quantity

(units) Margin (percent)

2006:

 January-March $*** *** $*** *** ***

 April-June *** *** *** *** ***

 July-September *** *** *** *** ***

 October-December *** *** 9.72 151,075 ***

2007:

 January-March *** *** 9.62 135,397 ***

 April-June *** *** *** *** ***

 July-September *** *** *** *** ***

 October-December *** *** 9.86 132,850 ***

2008:

 January-March *** *** 10.13 136,553 ***

 April-June *** *** 11.97 144,356 ***

 July-September *** *** 14.34 122,488 ***

 October-December *** *** 13.53 77,822 ***

2009:

 January-March *** *** 10.11 48,012 ***

 1 Wire decking, 42" (depth) x 46" (width), flanged channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6 gauge wire, 2" to 2.5" by 4" to 4.5"

grid spacing, coated with zinc or zinc oxide.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-6

Table V-2

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2,1

and margins of (overselling)/underselling, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

Period

United States China

Price

(per unit)

Quantity

(units)

Price

(per unit)

Quantity

(units) Margin (percent)

2006:

 January-March $11.47 91,756 $*** *** ***

 April-June 11.06 95,925 *** *** ***

 July-September *** *** *** *** ***

 October-December 11.57 79,843 *** *** ***

2007:

 January-March 10.98 95,271 *** *** ***

 April-June 10.70 108,640 *** *** ***

 July-September 10.79 110,008 *** *** ***

 October-December 11.10 85,878 *** *** ***

2008:

 January-March 11.30 127,559 *** *** ***

 April-June 13.41 107,194 *** *** ***

 July-September 17.78 67,325 *** *** ***

 October-December 15.22 70,316 *** *** ***

2009:

 January-March 11.64 55,523 *** *** ***

 1 Wire decking, 42" (depth) x 46" (width), flanged channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6 gauge wire, 2" to 2.5" by 4" to 4.5"

grid spacing, uncoated or coated with a substance other than zinc or zinc oxide.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table V-3

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3,1

and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *
V-7

Table V-4

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4,1

and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

Period

United States China

Price

(per unit)

Quantity

(units)

Price

(per unit)

Quantity

(units) Margin (percent)

2006:

 January-March $11.15 437,333 $*** *** ***

 April-June 11.23 427,443 *** *** ***

 July-September 11.48 458,260 *** *** ***

 October-December 11.43 426,053 *** *** ***

2007:

 January-March 10.96 442,043 *** *** ***

 April-June 10.71 449,044 *** *** ***

 July-September 11.21 399,041 *** *** ***

 October-December 10.94 364,042 *** *** ***

2008:

 January-March 11.18 537,525 *** *** ***

 April-June 13.41 469,802 *** *** ***

 July-September 16.93 288,585 *** *** ***

 October-December 15.22 274,259 *** *** ***

2009:

 January-March 11.86 202,477 *** *** ***

 1 Wire decking, 42" (depth) x 46" (width), step channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6 gauge wire, 2" to 2.5" by 4" to 4.5" grid

spacing, uncoated or coated with a substance other than zinc or zinc oxide.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-8

Table V-5

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5,1

and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009 

Period

United States China

Price

(per unit)

Quantity

(units)

Price

(per unit)

Quantity

(units) Margin (percent)

2006:

 January-March $*** *** $*** *** ***

 April-June *** *** *** *** ***

 July-September *** *** *** *** ***

 October-December *** *** *** *** ***

2007:

 January-March *** *** *** *** ***

 April-June *** *** *** *** ***

 July-September *** *** 11.17 33,510 ***

 October-December *** *** *** *** ***

2008:

 January-March *** *** *** *** ***

 April-June *** *** 13.65 31,995 ***

 July-September *** *** 16.28 23,991 ***

 October-December *** *** 15.92 14,990 ***

2009:

 January-March *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Wire decking, 48" (depth) x 46" (width), flanged channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6 gauge wire, 2" to 2.5" by 4" to 4.5"

grid spacing, coated with zinc or zinc oxide. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table V-6

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 6,1

and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 1 as reported by

U.S. producers and importers, by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Figure V-3

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 2 as reported by

U.S. producers and importers, by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

* * * * * * *
 17 Products 1, 3, and 5 are galvanized products that ***. 

V-9

Figure V-4

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 3 as reported by

U.S. producers and importers, by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Figure V-5

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 4 as reported by

U.S. producers and importers, by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Figure V-6

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 5 as reported by

U.S. producers and importers, by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Figure V-7

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of product 6 as reported by

U.S. producers and importers, by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Price Trends

Prices of U.S.-produced wire decking generally decreased from the start of 2006 until the third

quarter of 2006. Prices then generally fell through the first half of 2007. Prices increased slightly

through the first quarter of 2008 before rapidly increasing (about 20 percent in each quarter across all

products) in the second and third quarters, as raw material input prices were rising.17 In the final two

quarters of the period of study, as raw material prices fell, prices for these wire decking products

decreased as well. In the first quarter of 2009, prices fell across all products, and by more than 20 percent

for products 1, 2, and 4. Overall, prices for these six products increased from the first quarter of 2006 to

the first quarter of 2009, by amounts ranging from 1.5 percent (product 2) to *** percent ***.

Prices of wire decking products imported from China followed similar trends since 2006. During

the middle of 2008, prices of wire decking from China did not increase as much as domestic price did, nor

did they fall as greatly in the last quarter of 2009. In the first quarter of 2009, prices fell a little more for

imported Chinese wire decking than domestically produced wire decking did (22.3 percent compared to

21.4 percent). Overall, prices for five of these six products increased from the first quarter of 2006 to the

first quarter of 2009, by amounts ranging from 1.5 percent (product 1) to *** percent ***. For ***,

prices over the period of study decreased *** percent.

Price Comparisons

Imports of wire decking from China undersold the U.S. product in 76 of 77 quarterly

comparisons, with margins of underselling ranging from 2.0 to 54.3 percent. Conversely, imports of wire

decking from China oversold the U.S. product in one quarterly comparison, with a margin of overselling

6.0 percent. A summary of margins of underselling and overselling is presented in table V-7.
 18 Respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 19-20. In addition, respondents submitted ***. Respondents’

postconference brief, exh. 4.

 19 If coatings were to be disregarded, so that products 1 and 2 were combined into a single pricing product, as

well as product 3 with product 4 and product 5 with product 6, *** ***. In the remaining ***.

 20 Respondents’ postconference brief, exh. 3. Among these documents, comparisons were made 17 times

regarding ***, 16 times regarding ***, 8 times with no specific domestic producer, 7 times with respect to ***, 2

times with respect to ***, and 4 times regarding some other distributor. Additionally, 17 documents were submitted

without a point of comparison. Six quotes noted the importance of, or sales lost due to, lead times. 

 21 Conference transcript, pp. 169-170 (Kedaitis and Wolfe).

 22 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 25-26.

 23 Ibid. However, respondents submitted ***. Respondents’ postconference brief, exh. 3.

 24 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 26.

V-10

Table V-7

Wire decking: Number of quarters of underselling and overselling and highest and lowest margins

of underselling and (overselling), by product number

Product

Number of

quarters of

underselling

Number of

quarters of

(overselling)

Margins of underselling Margins of (overselling)

Average 

(percent) 

Range

(percent)

Average 

(percent)

Range

(percent)

Min Max Min Max

1 13 0 23.0 9.5 43.1 -- -- -- 

2 12 1 13.3 6.5 22.5 (6.0)1 (6.0)1 (6.0)1

3 13 0 18.8 10.1 25.8 -- -- --

4 13 0 10.0 2.0 20.6 -- -- --

5 13 0 17.6 2.7 54.3 -- -- --

6 12 0 16.6 6.6 29.5 -- -- --

Total 76 1 16.6 2.0 54.3 (6.0) (6.0) (6.0)

 1 This occurred during ***, and may be reflective of the very low quantity (***) of imported Chinese wire decking sold

in that quarter.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Respondents noted that pricing data submitted by Atlas and ITC, which respondents contend is

the cause for the decline in prices of wire decking, showed ***.18 In a comparison of these two

companies’ pricing data, ***. In contrast, ***.19 Respondents submitted internal price quotes, sales

notes, correspondence and published price pages regarding domestic manufacturers’ prices from

December 2008 forward.20 Petitioners surmised that the low-priced domestic manufacturer that

respondents were referring to in their testimony at that conference21 was ***.22 Petitioners reported that

***.23 Furthermore, petitioners stated that ***.24
 25 The Commission was not supplied with sufficient information to investigate lost revenue allegations with

respect to ***. *** did not ***. Staff contacted all purchasers on two separate occasions.

 26 The lost revenue and lost sales allegations were made by ***. 

 27 Fax from ***.

 28 Fax from ***.

 29 Fax from ***.

V-11

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

The Commission requested that U.S. producers of wire decking report any instances of lost sales

and lost revenues experienced due to competition from imports from China since January 1, 2006. Six

producers reported having lost sales or revenues to purchasers during this time period. Also, all three of

the producers that did not file the petition reported that they had reduced prices and one had rolled back

announced price increases, allegedly due to imports from China. All three of these producers also alleged

that they had lost sales due to low-priced imports from China. All of the lost sales and lost revenue

allegations are presented in tables V-8 and V-9. More detail is provided for some of the allegations

thereafter. 

Staff contacted 36 listed purchasers, of which 18 purchasers responded.25 There were *** lost 

sales allegations totaling $*** and *** lost revenue allegations totaling $***.26 Eleven of the lost sales

allegations and three of the lost revenue allegations were confirmed, totaling $*** and $***, respectively. 

Additional information, where relevant, is summarized in the individual responses below.

Table V-8

Wire decking: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

Table V-9

Wire decking: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations

* * * * * * *27

In addition, purchasers responding to lost sales and lost revenue allegations were asked whether

they shifted their purchases of wire decking from U.S. producers to suppliers of wire decking from China

since January 2006. Four of the 17 responding purchasers (***) reported that they had shifted purchases

of wire decking from U.S. producers to subject imports since January 1, 2006; all of these purchasers

reported that price was the reason for the shift. Purchasers *** and *** stated that, in addition to price,

quality, delivery times, and service are all important factors in their purchase decisions. Purchaser ***

reported that it is often less expensive to purchase pallet rack and wire decks from separate manufacturers

due to specialization rather than manufacturers that provide both pallet racks and wire decks.

In addition, six of 15 responding purchasers (***) reported that since January 1, 2006, U.S.

producers reduced their prices in order to compete with the prices of subject imports. Additionally, ***.28

The four purchasers responding that domestic producers had not reduced prices in response to the pricing

of imported Chinese wire decking stated why they responded negatively: *** and *** reported that the

falling prices were due to the falling prices in all steel products, and *** stated that “the domestics are

selling for the same or for less” than the imported wire decks.29

 1

 The producers with a fiscal year end other than December are ***. However, the financial data of *** were

submitted on a calendar year basis. 

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL CONDITION OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Seven producers,1

 provided usable financial data for their operations on wire decking. These

firms accounted for the vast majority of the domestic industry’s production/sales volume during 2008. 

No internal consumption or related transfers were reported.

OPERATIONS ON WIRE DECKING

Results of operations of the U.S. producers on their wire decking operations are presented in table

VI-1, which includes data on a per-unit basis as well as operating income (loss) to net sales ratio. 

The financial results of the producers on their wire decking operations deteriorated over the

period data were gathered. Net sales quantities decreased by over 13 percent from 2006 to 2008, and

were 49 percent lower in January-March (interim) 2009 compared to January-March (interim) 2008. Net

sales values remained at almost the same level between the full-year periods (actually a slight increase of

less than 0.01 percent) and decreased substantially by almost 41 percent between the two interim periods. 

Net sales value increased negligibly between 2006 and 2008, as the increase in the per-pound sale values

(from *** per pound) offset the decrease in sales quantities. Operating income decreased continuously

and the result was an operating income of less than $1 million in 2008 compared to an operating income

of over $11 million in 2006. The decrease in the operating income between 2007 and 2008 resulted from

the $0.10 per pound increase in unit sales values being $0.02 per pound lower than the $0.12 per pound

increase in unit total costs – the unit cost of goods sold (“COGS”) increased by $0.12 per pound (led

primarily by the increase of raw material costs) while unit selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”)

expenses remained relatively the same level, for a net total cost (COGS and SG&A expenses combined)

increase of $0.12 per pound. 

Unit sales values also increased by *** per pound (17 percent) between the two interim periods,

but unit total costs increased by *** per pound (35 percent), resulting in an operating loss of

approximately $2.9 million in interim 2009 compared to an operating income of over $0.7 million in

interim 2008. Five out of total seven producers experienced operating losses during interim 2009 while

each of the remaining two producers reported operating income to net sales ratios of ***.

The increases in the per-unit COGS relative to per-unit selling prices resulted in decreased

operating income from 2007 ($9.1 million) to 2008 ($0.8 million) and again from interim 2008 ($0.7

million) to interim 2009 (negative $2.9 million). The operating margin (negative 12.0 percent) in interim

2009 was the worst during the entire period data were collected and examined. 
VI-2

Table VI-1

Wire decking: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08, January-March 2008,

and January-March 2009

Item

Fiscal year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Net sales 318,084 299,938 275,545 73,017 36,932

Value ($1,000)

Net sales 178,817 166,058 178,832 40,285 23,924

COGS 155,706 144,735 165,710 36,529 24,237

Gross profit (loss) 23,111 21,323 13,122 3,756 (313)

SG&A expenses 11,713 12,227 12,285 3,007 2,546

Operating income (loss) 11,398 9,096 837 749 (2,859)

Interest expense 1,846 2,096 1,491 371 199

Other expense 2,031 1,717 2,511 423 224

Other income 2,274 2,187 2,953 520 209

Net income (loss) 9,795 7,470 (212) 475 (3,073)

Depreciation/amortization 5,531 4,817 4,696 1,179 1,046

Cash flow 15,326 12,287 4,484 1,654 (2,027)

Value (per pound)

Net sales $0.56 $0.55 $0.65 $0.55 $0.65

COGS 0.49 0.48 0.60 0.50 0.66

Gross profit (loss) 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 (0.01)

SG&A expenses 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07

Operating income (loss) 0.04 0.03 0.001 0.01 (0.08)

Ratio to net sales (percent)

COGS 87.1 87.2 92.7 90.7 101.3

Gross profit (loss) 12.9 12.8 7.3 9.3 (1.3)

SG&A expenses 6.6 7.4 6.9 7.5 10.6

Operating income (loss) 6.4 5.5 0.5 1.9 (12.0)

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses 3 4 4 4 5

Data 7 7 7 7 7

 1 Positive, but less than $0.004.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 2

 June 24, 2009 e-mail from ***.

 3

 June 25, 2009 e-mail from ***. ***.

 4

 June 23, 24, 26, and July 1 e-mails from ***. When the utility of the goods in the ordinary course of business is

no longer as great as their cost, a departure from the cost principle of measuring the inventory is required. Whether

the cause is obsolescence, physical deterioration, changes in price levels, or any other, the difference should be

recognized by a charge to income in the current period. This usually is accomplished by stating the goods at a lower

level designated as market (lower of cost or market principle) (ARB-43, Chapter 4, Statement 5). However, another

Generally Accepted Accounting Principle (“GAAP”), Financial Accounting Standard (FAS-151, Inventory Costs; an

amendment of ARB No.43, Chapter 4) requires that abnormal amounts be recognized as current-period charges

regardless of whether they meet the criterion of “so abnormal.”

 5

 June 25, 2009 e-mail from ***. Refer to footnote 3 in this section.

VI-3

Selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table VI-2. While four producers experienced

operating losses in 2008 and interim 2008, five producers incurred operating losses in interim 2009. ***

experienced substantial operating losses in interim 2009, ***, respectively. *** raw material costs

increased due to an increase of wire costs in 2008 and interim 2009 and its per-unit factory overhead and

SG&A expenses also increased in interim 2009 due to the decline in production/sales quantities.2

 ***

increased, mainly due to *** in 2008 and interim 2009 compared to 2007 and interim 2008.3

 The per-unit

raw material costs of *** increased substantially in 2008 and/or interim 2009, and the unit factory

overhead of *** and unit SG&A expenses of *** increased substantially in 2008 and interim 2009,

respectively, mainly due to *** in 2008 and interim 2009 compared to 2007 and interim 2008,

respectively. ***.4

Table VI-2

Wire decking: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, fiscal years 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Selected aggregate per-unit cost data of the producers on their operations, i.e., COGS and SG&A

expenses, are presented in table VI-3. Raw material costs (largely wire rod, wire, and hot-rolled steel and

slit sheet steel) increased *** from 2007 to 2008 and again from interim 2008 to interim 2009, and

factory overhead increased substantially from interim 2008 to interim 2009, which resulted in much

higher COGS and total cost (which included SG&A expenses).5

 SG&A expenses also increased *** from

interim 2008 ($*** per pound) to interim 2009 ($*** per pound), the result of *** production/sales

quantities for the majority of producers.
VI-4

Table VI-3

Wire decking: Per-unit costs of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

Item

Fiscal year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

COGS: Value (per pound)

 Raw materials $0.33 $0.34 $0.44 $0.35 $0.44

 Direct labor 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06

 Factory overhead 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.15

 Total COGS 0.49 0.48 0.60 0.50 0.66

SG&A expenses 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07

 Total cost 0.53 0.52 0.65 0.54 0.73

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

A variance analysis showing the effects of prices and volume on the producers’ sales of wire

decking, and of costs and volume on their total cost, is shown in table VI-4. The analysis is summarized

at the bottom of the table. The analysis indicates that the decrease in operating income ($10.6 million)

between 2006 and 2008 was attributable mainly to the negative effect of increased costs/expenses ($33.0 

million) which was partially offset by the positive effect of increased price ($23.9 million). The decrease

in operating income in interim 2009 relative to interim 2008 was attributable again to a negative 

cost/expense variance in conjunction with a favorable price variance. 
VI-5

Table VI-4

Wire decking: Variance analysis of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Between fiscal years

JanuaryMarch

2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Value ($1,000)

Net sales:

 Price variance 23,929 (2,558) 26,279 3,548

 Volume variance (23,914) (10,201) (13,505) (19,909)

 Total net sales variance 15 (12,759) 12,774 (16,361)

Cost of sales:

 Cost variance (30,827) 2,088 (32,746) (5,761)

 Volume variance 20,823 8,883 11,771 18,053

 Total cost variance (10,004) 10,971 (20,975) 12,292

Gross profit variance (9,989) (1,788) (8,201) (4,069)

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance (2,138) (1,182) (1,052) (1,025)

 Volume variance 1,566 668 994 1,486

 Total SG&A variance (572) (514) (58) 461

Operating income variance (10,561) (2,302) (8,259) (3,608)

Summarized as:

 Price variance 23,929 (2,558) 26,279 3,548

 Net cost/expense variance (32,966) 906 (33,798) (6,786)

 Net volume variance (1,524) (650) (740) (370)

Note.--Unfavorable variances are shown in parentheses; all others are favorable. The data are comparable to

changes in operating income as presented in table VI-1.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
VI-6

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES

The responding firms’ aggregate data on capital expenditures and research and development

(“R&D”) expenses are presented in table VI-5. *** accounted for a majority of the domestic industry’s

capital expenditures during the period for which data were collected. Capital expenditures decreased

from 2006 to 2007 due to *** and increased from 2007 to 2008 due mainly to ***. Four producers

reported R&D expenses. R&D expenses increased slightly and continuously between 2006 to 2008 and

decreased somewhat between the two interim periods. Capital expenditures, by firm, are presented in

table VI-6. 

Table VI-5

Wire decking: Capital expenditures and R&D expenses by U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-6

Wire decking: Capital expenditures by U.S. producers, by firms, fiscal years 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, and January-March 2009 

* * * * * * *

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

U.S. producers were requested to provide data on their assets used in the production and sales of

wire decking during the period for which data were collected to assess their return on investment (“ROI”). 

Although ROI can be computed in different ways, a commonly used method is operating income earned

during the period divided by the total assets utilized for the operations. Therefore, staff calculated ROI as

operating income divided by total assets used in the production and sales of wire decking. Data on the

U.S. producers’ total assets and their ROI are presented in table VI-7. 

The value of total assets decreased between 2006 and 2008 as net accounts receivable and net

book value of property, plant, and equipment (PPE) decreased continuously over the period. The trend of

ROI over the period was the same as the trend of the operating loss margin to net sales in table VI-1 over

the same period.
VI-7

Table VI-7

Wire decking: Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08

Item

At end of fiscal year

2006 2007 2008

Value of assets: Value ($1,000)

1. Current assets:

 A. Cash and equivalents 714 2,859 1,911

 B. Trade receivables (net) 29,046 28,945 22,569

 C. Inventories 26,226 22,360 28,027

 D. All other current 577 524 306

 Total current 56,563 54,688 52,813

2. Non-current assets:

 A. Productive facilities1 120,434 118,251 116,582

 B. Productive facilities (net)2

 68,383 67,822 62,513

 C. Other non-current 4,938 5,133 8,770

 Total non-current 73,321 72,955 71,283

 Total assets 129,884 127,643 124,096

 Value ($1,000)

Operating income (loss) 11,398 9,096 837

Ratio of operating income to total assets (percent)

Return on investment 8.8 7.1 0.7

 1 Original cost of property, plant, and equipment (PPE).

 2

 Net book value of PPE (original cost less accumulated depreciation). 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual or potential negative effects on

their return on investment, or their growth, investment, ability to raise capital, existing development and

production efforts, or the scale of capital investments as a result of imports of wire decking from China. 

Their responses were in appendix E.

 1

 Section 771(7)(F)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii)) provides that “The Commission shall consider

{these factors} . . . as a whole in making a determination of 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 under this title. The presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to

consider . . . shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the determination. Such a determination

may not be made on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition.”

VII-1

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION

ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

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

In determining whether an industry in the United States is threatened

with material injury by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of the

subject merchandise, the Commission shall consider, among other

relevant economic factors1

--

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be

presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the

subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a

subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement), and

whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial

increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the

likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export

markets to absorb any additional exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of

imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of

substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices

that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on

domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the

foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise,

are currently being used to produce other products,

(VII) in any investigation under this title which involves imports of both

a raw agricultural product (within the meaning of paragraph (4)(E)(iv))

and any product processed from such raw agricultural product, the

likelihood that there will be increased imports, by reason of product

shifting, if there is an affirmative determination by the Commission
 2

 Section 771(7)(F)(iii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(iii)) further provides that, in antidumping

investigations, “. . . the Commission shall consider whether dumping in the markets of foreign countries (as

evidenced by dumping findings or antidumping remedies in other WTO member markets against the same class or

kind of merchandise manufactured or exported by the same party as under investigation) suggests a threat of material

injury to the domestic industry.”

 3

 Petition, exh. General-4. Petitioners and respondents appear to disagree as to the number of substantial

producers of wire decking in China. Petitioners submitted a list of 83 producers in the petition. Subsequently,

petitioners submitted a list of 48 firms in China which they believed produced wire decking. Petitioners’

postconference brief, exh. 18. Petitioners allege that many producers of wire decking have not responded to the

Commission’s questionnaire and that the reported data for China is significantly understated. 

Respondents claimed that there are eight predominate producers in China that accounted for more than 90

percent of exports to the United States during the period of investigation. These firms include: (1) Eastfound; (2)

Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd. (“Huameilong”); (3) Dalian Xingbo Metal Products Co., Ltd.

(“Xingbo”); (4) Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co., Ltd. (“Riqian”); (5) Tianjin Jiali Machine Manufacturing

Co., Ltd. (“Jiali”); (6) Tianjin Dingxing Co., Ltd. (“Dingxing”); (7) Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.

(“Zhonglian”); and (8) Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corp. (“Machinery”). 

Respondents asserted that the eight predominate Chinese producers listed above serve the three major U.S.

importers (Atlas, Nashville Wire, and Mighty Lift). The remaining producers of wire decking in China supply the

“other” U.S. importers which they allege consist of small, independent importers and big-box retailers and never

accounted for more than *** percent of exports during the period of investigation. Respondents’ postconference

brief, exh. 2. Petitioners reported that ***. Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 39.

VII-2

under section 705(b)(1) or 735(b)(1) with respect to either the raw

agricultural product or the processed agricultural product (but not both),

(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).2

Information on the nature of the alleged subsidies was presented in Part I of this report;

information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV and

V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing

development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the subject

merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any other

threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in third-country markets, follows.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The Commission requested data from 83 firms which were listed in the petition and believed to

produce wire decking in China during the period of investigation.3

 The Commission received five

responses, including one from a large producer of wire decking in China, Dalian Eastfound Metal

Products Co., Ltd. and its related company Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Co., Ltd. (collectively
 4

 The four additional producers in China that submitted foreign producer questionnaires include: ***. These

firms represent *** percent of reported 2008 Chinese production of wire decking.

The Commission also received responses from *** firms reporting that they did not produce or export the

subject product to the United States during the period of investigation. These firms include: ***. 

 5

 Eastfound’s foreign producer questionnaire, questions II-3 and II-4. Eastfound’s exports to the United States

accounted for *** percent of the total 2008 exports to the United States and *** percent of total 2008 production in

China reported to the Commission and set forth in Table VII-1. 

 6

 Eastfound reported that on February 1, 2009, it closed one of its two wire decking manufacturing facilities and

since October of 2008 has laid off more than 500 PRWs. Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 5; Conference

transcript, p. 132 (Song).

 7

 There is essentially no Chinese home market for wire decking as warehouses in China still generally use pallet

storage systems constructed with wood as opposed to steel decking. Conference transcript, p. 135 (Song);

Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 41-42.

VII-3

“Eastfound”).4

 Data regarding the Chinese industry are based on these five foreign producer

questionnaires, which are believed to account for approximately *** percent of Chinese export shipments

to the United States in 2008. Eastfound estimated that in 2008, it accounted for *** percent of total

exports of wire decking to the United States and *** percent to *** percent of total production of wire

decking in China.5

Table VII-1 presents data for capacity, production, and shipments of wire decking from all

reporting producers in China. Chinese producers’ capacity decreased by *** percent from 2006 to 2008

and decreased an additional *** percent between January-March 2008 and January-March 2009.6

Capacity is projected to *** percent from 2008 to 2009. The production of Chinese producers decreased

by *** percent from 2006 to 2008, and decreased by an additional *** percent between the interim

periods, and they project a *** percent from 2008 to 2009. Chinese producers reported capacity

utilization rates ranging from *** percent in January-March 2009 to *** percent in 2006 and interim

2008.

 Throughout the period of investigation, the majority of the Chinese producers’ shipments went to

the United States. Chinese producers’ volume of shipments to its home market are *** during the period

of investigation.7

 The volume of Chinese producers’ export shipments to the United States decreased by

*** percent from 2006 to 2008, and decreased as a share of China’s total shipments from *** percent of

their total shipments in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. From 2006 to 2008, Chinese shipments to other

countries increased by *** percent, and accounted for *** percent of total shipments in 2006 and ***

percent of total shipments in 2008. The largest reporting Chinese producer, Eastfound, reported that ***

are its principal export markets other than the United States. 

Table VII-1

Wire decking: China’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories,

2006-2008, January-March 2008, January-March 2009, and projections for 2009 and 2010

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Reported inventories held by U.S. importers of subject merchandise from China are shown in

table VII-2. No U.S. importer reported U.S. imports from countries other than China.
 8

 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).

 9

 E-mail correspondence from ***, July 6, 2009.

 10 http://www.necochea.com.mx/cuerpo.html,, retrieved July 8, 2009.

 11 Staff interview with ***, July 8, 2009.

VII-4

Table VII-2

Wire decking: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of subject and nonsubject imports, by

sources, 2006-2008, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

The Commission requested U.S. importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of wire decking after March 31, 2009. *** of the nine reporting U.S. importers stated that

they had imported or arranged for importation since March 31, 2009. Table VII-3 presents the *** U.S.

importers which indicated that they had imported or arranged for the importation of the subject product

from China and the quantity of those U.S. imports.

Table VII-3

Wire decking: U.S. importers’ orders of subject imports from China subsequent to March 31, 2009,

by firm

* * * * * * *

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

There is no indication that wire decking has been the subject of any other import relief

investigations in any other countries.

INFORMATION ON PRODUCERS IN 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.’”8

There is production of wire decking in both Canada and Mexico. In Mexico, Necochea

Internacional de Laminados, S.A. de C.V. (Necochea) produces wire decking at its plant in Gomez

Palacio, about 400 miles from Laredo TX.9

 According to its web site, Necochea is a manufacturer and

integrator of rack storage and retrieval systems.10

In Canada, there are at least two significant producers of wire decking, both located in the

Province of Quebec. Premier Wire has a capacity of about *** decks per year; is currently running at

about *** percent of capacity and sells its decking ***.11 The total Canadian market is estimated by ***
 12 Ibid.

 13 Staff interview with ***, July 7, 2009.

 14 Ibid.

 15 Staff interview with ***, July 8, 2009.

VII-5

decks per year.12 The second significant producer, Forma Fil, has a capacity of about *** decks per day,

or *** decks per year.13 It is currently running at about *** percent of capacity and sells its product ***,

although it does ***.14 There are two other producers in Canada, but their production is not significant.15

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 111 / Thursday, June 11, 2009 / Notices 27823 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[CO–923–1430–ET; COC–70704] 

Public Land Order No. 7735; 

Withdrawal of Public Lands To Protect 

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Maternity 

Roosts; Colorado 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Public Land Order. 

SUMMARY: This order withdraws 22.36 

acres of public lands from all forms of 

appropriation under the public land 

laws, including location under the 

United States mining laws, for a period 

of 20 years to protect three sites 

containing Townsend’s Big-eared Bat 

maternity roosts. The lands have been 

and will remain open to mineral leasing 

but no surface occupancy will be 

permitted on the sites. 

DATES: EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andy Senti, Realty Specialist, BLM 

Colorado State Office, 303–239–3713. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

withdrawal protects three Townsend’s 

Big-eared Bat maternity roosts found in 

abandoned mine adits. The adits 

affected have been depleted of their 

mineral potential and were abandoned. 

Order 

By virtue of the authority vested in 

the Secretary of the Interior by Section 

204 of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 

1714 (2000), it is ordered as follows: 

1. Subject to valid existing rights, the 

following described public lands are 

hereby withdrawn from all forms of 

appropriation under the public land 

laws, including location under the 

United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. 

Ch. 2 (2000)), but not from leasing under 

the minerals leasing laws, to protect 

sites containing maternity roosts of 

Townsend’s Big-eared Bats: 

New Mexico Principal Meridian; 

UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator); 

Coordinates Zone 12, E = Easting, N = 

Northing. 

Cory Mine 

T. 47 N., R. 17 W., 

Sec. 11, a metes and bounds parcel in the 

NW1⁄4NW1⁄4: Beginning at Corner No. 1 

NE (E = 699073, N = 4246679: running 

east 593 feet to Corner No. 2 NE (E = 

699255, N = 4246701): running south 

1,401 feet to Corner No. 3 SE (E = 

699250, N = 4246275): running west 530 

feet to Corner No. 4 SW (E = 699091, N 

= 4246255): running north 1,388 feet 

back to Corner No. 1 NW; 

The area described contains approximately 

17.8 acres in Montrose County. 

Pup Tent Mine 

T. 49 N., R. 17 W., 

Sec. 4, a metes and bounds parcel within 

lot 1 and the NW1⁄4NW1⁄4: Beginning at 

Corner No. 1 NW (E = 694067, N = 

4268314: running easterly 252 feet to 

Corner No. 2 NE (E = 694141, N = 

4268296): running south 252 feet to 

Corner No. 3 SE (E = 694143, N = 

4268220): running westerly 267 feet to 

Corner No. 4 SW (E= 694067, N = 

4268251): running north 207 feet back To 

Corner No. 1 NW; 

The area described contains approximately 

1.31 acres in Mesa County. 

Mother Bat Mine 

T. 43 N., R. 18 W. 

Sec. 15, a metes and bounds parcel within 

the SW1⁄4SE1⁄4: Beginning at Corner No. 

1 NE (E = 689846, N = 4206148: running 

easterly 305 feet to Corner No. 2 NE (E 

= 689938, N = 4206144): running south 

489 feet to Corner No. 3 SE (E = 689908, 

N = 4206000): running westerly 300 feet 

to Corner No. 4 SW (E = 689819, N = 

4206006: running north 475 feet back to 

Corner No. 1 SW. 

The area described contains approximately 

3.25 acres in San Miguel County. 

The total areas described aggregate 

approximately 22.36 acres in Mesa, 

Montrose, and San Miguel Counties. 

2. The withdrawal made by this order 

does not alter the applicability of those 

public land laws governing the use of 

the land under lease, license, or permit, 

or governing the disposal of the mineral 

or vegetative resources other than under 

the mining laws. 

3. This withdrawal will expire 20 

years from the effective date of this 

order, unless, as a result of a review 

conducted before the expiration date 

pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (2000), the 

Secretary determines that the 

withdrawal shall be extended. 

Dated: May 26, 2009. 

Ken Salazar, 

Secretary of the Interior. 

[FR Doc. E9–13638 Filed 6–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–JB–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–466 and 731– 

TA–1162 (Preliminary)] 

Wire Decking from China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations and 

scheduling of preliminary phase 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the institution of investigations 

and commencement of preliminary 

phase antidumping and countervailing 

duty investigations Nos. 701–TA–466 

and 731–TA–1162 (Preliminary) under 

sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 

1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that an industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, or the establishment of 

an industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

imports from China of wire decking, 

provided for in subheading 

9403.90.8040 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States, that are 

alleged to be sold in the United States 

at less than fair value and alleged to be 

subsidized by the Government of China. 

Unless the Department of Commerce 

extends the time for initiation pursuant 

to sections 702(c)(1)(B) or 732(c)(1)(B) of 

the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671a(c)(1)(B) or 

1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must 

reach a preliminary determination in 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

investigations in 45 days, or in this case 

by July 20, 2009. The Commission’s 

views are due at Commerce within five 

business days thereafter, or by July 27, 

2009. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of these investigations and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: June 5, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher J. Cassise (202–708–5408), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—These investigations are 

being instituted in response to a petition 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
27824 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 111 / Thursday, June 11, 2009 / Notices 

filed on June 5, 2009, by AWP 

Industries, Inc., Frankfort, KY; ITC 

Manufacturing, Inc., Phoenix, AZ; J&L 

Wire Cloth, Inc., St. Paul, MN; and 

Nashville Wire Products Mfg. Co., Inc., 

Nashville, TN. 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list.—Persons (other than 

petitioners) wishing to participate in the 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the 

Commission’s rules, not later than seven 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Industrial users 

and (if the merchandise under 

investigation is sold at the retail level) 

representative consumer organizations 

have the right to appear as parties in 

Commission antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations. The 

Secretary will prepare a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to these investigations 

upon the expiration of the period for 

filing entries of appearance. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in these investigations 

available to authorized applicants 

representing interested parties (as 

defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are 

parties to the investigations under the 

APO issued in the investigations, 

provided that the application is made 

not later than seven days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. A separate service list will be 

maintained by the Secretary for those 

parties authorized to receive BPI under 

the APO. 

Conference.—The Commission’s 

Director of Investigations has scheduled 

a conference in connection with these 

investigations for 9:30 a.m. on June 26, 

2009, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building, 500 E Street, 

SW., Washington, DC. Parties wishing to 

participate in the conference should 

contact Christopher J. Cassise (202–708– 

5408) not later than June 24, 2009, to 

arrange for their appearance. Parties in 

support of the imposition of 

antidumping and countervailing duties 

in these investigations and parties in 

opposition to the imposition of such 

duties will each be collectively 

allocated one hour within which to 

make an oral presentation at the 

conference. A nonparty who has 

testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the conference. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the 

Commission’s rules, any person may 

submit to the Commission on or before 

July 1, 2009, a written brief containing 

information and arguments pertinent to 

the subject matter of the investigations. 

Parties may file written testimony in 

connection with their presentation at 

the conference no later than three days 

before the conference. If briefs or 

written testimony contain BPI, they 

must conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the investigations 

must be served on all other parties to 

the investigations (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.12 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: June 8, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–13703 Filed 6–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Proposed Collection, Comment 

Request 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as 

part of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden, 

conducts a pre-clearance consultation 

program to provide the general public 

and Federal agencies with an 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

and/or continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c) (2)(A)]. This 

program helps to ensure that requested 

data can be provided in the desired 

format, reporting burden (time and 

financial resources) is minimized, 

collection instruments are clearly 

understood, and the impact of collection 

requirements on respondents can be 

properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments 

concerning the proposed extension of 

the ‘‘International Price Program—U.S. 

Import and Export Product 

Information.’’ A copy of the proposed 

information collection request (ICR) can 

be obtained by contacting the individual 

listed below in the ADDRESSES section of 

this notice. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the office listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice on or 

before August 10, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Nora 

Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, 

Division of Management Systems, 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 

2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., 

Washington, DC 20212. Written 

comments also may be transmitted by 

fax to 202–691–5111 (this is not a toll 

free number). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, 

202–691–7628 (this is not a toll free 

number). (See ADDRESSES section.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The U.S. Import and Export Price 

Indexes, produced by the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics’ International Price 

Program (IPP), measure price change 

over time for all categories of imported 

and exported products, as well as many 

services. The IPP has produced the U.S. 

Import Price Indexes continuously since 

1973 and the U.S. Export Price Indexes 

continuously since 1971. The Office of 

Management and Budget has listed the 

Import and Export Price Indexes as a 

Principal Federal Economic Indicator 

since 1982. The indexes are widely used 

in both the public and private sectors. 

The primary public sector use is the 

deflation of the U.S. Trade Statistics and 

the Gross Domestic Product; the indexes 

also are used in formulating U.S. trade 

policy and in trade negotiations with 

other countries. In the private sector, 

uses of the Import Price Indexes include 

market analysis, inflation forecasting, 

contract escalation, and replacement 

cost accounting. 

The IPP indexes are closely followed 

statistics, and are viewed as a sensitive 

indicator of the economic environment. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 31691 

1See the Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Pursuant 

to Sections 701 and 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (‘‘Petition’’), filed on June 5, 2009. On 

June 22, 2009, Petitioners submitted a letter stating 

that another domestic producer of the like product, 

Wireway Husky Corporation, had joined the 

petition. 

Pingluo Xuanzhong Activated Carbon 

Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Pingluo Yaofu 

Activated Carbon Factory; Ningxia Taixi 

Activated Carbon; Ningxia Tianfu 

Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Ningxia 

Tongfu Coking Co., Ltd.; Ningxia 

Weining Active Carbon Co., Ltd.; 

Ningxia Xingsheng Coal and Active 

Carbon Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Xingsheng 

Coke and Activated Carbon; Ningxia 

Yinchuan Lanqiya Activated Carbon 

Co., Ltd.; Ningxia Yirong Alloy Iron Co., 

Ltd.; Ningxia Zhengyuan Activated; 

OEC Logistic Qingdao Co., Ltd.; 

Panshan Import and Export Corporation; 

Pingluo Xuanzhong Activated Carbon 

Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Activated Carbon 

Co. Ltd.; Shanghai Coking and Chemical 

Corporation; Shanghai Goldenbridge 

International; Shanghai Jiayu 

International Trading Co. Ltd.; Shanghai 

Jinhu Activated Carbon; Shanghai 

Mebao Activated Carbon; Shanhai 

Xingchang Activated Carbon; Shanxi 

Blue Sky Purification Material Co., Ltd.; 

Shanxi Qixian Hongkai Active Carbon 

Goods; Shanxi Supply and Marketing 

Cooperative; Shanxi Tianli Ruihai 

Enterprise Co.; Shanxi Xiaoyi Huanyu 

Chemicals Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Xinhua 

Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Shanxi 

Xinhua Chemical Co., Ltd.; Shanxi 

Xinhua Chemical Factory; Shanxi 

Xinhua Protective Equipment; Shanxi 

Xinshidai Imp. Exp. Co., Ltd.; Shanxi 

Zuoyun Yunpeng Coal Chemistry; 

Shenzhen Sihaiweilong Technology Co.; 

Sincere Carbon Industrial Co., Ltd.; 

Taining Jinhu Carbon; Tianchang 

(Tianjin) Activated Carbon; Tonghua 

Bright Future Activated Carbon Plant; 

Tonghua Xinpeng Activated Carbon 

Factory; Valqua Seal Products 

(Shanghai) Co; Wellink Chemical 

Industry; Xi Li Activated Carbon Co., 

Ltd.; Xiamen All Carbon Corporation; 

Xingan County Shenxin Activated 

Carbon Factory; Xinhua Chemical 

Company Ltd.; Xinyuan Carbon; 

Xuanzhong Chemical Industry; 

Yangyuan Hengchang Active Carbon; 

Yicheng Logistics; Yinchuan Lanqiya 

Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; Yinyuan 

Carbon; YunGuan Chemical Factory; 

Yuanguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; 

Yuyang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.; 

Zhejiang Quizhou Zhongsen Carbon; 

Zhejiang Yun He Tang Co., Ltd.; Zhuxi 

Activated Carbon; Zuoyun Bright Future 

Activated Carbon Plant. The Petitioners 

were the only party to request a review 

of these companies. 

Partial Rescission 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Secretary will rescind an administrative 

review, in whole or in part, if a party 

who requested the review withdraws 

the request within 90 days of the date 

of publication of notice of initiation of 

the requested review. The Petitioners’ 

request was submitted within the 90- 

day period, and thus, is timely. Because 

the Petitioners’ withdrawal of requests 

for review is timely and because no 

other party requested a review of the 

aforementioned companies, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), 

we are rescinding this review with 

respect to the above listed companies. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. For those 

companies for which this review has 

been rescinded and which have a 

separate rate, antidumping duties shall 

be assessed at rates equal to the cash 

deposit of estimated antidumping duties 

required at the time of entry, or 

withdrawal from warehouse, for 

consumption, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(c)(2). The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of this notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers for whom this review is 

being rescinded, as of the publication 

date of this notice, of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: June 26, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–15701 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–949] 

Wire Decking 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 2, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Riggle or Andrea Staebler 

Berton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0650 and (202) 482–4037, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On June 5, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received 

an antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition 

concerning imports of wire decking 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’) filed in proper form by AWP 

Industries, Inc., ITC Manufacturing, 

Inc., J&L Wire Cloth, Inc., and Nashville 

Wire Products Mfg. Co., Inc., 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’).1 On June 

11, 2009, and June 12, 2009, the 

Department issued requests for 

additional information and clarification 

of certain areas of the Petition. Based on 

the Department’s request, Petitioners 

filed supplements to the Petition on 

June 16, 2009, and June 17, 2009 

(respectively, ‘‘Supplement to the AD/ 

CVD Petitions and Supplement to the 

AD Petition’’). The Department 

requested further clarifications from 

Petitioners by supplemental 

questionnaire and phone on June 18, 

2009, regarding scope, export price, and 

31692 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 

2See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Wire Decking 

form the People’s Republic of China: Phone Call 

with Petitioners Regarding Antidumping Petition 

Questions,’’ dated June 19, 2009; see also 

Memorandum to the File ‘‘Petitions for the 

Imposition of Antidumping Duties and 

Countervailing Duties on Wire Decking from the 

People’s Republic of China: Suggested Scope 

Changes,’’ dated June 22, 2009. 

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). 

surrogate values (‘‘SV’’).2 On June 19, 

2009, Petitioners filed the information 

requested regarding export price and on 

June 22, 2009, Petitioners filed the 

information requested in the additional 

supplemental questionnaire, including a 

revised scope (respectively ‘‘Second 

Supplement to the AD Petition, and 

Second Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions’’). 

On June 23 and 24, 2009, the 

Department contacted Petitioners to 

suggest additional changes to the scope 

language. On June 24, 2009, Petitioners 

filed a final version of the scope 

language. 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), Petitioners allege that imports of 

wire decking 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, or 

threaten material injury to, an industry 

in the United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioners 

are interested parties as defined in 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they 

have demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the investigation 

that they are requesting the Department 

to initiate (see ‘‘Determination of 

Industry Support for the Petition’’ 

below). 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are wire decking from the 

PRC. For a full description of the scope 

of the investigation, please see the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ in Appendix I 

of this notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioners to 

ensure that it is an accurate reflection of 

the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 

discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations (Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage. The Department encourages 

all interested parties to submit such 

comments by July 15, 2009, twenty 

calendar days from the signature date of 

this notice. Comments should be 

addressed to Import Administration’s 

APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. The period of 

scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determinations. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires 

We are requesting comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

wire decking to be reported in response 

to the Department’s antidumping 

questionnaires. This information will be 

used to identify the key physical 

characteristics of the subject 

merchandise in order to more accurately 

report the relevant factors and costs of 

production, as well as to develop 

appropriate product comparison 

criteria. 

Interested parties may provide any 

information or comments that they feel 

are relevant to the development of an 

accurate listing of physical 

characteristics. Specifically, they may 

provide comments as to which 

characteristics are appropriate to use as 

(1) general product characteristics and 

(2) the product comparison criteria. We 

note that it is not always appropriate to 

use all product characteristics as 

product comparison criteria. We base 

product comparison criteria on 

meaningful commercial differences 

among products. In other words, while 

there may be some physical product 

characteristics utilized by 

manufacturers to describe wire decking, 

it may be that only a select few product 

characteristics take into account 

commercially meaningful physical 

characteristics. In addition, interested 

parties may comment on the order in 

which the physical characteristics 

should be used in product matching. 

Generally, the Department attempts to 

list the most important physical 

characteristics first and the least 

important characteristics last. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing and 

issuing the antidumping duty 

questionnaires, we must receive 

comments at the above-referenced 

address by July 15, 2009. Additionally, 

rebuttal comments must be received by 

July 22, 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 31693 

4For a discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Wire Decking 

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 Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, dated 

June 16, 2009, at 9. 

6See Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, and 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

7See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

8See id. 

9See id. 

10See Initiation Checklist at Attachment III. 

11See Initiation Checklist for further discussion. 

12See Volume II of the Petition, at 2. 

13See 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. 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the Petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioners do not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that wire 

decking constitutes a single domestic 

like product and we have analyzed 

industry support in terms of that 

domestic like product.4

In determining whether Petitioners 

have standing under section 

732(c)(4)(A), we considered the industry 

support data contained in the Petition 

with reference to the domestic like 

product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section above. To 

establish industry support, Petitioners 

provided their 2008 production of the 

domestic like product, as well as the 

2008 production of the domestic like 

product for four non-petitioning 

companies who are supporters of the 

Petition, and compared this to total 

production of the domestic like product 

for the entire domestic industry. See 

Volume I of the Petition, at 4, and 

Exhibit General-1, and Supplement to 

the AD/CVD Petitions, dated June 16, 

2009, at 10, and Attachment 3, and 

Second Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions, dated June 22, 2009, at 3, and 

Attachment 1, and Petitioners’ 

Submission, dated June 22, 2009. 

Petitioners calculated total domestic 

production based on their own 

production plus data provided by the 

four non-petitioning companies that 

produce the domestic like product in 

the United States, who are supporters of 

the Petition. See Volume I of the 

Petition, at Exhibit General-1, and 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, 

dated June 16, 2009, at Attachment 3, 

and Second Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions, dated June 22, 2009, at 3, and 

Attachment 1; see also Initiation 

Checklist as Attachment II, Industry 

Support. In addition, Petitioners 

identified one other company as a 

producer of the domestic like product 

and were able to obtain its 2008 

production of the domestic like product 

in order to calculate total domestic 

production of the domestic like 

product.5

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department indicates that 

Petitioners have established industry 

support. First, the Petition established 

support from domestic producers (or 

workers) accounting for more than 50 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product and, as such, the 

Department is not required to take 

further action in order to evaluate 

industry support (e.g., polling).6

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 Petitions account for at least 

25 percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product.7 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.8

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and they have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

investigation that they are requesting 

the Department initiate.9

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than NV. In 

addition, Petitioners allege that subject 

imports exceed the negligibility 

threshold provided for under section 

771(24)(A) of the Act. 

Petitioners contend that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, increased import 

penetration, underselling and price 

depressing and suppressing effects, lost 

sales and revenue, reduced production, 

shipments, capacity, and capacity 

utilization, reduced employment, and 

an overall decline in financial 

performance. We have assessed the 

allegations and supporting evidence 

regarding material injury, threat of 

material injury, and causation, and have 

determined that these allegations are 

properly supported by adequate 

evidence and meet the statutory 

requirements for initiation.10

Period of Investigation 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1), because this Petition was 

filed on June 5, 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 

allegations of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department has based 

its decision to initiate an investigation 

with respect to 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. 

Export Price 

Petitioners calculated export prices 

(‘‘EPs’’) for wire decking based on three 

purchase orders and the corresponding 

invoices.11 The Department has not 

made any adjustments to U.S. EP. 

Normal Value 

Petitioners state that in every previous 

less-than-fair value investigation 

involving merchandise from the PRC, 

the Department has concluded that the 

PRC is a non-market economy country 

(‘‘NME’’) and, as the Department has not 

revoked this determination, its NME 

status remains in effect today.12 The 

Department has previously examined 

the PRC’s market status and determined 

that NME status should continue for the 

PRC.13 In addition, in recent 

31694 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 

14See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality 

Steel Line Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value, 74 FR 14514 (March 31, 2009); Frontseating 

Service Valves from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 13, 2009); 1- 

Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 10545 

(March 11, 2009). 

15See Volume II of the Petition, at 3. 

16See id. 

17See id. 

18See id. at 6. 

19See Volume II of the Petition, at 6–12, and 

Exhibit AD–3. See also Supplement to the AD 

Petition, dated June 17, 2009, at 5–8, and 

Attachments 6 and 7. 

20See Volume II of the Petition, at 8, and Exhibit 

AD–3. See also Supplement to the AD Petition, 

dated June 17, 2009, at 8, and Attachments 6 and 

7. For further discussions see Initiation Checklist. 

21See Volume II of the Petition, at 7–8, and 

Exhibit AD–3. 

22See Volume II of the Petition, at 10–11, and 

Exhibit AD–3. 

23See Initiation Checklist for further discussion. 

24See id. 

25See Initiation Checklist for further discussion, 

and Supplement to the AD Petition, dated June 17, 

2009, at 5–6, and Attachment 4. 

26See id. 

27See Volume II of the Petition, at 10. 

28See id. at 6–12, and Exhibit AD–3. See also 

Supplement to the AD Petition, dated June 17, 

2009, at 5–10, and Attachment 6. For further 

discussion see Initiation Checklist. 

29See Volume II of the Petition, at 7 and Exhibit 

AD–2. 

30See Volume II of the Petition, at 12, and Exhibit 

AD–3. See also Supplement to the AD Petition, 

dated June 17, 2009, at 9. 

investigations, the Department has 

continued to determine that the PRC is 

an NME country.14

In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the 

presumption of NME status remains in 

effect until revoked by the Department. 

The presumption of NME status for the 

PRC has not been revoked by the 

Department and, therefore, remains in 

effect for purposes of the initiation of 

this investigation. Accordingly, the 

normal value (‘‘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. 

Petitioners argue that India is the 

appropriate surrogate country for the 

PRC because it is at a comparable level 

of economic development and it is a 

significant producer of wire decking 

products.15 Petitioners state that the 

Department has determined in previous 

investigations and administrative 

reviews that India is at a level of 

development comparable to the PRC.16

Petitioners identified a major producer 

of wire decking in India, Mekins Agro 

Products Ltd. (‘‘Mekins’’), and assert 

that Mekins has the capacity to supply 

up to 500 metric tons of wire mesh 

products per month, indicating that 

India is a significant producer of wire 

decking products.17

Based on the information provided by 

Petitioners, the Department believes 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. 

Petitioners provided dumping margin 

calculations using the Department’s 

NME methodology as required by 19 

CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 

351.408. Petitioners calculated NVs for 

four wire decking products. 

Petitioners valued the factors of 

production using reasonably available, 

public surrogate country data, including 

India import data from the Monthly 

Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India 

(‘‘MSFTI’’) from the period July 2008 

through December 2008.18

Petitioners state that they valued 

drawing powder, wire, hot-rolled sheet, 

coating powder, steel scrap, metal scrap, 

and pallet using Indian import data 

from the MSFTI, under the following 

Indian HTS numbers: 7217.90.99 and 

7217.10.10 for wire; 7208.27.30, 

7208.39.30, 7208.54.30, 7211.19.10, 

7211.19.50, and 7211.19.90 for hotrolled sheet, 3907.91.20 for coating 

powder, 7204.41.00 for steel scrap, 

7208.39 for metal scrap, and 4415.20.00 

for pallet.19

Petitioners valued drawing powder 

using Indian import data from the 

MSFTI, under Indian HTS number 

3403.99.01 for the period April 2002 

through March 2003, because no 

contemporaneous data was readily 

available.20 Accordingly, the 

Department inflated April 2002 through 

March 2003 value to make it 

contemporaneous for our period. 

Petitioners valued carbon steel wire 

rod based on Indian domestic price 

statistics reported by the Joint Plant 

Committee (‘‘JPC’’). They adjusted these 

reported prices for excise and VAT 

taxes.21

Petitioners valued electricity, water 

and natural gas based on SVs used in a 

previous preliminary determination.22

In using the previous preliminary 

determination, Petitioners valued 

electricity using a rate from India’s 

Central Electricity Authority (‘‘CEA’’) 

from 2006 which was inflated.23

However, the Department has 

determined that because the rates listed 

in this source became effective on a 

variety of different dates, the average 

rate should not be adjusted for 

inflation.24 Therefore, the electricity 

value for this initiation is based on the 

reported 2006 CEA rate without any 

inflation. 

Petitioners submitted two values for 

electrogalvanization, a tolling process, 

one from JPC data and the other from 

Galrebars.25 The Department relied only 

on the value from Galrebars for 

electrogalvanization as this value was 

used previously by the Department in 

another proceeding.26

Petitioners valued labor using the 

wage rate data published on the 

Department’s Web site, at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/ 

05wages-051608.html.27

Where Petitioners were unable to find 

input prices contemporaneous with the 

POI, Petitioners adjusted for inflation 

using the wholesale price index for 

India, as published in ‘‘International 

Financial Statistics’’ by the International 

Monetary Fund.28 Petitioners used 

exchange rates, as provided on the 

Department’s Web site, to convert 

Indian Rupees to U.S. Dollars.29

Petitioners based factory overhead, 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), and profit, on the 

financial ratios of Mekins, an Indian 

producer of wire decking.30

Fair-Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioners, there is reason to believe 

that imports of wire decking from the 

PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold 

in the United States at less than fair 

value. Based on the comparison of EP to 

NV, as noted above, the estimated 

dumping margins for the PRC range 

from 143 percent to 316 percent. 

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation 

Based upon the examination of the 

Petition concerning wire decking from 

the PRC and other information 

reasonably available to the Department, 

the Department finds that this Petition 

meets the requirements of section 732 of 

the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an 

antidumping duty investigation to 

determine whether imports of wire 

decking from the PRC are being, or are 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 31695 

31See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions 

Governing Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 73 FR 74930 (December 10, 2008). 

32See id. at 74931. 

33See 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). 

34See 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). 

35See 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 Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

policy/bull05–1.pdf. 

36See 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). 

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 determinations no later 

than 140 days after the date of this 

initiation. 

Targeted-Dumping Allegations 

On December 10, 2008, the 

Department issued an interim final rule 

for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 

351.414(f) and (g), the regulatory 

provisions governing the targeteddumping analysis in antidumping duty 

investigations, and the corresponding 

regulation governing the deadline for 

targeted-dumping allegations, 19 CFR 

351.301(d)(5).31 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.’’ 32

In order to accomplish this objective, 

if any interested party wishes to make 

a targeted-dumping allegation in any of 

these investigations pursuant to section 

777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such 

allegations are due no later than 45 days 

before the scheduled date of the 

preliminary determination. 

Respondent Selection 

For the PRC, the Department will 

request quantity and value information 

from all known exporters and producers 

identified, with complete contact 

information, in the Petition. The 

quantity and value data received from 

NME exporters/producers will be used 

as the basis to select the mandatory 

respondents. 

The Department requires that the 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate-rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate-rate status.33

Appendix II of this notice contains the 

quantity and value questionnaire that 

must be submitted by all NME 

exporters/producers no later than July 

16, 2009. In addition, the Department 

will post the quantity and value 

questionnaire along with the filing 

instructions on the Import 

Administration Web site, at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html. The Department will send 

the quantity and value questionnaire to 

those PRC companies identified in the 

Petition, Volume I, at Exhibit General-4. 

Separate Rates 

In order to obtain separate-rate status 

in an NME investigation, exporters and 

producers must submit a separate-rate 

status application.34 The specific 

requirements for submitting the 

separate-rate application in this 

investigation are outlined in detail in 

the application itself, available on the 

Department’s Web site at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.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. 

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 35 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 POI. 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 cashdeposit 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 POI.36

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), a copy of the public version 

of the Petition has been provided to the 

representatives of the Government of the 

PRC. Because of the particularly large 

number of producers/exporters 

identified in the Petition, the 

Department considers the service of the 

public version of the Petition to the 

foreign producers/exporters satisfied by 

the delivery of the public version to the 

Government of the PRC, consistent with 

19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). 

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 July 20, 2009, whether 

there is a reasonable indication that 

imports of wire decking 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: June 25, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of the investigation covers 

welded-wire rack decking, which is also 

known as, among other things, ‘‘pallet rack 

decking,’’ ‘‘wire rack decking,’’ ‘‘wire mesh 

decking,’’ ‘‘bulk storage shelving,’’ or 

‘‘welded-wire decking.’’ Wire decking 

consists of wire mesh that is reinforced with 

structural supports and designed to be load 

bearing. The structural supports include 

sheet metal support channels, or other 

structural supports, that reinforce the wire 

mesh and that are welded or otherwise 

affixed to the wire mesh, regardless of 

whether the wire mesh and supports are 

assembled or unassembled and whether 

shipped as a kit or packaged separately. Wire 

decking is produced from carbon or alloy 

steel wire that has been welded into a mesh 

pattern. The wire may be galvanized or 

31696 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 

plated (e.g., chrome, zinc or nickel coated), 

coated (e.g., with paint, epoxy, or plastic), or 

uncoated (‘‘raw’’). The wire may be drawn or 

rolled and may have a round, square or other 

profile. Wire decking is sold in a variety of 

wire gauges. The wire diameters used in the 

decking mesh are 0.105 inches or greater for 

round wire. For wire other than round wire, 

the distance between any two points on a 

cross-section of the wire is 0.105 inches or 

greater. Wire decking reinforced with 

structural supports is designed generally for 

industrial and other commercial storage rack 

systems. 

Wire decking is produced to various 

profiles, including, but not limited to, a flat 

(‘‘flush’’) profile, an upward curved back 

edge profile (‘‘backstop’’) or downward 

curved edge profile (‘‘waterfalls’’), depending 

on the rack storage system. The wire decking 

may or may not be anchored to the rack 

storage system. The scope does not cover the 

metal rack storage system, comprised of 

metal uprights and cross beams, on which 

the wire decking is ultimately installed. Also 

excluded from the scope is wire mesh 

shelving that is not reinforced with structural 

supports and is designed for use without 

structural supports. 

Wire decking enters the United States 

through several basket categories in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States (‘‘HTSUS’’). U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection has issued a ruling (NY F84777) 

that wire decking is to be classified under 

HTSUS 9403.90.8040. Wire decking has also 

been entered under HTSUS 7217.10, 7217.20, 

7326.20, 7326.90, 9403.20.0020 and 

9403.20.0030. While HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and Customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of the investigations is dispositive. 

Appendix II 

Where it is not practicable to examine all 

known exporters/producers of subject 

merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, permits us to 

investigate (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 

that can reasonably be examined. 

In the chart below, please provide the total 

quantity and total value of all your sales of 

merchandise covered by the scope of this 

investigation (see ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ 

section of this notice), produced in the PRC, 

and exported/shipped to the United States 

during the period October 1, 2008, through 

March 31, 2009. 

Market Total quantity 

in metric tons Terms of sale Total value 

United States: 

1. Export Price Sales ................................................................................................

2. a. Exporter Name .................................................................................................

b. Address ................................................................................................................

c. Contact .................................................................................................................

d. Phone No. ............................................................................................................

e. Fax No. .................................................................................................................

3. Constructed Export Price Sales ...........................................................................

4. Further Manufactured ...........................................................................................

Total Sales ........................................................................................................

Total Quantity 

• Please report quantity on a metric ton 

basis. If any conversions were used, please 

provide the conversion formula and source. 

Terms of Sales 

• Please report all sales on the same terms 

(e.g., free on board at port of export). 

Total Value 

• All sales values should be reported in 

U.S. dollars. Please indicate any exchange 

rates used and their respective dates and 

sources. 

Export Price Sales 

• Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an 

export price sale when the first sale to an 

unaffiliated customer occurs before 

importation into the United States. 

• Please include any sales exported by 

your company directly to the United States. 

• Please include any sales exported by 

your company to a third-country market 

economy reseller where you had knowledge 

that the merchandise was destined to be 

resold to the United States. 

• If you are a producer of subject 

merchandise, please include any sales 

manufactured by your company that were 

subsequently exported by an affiliated 

exporter to the United States. 

• Please do not include any sales of subject 

merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in 

your figures. 

Constructed Export Price Sales 

• Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a 

constructed export price sale when the first 

sale to an unaffiliated customer occurs after 

importation. However, if the first sale to the 

unaffiliated customer 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. 

• Please include any sales exported by 

your company directly to the United States; 

• Please include any sales exported by 

your company to a third-country market 

economy reseller where you had knowledge 

that the merchandise was destined to be 

resold to the United States. 

• If you are a producer of subject 

merchandise, please include any sales 

manufactured by your company that were 

subsequently exported by an affiliated 

exporter to the United States. 

• Please do not include any sales of subject 

merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in 

your figures. 

Further Manufactured 

• Sales of further manufactured or 

assembled (including re-packaged) 

merchandise is merchandise that undergoes 

further manufacture or assembly in the 

United States before being sold to the first 

unaffiliated customer. 

• Further manufacture or assembly costs 

include amounts incurred for direct 

materials, labor and overhead, plus amounts 

for general and administrative expense, 

interest expense, and additional packing 

expense incurred in the country of further 

manufacture, as well as all costs involved in 

moving the product from the U.S. port of 

entry to the further manufacturer. 

[FR Doc. E9–15703 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–475–818] 

Certain Pasta From Italy: Initiation and 

Preliminary Results of Changed 

Circumstances Review, and Intent To 

Revoke Order in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

DATES: Effective Date: July 2, 2009. 

SUMMARY: On May 26, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) received a request for a 

changed circumstances review and a 

request to revoke, in part, the 

antidumping duty order on certain pasta 

from Italy with respect to gluten-free 

pasta. The Department confirmed that 

31700 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 

review. See, e.g., Granular 

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy: 

Final Results of Changed Circumstances 

Review, 68 FR 25327 (May 12, 2003). 

These cash deposit rates, if imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Also in accordance with 19 CRF 

351.221(c)(3)(i), we preliminarily 

determine that CAFISH is not the 

successor-in-interest to CATACO. In its 

March 13, 2009, submission, the 

information and evidence CATACO 

provided do not support the claim that 

CAFISH is the successor-in-interest to 

CATACO’s shrimp factory. The 

documentation attached to CATACO’s 

submission shows significant changes in 

all key categories that the Department 

considers in successor-in-interest 

determinations. That is, in terms of 

management, production facilities, 

supplier relationships, and customer 

base, the documentation shows that 

CAFISH is materially dissimilar from 

CATACO’s shrimp factory. In addition, 

CAFISH continues to conduct its sales 

to the United States through CATACO, 

thus CATACO remains an active 

exporter of the subject merchandise. See 

Analysis Memo, pp. 6–7. Thus we 

preliminarily find that CAFISH should 

not receive CATACO’s current separate 

rate and that the cash deposit rate for 

the subject merchandise exported and 

manufactured by CAFISH should 

continue to be the current Vietnam-wide 

rate. 

Public Comment 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 10 days of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Interested parties may 

submit case briefs no later than 14 days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs, may 

be filed no later than 5 days after the 

case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(1). Any hearing, if requested, 

will normally be held two days after 

rebuttal briefs are due, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). The 

Department will issue its final results of 

review within 270 days after the date on 

which the changed circumstances 

review was initiated, or within 45 days 

if all parties to the proceeding agree to 

the outcome of the review, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), and 

will publish these results in the Federal 

Register. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 of 

the Department’s regulations. 

Dated: June 25, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–15702 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XQ08 

Chinook Salmon Bycatch Data 

Collection Program 

AGENCY: Alaska Fishery Science Center 

(AFSC), National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public workshop. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces a workshop 

to solicit comments from the Bering Sea 

Pollock fishing industry and other 

interested persons/parties on draft 

reporting forms for a proposed Chinook 

salmon bycatch data collection program. 

DATES: The workshop will be held on 

Thursday, July 16, 2009, from 8 a.m. to 

5 p.m., Pacific standard time. 

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held 

at the Nordby Conference Room at 

Fishermen’s Terminal, Seattle, WA 

98119. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Brian Garber-Yonts, AFSC, 206–526– 

6301. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS is 

hosting a public workshop to solicit 

comment on a data collection program 

under consideration by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council). The program would collect 

data from the Bering Sea Pollock 

industry to evaluate the effectiveness of 

voluntary industry incentive programs 

to reduce Chinook salmon bycatch, as 

well as how the Council’s proposed 

Chinook salmon bycatch limits and 

bycatch performance standards affect 

where, when, and how pollock fishing 

and salmon bycatch occur. 

The workshop is an initial 

information-gathering step intended to 

ensure that the data collection program 

collects consistent and accurate 

information. A draft of each data 

collection form will be posted on the 

Alaska Region website (http:// 

www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov) at least 

one week in advance of the workshop. 

NMFS especially invites people from 

industry with management, accounting, 

and fishing backgrounds (especially 

fishing location decision making), who 

are familiar with: 

• Salmon and pollock transfers 

(including prices); 

• Cost and revenue information and 

the way that is kept (including fuel costs 

of changing fishing location and roe 

prices, revenues, and quality); and 

• Decisions to move a vessel and the 

costs associated with moving a vessel. 

Special Accommodations 

This workshop is physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for special accommodations 

should be directed to Brian GarberYonts (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT) at least 5 working days before 

the workshop date. 

Dated: June 29, 2009. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–15679 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–950] 

Wire Decking From the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of 

Countervailing Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 2, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Copyak, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Room 4014, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–2209. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On June 5, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a 

petition filed in proper form by AWP 

Industries, Inc., ITC Manufacturing, 

Inc., J&L Wire Cloth, Inc., Nashville 

Wire Products Mfg., Co., Inc., and 

Wireway Husky Corporation 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’), domestic 

producers of wire decking. On June 11, 

2009, and June 12, 2009, the Department 

issued requests for additional 

information and clarification of certain 

general areas of the Petition. Based on 

the Department’s request, Petitioners 

filed supplements to the Petition on 

June 16, 2009, and June 17, 2009, 

(respectively, ‘‘Supplement to the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 31701 

General Petition and Supplement to the 

AD Petition’’). On June 18, 2009, and 

June 22, 2009, the Department also 

requested clarification of Petitioners’ 

subsidy allegations. Based on the 

Department’s request, Petitioners filed 

supplements to the countervailing duty 

(‘‘CVD’’) petition on June 23, 2009, and 

June 24, 2009. 

The Department requested further 

clarifications from Petitioners by 

supplemental questionnaire and phone 

on June 18, 2009, regarding scope, and 

issue relating to the AD Petition. On 

June 22 and 24, 2009, Petitioners filed 

the information requested in the 

additional supplemental questionnaire, 

including a revised scope. 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’), Petitioners allege that 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

of wire decking in the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’) receive 

countervailable subsidies within the 

meaning of section 701 of the Act, and 

that such imports are materially 

injuring, or threatening material injury 

to, an industry in the United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act, and Petitioners 

have demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the CVD 

investigation (see ‘‘Determination of 

Industry Support for the Petition’’ 

section below). 

Period of Investigation 

The proposed period of investigation 

(‘‘POI’’) is January 1, 2008, through 

December 31, 2008. 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are wire decking from the 

PRC. For a full description of the scope 

of the investigation, please see the 

‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioners to 

ensure that it is an accurate reflection of 

the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 

discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations (Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage. The Department encourages 

all interested parties to submit such 

comments by July 15, 2009, twenty 

calendar days from the signature date of 

this notice. Comments should be 

addressed to Import Administration’s 

APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. The period of 

scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determination. 

Consultations 

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, the Department invited 

representatives of the Government of the 

PRC for consultations with respect to 

the CVD Petition. The Department held 

these consultations in Beijing, China on 

June 23, 2009. See the Memorandum 

from Sarah C. Ellerman through Melissa 

Skinner to the File, entitled, 

‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Wire 

Decking from the People’s Republic of 

China: Consultation with the 

Government of the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ (June 24, 2009), which is on file 

in the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) of 

the main Department of Commerce 

building, Room 1117. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) At least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) Poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

industry. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is 

responsible for determining whether 

‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been 

injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product (section 

771(10) of the Act), they do so for 

different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 

2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. 

United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 

(CIT 1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 

1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

domestic like product as ‘‘a product 

which is like, or in the absence of like, 

most similar in characteristics and uses 

with, the article subject to an 

investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioners do not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that wire 

decking constitutes a single domestic 

like product and we have analyzed 

industry support in terms of that 

domestic like product. For a discussion 

of the domestic like product analysis in 

this case, see Countervailing Duty 

Investigation Initiation Checklist: Wire 

Decking from the PRC (‘‘Initiation 

Checklist’’) at Attachment II (‘‘Industry 

Support’’), dated concurrently with this 

notice and on file in the CRU. 

In determining whether Petitioners 

have standing under section 

702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered 

the industry support data contained in 

the Petition with reference to the 

domestic like product as defined in the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section above. 

To establish industry support, 

Petitioners provided their 2008 

production of the domestic like product, 

as well as the 2008 production of the 

domestic like product for four nonpetitioning companies who are 

supporters of the Petition, and 

compared this to total production of the 

31702 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 

domestic like product for the entire 

domestic industry. See Volume I of the 

Petition, at 4, and Exhibit General-1, 

and Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions, dated June 16, 2009, at 10, 

and Attachment 3, and Second 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, 

dated June 22, 2009, at 3, and 

Attachment 1, and Petitioners’ 

Submission, dated June 22, 2009. 

Petitioners calculated total domestic 

production based on their own 

production plus data provided by the 

four non-petitioning companies that 

produce the domestic like product in 

the United States, who are supporters of 

the Petition. See Volume I of the 

Petition, at Exhibit General-1, and 

Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions, 

dated June 16, 2009, at Attachment 3, 

and Second Supplement to the AD/CVD 

Petitions, dated June 22, 2009, at 3, and 

Attachment 1; see also Initiation 

Checklist as Attachment II, Industry 

Support. In addition, Petitioners 

identified one other company as a 

producer of the domestic like product 

and were able to obtain its 2008 

production of the domestic like product 

in order to calculate total domestic 

production of the domestic like product. 

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department indicates that 

Petitioners have established industry 

support. First, the Petition established 

support from domestic producers (or 

workers) accounting for more than 50 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product and, as such, the 

Department is not required to take 

further action in order to evaluate 

industry support (e.g., polling). See 

Section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act, and 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

Second, the domestic producers (or 

workers) have met the statutory criteria 

for industry support under section 

702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the 

domestic producers (or workers) who 

support the Petitions account for at least 

25 percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product. See Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. Finally, the 

domestic producers (or workers) have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act because the domestic producers 

(or workers) who support the Petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

production of the domestic like 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 

702(b)(1) of the Act. See id. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

771(9)(C) of the Act and they have 

demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the 

countervailing duty investigation that 

they are requesting the Department 

initiate. See id. 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to 

this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC 

must determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that imports of wire 

decking from the PRC are benefitting 

from countervailable subsidies and that 

such imports are causing, or threaten to 

cause, material injury to the domestic 

industries producing wire decking. In 

addition, Petitioners allege that 

subsidized imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 

Petitioners contend that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, increased import 

penetration, underselling and price 

depressing and suppressing effects, lost 

sales and revenue, reduced production, 

shipments, capacity, and capacity 

utilization, reduced employment, and 

an overall decline in financial 

performance. We have assessed the 

allegations and supporting evidence 

regarding material injury, threat of 

material injury, and causation, and we 

have determined that these allegations 

are properly supported by adequate 

evidence and meet the statutory 

requirements for initiation. See 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment III 

(Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of 

Material Injury and Causation for the 

Petition). 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

Section 702(b) of the Act requires the 

Department to initiate a CVD proceeding 

whenever an interested party files a 

petition on behalf of an industry that: 

(1) Alleges the elements necessary for an 

imposition of a duty under section 

701(a) of the Act; and (2) is 

accompanied by information reasonably 

available to the petitioner(s) supporting 

the allegations. 

The Department has examined the 

CVD Petition on wire decking from the 

PRC and finds that it complies with the 

requirements of section 702(b) of the 

Act. Therefore, in accordance with 

section 702(b) of the Act, we are 

initiating a CVD investigation to 

determine whether manufacturers, 

producers, or exporters of wire decking 

in the PRC receive countervailable 

subsidies. For a discussion of evidence 

supporting our initiation determination, 

see Initiation Checklist. 

We are including in our investigation 

the following programs alleged in the 

Petition to have provided 

countervailable subsidies to producers 

and exporters of the subject 

merchandise in the PRC: 

A. Loan Programs 

1. Honorable Enterprises Program 

2. Preferential Loans for Key Projects and 

Technologies 

3. Preferential Loans as Part of the 

Northeast Revitalization 

4. Policy Loans for Firms Located in 

Industrial Zones in the City of Dalian in 

Liaoning Province 

B. Government Provision of Goods and 

Services for Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration (‘‘LTAR’’) 

1. Government Provision of Wire Rod for 

LTAR 

2. Government Provision of Hot-Rolled 

Steel for LTAR 

3. Government Provision of Zinc for LTAR 

4. Government Provision of Electricity for 

LTAR 

5. Provision of Land for LTAR for Firms 

Located in Designated Geographical 

Areas in the City of Dailan in Liaoning 

Province 

6. Provision of Water for LTAR for Firms 

Located in Designated Geographical 

Areas in the City of Dailan in Liaoning 

Province 

7. Provision of Electricity for LTAR for 

Firms Located in Designated 

Geographical Areas in the City of Dailan 

in Liaoning Province 

C. Income and Other Direct Taxes 

1. Income Tax Credits for Domestically 

Owned Companies Purchasing 

Domestically Produced Equipment 

2. Income Tax Exemption for Investment in 

Domestic ‘‘Technological Renovation’’ 

3. Preferential Income Tax Policy for 

Enterprises in the Northeast Region 

4. Forgiveness of Tax Arrears for 

Enterprises in the Old Industrial Bases of 

Northeast China 

5. Income Tax Exemption for Investors in 

Designated Geographical Regions Within 

the Province of Liaoning 

D. Indirect Tax and Tariff Exemption 

Programs 

1. Value Added Tax (VAT) Deductions on 

Fixed Assets 

2. Export Incentive Payments 

Characterized as ‘‘VAT Rebates’’ 

3. Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions for 

FIEs and Certain Domestic Enterprises 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 31703 

Using Imported Equipment in 

Encouraged Industries 

4. VAT Exemptions for Newly Purchased 

Equipment in the Jinzhou District 

E. Grant Programs 

1. ‘‘Five Points, One Line’’ Program 

2. Export Interest Subsidies 

3. The State Key Technology Project Fund. 

4. Subsidies for Development of Famous 

Export Brands and China World Top 

Brands 

5. Sub-Central Government Programs To 

Promote Famous Export Brands and 

China World Top Brands 

6. Exemption of Fees for Firms Located in 

Designated Geographical Areas in the 

City of Dailan in Liaoning Province 

F. Preferential Income Tax Subsidies for 

Foreign Invested Entities (‘‘FIEs’’) 

1. ‘‘Two Free, Three Half’’ Program 

2. Income Tax Exemption Program for 

Export-Oriented FIEs 

3. Local Income Tax Exemption and 

Reduction Programs for ‘‘Productive’’ 

Foreign-Invested Enterprises 

4. Preferential Tax Programs for ForeignInvested Enterprises Recognized as High 

or New Technology Enterprises 

5. Income Tax Subsidies for FIEs Based on 

Geographic Location 

6. VAT Refunds for FIEs Purchasing 

Domestically Produced Equipment 

For further information explaining 

why the Department is investigating 

these programs, see the Initiation 

Checklist. 

We are not including in our 

investigation the following programs 

alleged to benefit producers and 

exporters of the subject merchandise in 

the PRC: 

A. Policy Lending to Wire Decking 

Producers 

Petitioners allege that the GOC, 

through various national level industrial 

plans, directs credit to wire decking 

producers. Similar to the Department’s 

finding in Wire Grating from the PRC 

Initiation, we find that Petitioners have 

not sufficiently alleged that the GOC’s 

industrial plans specifically direct 

credit to producers of wire decking. See 

Certain Steel Grating from the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of 

Countervailing Duty Investigation, 74 FR 

30278, 30281 (June 25, 2009) (‘‘Steel 

Grating from the PRC Initiation’’). 

Petitioners may re-submit this allegation 

to the extent the Department selects an 

integrated producer whose affiliated 

input suppliers are producing a steel 

input that is covered by the GOC’s 

industrial plans. 

B. Export Loans 

Petitioners allege that in Line Pipe 

from the PRC, the Department found 

that a number of companies benefitted 

from export-contingent loans from State 

owned commercial banks (‘‘SOCBs’’) 

and that Chinese wire decking 

producers would be eligible for such 

loans. See Circular Welded Carbon 

Quality Steel Line Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, 73 FR 70961 (Nov. 24, 

2008) (‘‘Line Pipe from the PRC’’), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Line Pipe from PRC 

Decision Memorandum’’) at ‘‘Export 

Loans.’’ According to Petitioners, this 

program has not been eliminated by any 

reforms to the Chinese banking system. 

However, the producers investigated in 

Line Pipe from the PRC are not 

identified in the Petition filed on the 

record of this proceeding. Therefore, we 

find that the support relied on in Line 

Pipe from the PRC to initiate an 

investigation of the Export Loans 

program does not apply to the facts of 

this proceeding. Petitioners have 

provided insufficient evidence 

indicating that wire decking producers 

can benefit from this alleged program. 

C. Export Assistance Grants 

Petitioners allege that grants are 

provided to exporters. However, 

Petitioners fail to identify the 

administering authority that is allegedly 

providing the grants (i.e., national, 

provincial, or local governments) or the 

program under which the alleged 

benefits are provided. Therefore, we are 

not initiating an investigation of this 

allegation. 

D. Provision of Land for LTAR 

Petitioners allege that the GOC 

prohibits private land ownership in the 

PRC. According to Petitioners, private 

companies may purchase land-use 

rights, but national and local 

governments do not provide the rights 

consistently with market principles. 

Petitioners assert that the government 

may take land from farmers, often 

without fair compensation, and transfer 

this land to industrial users. Further, 

Petitioners allege that commercial sales 

are often conducted illegally through 

opaque processes marked by 

widespread corruption. 

Petitioners did not provide evidence 

that the GOC is providing land for LTAR 

at the national level. Further, with the 

exception of Jiangxi Province and the 

City of Dalian in Liaoning Province, 

Petitioners do not provide any 

information to support their allegation 

that provincial and local governments in 

the PRC provide land for LTAR. 

Therefore, we are limiting our 

investigation of this allegation to alleged 

sales of land for LTAR to wire decking 

producers located in the City of Dalian. 

D. Government Restraints on Exports of 

Wire Rod, Flat-Rolled Steel, and Zinc 

Petitioners allege that the GOC 

imposes export restrictions (such as 

export quotas, export taxes, export 

licensing, and restrictions on which 

enterprises are eligible to export) to 

intervene in markets for such primary 

raw materials as wire rod, flat-rolled 

steel, and zinc that are consumed in the 

production of wire decking. Petitioners 

contend that these restrictions increase 

the supply of wire rod, flat-rolled steel, 

and zinc and thereby artificially lower 

the prices within the PRC to 

downstream wire decking producers. 

Petitioners have not adequately 

shown how these particular export taxes 

and licenses constitute entrustment or 

direction of private entities by the GOC 

to provide a financial contribution to 

producers of subject merchandise. 

Moreover, Petitioners have not provided 

sufficient data regarding historic price 

trends demonstrating, e.g., that price 

decreases correlated with the imposition 

of the alleged export restraints. The 

Department declined to initiate on this 

program in prior CVD initiations 

involving the PRC. See, e.g., Notice of 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation: Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 

50304, 50306 (August 26, 2008) (Racks 

and Shelves from the PRC Initiation). 

Therefore, we are not investigating the 

government restraints on wire rod, flatrolled steel, and zinc exports. 

E. Tax Reduction for Enterprises 

Making Little Profit 

Petitioners allege that, according to 

China’s WTO subsidies notification, 

enterprises with annual taxable incomes 

between RMB 30,000 and 100,000 are 

eligible for a 3 percent reduction in their 

annual income tax rate. 

We find Petitioners have not 

established with reasonably available 

information that ‘‘enterprises making 

little profit’’ are a de jure specific group 

because Petitioners have provided no 

explanation of why companies with 

access to this program comprise an 

enterprise or industry, or group of 

enterprises or industries, as those terms 

are normally interpreted by the 

Department. See, e.g., Preamble to 

Countervailing Duty Regulations, 63 

Fed. Reg. 65348, 65357 (November 25, 

1998) (‘‘* * * because the user 

represented numerous and diverse 

industries, the program was found not 

to be specific’’). Therefore, we are not 

initiating an investigation of this 

allegation. 

31704 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 126 / Thursday, July 2, 2009 / Notices 

F. China’s Enforced Undervaluation of 

Its Currency 

Petitioners allege that the GOCmaintained exchange rate effectively 

prevents the appreciation of the Chinese 

currency (RMB) against the U.S. dollar. 

In addition, Petitioners allege that the 

GOC requires that foreign exchange 

earned from export activities be 

converted to RMB at the government 

prescribed rate. Therefore, when 

producers in the PRC sell their dollars 

at official foreign exchange banks, as 

required by law, the producers receive 

more RMB than they otherwise would if 

the value of the RMB were set by market 

mechanisms. 

Consistent with past initiations, we 

are not initiating on this allegation on 

the grounds that Petitioners have not 

sufficiently alleged the elements 

necessary for the imposition of a 

countervailing duty and did not support 

the allegation with reasonably available 

information. See, e.g., Racks and 

Shelves from the PRC Initiation, 73 FR 

at 50307. 

G. Reduction in or Exemption From 

Fixed Assets Investment Orientation 

Regulatory Tax 

The Petitioners claim that producers 

of wire decking are exempted from or 

receive preferential income tax rates on 

investments in fixed assets. These tax 

breaks apply to both new construction 

and upgrades in the encouraged 

industries. 

We are not initiating on this program 

because Petitioners have not provided 

information to demonstrate that wire 

decking producers would be covered by 

the relevant legislation. For example, 

the legislation includes specific aspects 

of the iron and steel production process 

that are eligible for tax benefits, but it 

does not include any processes related 

to production of wire decking. However, 

if one of the mandatory respondents 

chosen in this investigation is part of a 

vertically integrated steel company, or 

cross-owned with a primary steel 

producer, Petitioners may re-allege this 

program under a timely-filed new 

subsidy allegation, at which time the 

Department will reconsider the 

information provided. 

H. Preferential Investment Policies for 

FIEs Located in Liaoning Province 

Petitioners allege that the Liaoning 

Province allows FIEs located in the 

province to enjoy ‘‘preferential policies 

for foreign investment projects.’’ They 

further allege that the relevant 

legislation specifically covers wire 

decking producers. Petitioners identify 

several wire decking producers located 

in Liaoning Province. 

The supporting documentation 

provided by Petitioners does not 

specifically mention any loans and the 

term ‘‘preferential investment policies’’ 

by itself, as indicated in the source 

document included in the Petition, does 

not constitute a sufficient basis for 

initiation. We are not initiating an 

investigation of this program. 

Respondent Selection 

To determine the total and relative 

volume and value of import data for 

each potential respondent, the 

Department normally relies on U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection import 

data for the POI. However, in the instant 

proceeding, the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) categories that include 

subject merchandise are very broad, and 

include products other than those 

subject to this investigation. Therefore, 

because of the unique circumstances of 

this case, the Department will issue 

‘‘Quantity and Value Questionnaires’’ to 

potential respondents for the purposes 

of respondent selection. The 

Department will send the quantity and 

value questionnaire to PRC companies 

identified in the June 5, 2009 Petition, 

at Exhibit 4, Volume 1. The Department 

will post the quantity and value 

questionnaire along with the filing 

instructions on the Import 

Administration’s Web site, at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the 

public version of the Petition has been 

provided to the Government of the PRC. 

As soon as and to the extent practicable, 

we will attempt to provide a copy of the 

public version of the Petition to each 

exporter named in the Petition, 

consistent with section 351.203(c)(2) of 

the Department’s regulations. 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 702(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 25 days after the date on which 

it receives notice of the initiation, 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that imports of subsidized wire decking 

from the PRC are causing material 

injury, or threatening to cause material 

injury, to a U.S. industry. See section 

703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC 

determination will result in the 

investigation being terminated; 

otherwise, the investigation will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: June 25, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of the investigation covers 

welded-wire rack decking, which is also 

known as, among other things, ‘‘pallet rack 

decking,’’ ‘‘wire rack decking,’’ ‘‘wire mesh 

decking,’’ ‘‘bulk storage shelving,’’ or 

‘‘welded-wire decking.’’ Wire decking 

consists of wire mesh that is reinforced with 

structural supports and designed to be load 

bearing. The structural supports include 

sheet metal support channels, or other 

structural supports, that reinforce the wire 

mesh and that are welded or otherwise 

affixed to the wire mesh, regardless of 

whether the wire mesh and supports are 

assembled or unassembled and whether 

shipped as a kit or packaged separately. Wire 

decking is produced from carbon or alloy 

steel wire that has been welded into a mesh 

pattern. The wire may be galvanized or 

plated (e.g., chrome, zinc or nickel coated), 

coated (e.g., with paint, epoxy, or plastic), or 

uncoated (‘‘raw’’). The wire may be drawn or 

rolled and may have a round, square or other 

profile. Wire decking is sold in a variety of 

wire gauges. The wire diameters used in the 

decking mesh are 0.105 inches or greater for 

round wire. For wire other than round wire, 

the distance between any two points on a 

cross-section of the wire is 0.105 inches or 

greater. Wire decking reinforced with 

structural supports is designed generally for 

industrial and other commercial storage rack 

systems. 

Wire decking is produced to various 

profiles, including, but not limited to, a flat 

(‘‘flush’’) profile, an upward curved back 

edge profile (‘‘backstop’’) or downward 

curved edge profile (‘‘waterfalls’’), depending 

on the rack storage system. The wire decking 

may or may not be anchored to the rack 

storage system. The scope does not cover the 

metal rack storage system, comprised of 

metal uprights and cross beams, on which 

the wire decking is ultimately installed. Also 

excluded from the scope is wire mesh 

shelving that is not reinforced with structural 

supports and is designed for use without 

structural supports. 

Wire decking enters the United States 

through several basket categories in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States (‘‘HTSUS’’). U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection has issued a ruling (NY F84777) 

that wire decking is to be classified under 

HTSUS 9403.90.8040. Wire decking has also 

been entered under HTSUS 7217.10, 7217.20, 

7326.20, 7326.90, 9403.20.0020 and 

9403.20.0030. While HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and Customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of the investigations is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. E9–15705 Filed 7–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


B-1

APPENDIX B

LIST OF CONFERENCE WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC CONFERENCE

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

conference:

Subject: Wire Decking from China

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-466 and 731-TA-1162 (Preliminary)

Date and Time: June 26, 2009 - 9:30 a.m.

The conference in connection with these investigations was held in the Main Hearing Room

(Room 101), U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, DC. 

OPENING STATEMENTS

Petitioner: Kathleen W. Cannon, Kelley, Drye & Warren LLP

Respondents: Lizbeth R. Levinson, Garvey Schubert Barer

IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPOSITION OF ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES:

Kelley, Drye & Warren LLP

Washington, DC

 on behalf of

AWP Industries, Inc.

ITC Manufacturing, Inc.

J&L Wire Cloth, Inc.

Nashville Wire Products Mfg. Co.

Wireway/Husky Corp. 

Craig Chamberlin, President & CEO, AWP Industries, Inc.

Rob Rollins, Division Manager, Material Handling Division, Nashville Wire Products Mfg. Co.

Todd Mack, General Manager, ITC Manufacturing, Inc.

Jim Rudolph, General Sales Manager, J&L Wire Cloth, Inc.

Ron Young, President, Wireway/Husky Corp.

John Caldwell, President, ITC Manufacturing, Inc.

Tim Selhorst, President, American Spring Wire Corp.

Steve Wagner, Division Operations Manager, Material Handling Division, Nashville Wire

Products Mfg. Co.
B-4

IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPOSITION OF ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING

DUTIES–Continued:

Gina Beck, Economic Consultant, Georgetown Economic Services

Kathleen W. Cannon )

)–OF COUNSEL

Alan Luberda )

Wiley Rein LLP

Washington, DC

 on behalf of

Nucor Wire Products, Inc.

Mark Brandon, Vice President and General Manager, Nucor Wire Products, Inc.

Alan Price )–OF COUNSEL

IN OPPOSITION TO THE IMPOSITION OF ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING

DUTIES:

Garvey Schubert Barer

Washington, DC

 on behalf of

Atlas Material Handling, Inc.

Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd.

Vic Kedaitis, Vice President and General Manager, Atlas Material Handling Inc.

Kerry B. Wolfe, General Counsel and Vice President for Strategic Development, The Altas

Companies.

Song Bin, President, Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd.

Lizbeth R. Levinson )

 )–OF COUNSEL

Ronald M. Wisla )

CLOSING STATEMENTS

Petitioner: Kathleen W. Cannon, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Respondents: Lizbeth R. Levinson, Garvey Schubert Barer
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

Wire decking: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-March Jan.-Mar.

Item 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2006-08 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. import shipments from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . 495,433 515,433 515,433 128,858 128,858 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . 304,553 300,268 274,148 74,519 37,355 -10.0 -1.4 -8.7 -49.9

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . 61.5 58.3 53.2 57.8 29.0 -8.3 -3.2 -5.1 -28.8

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307,797 290,572 265,218 69,618 35,618 -13.8 -5.6 -8.7 -48.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173,286 161,018 171,983 38,410 23,094 -0.8 -7.1 6.8 -39.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.56 $0.55 $0.65 $0.55 $0.65 15.2 -1.6 17.0 17.5

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . . 45,278 35,842 45,509 34,610 38,008 0.5 -20.8 27.0 9.8

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . 14.2 11.9 16.5 11.8 25.7 2.3 -2.3 4.6 13.9

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . 652 611 550 530 329 -15.6 -6.2 -10.0 -37.9

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . 1,349 1,185 1,115 272 148 -17.3 -12.2 -5.8 -45.5

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . 21,718 19,297 18,209 4,531 2,787 -16.2 -11.1 -5.6 -38.5

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $16.10 $16.29 $16.33 $16.69 $18.85 1.4 1.2 0.2 13.0

 Productivity (pounds per hour) . . 225.8 253.5 245.8 274.5 252.7 8.9 12.3 -3.0 -7.9

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.07 $0.06 $0.07 $0.06 $0.07 -6.9 -9.9 3.3 22.7

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318,084 299,938 275,545 73,017 36,932 -13.4 -5.7 -8.1 -49.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178,817 166,058 178,832 40,285 23,924 0.0 -7.1 7.7 -40.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.56 $0.55 $0.65 $0.55 $0.65 15.4 -1.5 17.2 17.4

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . 155,706 144,735 165,710 36,529 24,237 6.4 -7.0 14.5 -33.6

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . 23,111 21,323 13,122 3,756 (313) -43.2 -7.7 -38.5 (3)

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,713 12,227 12,285 3,007 2,546 4.9 4.4 0.5 -15.3

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . 11,398 9,096 837 749 (2,859) -92.7 -20.2 -90.8 (3)

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.49 $0.48 $0.60 $0.50 $0.66 22.9 -1.4 24.6 31.2

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.07 21.1 10.7 9.4 67.4

 Unit operating income or (loss) . $0.04 $0.03 $0.00 $0.01 ($0.08) -91.5 -15.4 -90.0 (3)

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.1 87.2 92.7 90.7 101.3 5.6 0.1 5.5 10.6

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 5.5 0.5 1.9 (12.0) -5.9 -0.9 -5.0 -13.8

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not available/not applicable.

 (3) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. (U.S. imports from China are compiled from data submitted in response to Commission

questionnaires; U.S. imports from nonsubject countries are estimated, as petitioners and respondents agree that these imports are approximately 5 percent of total U.S. imports).

C-3

D-1

APPENDIX D

QUARTERLY PRICE DATA FOR COMBINED PRICING PRODUCTS

D-3

Table D-1

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported products 1

and 2 combined,1

 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table D-2

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported products 3

and 4 combined,1

 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table D-3

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported products 5

and 6 combined,1

 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure D-1

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of products 1 and 2 combined,

as reported by U.S. producers and importers, by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Figure D-2

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of products 3 and 4 combined,

as reported by U.S. producers and importers, by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

* * * * * * *

Figure D-3

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of products 5 and 6 combined,

as reported by U.S. producers and importers, by quarters, January 2006-December 2008

* * * * * * *

E-1

APPENDIX E

ALLEGED EFFECTS OF IMPORTS ON U.S. PRODUCERS’ EXISTING

DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION EFFORTS, GROWTH, INVESTMENT,

AND ABILITY TO RAISE CAPITAL

E-3

The Commission requested U.S. processors to describe any actual or potential negative effects since

January 1, 2006, on their return on investment, growth, investment, ability to raise capital, existing

development and production efforts (including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version

of the product), or the scale of capital investments as a result of imports of wire decking from China. 

Their responses are as follows:

Actual Negative Effects

AWP.–***

Cargotainer.–***

ITC.–***

J&L.–***

Nashville Wire.–***

Nucor.–***

Wireway.–***

Anticipated Negative Effects

AWP.–***

Cargotainer.–***

ITC.–***

J&L.–***

Nashville Wire.–***

Nucor.–***

Wireway.–***