U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4064 March 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe 

from China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-454 and 731-TA-1144 (Final)
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

Robert A. Rogowsky

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Director of Operations

Elizabeth Haines, Investigator 

Karl Tsuji, Industry Analyst 

Clark Workman, Economist 

Justin Jee, Accountant 

Mary Jane Alves, Attorney 

Steven Hudgens, Senior Statistician 

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

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4064 March 2009

Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe 

from China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-454 and 731-TA-1144 (Final)

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

U.S. WSS pressure pipe market summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

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

Previous and related Title VII investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Previous and related safeguard investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Nature and extent of subsidies and sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

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

The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

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

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

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Manufacturing facilities, employees, and processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

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

U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-2

U.S. supply ............................................................... II-2

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-7

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-8

Comparison of domestic products and subject and nonsubject imports ................. II-10

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-13

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-13

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-14

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-14
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

U.S. producers’ shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-7

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-9

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-9

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-10

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

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

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

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

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

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

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

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

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

Exchange rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Transportation costs to the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-13

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-13

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

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

Operations on WSS pressure pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-10

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-10

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-11

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

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

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-2

WSS pressure pipe operations ................................................. VII-4

Alternative products ........................................................ VII-5

U.S. imports subsequent to September 30, 2008 ..................................... VII-5

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-5
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Part VII: Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries, continued

Antidumping and countervailing duty orders in third-country markets .................... VII-5

Information on nonsubject sources and the global market .............................. VII-6

Nonsubject source information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-6

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-6

Global exports of circular welded tubes, pipes, and hollow profiles of stainless steel ...... VII-6

Appendixes

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

B. Hearing witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

D. Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Additional price data for Korea, Malaysia, and Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

F. Estimated base price with surcharges excluded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

G. Alleged effects of imports on U.S. producers’ existing development and production efforts, 

growth, investment, and ability to raise capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

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

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

 1

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

 2

 United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers

International Union. 

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-454 and 731-TA-1144 (Final)

WELDED STAINLESS STEEL PRESSURE PIPE FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 705(b) and 735(b) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is materially

injured by reason of imports from China of welded stainless steel pressure pipe, provided for in

subheadings 7306.40.50 and 7306.40.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that

have been found by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be subsidized by the Government of

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

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these investigations effective January 30, 2008, following receipt of a

petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Bristol Metals (Bristol, TN), Felker Brothers Corp.

(Marshfield, WI), Marcegaglia USA, Inc. (Munhall, PA), Outokumpu Stainless Pipe, Inc. (Schaumburg,

IL), and The United Steel Workers (Pittsburgh, PA).2

 The final phase of the investigations was scheduled

by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of

welded stainless steel pressure pipe from China were being subsidized by the Government of China and

being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 703(b) and 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1671b(b)

and 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigations and of a

public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office

of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in

the Federal Register of October 6, 2008 (73 FR 58265). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on

January 13, 2009, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by

counsel.

 1

 See, e.g., Confidential Staff Report, Mem. INV-GG-009 (Feb. 5, 2009), as amended by Mem. INV-GG-011

(Feb. 19, 2009) (“CR”) at I-1, I-3; Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from China, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-454 and

731-TA-1144 (Final), USITC Pub. 4064 (Mar. 2009) (“PR”) at I-1, I-3.

 2

 See, e.g., CR at I-3; PR at I-3; CR/PR at Table III-1. The other three known U.S. producers, Alaskan Copper &

Brass Co. (“Alaskan Copper”), RathGibson, Inc. (“RathGibson), and Swepco Tube (“Swepco”), provided partial

information. These companies provided their production quantities of WSS pressure pipe during the period for

which questionnaire data were collected, January 1, 2005 through the first nine months of 2008 (herein “period of

investigation”). These three companies did not provide other data on shipments and financial performance of their

WSS pressure pipe operations during this period. Swepco only submitted this information after the Commission

issued an administrative subpoena to the company. See, e.g., CR at III-1 & n.1; PR at III-1 & n.1.

 3

 See, e.g., CR at I-3, VII-4; PR at I-3, VII-3 to VII-4.

 4

 See, e.g., CR at VII-4; PR at VII-3 to VII-4. Staff report data on the industry in China are based on Winner’s

questionnaire response as well as additional factual data gathered during these investigations. See, e.g., CR at VII-2

to VII-9; PR at VII-2 to VII-6.

 5

 See, e.g., CR at I-3; PR at I-3.

 6

 See, e.g., CR at I-3; PR at I-3.

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we find that an industry in the

United States is materially injured by reason of imports of certain welded stainless steel pressure pipe

from the People’s Republic of China (“China”) that have been found by the U.S. Department of

Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the

Government of China.

I. BACKGROUND

The petitions in these investigations were filed on January 30, 2008, by four of the eight known

domestic producers of welded stainless steel pressure pipe: Bristol Metals of Bristol, TN (“Bristol

Metals”); Felker Brothers Corp. of Marshfield, WI and Glasgow, KY (“Felker Brothers”); Marcegaglia

USA, Inc. of Munhall, PA (“Marcegaglia”); and Outokumpu Stainless Pipe, Inc. of Wildwood, FL

(“Outokumpu”). The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing Energy, Allied Industrial

and Service Workers International Union of Pittsburgh, PA (herein “USW”) also joined petitioners.1

Petitioners participated in the staff conference and hearing and submitted briefs. Petitioners as well as

Webco Industries, Inc. (“Webco”) of Mannford, OK, ***, provided complete questionnaire responses,

and they collectively accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. production in 2007.2

Although petitioners identified 23 possible producers in China,3 only Winner Stainless Steel Co.,

Ltd. (“Winner”) provided a questionnaire response in the preliminary phase of these investigations. No

producer or exporter of subject merchandise from China participated in the final phase of these

investigations or provided responses to the Commission’s data requests.4

At least 12 firms have imported WSS pressure pipe from China since January 1, 2005.5 The three

largest importers – ***, ***, and *** – collectively accounted for almost *** percent of reported U.S.

imports from China in 2007.6

 A representative from Silbo, an importer ***, participated in the

preliminary staff conference but did not otherwise participate as a party in these investigations.
 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

II. 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 Commerce’s 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
 15 Excluded from the scope are (1) welded stainless mechanical tubing meeting ASTM A-554 or comparable

domestic or foreign specifications; (2) boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, refining furnace, feedwater heater, and

condenser tubing meeting ASTM A-249, ASTM A-688 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; and

(3) specialized tubing meeting ASTM A-269, ASTM A-270 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. The

subject imports are normally classified in subheadings 7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064,

and 7306.40.5085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). They may also enter under

HTSUS subheadings 7306.40.1010, 7306.40.1015, 7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 7306.40.5080, and 7306.40.5090. 

Commerce explained that the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the

written description of the scope is dispositive. See, e.g., 74 Fed. Reg. 4936, 4937 (Jan. 28, 2009) (countervailing

duty); 74 Fed. Reg. 4913, 4914 (Jan. 28, 2009) (antidumping duty).

 16 See, e.g., CR at I-8; PR at I-7.

 17 See, e.g., CR at I-10 to I-11; PR at I-8. As discussed below, some products meet specification ASTM A-358

for use in critical applications where failure of the weld might have serious consequences, such as in nuclear power

plants and liquified natural gas facilities. See, e.g., CR at I-12; PR at I-9.

 18 See, e.g., CR at I-11; PR at I-9.

 19 See, e.g., CR at I-11; PR at I-9.

 20 See, e.g., CR at I-12; PR I-9.

5

B. Scope

Commerce defined the imported merchandise within the scope of these investigations as circular

welded austenitic stainless steel pressure pipe

not greater than 14 inches in outside diameter. This merchandise includes, but is not

limited to, the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) A-312 or ASTM

A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. ASTM A-358

products are only included when they are produced to meet ASTM A-312 or

ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.15

“Pipes,” “tubes,” and “tubing” are terms that refer to hollow forms used to convey gases, liquids, and

solids and for a variety of mechanical and structural purposes.16 Most stainless steel tubular products,

including those certified to ASTM specifications A-312 and A-778 or equivalent, are produced from

either of two common grades of austenitic stainless steel (American Iron and Steel Institute (“AISI”)

types 304/304L or 316/316L).17 A-312 is the most common specification for stainless steel pipe and

accounts for much of the WSS pressure pipe consumed in the United States.18 Welded A-312 pipe is

designed for high temperatures and general corrosion-resistant service and must be annealed (heat treated)

after welding. Major uses for A-312 pipe are digester lines, pharmaceutical production lines,

petrochemical stock lines, automotive paint lines, and various processing lines such as those in breweries,

paper mills, and general food-processing facilities.19 A-778 pipe is similar to A-312 but differs in the

welding process and does not require post-weld annealing. A-778 pipe is most often used in the pulp and

paper industry and for wastewater applications, and it is also used in corn-fermentation systems to

produce ethanol and low-pressure fluid transfer systems.20
 21 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1. In addition to the investigations of imports from Korea and Taiwan discussed

below, there were two earlier investigations involving welded stainless steel pipes. In Welded Stainless Steel Pipe

and Tube from Japan, Inv. No. AA1921-180, USITC Pub. 899 (Jul. 1978), the Commission made a negative

determination. In Stainless Steel Pipes and Tubes from Sweden, the Commission made negative final determinations

regarding welded stainless steel products in both the countervailing duty investigation, Inv. No. 701-TA-281 (Final),

USITC Pub. 1966 (Apr. 1987), and the companion antidumping duty investigation, Inv. No. 731-TA-354 (Final),

USITC Pub. 2033 (Nov. 1987).

 22 See, e.g., Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe from Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-540 and 541

(Second Review), USITC Pub. 3877 (Aug. 2006); Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe from Korea and Taiwan,

Invs. Nos. 731-TA-540 and 541 (Review), USITC Pub. 3351 (Sept. 2000); Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe from

Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-540 and 541 (Final), USITC Pub. 2585 (Dec. 1992); Transcript of Feb. 21,

2008 Staff Conference (“Confer. Tr.”) at 52-53 (Schagrin for Petitioners).

 23 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 53 (Schagrin).

 24 Silbo argued that petitioners’ proposed domestic like product was a means to exclude the domestic pipe

industry’s most profitable segment and its significant large-diameter pressure pipe exports. Silbo did not submit a

postconference brief or other documentation to support its arguments and did not submit any briefs in the final phase

of these investigations or participate in the hearing. See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 96-97, 109-10 (Jakob for Silbo).

 25 See, e.g., Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from China, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-454 and 731-TA-1144

(Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3986 at 4-10 (Mar. 2008).

6

C. Background on Previous Investigations and Reviews Involving Similar Scopes

The Commission has conducted several prior investigations of welded stainless steel hollow

products.21 Two antidumping duty orders are currently in effect regarding certain welded stainless steel

pressure pipe imports from Korea and Taiwan, but the scope of those orders differs somewhat from the

scope of the current investigations. The scope of those orders includes circular welded austenitic stainless

pressure pipe made to ASTM A-312 specifications regardless of the outside diameter of the pipe,

whereas, as indicated above, the scope of these investigations includes welded stainless steel meeting

either ASTM A-312 or A-778 specifications, but not pressure pipes with an outside diameter greater than

14 inches.22 Pressure tubes are excluded from the scope of the Korean and Taiwan orders and from the

scope of the current investigations.23

D. Whether to Define the Domestic Like Product Broader 

than the Scope to Include Large-Diameter Pressure Pipes

The scope of these investigations includes ASTM A-312 and A-778 pipes but only if the outside

diameters are not greater than 14 inches (“small-diameter pressure pipe” or “WSS pressure pipe”). In the

preliminary determinations, at the request of importer Silbo,24 the Commission considered whether to

define the domestic like product more broadly than the scope to include large-diameter pressure pipes. 

No party had urged the Commission to distinguish between small-diameter and large-diameter pipes in

any of the previous investigations or reviews involving welded stainless steel hollow products, and these

investigations appeared to be the first instance in which the scope differentiated between small- and largediameter welded stainless steel pressure pipes.

Based on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, which consisted primarily of

evidence offered by petitioners, the Commission defined the domestic like product as WSS pressure pipe

not greater than 14 inches in outside diameter, coextensive with the scope. The Commission indicated

that it would revisit the issue in any final phase investigations.25
 26 See, e.g., Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 1, 3-6.

 27 See, e.g., CR at I-11 to I-12, I-19; PR at I-8 to I-9, I-13. A-358 pipe is used in critical applications where

failure of the weld might have serious consequences, such as in nuclear power plants and liquified natural gas

facilities. See, e.g., CR at I-12; PR at I-9. As indicated earlier, such pipe is only included in the scope of these

investigations when produced to meet ASTM A-312 or ASTM A-778 specification.

 28 See, e.g., CR at I-18; PR at I-13.

 29 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 123 (Schagrin); Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 8-9; CR at I-17 to I-18; PR at I-13, I-16;

Transcript of Jan. 13, 2009 Hearing (“Hearing Tr.”) at 41 (Henke for Felker Brothers).

 30 See, e.g., CR at I-9, I-18; PR at I-7, I-13.

 31 See, e.g., CR at I-18 to I-19; PR at I-13; Hearing Tr. at 41 (Henke for Felker Brothers).

 32 See, e.g., Petitions, Vol. I at 3-4; Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 8-9; CR at I-17; PR at I-13.

 33 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 123 (Schagrin); Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 8-9; CR at I-17 to I-18; PR at I-13;

Hearing Tr. at 50-51 (Boling for Bristol Metals).

 34 See, e.g., CR at I-22; PR at I-16; Hearing Tr. at 51-52 (Henke for Felker Brothers, Carpenter for Outokumpu).

 35 See, e.g., CR at I-9, I-18; PR at I-7, I-13; Hearing Tr. at 41 (Henke for Felker Brothers).

7

In the final phase of these investigations, petitioners asked the Commission to define a single

domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope, consistent with their argument in the preliminary

phase.26 No party argued to the contrary.

Physical Characteristics and Uses. Small- and large-diameter pipes have similar shapes and are

made to specific ASTM specifications such as ASTM A-312, A-778, and A-358.27 Small- and largediameter pipes differ in terms of wall thickness and outside diameter, and purchaser questionnaire

responses were mixed about whether these are the primary distinctions between the two.28 Smalldiameter pipes are made to tighter tolerances and to more exacting physical specifications (such as

specific ASTM specification gauge schedules), whereas larger sizes are made to a specific customer’s

requirements for less-stringent applications (such as for lower pressure uses).29 Because small-diameter

pipes generally are made from stainless steel coils of sheet, strip, or plate and large-diameter pipes are

made from one or more stainless steel cut-to-length plates or sheets, there are also differences in the

characteristics of small- and large-diameter pipes that are associated with differences in welding

processes, as discussed below. To meet the requirements of ASTM specifications A-312 and A-778,

small-diameter pipe can only have a single longitudinal seam (in the case of A-312 and A-778) or a spiral

butt-weld seam (in the case of A-778). Large-diameter pipes are allowed to have a maximum of two or

three longitudinal welded seams, and their weld-seams are more prevalent since they have not been coldworked (planished).30

Small- and large-diameter pressure pipes are often sold for different end uses, although there is

some overlap.31 For example, small-diameter pipes commonly are used in chemical, petroleum, food,

high-technology, aeration, ethanol, and pulp and paper applications.32 In contrast, large-diameter pipes

generally are used for large-scale chemical, liquified natural gas, and waste-water treatment projects, in

the mining industry, for scrubber systems for emissions control at coal-fired power plants, and in large

air-duct systems or other lower-pressure uses.33

Interchangeability. Differences in size, tolerances, and seams between small- and large-diameter

pipe limit their interchangeability. End users specify the size they need, choosing specific pipe sizes for

specific pressure and flow characteristics.34 Unlike large-diameter pipes, small-diameter pressure pipes

are produced to tighter tolerances and have been cold-worked, ironed, and/or planished.35 Supplemental
 36 See, e.g., CR at I-22 to I-23; PR at I-16.

 37 See, e.g., CR at I-24; PR at I-17; Hearing Tr. at 40-41 (Henke for Felker Brothers).

 38 See, e.g., CR at I-18; PR at I-13.

 39 See, e.g., CR at I-24; PR at I-17.

 40 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 12 (Boling for Bristol Metals), 112-13 (Jakob for Silbo); 122-23 (Schagrin);

Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 9-10; CR at I-18, I-24; PR at I-13, I-17.

 41 See, e.g., CR at I-9, I-19 to I-21; PR at I-7, I-11; Hearing Tr. at 54 (Boling for Bristol Metals), 54-55

(Schagrin), 62 (Carpenter for Outokumpu). In general, to produce small-diameter pipes, coiled stainless steel flatrolled products (sheet, strip, or plate of a width essentially corresponding to the outside diameter of the pipe to be

produced) are put into an uncoiler and fed into a series of paired forming rolls. See, e.g., CR at I-14; PR at I-11. As

the product progresses through the rolls, its cross-sectional profile is formed into a tubular shape with the butted

edges welded along the seam. See, e.g., CR at I-14; PR at I-11. Welding is accomplished using the tungsten inert

gas (“TIG”) process, the plasma process, or the laser welding process. These methods allow welding without filler

material, complete fusion of butted edges, and shielding of the weld area with inert gas to prevent oxidation. See,

e.g., CR at I-15; PR at I-11 to I-12. After welding, the pipe proceeds through an in-line annealing furnace, if

applicable, see, e.g., CR at I-11 to I-12; PR at I-12, is then straightened, and is finally cut to length. See, e.g., CR at

I-15 to I-16; PR at I-12.

 42 See, e.g., CR at I-14; PR at I-11; CR/PR at Table III-6. For example, Bristol Metals dedicates most of its eight

continuous weld mills to producing only two or three specific sizes of WSS pressure pipe. See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at

22 (Boling for Bristol Metals); CR at I-14; PR at I-11. Marcegaglia manufactures pressure pipe on ***. See, e.g.,

CR at I-14; PR at I-11; Petitioners’ Posthearing Br. at Exh. 11.

 43 See, e.g., CR at I-9, I-19 to I-21; PR at I-7, I-11 to I-12; CR/PR at Table III-6. Domestic producers testified

that, due to limitations in available coil dimensions, the large expense associated with constructing and tooling a

greenfield facility, and the limited and sporadic demand for specific large-diameter products, it is unlikely that they

would produce pressure pipe of greater outside diameter than is already produced today in continuous mills. See,

e.g., CR at I-20; PR at I-14; Hearing Tr. at 54 (Boling for Bristol Metals), 54-55 (Schagrin), 56-57 (Boling for

Bristol Metals), 61-64 (Carpenter for Outokumpu), 65 (Henke for Felker Brothers). Indeed, in contrast to the more

integrated U.S. carbon steel industry, WSS pressure pipe producers in the United States are dependent on flat-rolled

stainless steel producers to supply them with products of the desired width because U.S. WSS pressure pipe

(continued...)

8

requirements and testing (i.e., X-ray, eddy current, dye penetration, and corrosion testing) are common

for large- but not for small-diameter pipes.36

Channels of distribution. The vast majority of small-diameter pipe is sold on the spot market

through distributors that maintain inventories, whereas the majority of large-diameter pipe is custommade for individual projects for specific uses and sold either through distributors or directly to fabricators

or end users.37 Several purchasers of small-diameter pipes reported that they do not purchase largediameter pipes,38 although some purchasers reported buying both small- and large-diameter pipes.39 Some

master distributors do inventory small quantities of 16-, 18-, 20-, 24-, and 30-inch large-diameter pipes,

but even then, these larger pipes appear destined for specific customers for specific projects.40

Common Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes, and Production Employees.

Small-diameter pipes are usually made on different equipment using different production processes than

large-diameter pipes. Small-diameter WSS pressure pipe is typically produced using a continuous

welding process.41 Domestic producers have several different continuous weld mills and dedicate each

mill to a limited range of pipe diameters based on the individual mill configuration and tooling.42

Most domestic producers are unable to use a continuous welding process for sizes larger than

14 inches in outside diameter, although Bristol Metals is able to produce WSS pressure pipe measuring

16 inches in outside diameter in a continuous mill.43 Instead, large-diameter pipes generally are made one
 43 (...continued)

producers do not produce or even cut their own coils. See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 61-62 (Schagrin).

 44 See, e.g., CR at I-15; PR at I-11; Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 7-8; Confer. Tr. at 31 (Schagrin); Hearing Tr. at

54 (Boling for Bristol Metals), 54-55 (Schagrin), 63 (Schagrin). The press-brake batch process begins with a cut-tolength sheet (or cut-to-length plate) of a width essentially corresponding to the outside diameter and a length equal to

the length of the piece of pipe to be produced. Alternatively, two or three narrower pieces of cut-to-length steel can

be pressed into the shape of a pipe with two or even three longitudinally welded seams. See, e.g., CR at I-15; PR at

I-11. A press gradually bends the cut-to-length sheet into a cylindrical shape, and each length of pipe is individually

welded, then annealed in a separate operation, and subsequently pickled in acid to yield a “bright” surface finish. 

See, e.g., Feb. 5, 2008, Supplement to the Petitions at Quest. 8; Confer. Tr. at 31, 122 (Schagrin); Petitioners’

Postconf. Br. at 7 (citing USITC Pub. 3877 at I-16 to I-17); CR at I-16; PR at I-12. In some instances, a spiral

welding process may be used wherein a steel strip is spiraled and welded along the spiral to produce pipes of any

diameter. The looped weld running throughout the product rather than along a single straight line reportedly is a

disadvantage in terms of weld refinement and potential end use. In addition, the spiral weld process cannot be used

for welded A-312 products because the ASTM specification requires straight-seam welding. The spiral-weld

process is used only for large-diameter pipes and requires a separate non-inline annealing step because of the nonlinear weld. See, e.g., CR at I-9; PR at I-7; Feb. 5, 2008, Supplement to Petitions at 1.

 45 See, e.g., CR at I-15; PR at I-11; Hearing Tr. at 65-66 (Schagrin); CR/PR at Table III-6.

 46 See, e.g., Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 8; Hearing Tr. at 63 (Schagrin).

 47 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3986 at I-12 to I-13.

 48 See, e.g., CR at I-15; PR at I-11. *** reported the capability to produce small-diameter WSS pressure pipe on a

press brake, but WSS pressure pipe is a very small portion of overall production for ***. See, e.g., CR at I-15 at

n.57; PR at I-11 at n.57; CR/PR at Table III-5, Table III-6. *** reported that it has ***. See, e.g., CR at I-14 at

n.53; PR at I-11 at n.53; CR/PR at Table III-6.

 49 See, e.g., CR at I-19; PR at I-14; CR/PR at Table III-5.

 50 See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 122 (Schagrin); Petitioners’ Postconf. Br. at 7-8 (citing USITC Pub. 3877 at I-16 to I17); CR at I-20; PR at I-14 to I-15; CR/PR at Table III-5; Hearing Tr. at 40-41 (Henke for Felker Brothers).

9

at a time in 10- or 20-foot lengths using a slower batch process on press-brake equipment that welds at a

rate of inches per minute instead of thousands of inches per minute as can be done with small-diameter

pipes.44 Whereas continuous mills are dedicated to a narrow range of sizes (e.g.,two to three products

within a few inches), a press-brake mill is more flexible (e.g., producing pipes of between 48- and

72-inches on the same equipment).45

Whereas the start-to-finish manufacturing process for small-diameter pipes may take one to two

days on a continuous welding line, the process to produce large-diameter pipes may take one to two

weeks.46 In a press-brake process, semi-automatic welding is utilized, requiring constant operator

intervention.47 Because the press-brake process is so labor-intensive, this process is typically used to

produce pipe with outside diameters of 16 inches or greater, although very limited production of smallerdiameter products using a press brake was reported.48

Those domestic producers that make both small- and large-diameter pressure pipes produce

predominantly one or the other, specializing in particular sizes.49 Different employees generally are used

to produce small- and large-diameter pipes, because additional training is needed before employees can

be moved between the production processes. Production of large-diameter pipes is also more laborintensive to the extent that it involves multiple blows to form the pipe and continuous operator monitoring

and intervention during assembly by a semi-automatic seamer welding process.50

Producer/Customer Perceptions. Some domestic producers and some purchasers viewed smalland large-diameter products as different products, with some purchasers reporting purchasing only one or
 51 See, e.g., CR at I-18, I-24; PR at I-15, I-16.

 52 See, e.g., CR at I-25; PR at I-17. Although we approach comparisons of average unit values with caution, we

note that U.S. producers and purchasers largely view large-diameter pipes as higher-priced than small-diameter

pipes. See, e.g., CR at I-25, I-26; PR at I-17, I-18.

 53 See, e.g., CR at I-25 to I-26; PR at I-18; Hearing Tr. at 41 (Henke for Felker Brothers).

 54 The overlap includes *** and Bristol Metal’s production of 16-inch large-diameter pipes on continuous

production equipment that is also used to make small-diameter pipes.

 55 In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the Commission declined to expand the domestic like product

to include welded stainless steel pressure tubes. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3986 at 6 n.21; see also id. at 10 at n.49

(Vice Chairman Pearson). Based on the current record, and in the absence of arguments in favor of including tubes,

we again decide not to define a domestic like product broader than the scope that would include pressure tubes. 

Pressure pipes and pressure tubes differ significantly with respect to physical characteristics (specifications,

dimensions, tolerances, finish, mechanical properties), end uses, channels of distribution, the producers and lines on

which they are produced, and average unit values. See, e.g., CR at I-8 to I-9, I-13 to I-14, I-18 to I-19, I-21 to I-23

& nn.75-76, I-25, I-26; PR at I-7, I-10, I-15 & nn.75-76, I-16 to I-17, I-18; Hearing Tr. at 52 (Carpenter for

Outokumpu); USITC Pub. 3877 at 5-11.

 56 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

10

the other. Some purchasers, however, did not see differences between the two products beyond wall

thickness and diameter.51

Price. Large-diameter pipes have higher average unit values than small-diameter pipes.52 Smalldiameter WSS pressure pipe is sold based on price lists from which discounts may be taken. In contrast,

large-diameter pipes are sold at a markup from cost rather than based on a market list price, and price

discounts are less common.53

Conclusion: The evidentiary record compiled in the final phase of these investigations indicates

that there are some similarities between small- and large-diameter pipes in that they are made in similar

shapes to the same ASTM specifications. Differences in manufacturing processes, however, lead to

different wall thicknesses and outside diameters, affect tolerances and seams, and limit interchangeability

between the products. There is also limited overlap between the products in terms of manufacturers,

manufacturing equipment, manufacturing time, and employees.54 Small-diameter pipes are generally sold

to distributors and inventoried, whereas large-diameter pipes are generally sold directly for different end

uses to specific end users and/or for specific projects and sometimes require specialized testing. Prices

and pricing practices also differ between small- and large-diameter pipe products.55

In light of these facts, based on the current record, and in the absence of any contrary arguments,

we define one domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope and that consists of small-diameter

welded pressure pipe with an outside diameter not greater than 14 inches (hereinafter “WSS pressure

pipe”).

III. 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.”56 In defining the domestic industry, the
 57 No party argues that any domestic producer is related to any producer, exporter, or importer of subject

merchandise in China or that any domestic producer imported or purchased any subject merchandise from China. 

For those domestic producers providing complete questionnaire responses in these investigations, there is no record

evidence indicating that any of them is affiliated with a foreign exporter or U.S. importer of the subject merchandise

or imported or purchased any subject merchandise from China or is otherwise a related party as defined under

19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-1; CR at III-13 to III-14; PR at III-9; Confer. Tr. at 56-57. 

***, which produced small quantities of WSS pressure pipe in the United States, reported importing *** short tons

of subject merchandise from China in ***. See, e.g., CR at III-13 at n.16; PR at III-9 at n.16. ***. See, e.g., CR at

III-1 at n.1; PR at III-1 at n.1. ***.

 58 See, e.g., CR at I-4; PR at I-3.

 59 In these investigations, imports into the United States are based on official import statistics from Commerce, as

modified to include WSS pressure pipe imported under broader HTSUS categories (based on questionnaire

responses) and to exclude both pressure pipe over 14 inches in diameter (based on questionnaire responses) and

mechanical tubing. See, e.g., CR at I-4; PR at I-3 to I-4. In computing total import volume, staff also excluded

imports from Canada into the United States because the overwhelming majority of these imports consists of products

that do not correspond to the scope of these investigations. See, e.g., CR at I-4 at n.7; PR at I-3 at n.7. Based on

these data, subject imports from China accounted for 51.1 percent of total imports of the merchandise into the United

States, by quantity, for the most recent 12-month period preceding the filing of the petitions for which data are

available (calendar-year 2007). See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-2. There does not appear to be any question that

subject imports from China were well above 3 percent of total imports for that period, and no party argues otherwise. 

Consequently, we conclude that subject imports from China are not negligible under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24).

 60 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b) and 1673d(b).

 61 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).

 62 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 63 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 64 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

11

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.57

Consistent with our definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry as

domestic producers of WSS pressure pipe. Based on the information reported in the final phase of these

investigations, the industry consists of five companies, ***.58

IV. MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS FROM CHINA59

A. Legal Standards

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

determines whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material

injury by reason of the imports under investigation.60 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.61 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or

unimportant.”62 In assessing whether 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.63 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.”64
 65 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b).

 66 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).

 67 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

Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006), where the court stated that the “causation

requirement is met so long as the effects of dumping are not merely incidental, tangential, or trivial.” See also

Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“to ensure that the subject

imports are causing the injury, not simply contributing to the injury in a tangential or minimal way.”); Gerald Metals,

Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“the statute requires adequate evidence 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.”); Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

 68 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.

 69 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, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928

(continued...)

12

While the statute requires the Commission to determine whether the domestic industry is

“materially injured by reason of” unfairly traded imports,65 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.66 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject imports and material injury to the

domestic industry, the Commission examines the facts of record that relate to the significance of the

volume and price effects of the subject imports and any impact of those imports on the condition of the

domestic industry. This evaluation, under the “by reason of” standard, must ensure that subject imports

are more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a sufficient causal, not merely a

temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.67

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 non-subject

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

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.69 Nor does the
 69 (...continued)

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

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

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

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

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

harmful effects on domestic market prices.”).

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

 71 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. As long as its effects are not merely incidental, tangential or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than fair

value meets the causation standard.”).

 72 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.

 73 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.”).

 74 Commissioner Pinkert does not join this paragraph or the following three 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 non-subject 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.

13

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

contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors, such as non-subject

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.70 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination if the subject imports themselves

are making more than a minimal or tangential contribution to injury.71

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.”72 Indeed, the

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

adherence to a specific formula.”73

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 non-subject imports.74 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 non-subject
 75 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875-79.

 76 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).

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

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

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

 78 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 non-subject countries that

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

import suppliers). 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 to provide a more complete record

for its causation analysis. The Commission plans to continue utilizing published or requested information in finalphase investigations in which there are substantial levels of non-subject imports.

 79 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.”).

 80 We note that in these investigations, the majority of questionnaire respondents consider domestically produced

WSS pressure pipe and imports from China to be “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with non-subject

imports, non-subject imports account for a large share of the U.S. market relative to the domestic industry and

subject imports, and non-subject imports are price-competitive with the domestic like product. We provide below in

section IV.E regarding Impact a full non-attribution analysis of the role of non-subject imports and other factors in

any injury experienced by the domestic industry.

14

imports.75 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether non-subject 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, not by reason of a minimal or tangential contribution

to material harm caused by LTFV goods,’” and requires that the Commission not attribute injury from

non-subject imports or other factors to subject imports.76 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 non-subject imports are a significant factor in the U.S.

market, the Court will require the Commission to give full consideration to the causation and nonattribution issues and adequately explain its analysis.77 78

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.79 80

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

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

threat of material injury by reason of subject imports from China.
 81 See, e.g., CR at II-4; PR at II-3.

 82 Three of the five responding domestic producers reported no substitutes. One producer reported that coated

carbon steel pipe could be used for energy and petrochemical applications. Another producer reported that

substitutes for WSS pressure pipe include fiberglass-reinforced plastics in water, pulp, and paper applications and

carbon steel in pulp and paper applications. The majority of importers and purchasers did not list any substitutes. A

few firms mentioned seamless stainless steel pressure pipe, which one purchaser noted is more expensive than

welded pipe. See, e.g., CR at II-8; PR at II-6.

 83 Most responding domestic producers and importers of WSS pressure pipe are distributors or sell to distributors,

and hence they were unable to provide useful information regarding the share of downstream product costs

accounted for by WSS pressure pipe. The two firms that estimated the cost share, a domestic producer and an

importer, both estimated that WSS pressure pipe accounts for a small portion of the cost of downstream products in

which it is used. See, e.g., CR at II-8; PR at II-6.

 84 See, e.g., CR at II-4; PR at II-3. Petitioners view the domestic industry’s business cycle as closely tied to the

gross domestic product, “with a little extra emphasis from energy demand.” See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 31, 34-36

(Schagrin).

 85 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3986 at 11 n.56.

 86 When asked if demand for WSS pressure pipe had changed since January 1, 2005, two domestic producers

reported that demand had increased, one reported no change, one reported that demand fluctuated, and one reported

that demand had decreased. Among responding importers, six reported that demand had increased, one reported no

change, and three reported that demand had fluctuated. Some firms reporting an increase in demand attributed the

increase to greater demand for oil, energy, and petrochemicals. Two firms reported that demand increased after

January 1, 2005 but had decreased in more recent periods. Since most purchasers are distributors, they did not

comment on changes in end-use demand. One end-user purchaser reported that demand had decreased. See, e.g.,

CR at II-7; PR at II-6.

 87 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 16-17 (Cornelius for Marcegaglia), 34-36 (Schagrin). Trends in U.S. real gross

domestic product, U.S. pulp production, U.S. ethanol production, and U.S. ethanol plant construction and expansion

are discussed in the staff report. See, e.g., CR at II-5; PR at II-3 to II-4; CR/PR at Figures II-1 to II-3.

 88 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 16-17 (Cornelius for Marcegaglia), 34-36 (Schagrin); CR at II-4; PR at II-3.

15

1. Demand Conditions

WSS pressure pipe is used primarily as a conduit for liquids or gases, heat exchange, and other

purposes in the chemical and petrochemical, food and beverage processing, power generation, and pulp

and paper industries.81 Questionnaire respondents reported few substitutes for WSS pressure pipe82 and

did not provide much information about the cost share of WSS pressure pipe in the products in which it is

used.83

Demand for WSS pressure pipe is derived from the demand of downstream industries and

depends on the health of the overall U.S. economy.84 Thus, in its preliminary determinations, the

Commission did not find that the WSS pressure pipe market is characterized by a regular and measurable

business cycle, but found that WSS pressure pipe producers respond to the individual business cycles of

several different downstream industries.85

Questionnaire respondents disagreed about whether demand for WSS pressure pipe had

increased, decreased, fluctuated, or remained unchanged since January 1, 2005.86 The record indicates

that demand for WSS pressure pipe increased strongly between 2005 and 2007 as the chemical, refinery,

petrochemical, energy, and ethanol industries either retrofitted or expanded in the midst of a growing U.S.

economy, and the energy market strengthened.87 During that time, petitioners assert, federal government

policies favoring ethanol greatly expanded the use of WSS pressure pipe in ethanol production facilities.88
 89 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 90 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 16-17 (Cornelius for Marcegaglia), 24 (Boling for Bristol Metals), 34-36 (Schagrin),

122 (Schagrin); Petitioners’ Posthearing Br. at A-9 to A-10, Exh. 8.

 91 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 92 See, e.g., Petitions at Exh. I-6; Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at Exh. 2.

 93 See, e.g., CR at VII-4; PR at VII-3.

 94 See, e.g., CR at VII-4; PR at VII-3 to VII-4.

 95 See, e.g., CR at VII-5; PR at VII-4.

 96 See, e.g., CR at IV-1; PR at IV-1; CR/PR at Table IV-1.

 97 See, e.g., CR at IV-3; PR at IV-4; CR/PR at Figure IV-1, Table IV-3.

 98 Imports from Chang Mien were excluded from the Taiwan order during the original investigations, and the

order was revoked by Commerce with respect to Taiwan producer Ta Chen effective June 26, 2000, for merchandise

entered after December 1998. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1 at nn.2-3.

16

The record also reflects that WSS pressure pipe demand began plummeting in late 2007.89 Petitioners

argue that demand will continue to fall due to the recession, a decline in oil and gas prices (because

demand for ethanol increases when oil and gas prices are high), and a slowdown in the construction of

ethanol plants.90

Demand, as measured by total apparent U.S. consumption (the sum of the domestic industry’s

U.S. shipments and imports from subject and non-subject sources of WSS pressure pipe), increased from

*** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2006 and *** short tons in 2007. In interim 2008, however,

demand was lower (48,568 short tons) than in interim 2007 (69,301 short tons).91

2. Supply Conditions

There are three sources of supply in the U.S. market: imports of the subject merchandise from

China, imports from non-subject sources, and domestic shipments.

a. Imports of Subject Merchandise from China

Petitioners identified 23 potential producers/exporters of WSS pressure pipe in China in their

prehearing brief after listing nine possible producers/exporters in the petitions.92 In the final phase of

these investigations, the Commission sent foreign producer questionnaires to 20 firms, received no

completed questionnaires, and received one response from a firm that reported it does not produce the

subject merchandise.93 In the preliminary phase of these investigations, one foreign producer (Winner)

submitted a questionnaire response. Winner estimated that it accounts for *** percent of total exports of

WSS pressure pipe from China to the United States.94 U.S. importers identified 12 Chinese producers as

sources for their imports: ***.95 The largest importer of WSS pressure pipe from China into the United

States in 2007 was ***.96

b. Non-Subject Imports

Four sources (Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand) consistently accounted for the large

majority of non-subject imports into the United States during the period of investigation.97 Imports from

two of the four primary sources of non-subject imports into the United States (Korea and Taiwan) are

subject to antidumping duty orders, except for imports from Taiwan producers Chang Tieh (now known

as Chang Mien) and Ta Chen.98
 99 See, e.g., CR at III-1; PR at III-1.

 100 See, e.g., CR at I-3, III-1; PR at I-3, III-1.

 101 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 15 (Cornelius for Marcegaglia), 28 (Conway for USW).

 102 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 12 (Carpenter for Outokumpu), 27 (Conway for USW).

 103 See, e.g., CR at III-1; PR at III-1; Hearing Tr. at 12 (Carpenter for Outokumpu), 27 (Conway). Outokumpu

used Trent Tube equipment that was better than its own to improve its own plant’s efficiency, quality, and cost

structure. See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 12 (Carpenter for Outokumpu).

 104 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 12-13 (Carpenter for Outokumpu).

 105 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 14-15 (Cornelius for Marcegaglia).

 106 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 116-18 (Schagrin).

 107 See, e.g., CR at I-10; PR at I-8. Stainless steel is a general class of steel products that contain more than 10

percent of chromium (Cr) by weight. See, e.g., CR at I-9; PR at I-7. Chromium gives stainless steels their resistance

to corrosion and good strength at high temperatures and pressure. See, e.g., CR at I-9; PR at I-7. For this reason,

stainless steel is used in corrosive environments, under high temperature and pressure conditions, or when

cleanliness and ease of maintenance are strictly required. See, e.g., CR at I-9 to I-10; PR at I-7 to I-8. Austenitic

stainless steels comprise over 70 percent of total stainless steel production. See, e.g., CR at I-10; PR at I-8.

 108 See, e.g., Petitions, Vol. I at 8.

17

c. Domestic Shipments

Eight firms have produced at least limited quantities of WSS pressure pipe in the United States

since January 1, 2005: Alaskan Copper, Bristol Metals, Felker Brothers, Marcegaglia, Outokumpu,

RathGibson, Swepco, and Webco.99 The five producers that submitted complete questionnaire responses

accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. production in 2007, while *** are believed to have

accounted for the remainder.100

Prior to and during the period of investigation, some U.S. production capacity was closed or

consolidated. In the 1990s, Marcegaglia purchased the assets of Bishop Tube and Damascus Tube (two

stainless pipe and tube producers in Pennsylvania) and then combined and consolidated some of these

assets into former U.S. Steel buildings in Munhall, PA.101 Davis Pipe and Acme/Romac left the industry

as a result of Chapter 7 liquidation in 2003.102 Trent Tube, which was one of the larger U.S. producers,

closed its Carrollton, GA plant in 2004, and Outokumpu purchased production mills and equipment from

this facility.103 In 2007, Plymouth Tube purchased what was left of Trent Tube’s facilities from Crucible

Materials, but petitioners reported that the new, larger Plymouth Tube produces products not subject to

these investigations.104 Marcegaglia reported reducing its U.S. workforce by one-half over the last 10

years.105 Thus, petitioners contend that, because of such industry consolidation, the remaining domestic

producers should have had a greater ability to take advantage of increased demand during the period of

investigation, but that subject imports from China prevented the domestic industry from doing so.106

3. Raw Material Costs

The primary inputs used to produce WSS pressure pipe are flat-rolled austenitic stainless steel

(AISI type 304/304L and AISI type 316/316L),107 electricity, natural gas, and industrial gases such as

argon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and helium.108 Since 2005, raw material costs, particularly those for flat-rolled

austenitic stainless steel, have accounted for the majority of the cost of production for WSS pressure
 109 See, e.g., CR at V-1; PR at V-1; CR/PR at Figure V-1.

 110 See, e.g., CR at I-10; PR at I-8. The nickel content ranges from 8 to 10 percent for AISI type 304 and from 10

to 14 percent for AISI type 316; the chromium content is 18 percent for type 304 and 16 percent for type 304. See,

e.g., Petitions, Vol. I at 9, Exh. I-20; CR at I-11 & n.28; PR at I-8 & n.28. Type 316 also contains between 2 and 3

percent molybdenum, which is not contained in type 304 stainless steel. See, e.g., Petitions, Vol. I at 9, Exh. I-21;

CR at I-11 at n.28; PR at I-8 & n.28. Nickel stabilizes the austenitic structure of iron, making stainless steels nonmagnetic and less brittle at low temperatures, whereas molybdenum prevents specific forms of corrosion. See, e.g.,

Petitions, Vol. I at Exh. I-19 at 3, 5.

 111 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 18-19 (Cornelius for Marcegaglia).

 112 Petitioners report that flat-rolled stainless steel producers in Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Thailand (such as

POSCO, China Steel, Ta Chen, and Thainox) include surcharges in their quotes for the U.S. market, but that

stainless steel pipe producers in these countries tend not to use separate surcharges in their pricing. Nevertheless,

petitioners contend that these Asian stainless steel pipe producers quote a single price for their products that tends to

be closer to the domestic price than products from China, so they assume that these Asian pipe producers must

incorporate surcharges from their domestic suppliers into their stainless steel pipe pricing practices. See, e.g.,

Hearing Tr. at 96-97 (Boling for Bristol Metals and Cornelius for Marcegaglia); Petitioners’ Posthearing Br. at A-8.

 113 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 16 (Cornelius for Marcegaglia), 86-89 (Cornelius for Marcegaglia, Tidlow for Bristol

Metals, Schagrin). Petitioners further assert that 70 to 80 percent of the world’s molybdenum is located in China and

that during the period of investigation, the Government of China imposed both export taxes and, in some instances,

licensing quotas on exports of molybdenum, nickel, manganese, other ferroalloys, coking coal, coke, bauxite,

silicon, fluorite, tungsten, zinc, and iron ore. Petitioners claim that the effects of these measures were to ensure that

the Chinese producers had first access to these materials at below-market prices and to leave other potential buyers

uncertain about whether they would get access to such raw materials. See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 38-39 (Schagrin);

Hearing Tr. at 19 (Henke for Felker Brothers), 46-47 (Schagrin), 137-38 (Schagrin); Petitioners’ Posthearing Br. at

A-3, Exhs. 7, 9.

 114 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 18 (Henke for Felker Brothers). Petitioners testified that energy costs associated with

natural gas and electricity, as well as health care costs, are significant and continue to escalate, but account for only a

small percentage of actual costs. See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 70-72 (Avento, Cornelius, Henke, Boling).

 115 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 18 (Henke for Felker Brothers); Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at Exh. 7; see also CR at

VI-5 at n.5; PR at VI-4 at n.5; CR/PR at Figures V-1 to V-3; Confer. Tr. at 7 (Schagrin), 15 (Cornelius for

Marcegaglia), 72-78 (Henke, Schagrin, Cornelius for Petitioners).

 116 See, e.g., CR/PR at Figure V-2.

18

pipes.109 Austenitic stainless steel contains a maximum of 0.15 percent carbon, a minimum of 16 percent

chromium, and varying amounts of nickel, manganese, and molybdenum.110

Because of differences in alloying costs between types of stainless steel, many international flatrolled stainless steel producers reportedly add a non-negotiable alloy surcharge for elements such as

chromium, nickel, and molybdenum to their base stainless steel prices,111 and petitioners argue that many

non-Asian stainless pipe producers in turn pass these surcharges along in their prices.112 Petitioners

contend, however, that WSS pressure pipe producers in China do not use alloy surcharges, and that most

Chinese flat-rolled stainless steel producers did not use alloy surcharges for their U.S. sales until

recently.113

Between mid-2003 and mid-2007, prices of alloys and energy rose rapidly and substantially, and

U.S. flat-rolled stainless steel producers reinstated and frequently raised surcharges for their products.114

In 2008, however, monthly surcharges fell dramatically as the prices of chromium, nickel, molybdenum,

and energy fell.115 As petitioners note, prices for commodities traded daily in global markets have

fluctuated widely, with average monthly nickel spot prices hovering around $7 per pound in 2005 and

early 2006 before increasing to a peak of $28 per pound in April 2007, declining to $15 per pound in July

2007, and fluctuating downward to $5 per pound at the end of 2008.116 The monthly average price of

molybdenum tripled from $12 per pound in 2004 to $37 per pound in mid-2005 before settling down in
 117 See, e.g., Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at Exh. 7.

 118 See, e.g., Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at Exh. 7; see also, e.g., CR/PR at Figure V-3.

 119 Marcegaglia uses average costing adjusted at year end to value its raw material inputs; Outokumpu uses

average costing adjusted quarterly; Felker Brothers uses frozen costs for its monthly financials and standard costs for

its salespeople; and Bristol Metals uses actual costs of raw materials plus production cost but averages the costs of

its products in inventory. See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 76-77 (Cornelius for Marcegaglia, Carpenter for Outokumpu,

Henke for Felker Brothers, Boling for Bristol Metals), 81-82 (Boling for Bristol Metals).

 120 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 76 (Cornelius for Marcegaglia).

 121 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 77-78 (Cornelius for Marcegaglia).

 122 See, e.g., Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 13; Hearing Tr. at 32, 47-48 (Schagrin); CR/PR at Table VI-2; CR at

VI-4 to VI-9; PR at VI-3 to VI-6.

 123 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 110-11 (Carpenter for Outokumpu), 112-13 (Schagrin).

 124 See, e.g., CR at V-7 to V-8; PR at V-5 (description of pricing products).

 125 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 23 (Boling for Bristol Metals); CR/PR at Table II-1; CR at II-9; PR at II-7.

 126 See, e.g., CR at II-9; PR at II-7; see also, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 12 (Boling for Bristol Metals), 107 (Jakob for

Silbo); Hearing Tr. at 23 (Boling for Bristol Metals) (contending that there are approximately 12 major distributors

in the U.S. market).

 127 See, e.g., CR at II-13 to II-14; PR at II-10; CR/PR at Table II-7. When asked to compare products produced in

the United States with WSS pressure pipe produced in China in terms of product differences other than price (such

(continued...)

19

the range of $33 per pound until late 2008.117 The monthly average price of ferrochrome was

approximately $0.70 per pound between 2004 and the first half of 2007 but then escalated to about $2.50

per pound in the third quarter of 2008 before declining thereafter.118

Raw material surcharges and inventories play an important role in this industry. Domestic

producers book the cost of their stainless steel flat-rolled product inputs at the time those inputs are

purchased, and these costs include the raw material surcharges prevailing at the time of purchase.119

Thereafter, it may take a month or two after the flat-rolled products are received before they are converted

into WSS pressure pipe products.120 Domestic producers use a finite number of pipe mills to produce a

wide variety of diameter and wall thickness combinations from AISI type A-312 or A-778 austenitic

stainless steel and then stock these commodity products.121 When surcharges are increasing, as was the

case during much of the period of investigation, profits will tend to increase because domestic producers

sell their WSS pressure pipe products based on the higher alloy surcharges in effect at the time of sale.122

Petitioners assert that distributors and importers use the same data on globally traded alloys that

they do, such as the London Metal Exchange prices of nickel, so that whatever happens with respect to

prices in a given month affects whether these distributors and importers will buy WSS pressure pipe in

the short term. They will build inventories if they believe that prices are going higher, but decrease their

inventories if they believe that prices are going lower.123

4. Substitutability

WSS pressure pipes vary depending on their ASTM specifications (generally A-312 or A-778),

AISI steel type (i.e., 304/304L or 316/316L), gauge (or thickness) range, and outside diameter.124

Whether domestically produced or imported into the U.S. market, the vast majority of WSS pressure pipe

is sold to distributors and master distributors.125 Of the 22 purchasers that responded to the Commission’s

questionnaires, 18 reported stocking WSS pressure pipe produced both in China and in the United

States.126 The majority of questionnaire respondents reported that WSS pressure pipe produced in China

is “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with U.S.-produced products.127 Based on the record in the
 127 (...continued)

as quality, availability, and product range), the majority of domestic producers reported that product differences

between the two are “never” important, while the majority of importers reported that the differences are “always,”

“frequently,” or “sometimes” important. See, e.g., CR at II-14 to II-15; PR at II-11; CR/PR at Table II-8. When

asked to compare domestically produced WSS pressure pipe with products produced in China for selected

characteristics, a majority of purchasers rated the domestically produced product superior to subject imports from

China for availability, delivery time, and technical support/service. They rated subject imports from China superior

to the domestic like product in terms of lower price. For all other categories, except delivery terms, a majority of

purchasers reported both products as comparable. See, e.g., CR at II-15; PR at II-12; CR/PR at Table II-9.

 One importer that rated WSS pressure pipe produced in the United States as only “sometimes” comparable with

subject imports from China reported that imports from China are not on any oil company’s approved manufacturers

list (“AML”). See, e.g., CR at II-13 & n.14; PR at II-10 & n.14. Among petroleum companies, AMLs cover the full

range of pipe sizes down to 1⁄2-inch outside diameter, and chemical companies also require that WSS pressure pipe

have AML approval. See, e.g., CR at I-12; PR at I-9 to I-10. Petitioners contend, however, that some Chinese

producers are on the lists and that the overall size of the AML market is relatively small. See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at

102-04 (Boling for Bristol Metals, Carpenter for Outokumpu). As they point out, ***. See, e.g., Petitioners’

Posthearing Br. at A-11 to A-12.

 128 See, e.g., Petitions, Vol. I at 3, 14-15; Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 10-11; Hearing Tr. at 23-24 (Boling for

Bristol Metals), 42-43 (Schagrin).

 129 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 84-86 (Schagrin, Henke for Felker Brothers).

 130 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 131 Demand in the U.S. market increased from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2006 and *** short tons

in 2007. In interim 2008, however, demand was considerably lower (48,568 short tons) than in interim 2007

(69,301). See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-5, Table C-1.

 132 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 133 When expressed as a ratio to U.S. production, the volume of subject imports from China increased from ***

percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-6.

20

final phase of these investigations, we find that WSS pressure pipe is a commodity product and that WSS

pressure pipe from China is highly substitutable for U.S.-produced WSS pressure pipe because both are

made to identical ASTM specifications, are sold in the same channels of distribution, and are purchased

based on specification and price.128 The record in the final phase of these investigations also reflects that

the domestic industry did not have much of an advantage in delivery time over subject imports because

domestic producers’ inventories competed for sales to distributors and master distributors against

inventories of subject imports held by importers and other distributors.129

C. Volume of the Subject Imports from China

In evaluating the volume of subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Tariff 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.”130

As discussed above, demand, as measured by total apparent U.S. consumption, increased

substantially between 2005 and 2007 (by *** percent), but was 29.9 percent lower in interim 2008 than in

interim 2007.131 The absolute volume of subject imports from China increased at a rate that outpaced

demand gains. The volume of subject imports from China more than doubled, increasing from 14,394

short tons in 2005 to 23,712 short tons in 2006 and 30,371 short tons in 2007.132 The volume of subject

imports from China in 2007 exceeded the domestic industry’s production level in that year.133 In terms of

apparent U.S. consumption, subject imports from China increased their market share by quantity from
 134 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 135 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 136 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 137 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 138 The volume of subject imports from China was lower in interim 2008 (6,700 short tons) than in interim 2007

(25,169 short tons), and subject imports’ market share in interim 2008 (13.8 percent) was also lower than in interim

2007 (36.3 percent). See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-2, Table IV-5. When expressed as a ratio to U.S. production, the

volume of subject imports from China was also lower in interim 2008 (30.4 percent) than in interim 2007 (112.3

percent). See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 139 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments were only slightly higher (3.6 percent)

in interim 2008 (20,980 short tons) than in interim 2007 (20,253 short tons), consistent with the overall lower

demand in interim 2008 (48,568 short tons) than in interim 2007 (69,301 short tons). See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 140 In addition to these investigations, another factor that may explain fluctuations in the volume of WSS pressure

pipe exported from China to the United States is changes to the export tax regime in China. Specifically, the

Government of China imposed an export tax on most tubular products in early 2008, an action that some industry

sources reported resulted in downward pressure on exports from China. The Government of China repealed the

export tax in late 2008. See, e.g., CR at VII-7; PR at VII-4 (citing MBR, Welded Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly

(Mar. 2008) at 12 and MBR, Welded Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly (Nov. 2008) at 12).

 141 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I) indicates that “the Commission shall consider whether any change in the volume, price

effects, or impact of imports ... is related to the pendency of the investigation and, if so, the Commission may reduce

the weight accorded to the data for the period after the filing of the petition ... .” See, e.g., Petitioners’ Posthearing

(continued...)

21

*** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007, for an overall increase of ***

percentage points.134

The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments increased from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons

in 2006 before declining to *** short tons in 2007, a level that was lower than in 2005.135

Correspondingly, the domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity declined from

*** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007, for an overall decline of ***

percentage points.136

Non-subject imports, which exceeded the volume of subject imports from China in 2005, were

overtaken by subject imports in 2007. The volume of non-subject imports, by quantity, increased

absolutely from 21,810 short tons in 2005 to 24,099 short tons in 2006 and 29,078 short tons in 2007. 

Unlike subject imports from China, non-subject imports held a relatively stable share of the U.S. market

between 2005 and 2007. By quantity, non-subject imports’ share of the U.S. market declined from ***

percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006 before increasing to *** percent in 2007 (a level relatively

commensurate with their level in 2005).137

Therefore, we conclude that during a time of booming demand between 2005 and 2007, subject

imports gained market share in the United States almost entirely at the expense of the domestic industry. 

We also find that, overall, the domestic industry did not lose any meaningful market share at the expense

of non-subject imports during this time.

More recently, the record shows that the volume of subject imports from China was lower in

interim 2008 than in interim 2007, whether measured absolutely or relative to apparent U.S. consumption

or production.138 During this same period, the domestic industry’s shipment volume was slightly higher

and its market share returned to 2005 levels as the volume of subject imports and apparent U.S.

consumption were lower. The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption was 29.2 percent

in interim 2007 compared to 43.2 percent in interim 2008 (a difference of 14.0 percentage points).139 We

find that the pendency of these investigations helps to explain, at least in part,140 the decline in subject

imports from China, and we therefore accord less weight to the 2008 data in our analysis.141 Moreover,
 141 (...continued)

Br. at A-1 to A-2 (discussing questionnaire responses of importers and purchasers). In the preliminary phase of

these investigations, importer Silbo contended that monthly data showed that the volume of subject imports from

China began to decline even prior to the January 30, 2008, filing of the petitions in these investigations. See, e.g.,

Confer. Tr. at 103-04 (Jakob for Silbo) (acknowledging that the decline might be related to inventory destocking). 

The available data, however, do not show any consistent decline in the volume of subject imports from China in the

12 months prior to the filing of the petitions. See, e.g., EDIS Doc. No. 318999.

 142 See, e.g., Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 15; Petitioners’ Posthearing Br. at 1, A-1 to A-2, Exh. 6; Hearing Tr. at

22-23 (Boling for Bristol Metals), 36-37 (Schagrin); CR/PR at Table II-2 (purchasers’ reported purchases by source),

Table II-3 (purchasers’ end-of-period inventories of subject imports from China declined from 3,301 short tons in

2007 to 1,265 short tons in interim 2008), Table VII-3 (importers’ end-of-period inventories of subject merchandise

from China declined from *** short tons in interim 2007 to *** short tons in interim 2008).

 143 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 144 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 23 (Boling for Bristol Metals), 42-43 (Schagrin); CR at II-9, V-7; PR at II-7, V-4;

CR/PR at Table II-1.

 145 See, e.g., CR at II-12; PR at II-8 to II-9; CR/PR at Table II-5 (ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions). 

When asked to rank specific factors as “very important,” “somewhat important,” or “not important” in their

purchasing decisions, the factors that purchasers cited most often as “very important” were product consistency

(21 firms), quality meeting industry standards (21 firms), and price (18 firms). Availability, delivery terms, delivery

time, and reliability of supply were also cited as “very important” by the majority of purchasers. See, e.g., CR at II12; PR at II-9; CR/PR at Table II-6 (importance of purchasing factors).

22

although the volume of subject imports from China was lower in interim 2008 than in interim 2007, we

find that the domestic industry continued to face competition from subject imports from China into 2008. 

During this period, distributor purchasers and U.S. importers sold large quantities of subject merchandise

from China that they had previously held in inventory.142

For all of these reasons, we find that the volume of subject imports and the increase in that

volume are significant, both in absolute terms and relative to consumption and production in the United

States. As discussed in more detail below, we find that subject imports from China were able to increase

their presence in the U.S. market by significantly underselling the domestic like product.

D. Price Effects of Subject Imports from China

In evaluating the price effects of the subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act

provides that 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.143

As we found above, when the products are made to the same ASTM specification, AISI steel

grade, gauge, and outside diameter, there is a high degree of substitutability between the domestic like

product and subject imports from China. WSS pressure pipes are commodity products that are most

commonly sold on the spot market to distributors who stock them in inventory.144 Purchasers reported

that price, quality, and availability are the most important factors in their purchasing decisions.145
 146 Regarding whether they made their purchasing decisions based mainly on price, one purchaser answered

“always,” 13 purchasers answered “usually,” eight answered “sometimes,” and none answered “never.” See, e.g.,

CR at II-12; PR at II-9.

 147 These products are (1) ASTM A-312, welded, grade AISI 304/304L pipe, 1-inch schedule 40; (2) ASTM A312, welded, grade AISI 304/304L pipe, 2-inch schedule 40; (3) ASTM A-312, welded, grade AISI 304/304L pipe,

0.5-inch schedule 10; (4) ASTM A-312, welded, grade AISI 304/304L pipe, 6-inch schedule 10; (5) ASTM A-312,

welded, grade AISI 316/316L pipe, 2-inch schedule 40; and (6) ASTM A-312, welded, grade AISI 304/304L pipe,

2-inch schedule 10. See, e.g., CR at V-7 to V-8; PR at V-5.

 148 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6. Subject imports from China undersold the domestic like product in 12

of 15 comparisons for product 1, with the margins of underselling ranging from 1.0 percent to 27.8 percent. See,

e.g., CR/PR at Table V-1. For product 2, subject imports from China undersold the domestic like product in 11 of 15

comparisons, with the margins of underselling ranging from 4.0 to 30.4 percent. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-2. For

product 3, subject imports from China undersold the domestic like product in 14 of 15 comparisons, with the

margins of underselling ranging from *** to 46.3 percent. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-3. For product 4, subject

imports from China undersold the domestic like product in 12 of 15 comparisons, with the margins of underselling

ranging from *** to 26.0 percent. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-4. For product 5, subject imports from China

undersold the domestic like product in nine of 15 comparisons, with the margins of underselling ranging from 4.6 to

20.7 percent. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-5. For product 6, subject imports from China undersold the domestic like

product in eight of 15 comparisons, with the margins of underselling ranging from 0.7 to 24.0 percent. See, e.g.,

CR/PR at Table V-6.

 149 See, e.g., CR at V-19; PR at V-13.

 150 For product 1, subject imports from China oversold the domestic like product in three quarters, only one of

which (fourth quarter 2007) occurred prior to the filing of the petitions. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-1. For product

2, subject imports from China oversold the domestic like product in four quarters, only two of which (third and

fourth quarter 2007) occurred prior to the filing of the petitions. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-2. For product 3,

subject imports from China oversold the domestic like product in one quarter (fourth quarter 2007). See, e.g.,

CR/PR at Table V-3. For product 4, subject imports from China oversold the domestic like product in three quarters,

of which two (third and fourth quarter 2007) occurred prior to the filing of the petitions. See, e.g., CR/PR at

Table V-4. For product 5, which involved relatively smaller quantities throughout the period of investigation,

subject imports from China oversold the domestic like product in six quarters beginning with the second quarter of

2007. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-5. For product 6, subject imports oversold the domestic like product in seven

quarters, of which four predated the filing of the petitions (fourth quarter 2005, first quarter 2006, and third and

fourth quarters of 2007). See, e.g., CR/PR at Table V-6.

23

Nevertheless, purchasers reported that they often made their purchasing decisions based mainly on

price.146

In response to the Commission’s questionnaires, five domestic producers and 10 importers of

subject merchandise from China provided quarterly net U.S. f.o.b. weighted-average pricing data for six

WSS pressure pipe products.147 The pricing data collected for all six products show pervasive

underselling (73 percent of comparisons) at large margins by subject imports from China during much of

the period of investigation.148 Moreover, when underselling is calculated based on weight rather than on

the number of quarterly comparisons, subject imports from China undersold the domestic like product in

transactions accounting for about 79 percent of the covered volume.149

Although there was some overselling of the domestic like product by subject imports from China,

instances of overselling were generally limited, generally occurring after the filing of the petitions and

typically involving much smaller quantities than occurrences of underselling; moreover, underselling

continued throughout the period of investigation.150 Instances of overselling at the end of the period of

investigation are also consistent with record evidence indicating that prices of subject imports from China

generally were set at the time of the order rather than at the time of sale, meaning that producers in China

did not adjust their U.S. prices downward to reflect the dramatic and rapid declines in alloy prices toward
 151 For example, Silbo, an importer that accounted for *** percent of subject imports from China in 2007,

negotiates non-revocable contracts with Chinese suppliers that set prices for deliveries made five to six months later,

and Silbo concurrently negotiates non-revocable contracts with purchasers in the United States for delivery five to

six months later. In contrast to producers in China, domestic producers sell their products at prices prevailing at the

time of the sale, and these selling prices reflect any alloy surcharges prevailing at that time. See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at

99-101, 115-16 (Jakob for Silbo); Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 11-12; Petitioners’ Posthearing Br. at 1, 4-5; Hearing

Tr. at 140-43 (Schagrin).

 152 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6.

 153 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6.

 154 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6.

 155 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6.

 156 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6.

 168 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VI-1, Table C-1.

 169 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VI-1, Table C-1.

 170 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VI-1. The industry’s unit sales value was lower and its unit COGS was higher in

interim 2008 than in interim 2007, such that its COGS-to-net-sales ratio was higher in interim 2008 (94.6 percent)

than in interim 2007 (83.5 percent). See, e.g., CR/PR at Table VI. As described above, we give the data for interim

2008 less weight in our analysis due to the pendency of these investigations.

 171 Accordingly, because the industry did not experience a cost-price squeeze through 2007 based on the COGSto-net sales ratio, which is a central element of the Commission’s traditional analysis of price suppression, Chairman

(continued...)

24

the end of 2007 or in 2008, whereas the domestic industry’s prices reflected alloy prices that were

contemporaneous with the sale.151

Given the large underselling margins and the widespread nature of the underselling, we find that

there has been significant underselling of the domestic like product by subject imports from China.

We have also considered movements in WSS pressure pipe prices over the period of

investigation.152 In general, prices of the domestic like product and subject imports trended upward in

2006 and the earlier portion of 2007 consistent with increased demand and then-rapidly escalating alloy

prices; some of the products’ prices had begun climbing in 2005, but others trended downward in 2005.153

Prices of the domestic like product then trended downward in the latter portion of 2007 consistent with

slowing demand and a reversal in the trend of alloy prices, whereas prices of subject imports from China

generally continued to increase, although they remained at levels that generally undersold the domestic

like product.154 After the January 2008 filing of the petitions, prices of both the domestic like product and

subject imports from China generally increased.155

Although there were some declines in the domestic industry’s prices, especially in the latter part

of 2007, the industry’s prices for the six pricing products increased overall between the first quarter of

2005 and the third quarter of 2008, and for some of the pricing products, prices nearly doubled over that

period.156 Given the general increases in the domestic industry’s prices over the entire period of

investigation, we do not find that subject imports from China significantly depressed prices of the

domestic like product in the U.S. market.

We have also considered whether subject imports from China suppressed prices of the domestic

like product to a significant degree. The domestic industry’s average unit sales value increased from

$4,525 per short ton in 2005 to $5,178 per short ton in 2006 and $7,419 per short ton in 2007, an increase

of 63.9 percent from 2005 to 2007.168 The domestic industry’s average unit cost of goods sold (“COGS”)

also increased, from $4,318 per short ton in 2005 to $4,630 per short ton in 2006 and $6,520 per short ton

in 2007, an increase of 51.0 percent between 2005 and 2007.169 The domestic industry’s COGS as a share

of net sales declined from 95.4 percent in 2005 to 89.4 percent in 2006 and 87.9 percent in 2007.170 171 172
 171 (...continued)

Aranoff, Vice Chairman Pearson, and Commissioner Okun do not find that subject imports from China suppressed

prices of the domestic like product.

 172 Commissioner Lane, Commissioner Williamson, and Commissioner Pinkert note petitioners’ argument that

any increase in the domestic industry’s prices over the period of investigation simply reflected the industry’s ability

to add surcharges to its prices in order to pass on increased surcharges on raw materials charged to domestic

producers by their suppliers, and that the domestic industry’s base prices (excluding surcharges) were suppressed. 

See, e.g., Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 11-12; Petitioners’ Posthearing Br. at 1, 3-4, 6-7, A-6, Exh. 4; Hearing Tr. at

69-72 (Schagrin). To evaluate the merits of this claim, the Commission asked the domestic industry to report pricing

data for products 2 and 5 net of alloy surcharges. The domestic industry’s “base prices” for these two pricing

products were generally lower in 2007 than they were in 2005 and 2006, whether examined on a company-specific

or industry-wide basis. See, e.g., Petitioners’ Posthearing Br. at Exh. 4 (company-specific data); CR/PR at Appendix

F (domestic industry data). Given the strength of the domestic market for WSS pressure pipe in 2007, base prices

would not be expected to be lower in 2007 than in 2005 or 2006. Thus, they find that these lower base prices, which

affected transaction prices, provide some evidence that subject imports from China suppressed prices of the domestic

industry.

 173 As indicated elsewhere in this opinion, we have also considered the role of non-subject imports in the U.S.

market during the period of investigation (including the volume and price trends and the composition of non-subject

imports) to ensure that we do not attribute injury from other sources, such as non-subject imports, to the subject

imports.

 174 See, e.g., Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 12-13; see also CR at V-19 to V-24; PR at V-13 to V-14; CR/PR at

Tables V-9 and V-10 (documenting $*** in confirmed lost sales involving *** feet of WSS pressure pipe and $***

in lost revenues involving *** feet, with the remainder of the unconfirmed lost revenues ($*** involving *** feet of

WSS pressure pipe) being associated with a single purchaser that declined to respond to multiple Commission staff

inquiries).

 175 Moreover, as petitioners explain, their actual lost sales and lost revenues were even larger than what they

could document because when prices of subject imports from China were as much as 40 percent below the domestic

industry’s prices, distributors were not inclined to call domestic producers to see if they would be willing to offer

competitive prices. Instead, distributors contacted domestic producers only when a shipment of imported WSS

pressure pipe arrived late or when the domestic industry’s shorter lead times allowed them to meet a distributor’s

need for products for which it did not have sufficient inventory. See, e.g., Petitioners’ Prehearing Br. at 12-13;

Hearing Tr. at 20 (Henke for Felker Brothers). While we find petitioners’ testimony on this point to be credible, it is

not necessary to support our determination.

25

As described above, subject imports from China undersold the domestic like product to a

significant degree. Significant underselling of the domestic like product by subject imports from China

took substantial market share from the domestic industry as noted above.173 This conclusion is buttressed

by extensive evidence of lost sales with purchasers widely confirming that they shifted from WSS

pressure pipe produced domestically to WSS pressure pipe produced in China to secure lower prices.174

Given our finding that WSS pressure pipe is a commodity product that is overwhelmingly sold on the

spot market and through distributors, we find the extent of confirmed lost sales to be compelling evidence

of the manner in which subject imports had adverse price effects on the domestic industry in these

investigations.175
 176 In its antidumping investigation concerning subject imports from China, Commerce found a 10.53 percent ad

valorem antidumping margin for Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals, Co., Ltd. for products produced by that company

and a 55.21 percent PRC-wide rate. See, e.g., 74 Fed. Reg. at 4916; CR at I-7; PR at I-6. In its countervailing duty

investigation, Commerce found a 1.10 percent ad valorem subsidy rate for Winner Stainless Steel Tube Co.

Ltd./Winner Steel Products (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd./Winner Machinery Enterprises Company Limited (Hong Kong),

a 299.16 percent subsidy rate for Froch Enterprise Co. Ltd. (“Froch”) (also known as Zhangyuan Metal Industry Co.

Ltd.), and a 1.10 percent subsidy rate for all others. See, e.g., 74 Fed. Reg. at 4937; CR at I-7; PR at I-5. Commerce

found three countervailable subsidy programs for Winner: (1) provision of stainless steel coils for less than adequate

remuneration, (2) import duty and value-added tax exemptions for imported equipment, and (3) a reduced income tax

rate for foreign investment enterprises located in economic and technological development zones and other special

economic zones. It applied adverse facts available to Froch because the company did not respond to Commerce’s

initial questionnaire. See, e.g., CR at I-6; PR at I-5 (citing Commerce Decision Memorandum in Case No. C-570-

931 from John M. Andersen to Ronald K. Lorentzen at 11-26 (Jan. 21, 2009), found at

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/prc/E9-1829-1.pdf). Commerce did not make a finding concerning whether any of

the subsidy programs is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and

Countervailing Measures.

 177 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.”).

 178 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Invs. Nos. 701-

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

 179 The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments of WSS pressure pipe increased from *** short tons in 2005 to ***

short tons in 2006 and then declined to *** short tons in 2007. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. Exports, which were

a *** share of the domestic industry’s total shipments, also declined by *** percent over this same period. U.S.

export shipments of WSS pressure pipe declined from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2006 and *** short

tons in 2007. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

26

E. Impact of the Subject Imports from China on the Domestic Industry176

In examining the impact of subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that

the Commission “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the

industry.”177 These factors include output, sales, inventories, 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.”178

We have examined performance indicia for the domestic industry producing WSS pressure pipe. 

Overall, the record in these investigations indicates that production-related performance factors generally

declined between 2005 and 2007, whereas financial-related performance factors improved during the

same period but ***, as further explained below. After the January 2008 filing of the petitions in these

investigations, the volume of subject imports from China declined, but in the face of declining demand

and a reversal of trends in alloy prices, the domestic industry continued to face competitive pressure from

subject imports from China as importers and distributors drew down their inventories of these products.

In terms of specific performance factors, the industry’s production of WSS pressure pipe

increased from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2006, but then declined to *** short tons in

2007 to a level lower than in 2005. The industry’s total U.S. shipments of WSS pressure pipe declined by

*** percent between 2005 and 2007, with the loss between 2006 and 2007 reaching *** percent.179

Correspondingly, the industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity declined from ***

percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006 and *** percent in 2007, for an overall decline of *** percentage
 180 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 181 The domestic industry’s end-of-period inventories of WSS pressure pipe increased from *** short tons in 2005

to *** short tons in 2006, and then increased again to *** short tons in 2007. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 182 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. These data show an increase in production capacity of *** percent between

2005 and 2007. ***. See, e.g., CR at III-3; PR at III-2.

 183 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. ***. See, e.g., CR at III-4; PR at III-3.

 184 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. For example, Bristol Metals indicated that, beginning in mid-2007, it did not

utilize four of its eight continuous-welding mills or only produced with limited shifts at those mills, because of

declining orders due to increased imports of subject merchandise from China; as a result, the company cut back on

its employees’ work hours and suffered financial difficulties associated with lower capacity-utilization levels. See,

e.g., Confer. Tr. at 10-11 (Boling for Bristol Metals); CR/PR at Table III-3.

 185 The average number of production and related workers increased from *** in 2005 to *** in 2006, before

decreasing to *** in 2007. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. Productivity increased from *** short tons per 1,000

hours in 2005 to *** short tons per 1,000 hours in 2006, then declined to *** short tons per 1,000 hours in 2007. 

See, e.g., id.

 186 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. The domestic industry’s exports were higher in interim 2008 (605 short tons)

than in interim 2007 (223 short tons), although its end-of-period inventories were lower in interim 2008 (8,680 short

tons) than in interim 2007 (10,485 short tons). See, e.g., id.

 187 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. The average number of production and related workers was higher in interim

2008 (348) than in interim 2007 (308), productivity was lower in interim 2008 (38.7 short tons per 1,000 hours) than

in interim 2007 (41.5 short tons per 1,000 hours), and hourly wages were higher in interim 2008 ($16.53) than in

interim 2007 ($16.11). See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

27

points.180 The domestic industry’s end-of-period inventories of WSS pressure pipe increased by ***

percent from 2005 through 2007.181

The domestic industry’s average production capacity increased from *** short tons in 2005 to

*** short tons in 2006 and *** short tons in 2007.182 Because of disparities among the capacity

utilization levels reported by individual domestic producers,183 we have placed more weight on trends in

capacity utilization than on levels of capacity utilization. The domestic industry’s capacity utilization

increased from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006 and then declined to *** percent in 2007.184

This decline of *** percentage points in capacity utilization between 2006 and 2007 is striking given the

strong demand prevailing in the U.S. market at that time.

Thus, the domestic industry was able to increase its production and capacity between 2005 and

2006 in a time of increasing demand but still lost market share to low-priced subject imports from China. 

Between 2006 and 2007, the domestic industry lost additional market share to subject imports

notwithstanding continued increases in demand and even had to cut its output.

With respect to employment factors, the industry’s average number of production and related

workers, hours worked, total wages, and productivity all increased between 2005 and 2006, then declined

between 2006 and 2007. Overall, between 2005 and 2007 each of these indicators either declined or

increased only marginally, despite a *** increase in domestic consumption between 2005 and 2007.185

The domestic industry’s average production capacity was higher in interim 2008 (49,041 short

tons) than in interim 2007 (47,961 short tons), but its capacity utilization was lower (45.7 percent

compared to 45.9 percent).186 The domestic industry’s production was lower at 22,010 short tons as

compared to 22,421 short tons. Because of somewhat larger U.S. shipment quantities, however, the

domestic industry was able to regain much of the market share that it previously lost to subject imports

from China, with its market share reaching 43.2 percent in interim 2008 as compared to 29.2 percent in

interim 2007 in what was then a shrinking U.S. market.187 As discussed above, we give less weight to any

apparent improvements in the domestic industry’s volume-related performance indicia between interim

2007 and interim 2008 due to the pendency of these investigations.
 188 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. Net sales measured by quantity increased from 29,688 short tons in 2005 to

32,410 short tons in 2006 and then declined to 26,259 short tons in 2007. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. Net sales

measured by value increased from $134.4 million in 2005 to $167.8 million in 2006 and $194.8 million in 2007. 

See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 189 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 190 See, e.g., Conf. Tr. at 11, bottom of 63 to 66 (Mr. Boling of Bristol Metals testified that “The big hit for us,

really, it comes in six inch and smaller or eight inch and smaller, in that size range.” He continued, “we could

probably do away with our six inch and smaller mills completely, because of the Chinese imports, unless we’re

making a special product run for somebody. But just on standard commodity in these size ranges, there’s just no

orders out there.” Mr. Carpenter of Outokumpu testified that it was “fairly busy” in its north plant that makes the

larger sizes, but that its “south plant, with six inch and down, is almost dark. We run it just sporadically; again, for

the same reason. There are no orders out there because the distributors have simply given all of that business for the

smaller pipe sizes, almost all of it, to the Chinese. So we run it sporadically. We maintain a small inventory. But

there’s just no business out there for the smaller sizes. Which again, that’s the sizes that either are targeted by

Chinese producers, or that seems to be where their interest is.”) See also, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 22 (Boling for Bristol

Metals); CR at III-3; PR at III-2 (showing product mix for the domestic industry in 2007 and interim 2008), CR at

IV-3; PR at IV-4 (showing product mix for subject imports from China); CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6 (showing

declining domestic industry sales of smaller-diameter WSS pressure pipes but rising volumes of subject imports

from China); EDIS document 31588, EDIS document 31582 (e-mail exchanges with Commission staff discussing

changes in domestic producers’ product mix over the period of investigation). By contrast, Mr. Cornelius testified

that Marcegaglia produces 1⁄2 -inch to 12-inch products but saw subject imports from China competing with the

company’s entire range of products. See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 66 (Cornelius for Marcegaglia). Likewise, Mr. Henke

testified that Felker Brothers saw competition from subject imports from China in the 2-inch to 12-inch dimensions. 

See, e.g., Confer. Tr. at 66-67 (Henke for Felker Brothers).

 191 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 192 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 193 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

28

Record data reflect that the domestic industry’s net sales increased by 9.2 percent between 2005

and 2006 but then declined by 19.0 percent between 2006 and 2007 when measured by quantity. When

measured by value, however, the domestic industry’s net sales increased by 24.9 percent between 2005

and 2006 and by 16.1 percent between 2006 and 2007.188 Net sales quantities were higher in interim 2008

than in interim 2007 (by 5.3 percent), whereas net sales values were lower in interim 2008 than in interim

2007 (by 4.9 percent).189 The observed trends in net sales quantities and net sales values between 2006

and 2007 and then between interim 2007 and interim 2008 are consistent with trends in alloy prices

during this period and shifts in the domestic industry’s product mix. The domestic industry sold less

WSS pressure pipe between 2006 and 2007, but what it sold brought in higher prices due to increased

surcharges, as discussed herein, and a shift in the composition of domestic producers’ sales. Subject

imports from China were competing most heavily for sales of smaller outside diameter (“OD”) (less than

6 to 8 inches OD) WSS pressure pipes. Thus, a greater portion of the domestic industry’s sales in 2007

consisted of larger OD WSS pressure pipes (10 to 14 inches OD). Both of these patterns reversed

between interim 2007 and interim 2008.190

As discussed previously, the domestic industry’s COGS increased from $4,318 per short ton in

2005 to $4,630 per short ton in 2006 and $6,520 per short ton in 2007, an increase of 51.0 percent

between 2005 and 2007 and a 40.8 percent increase just between 2006 and 2007.191 The domestic

industry’s average unit COGS were 2.3 percent higher in interim 2008 ($6,401) than in interim 2007

($6,256).192 The domestic industry’s COGS as a share of net sales declined from 95.4 percent in 2005 to

89.4 percent in 2006 and 87.9 percent in 2007, although its COGS as a share of net sales was higher in

interim 2008 (94.6 percent) than in interim 2007 (83.5 percent).193 Thus, notwithstanding a significant

increase in COGS associated with dramatic increases in the costs of energy and especially alloys, the
 194 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 195 The domestic industry’s operating income margin improved from a 2.7 percent loss in 2005 to a 4.2 percent

profit in 2006 and a 7.3 percent profit in 2007. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 196 Although the domestic industry’s profitability improved between 2005 and 2007, Chairman Aranoff, Vice

Chairman Pearson, and Commissioner Okun give reduced weight to these data for the following reasons. First, as

discussed above, in the face of price-based competition from Chinese imports focused on the smaller sizes of WSS

pressure pipe, domestic producers shifted their product mix notably toward larger WSS pressure pipe sizes, which

tend to command higher unit prices. The result was more profitable sales but at the cost of reduced sales and

production volumes. See, e.g., Conf. Tr. at 11, bottom of 63 to 66; Hearing Tr. at 22; CR at III-3, IV-3; PR at III-2,

IV-4; CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6; EDIS document 31588; EDIS document 31582. Second, while profitability is

one of the factors the Commission evaluates in examining the impact of subject imports, in the context of the

conditions of competition distinctive to the WSS pressure pipe industry, we find that the other indicators we have

discussed above, including production and shipment data, market share losses, and increased inventories more

closely reflect the impact of subject imports.

 197 Commissioner Lane, Commissioner Williamson, and Commissioner Pinkert note that the domestic industry’s

improving financial results from 2005 to 2007 depended in large part on substantial increases in the major cost

components of austenitic stainless steel, such as nickel, chromium, and/or molybdenum. As described above in the

section on Conditions of Competition, domestic producers purchased stainless steel inputs at a given surcharge, then

later sold finished pipe at a higher prevailing surcharge. In light of this market context, they find that the industry’s

rising (albeit relatively modest) profits, during a period of strong demand, are not inconsistent with a finding of

material injury.

 198 See, e.g.,CR/PR at Table C-1. *** research and development expenses. See, e.g., CR at VI-17; PR at VI-10.

 199 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-7. As discussed above, whether produced in the United States, China, or in nonsubject countries, WSS pressure pipe is produced to industry standards and predominantly sold through distributors

in the spot market. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table II-1; CR at V-7; PR at V-5. There was considerable overlap in terms

(continued...)

29

domestic industry was able to raise overall transaction prices as its costs increased, although it was able to

do so only to a lesser degree at the end of the period of investigation.

The domestic industry’s financial indicators improved during the period of investigation. The

domestic industry turned a $3.6 million operating loss in 2005 into $7.0 million in operating profits in

2006 before further improving to a positive $14.2 million in 2007.194 The domestic industry’s ratio of

operating income to sales increased by 9.9 percentage points from 2005 to 2007.195 196 197

The domestic industry’s capital expenditures declined from $2.7 million in 2005 to $1.5 million

in 2006, before increasing to $3.8 million in 2007, and its capital expenditures were $4.4 million in

interim 2008 compared to $2.8 million in interim 2007.198

In summary, the domestic industry suffered from lower U.S. shipments, lower capacity utilization

levels, and lost sales due to increasing volumes of low-priced subject imports from China between 2005

and 2007 during a period in which apparent U.S. consumption increased by *** percent. While the

industry’s operating income improved between 2005 and 2007, we give reduced weight to these data and

do not view them as inconsistent with an industry that is materially injured. Given our findings of a

significant volume and a significant increase in the volume of subject imports from China during a period

of increasing apparent U.S. consumption, significant underselling by subject imports from China,

significant volumes of sales that the domestic industry lost to subject imports from China, and declines in

the domestic industry’s performance during the period of investigation, we find for purposes of our final

determinations in these investigations that subject imports from China are having a significant adverse

impact on the domestic WSS pressure pipe industry.

In making this finding, because the majority of questionnaire respondents consider domestically

produced WSS pressure pipe and imports from China “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with nonsubject imports,199 we have also examined market trends with respect to non-subject imports. On an
 199 (...continued)

of purchasers of the domestic like product, subject imports from China, and non-subject imports. Of the 22

purchasers responding to the Commission’s questionnaires, 15 purchased WSS pressure pipe produced in the United

States, WSS pressure pipe imported from China, and WSS pressure pipe imported from non-subject sources. One

purchased only products produced in the United States and in non-subject countries, one purchased only products

produced in China and in non-subject countries, one purchaser reported purchasing only from China, and one

purchaser reported purchasing only from non-subject countries. See, e.g., CR at II-9; PR at II-7; CR/PR at

Table II-2.

 200 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 201 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 202 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-5. As subject imports declined after the petition was filed, domestic producers

and non-subject imports had a higher market share in interim 2008 than in interim 2007. See, e.g., CR/PR at

Table IV-5.

 203 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6.

 204 See, e.g., CR at IV-3; PR at IV-4; CR/PR at Figure IV-1, Table IV-3.

 205 Imports from Chang Mien were excluded from the Taiwan order during the original investigations, and the

order was revoked by Commerce with respect to Taiwan producer Ta Chen effective June 26, 2000, for merchandise

entered after December 1998. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table I-1 at nn.2-3.

 206 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table IV-3. Taiwan’s share of the U.S. market increased from *** percent in 2005 to ***

percent in 2007 and was 22.8 percent in interim 2008 compared to 21.9 percent in interim 2007. Derived from

CR/PR at Tables IV-3 and IV-5.

 207 Non-subject imports from Taiwan *** subject imports from China in *** of *** possible comparisons. 

Taiwan imports *** (in *** of *** possible combinations). See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6, Appendix E.

 208 In those instances in which sales overlapped for the same pricing products, imports from Korea *** subject

imports from China (in *** of *** possible comparisons) and *** the domestic like product as well (in *** of ***

possible comparisons), although there are no pricing data available for 2008 for non-subject imports from Korea. 

See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6, Appendix E.

30

absolute basis, the volume of non-subject imports increased annually between 2005 and 2007, but was

lower in interim 2008 than in interim 2007.200 By quantity, non-subject imports’ share of the U.S. market

declined from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2006 before increasing to *** percent in 2007 (a

level relatively commensurate with their level in 2005).201 By quantity, non-subject imports’ U.S. market

share was higher in interim 2008 (43.0 percent) than it was in interim 2007 (34.5 percent).202

Collectively, non-subject imports generally oversold subject imports from China (in *** of *** possible

comparisons), and they mostly oversold the domestic like product (in *** of ***possible comparisons).203

As noted earlier, four countries (Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand) consistently accounted

for the large majority of non-subject imports into the United States during the period of investigation.204

Imports from two of these non-subject sources (Korea and Taiwan) are subject to antidumping duty

orders, except for imports from Taiwan producers Chang Mien and Ta Chen.205 Imports from Taiwan

accounted for the largest share and greatest increase among non-subject sources. The volume of Taiwan

imports, which was generally two to three times the volume of imports from Korea and even larger than

the volume of those from Malaysia, increased between 2005 and 2007, but was lower in interim 2008

than in interim 2007.206

Taiwan imports *** subject imports from China *** and ***.207 Imports from Korea, which are

subject to an antidumping duty order, ***, but declined between 2005 and 2007 and were lower in

interim 2008 than in interim 2007.208 Imports from Malaysia, which are not subject to an antidumping

duty order, *** subject imports from China and *** the domestic like product. Non-subject imports from

Malaysia increased erratically between 2005 and 2007 and were higher in interim 2008 than in interim
 209 Imports from Malaysia *** subject imports from China (in *** of *** possible comparisons) and *** the

domestic like product (in *** of *** possible comparisons). See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6, App. E. No

pricing data were submitted by questionnaire respondents regarding non-subject imports from Thailand.

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

that WSS pressure pipe is a commodity product. Whether produced in the United States, China, or non-subject

countries, WSS pressure pipe is produced to industry standards and is predominantly sold through distributors in the

spot market. The majority of questionnaire respondents consider domestically produced WSS pressure pipe, subject

imports, and non-subject imports to be “always” or “frequently” interchangeable. CR/PR at Table II-1, Table II-7;

CR at V-7; PR at V-4. Non-subject imports also are a significant factor in the U.S. market. As noted above, nonsubject imports collectively accounted for more than *** percent of the U.S. market throughout the period of

investigation. CR/PR at Table IV-5. Their market share was comparable to that of the subject imports and by the

end of the period of investigation nearly reached the highest level attained by the domestic industry during the

period. Non-subject imports also appear to be price-competitive with the domestic like product. With respect to

pricing products 1 through 4 they undersold the domestic like product in *** of *** possible comparisons, although

they did so only in *** of *** possible comparisons for all six pricing products. CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6.

 Commissioner Pinkert finds, however, that the evidence of record is insufficient to show that non-subject

imports would have replaced subject imports during the period of investigation without any beneficial effect on the

domestic industry. It is true that non-subject imports increased substantially during most of 2008, as subject imports

declined after the filing of the petition. CR/PR at Table IV-2, Figure IV-1. Nevertheless, information regarding the

available capacity of the key non-subject producers to produce WSS pressure pipe is unavailable on the record of

these investigations. Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand accounted for the overwhelming majority of nonsubject imports. The evidence establishes a considerable level of capacity in those countries to produce a broad

group of products (welded stainless steel tubes, pipes, and hollows), but it does not establish the extent of their

capacity to produce WSS pressure pipe. See CR at VII-15 & n.33, VII-17, and VII-19; PR at VII-10 & n.33, VII-12;

CR/PR at Tables VII-4, VII-5, and VII-7. The evidence thus does not warrant a finding that the producers in those

countries had the ability to increase exports of WSS pressure pipe to the United States by an amount sufficient to

replace imports from China. 

 Moreover, even assuming non-subject imports would have replaced subject imports, it appears that the

domestic industry still would have benefitted. Collectively, non-subject imports oversold subject imports from

China (in *** of *** possible comparisons), although this varied substantially among imports from different

countries. CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-6, Appendix E.

 211 We have not identified, and no party has claimed that, any factors other than those already discussed have

been injurious to the domestic industry during the period examined.

31

2007, but were consistently smaller than those from Korea and Taiwan.209 Therefore, any injury we have

found from subject imports from China cannot be attributed to non-subject imports.210 211

We conclude that subject imports had a significant adverse impact on the condition of the

domestic industry during the period of investigation. Although the domestic industry was profitable

throughout much of the period of investigation, we do not view its profits as inconsistent with an industry

that is materially injured. As discussed above, subject imports gained significant market share from the

domestic industry by underselling the domestic product by significant margins. Although the domestic

industry was able to increase its prices in response to rising costs, subject imports from China

significantly affected the domestic industry’s production, market share, capacity utilization, and

profitability over the period of investigation.
32

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we find that an industry in the United States is materially injured by

reason of imports of WSS pressure pipe from China that have been found by Commerce to be sold at less

than fair value and subsidized by the Government of China.
 1

 United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers

International Union. 

 2

 As discussed in greater detail in the section of this chapter entitled “The Subject Merchandise,” for purposes of

these investigations, the products covered are circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14

inches in outside diameter. These stainless pipes meet the ASTM A-312 or A-778 specifications or comparable

specifications. These stainless steel pipes are generally used as a conduit for liquids or gases. Excluded from the

scope are: (1) non-circular welded stainless pipe; (2) welded stainless mechanical tubing, such as ASTM A-554; and

(3) boiler, heat exchanger, superheater and condenser tubing such as ASTM A-249, A-269, A-270, and A-688. 

 3 Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation are presented in appendix A.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from a petition filed on January 30, 2008, by Bristol Metals (Bristol,

TN), Felker Brothers Corp. (Marshfield, WI), Marcegaglia USA, Inc. (Munhall, PA), Outokumpu

Stainless Pipe, Inc. (Schaumburg, IL), and The United Steel Workers (Pittsburgh, PA).1

 The petition

alleges that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by

reason of subsidized and less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of welded stainless steel pressure pipe

(“WSS pressure pipe”)2

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

provided below.3

Effective date Action

January 30, 2008

Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission

investigations

February 25, 2008 (CVD)

February 26, 2008 (AD) Commerce’s notices of initiation 

March 17, 2008 Commission’s preliminary determinations

July 10, 2008 (CVD)

September 5, 2008 (AD)

Commerce’s preliminary determinations, scheduling of final phase of

Commission investigations (73 FR 58265, October 6, 2008)

January 13, 2009 Commission’s hearing1

January 28, 2009

Commerce’s final determinations (74 FR 4936, January 28, 2009 (CVD), 

74 FR 4913, January 28, 2009 (AD)) 

February 18, 2009 Commission’s vote

March 11, 2009 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce

 1 A list of witnesses appearing at the Commission’s hearing is presented in app. B.
I-2

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in

making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission--

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II)

the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States

for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only

in the context of production operations within the United States; and. . .

may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of

imports.

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

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission

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

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.
 4

 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, exhibit 2, and posthearing brief, exhibit 5.

 5

 According to the Renewable Fuels Association, the number of new ethanol plants under construction in the

United States was 16 as of January 2005, 31 as of January 2006, and 76 as of January 2007. Petitioner’s posthearing brief, p. A-9 and Exhibit 8.

 6

 Table C-2 is based on an expanded domestic like product that includes pressure pipe greater than 14 inches in

diameter, table C-3 is based on an expanded domestic like product that includes pressure tube, and table C-4 presents

data for all pressure pipe and tube.

I-3

Organization of the Report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, subsidies and dumping

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

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

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

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

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

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

of material injury, as well as information regarding nonsubject countries.

U.S. WSS PRESSURE PIPE MARKET SUMMARY

Trade for WSS pressure pipe totaled approximately *** (nearly *** short tons) in the U.S. market

in 2007. Currently, at least eight firms produce WSS pressure pipe in the United States. Five of the

producers – Bristol, Felker, Marcegaglia, Outokumpu, and Webco – accounted for approximately ***

percent of estimated U.S. production in 2007. At least 12 firms have imported WSS pressure pipe from

China since 2005. The three largest importers – *** – accounted for almost *** percent of reported U.S.

imports from China in 2007. There is one large confirmed Chinese producer of WSS pressure pipe,

Winner. Petitioners estimate there are 22 other producers in China.4

WSS pressure pipe generally is used as a conduit for liquids or gases, with applications including

digester lines, blow lines, pharmaceutical lines, petrochemical lines, stock lines, brewery process and

transport lines, general food processing lines, automotive paint lines, and paper process machines. The

quantity of apparent U.S. consumption of WSS pressure pipe increased by nearly *** between 2005 and

2007, reflecting the growth in ethanol facilities.5

 The value of apparent U.S. consumption almost ***,

reflecting both rising demand and rapid increases in stainless steel prices generally. U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments of WSS pressure pipe totaled *** short tons in 2007, and accounted for *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption by quantity. U.S. imports from China totaled 30,371 short tons in 2007, and

accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity, while U.S. imports from all other

sources combined totaled 29,078 short tons in 2007, and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption by quantity. The largest sources of imported WSS pressure pipe are China and Taiwan. 

The quantity and value of apparent U.S. consumption were each nearly one-third lower in JanuarySeptember 2008 than in January-September 2007.

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in the investigations is presented in appendix C, tables C-1 to C-4.6

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

approximately *** percent of U.S. production of WSS pressure pipe during 2007. U.S. imports are based

on official import statistics of Commerce, as modified to include WSS pressure pipe imported under

broader HTS categories (based on questionnaire responses) and to exclude both WSS pressure pipe over
 7

 As discussed in detail in Part IV, import data for Canada are not being used because the overwhelming majority

of such imports consists of nonsubject product (mechanical tubing). 

 8

 19 U.S.C. § 2252.

 9

 Stainless steel welded tubular products were found to be a single ‘like or directly competitive’ product. Steel,

Inv. No. TA-201-73, Volume I: Determinations and Views of Commissioners, USITC Publication 3479, December

2001, p. 16.

I-4

14 inches in diameter (based on questionnaire responses) and mechanical tubing.7 Data regarding the

Chinese industry are based on one foreign producer questionnaire response, while information with

respect to other foreign industries is drawn from published sources. Finally, additional information on

tariff treatment, nonsubject import prices, domestic “base” prices (excluding surcharges), and the alleged

effects of imports appear in appendixes D through G.

PREVIOUS AND RELATED TITLE VII INVESTIGATIONS

The Commission has conducted several previous import relief investigations and two reviews on

welded stainless steel pipe and tube, including ASTM A-312 pipe, a product that is both broader and

narrower than WSS pressure pipe. Table I-1 presents data on previous and related Title VII

investigations.

Table I-1

WSS pressure pipe: Previous and related Title VII investigations

Product Inv. No.

Year of

petition Country

Original

determination Current status

Welded

stainless steel

pipe and tube AA1921-180 1978 Japan Negative (1

)

Welded

stainless steel

pipe and tube

excluding grade

409 pipe

701-TA-281 1986 Sweden Negative (1

)

731-TA-354 1986 Sweden Negative (1

)

ASTM A-312

pipe

731-TA-5402

 1991 Korea Affirmative Order in place.

731-TA-5412 1991 Taiwan Affirmative Order in place.3

 1 Not applicable. 

 2

 On July 1, 1999, the Commission instituted the first five-year review of the antidumping duty orders, and on September 22,

2000, the Commission made an affirmative determination. On September 1, 2005, the Commission instituted the second five-year

review of the antidumping duty orders, and on August 16, 2006, the Commission made an affirmative determination.

 3

 Chang Tieh (later Chang Mien) was excluded from the original investigations, and the order for Ta Chen was revoked effective

June 26, 2000, on merchandise entered after December 1998.

Source: Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe from Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-540 and 541 (Second Review), USITC

Publication 3877, August 2006, pp. I-1 - I-3.

PREVIOUS AND RELATED SAFEGUARD INVESTIGATIONS

Following receipt of a request from the Office of the United States Trade Representative

(“USTR”) on June 22, 2001, the Commission instituted investigation No. TA-201-73, Steel, under 

section 202 of the Trade Act of 19748

 to determine whether certain steel products, including stainless steel

welded tubular products,9

 were being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be

a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industries producing
 10 Institution and Scheduling of an Investigation under Section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) (the

Act), 66 FR 35267, July 3, 2001.

 11 19 U.S.C. § 2251.

 12 Consolidation of Senate Finance Committee Resolution Requesting a Section 201 Investigation with the

Investigation Requested by the United States Trade Representative on June 22, 2001, 66 FR 44158, August 22,

2001.

 13 Steel; Import Investigations, 66 FR 67304, December 28, 2001.

 14 Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Determination, Countervailing Duty Investigation on Certain

Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China, January 21, 2009. 

 15 Froch received a final subsidy rate based on adverse facts available, as this company failed to cooperate.

I-5

articles like or directly competitive with the imported article.10 On July 26, 2001, the Commission

received a resolution adopted by the Committee on Finance of the U.S. Senate (“Senate Finance

Committee” or “Committee”) requesting that the Commission investigate certain steel imports under

section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974.11 Consistent with the Senate Finance Committee’s resolution, the

Commission consolidated the investigation requested by the Committee with the Commission’s

previously instituted investigation No. TA-201-73.12 On December 20, 2001, the Commission issued its

determinations and remedy recommendations. The Commission made a unanimous negative

determination with respect to stainless steel welded tubular products.13

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV

Subsidies

On January 28, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final 

determination of countervailable subsidies for producers and exporters of welded stainless steel pressure

pipe from China. Table I-2 presents Commerce’s findings of subsidization of welded stainless steel

pressure pipe in China. The following programs were determined to be countervailable by Commerce for

Winner: Provision of Stainless Steel Coil for Less Than Adequate Remuneration; Reduced Income Tax

Rate for Foreign Investment Enterprises (FIEs) Located in Economic and Technological Development

Zones and Other Special Economic Zones; and Import Duty and Value Added Tax Exemptions for

Imported Equipment.

14 15

Table I-2

WSS pressure pipe: Commerce’s final subsidy determination with respect to imports from China

Entity

Final countervailable subsidy

margin (percent)

Winner Stainless Steel Tube Co. Ltd. (Winner)/ Winner Steel Products

(Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (WSP)/ Winner Machinery Enterprises Company

Limited (Winner HK) (Collectively the Winner Companies) 1.10

Froch Enterprise Co. Ltd. (Froch) 

(also known as Zhangyuan Metal Industry Co. Ltd.) 299.16

All others 1.10

Source: 74 FR 4936, January 28, 2009.
 16 Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 4913, January 28, 2009. 

 17 Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 4913, January 28, 2009. 

 18 These statistical reporting numbers are believed to include primarily subject products but also include modest

quantities of nonsubject products.

 19 Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 4913, January 28, 2009. Only two U.S. importers reported importing *** of

subject imports under these HTS statistical reporting numbers. 

I-6

Sales at LTFV

On January 28, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final

determination of sales at LTFV with respect to imports from China.16 Table I-3 presents Commerce’s

dumping margins with respect to imports of welded stainless steel pressure pipe from China. 

Table I-3

WSS pressure pipe: Commerce’s final weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from China

Exporter Producer

Final

LTFV margin (percent)

Zhejiang Jiuli Hi–Tech Metals Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Jiuli Hi–Tech Metals Co., Ltd. 10.53

PRC-wide rate 55.21

Source: 74 FR 4913, January 28, 2009.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the imported merchandise subject to these investigations as:

circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in outside diameter.

This merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the American Society for Testing and Materials

(‘‘ASTM’’) A–312 or ASTM A–778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign

specifications. ASTM A–358 products are only included when they are produced to meet ASTM

A–312 or ASTM A–778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) welded stainless mechanical tubing, meeting ASTM A–554 or

comparable domestic or foreign specifications; (2) boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, refining

furnace, feedwater heater, and condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A–249, ASTM A–688 or 

comparable domestic or foreign specifications; and (3) specialized tubing, meeting ASTM

A–269, ASTM A–270 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.17

Tariff Treatment

The subject imports normally are included under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

States (“HTSUS”) statistical reporting numbers 7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062,

7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085.18 They also may be imported under HTSUS statistical reporting

numbers 7306.40.1010, 7306.40.1015, 7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 7306.40.5080, and 7306.40.5090.19

As shown in appendix D, U.S. imports of WSS pressure pipe are free of duty under the general duty

column.
 20 Information in this section is drawn largely from Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From Korea and Taiwan,

Inv. Nos. 731-TA-540 and 541 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3877, August 2006, pp. I-17 to I-23. 

 21 The size of a pipe is defined by the nominal pipe size (“NPS”), a dimensionless designator that has been

substituted for such traditional terms as “nominal diameter.” Nominal sizes of 1/8 to 12 are based on a standardized

outside diameter (“O.D.”) that was originally selected so that a pipe having a wall thickness that was typical of the

period would have an inside diameter in inches approximately equal to the nominal size. For pipe in nominal sizes

of 14 and larger, the O.D. is equal in inches to the nominal size– i.e., a pipe of NPS 14 has an O.D. of 14 inches.

 22 Other important types of pipe and tube which are defined by the AISI include standard pipe, line pipe,

structural pipe and tubing, mechanical tubing, and oil country tubular goods. All are designed for specific

applications and must meet appropriate engineering standards for those end uses. 

 23 Hearing transcript, p. 40 (Henke) and p. 56 (Boling).

 24 Schagrin Associates, “Response to the Department of Commerce’s Request for Clarification of the Petition for

the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on U.S. Imports of Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic

of China,” February 5, 2008, p. 1.

 25 ASTM, “Standard Specification for Seamless and Welded Austenitic Stainless Steel Pipe,” Annual Book of

ASTM Standards 2000, Section I, Iron and Steel Products, vol. 01.01, Steel– Piping, Tubing, Fittings, ASTM: West

Conshohocken PA, 2000, p. 178 and p. 560.

I-7

THE DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

Description and Applications20

The term “WSS pipe” refers to welded pipe of austenitic stainless steel. The terms “pipe,”

“tube,” and “tubing” designate hollow forms used for the conveyance of gases, liquids, and solids, and for

a diversity of mechanical and structural purposes. “Pipe” is of circular cross-section, produced in

relatively few standard sizes, designated by nominal diameter and wall thickness,21 and is designed for

use with standard pipe fittings. By contrast, “tube” and “tubing” may be of any cross-sectional shape,

including circular, and generally are produced to more exacting specifications than pipe in terms of their

dimensions, finish, and mechanical properties. Tube sizes are defined by outside diameter (“O.D.”),

which may be the same as that of a standard-size pipe, and by wall thickness. Generally, pipe produced

in various grades (types) of stainless steel are distinguished by end uses as defined by the American Iron

and Steel Institute (AISI). Most directly relevant in these investigations is pressure pipe, which is

typically produced to specifications such as those of the American Society for Testing and Materials

(“ASTM”) and used to convey fluids at high temperatures, high pressures, or both, and is suitable for heat

applications.22 Distinctions between WSS pressure pipe not exceeding and that greater than 14 inches

O.D. are in differences of the manufacturing processes utilized and the number of longitudinal welds

permitted to meet ASTM specifications. As will be explained later in the section on “Manufacturing

Processes,” WSS pipe not exceeding 14 inches O.D. is typically produced by a continuous welding

process. By contrast, domestic producers reportedly are unable to use a continuous welding process for

sizes larger than 14 inches O.D (for Felker, Marcegaglia, and Outokumpu) or 16 inches in O.D (Bristol).23

For larger sizes, domestic producers use either the batch process or the spiral welding process for forming

and welding.24 ASTM specifications A-312 and A-778 allow for a maximum of two or three longitudinal

welded seams, respectively, for pipe greater than 14 inches O.D., but allow for only a single longitudinal

or spiral butt-weld seam for pipe not exceeding 14 inches O.D.25

According to the AISI, stainless steel is a general class of steels that contains more than 10

percent of chromium (Cr) by weight. Chromium gives stainless steel its excellent resistance to corrosion

and good strength at high temperatures and pressure. For these reasons, it is used in corrosive

environments, under high temperature and pressure conditions, or when cleanliness and ease of

maintenance are strictly required. Stainless steel equipment is widely used in automotive, food

processing, medical and health equipment products, as well as in the petrochemical industry and the
 26 Ferritic stainless steels (containing at minimum 11.5 percent chromium) are highly corrosion resistant, but

much less durable than austenitic grades and cannot be hardened by heat treatment. Martensitic stainless steels

(containing at minimum 11.5 percent chromium) are not as corrosion resistant as the other two grades, but are

extremely durable as well as highly machinable, and can be hardened by heat treatment. Duplex stainless steels have 

a combined microstructure of austenite and ferrite. Duplex stainless steels have improved strength over austenitic

stainless steels and also higher resistance to corrosion. For more details, see AISI, Steel Glossary, found at

http://www.steel.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Steel_Glossary2&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&CONTEN

TID=6426, retrieved February 22, 2008; Atlas Publishing Co., Metal Reference and Encyclopedia, p. 140, 1968; and

http://www.berkeleypoint.com/learning/stainless.html, retrieved February 24, 2008.

 27 Other alloy series include 400 series (ferritic and martensitic chromium alloys), 500 series (heat-resisting

chromium alloys), and 600 series (martensitic precipitation hardening alloys).

 28 In terms of differences in chemical compositions, the chromium content of type 316 is 16 percent compared to

18 percent for type 304. Type 316 contains a minimum of 2 percent of molybdenum (to enhance its corrosion

resistance) and 10 percent of nickel, compared to no molybdenum and 8 percent of nickel in type 304. Both types

304 and 316 contain a maximum of 0.08 percent of carbon. Extra-low carbon grades, types 304L and 316L,

containing a maximum of 0.03 percent carbon, are more suitable for applications involving welding. Welded pipe

and tube are usually produced using steel that meets the requirements of both the regular grade and the extra-low

carbon grade, designated as “304/304L” or “316/316L.” Iron & Steel Society, Steel Products Manual: Stainless

Steels, 1999, pp. 86 and 114.

 29 ASTM, “A-312/A-312M-99, “Standard Specification for Seamless and Welded Austenitic Stainless Steel

Pipe,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2000, Section 1, Iron and Steel Products, vol. 01.01, Steel– Piping, Tubing,

Fittings, ASTM: West Conshohocken PA, 2000, pp. 177-185.

 30 ASTM, “A-778-98, Standard Specification for Welded, Unannealed Austenitic Stainless Steel Tubular

Products,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2000, Section 1, Iron and Steel Products, vol. 01.01, Steel– Piping,

Tubing, Fittings, ASTM: West Conshohocken PA, 2000, pp. 559-562.

 31 In general, the descriptions of the uses for various types of welded stainless steel pipe and tube products are

taken from Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes from Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-540-541 (Review),

USITC Publication 3351, September 2000, pp. I-10 and I-11; and Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes from Korea

and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-540-541 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3877, August 2006, pp. I-15 to I-17,

unless otherwise noted. The physical description of the various grades of WSS pressure pipe is compiled from the

(continued...)

I-8

power generation industry. Other alloys, including nickel (Ni) and molybdenum (Mo), are added to

obtain additional desirable characteristics for various types of stainless steels. Depending on their

differing metallurgical microstructures and chemical compositions, stainless steels generally are classified

as austenitic, ferritic, or martensitic. Most directly relevant in these investigations are the austenitic

stainless steels, which comprise over 70 percent of all stainless steel production. They contain a

maximum of 0.15 percent carbon, and a minimum of 16 percent chromium, together with varying

amounts of nickel and manganese.26

Most stainless steel tubular products are produced in either of two common grades (defined by

chemical composition and physical requirements) of stainless steel, namely AISI types 304/304L or

316/316L that are austenitic chromium-nickel alloy (grade 300-series) stainless steels.27 Type 304 is the

most widely used austenitic stainless steel. It is resistant to food processing environments, except for

high-temperature conditions involving high-acid and chloride contents, and is resistant to organic

chemicals, dyestuffs, and a wide variety of inorganic chemicals. Type 316 is the second-most widely

used austenitic stainless steel, most commonly in nuclear reprocessing plants and food, pharmaceutical, 

and surgical stainless-steel applications. It exhibits superior corrosion resistance to that of type 304 in

many different corrosive chemical as well as marine atmospheres, and also has higher strength at elevated

temperatures.28

The term “WSS pressure pipe,” in this case, includes any welded pipe that is produced from

austenitic stainless steel (typically AISI type 304 or 316) to meet ASTM stainless-steel specifications

A-31229 and A-77830 or equivalent.31 ASTM A-312 is the most common specification for stainless steel
 31 (...continued)

standards and specifications published by the ASTM.

 32 Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes from Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-540-541 (Second Review),

USITC Publication 3877, August 2006, p. I-19.

 33 Annealing is a process in which the subject material is heated to a temperature of over 1,900 degrees Fahrenheit

followed by controlled cooling. This specific heat treatment technique alters the metallurgical micro-structure of the

subject material, causing changes in its physical properties such as strength and hardness.

 34 Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes from Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-540-541 (Second Review),

USITC Publication 3877, August 2006, p. I-15.

 35 ASTM A-778 is listed in the ASTM as having a diameter of 3" to 14". However, a note attached to the ASTM

states that if the pipe meets the other ASTM specifications even though it is a non-included diameter, it can still be

classified as A-778. Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes from Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-540-541

(Second Review), USITC Publication 3877, August 2006, pp. I-19 to I-20.

 36 Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes from Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-540-541 (Second Review),

USITC Publication 3877, August 2006, p. I-15.

 37 ASTM, A-358/A-358M-98, “Electric-Fusion-Welded, Austenitic Chromium-Nickel Alloy Pipe for

High-Temperature Service,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2000, Section 1, Iron and Steel Products, vol. 01.01,

Steel– Piping, Tubing, Fittings, ASTM: West Conshohocken PA, 2000, pp. 225-230.

 38 Hearing transcript, p. 102 (Boling).

 39 Hearing transcript, p. 103 (Carpenter).

 40 Hearing transcript, p. 103 (Cornelius and Carpenter, respectively).

 41 ASTM, “A-554-98, Standard Specification for Welded Stainless Steel Mechanical Tubing,” Annual Book of

ASTM Standards 2000, Section 1, Iron and Steel Products, vol. 01.01, Steel– Piping, Tubing, Fittings, ASTM: West

Conshohocken PA, 2000, pp. 441-446.

I-9

pipe, and accounts for much of the WSS pipe consumed in the United States.32 Welded A-312 pipe is

designed for high-temperature and general corrosive-resistance service, and must be annealed (heat

treated) after welding.33 Major uses for welded A-312 pipe includes digester lines, pharmaceutical

production lines, petrochemical stock lines, automotive paint lines, and various processing lines such as

those in breweries, paper mills, and general food-processing facilities.34 A-778 pipe is similar to A-312,

but differs in the welding process and in the absence of a requirement for post-weld annealing.35 A-778

pipe is most often used in the pulp and paper industry and for wastewater applications, owing to its ability

to withstand high temperatures and corrosive contact, albeit at somewhat lower levels than A-312 pipe. 

A-778 pipe is also used in corn fermentation systems to produce ethanol and low-pressure fluid transfer

systems.36 According to Commerce’s scope, A-358 pipe37 is only included when it is produced to meet

ASTM A-312 or A-778 specifications. ASTM A-358 pipe is used in critical applications where failure of

the weld might have serious consequences, such as in nuclear power plants and liquified natural-gas

facilities.

Some major purchasing industries require that a producer’s WSS pressure pipe be included on its

approved manufacturers lists (AMLs). Among petroleum companies, AMLs cover the full range of pipe

sizes down to 1⁄2 inch O.D.38 Chemical companies also require that WSS pressure pipe have AML

approval.39 Nevertheless, a representative of Marcegaglia testified, and a representative of Outokumpu

concurred, that requests for AML suppliers are relatively minor.40 

Although stainless steel tubular products as a group are defined by their anti-corrosive and highstrength characteristics, they are designed for a wide variety of applications under different operating

conditions and made by different processes as specified by the ASTM. Consequently, certain other types

of stainless steel products may be distinguished from WSS pressure pipe. Welded mechanical tubing

produced to meet A-554 specifications41 is for mechanical applications that require the surface

appearance, mechanical properties, or corrosion resistance of stainless steel; this specification covers
 42 ASTM, “A-409/A409M-95a, Standard Specification for Welded Large-Diameter Austenitic Steel Pipe for

Corrosive or High-Temperature Service,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2000, Section 1, Iron and Steel Products,

vol. 01.01, Steel– Piping, Tubing, Fittings, ASTM: West Conshohocken PA, 2000, pp. 306-311.

 43 Conference transcript, p. 86 (Tidlow).

 44 ASTM, “A-249/A-249M-98, Standard Specification for Welded Austenitic Steel Boiler, Superheater,

Heat-Exchanger, and Condenser Tubes,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2000, Section 1, Iron and Steel Products,

vol. 01.01, Steel– Piping, Tubing, Fittings, ASTM: West Conshohocken PA, 2000, pp. 139-145.

 45 ASTM, “A-269-98, Standard Specification for Seamless and Welded Austenitic Stainless Steel Tubing for

General-Service,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2000, Section 1, Iron and Steel Products, vol. 01.01, Steel–

Piping, Tubing, Fittings, ASTM: West Conshohocken PA, 2000, pp. 166-170.

 46 ASTM, “A-688/A-688M-98, Standard Specification for Welded Austenitic Stainless Steel Feedwater Heater

Tubes,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2000, Section 1, Iron and Steel Products, vol. 01.01, Steel– Piping,

Tubing, Fittings, ASTM: West Conshohocken PA, 2000, pp. 501-506.

 47 Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-540 and 541 (Second Review),

USITC Publication 3877, August 2006, p. I-15.

 48 ASTM, “A-270-98a, Standard Specification for Seamless and Welded Austenitic Stainless Steel Sanitary

Tubing,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2000, Section 1, Iron and Steel Products, vol. 01.01, Steel– Piping,

Tubing, Fittings, ASTM: West Conshohocken PA, 2000, pp. 171-175.

 49 *** staff telephone interview, November 20, 2008.

 50 None of the domestic producers cut the stainless steel in-house, unlike carbon-steel pipe producers, due to the

hardness of stainless steel. Hearing transcript, p. 62 (Schagrin).

I-10

mechanical tubing with wall thicknesses as thin as 0.020 inch and with nominal sizes up to 16 inches

O.D. Another ASTM specification for welded stainless steel mechanical tubing, A-409,42 covers largediameter (NPS 14 to 30), thin-walled pipe. This product is generally utilized in applications requiring

resistance to corrosive or high-temperature conditions, such as automotive exhaust-converter systems and

water well castings. In the preliminary phase of these investigations, petitioners stressed that most

imports from Canada were of this grade.43 Tubular products meeting ASTM A-249 (welded pressure

tube),44 A-269 (general-service tubing),45 and A-688 (welded feedwater heater tube)46 are used primarily

in heating and cooling apparatuses. Among the industries using these types of tubing are producers of

ethanol, pharmaceuticals, foods, and beverages.47 Tubing meeting ASTM A-270 (sanitary tubing)48 has a

polished finish on either the inside or the outside of the tube, or both, and is intended for applications in

the dairy and food industries. Generally, the market for WSS tubing ends at a maximum size of about 6

inches O.D.49 

Manufacturing Processes

Production of WSS pressure pipe is a two-stage process of forming the tubular shape followed by

welding the product. Two common methods can be used to form the tubular shape of WSS pressure

pipe, the continuous-mill process and the press-brake process. Both processes require stainless steel

purchased from steel mills that is slit to the proper width to produce the intended size pipe.50

The continuous-mill process, which is the principal method of producing WSS pressure pipe,

begins with coils of stainless-steel sheet, strip, or plate. Coiled steel, of a width essentially corresponding

with the outside diameter of the pipe to be produced, is mounted in an uncoiler and fed into a series of

paired forming rolls. As the stainless steel progresses through the rolls, its cross-sectional profile is

formed into a tubular shape with the butted edges along its length ready for (longitudinal) welding as

described below. Petitioners report that domestic producers generally use this process for
 51 Conference transcript, p. 31 (Schagrin).

 52 Hearing transcript, p. 56 (Boling).

 53 Hearing transcript, p. 22 (Boling). Bristol also has ***. For more details as to the sizes produced and capacity

utilization for each mill, see Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exhibit 11 and Table III-6 infra.

 54 In addition, Marcegaglia manufactures pressure pipe on ***. Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exhibit 11.

 55 Also referred to as the “brake-bench press,” “bench press,” or “batch mill process.” Hearing transcript, p. 17

(Cornelius) and pp. 40-41 (Henke).

 56 This is called a batch (rather than “continuous”) process because each individual length of pipe is bent and

welded individually.

 57 Hearing transcript, p. 55 (Schagrin). While Swepco indicated it can produce smaller WSS pressure pipe on a

press-break, WSS pressure pipe is a small portion of its overall production. 

 58 Hearing transcript, pp. 65-66 (Schagrin).

 59 Also known as the gas tungsten-arc welding (“GTAW”) process.

 60 Although the TIG and plasma process can use filler metal, the laser process does not allow for the use of filler

metal. WSS pressure pipe produced in accordance with the standard for ASTM A-312 cannot be made with filler

metal.

 61 In-line annealing is normally performed in a nonoxidizing atmosphere, a process known as “bright annealing.” 

Product that is annealed by other than bright annealing must be pickled in acid to remove surface oxides and produce

a “bright” finish.

I-11

O.D. sizes between 2 and 14 inches,51 although Bristol uses this process for O.D. sizes up to 16 inches.52

Domestic producers’ facilities include several continuous weld mills, with each dedicated to a limited

range of pipe diameters based on the individual mill configuration and tooling. For example, Bristol

dedicates most of its eight continuous weld mills to producing only two or three specific sizes of WSS

pressure pipe.53 54

The press-brake process55 is another method of manufacturing welded stainless steel tubular

products, but is a batch process in which a press gradually bends cut-to-length sheets, strips, or plates into

a cylindrical shape with the butted edges ready for welding as described below.56 The starting cut-tolength steel is of a width essentially corresponding with the outside diameter and a length equal to the

length of the piece of pipe to be produced with a single longitudinally welded seam. Alternatively, two or

three narrower-width pieces of cut-to-length steel can be pressed into the shape of a pipe with two or even

three longitudinally welded seams. However, the press-brake process is labor-intensive, and is used

primarily for the production of pipe with diameters typically above 16 inches, although limited

production of smaller diameter tubular products has been reported.57 According to counsel for petitioners,

the size range possible on a press-break mill (e.g., from 48 to 72 inches on the same press) is much more

flexible than the limited number (two to three) and range (few inches) of sizes on continuous weld mills.58

In the welding stage, the butt edges are welded together by an automatic welding machine using

either the tungsten-inert-gas (“TIG”) welding process,59 the plasma welding process, or the laser welding

process. These methods allow welding without filler material,60 complete fusion of butted edges, and

shielding of the weld area with inert gas to prevent oxidation. In the TIG welding process, welding heat

is provided by an electric arc between a tungsten electrode and the pipe edges. The plasma welding

process is similar to the TIG process in that the (gaseous) plasma is heated as it passes through an arc

torch, which is created by an electrode within a nozzle. In the laser welding process, a laser beam is

directed to the weld butt joint, forming a deep-penetration fusion weld. The laser process is capable of a

higher speed of operation than is the TIG process. For continuous welded pipe, the pipe continues after

welding through an in-line annealing furnace in a non-oxidizing atmosphere,61 then through straightening

equipment and, finally, cutting to length. By contrast, batch-welded pipe must be annealed in a separate

operation, and subsequently pickled in acid to remove the oxide scale and yield a “bright” surface finish.
 62 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 1.

 63 Conference transcript, pp. 96-98 (Jakob). 

 64 Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe From China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-454 and 731-TA-1144

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 3986, March 2008, p. 10. In addition, then-Chairman Pearson noted that in the

original 1991-92 investigations involving welded stainless steel pipes from Korea and Taiwan (where the scope was

limited to ASTM A-312 pipes regardless of outside diameter), the Commission concluded that the domestic like

product was not limited to products within the scope but consisted of all welded stainless steel pipes and tubes,

except for grade 409 tubes and mechanical tubing. The Commission reaffirmed this finding in the first five-year

reviews of those orders. In the second five-year reviews, however, the Commission decided to limit the domestic

like product definition to ASTM A-312 and ASTM A-778 pipes (again, regardless of outside diameter), and did not

include tubing in the domestic like product. While Chairman Pearson concurred with his colleagues in determining

that, for purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, the domestic like product should be defined

coextensive with the scope, he noted that this would be the third different domestic like product definition that the

Commission has applied to what was essentially the same imported product. Accordingly, in any final phase of

these investigations, Chairman Pearson stated his intention to revisit the issue of whether the domestic like product

should be expanded beyond the scope to include not only welded stainless steel pressure pipes of greater than 14

inches in outside diameter but also welded stainless steel tubular products other than grade 409 tubes and mechanical

tubing. Ibid. p. 10, n. 49.

 65 Petitioners continue to argue in favor of a domestic like product co-extensive with Commerce’s scope, noting

distinctive market applications, and customer orders, but placing particular emphasis on the different methods of

manufacturing smaller pipe (14 inches or less in O.D.). Hearing transcript, pp. 54-55 (Schagrin).

 66 The LNG industry utilizes large-diameter pipe up to 30, 42, and 54 inches O.D. Wastewater treatment facilities

utilize WSS pressure pipe up to 96 inches O.D. Further, some of the petroleum refineries also utilize some largediameter pipe, as do electric power-generators at coal-fired power plants in their emission-control scrubber systems. 

Hearing testimony, pp. 50-51 (Boling).

I-12

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the petitioners contended that the Commission

should find one domestic like product that is co-extensive with the scope of merchandise subject to the

investigations as identified by Commerce.62 At the Commission’s staff conference, U.S. importer Silbo

argued that there is no basis for excluding pressure pipe greater than 14 inches in O.D. from the domestic

like product.63 In the preliminary phase of these investigations the Commission found one domestic like

product that is coextensive with the scope and consists of small-diameter welded pressure pipe, but

expressed its intention to revisit the issue in the final phase of these investigations.64 65 Accordingly, staff

included questions on this issue in the producer and purchaser questionnaires. The responses to these

questions are summarized as follows. 

Physical Characteristics and Uses

Small and Large Diameter Pressure Pipe

Domestic producers reported different end-use markets for larger sizes (exceeding 14 inches

O.D.) of WSS pressure pipe. According to ***, large-diameter WSS pressure pipe is utilized in largescale chemical, liqufied natural-gas (LNG), and waste-water treatment projects.66 In addition to wastewater treatment plants, *** noted that these larger sizes are also typically utilized in large air-duct

systems, and in the mining industry. Likewise, *** noted that more of the large-diameter WSS pressure

pipes are sold to less-stringent specifications for lower pressures or uses such as duct works or other

low-pressure service. By contrast, the typical end uses for smaller-diameter WSS pressure pipe, as cited

by ***, include: chemical, petroleum, food, high-technology, aeration, ethanol, and pulp and paper,
 67 ***, a producer of pressure and feedwater heating tubing, made a similar observation and further noted the

additional surface finishes required for tubing used in specific industry applications.

 68 Conference transcript, p. 46 (Schagrin).

I-13

among other such industrial applications. *** also reported that the similarities between these size

categories are basically limited to shape and some common industry uses. According to ***, smallerdiameter WSS pressure pipe is produced to much tighter tolerances than is larger pressure pipe. 

Moreover, *** reported that production of larger-diameter WSS pressure pipe results in much more

prevalent weld seams, which are not subsequently cold-worked (planished) as is common for smallerdiameter WSS pressure pipe. *** cited differences in diameters and wall thickness between the larger

versus smaller sizes of WSS pressure pipe. Nevertheless, *** also noted some similar service and

end-use applications despite differences in physical specifications, for both size ranges.

Customer responses by U.S. purchasers (largely distributors) responding to the Commission’s

questionnaires were mixed. Several firms noted the similar specifications and concluded that there were

no specific differences other than those of wall thickness and diameter. Others, however, noted

differences in their own purchasing patterns (e.g., noting that they did not purchase larger pipe sizes),

engineering requirements by final customers, and a distinction between project applications (more typical

for large diameter pipe) and non-project applications (typically smaller pipe that is stocked and sold

through distribution).

Pressure Pipe and Pressure Tubing

Differences in end-use markets due to differences in physical characteristics were also reported

by domestic producers for WSS pressure pipe versus WSS pressure tubing. These tubular products are

typically utilized in what *** considered as different, non-related applications. More specifically,

according to ***, WSS pressure pipe is utilized for lower-pressure applications, e.g., for fluid

transmission and for chemical and paper processing. By contrast, WSS pressure tubing is most often

utilized in heat exchangers, evaporators, boilers, and condensers. *** characterized WSS pressure pipe as

usually being produced as a commodity product, with standard lengths, whereas WSS pressure tubing

must be produced to the end user’s specified lengths and therefore would not be readily inventoried. Both

*** and *** also reported that the dimensional tolerances for diameters and wall thickness are tighter for

A-249 and A-269 WSS pressure tubing than for A-312 and A-778 WSS pressure pipe.67 *** reported that

its WSS pressure pipe meets A-778 specifications with less testing requirements and no need for heat

treatment, for use with lower pressures. 

Customer responses by U.S. purchasers (largely distributors) responding to the Commission’s

questionnaires generally recognized differences between pressure pipe and pressure tubing. Some

purchasers focused on their own product lines (noting that they did not distribute tubing); others focused

on specific applications (noting for example that pressure tubing is frequently used as a heat exchanger, as

opposed to the transport of fluid or other “industrial” uses more common to pressure pipe); and still others

focused on dimensional differences (e.g., diameter, wall thickness). 

Manufacturing Facilities, Employees, and Processes

Small and Large Diameter Pressure Pipe

Firms producing both welded ASTM A-312 and A-778 pipe can use the same facilities and

workers to produce both grades (except that A-778 pipe does not require annealing).68 Other WSS tubular

products have been reported to be produced at the same facilities as welded A-312 and A-778
 69 Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-540 and 541 (Second Review),

USITC Publication 3877, August 2006, p. I- 22. 

 70 Conference transcript, p. 65 (Avento). See also staff telephone interview with ***, February 21, 2008.

 71 Hearing transcript, p. 55 (Schagrin).

 72 Hearing transcript, pp. 56-57 (Boling).

 73 Hearing transcript, p. 57 (Carpenter).

 74 Conference transcript, p. 31 (Schagrin).

I-14

pipe.69 However, domestic producers also typically specialize in certain size ranges. For example, ***

generally manufactures products which are greater than 14 inches O.D. whereas *** produces pipes but

only of sizes not exceeding 14 inch O.D. Outokumpu’s south plant primarily produces pipe up to 6

inches in diameter whereas its north plant manufactures larger sizes.70 That is because, as mentioned

before, tubular products with diameters greater than 14 inches O.D. are typically produced by the pressbrake method, a batch process, whereas the smaller sizes are generally manufactured by a continuous-mill

process. According to counsel for the petitioners, the press-brake process is occasionally used for

smaller-diameter products, but would be a very small fraction of the industry’s output.71 Conversely, a

hearing witness testified that, although a German firm reportedly produces pipe up to 30 or 36 inches

O.D. from a continuous mill, Bristol cannot be foreseen as doing likewise, because of coil size availability

and the limited demand for larger sizes.72 Likewise, the representative for Outokumpu testified that the

firm has no plans either for continuous-mill production of pipe exceeding 14 inches O.D.73

Moreover, these two manufacturing processes reportedly require different equipment and are

operated by employees with different skills and training.74 Several domestic producers reported that the

vast majority of the larger-sized WSS pressure pipe is produced on a batch mill process, one piece at a

time, versus a continuous mill process that is much more efficient in terms of costs and time. *** reported

that costs can be *** percent more for the batch process and production cycles can be *** longer to

achieve only a small fraction of the continuous mill production footage. *** noted that WSS pressure

pipes not exceeding 14 inches O.D. are produced on continuous mills, from continuous coils rather than

the individual pieces of cut-to-length plate fed into the press-break mill to make large-diameter pipe. The

press-break process also requires multiple blows to form the pipe, and is much more labor intensive. ***

also reported that in press-break operations, larger-sized WSS pressure pipe is assembled by a semiautomatic “seamer” welding process that requires continuous operator monitoring and intervention. By

contrast, according to ***, continuous mill operations utilize automatic welding and cut-to-length features

which require minimal operator intervention. Accordingly, the two operations require a different skill set

and are not interchangeable without additional training. 

Customer responses by U.S. purchasers (largely distributors) responding to the Commission’s

questionnaires were limited with respect to manufacturing practices. Of those companies that expressed a

view, nearly all identified differences in the manufacturing process (continuous for smaller pipe, batch for

larger pipe) or the related distinction between inputs (stainless steel in strip form for smaller pipe and in

plate form for larger pipe).

Pressure Pipe and Pressure Tube

*** reported that it produces A-358 WSS pressure pipe, typically one at a time in a batch process

at much higher costs per foot in comparison to its continuous-mill tubular products. Special testing on A358 WSS pressure pipe also increases manufacturing costs. Although the manufacturing process itself is

very similar (consisting of forming, welding, sizing, annealing, straightening, and cutting), *** noted that
 75 ASTM A-249 and A-269 specifications for pressure tube are similar to that for A-312 pipe in that the process

of annealing is required after welding. Tubular products produced to A-249 specification must be cold worked

(planished) in the “weld bead” (i.e., weld seam) before annealing. Cold working and planishing are finishing steps

to assure a smooth surface, particularly in the area of the weld. Cold working is defined as “altering the shape or

size of a metal by plastic deformation. Cold-working processes, include rolling, drawing, pressing, spinning,

extruding and heading, are carried out below the recrystallisation point, usually at room temperature. Hardness and

tensile strength are increased with the degree of cold work while ductility and impact values are lowered. The cold

rolling and cold drawing of steel significantly improves surface finish.” Planishing is defined as producing a smooth

surface finish on metal by rapid succession of blows delivered by highly polished dies or by a hammer designed for

the purpose, or by rolling in a planishing mill. Alternatively, and for tube too small in outside diameter to weld, the

product tubing must be cold drawn from a larger size and subsequently annealed and pickled. The A-269

specification is similar to A-249 in that it requires post-weld annealing but A-269 products may or may not be cold

worked, depending upon the outside diameter, wall thickness, and manufacturer’s capabilities. For some products,

the removal or smoothing of the interior weld bead is required prior to annealing.

 76 Likewise, ***, which does not produce WSS pressure pipe, noted that A-249, A-269, and A-270 tubing

specifications all require additional processes to finish the weld bead, polish the outer diameter, or draw the tube. 

Also, the wall thickness is specified to tighter tolerances.

I-15

the tooling utilized to produce WSS pressure pipe is different than that to produce WSS pressure

tubing.75 76

Customer responses by U.S. purchasers (largely distributors) responding to the Commission’s

questionnaires were limited with respect to manufacturing practices. Of those companies that expressed a

view, nearly all noted differences in tolerances and finishes (that is, that pressure tubing generally permits

less tolerance from specifications and may require more demanding finishing, such as polishing).

However, most purchasers also noted that the actual manufacturing process (cold-forming stainless steel

coils) for pressure pipe and pressure tubing is similar.

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

Questionnaire respondents were asked to identify any tubular products that may be substituted for

WSS pressure pipe not exceeding 14 inches O.D. None of the responding domestic producers identified

larger-diameter pipe produced to ASTM specifications A-312 or A-778 as a substitute for smaller-sized

WSS pressure pipe. Also, none of the responding domestic producers identified A-358 pipe (generally

reserved for critical applications), pressure tube such as A-249, A-269, A-270, and A-688; or mechanical

tubing as substitutes for WSS pressure pipe. Most purchasers identified no substitutes for WSS pressure

pipe, although three indicated possible substitutes as seamless stainless- steel pipe either in the same or in

most all end uses, and tubing meeting A-554 specifications for WSS mechanical tubing. Similarly, most

importers identified no substitutes for WSS pressure pipe, although two indicated that welded pipe

produced from other nickel/chromium alloys or from duplex stainless steel could substitute for WSS

pressure pipe.

Small and Large Diameter Pressure Pipe

Several domestic producers reported little or no interchangeability between WSS pressure pipe

above and below 14 inches O.D. *** noted that the sizes and gauges are for specific uses, and *** and

*** elaborated that the size requirements are specified by the engineering firm for the specific end-use

application. *** elaborated further that engineered systems are generally purpose-specific with pipe sizes

chosen for pressure and flow characteristics, and similarly, *** cited volume requirements as limiting

interchangeability among size ranges. *** further noted that both producers and customers perceive the

WSS pressure pipe of greater than 14 inches O.D. as a different product than that of smaller sizes. In
 77 However, ***, which does not produce WSS pressure pipe, reported that A-312 pipe and similar size A-249 or

A-269 tubing may be interchangeable in some low-tolerance applications such as brewery piping or clean-water

piping.

 78 ***, which does not produce WSS pressure pipe, noted that customers perceive A-312 pipe to be of lower

quality than A-249, A-269, or A-270 tube.

 79 In the preliminary phase of these investigations, *** reported that larger sizes are usually sold directly to the

user or fabricator or as part of a package put together by a distributor including fittings, flanges, and other products. 

Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe From China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-454 and 731-TA-1144 (Preliminary),

USITC Publication 3986, March 2008, p. I-13.

 80 In 2007, ***.

I-16

addition to differences in the manufacturing processes and distribution channels, most of the larger-size

WSS pressure pipe is custom-made to the end user’s specifications, gauges, and testing requirements. 

Moreover, X-ray, eddy current, dye-penetration, and corrosion testing are typical supplemental

requirements for WSS pressure pipe greater than 14 inches O.D. that are seldom requested for the smaller

sizes. 

Customer responses by U.S. purchasers (largely distributors) responding to the Commission’s

questionnaires were nearly evenly divided regarding interchangeability. Whereas several purchasers

indicated that they or their customers viewed the pipes as interchangeable, others indicated that

engineering or design requirements, volume considerations, or space considerations would limit or

preclude interchangeability.

Pressure Pipe and Pressure Tubing

In these investigations, *** elaborated that WSS pressure pipe is not interchangeable with WSS

pressure tubing due to differences in diameter sizes, wall thicknesses, and pressure ratings. *** and ***

concurred that the two tubular product categories are not interchangeable, with *** noting that end users

purchase WSS pressure pipe only for use for piping purposes and they cannot substitute it into a tubing

application.77 Further, both customers and producers view WSS pressure pipe as a product made to

standard diameter and wall specifications. By contrast, WSS pressure tubing is viewed as made-to-order

and a more difficult product to manufacture due to the more stringent tolerances involved.78

Customer responses by U.S. purchasers (largely distributors) responding to the Commission’s

questionnaires were nearly evenly divided regarding interchangeability. Whereas several purchasers

indicated that they or their customers viewed pressure pipe and pressure tubing as interchangeable, others

indicated that engineering or design requirements, dimensional considerations, tolerances, or finishes,

would limit or preclude interchangeability. Several additional firms were unable to compare the products

directly because they sold no, or virtually no, pressure tubing. 

Channels of Distribution

Small and Large Diameter Pressure Pipe

The vast majority of U.S. shipments of WSS pressure pipe not exceeding 14 inches O.D. are sold

through distributors. ***, ***, and *** reported that most of the WSS pressure pipe not exceeding 14

inches O.D. is shipped to master or stock distributors who maintain inventories from which they sell to

their customers as needed.79 By contrast, most of this product greater than 14 inches O.D. is not typically

inventoried, but is rather sold for individual projects, either through distributors or directly to fabricators

or end users.80 *** elaborated upon distribution channels for larger pipes tending more toward direct

marketing to users as fewer middlemen are involved on a regular basis. *** noted that certain master
 81 Hearing transcript, p. 58 (Schagrin).

 82 In 2007, ***.

I-17

distributors stockpile small quantities of 16-, 18-, 20-, 24-, and 30-inch O.D. WSS pressure pipe, but sell

the majority on a project-use basis.81 Even when *** sells WSS pressure pipe greater than 14 inches O.D.

to a master distributor, most often this large-size product is ultimately destined to a specific customer for

a specific project, rather than accumulated for inventory. By contrast, for its own sales, *** reports

utilizing the same sales network to market its WSS pressure pipe in both size categories. 

Customer responses by U.S. purchasers (largely distributors) responding to the Commission’s

questionnaires were mixed. Several firms reported the same or similar channels of distribution. Others,

however, noted a greater prevalence of end-user sales for large-diameter pipe.

Pressure Pipe and Pressure Tubing

In contrast to WSS pressure pipe produced to A-312 or A-778 that is sold through distributors,

*** noted that WSS pressure tubing produced to A-249 or A-269 specifications is sold through pipe

service centers. By contrast, *** reported that the majority of pipe is sold through distributors or service

centers, but that tubing is typically sold through engineering companies and fabricators of heat

exchangers, condensers, and boilers.82

Customer responses by U.S. purchasers (largely distributors) responding to the Commission’s

questionnaires were mixed. Several firms reported the same or similar channels of distribution. Others,

however, noted a greater prevalence of end-user sales for pressure tubing.

Price

In aggregate, the average unit values for U.S. shipments of WSS pressure pipe not exceeding 14

inches O.D. were $*** per short ton in 2005, $*** in 2006, $*** in 2007, and $6,720 in JanuarySeptember 2008. By comparison, the average unit values for WSS pressure pipe greater than 14 inches

were higher: $*** per short ton in 2005, $*** in 2006, $*** in 2007, and *** in January-September

2008. The average unit values for WSS pressure tubing were also higher: $*** per short ton in 2005,

$*** in 2006, $*** in 2007, and *** in January-September 2008. Pricing practices and prices reported

for WSS pressure pipe in response to Commission questionnaires are presented in Part V of this report. 

Small and Large Diameter Pressure Pipe

*** reported smaller-diameter pipe is typically priced as listed and discounted from price sheets. 

The larger diameter pipe is sold as cost plus a mark-up. *** also reported that, unlike for smaller pipe,

there is no industry list price sheet for greater than 14 inch diameter pipe. Also, price discounting is far

less prevalent when quoting greater than 14 inch pipe. *** reported that larger diameter pipe generally

carries a greater price per pound because it is more labor intensive to produce. Moreover, *** noted that

12 inch and smaller diameter pipe is sold according to published price sheets with discounts; by contrast,

pipe 14 inches and above in diameter is priced based according to end-use application.

Customer responses by U.S. purchasers (largely distributors) to the Commission’s questionnaires

were fairly consistent on the issue of price. With one exception, responding purchasers indicated that

larger pipe was more expensive than small pipe. Several responding firms specifically linked the

discussion of price with production methods (noting that batch production tended to be more costly than

continuous production), and one indicated that pricing methods also differed (that is, smaller pipe was

sold from a price list while larger pipe was sold according to application).
I-18

Pressure Pipe and Pressure Tubing

Among the domestic producers, *** reported that A-249 and A-269 pressure tubing is not sold

off a list-price sheet, but rather by contract sales, and is not discounted based on sales volume and market

conditions, as is A-312 and A-778 pressure pipe which is distributed via spot pricing and spot sales. ***

was more specific in stating the price difference averaging some 20-percent higher for pressure tubing

than for pressure pipe, a reflection of the greater degree of difficulty in manufacturing tubing compared to

pipe. *** concurred that A-312 pricing is lower due to the fewer production steps to needed to

manufacture pressure pipe than pressure tubing. By contrast, *** claimed that A-312 pressure pipe is

more expensive, barring the smallest sizes.

Customer responses by U.S. purchasers (largely distributors) to the Commission’s questionnaires

were nearly evenly divided on the issue of price. Among those firms that recognized price distinctions

between pressure pipe and pressure tubing, most indicated that prices reflected applications, with more

demanding or specialized applications requiring higher prices. Firms that specified a price difference

indicated that pressure tubing was more costly than pressure pipe. 
 1

 Questionnaire responses of U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers; hearing transcript, pp. 90-91 (Henke,

Boling); and Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-540 and 541 (Second

Review), USITC Publication 3877, August 2006, p. II-1.

II-1

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

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

The primary factors affecting WSS pressure pipe usage are capital investment projects by

chemical and petrochemical plants, grain processing (ethanol plants), food and beverage processing

plants, power generation plants, and pulp and paper mills.1

 The demand for WSS pressure pipe depends

on demand for downstream products; important end users include the chemical and pharmaceutical

industry, food and beverage industry, power generation industry, and pulp and paper industry.

U.S. mills and U.S. importers ship principally to distributors rather than end users. As shown in

table II-1, shipments to distributors consistently accounted for the large majority of U.S. shipments of

domestically-produced and imported WSS pressure pipe during 2005-07 and in January-September 2008. 

Table II-1

WSS pressure pipe: U.S. producers’ and importers’ shares of reported U.S. shipments, by source

and channel of distribution, 2005-07, January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

Item

Calendar year January-September

2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

 Share of reported shipments (percent)

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of WSS pressure pipe to: 

Distributors 95.5 95.4 93.1 94.4 95.1

End users 4.5 4.6 6.9 5.6 4.9

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of WSS pressure pipe from China to:

Distributors *** *** *** *** ***

End users *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of WSS pressure pipe from all other countries to:

Distributors *** *** *** *** ***

End users *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S.- produced and imported WSS pressure pipe from China was sold in all areas of the

continental United States during 2007. For the five responding U.S. producers, 15 percent of shipments

were to the Northeast, 33 percent to the Midwest, 21 percent to the Southeast, 21 percent to the Central

Southwest, 2 percent to the Mountain states, and 8 percent to the Pacific Coast. For imports from China,

19 percent of shipments were to the Northeast, 24 percent to the Midwest, 17 percent to the Southeast,

19 percent to the Central Southwest, 9 percent to the Mountain states, and 12 percent to the Pacific Coast.

Four of five responding U.S. producers reported that 50 percent or more of their sales are from

inventory rather than produced to order, while a majority of responding importers (10 of 13) are more
II-2

likely to sell only items produced-to-order. Among producers, the lead times for delivery of items from

inventory typically range from 2 to 10 days. For items that are produced-to-order, producers’ lead times

are as long as 35 days. Among importers that sell from inventory, delivery lead times typically range

from 3 to 14 days. For items produced-to-order, import lead times generally range from 70 to 120 days. 

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

Domestic supply responsiveness depends upon such factors as the level of industry capacity

utilization, the level of inventories, the availability of export markets, and the flexibility of shifting

production equipment to other products. U.S. producers’ capacity utilization rates ranged from a low of

*** percent in 2007 to a high of *** percent in 2006. During January-September 2008, the capacity

utilization rate was 45.9 percent. The ratio of U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories to their total

shipments ranged from a low of *** percent in 2006 to a high of *** percent in 2007. During JanuarySeptember 2008, the ratio was *** percent. U.S. producers’ export shipments, as a share of total

shipments, were relatively small, ranging between *** and *** percent during 2005-07. During JanuarySeptember 2008, the ratio was *** percent. 

All five of the responding U.S. producers reported that they produce other types of products on

the equipment and machinery used to produce the subject products. These other products include

pressure pipe greater than 14 inches in diameter, pressure tubing, mechanical tubing, and other kinds of

stainless steel pipe. 

Subject Imports

None of the Chinese producers submitted questionnaires in the final phase of these investigations. 

In the preliminary phase, one Chinese producer, Winner, submitted data. Winner estimated that it

accounts for *** percent of the exports of WSS pressure pipe to the United States but it could not

estimate its share of total production of the industry in China. Winner’s response in the preliminary phase

indicates that it may have potential for expanding exports to the United States due to its *** excess

capacity, and relatively high inventories in relation to sales.

 Winner reported a capacity-utilization rate of *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, and ***

percent in 2007. The projected capacity-utilization rate was *** percent for both 2008 and 2009. 

Winner’s exports to the United States ranged between *** and *** percent of its total shipments during

2005-07. They were projected to account for *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009. Winner’s

shipments to the home market and to export markets other than the United States consistently accounted

for between *** and *** percent of its total shipments annually during 2005-07. These combined

shipments were projected to account for about *** percent of the total annually in 2008 and about ***

percent in 2009. Winner’s inventories, relative to its total shipments were *** percent in 2005, ***

percent in 2006, and *** percent in 2007. Ratios of inventories to shipments were projected to be ***

percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009. In addition to WSS pressure pipe, Winner produces ***.
 2

 Hearing transcript, pp. 31 (Schagrin), and 90-91 (Hence, Boling). Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From

Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-540 and 541 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3877, August 2006. 

 3

 There is some evidence of seasonality in the demand for WSS pressure pipe. At the hearing, the petitioners

stated that sales tend to be lower in the fourth quarter of the year as a result of a tendency for distributors to reduce

their inventory stocks for tax reporting purposes. Hearing transcript, pp. 147-50 (Cornelius, Henke, Okun,

Schagrin). 

 4

 Hearing transcript, p. 35 (Schagrin).

 5

 In contrast, thicker-walled A-358 pipe is used in highly critical applications such as nuclear power plants or

liquid gas facilities. WSS pressure pipe tubes such as A-269 or A-249 has a broader range of applications although

many are used in heating and cooling applications. Tube products are normally ordered to meet customers’ exact

specifications, whereas pipe products are normally sold in standard sizes. No responding producer or importer

reported changes in the end uses of WSS pressure pipe.

 6

 No responding producer or importer reported changes in the end uses of WSS pressure pipe.

 7

 Preliminary data show that the real gross domestic product declined at an annual rate of 3.8 percent in the fourth

quarter of 2008. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Gross Domestic Product: Fourth Quarter 2008 (Advance), news

release BEA 09-02, issued January 30, 2009. 

 8

 Actual pulp production increased from 58.4 million short tons in 2005 to 58.7 million in 2006 and to

58.9 million in 2007.

II-3

U.S. Demand

Demand Characteristics

U.S. demand for WSS pressure pipe depends on the health of the overall U.S. economy and on

the level of demand for downstream products using WSS pressure pipe.2 3

 WSS pressure pipe is used

primarily as a conduit for liquids or gasses, heat exchange, and other purposes in the chemical and

petrochemical industry, food and beverage processing industry, power generation industry, and pulp and

paper industry. Typical applications for WSS pressure pipe include digester lines, pharmaceutical

production lines, petrochemical stock lines, automotive paint lines, and various other processing lines

such as those in paper mills, breweries, and food processing facilities. In addition, during 2005-07

substantial growth in the ethanol industry also resulted in a large expansion in the use of WSS pressure

pipe at the ethanol facilities.4

 Since A-312 WSS pressure pipe is annealed, it can withstand very high heat

and is corrosion resistant. A-778 pressure pipe is not annealed and therefore cannot withstand

temperatures above 800 degrees Fahrenheit; accordingly it is used in less demanding applications such as

paper manufacturing.56 The overall demand for WSS pressure pipe, as measured by apparent U.S.

consumption, increased from *** short tons in 2005 to *** short tons in 2007. During JanuarySeptember 2008, apparent U.S. consumption was 48,568 short tons, a decrease from the level of 69,301

short tons in the same period in 2007.

Trends in certain factors affecting the demand for WSS pressure pipe including quarterly

movements in the real U.S. gross domestic product, U.S. pulp production, and U.S. ethanol production are

presented graphically in figures II-1 through II-3. As shown in figure II-1, the U.S. economy was

consistently expanding during 2005, 2006, and the first three quarters of 2007 with positive quarterly

annual growth rates throughout this period. However, during the fourth quarter of 2007, the economy

decreased at an annual rate of 0.2 percent, followed by two quarters of lower growth. In the third quarter

of 2008, the economy declined at an annual rate of 0.5 percent.7

 U.S. pulp production capacity trended

downward irregularly during 2005-08, as shown in figure II-2.8

 Ethanol production increased during the

period from January 2005 through October 2008, although it fluctuated from month to month during 2008

(figure II-3). Production capacity of ethanol grew rapidly between January 2005 and January 2008,

increasing from 4.4 million gallons per year to a total of 13.4 million gallons in January 2008, counting
 9

 Renewable Fuels Association, Annual Industry Outlook, 2005 and 2008.

 10 According to counsel for petitioners, large volumes of WSS pressure pipe were utilized in fuel ethanol facilities

that underwent tremendous expansion between 2005 and 2007, and since then, expansion has slowed. According to

the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), only 23 new ethanol facilities were under construction in January 2009,

which is approximately 70-percent fewer than the 76 new plants as of January 2007. In addition to delayed

construction of new plants, the domestic ethanol industry is currently experiencing both shutdowns of existing

production facilities and even corporate bankruptcies. An article in The Wall Street Journal On-line noted that

“...Few sectors are struggling as much as ethanol....” Hearing transcript, p. 35 (Schagrin); and petitioner’s posthearing brief, pp. A-9 - A-10, and Exhibit 8 (especially– RFA, “Biorefinery Locations;” U.S. Department of Energy,

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Biomass Program, “Corn Ethanol Producer VeraSun Files for Bankruptcy

Protection,” November 5, 2008, Keith Johnson, “Fuel Fight, Ethanol Woes Presage a Scrum for Subsidies,” The

Wall Street Journal On-line, January 12, 2009).

II-4

capacity coming online in that year.9

 During 2008, however, existing ethanol operations began to

struggle and new construction slowed.10 

Figure II-1 

Real gross domestic product: Annual growth rates, by quarters, January 2005-September 2008

Source: WWW.BEA.gov/national/index.htm#gdp.
II-5

Figure II-2 

U.S. pulp capacity: Annual production capacity, 2005-08

Source: American Forest & Paper 2008 Statistics, Paper, Paperboard & Wood Pulp, “United States Production of

Wood Pulp,” p. 52 and “United States Annual Capacity to Produce Wood Pulp” pp. 37-38.

Figure II-3 

Ethanol: Monthly production of U.S. fuel ethanol oxygenate, January 2005-October 2008

Source: www.eia.doe.gov.
 11 When asked how demand for WSS pressure pipe outside of the United States had changed since January 1,

2005, two of three responding producers reported that non-U.S. demand had increased and one reported that it had

decreased. Among responding importers, five reported that demand outside of the United States had increased, two

reported that it was unchanged, and two reported that it had fluctuated. Firms reporting an increase in demand

attributed the increasing demand to general economic development, and increased demand for energy and

petrochemicals.

 12 Questionnaire respondents were also asked to discuss substitutes for pressure pipe greater than 14 inches in

diameter, and other varieties of welded stainless steel tubular products (excluding mechanical tubing and grade 409

tubing). Three of the five producers reported that there are no substitutes for these products. One producer reported

that carbon steel can be substituted in waste and water applications. Another reported that coated carbon steel can be

substituted in energy and petrochemical applications. Most importers and purchasers did not list any substitutes.

II-6

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked whether demand for WSS pressure pipe

had increased, fluctuated, remained unchanged or decreased since January 1, 2005. Among five

responding producers, two reported that demand had increased, one reported no change, one reported that

demand had fluctuated, and one reported that demand had decreased. Among responding importers, six

reported that demand had increased, one reported no change, and three reported that demand had

fluctuated.11 Some firms reporting an increase in demand attributed the increase to greater demand for

oil, energy, and petrochemicals. Two firms reported that demand had increased after January 1, 2005, but

has decreased in more recent periods. Since most purchasers are distributors, they did not comment on

changes in demand. One end user purchaser reported that demand had decreased. 

Substitute Products

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to list any products that may be substituted

for WSS pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in diameter.12 Three of the five responding U.S.

producers reported that there are no substitutes. One producer reported that coated carbon steel pipe

could be used as a substitute for energy and petrochemical applications. Another producer reported that

substitutes for WSS pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in diameter include fiberglass reinforced

plastics in water, pulp, and paper applications and carbon steel in pulp and paper applications. The

majority of importers and purchasers did not list any substitutes for WSS steel pressure pipe. A few firms

mentioned seamless stainless steel pressure pipe, although one purchaser noted that it is more expensive

than the welded pipe. 

Cost Share

Most questionnaire respondents were unable to estimate the percentage of the total cost of enduse products accounted for by WSS pressure pipe since producers and importers sell mainly to

distributors, and most of the responding purchasers operate only as distributors. However, one U.S.

producer estimated that WSS pressure pipe not exceeding 14 inches in diameter accounts for 1 to 2

percent of the cost of brewery piping and 2 to 3 percent of the cost of water treatment. This firm also

estimated that WSS pressure pipe greater than 14 inches in diameter accounts for 1 percent of end uses

involving liquid natural gas and 1 percent of the cost of chemical plants. It also estimated that for other

varieties of welded stainless steel tubular products, excluding mechanical tubing and grade 409 tubing,

the cost share is 1 percent for petroleum and chemicals, 1 percent for liquid natural gas, and 2 to 3 percent

for water and waste water. One importer estimated that WSS pressure pipe not exceeding 14 inches in

diameter amounts to about 5 percent of the cost of petrochemical, gas and oil facilities. 
 13 Thirteen of the 21 purchasers reported that they purchased pressure pipe exceeding 14 inches in diameter

during 2007. The combined quantity of purchases of U.S.-produced product amounted to 2,187 short tons, and the

combined quantity of purchases of imports amounted to 956 short tons. Purchases of the U.S.-produced product

exceeding 14 inches were equivalent to 23 percent of the quantity of purchases of U.S.-produced WSS pressure pipe

of 14 inches or less by the 13 purchasers. Purchases of imported product exceeding 14 inches amounted to 6 percent

of the quantity of purchases of imported WSS pressure pipe of 14 inches or less. Nine of the 21 purchasers reported

purchasing welded stainless steel tubing (including ASTM A-249, A-269, A-270, and A-688 pipe and tube but

excluding mechanical and grade 409) in 2007. Purchases of the U.S.-produced tubing amounted to 4,953 short tons,

an amount nearly equal to the purchases of 4,977 tons of WSS pressure pipe by these firms. Purchases of imported

tubing amounted to 189 short tons, an amount equal to about 1 percent of the purchases of 18,220 short tons of

imported WSS pressure pipe by these firms.

II-7

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitutability between domestic products and subject imports, between domestic

products and nonsubject imports, and between subject and nonsubject imports, is discussed in this section. 

The information is based mainly on questionnaire responses of producers, importers, and purchasers. 

Twenty-two purchasers provided responses to the Commission’s questionnaires. Among those

purchasers, 19 function solely as distributors, one is a distributor and also manufactures pipe nipples,

another functions as a distributor and also manufactures butt-weld pipe fittings, and one is a master

distributor (a distributor that sells to other distributors). During the period January 2005 through

September 2008, 15 of the firms purchased WSS pressure pipe produced in the United States and

imported from China and other countries; 3 purchased only U.S.-produced product and imports from

China; 1 purchased only U.S.-produced products and imports from other countries; 1 purchased only

imports from China and other countries; 1 purchased only imports from China; and 1 purchased only

imports from other countries. The other countries included India, Italy, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico,

Taiwan, and Thailand. The quantity of purchases by responding firms by source is presented in the table

II-2 annually for 2005-07 and for January-September 2008.13 Purchasers were also asked to report their

end-of-period inventories for the years 2005-07 and for the period January-September 2008. The results

are shown in table II-3. 

Table II-2

WSS pressure pipe: Quantity of purchases (in short tons) from U.S. producers and import

sources, as reported by responding U.S. purchasers, 2005-07 and January-September 2008

Product source

Period

2005 2006 2007

Jan.-Sept. 

2008

U.S. producers 7,580 7,956 7,196 5,731

China 2,496 4,729 7,756 2,300

Nonsubject countries 13,098 15,902 18,171 14,049

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-8

Table II-3

WSS pressure pipe: U.S. purchasers end-of-period inventories (in short tons) of WSS pressure

pipe purchased from U.S. producers and import sources, as reported by responding U.S.

purchasers, 2005-07 and January-September 2008

Inventory of WSS pressure

pipe purchased from:

Period

2005 2006 2007

Jan.-Sept. 

2008

U.S. producers 2,814 3,282 2,614 3,019

China 1,158 2,276 3,301 1,265

Nonsubject countries 3,023 2,935 4,086 3,957

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked to discuss trends in their purchases from different sources during the

period from 2005 through January-September 2008, reporting whether their purchases had increased,

decreased, remained constant or fluctuated, and to provide an explanation for the trend. The results by

source are presented in table II-4. Purchasers reporting increased purchases of domestic pipe attributed

the increases to increased demand and marketing efforts. Firms reporting decreased purchases attributed

the decreases to price pressures and price competition from China and other import sources. Among

purchasers of imports from China, firms reporting increased purchases cited such factors as price,

availability, delivery, overall sales increases, and customer acceptance of the product. Firms reporting

decreases in purchases from China cited reduced business, quality problems, and price. For Korea, firms

reporting increased purchases cited increased sales, and price, availability and delivery considerations.

Firms reporting lower purchases of Korean product cited long lead times, poor delivery performance,

reduced demand, and higher prices. For Malaysia, firms reporting increases cited price, availability, and

increases after imports from China left the market in 2008. Decreases in purchases from Malaysia were

attributed to higher prices and reduced demand. Firms reporting an increase in purchases from Taiwan

attributed the increase to increases in demand, marketing efforts, and prices. Decreased purchases from

Taiwan were attributed to higher prices and reduced demand. Firms reporting an increase in purchases

from Thailand attributed the increase to price, availability, and increased sales. Decreases in purchases

from Thailand were attributed to higher prices and reduced demand. Among firms reporting increased

purchases from all other countries, one reported purchasing specialized pipe from Italy; other factors cited

were price, availability, delivery and increased sales. Decreases in purchases were attributed to higher

prices and reduced demand.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

When asked to rank the three most important factors involved in purchasing decisions, the

21 purchasers that responded consistently reported price, quality, and availability as the most important

factors (table II-5). Other factors mentioned included delivery time, product consistency, and reliability

of supply.
II-9

Table II-4

WSS pressure pipe: Purchaser responses concerning trends in purchases from different sources

during 2005-07 and January-September 2008 

Item Increased Fluctuated Constant Decreased Total

United States 6 3 5 4 18

China 71 2 452 18

Korea 4 2 2 4 12

Malaysia 5 2 2 3 12

Taiwan 7 1 4 2 14

Thailand 5 0 2 2 9

Other countries 4 2 1 3 10

 1 Two of the firms reporting an increase reported that purchases of imports from some sources in China had

increased, but purchases from other sources had fluctuated. 2 Two of the firms reporting a decrease reported that purchases of imports from some sources in China had

decreased, but purchases from other sources had fluctuated. 

Source: Compiled from purchaser questionnaire responses.

Table II-5

WSS pressure pipe: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions as reported by U.S.

purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Availability 2 7 2

Price 8 7 3

Quality 10 2 5

Other1 2 6 12

 1 Other factors include delivery time, reliability of supply, product consistency, and prearranged contracts. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

In order to obtain more information on purchasing decisions, firms were asked whether

purchasing decisions are based mainly on price. Purchasers were instructed to answer “always,”

“usually,” “sometimes,” or “never.” One purchaser answered “always,” thirteen purchasers answered

“usually,” and eight answered “sometimes.” None answered “never.”

Purchasers were also asked to report whether the factors shown in table II-6 are “very important,”

“somewhat important,” or “not important” in their purchasing decisions. The factors firms cited most

often as “very important” were product consistency (21 firms), quality meeting industry standards

(21 firms), and price (18 firms). Availability, delivery terms, delivery time, and reliability of supply were

also cited as “very important” by the majority of purchasers.
 14 ***. 

 15 At the hearing, two U.S. producers reported that oil companies and chemical companies sometimes have

approved lists that exclude imports from China. Hearing transcript p. 102 (Boling) and p. 103 (Conway). However,

it was argued that these lists are not a major factor in the market.

II-10

Table II-6

WSS pressure pipe: Importance of purchasing factors, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Number of firms responding

Availability 14 7 1

Delivery terms 13 9 0

Delivery time 15 5 2

Discounts offered 11 5 6

Extension of credit 7 7 6

Minimum quantity requirements 3 11 8

Packaging 5 15 2

Price 18 4 0

Product consistency 21 1 0

Product range 9 13 0

Quality exceeds industry standard 6 12 4

Quality meets industry standard 21 1 0

Reliability of supply 15 7 0

Technical support/service 5 11 6

U.S. transportation costs 8 7 7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Comparisons of Domestic Products and Subject and Nonsubject Imports

To determine whether U.S.-produced WSS pressure pipe generally can be used in the same

applications as imports from China and nonsubject sources, producers, importers, and purchasers were

asked whether the product can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably. 

As shown in table II-7, the majority of questionnaire respondents reported that the U.S.-produced product

and imports from China are always or frequently interchangeable. Similarly, the majority of

questionnaire respondents consider U.S.-produced WSS pressure pipe and imports from China as always

or frequently interchangeable with nonsubject imports. However, one importer that rated the U.S. and

China as only “sometimes” comparable reported that imports from China are not on any oil company’s

approved list.14 15 Another importer that rated the U.S. product and Chinese product as “sometimes”

comparable reported that U.S. customers generally prefer the U.S.-produced product, although they may

choose the imported product from China if its price is lower or the U.S.-produced product is in short

supply. One purchaser reported that some customers prefer the domestic product over imports, but most

do not care.
 16 These comments were provided by *** in its importer questionnaire. *** imports a *** quantity of WSS

pressure pipe. 

II-11

Table II-7

WSS pressure pipe: Interchangeability of product from the United States and subject and

nonsubject sources1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers Purchasers

AF SNAFS NAFSN

U.S. vs. China 5 0 0 0 5 5 3 0 10 6 1 0

U.S. vs. Korea 4 0 0 0 4 4 4 0 10 5 0 0

U.S. vs. Malaysia 4 0 0 0 4 3 3 0 11 4 0 0

U.S. vs. Taiwan 4 0 0 0 4 4 4 0 11 4 0 0

U.S. vs. Thailand 4 0 0 0 4 3 4 0 10 4 0 0

U.S. vs. Other countries 4000422 05300

China vs. Korea 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 9 4 0 0

China vs. Malaysia 3 0 0 0 3 3 2 0 9 4 0 0

China vs. Taiwan 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 9 4 0 0

China vs. Thailand 3 0 0 0 3 3 2 0 8 3 0 0

China vs. Other countries 3000332 04300

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if WSS pressure pipe produced in the United States and in

other countries are used interchangeably.

Note. --“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

In addition to questions concerning interchangeability, producers and importers were also asked

to compare U.S.-produced products with imports from China and nonsubject imports in terms of product

differences other than price such as quality, availability, product range, and other characteristics, as a

factor in their sales of WSS pressure pipe (table II-8). The majority of producers consistently reported

that product differences are never important when comparing the U.S.-produced product with imports

from China, while the majority of importers reported that the differences are always frequently, or

sometimes important. One importer reported that any foreign mill is at a disadvantage in offering services

or technical support. Another importer, that uses WSS pressure pipe in the production of downstream

products, reported that quality problems caused it to completely stop using one U.S. pipe fabricator in

2007. It also reported that it has had consistent problems with tolerances with another U.S. pipe mill.16 It

reported that these quality problems have not occurred with non-U.S.-based suppliers. This importer also

reported that there have been some problems with U. S. pipe mills meeting delivery schedules.
II-12

Table II-8

WSS pressure pipe: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than

price in sales of products produced in the United States and in other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. China 1 0 0 4 4 2 6 1

U.S. vs. Korea 1 0 0 3 2 1 3 1

U.S. vs. Malaysia 1 0 0 3 1 1 2 1

U.S. vs. Taiwan 1 0 0 3 1 1 4 1

U.S. vs. Thailand 1 0 0 3 2 1 2 1

U.S. vs. Other countries 10031221

China vs. Korea 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 1

China vs. Malaysia 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1

China vs. Taiwan 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 1

China vs. Thailand 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 1

China vs. Other countries 00021111

 1 Producers and importers were asked if differences other than price between WSS pressure pipe produced in

the United States and in other countries are a significant factor in their firms’ sales of WSS pressure pipe. 

Note.-- “A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never, and “0” = No familiarity.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers also were asked to compare U.S.-produced WSS pressure pipe and subject pipe from

China in 15 selected characteristics listed in table II-9, noting whether the domestic product was superior,

comparable, or inferior to the imports. Sixteen purchasers provided comparisons for the selected

categories. The U.S. product was rated superior to imports from China by a majority of purchasers for

availability, delivery time, and technical support/service. The Chinese product was rated superior by a

majority of purchasers in terms of price (i.e., lower price). In all other categories, except delivery terms, a

majority of purchasers ranked the U.S. and Chinese products as comparable. When compared with

nonsubject imports, the U.S. product was ranked superior in availability and delivery time by a majority

of purchasers, and was ranked superior by a plurality of purchasers in product range. A plurality of

purchasers rated the nonsubject imports superior to the U.S. product in price. The Chinese product was

ranked comparable to nonsubject imports by a majority of purchasers in all categories.
 17 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

II-13

Table II-9

WSS pressure pipe: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and subject imports from China, and

subject and nonsubject products as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs. China

U.S. vs.

nonsubject 

China vs.

nonsubject

S C I S C I SC I

Number of firms responding 

Availability 10 6 0 8 3 0 1 6 0

Delivery terms 7 7 1 3 6 2 1 6 0

Delivery time 12 3 1 7 2 2160

Discounts offered 3 8 3 2 8 1 1 5 1

Extension of credit 4 10 1 2 7 2 1 6 0

Lower price1 2 3 11 3 3 5 2 4 1

Lower U.S. transportation costs1 4 11 0 1 7 1 1 6 0

Minimum quantity requirements 5 11 0 2 9 0 0 7 0

Packaging 5 11 0 0 10 1 0 7 0

Product consistency 4 12 0 2 9 0 1 6 0

Product range 4 11 1 5 4 2 1 6 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 4 11 1 2 9 0150

Quality meets industry standards 1 15 0 0 11 0 0 6 0

Reliability of supply 4 11 1 3 6 2070

Technical support/service 9 5 1 3 6 016

 1A rating of superior on price and U.S. transportation costs indicates that the first country generally has lower

prices/U.S. transportation costs than the second country.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed

country’s product is inferior.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES 

This section discusses elasticity estimates; parties were encouraged to comment on these

estimates in their briefs. However, no party submitted any comments.

U.S. Supply Elasticity17

The domestic supply elasticity for WSS pressure pipe measures the sensitivity of the quantity

supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of WSS pressure pipe. The elasticity of

domestic supply depends on several factors including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which

producers can alter capacity, producers’ ability to shift to production of other products, the existence of

inventories, and the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced WSS pressure pipe. Analysis of

these factors, including the large amount of excess capacity and relatively high ratio of inventories to

sales indicates that the elasticity is likely to be is relatively high. A range of 5 to 10 is suggested. 
 18 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change.

II-14

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for WSS pressure pipe measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity

demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of WSS pressure pipe. This estimate depends on factors

discussed earlier such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as

well as the component share of WSS pressure pipe in the production of any downstream products. Since

the available information suggest that there are no close substitutes for this product, and that it accounts

for a relatively small share of the cost of end-use products, the demand is likely to be relatively inelastic;

a range of -0.3 to -0.7 is suggested. 

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.18 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

(e.g., chemistry, appearance, etc.) and conditions of sale (availability, sales terms/discounts/promotions,

etc.). Based on available information, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.-produced WSS pressure

pipe and imported WSS pressure pipe is likely to be in the range of 3 to 6.
 1

 Alaskan Copper & Brass Co., Rath Gibson, and Swepco provided partial information, although the latter

provided data only after the Commission issued an administrative subpoena. Valtimet, Associated Tube, and

Plymouth are known to produce pressure tubing but are not known to produce pressure pipe. 

 2

 The assets of Bishop Tube and Damascus Tube were purchased and combined by Marcegaglia during the 1990s. 

Marcegaglia moved some of the combined firm's assets to one location in Munhall, PA, after purchasing buildings in

what had been the U.S. Steel Homestead Works. The combined number of welding mills and the workforce were

both much smaller than those of Bishop and Damascus at the time of purchase. More recently, Davis Pipe and

Acme-Romac filed for Chapter 7 liquidation in 2003. Hearing transcript, p. 15 (Cornelius) and p. 12 (Carpenter).

 3

 “Trent Tube Unit In Carrollton To Close Doors,” American Metal Market, April 6, 2004. “After Five Years Of

High Hopes, Trent Pulls Out The Low-End Pipe,” American Metal Market, April 12, 2004.

 4

 About 50 hourly workers and 12 salaried employees lost their jobs when the Carrollton plant closed 2004. Ibid.

 5

 Hearing transcript, p. 12 (Carpenter).

 6

 Found at http://www.plymouth.com/_tmp/PlymouthAcquiresTrentTubeAug07.pdf, December 9, 2008.

 7

 Hearing transcript, p. 11 (Carpenter).

III-1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§

1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the margins of dumping and subsidies was presented earlier

in this report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is

presented in Parts IV and V. Information on the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or

Part VI.

 

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to all firms identified in the petition as domestic

producers of WSS pressure pipe and to other domestic firms identified by public sources as producers of

welded stainless steel tubular products. Eight firms reported at least limited production of WSS pressure

pipe. Five firms that are estimated to account for approximately *** percent of U.S. production of WSS

pressure pipe during 2007 provided complete responses to the Commission’s producer questionnaire.1

Presented in table III-1 is a list of current domestic producers of WSS pressure pipe and other

stainless steel tubular products, each company’s position on the petition, production locations, related

and/or affiliated firms, and their shares of 2007 reported domestic production of WSS pressure pipe. In

addition to the reporting active producers,2

 Crucible Materials Corp. closed its Trent Tube division’s

Carrollton, GA, pipe operations in June 2004, because the plant had lost market share and had suffered

operating losses for the previous five years.3

 Crucible blamed the plant’s unprofitable performance on

over-capacity in the U.S. industry and low-cost imports.4

 Outokumpu purchased some of the production 

mills and equipment from the Carrollton plant and used it to increase efficiency, improve quality and

reduce costs.5

 Plymouth bought Crucible’s East Troy plant in August 2007.6 Outokumpu acquired its

Wildwood stainless steel pipe facility when it purchased Avesta Sheffield in 2005.7
III-2

Table III-1

WSS pressure pipe: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, related

and/or affiliated firms, and shares of 2007 reported U.S. production of WSS pressure pipe

Firm name

Position on

petition

U.S. production

location(s) Related and/or affiliated firms

Share of

2007

production

(percent)

Alaskan ***

Portland, OR

Seattle, WA Alco Investment Co. ***

Bristol Support Bristol, TN Synalloy Corp. (United States)1 ***

Felker Support

Marshfield, WI

Glasgow, KY None. ***

Marcegaglia Support Munhall, PA Marcegaglia (Italy)1 ***

Outokumpu Support Wildwood, FL

Outokumpu (United States)

Outokumpu (Finland)

Outokumpu (Sweden) ***

Rath Gibson ***

Clarksville, AR

Janesville, WI

North Branch, NJ

DLJ Merchant Banking Partners

and Affiliates (United States) ***

Management of Rath Gibson *** ***

Swepco *** Clifton, NJ *** ***

Webco *** Mannford, OK None. ***

1

 ***.

Note.–Because of rounding, shares may not total 100.0 percent. Valtimet, Associated Tube, and Plymouth are known to produce

pressure tubing but are not known to produce pressure pipe. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

In 2007, *** percent of U.S. producers’ production of WSS pressure pipe was ASTM A-312, ***

percent was A-778, and *** percent was other pressure pipe. In January-September 2008, *** percent of

U.S. producers’ production of WSS pressure pipe was ASTM A-312, *** percent was A-778, and ***

percent was other pressure pipe. By size, *** percent of their 2007 production was less than or equal to

6.625 inches in outside diameter, and *** percent was greater than 6.625 inches and less than or equal to

4.0 inches. In January-September 2008, *** percent of their production was less than or equal to 6.625

inches in outside diameter, and *** percent was greater than 6.625 inches and less than or equal to 14.0

inches. 

Producers’ capacity, production, and capacity-utilization data for WSS pressure pipe are

presented in table III-2. These data show an increase in the capacity to produce WSS pressure pipe of

*** percent from 2005 to 2007. *** and *** accounted for a majority of the increase in capacity. ***. 

Capacity was 2.2 percent lower in January-September 2008 than in January-September 2007 (***

accounted for the reduction). Production of WSS pressure pipe fell overall by *** percent from 2005 to 
 8

 In 2007, less than *** percent of Rath Gibson’s production was WSS pressure pipe 14 inches or less in

diameter, and *** percent of its production was WSS pressure tubing. In 2007, *** percent of Swepco’s production

was of WSS pressure pipe 14 inches or less in diameter, and *** percent of its production was greater than 14

inches. Alaskan Copper ***.

 9

 At the request of Commissioner Lane, petitioners agreed to provide estimates of certain fourth quarter 2008

data, to the extent that such data were available (given the time requirements to finalize the data). Hearing

transcript, pp. 124-125 (Lane, Schagrin). For the three companies able to provide data, fourth quarter 2008

production levels were *** short tons for Outokumpu; *** short tons for Bristol; and *** short tons for Felker

Brothers. Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exhibit 3. Comparable data for the three companies for the fourth quarter of

2007 were *** short tons for Outokumpu; *** short tons for Bristol; and *** short tons for Felker Brothers (data

calculated from calendar year and interim 2007 data provided in response to producers’ questionnaires). In the

aggregate, estimated fourth quarter 2008 production levels were higher than those calculated for the fourth quarter of

2007.

III-3

Table III-2

WSS pressure pipe: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2005-07, JanuarySeptember 2007, and January-September 2008

Item

Calendar year January-September

2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Capacity (short tons) *** *** *** 49,041 47,961

Production (short tons) *** *** *** 22,421 22,010

Capacity utilization (percent) *** *** *** 45.7 45.9

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

2007,8 and was 1.8 percent lower in January-September 2008 than in January-September 2007.9 ***

accounted for a majority of the decrease. Capacity utilization decreased by *** percentage points from

2005 to 2007, and remained stable from January-September 2007 to January-September 2008. ***.

In the Commission’s questionnaire, U.S. producers were asked if they had experienced any plant

openings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, closures, or prolonged shutdowns because

of strikes or equipment failure; curtailment of production because of shortages of materials; or any other

change in the character of their operations or organization relating to the production of WSS pressure pipe

since January 1, 2005. Five firms reported such changes; their responses to this question are presented in

table III-3.

Table III-3

WSS pressure pipe: U.S. producers’ comments concerning plant openings, relocations,

expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, closures, or prolonged shutdowns

* * * * * * *

*** U.S. producers of WSS pressure pipe that responded to the Commission’s questionnaire

reported the production of other products on the same equipment and machinery and using the same

production and related workers employed in the production of WSS pressure pipe. Their responses are

presented in tables III-4 and III-5. In the aggregate, the producers reported the following products that

were produced using the same production and related workers employed to produce WSS pressure pipe

and those products’ shares of total plant production in 2007: subject WSS pressure pipe (*** percent);

welded stainless steel pressure pipe greater than 14 inches in outside diameter (*** percent); welded
III-4

stainless steel pressure tubing (*** percent); welded stainless steel mechanical tubing (*** percent); and

other products (*** percent). Additional information, including the size ranges, specifications, grades,

and end-use applications of the stainless steel tubular products manufactured by domestic producers,

according to the Simdex Steel Tube Manufacturers Worldwide Guide, is presented in table III-6. 

Table III-4

WSS pressure pipe and other tubular products: U.S. producers’ products made on the shared

equipment and machinery, 2005-07, January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

Item

Calendar year January-September

2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Quantity (short tons)

Total plant capacity1 144,015 148,115 161,570 121,175 120,082

Production:

 Subject WSS pressure pipe < 14"2 *** *** *** 22,631 22,142

 Welded stainless steel pressure pipe >14" *** *** *** 8,952 7,762

 Welded stainless steel pressure tubing3 *** *** *** 27,140 25,193

 Welded stainless steel mechanical tubing4 *** *** *** *** ***

 Other *** *** *** *** ***

 Total production 80,721 93,411 84,724 67,863 63,994

Total plant capacity utilization (percent) 56.1 63.1 52.4 56.0 53.3

 1 ***. 2 Data do not reconcile with Table III-2 due to the inclusion of production volumes by ***. 

 3

 E.g., ASTM A-249, A-269, A-270, and A-688 pipes and tubes.

 4

 E.g., ASTM A-554 tubing. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table III-5

WSS pressure pipe and other tubular products: U.S. producers’ products made using the same

production and related workers, January 2005-September 2008

* * * * * * *
III-5

Table III-6

Welded austenitic stainless steel pipe and tube, with round cross-sections: U.S. producers and

mill locations, size ranges and production processes, ASTM specifications, grades, and end-use

applications 

Firm name

(mill location)

Size range O.D.,

production

process

ASTM

specifications

Stainless steel

grades End-use applications

Alaskan

(Seattle, WA)

3.000" - 36.000"

***

A-312, A-778 304, 304L, 304H,

309S, 310S, 316,

316L, 316H, 317,

317L, 321, 321H,

347, 347H

Oil, gas, and chemicals line pipe

Ornamental and furniture tubing

Sanitary, food and beverage tube

Bristol

(Bristol, TN)

0.840" - 16.000"

continuous mill

A-312, A-778, A-790,

A-813, A-814

304, 304L, 304H,

309S, 309H, 310S,

310H, 316, 316L,

316H, 317, 317LM,

317LMN, 321,

321H, 347

Oil, gas, and chemicals line pipe

Sanitary, food and beverage tube

10.750" - 120.000"

batch mill

A-778

Felker

(Glasgow, KY)

(Marshfield, WI)

2.375" - 12.750"

continuous mill

A-312, A-778 304L, 316L, 317L,

others

Oil, gas, and chemicals line pipe

Heat exchanger and pressure tube

2.875" - 6.625"

continuous mill

A-249, A-269, A-778 304L, 316L, 317L Heat exchanger and pressure tube

14.000" - 24.000"

batch mill

A-778 304L, 316L, 317L Oil, gas, and chemicals line pipe

14.000" - 96.000"

rolled and welded

Marcegaglia

(Munhall, PA) 

0.405" - 12.750"

continuous mill

A-269, A-312 304, 304L, 304H,

309, 309S, 310,

310S, 316, 316L,

316Ti, 317, 317L,

347, 347H, 321

Oil, gas, and chemicals line pipe

0.250" - 5.000"

continuous mill

A-249 304, 304L, 304H,

309S, 310S, 316,

316H, 316L, 317L,

321

Heat exchanger and pressure tube

0.625" - 5.000"

continuous mill

A-554 (1

) Mechanical and precision products

Outokumpu

(Wildwood, FL)

8.625" - 14.000"

continuous mill

A-249, A-269, A-312,

A-358, A-778

304, 304L, 316,

316L, 317L, 321,

321H, 347, 347H

304, 304L, 316,

316L, 317L, 321,

321H, 347, 347H

Oil, gas, and chemicals line pipe

Heat exchanger and pressure tube

General service tubular products 16.000" - 80.000"

batch mill

A-249, A-269, A-312,

A-358, A-490, A-778,

A-789, A-790, A-928 up to 120.000"

(

1

)

Rath Gibson

(Clarksville,

AR)2

0.250" - 0.500"

continuous mill

A-269 304, 316 General service tubular products

0.125" - 1.000"

continuous mill

A-269, A-312 316, 317, 321, 347 Oil, gas, and chemicals line pipe

0.125" - 1.375"

continuous mill

A-269, A-632 304, 310, 316,

317, 321, 347

Mechanical and precision products

Table continued on next page.
III-6

Table III-6–Continued

Welded austenitic stainless steel pipe and tube, with round cross-sections: U.S. producers and

mill locations, size ranges and production processes, ASTM specifications, grades, and end-use

applications

Firm name

(mill location)

Size range O.D.,

production

process

ASTM

specifications

Stainless steel

grades End-use applications

Rath Gibson

(Janesville, WI)

0.500" - 6.000"

continuous mill

A-269, A-312 (1

) Oil, gas, and chemicals line pipe

0.500" - 4.000"

continuous mill

A-270 (1

) Sanitary, food and beverage tube

0.500" - 4.000"

continuous mill

A-249, A-269, A-312 304, 304L,316,

316L, 317L, 309S,

310S, 321, 347

Pipe and tube for specific

industries including paper,

petroleum, and chemicals

0.500" - 4.000"

continuous mill

(

1

) 304L, 316L Tube for specific industries

including semiconductors and

pharmaceuticals

Rath Gibson

(North Branch,

NJ)

0.063" - 1.500"

continuous mill

A-269 304, 304L, 316,

316L

Oil, gas, and chemicals line pipe

0.188" - 1.500"

continuous mill

A-249, A-688 304, 304L, 316,

316L, 317, 317L

Heat exchanger and pressure tube

0.063" - 0.500"

continuous mill

A-269, A-632 304, 304L, 316,

316L

Mechanical and precision products

0.250" - 0.500"

continuous mill

(

1

) 304, 304L Sanitary, food and beverage tube

Swepco

(Clifton, NJ)

5.000" - 10.000"

continuous mill

A-249, A-269, A-554 304, 304L Heat exchanger and pressure tube

Mechanical and precision products

2.375" - 4.000"

continuous mill

(

1

) (1) Oil, gas, and chemicals line pipe

Heat exchanger and pressure tube

Mechanical and precision products

Sanitary, food and beverage tube

Tube for various industries.

2.375" - 36.000"

continuous mill 

and batch mill

(

1

) (1) Oil, gas, and chemicals line pipe

6.625" - 96.000"

continuous mill, 

batch mill, and

rolled and welded

(

1

) (1) Oil, gas, and chemicals line pipe

Pressure vessel shell tube

Mechanical and precision products

Sanitary, food and beverage tube

Non-commodity pipe for various

industries.

Webco

(Mannford, OK)

0.625" - 1.250"

continuous mill

A-249, A-268 304, 304L, 309,

310, 316, 316L,

317, 321, 347

Oil, gas, and chemicals line pipe

Heat exchanger and pressure tube

Mechanical and precision products

 1 Not reported.

 2

 Formerly Greenville Tube Co. (GTC), based in Greenville, PA, acquired by RathGibson in 2006.

Source: Simdex Steel Tube Manufacturers Worldwide Guide (2007); company websites; hearing testimony; and Commission staff

e-mail correspondence with representatives of domestic producers.
 10 At the request of Commissioner Lane, petitioners agreed to provide estimates of certain fourth quarter 2008

data, to the extent that such data were available (given the time requirements to finalize the data). Hearing

transcript, pp. 124-125 (Lane, Schagrin). For the three companies able to provide data, fourth quarter 2008 shipment

levels were *** short tons for Outokumpu; *** short tons for Bristol; and *** short tons for Felker Brothers. 

Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exhibit 3. Comparable total shipment data for the three companies for the fourth

quarter of 2007 were *** short tons for Outokumpu; *** short tons for Bristol; and *** short tons for Felker

Brothers (data calculated from calendar year and interim 2007 data provided in response to producers’

questionnaires). In the aggregate, estimated fourth quarter 2008 shipment levels were higher than those calculated

for the fourth quarter of 2007.

 11 ***.

 12 Bristol further reported that WSS pressure pipe is basically sold through the distributors’ spot market and there

are approximately 12 major stocking distributors. All 12 major distributors stock both U.S. and Chinese WSS

pressure pipe in the entire range of diameter and wall-thickness combinations, and end users purchase from the

distributor who quotes the lowest price. Conference transcript, pp. 10-12 (Boling).

 13 Internal consumption was reported by ***. At the Commission’s conference Marcegaglia and Outokumpu

reported they do not internally consume any WSS pressure pipe. Felker reported that “they do utilize some of the

continuous pipe to bend and press elbow reducers, et cetera” and that they have a fabrication division that produces

pipe spools. Conference transcript, p. 61 (Henke).

 14 Hearing transcript, p. 16 (Cornelius) and p. 18 (Henke). 

 15 Hearing transcript, p. 18 (Henke).

III-7

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Data on domestic producers’ shipments of WSS pressure pipe are presented in table III-7. U.S.

shipments accounted for *** percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments of WSS pressure pipe in 2007,

and commercial shipments alone accounted for *** percent. The quantity of U.S. shipments increased in

2006, then declined in 2007, for an overall decrease of *** percent, but were 3.6 percent higher in

January-September 2008 than in January-September 2007.10 *** producers had increased shipments in

2006, decreased shipments in 2007, and decreased shipments in January-September 2008 compared to

January-September 2007, with *** accounting for the vast majority of the reduction in shipments in

2007.11 ***.12 The domestic producers reported internal consumption ranged from *** to *** percent of

total U.S. shipments during the period for which data were collected.13 The unit value of U.S. shipments

increased *** percent from 2005 to 2007, but was 9.9 percent lower in January-September 2008 than in

January-September 2007. This reflected in large part surcharges put in place by the stainless steel

industry to cover changes in prices of their key raw materials such as chromium, nickel and

molybdenum.14 All WSS pressure pipe producers reportedly passed those surcharges on to their

customers. However, as a result of declining raw material costs, these surcharges have decreased

substantially in 2008.15

Exports of WSS pressure pipe were reported by ***. These exports decreased steadily and

accounted for less than *** percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments during 2005-07, then increased in

January-September 2008 compared to January-September 2007. The export markets listed included ***.

*** firm reported involvement in a toll agreement regarding the production of WSS pressure

pipe. *** firm reported production of WSS pressure pipe in a Foreign Trade Zone.
III-8

Table III-7 

WSS pressure pipe: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2005-07, January-September 2007, and

January-September 2008

Item

Calendar year January-September

2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Quantity (short tons)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments *** *** *** 20,253 20,980

Export shipments *** *** *** 223 605

Total shipments *** *** *** 20,476 21,585

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments *** *** *** 151,095 140,988

Export shipments *** *** *** 2,049 4,971

Total shipments *** *** *** 153,144 145,959

Unit value (per short ton)

Commercial shipments $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments *** *** *** 7,460 6,720

Export shipments *** *** *** 9,188 8,217

 Average shipments *** *** *** 7,479 6,762

Table continued on next page.
 16 *** imported from China *** and from other sources ***. ***.

III-9

Table III-7--Continued

WSS pressure pipe: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2005-07, January-September 2007, and

January-September 2008

Item

Calendar year January-September

2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Share of quantity (percent)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments *** *** *** 98.9 97.2

Export shipments *** *** *** 1.1 2.8

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments *** *** *** 98.7 96.6

Export shipments *** *** *** 1.3 3.4

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 Not applicable.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Data collected in these investigations on domestic producers’ end-of-period inventories of WSS

pressure pipe are presented in table III-8. Domestic producers’ inventories increased from 2005 to 2007,

then were lower in January-September 2008 than in January-September 2007. U.S. producers’

inventories were equivalent to between *** and *** percent of U.S. producers’ total shipments during

2005-07, and 30.2 percent in January-September 2008. *** firms accounted for *** percent of the

inventories held in 2007, ***. 

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

*** U.S. producer, ***, reported direct imports of WSS pressure pipe during the period for which

data were collected.16 In 2007, *** imported ***. *** U.S. producers reported purchases of WSS

pressure pipe. In 2006, *** reported purchases from U.S. importers of ***), citing the need to fill a shortterm need for certain sizes. *** reported purchases from domestic producers, ***, citing ***. 
 17 The workers at Bristol, Marcegaglia, and Outokumpu are unionized, and Bristol and Outokumpu have profit

sharing plans. Hearing transcript, pp. 38-39 (Conway, Carpenter, Boling, Cornelius).

 18 Conference transcript, p. 28 (Hart).

 19 Conference transcript, pp. 66-67 (Henke).

 20 Hearing transcript, p. 27 (Conway).

III-10

Table III-8 

WSS pressure pipe: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2005-07, January-September 2007, and

January-September 2008

Item

Calendar year January-September

2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Inventories (short tons) *** *** *** 10,485 8,680

Ratio of inventories to production (percent) *** *** *** 35.1 29.6

Ratio of inventories to U.S. shipments (percent) *** *** *** 38.8 31.0

Ratio of inventories to total shipments (percent) *** *** *** 38.4 30.2

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The U.S. producers’ aggregate employment data for WSS pressure pipe are presented in table III9. In the aggregate, U.S. WSS pressure pipe producers reported an increase in the number of production

and related workers employed in the manufacture of WSS pressure pipe from 2005 to 2006, and a

decrease in 2007. This largely reflects ***. The number of production and related workers increased in

January-September 2008 compared to January-September 2007; ***.17 Several of the companies, faced

with a decline in demand, instead of laying off employees reportedly chose to reduce the hours worked in

order to save jobs18 or to cross-train employees on other equipment.19 Job losses in the WSS pressure

pipe industry had temporarily leveled off at the petitioning firms due to the earlier closure of plants at

Trent Tube, Acme/Romac, and Davis.20 Consistent with trends in output, productivity rose in 2006 then

fell in 2007, for an overall decrease of *** percent (*** and *** accounted for a majority of the

decrease). Falling productivity combined with a modest increase in wage rates resulted in higher unit

labor costs in 2007, and in January-September 2008 compared to January-September 2007.

Table III-9 

WSS pressure pipe: U.S. producers’ employment-related indicators, 2005-07, January-September 2007, and

January-September 2008

Item

Calendar year January-September

2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Production and related workers (PRWs) *** *** *** 308 348

Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) *** *** *** 540 568

Wages paid to PRWs (1,000 dollars) *** *** *** 8,699 9,392

Hourly wages *** *** *** $16.11 $16.53

Productivity (short tons produced per 1,000 hours) *** *** *** 41.5 38.7

Unit labor costs (per short ton) *** *** *** $387.98 $426.72

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 1

 Twelve firms reported that they had not imported welded stainless steel tubular products during 2005-08. 

 2 The Commission received incomplete questionnaire responses from ***, ***, and ***.

 3 Imports of WSS pressure pipe are from official statistics under the HTS statistical reporting numbers

7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085. Although certain larger diameter

product may enter under these statistical reporting numbers, only *** reported such entries.

 4 Some WSS pressure pipe may be imported under HTS statistical reporting numbers 7306.40.1010,

7306.40.1015, 7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 7306.40.5080, and 7306.40.5090, which are basket categories that

predominantly include pressure tube. *** reported imports under these statistical reporting numbers (these imports

were from ***).

 5 Import data for Canada are not being used because the overwhelming majority consists of nonsubject

mechanical tubing. ***. Commission staff requested export data from ***, but did not receive any. Staff telephone

interview with ***, February 25, 2008.

 6 Increased nonsubject imports in the latter part of 2008 were from Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand.

 7 A majority of the remainder comes from Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand. 

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION, 

AND MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

The Commission sent importer questionnaires to 42 firms believed to be importers of welded

stainless steel tubular products, as well as to all U.S. producers of welded stainless steel tubular products.1

Usable questionnaire responses were received from 14 companies that are believed to account for more

than *** percent of the quantity of U.S. imports from China and more than *** percent of U.S. imports

from other countries during the period for which data were collected.2

 The largest importer of WSS

pressure pipe from China in 2007 was ***. Other major importers of WSS pressure pipe are ***. Table

IV-1 presents the responding U.S. importers and 2007 coverage based on responses to Commission

questionnaires. 

U.S. IMPORTS

U.S. imports are based on official import statistics of Commerce,3

 as modified to include WSS

pressure pipe entering under broader HTS categories4

 (based on questionnaire responses) and to exclude

pressure pipe greater than 14 inches in diameter (based on questionnaire responses) and mechanical

tubing from Canada.5

 U.S. imports of WSS pressure pipe are presented in table IV-2 and figure IV-1.6

China is the largest foreign supplier of WSS pressure pipe to the United States, accounting for 51.1

percent of the quantity of total imports in 2007, and 49.4 percent of the value.7

 From 2005 to 2007, the

quantity and value of imports of WSS pressure pipe from China increased by 111.0 percent and 225.2

percent, respectively. The quantity and value of imports of WSS pressure pipe from China were 73.4

percent and 73.1 percent lower, respectively, in January-September 2008 than in January-September

2007. The unit value of imports of WSS pressure pipe from China increased by 54.1 percent from 2005

to 2007, and was 1.0 percent higher in January-September 2008 than in January-September 2007. The

quantity and value of imports from other countries increased by 33.3 percent and by 107.0 percent,

respectively, from 2005 to 2007, then decreased by 12.5 percent and 17.7 percent in January-September

2008 compared to January-September 2007. 
IV-2

Table IV-1

WSS pressure pipe: U.S. importers, locations, related and/or affiliated firms, and shares of reported U.S.

imports in 2007

Firm name Location

Related and/or

affiliated firms

Share of 

2007 reported

U.S. imports

from China

(percent)

Share of 

2007 reported

total U.S.

imports 

(percent)

Source of

other

imports

Alaskan

Copper

Seattle, WA

Portland, OR

Alco Investment Co.

(United States) *** *** ***

Angstrom Taylor, MI None *** *** ***

Comprinox Petaluma, CA None *** *** ***

Coreco Torrance, CA None *** *** ***

Kurt Orban Burlingame, CA None *** *** ***

MC Tubular Houston, TX

Metal One Holdings

America, Inc.

(United States) *** *** ***

Merit Brass Cleveland, OH None *** *** ***

Norca Great Neck, NY

Norca Corp. (United

States) *** *** ***

Outokumpu Wildwood, FL

Outokumpu (United

States) 

Outokumpu (Finland)

Outokumpu

(Sweden) *** *** ***

Primrose

Alloys Burlingame, CA None *** *** ***

Prudential Avenel, NJ

HK Management

Partners (United

Sates) *** *** ***

Robert Mitchell

(Douglas

Brothers Div) Portland, ME

Marshall Barwick

(Canada)

Douglas Barwick

(Canada) *** *** ***

Silbo Montvale, NJ None *** *** ***

Sumitomo Houston, TX Sumitomo (Japan) *** *** ***

Ta Chen

Long Beach,

CA

Ta Chen Stainless

Pipe Co. Ltd.

(Taiwan) *** *** ***

Techlin Somerset, NJ None *** *** ***

Toyota Tsusho Houston, TX

Toyota Tsusho

(Japan) *** *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 ----

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
IV-3

Table IV-2

WSS pressure pipe: U.S. imports, by sources, 2005-07, January-September 2007, and JanuarySeptember 2008

Source

Calendar year January-September

2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Quantity (short tons)

China 14,394 23,712 30,371 25,169 6,700

Nonsubject sources 21,810 24,099 29,078 23,879 20,888

 Total 36,204 47,811 59,448 49,048 27,588

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

China 47,607 79,360 154,833 124,975 33,592

Nonsubject sources 76,573 99,681 158,535 135,942 111,893

 Total 124,180 179,041 313,368 260,917 145,485

Unit value (per short ton)

1

China $3,307 $3,347 $5,098 $4,965 $5,014

Nonsubject sources 3,511 4,136 5,452 5,693 5,357

 Average 3,430 3,745 5,271 5,320 5,274

Share of quantity (percent)

China 39.8 49.6 51.1 51.3 24.3

Nonsubject sources 60.2 50.4 48.9 48.7 75.7

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China 38.3 44.3 49.4 47.9 23.1

Nonsubject sources 61.7 55.7 50.6 52.1 76.9

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 Landed, duty-paid.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics, as adjusted by questionnaire responses.
IV-4

Figure IV-1

WSS pressure pipe: Monthly U.S. imports, by sources, January 2005-November 2008

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

In 2007, *** percent of U.S. importers’ imports of WSS pressure pipe from China was A-312,

and *** percent was A-778. In addition, *** percent of their 2007 U.S. imports from China was less than

or equal to 6.625 inches in outside diameter, and *** percent was greater than 6.625 inches and less than

or equal to 14 inches. In 2007, *** percent of U.S. importers’ imports of WSS pressure pipe from all

other sources was A-312, and *** percent was A-778. In addition, *** percent of their 2007 U.S. imports

from all other sources was less than or equal to 6.625 inches in outside diameter, and *** percent was

greater than 6.625 inches and less than or equal to 14 inches. 

Nonsubject imports of WSS pressure pipe are presented in table IV-3. Four countries - Korea,

Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand - consistently accounted for the large majority of imports of WSS

pressure pipe from nonsubject sources during the period for which data were collected.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

Jan-05

Mar-05

May-05

Jul-05

Sep-05

Nov-05

Jan-06

Mar-06

May-06

Jul-06

Sep-06

Nov-06

Jan-07

Mar-07

May-07

Jul-07

Sep-07

Nov-07

Jan-08

Mar-08

May-08

Jul-08

Sep-08

Nov-08

Month and year

(short tons)

China All other
IV-5

Table IV-3

WSS pressure pipe: U.S. imports from nonsubject countries, by sources, 2005-07, JanuarySeptember 2007, and January-September 2008

Source

Calendar year January-September

2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Quantity (short tons)

Korea 5,715 4,506 4,526 4,346 2,693

Malaysia 3,408 2,993 3,860 2,925 4,294

Taiwan 9,840 14,216 18,341 15,186 11,064

Thailand 1,192 1,516 1,740 1,161 2,398

All other 1,719 1,033 1,010 577 793

 Subtotal 21,874 24,264 29,478 24,196 21,241

 Adjustments1 (64) (165) (400) (317) (353)

Total 21,810 24,099 29,078 23,879 20,888

Value (1,000 dollars)

2

Korea 17,573 14,178 19,270 18,239 12,341

Malaysia 10,956 9,501 19,444 14,471 20,002

Taiwan 37,588 66,279 106,301 95,382 63,051

Thailand 3,798 5,675 8,457 5,552 10,361

All other 6,883 4,731 7,244 4,104 8,029

 Subtotal 76,798 100,363 160,716 137,746 113,784

 Adjustments1 (225) (682) (2,181) (1,805) (1,891)

Total 76,573 99,681 158,535 135,942 111,893

Unit value (per short ton)

2

Korea $3,075 $3,146 $4,258 $4,196 $4,583

Malaysia 3,215 3,174 5,037 4,947 4,658

Taiwan 3,820 4,662 5,796 6,281 5,699

Thailand 3,187 3,744 4,860 4,780 4,321

All other 4,003 4,580 7,169 7,110 10,128

 Average 3,511 4,136 5,452 5,693 5,357

 1 Adjusted to include WSS pressure pipe imported under HTS basket categories and to exclude pressure pipe greater

than 14 inches. In addition to these adjustments, U.S. imports from Canada (largely or exclusively of mechanical tubing)

are excluded in their entirety.

 2 Landed, duty-paid.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics as adjusted by questionnaire responses.
 8

 Hearing transcript, p. 35 (Schagrin).

 9 Hearing transcript, pp. 35 and 74 (Schagrin).

IV-6

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data on apparent U.S. consumption of WSS pressure pipe presented in table IV-4 are based on

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of WSS pressure pipe provided in response to Commission questionnaires

and U.S. imports from official statistics as adjusted to include WSS pressure pipe imported under HTS

basket categories and to exclude pressure pipe greater than 14 inches and imports of nonsubject

mechanical tubing from Canada. Apparent U.S. consumption increased by *** percent from 2005 to

2007, but was 29.9 percent lower in January-September 2008 than in January-September 2007. A

substantial portion of the increase in demand reportedly was a result of the expansion of ethanol facilities

in the United States.8

 However, by 2008, the rapid expansion of ethanol facilities had slowed.9 

U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share data are presented in table IV-5. The quantity of the U.S. producers’ market

share decreased by *** percentage points from 2005 to 2007, but was 14.0 percentage points higher in

January-September 2008 than in January-September 2007. In contrast, the share of subject imports from

China increased by *** percentage points from 2005 to 2007, but was 22.5 percentage points lower in

January-September 2008 compared to January-September 2007 (based on quantity). Nonsubject imports’

market share decreased from 2005 to 2006, then increased in 2007, for an overall increase of ***

percentage points, and was 8.6 percentage points higher in January-September 2008 than in JanuarySeptember 2007. 

RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of subject imports to U.S. production of WSS pressure pipe is

presented in table IV-6. Imports from China were equivalent to *** percent of U.S. production during

2005, increased to *** percent during 2006, and further to *** percent in 2007, but were 30.4 percent in

January-September 2008.
IV-7

Table IV-4

WSS pressure pipe: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, by sources, and apparent

U.S. consumption, 2005-07, January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

Item

Calendar year January-September

2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** 20,253 20,980

U.S. imports from--

China 14,394 23,712 30,371 25,169 6,700

Nonsubject 21,810 24,099 29,078 23,879 20,888

Total imports 36,204 47,811 59,448 49,048 27,588

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** 69,301 48,568

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments1 *** *** *** 151,095 140,988

U.S. imports from--

China2 47,607 79,360 154,833 124,975 33,592

Nonsubject2 76,573 99,681 158,535 135,942 111,893

Total imports2 124,180 179,041 313,368 260,917 145,485

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** 412,012 286,473

1

 F.o.b. U.S. mill.

2

 Landed, duty-paid.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce

statistics.
IV-8

Table IV-5

WSS pressure pipe: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, 2005-07, January-September

2007, and January-September 2008

Item

Calendar year January-September

2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Quantity (short tons)

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** 69,301 48,568

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** 412,012 286,473

Share of quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** 29.2 43.2

U.S. imports from--

China *** *** *** 36.3 13.8

Nonsubject *** *** *** 34.5 43.0

Total imports *** *** *** 70.8 56.8

Share of value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** 36.7 49.2

U.S. imports from--

China *** *** *** 30.3 11.7

Nonsubject *** *** *** 33.0 39.1

Total imports *** *** *** 63.3 50.8

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

Table IV-6

WSS pressure pipe: Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production, by sources, 2005-07, JanuarySeptember 2007, and January-September 2008 

Item

Calendar year January-September

2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. production *** *** *** 22,421 22,010

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

China *** *** *** 112.3 30.4

Nonsubject sources *** *** *** 106.5 94.9

 All countries *** *** *** 218.8 125.3

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.
 1

 Hearing transcript, p. 18 (Henke) and staff telephone interviews with ***, December 17, 2008. 

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

Raw material costs account for a substantial part of the final cost of WSS pressure pipe. On an

annual basis during 2005-07, raw materials ranged from a low of 71 percent of the costs of goods sold in

2006 to a high of 76 percent in 2008. During January-September 2008 raw materials accounted for about

80 percent of the cost of goods sold. 

Prices of hot-rolled stainless steel and major alloys such as nickel and hi-carbon ferrochrome 

used in the production of WSS pressure pipe are presented in figures V-1, V-2, and V-3 on a monthly

basis for 2005-08. As shown in figure V-1, prices of stainless steel rose irregularly to peak levels in June

2007 before declining irregularly in the following months. The price of nickel rose to a peak in July 2007

before declining in later months (figure V-2). The price of hi-carbon ferrochrome rose irregularly to a

peak of $249 per cwt in May 2008 and then declined overall during the remainder of the year (figure

V-3).

As a result of rising costs, many stainless steel sheet producers have instituted raw material

surcharges. These surcharges have been passed along by producers of WSS pressure pipe. According to

hearing testimony, monthly surcharge amounts increased substantially from mid-2003 to mid-2007, but in

2008 they fell by more than half due to declining raw material costs.1

Figure V-1

Hot-rolled coil: Grades 304 and 316 prices, monthly average, 2005-08

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2

Nickel: spot prices and 3-month forward prices, monthly averages, 2005-08

Source: London Metal Exchange.
 2

 A real exchange rate is calculated by adjusting the nominal rate for movements in producer prices in the United 

States and other countries. 

 3

 The estimated cost was obtained by subtracting the customs value from the c.i.f. value of the imports in

subheadings 7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, 7306.40.5085, for 2005, 2006, 2007, and

January-September 2008 and then dividing by the customs value in 2005, 2006, 2007, and January-September 2008.

V-2

Figure V-3

Ferrochrome: High-carbon AMM free-market price, monthly, 2005-08

Source: American Metal Market.

Exchange Rate

The nominal exchange rate for the Chinese yuan in relation to the U.S. dollar is shown on a

quarterly basis in figure V-4 for the period January-March 2005 through July-September 2008. The data

show that the yuan has appreciated relative to the dollar since 2005. A real exchange rate could not be

computed because of the lack of producer price indices for China.2

Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

Ocean transportation costs for WSS pressure pipe shipped from China to the United States

(excluding U.S. inland costs) averaged 6.5 percent of the customs value of these imports in 2005,

5.6 percent in 2006, 4.4 percent in 2007, and 4.2 percent during January-November 2008.3

 These

estimates are derived from official import data and represent the transportation and other charges on

imports.
V-3

Figure V-4

Exchange rates: Indexes of the nominal rate of the Chinese yuan relative to the U.S. dollar, by

quarters, January-March 2005-July-September 2008

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, December 2008 and earlier issues.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Transportation costs on U.S. inland shipments of WSS pressure pipe generally accounted for a

small share of the delivered price of these products during 2007. The five responding U.S. producers

reported that these costs ranged between 1 and 4 percent of the delivered price. The weighted average for

these producers was 2 percent. Among importers of product from China, these costs ranged from 1 to 5

percent. The weighted average cost for these importers was 1 percent. 

U.S. inland shipping distances on sales of U.S.-produced WSS pressure pipes were compared

with those for imports from China during 2007. For U.S. producers, 4 percent of their U.S. sales occurred

within 100 miles of their storage or production facility, 75 percent were within distances of 101 to 1,000

miles, and 20 percent occurred at distances of more than 1,000 miles from their facilities. For imports

from China, an average of 82 percent of sales occur within 100 miles of importers’ storage facilities,

about 18 percent were within 101 to 1,000 miles, and a very small percentage of shipments involved

distances of more than 1,000 miles.

PRICING PRACTICES

U.S. producers and importers employ a variety of methods to arrive at prices of WSS pressure

pipe. Among the five responding producers, one reported that it relies entirely upon transaction-bytransaction negotiations, and one makes use of a set price list. Among the other three firms, methods

included combinations of transaction-by-transaction negotiations, contracts, and prices based upon
 4

 Purchasers were asked whether importers of WSS pressure pipe from China have the same surcharge

mechanisms to increase or decreases prices to reflect changes in the costs of alloys (such as nickel, molybdenum,

chromium) and energy. Of the 15 purchasers responding to the question, 5 answered yes and 10 answered no. The

responses indicated that several purchasers were familiar with details of surcharges by domestic producers, but none

described details of surcharges by importers from China. In follow-up requests for additional information from

purchasers that answered yes, the evidence indicated that surcharges are generally included in the price rather than

quoted separately. One purchaser *** reported that in some cases importers of product from China quote a base

price and a separate surcharge. 

 5

 Hearing transcript, p. 97 (Boling).

V-4

surcharges for raw materials.4

 Among importers, 11 of 16 firms reported that prices are determined by

transaction-by-transaction negotiations. Other methods reported by importers included set price lists and

surcharges for raw materials.

Among firms that specifically reflect raw materials surcharges in their prices, the methods varied

by firm. One U.S. producer reported that the alloy surcharges are added to the transaction price. These

alloy surcharges are invoiced to the producer by the coil producer each month. The pipe producer adds

yield loss to the surcharge and invoices the customer. Another U.S. producer reported that price lists are

published monthly based on the surcharge published by raw materials suppliers. A third producer

reported that the raw material surcharge is added at the time of shipment. Two importers including one

importer of Chinese product and another importer of product from *** reported that they add a surcharge

to their base price. At the hearing, petitioners stated that Chinese producers generally do not make use of

surcharges. Therefore, quotes on U.S. imports of WSS pressure pipe from China involve only one

transaction price rather than a base price plus a surcharge.5

Discounting is more commonly used in sales of WSS pressure pipe by U.S. producers than by

importers. Among the five responding producers, four reported that they provide quantity discounts for

the sale of WSS pressure pipe; four reported that they offer annual total volume discounts; one reported

that it provides quarterly volume discounts; and one reported that it provides discounts to selected

customers based upon volume thresholds established at the beginning of the year. In addition, three of the

five producers also reported that they provide discounts of 0.5 to 1 percent for early payment of accounts. 

Among responding importers, 10 firms reported that they do not provide discounts, three reported that

they provide quantity discounts, one provides annual total volume discounts, and three reported that

discounts are based upon negotiations with customers. Two importers also reported that they provide a

0.5 percent discount for early payments of accounts.

Some U.S. producers and importers quote exclusively on an f.o.b. basis while others quote on a

delivered basis. One importer reported that it quotes on both an f.o.b. and a delivered basis. All five of

the responding U.S. producers reported that they arrange transportation for their customers. Among

15 responding importers, 10 reported that they arrange transportation, while 5 reported that their

customers arrange transportation. None of the responding producers reported that they sell over the

internet. Most importers also reported that they do not sell over the internet. One importer reported that

it uses the internet for inquiries and communication, but the actual sale is generally by direct contact. 

WSS pressure pipe is most commonly sold on a spot basis. For the five responding U.S.

producers, 83 percent of sales are on a spot basis, and 17 percent are on a short-term contract of up to

12 months in duration. Among importers from China, 84 percent of sales are on a spot basis, and

16 percent are under short-term contracts. None of the producers or importers reported the use of

contracts for periods of more than one year. Among producers that make use of short-term contracts,

contract periods range in duration from 3 to 12 months. Prices and, in some cases, quantities are fixed

during the contract period. Meet-or-release provisions do not apply. Among importers from China,

contract periods range from 1 month to l year. In some cases, both prices and quantities are fixed during

the contract period, and in some contracts meet-or-release provisions apply. 
 6

 In the preliminary phase of the investigations, only the first five product categories were included. As a result

of consultation with the parties, an additional product 6 was added to increase coverage. 

 7

 Grade AISI 316 stainless steel has corrosion resistance superior to that of grade AISI 304 (which is more widely

used in the production of welded A-312 pipes). Grade AISI 316 also has higher strength at elevated temperatures

than does AISI 304. These properties are due principally to the higher nickel content of AISI 316 as well as the

addition of molybdenum to the steel. Iron & Steel Society, Steel Products Manual: Stainless Steels, 1999, pp. 86,

114.

 8

 The nonsubject import price data in these tables consist principally of data for imports from Korea, Malaysia

and Taiwan as well as a small amount of data from “all other” countries. Separate price data by product category for

Korea (from the preliminary phase of the investigations), Malaysia, and Taiwan appear in appendix E.

 9

 In addition to standard price data, estimates of a weighted-average of base prices with surcharges excluded for

products 2 and 5 for the four petitioning U.S. producers are presented on a quarterly basis in appendix F. The results

show a general downward trend in base prices for both products. 

V-5

PRICE DATA

The Commission asked U.S. producers and importers of WSS pressure pipe to provide quarterly

data for the total quantity and value of this product that was shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S.

market for the period January-March 2005 through July-September 2008. The products for which pricing

data were requested are as follows:6

Product 1.--ASTM A-312, welded, grade AISI 304/304L pipe, 1-inch schedule 40

Product 2.--ASTM A-312, welded, grade AISI 304/304L pipe, 2-inch schedule 40

Product 3.--ASTM A-312, welded, grade AISI 304/304L pipe, 0.5-inch schedule 10

Product 4.--ASTM A-312, welded, grade AISI 304/304L pipe, 6-inch schedule 10

Product 5.--ASTM A-312, welded, grade AISI 316/316L pipe, 2-inch schedule 40 7

Product 6.--ASTM A-312, welded, grade AISI 304/304L pipe, 2-inch schedule 10

Sixteen firms provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products including five U.S.

producers, 10 importers of product from China, and five importers from nonsubject countries, although

not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. Pricing data reported by these firms

accounted for approximately 8.1 percent of the value of U.S. producers’ shipments of WSS pressure pipe,

13.1 percent of the value of U.S. shipments of subject imports from China, and 10.8 percent of the value

of U.S. shipments of nonsubject imports during January 2005 through September 2008.

Price Trends

Quarterly weighted-average prices for products 1 through 6 for the United States, China, and

nonsubject countries8

 are presented in tables V-1 through V-6 and figure V-5 for the period 2005-07 and

January-September 2008. Prices for U.S. products 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 all increased irregularly from the first

quarter of 2005 to the second quarter of 2007, and then decreased irregularly in later quarters. The price

of U.S. product 5 reached a peak in the second quarter of 2008. Except for product 3, prices of U.S.

products increased overall during the period from January-March 2005 to July-September 2008 (table V7).9

 Prices of imports from China increased for all six products during this period. 
V-6

Table V-1

WSS pressure pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 1,1 and margins of (overselling)/underselling by quarters, January 2005-September 2008

Period

United States China Nonsubject

Price

(per 1,000

feet)

Quantity

(1,000 feet)

Price

(per 1,000

feet)

Quantity

(1,000

feet)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per 1,000

feet)

Quantity

(1,000 feet)

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. $2,945 166 $2,296 103 22.0 $*** ***

 Apr.-June 3,049 89 2,526 110 17.2 *** ***

 July-Sept. 2,911 123 2,464 123 15.3 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2,706 88 2,345 71 13.3 *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 2,638 122 2,275 106 13.8 *** ***

 Apr.-June 3,074 128 2,326 159 24.3 *** ***

 July-Sept. 3,618 129 2,614 225 27.8 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 4,226 69 3,172 263 24.9 *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 4,812 68 3,564 315 25.9 *** ***

 Apr.-June 5,354 71 3,967 238 25.9 *** ***

 July-Sept. 4,462 83 4,416 234 1.0 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 4,042 46 4,310 125 (6.6) *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 4,274 100 *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 4,447 90 *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 4,297 73 *** *** *** *** ***

 1 ASTM A-312, welded, grade AISI 304/304L pipe, 1-inch schedule 40.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-7

Table V-2

WSS pressure pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 2,1 and margins of (overselling)/underselling by quarters, January 2005-September 2008

Period

United States China Nonsubject

Price

(per 1,000

feet)

Quantity

(1,000 feet)

Price

(per 1,000

feet)

Quantity

(1,000

feet)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per 1,000

feet)

Quantity

(1,000 feet)

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. $5,892 148 $5,294 68 10.1 $*** ***

 Apr.-June 6,180 72 5,395 65 12.7 *** ***

 July-Sept. 5,785 79 5,299 69 8.4 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 5,396 114 5,183 48 4.0 *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 5,365 139 4,786 103 10.8 *** ***

 Apr.-June 5,830 102 4,910 130 15.8 *** ***

 July-Sept. 7,808 111 5,989 167 23.3 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 9,403 80 6,544 180 30.4 *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 9,172 109 7,420 207 19.1 *** ***

 Apr.-June 10,536 67 8,552 172 18.8 *** ***

 July-Sept. 8,937 53 8,950 158 (0.2) *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 ASTM A-312, welded, grade AISI 304/304L pipe, 2-inch schedule 40.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-8

Table V-3

WSS pressure pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 3,1 and margins of (overselling)/underselling by quarters, January 2005-September 2008

Period

United States China Nonsubject

Price

(per 1,000

feet)

Quantity

(1,000 feet)

Price

(per 1,000

feet)

Quantity

(1,000

feet)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per 1,000

feet)

Quantity

(1,000 feet)

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. $1,466 28 $787 6 46.3 $*** ***

 Apr.-June *** *** 954 2 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 1251 26 1,062 5 15.1 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1,242 16 984 7 20.8 *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 1,344 9 834 11 38.0 *** ***

 Apr.-June 1,383 16 1,001 6 27.6 *** ***

 July-Sept. 1,961 10 1,176 9 40.0 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** 1,154 12 *** *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 2,163 10 1,592 27 26.4 *** ***

 Apr.-June 2,243 9 1,499 12 33.2 *** ***

 July-Sept. 1,911 26 1,640 18 14.2 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1,533 22 1,577 10 (2.9) *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1 ASTM A-312, welded, grade AISI 304/304L pipe, 0.5-inch schedule 10.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-9

Table V-4

WSS pressure pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 4,1 and margins of (overselling)/underselling by quarters, January 2005-September 2008

Period

United States China Nonsubject

Price

(per 1,000

feet)

Quantity

(1,000 feet)

Price

(per 1,000

feet)

Quantity

(1,000

feet)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per 1,000

feet)

Quantity

(1,000 feet)

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. $15,170 61 $12,793 17 15.7 $*** ***

 Apr.-June 15,464 49 13,262 7 14.2 *** ***

 July-Sept. 15,267 59 12,838 21 15.9 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 13,671 75 12,697 12 7.1 *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 13,769 77 11,938 30 13.3 *** ***

 Apr.-June 15,723 68 12,636 50 19.6 *** ***

 July-Sept. 19,252 100 16,669 41 13.4 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 22,610 143 16,724 72 26.0 *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 25,140 55 19,997 139 20.5 *** ***

 Apr.-June 25,424 51 21,187 109 16.7 *** ***

 July-Sept. 21,802 41 22,905 76 (5.1) *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 22,528 26 *** *** *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 23,067 43 *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 24,563 43 *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 22,087 75 *** *** *** *** ***

 1 ASTM A-312, welded, grade AISI 304/304L pipe, 6-inch schedule 10. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-10

Table V-5

WSS pressure pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 5,1 and margins of (overselling)/underselling by quarters, January 2005-September 2008

Period

United States China Nonsubject

Price

(per 1,000

feet)

Quantity

(1,000 feet)

Price

(per 1,000

feet)

Quantity

(1,000

feet)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per 1,000

feet)

Quantity

(1,000 feet)

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. $9,847 49 $8,358 10 15.1 $*** ***

 Apr.-June 10,261 62 8,633 40 15.9 *** ***

 July-Sept. 10,237 48 9,015 42 11.9 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 9,605 56 9,159 22 4.6 *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 9,129 55 8,512 26 6.7 *** ***

 Apr.-June 9,607 57 8,621 43 10.3 *** ***

 July-Sept. 12,098 65 9,746 50 19.4 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 13,572 54 10,759 64 20.7 *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 13,091 35 12,456 49 4.9 *** ***

 Apr.-June 12,901 39 13,376 49 (3.7) *** ***

 July-Sept. 13,706 32 14,257 24 (4.0) *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 12,519 23 *** *** *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 12,676 42 *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 13,843 54 *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 13,517 35 *** *** *** *** ***

 1 ASTM A-312, welded, grade AISI 316/316L pipe, 2-inch schedule 40.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-11

Table V-6

WSS pressure pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported 

product 6,1 and margins of (overselling)/underselling by quarters, January 2005-September 2008

Period

United States China Nonsubject

Price

(per 1,000

feet)

Quantity

(1,000 feet)

Price

(per 1,000

feet)

Quantity

(1,000

feet)

Margin

(percent)

Price

(per 1,000

feet)

Quantity

(1,000 feet)

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. $4,090 132 $4,061 17 0.7 $*** ***

 Apr.-June 4,055 105 3,888 43 4.1 *** ***

 July-Sept. 4,124 81 3,704 22 10.2 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3,520 91 3,703 43 (5.2) *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 3,362 127 3,501 54 (4.1) *** ***

 Apr.-June 3,833 126 3,777 45 1.5 *** ***

 July-Sept. 5,234 112 3,980 76 24.0 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 5,782 140 4,756 79 17.7 *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 5,960 85 5,427 138 9.0 *** ***

 Apr.-June 6,811 105 6,015 162 11.7 *** ***

 July-Sept. 5,664 93 6,552 124 (15.7) *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 4,653 62 6,586 84 (41.6) *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 5,927 84 *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 6,569 73 *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 5,992 85 *** *** *** *** ***

 1 ASTM A-312, welded, grade AISI 304/304L pipe, 2-inch schedule 10.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-12

Figure V-5

WSS pressure pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices of products 1-6 sold by U.S. producers and by

importers, by quarter, January-March 2005 to July-September 2008

* * * * * * *

A summary of maximum and minimum prices for each product for the United States and for

China is presented in table V-7. The table also shows percentage changes in the price for each product

from January-March 2005 to July-September 2008. 

Table V-7

WSS pressure pipe: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1 through 6, by

countries

Source

Number of

quarters

Highest price Lowest price

Percentage increase

(decrease) in price

Per 1,000 feet Per 1,000 feet Percent

Product 1

U.S. producers 15 $5,354 $2,638 45.9 

China 15 *** 2,275 *** 

Product 2

U.S. producers 15 10,536 5,365 ***

China 15 *** 4,786 ***

Product 3

U.S. producers 15 2,243 1,242 ***

China 15 *** 787 ***

Product 4

U.S. producers 15 25,424 13,671 45.6 

China 15 *** 11,938 *** 

Product 5

U.S. producers 15 13,843 9,129 37.3 

China 15 *** 8,358 *** 

Product 6

U.S. producers 15 6,811 3,362 46.5 

China 15 *** 3,501 *** 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 10 Hearing transcript, p. 129 (Cornelius) and pp. 142-143 (Schagrin). In their posthearing brief, the petitioners

calculated underselling for each product on a weight basis (see Exh. 2). The conversion factors were 1.679 pounds

per foot for product 1, 3.653 pounds per foot for product 2, .671 pounds for product 3, 9.289 pounds for product 4,

3.653 pounds for product 5, and 2.638 pounds for product 6. 

V-13

Price Comparisons

In the 90 quarterly price comparisons between U.S.-produced and imported WSS pressure pipe 

products, prices for the Chinese products were lower in 66 quarters and higher in 24 quarters. Margins of

underselling ranged from 0.7 percent to 46.3 percent and margins of overselling ranged from 0.2 percent

to 41.6 percent (table V-8).

Table V-8

WSS pressure pipe: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins

for products 1-6, January 2005-September 2008

Country

Number of

instances

underselling

Range

underselling

(percent)

Simple

average

margin

underselling

(percent)

Number of

instances

overselling

Range

overselling

(percent)

Simple

average

margin

overselling

(percent)

China 66 0.7 to 46.3 17.5 24 0.2 to 41.6 10.7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

At the hearing, converting price data from feet to pounds was discussed as an alternative method

of measuring underselling.10 When measuring underselling and overselling on the basis of product weight

by converting thousand of feet into tons, the results continue to show that underselling was predominant

during the period January 2005-September 2008. Overall during this period for all six products in all

quarters, 7,968 short tons of Chinese material were priced lower than comparable domestic products on

average, while 2,073 short tons of the Chinese product were priced higher than the domestic product. 

During the first three quarters of 2008, imports of WSS pressure pipe from China were priced higher than

domestic product in 11 of 18 quarterly comparisons for the six products. However, imports of these

products from China amounted to just 631 tons during 2008, an amount far smaller than the tonnages sold

in each of the previous three years. Overall for the six products for the entire period, about 79 percent of

the imports from China undersold the domestic product on a weight basis.

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

In the preliminary and final phases of these investigations, the Commission requested U.S.

producers of WSS pressure pipe to report any instances of lost sales and/or lost revenues they experienced

due to competition from imports of pressure pipe from China since January 2005. In the

preliminary phase, one petitioner, *** provided a list of 40 alleged lost sales or lost revenues to Chinese

competitors. *** reported *** lost sales allegations totaling *** and involving *** feet of WSS pressure

pipe and *** lost revenues allegations totaling *** and involving *** feet of the subject pipe. In the final

phase, *** reported *** lost sales allegations totaling *** and involving *** feet of the subject pipe. 

Staff contacted the listed purchasers, and a summary of the information obtained is presented in tables

V-9 and V-10 and is discussed below in detail. *** named *** in *** lost revenue allegations concerning

imports of the subject product from China.
V-14

Table V-9

WSS pressure pipe: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

*** agreed with the allegations. *** named *** in *** lost sales allegations and *** lost revenue

allegations. *** agreed with the lost sales allegations stating that ***. *** agreed with *** lost revenue

allegations noting that ***. *** indicated that during the period examined his company switched from

WSS pressure pipe produced in the United States to pipe produced in China, Thailand, and Taiwan.

*** named *** in *** lost sales allegations concerning imports of the subject product from

China. *** agreed with all of the allegations. It did not make any additional comments.

Table V-10

WSS pressure pipe: U.S. producers’ lost revenues allegations

* * * * * * *
 1

 Commission staff conducted a verification of Outokumpo’s questionnaire response on January 6-7, 2009.

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL CONDITION OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Bristol, Felker, Marcegaglia, Outukumpu, and Webco, which together accounted for

approximately *** percent of the U.S. production of WSS pressure pipe during the period for which data

were collected, supplied financial data on their WSS pressure pipe operations. Webco’s fiscal year ends

July 31, while the fiscal year for the other producers ends December 31. Bristol, Marcegaglia, and

Outukumpu are subsidiaries of larger entities, while Felker and Webco are independent producers. All

five domestic producers manufacture other products (most notably other stainless and alloy steel pipes

and tubes) at the establishments where WSS pressure pipe was produced. *** reported internal

consumption of WSS pressure pipe, and these sales accounted for approximately *** percent of the

industry’s 2007 sales values. No firms reported any transfers to related parties. The unit sales values of

*** product were lower than the unit sales values of its commercial sales between 2005 and 2007 and in

January-September (interim) 2007, but higher in interim 2008. 

The questionnaire data of Outokumpu were verified with company records at its corporate

facilities.1

 All verification adjustments were incorporated into this report. The financial data of

Outokumpu were revised for all periods to ***. The revisions resulted in ***. 

OPERATIONS ON WSS PRESSURE PIPE 

Aggregate income-and-loss data for the U.S. producers are presented in table VI-1. To

summarize, the overall financial condition of the domestic WSS pressure pipe industry improved 

between 2005 and 2007, from an operating loss of $3.6 million to an operating income of $14.2 million in

2007, due mainly to the increased unit sales prices over the period, especially in 2007. Most of the

improvement occurred from 2005 to 2006, as sales quantity, sales value, and profitability all improved,

and the operating loss became a moderate operating profit. Increases in unit sales prices ($653 per short

ton) more than doubled increases in unit total costs, i.e., COGS and selling, general, and administrative

(“SG&A”) expenses combined ($317 per short ton, primarily resulting from higher COGS). From 2006

to 2007, even as sales quantities declined and costs increased sharply, increases in unit sales prices

($2,241 per short ton) continued to exceed increases in unit total costs ($1,916, primarily raw materials). 

Three producers reported operating losses in 2005, compared to one in 2006 and none in 2007. 

While net sales quantity was higher in interim 2008 than interim 2007, net sales value and

especially operating income were both noticeably lower ($0.6 million operating loss compared to the

operating income of $17.8 million in interim 2007), due mainly to lower per-unit sales value and higher

per-unit total costs/expenses, especially raw materials cost and SG&A expenses. As a result, the

operating income margin, which reached 11.7 percent in interim 2007, was negative (0.4) percent in

interim 2008. Two producers incurred operating losses in interim 2008, whereas no producers reported

operating losses in interim 2007.
VI-2

Table VI-1

WSS pressure pipe: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2005-07, JanuarySeptember 2007, and January-September 2008

Item

Fiscal year January-September

2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Net sales: Quantity (short tons)

 Commercial sales *** *** *** *** ***

 Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

 Transfers to related firms 0 0 0 0 0

 Total net sales 29,688 32,410 26,259 20,394 21,465

Net sales: Value ($1,000)

 Commercial sales *** *** *** *** ***

 Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

 Transfers to related firms 0 0 0 0 0

 Total net sales 134,353 167,817 194,820 152,722 145,260

COGS 128,183 150,065 171,200 127,593 137,392

Gross profit 6,170 17,752 23,620 25,129 7,868

SG&A expenses 9,731 10,752 9,416 7,320 8,450

Operating income (loss) (3,561) 7,000 14,204 17,809 (582)

Interest expense 1,836 1,572 2,021 1,575 853

Other expense 2,053 2,254 1,663 997 1,411

Other income 0 0 0 0 36

Net income (loss) (7,450) 3,174 10,520 15,237 (2,810)

Depreciation/amortization 3,594 3,127 3,258 2,443 2,781

Cash flow (3,856) 6,301 13,778 17,680 (29)

Table continued on next page.
 2

 Hearing transcript, pp. 6, 32, and 47-48 (Schagrin).

 3

 Surcharges are a widely-accepted method of transparently and quickly accommodating changes in specific

costs. Absent surcharges, which are in addition to some base price, buyers and sellers would have to continually

renegotiate or otherwise reset the base price. From an accounting point of view, however, there is no distinction

between revenues earned through either surcharges or base prices, and there is no distinction between costs incurred

through either surcharges or base prices. Thus, if a company sells 1 ton of WSS pressure pipe and charges a base

price of $4,000 per ton and a surcharge amount of $2,000 per ton, the revenue it reports in its financial statements is

$6,000. Similarly, if that same company buys 1 ton of hot-rolled stainless steel and pays a base price of $4,000 per

ton and a surcharge amount of $2,000 per ton, the cost it reports in its financial statements is $6,000.

VI-3

Table VI-1--Continued

WSS pressure pipe: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2005-07, JanuarySeptember 2007, and January-September 2008

Item Fiscal year January-September

2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Unit value (per short ton)

Net sales $4,525 $5,178 $7,419 $7,489 $6,767

COGS 4,318 4,630 6,520 6,256 6,401

Gross profit 208 548 900 1,232 367

SG&A expenses 328 332 359 359 394

Operating income (loss) (120) 216 541 873 (27)

Ratio to net sales (percent) 

COGS 95.4 89.4 87.9 83.5 94.6

Gross profit 4.6 10.6 12.1 16.5 5.4

SG&A expenses 7.2 6.4 4.8 4.8 5.8

Operating income (loss) (2.7) 4.2 7.3 11.7 (0.4)

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses 3 1 0 0 2

Data 5 5 5 5 5

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The domestic industry has argued that the apparent improvement in its financial condition in 

2006/2007 was the result of surcharge gains caused by rising prices for nickel and molybdenum, and that

this presents a unique condition of competition that the Commission should factor into its analysis in

these investigations.2

 That is, U.S. producers of flat-rolled stainless steel (the input used to produce WSS

pressure pipe) employ monthly surcharges to counterbalance large price swings in the major cost

components of stainless steel (nickel, chromium, molybdenum, vanadium, manganese, iron, titanium, and

energy).3

 While there were marked fluctuations from month to month, these surcharges generally

increased, often by large amounts, from 2005 to 2007. Since there is an approximate two- to four-month

time lag between the time the flat-rolled steel is ordered and the time the finished pipe is shipped, the cost

of pipe shipped at any point in time is based upon surcharge amounts in effect several months previous. 

Lastly, since pipe producers bill their customers the surcharge amount in effect when the finished pipe is
 4

 Hearing transcript pp. 19-21 (Henke) and 78, 87 (Cornelius); conference transcript, pp. 75-76 (Henke), 76-77

(Cornelius), and 77-79 (Schagrin).

 5

 The surcharges were provided by *** in the preliminary phase of the investigations; see EDIS document

number 294176. Additional updated information was provided *** in the final phase of the investigations. See also

http://www.aksteel.com/markets_products/stainless_surcharges.asp and

http://www.alleghenyludlum.com/ludlum/pages/surchargecalculator/surchargefront.asp?type=stainless%20steel. 

Although domestic WSS pressure pipe producers probably also sourced some of their hot-rolled stainless steel from

North American Stainless, there is no publicly available surcharge information available for that company for

periods prior to April 2007.

 6

 This three month period is an estimate of the effect of the two- to four-month lag between the time the flat-rolled

stainless steel is ordered and the time it is received and converted into pipe, plus any amount in inventory. 

 7

 The estimate in table VI-2 only takes surcharges into account; it does not take other items (essentially the base

price), estimated to approximate $*** per short ton per period, into account. Thus, changes in profitability in table

VI-2 are not exactly comparable to changes in profitability in table VI-1. 

 8

 Staff notes that the use of simple averages can mask certain changes in product mix, such as a shift in the

relative use of grade 316 and grade 304 stainless steel. In addition, annual and interim data based on simple

averages do not fully capture shifts in volume that take place month-by-month, since all months within a period are

weighted equally.

VI-4

shipped, if surcharges are increasing (as they generally did from 2005 through 2007), an important

component of reported profits can be the difference between higher surcharges in effect when the finished

pipe is shipped and lower surcharges imbedded in the cost of the pipe. If surcharges decline (as they

generally did in 2008), then the reverse will be true, and pipe producers will be charging lower prices for

finished pipe that has higher costs.4

 

In an effort to quantify the monthly effect of the surcharges, the Commission staff has prepared

(in table VI-2) an estimate of the revenue, cost, and resulting profit or (loss) reflecting the monthly

stainless steel surcharges reported by Allegheny Ludlum and AK Steel, two major suppliers of flat-rolled

stainless steel.5

 The revenue data are the simple average of the grade 304 and grade 316 surcharges in

effect by the two producers for the given month, while the cost data are the simple average of the grade

304 and grade 316 surcharges in effect by the two producers for the periods three, four, and five months

previous.6

 Using July 2007 as an example, the revenue data ($5,754 per short ton) is the simple average

of the grade 304 and grade 316 surcharges reported by Allegheny Ludlum and AK Steel for the month of

July 2007, while the cost data ($4,007 per short ton) is the simple average of the grade 304 and grade 316

surcharges reported by Allegheny Ludlum and AK Steel for the months of February, March, and April

2007.7

 The data demonstrate both the extent of the surcharges (a low of $1,650 per short ton in March

2006 to a high of $5,754 per short ton in July 2007) and the fact that domestic producers’ profitability 

benefitted from increasing surcharges (second half of 2006, mid 2007, and second quarter of 2008) and

suffered when surcharges were declining (late 2005/early 2006 and again in late 2007 and late 2008). 8
VI-5

Table VI-2

WSS pressure pipe: Estimated unit revenues, costs, and resulting profits or losses as a result of

stainless steel surcharges, by month, 2005-08 

Date

Revenue Cost Gross profit Gross profit

Unit value (per short ton) (percent)

January 2005 $1,771 $1,520 $251 14.2

February 2005 1,881 1,555 326 17.3

March 2005 1,947 1,599 349 17.9

April 2005 1,897 1,671 226 11.9

May 2005 2,104 1,791 313 14.9

June 2005 2,098 1,866 232 11.1

July 2005 2,237 1,908 328 14.7

August 2005 2,105 1,983 122 5.8

September 2005 1,793 2,033 (240) (13.4)

October 2005 1,820 2,146 (327) (18.0)

November 2005 1,922 2,147 (224) (11.7)

December 2005 1,703 2,045 (342) (20.1)

January 2006 1,672 1,906 (234) (14.0)

February 2006 1,658 1,845 (187) (11.3)

March 2006 1,650 1,815 (165) (10.0)

April 2006 1,725 1,766 (41) (2.4)

May 2006 1,712 1,678 35 2.0

June 2006 2,035 1,660 375 18.4

July 2006 2,420 1,678 743 30.7

August 2006 2,390 1,696 694 29.0

September 2006 2,943 1,824 1,119 38.0

October 2006 3,365 2,056 1,309 38.9

November 2006 3,312 2,282 1,030 31.1

December 2006 3,505 2,584 921 26.3

January 2007 3,454 2,899 554 16.1

February 2007 3,690 3,206 483 13.1

March 2007 3,922 3,394 528 13.5

April 2007 4,411 3,423 987 22.4

May 2007 5,065 3,549 1,515 29.9

June 2007 5,500 3,688 1,812 32.9

July 2007 5,754 4,007 1,747 30.4

August 2007 4,877 4,466 411 8.4

September 2007 4,039 4,992 (953) (23.6)

October 2007 3,451 5,440 (1,989) (57.6)

November 2007 3,661 5,377 (1,716) (46.9)

December 2007 3,878 4,890 (1,013) (26.1)

Table continued on next page.
VI-6

Table VI-2--Continued

WSS pressure pipe: Estimated unit revenues, costs, and resulting profits or losses as a result of

stainless steel surcharges, by month, 2005-08 

Date

Revenue Cost Gross profit Gross profit

Unit value (per short ton) (percent)

January 2008 3,920 4,122 (202) (5.2)

February 2008 3,506 3,717 (212) (6.0)

March 2008 3,764 3,663 100 2.7

April 2008 3,891 3,820 72 1.8

May 2008 4,354 3,768 587 13.5

June 2008 4,275 3,730 546 12.8

July 2008 4,071 3,720 351 8.6

August 2008 3,829 4,003 (174) (4.6)

September 2008 3,673 4,174 (501) (13.6)

October 2008 3,429 4,234 (804) (23.5)

November 2008 3,057 4,058 (1,001) (32.7)

December 2008 2,014 3,858 (1,844) (91.5)

Annual 2005 1,940 1,855 84 4.4

Annual 2006 2,366 1,899 467 19.7

Annual 2007 4,308 4,111 197 4.6

Annual 2008 3,649 3,906 (257) (7.0)

Jan-Sept 2007 4,523 3,736 787 17.4

Jan-Sept 2008 3,920 3,857 63 1.6

Source: ***; AK Steel and Allegheny Ludlum are the source of the underlying surcharge data.

The annual and interim period data at the bottom of table VI-2 agree with the financial data

reported in table VI-1 – the cost increase from 2005 to 2006 was moderate when compared to the cost

increase from 2006 to 2007, and costs were moderately higher in interim 2008 compared to interim 2007. 

At the same time, the increase in profitability was much larger from 2005 to 2006 than from 2006 to

2007, and profitability was considerably lower in interim 2008 compared to interim 2007. Thus, the data

are consistent with the argument that the profitability reported by the domestic WSS pressure pipe

producers is linked, in part, to changes in cost surcharges. 

Selected company-by-company data are presented in table VI-3. Total net sales (quantities and

values), per-unit values (sales, COGS, SG&A, and operating income), operating income, and the ratio of

operating income (loss) to net sales are presented in this table on a firm-by-firm basis. Virtually every

company reported the same experience – from 2005 to 2007 sales quantities decreased (except for ***),

while sales values (except for ***), unit sales values, and unit costs all increased, and, except for ***,

profitability increased. All producers reported large increases in raw material costs ($1,725 to $2,741 per

short ton), a reflection of the increase in raw material surcharges detailed in table VI-2. With the

exception of *** (whose direct labor costs and other factory costs combined were higher (due to product
 9

 December 11, 2008 e-mail from ***.

 10 December 11, 2008 e-mail from ***.

 11 February 25, 2008 e-mail from ***.

 12 February 26, 2008 e-mail from ***.

 13 At the request of Commissioner Lane, petitioners agreed to provide estimates of certain fourth quarter 2008

data, to the extent that such data were available (given the time requirements to finalize the data). Hearing

transcript, pp. 124-125 (Lane, Schagrin). For the three companies (Bristol, Felker, and Outokumpu) able to provide

data fourth quarter combined net sales revenue was $*** while the combined operating loss was $***. However,

these estimated data should be used with caution because the data are estimated, not verified or verifiable, and may

not include end-of-year adjustments, if any. Even if the estimated fourth quarter data did reflect end-of-year

adjustments, they might distort the fourth quarter results because the adjustments should be reflected for the entire

year, not just for one quarter. Marcegaglia was unable to estimate fourth quarter results. Outokumpu's estimated

data may not be comparable to the financial data presented in this section because these data were not *** . 

Furthermore, as described above and in footnotes 7 and 8 in this section, quarterly data are largely affected by

product mix. Therefore, quarterly data may not be truly reflective of market conditions. Please refer to Exhibit 3 in

petitioners' posthearing brief dated January 23, 2009 for the estimated fourth quarter financial data for three

producers.

VI-7

mix)9

 than any other producer except for ***) and ***,10 direct labor costs for all producers were within a

relatively narrow band, and overall increases were moderate. Other factory costs were not as contained,

largely because of cost increases reported by *** (increased health insurance and energy costs)11 and ***

(increased profit sharing, pension, and outside processing costs).12 In the aggregate, the industry’s other

factory costs increased by approximately $6.6 million (31 percent) from 2005 to 2007 while the sales

quantities decreased by 11.6 percent). The unit operating income for every producer was higher in 2007

than in 2005, meaning that every producer was able to raise their unit revenues by an amount in excess of

increased unit costs. The unit operating income for every producer, except ***, was much lower in

interim 2008 compared to interim 2007.13

Table VI-3

WSS pressure pipe: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, fiscal years 2005-07,

January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

* * * * * * *
VI-8

Selected aggregate per-short ton cost data of the producers on their operations, i.e., COGS and

SG&A expenses, are presented in table VI-4. Overall per-short ton COGS and total cost (which includes

SG&A expenses) increased substantially from 2006 to 2007, driven mainly by changes in raw material 

costs (i.e., reflecting changes in the cost of hot-rolled stainless steel coils) and fabrication costs (labor and

factory overhead). Per-short ton COGS were slightly higher in interim 2008 than in interim 2007, again

due to the increases in the costs of raw materials. The ratio of total COGS to net sales decreased

continuously over the full-year periods, but was higher in interim 2008 than in interim 2007.

Table VI-4

WSS pressure pipe: Average unit costs of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2005-07, JanuarySeptember 2007, and January-September 2008

Item

Fiscal year January-September

2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

COGS: Value (per short ton)

 Raw materials $3,140 $3,304 $4,964 $4,967 $5,129

 Direct labor 459 484 492 407 404

 Factory overhead 719 841 1,064 882 868

 Total COGS 4,318 4,630 6,520 6,256 6,401

SG&A expenses 328 332 359 359 394

 Total cost 4,645 4,962 6,878 6,615 6,794

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

The variance analysis showing the effects of prices and volume on the producers’ sales of WSS

pressure pipe, and of costs and volume on their total cost, is shown in table VI-5. The analysis confirms

that the increase in profitability from year to year and from 2005 to 2007 was the result of per-unit prices

increasing faster than costs and expenses. The summary at the bottom of the table illustrates that from

2005 to 2007 the positive effect of increased prices ($76.0 million) was more than the negative effect of

increased costs and expenses ($58.6 million). The analysis also confirms that even though the magnitude

of the change in prices, costs, and expenses was less from 2005 to 2006 than from 2006 to 2007, the

impact was greater from 2005 to 2006 than from 2006 to 2007. Between the two interim periods, the

variance analysis indicates that the decrease in operating income of $18.4 million resulted from the

combined negative effect of decreased price ($15.5 million) and increased costs/expenses ($3.9 million),

despite minor increases of volume variance ($0.9 million). 
VI-9

Table VI-5

WSS pressure pipe: Variance analysis of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2005-07,

January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

Item

Between fiscal years

JanuarySeptember

2005-07 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Value ($1,000)

Net sales:

 Price variance 75,985 21,146 58,853 (15,482)

 Volume variance (15,518) 12,318 (31,850) 8,020

 Total net sales variance 60,467 33,464 27,003 (7,462)

Cost of sales:

 Cost variance (57,822) (10,129) (49,615) (3,098)

 Volume variance 14,805 (11,753) 28,480 (6,701)

 Total cost variance (43,017) (21,882) (21,135) (9,799)

Gross profit variance 17,450 11,582 5,868 (17,261)

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance (809) (129) (705) (746)

 Volume variance 1,124 (892) 2,041 (384)

 Total SG&A variance 315 (1,021) 1,336 (1,130)

Operating income variance 17,765 10,561 7,204 (18,391)

Summarized as:

 Price variance 75,985 21,146 58,853 (15,482)

 Net cost/expense variance (58,631) (10,258) (50,320) (3,844)

 Net volume variance 411 (326) (1,329) 935

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.
 14 Other variations and changes in the value of PPE may be attributable to the allocated assets based on the sales

value of the subject merchandise compared to the total sales.

VI-10

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-6. Even though all U.S. producers reported capital 

expenditures, only two producers, ***, incurred substantial amounts of capital expenditures during the

period for which data were collected. Capital expenditures were *** for the domestic industry (table VI1), an indication that the domestic industry is ***. *** reported R&D expenses. While capital

expenditures decreased from 2005 to 2006, and then increased from 2006 to 2007, R&D expenses

increased throughout this period, but remained relatively low. Both capital expenditures and R&D

expenses were higher in January-September 2008 relative to January-September 2007. Data for capital

expenditures on a firm-by-firm basis are shown in table VI-7. 

Table VI-6

WSS pressure pipe: Capital expenditures and R&D expenses by U.S. producers, fiscal years 2005-

07, January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

Item

Fiscal year January-September

2005 2006 2007 2007 2008

Value ($1,000)

 Capital expenditures1 2,681 1,474 3,808 2,786 4,410

 R&D expenses2

 *** *** *** *** ***

 1 All companies reported capital expenditures. 

 2 Only *** reported R&D expenses.

 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table VI-7

WSS pressure pipe: Capital expenditures by U.S. producers, by firms, fiscal years 2005-07,

January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

* * * * * * *

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

U.S. producers were requested to provide data on their assets used in the production and sales of

WSS pressure pipe during the period for which data were collected to assess their return on investment

(“ROI”). The increase in the total value of assets from 2005 to 2006 was the result of increased accounts

receivable and inventories. At the same time, the return on the assets turned from negative to positive

from 2005 to 2006 as operating income increased and continuously improved from 2006 to 2007.

The value of both the original cost of property, plant, and equipment (“PPE”) and net book value

of PPE decreased continuously over the period examined, because there was no substantial capital

acquisition (no major expansion or improving productive facilities) during the same period.14 The trend

of ROI over the period was the same as the trend of the operating income margin shown in table VI-1.
VI-11

Table VI-8

WSS pressure pipe: Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2005-

07

Item

Fiscal year

2005 2006 2007

Value of assets Value ($1,000)

1. Current assets:

 A. Cash and equivalents 2,021 277 2,471

 B. Trade receivables (net) 21,120 32,121 22,314

 C. Inventories 44,151 66,302 63,697

 D. All other current 194 265 220

 Total current 67,486 98,965 88,702

2. Non-current assets:

 A. Productive facilities1 74,228 67,636 67,301

 B. Productive facilities2 24,981 20,310 19,975

 C. Other non-current 971 823 1,043

 Total non-current 25,952 21,133 21,018

 Total assets 93,438 120,098 109,720

 Value ($1,000)

Operating income (3,561) 7,000 14,204

Ratio of operating income to total assets (percent)

Return on investment (3.8) 5.8 12.9

 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 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 WSS pressure pipe from China. The

producers’ comments are presented in appendix G.

 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,
 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

 World total molybdenum reserves in 2007 were estimated at nearly 9.5 million short tons. Michael J. Magyar,

“Molybdenum,” Mineral Commodity Summaries, U.S. Geological Survey, January 2008, p. 113.

 4

 China’s nickel reserves are 1.6 percent of the world total of 73.9 million short tons in 2007. Peter H. Kuck,

“Nickel,” Mineral Commodity Summaries, U.S. Geological Survey, January 2008, p. 115.

 5

 China’s 2006 net import reliance of 57.7 percent is calculated from the ratio of net imports (imports less

exports) to apparent domestic consumption. China's net imports of nickel ores, mattes, ferroalloys, and refined metal

(continued...)

VII-2

(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

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 subsidies and sales at less than fair value was presented earlier in

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;” and

dumping in third-country markets, follows. Also presented in this section of the report is information

obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries and the global market.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Overview

China’s stainless steel tubular products industry likely benefits to a degree from upstream

Chinese industries, particularly domestic production of molybdenum, a key alloying metal for stainless

steel. China holds the greatest share of the world’s total molybdenum reserves, estimated at some 3.6

million short tons or 38.4 percent of total global reserves in 2007.3

 China ranks tenth in the word in terms

of the size of its nickel reserves, estimated at 1.2 million short tons in 2007,4

 although, due to insufficient

domestic mine production, it relies upon imports of nickel in the forms of ores, mattes, ferroalloys, and

refined metal to meet a substantial portion of its domestic nickel consumption needs.5

 China is not a
 5

 (...continued)

(totaling 123,000 short tons, nickel content) was calculated from the difference between Chinese domestic

consumption of 214,000 short tons of nickel metal, less domestic production of nickel ores (90,000 short tons, nickel

content), as reported by the U.S. Geological Survey. Pui Kwan Tse, “The Mineral Industry of China,” 2006

Minerals Yearbook, U.S. Geological Survey, February 2008, pp. 8.10 and 8.14.

 6

 China produced 76,000 short tons of chromite ore (chromium content) in 2005, or 1.2 percent of the global total

amounting to 6.5 million short tons in that year. John F. Papp, “Chromium,” 2006 Minerals Yearbook, U.S.

Geological Survey, April 2008, p. 17.20.

 7

 Net import reliance is calculated from the ratio of net imports (imports less exports) to apparent domestic

consumption. China’s apparent domestic consumption of nearly 1.2 million short tons of chromium metal for 2005

was calculated by the U.S. Geological Survey from Chinese domestic production of chromite (76,000 short tons,

chromium content) plus net imports into China of chromite, ferrochromium, and refined chromium metal (totaling

1.1 million short tons, chromium content). Ibid.

 8

 Ibid., p. 17.3.

 9

 Pui Kwan Tse, “The Mineral Industry of China,” 2005 Minerals Yearbook, U.S. Geological Survey, June 2007,

p. 9.8.

 10 Zhou Zhijiang, Jiuli Group, “Basic Introduction of Production, Consumption and Demand of Stainless Steel

Pipes in China.” Second Asian Stainless Steel Conference, May 22-23, 2006, Shanghai, China. Petitioners’

postconference brief, Exhibit 5. 

 11 SteelGuru, “China remains largest SS producer in world 2007,” February 18, 2008, found at

http://www.steelguru.com/news/index/2008/02/18/MzcwNjc%3D/China_remains_largest_SS_producer_in_world_20

07.html, retrieved on February 27, 2008.

 12 Baofeng Steel Corp. is an affiliate of Baofeng Steel Group.

 13 Capacity was reported as 5,000 metric tons with diameter of more than 114 mm. MBR, Welded Steel Tube and

Pipe Monthly, February 2008, pp. 2, 12. 

 14 MBR, Welded Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, January 2008, pp. 11-12. 

 15 MBR, Welded Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, December 2007, p. 10.

 16 Petition, exh. I-6.

 17 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, exhibit 2.

VII-3

major global producer of chromium,6

 the main alloying metal in stainless steel, hence its industries are

highly reliant upon imports of chromite (chromium ore), ferrochromium, and refined chromium metal

(with net import reliance in 2005 estimated at 93.6 percent)7

 to meet Chinese domestic chromium

consumption needs.8

According to a report for 2005 by the U.S. Geological Survey, Chinese companies have expanded

their stainless steel capacity substantially over the past several years,9

 consistent with the country’s rapid

growth in stainless steel consumption.10 In 2006, China surpassed Japan as the world’s largest stainless

steel producer. In 2007, according to the Stainless Steel Council of China Special Steel Enterprises

Association, China remained the leading stainless steel producer in the world with total production of 7.9

million tons.11

As with stainless steel generally, China has continued to expand its stainless steel tubular

production capacity. Recently reported activities include Baofeng Steel Corp.,12 which plans to begin

production at a 5,500 ton facility in June 2008, producing welded stainless tubular products with diameter

larger than 4.5 inches.13 Tingshan, China’s leading private stainless steel producer, has formed a joint

venture with Spain’s Irstal Group to install a welded stainless tubular plant with a capacity of 55,000

tons.14 In December 2007, ArcelorMittal and Hunan Valin jointly expanded production of several valueadded products, including welded stainless steel tubular products.15

The petition in these investigations identified nine producers and/or exporters of WSS pressure

pipe in China16 and petitioners listed 23 possible producers and/or exporters in their prehearing brief that

were identified by Simdex.17 Petitioners estimate that Chinese subject producers have a minimum of
 18 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, p. 17.

 19 The Commission received a response from *** indicating it does not produce WSS pressure pipe.

 20 The firm’s estimate of its share of exports of the subject merchandise to the United States is consistent with

reported import and export data. Winner, however, could not estimate the percentage of total production of WSS

pipe in China for which it accounts.

 21 As reported in either the preliminary phase and/or the final phase of the investigation.

 22 Winner’s projections are based on ***.

 23 China’s imposition of an export tax on most tubular products in early 2008 is believed by some sources to have

resulted in downward pressure on exports. See, e.g,, MBR, Welded Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, March 2008, p. 12. 

Conversely, the export tax was repealed in late 2008, leading some sources to forecast a recovery in exports. MBR,

Welded Steel Tube and Pipe Monthly, November 2008, p. 12.

 24 According to one domestic producer, “(M)ost of this investment (in WSS pressure pipe productive facilities)

has been made since the turn of the century. Most of these facilities have been built in the last five to seven years,

and they continually expand, year on year.” Conference transcript, p. 45 (Tidlow).

VII-4

453,000 tons of capacity.18 The Commission sent foreign producer questionnaires to 20 firms, received

no completed questionnaires, and received one response indicating that the firm does not produce the

subject product.19 In the preliminary phase of the investigations, however, Winner Stainless Steel Tube

Co., Ltd. (“Winner”), returned a completed questionnaire. Winner estimated that it accounts for ***

percent of total exports of WSS pressure pipe from China to the United States.20 In the most recent fiscal

year, Winner estimated that the share of its total sales represented by sales of WSS pressure pipe is ***

percent, based on quantity. U.S. importers identified the following Chinese producers as sources for their

imports: ***.21

WSS Pressure Pipe Operations

Information on Winner’s WSS pressure pipe operations is presented in table VII-1. Capacity

remained steady during the period, while production and capacity utilization increased in 2006 and

decreased in 2007. Projections for 2008-09 included a ***.22 Winner’s capacity was based on operating

*** hours per week, *** weeks per year. Winner reported *** of WSS pipe. Home market sales *** of

Winner’s shipments, and declined during 2005-07 as a share of total shipments, while the share held by

total exports increased during the same period. As a share of total shipments, exports destined for the

United States *** during 2005-07. Projections for 2008 and 2009 forecast that exports to the United

States and exports to all other markets would ***.23 Winner’s other major export markets are ***. 

Inventories held by Winner decreased steadily between December 2005 and December 2007, and are

projected to ***. Winner *** inventories of WSS pressure pipe in the United States, and ***. Winner

reported *** plans to add, expand, curtail, or shut down production capacity and/or production of WSS

pressure pipe in China. However, U.S. importer *** reported that “a few new plants have opened in

China” since January 1, 2005. Witnesses testifying at the Commission’s staff conference also reported

new production capacity in China.24

Table VII-1

WSS pressure pipe: Winner’s production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2005-

07, and projected 2008-09

* * * * * * *
 25 Those firms were ***. Five firms, ***, reported orders of WSS pressure pipe from other sources after

September 30, 2008.

 26 *** reported inventories from China. *** reported inventories from other sources.

 27 Final affirmative determination with dumping margin of 63.02 percent through May 2012. Found at

http://tpwebapp.hktdc.com/alert/us0712h.htm, on February 4, 2009

 28 Terminated September 2006. Government Gazette (South Africa) No. 29224, September 2006, p. 63.

VII-5

Alternative Products

In addition to WSS pressure pipe, Winner produces *** on the same equipment and machinery

used to produce WSS pressure pipe. 

U.S. IMPORTS SUBSEQUENT TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2008

Four U.S. importers reported that they had placed orders for WSS pressure pipe from China for

delivery into the United States after September 30, 2008.25 This information is presented in table VII-2. 

Table VII-2

WSS pressure pipe: U.S. importers’ orders after September 30, 2008

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Two U.S. importers reported inventories of imports of WSS pressure pipe from China during the

period for which data were collected, and two firms reported inventories from other countries.26 Data

collected in these investigations on U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of WSS pressure pipe are

presented in table VII-3. Inventory from China decreased over the period. The ratio of inventory to

imports and the ratios of inventory to U.S. and total shipments fell *** from 2005 to 2007. The ratio of

inventory to imports fell from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2007, but increased from *** percent

in January-September 2007 to *** percent in January-September 2008. The ratio of inventory to U.S.

shipments fell from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2007, but increased from *** percent in

January-September 2007 to *** percent in January-September 2008. The ratio of inventory to total

shipments fell from *** percent in 2005 to *** percent in 2007, but increased from *** percent in

January-September 2007 to *** percent in January-September 2008.

Table VII-3

WSS pressure pipe: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, 2005-07, JanuarySeptember 2007, and January-September 2008

* * * * * * *

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS 

IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

Based on available information, WSS pressure pipe from China has been the subject of import

relief investigations in Argentina27 and South Africa.28 In the United States, there are two antidumping
 29 Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-540-541 (Second Review),

USITC Publication 3877 (August 2006). Imports of subject merchandise from two Taiwan producers are not subject

to antidumping duties. In the original investigations, imports of subject merchandise by Chang Tieh Industry were

determined to have a 0.00 percent dumping margin and thus no order was imposed. Ibid., p. I-2. After administrative

reviews with de minimis dumping margins, Commerce revoked the order regarding imports of subject merchandise

by Ta Chen as of December 1, 1998. Ibid., p. I-9.

 30 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).

 31 U.S. imports from Taiwan grew from 45 percent of the quantity of WSS pressure pipe imports from nonsubject

countries in 2005 to 62 percent in 2007, and were 52 percent in January-September 2008.

VII-6

orders in effect on ASTM A-312 pipe, a product that is both broader and narrower than the scope of these

investigations, from Korea and Taiwan.29

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT SOURCES AND THE GLOBAL MARKET

Nonsubject Source Information

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.’”30

 During the final phase of these investigations, the Commission sought pricing data from U.S.

importers of WSS pressure pipe from China, Taiwan, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, and all other foreign

sources. Those data are presented in appendix E of this report. With respect to foreign nonsubject

sources of supply, the Commission sought publicly available information regarding international

suppliers of WSS pressure pipe since 2005 from national import and export statistics, from conference

testimony, and from interviews with industry sources. 

Overview

As discussed in Part IV of this report, the leading nonsubject source of WSS pressure pipe is

Taiwan; other major nonsubject sources include Korea and Malaysia, followed by Thailand.31 Imports

from all nonsubject sources combined accounted for approximately 60 percent of total imports in 2005

but, by 2007, had decreased as a share of total imports to below 50 percent. Figure VII-1 shows the

volume of subject and nonsubject imports for the period for which data were collected, while figure VII-2

shows the respective average unit values of such imports during the same period. 

Global Exports of Circular Welded Tubes, Pipes, and Hollow Profiles of Stainless Steel 

Table VII-4 presents information on global exports of circular welded tubes, pipes, and hollow

profiles of stainless steel (HTS 7306.40) during 2005-07 (the most recent full-year period available) as

reported by Global Trade Atlas. Circular welded tubes, pipes, and hollow profiles of stainless steel

encompass a significantly larger commodity category, at the 6-digit international harmonization level,

than subject WSS pressure pipe not exceeding 14 inches O.D.– e.g., including also larger pipe sizes,

mechanical tubing, pressure tubing, and other specialized tubing.
VII-7

Figure VII-1

WSS pressure pipe: Quantity of U.S. imports, by sources, 2005-07 and January-September 2008

Source: Tables IV-2 and IV-3.
VII-8

Figure VII-2

WSS pressure pipe: Average unit values of U.S. imports, by sources, 2005-07, January-September

2008

Source: Tables IV-2 and IV-3.
VII-9

Table VII-4

Circular welded tubes, pipes, and hollow profiles of stainless steel: Global exports by leading

sources, by quantity and average unit value, 2005-07

Leading sources

2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007

Exports (short tons) Unit value (U.S. dollars per short ton)

Italy 236,791 272,338 262,752 3,366 4,081 5,616

Taiwan 102,339 136,443 155,412 3,115 3,620 5,099

China 49,694 95,999 116,646 2,758 3,151 3,692

Germany 83,820 98,283 100,845 5,252 5,936 8,618

Malaysia 10,895 16,201 94,033 2,716 1,799 423

United States 43,366 66,507 33,322 3,118 2,438 4,798

Netherlands 14,496 13,575 32,426 5,835 6,944 4,158

Sweden 29,136 40,583 30,695 4,915 5,580 8,274

Korea 26,573 27,043 24,905 3,131 3,886 4,812

France 27,537 32,323 20,679 5,079 4,941 11,280

Czech Republic 12,187 18,791 20,283 2,624 2,380 2,740

Finland 23,563 23,370 18,788 4,098 4,832 7,612

Belgium 16,719 15,140 16,648 2,280 3,308 3,573

Canada 16,408 16,831 15,983 4,986 5,882 6,969

Switzerland 34,058 23,563 15,572 2,971 3,391 5,569

Uruguay 5,867 8,206 11,227 1,910 2,073 2,284

Japan 7,806 9,000 10,153 4,713 5,404 6,564

Spain 8,436 10,284 9,872 2,888 3,545 5,012

Singapore 7,512 6,302 9,619 2,432 4,133 2,623

Thailand 7,035 8,833 7,637 3,243 5,394 5,214

All other 49,789 43,042 49,253 3,109 4,378 5,119

World 814,026 982,656 1,056,749 3,595 4,090 5,133

Note.– Data were compiled from HS 7306.40, which covers WSS pressure pipe as well as other forms of circular welded tubes,

pipes, and hollow profiles of stainless steel.

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas.
 32 71 FR 96, January 3, 2006.

 33 The Simdex Steel Tube Manufacturers Worldwide Guide (2007). Some companies do not report data on

capacity to Simdex and some do not specifically identify their stainless steel types or product specifications. 

 34 A second small firm is reported to produce seamless (but not welded) stainless steel pipe that meets ASTM’s

A-312 specification. Ibid.

 35 As noted previously, some companies do not provide data on capacity to Simdex and some do not specifically

identify their stainless steel types or product specifications. 

 36 Ibid.

VII-10

Korea

In 2007, Korea was the third-largest supplier of imported WSS pressure pipe to the United States.

 U.S. imports of ASTM A-312 pipe from Korea currently are subject to antidumping duties of up to 7.92

percent.32 Nonetheless, as shown in table VII-5, the United States remains the leading market for exports

of circular welded tubes, pipes, and hollow profiles of stainless steel from Korea. As reported by Simdex,

Korea has seven manufacturers of WSS tubular products, with a total combined annual production

capacity exceeding 2.4 million short tons.33 These companies also produce other types of stainless steel

products. The two largest companies are Hyundai Steel Pipe Co. (HYSCO) (with annual production

capacity of 1.1 million short tons) and SeAH Steel Corp. (annual production capacity of 1.3 million tons). 

These two maufacturers, along with another smaller firm, reportedly produce WSS pressure pipe meeting

ASTM’s A-312 specification.34 

Malaysia

Malaysia ranked behind Korea as a supplier of WSS pressure pipe to the United States during

2005-07. As shown in tables VII-4 (above) and VII-6 (below), Malaysia is one of the leading global

exporters of circular welded tubes, pipes, and hollow profiles of stainless steel, and the United States is

one of Malaysia’s leading markets for its exports of such products. Simdex reports that, in Malaysia,

there are seven manufacturers of WSS tubular products with total combined annual production capacity

of approximately 420,000 short tons.35 These companies also produce several other types of stainless

steel products. Two firms that are reported to produce WSS pressure pipe meeting ASTM’s A-312, A778, or both specifications have only some 20,000 short tons of total combined annual production

capacity.36
VII-11

Table VII-5

Circular welded tubes, pipes, and hollow profiles of stainless steel: Korea’s exports, by quantity

and average unit value, 2005-07

Export markets

2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007

Exports (short tons) Unit value (U.S. dollars per short ton)

United States 11,533 11,740 8,639 3,318 3,759 4,990

India 2,430 2,448 3,531 1,898 2,181 3,170

China 2,794 3,470 3,047 3,967 5,250 6,918

Japan 2,459 1,341 1,610 2,815 3,262 4,800

Iran 449 285 1,324 1,556 9,759 2,938

Indonesia 1,413 404 1,251 1,649 3,326 2,035

Singapore 656 474 992 3,200 3,692 6,005

Saudi Arabia 12 1,524 651 5,814 3,796 6,467

Canada 724 1,192 617 2,696 3,181 3,720

Thailand 1,035 961 569 2,802 2,981 4,867

Chile 7 14 472 4,197 4,248 1,434

Mexico 338 334 421 3,693 4,454 5,537

Philippines 4 176 316 2,511 3,973 5,411

Australia 520 146 267 3,732 4,947 3,759

Turkey 40 65 120 6,557 6,007 6,099

Hong Kong 248 98 119 4,988 5,308 6,933

Croatia 232 147 117 5,157 5,644 5,439

Germany 43 113 96 10,110 5,148 9,625

Russia 68 67 95 1,448 3,565 5,497

Malaysia 20 65 93 3,650 5,204 5,816

United Arab Emirates 30 42 68 6,597 6,653 5,799

Pakistan 296 200 61 2,053 2,162 2,472

Taiwan 239 14 47 2,204 13,279 12,085

All other 981 1,722 383 4,485 4,606 10,575

World 26,573 27,043 24,905 3,131 3,886 4,812

Note.– Data were compiled from HS 7306.40, which covers WSS pressure pipe as well as other forms of circular welded tubes,

pipes, and hollow profiles of stainless steel.

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas.
 37 71 FR 96, January 3, 2006.

 38 As noted previously, some companies do not report data on capacity to Simdex and some do not specifically

identify their stainless steel types or product specifications. 

 39 Yieh Hsing is reported by Simdex to produce WSS pressure pipe meeting ASTM’s A-312 specification. 

VII-12

Table VII-6

Circular welded tubes, pipes, and hollow profiles of stainless steel: Malaysia’s exports, by

quantity and average unit value, 2005-07

Export markets1

2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007

Exports (short tons) Unit value (U.S. dollars per short ton)

United States 3,533 3,059 3,730 2,944 3,082 4,678

United Kingdom 1,847 1,459 2,157 3,639 3,593 4,123

Singapore 724 513 1,781 2,565 2,627 996

South Africa 582 222 240 3,193 3,475 4,634

Sri Lanka 293 216 190 1,975 2,997 3,990

Canada 1,068 1,019 188 3,100 3,255 4,902

Vietnam 263 17 115 542 2,095 1,973

Italy 0 20 88 0 4,102 6,154

All other 2,584 9,677 85,543 1,825 855 95

World 10,895 16,201 94,033 2,716 1,799 423

 1 Data for Brunei, Germany, India, Indonesia, and Thailand were placed in the “all other” category due to substantial

inconsistencies in reporting.

Note.– Data were compiled from HS 7306.40, which covers WSS pressure pipe as well as other forms of circular welded tubes,

pipes, and hollow profiles of stainless steel.

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas.

Taiwan

In 2005, China replaced Taiwan as the largest supplier of WSS pressure pipe to the U.S. market,

although Taiwan remains the second-largest supplier. U.S. imports of ASTM A-312 pipe from Taiwan

are generally subject to antidumping duties of up to 31.90 percent,37 but imports of such pipe from

Taiwan producers Chang Tieh Industry and, since 1998, Ta Chen, are not covered. Despite the

antidumping duty order on ASTM A-312 pipe, the United States remains the largest export market for

circular welded tubes, pipes, and hollow profiles of stainless steel from Taiwan, as shown in table VII-7. 

According to Simdex, there are 11 producers of WSS tubular products in Taiwan, with total combined

production capacity exceeding 451,000 short tons, of which 6 are recorded as producing WSS pipe

meeting ASTM’s A-312, A-778, or both specifications.38 These firms also produce other types of

stainless steel tubular products. The largest firm is Yieh Hsing Enterprise with annual production

capacity of 220,000 short tons.39 Ta Chen reported that in 2007, ***.
VII-13

Table VII-7

Circular welded tubes, pipes, and hollow profiles of stainless steel: Taiwan’s exports, by quantity

and average unit value, 2005-07

Export markets

2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007

Exports (short tons) Unit value (U.S. dollars per short ton)

United States 20,797 29,251 29,524 3,235 4,243 5,465

China 11,598 18,264 19,533 3,037 3,351 5,008

Australia 8,711 9,917 9,781 3,095 3,562 5,288

Brazil 3,516 2,917 7,209 2,860 2,883 4,544

Canada 5,019 4,062 6,748 3,338 3,552 5,184

Singapore 3,185 4,749 6,080 3,112 3,503 5,074

Indonesia 3,850 4,873 5,676 2,487 2,926 4,162

Estonia 1,057 2,550 5,129 2,515 3,205 4,474

United Kingdom 3,829 4,837 5,046 3,399 3,752 5,384

Netherlands 1,618 5,995 4,901 3,833 4,097 5,357

Belgium 1,840 3,245 4,459 3,558 3,830 5,042

South Africa 2,507 4,401 4,427 3,165 3,628 5,357

Turkey 2,463 5,392 3,887 3,083 3,356 5,140

Hong Kong 2,844 3,778 3,115 3,146 3,240 4,769

Spain 1,615 1,558 3,084 3,687 4,140 5,661

United Arab Emirates 1,956 1,845 2,889 3,347 3,681 5,468

Mexico 746 1,414 2,360 2,893 3,224 4,747

Thailand 817 1,058 2,252 3,221 3,019 4,795

Philippines 1,850 2,184 2,212 2,549 2,703 4,526

Colombia 1,521 1,533 1,978 2,734 2,891 4,581

Chile 1,466 2,517 1,879 3,038 3,420 5,210

Iran 1,156 1,313 1,808 2,951 3,268 4,859

All other 18,378 18,790 21,435 3,054 3,496 5,084

Total 102,339 136,443 155,412 3,115 3,620 5,099

Note.– Data were compiled from HS 7306.40, which covers WSS pressure pipe as well as other forms of circular welded tubes,

pipes, and hollow profiles of stainless steel.

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas.
 40 As previously noted, some companies do not provide data on capacity to Simdex, and some do not specifically

identify their stainless steel types or product specifications. 

VII-14

Thailand

Thailand ranks behind Taiwan, Korea, and Malaysia as a supplier of WSS pressure pipe to the

United States. Nonetheless, as shown in table VII-8, the United States is a leading market for exports of

circular welded tubes, pipes, and hollow profiles of stainless steel from Thailand. Simdex reported two

Thai producers of stainless steel tubular products, with combined annual production capacity of 25,000

short tons. However, only Thai-German Products Public Co. Ltd. (TGPRO), with annual production

capacity of 15,000 short tons, reportedly produces WSS pressure pipe meeting ASTM A-312

specification.40

Table VII-8

Circular welded tubes, pipes, and hollow profiles of stainless steel: Thailand’s exports, by quantity

and average unit value, 2005-07

Export markets

2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007

Exports (short tons) Unit value (U.S. dollars per short ton)

United States 1,053 1,652 1,724 3,506 3,787 4,972

Japan 1,551 1,826 1,612 3,267 13,709 5,445

India 900 1,089 1,090 1,910 2,037 4,623

Vietnam 456 596 1,021 4,525 4,818 5,280

Indonesia 76 440 386 4,454 3,136 5,146

Hong Kong 318 344 297 2,361 2,785 7,736

Singapore 769 413 296 4,860 3,173 4,219

Malaysia 182 756 271 2,323 2,627 5,959

China 214 124 148 2,993 3,296 4,285

United Arab Emirates 0 0 115 --- --- 7,400

Philippines 62 98 92 3,111 4,418 2,523

Pakistan 652 427 77 3,199 3,598 5,423

Peru 72 91 67 2,425 3,320 5,477

Korea 3 0 60 3,049 --- 8,743

Laos 63 136 57 611 604 1,019

Australia 10 13 54 3,999 4,218 7,238

Saudi Arabia 37 166 52 2,655 3,595 4,597

Nicaragua 0 0 26 --- --- 4,149

Turkey 0 10 23 --- 3,554 4,743

Taiwan 7 40 22 5,106 3,263 4,530

Iran 403 107 21 2,307 3,918 3,992

Guatemala 58 44 19 2,646 3,188 5,472

All other 149 462 105 4,165 3,241 6,318

Total 7,035 8,833 7,637 3,243 5,394 5,214

Note.– Data were compiled from HS 7306.40, which covers WSS pressure pipe as well as other forms of circular welded tubes,

pipes, and hollow profiles of stainless steel.

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas.
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 58265 

significant contributions to our national 

heritage of certain historic and cultural 

lands, waterways and structures within 

the states of Massachusetts and Rhode 

Island. The heritage corridor was to 

provide a management framework to 

assist the states of Massachusetts and 

Rhode Island and their units of local 

government in the development and 

implementation of integrated cultural, 

historical and land resource 

management programs in order to 

retain, enhance and interpret the 

significant values of the lands, waters 

and structures of the corridor. 

The purpose of this Special Resource 

Study/EIS is to provide Congress with 

information about the national 

significance, suitability, and feasibility 

of sites and landscape features within 

the corridor that are associated with 

American industrial history for possible 

inclusion in the National Park System. 

The study will develop alternative 

options for management and 

interpretation of the sites and landscape 

features under consideration. 

The draft report of the study, with the 

draft EIS, is expected to be completed 

and available for public review by late 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Additional information 

about the study/EIS may be obtained 

online at http://www.nps.gov/blac and 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov. Requests 

to be added to the project mailing list 

should be directed to Ellen Carlson, 

Project Manager, at the address below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Carlson, Project Manager, National 

Park Service, Northeast Region, 15 State 

Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109, 

617–223–5048. 

Dated: July 14, 2008. 

Michael T. Reynolds, 

Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region, 

National Park Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–23307 Filed 10–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Resource Protection Study, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Curecanti National Recreation Area, 

Colorado 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the Resource Protection Study 

(RPS), Curecanti National Recreation 

Area. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park 

Service announces the availability of a 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Resource Protection Study for 

Curecanti National Recreation Area, 

Colorado. 

Alternatives Evaluated 

Alternative 1: No Action (Continuation 

of Existing Conditions) 

Under Alternative 1, the No Action 

Alternative, NPS would continue to 

manage the natural, cultural, and 

recreational resources of Curecanti 

National Recreation Area (NRA), and 

associated facilities, pursuant to 

Reclamation law, NPS law, the 1965 

Memorandum of Agreement between 

NPS and Reclamation (1965 MOA), and 

other applicable laws and regulations. 

Reclamation would continue to manage 

the three dams and reservoirs, power 

plants, access roads, and other related 

facilities, to meet the purposes of the 

Colorado River Storage Project Act 

(CRSP); would continue to manage the 

East Portal area to meet the purposes of 

the Uncompahgre Project; and would 

continue to have unrestricted access to 

their lands and land interests, water and 

water interests, and facilities; pursuant 

to Reclamation law, the 1965 MOA, and 

other applicable laws and regulations. 

There would be no significant change in 

the NRA boundary. However, a 

permanent NPS presence would not be 

assured under this alternative. 

Alternative 2: Proposed Action 

Under Alternative 2, the Proposed 

Action, NPS would manage the same 

natural, cultural, and recreational 

resources and facilities as Alternative 1, 

pursuant to Reclamation law, NPS law, 

including new legislation establishing 

the NRA with 10,040 acres of additional 

agreed-upon neighboring agency lands, 

a revised MOA with Reclamation, and 

other applicable laws and regulations. 

Reclamation would manage their same 

facilities and areas of responsibility as 

Alternative 1, and would have 

unrestricted access to their lands and 

land interests, water and water interests, 

and facilities, pursuant to Reclamation 

law, the revised NOA, and other 

applicable laws and regulations. NPS 

would be authorized to work in 

partnership with private landowners 

within a Conservation Opportunity Area 

of 24,300 acres outside the NRA 

boundary, to implement a variety of 

tools, including acquiring interests in 

land from willing landowners, such as 

fee simple acquisition and conservation 

easements, which would promote the 

long-term conservation of resources. A 

permanent NPS presence would be 

assured under this alternative, which is 

also the environmentally preferred 

alternative. 

DATES: The National Park Service will 

execute a Record of Decision (ROD) no 

sooner than 30 days following 

publication by the Environmental 

Protection Agency of the Notice of 

Availability of the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

ADDRESSES: Information will be 

available for public inspection online at 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/cure; in the 

office of the Superintendent, Curecanti 

National Recreation Area, 102 Elk 

Creek, Gunnison, CO 81230, Tel: (970) 

641–2337; at the Montrose Public Lands 

Center, 2505 South Townsend Avenue, 

Montrose, CO 81401, Tel: (970) 240– 

5300; and at the following locations: 

Colorado State University Library in 

Fort Collins, Crawford Public Library, 

Delta Public Library, Gunnison County 

Library (Crested Butte and Gunnison 

branches), Hotchkiss Public Library, 

Mesa County Library in Grand Junction, 

Montrose Public Library, Paonia Public 

Library, and Western State College 

Library in Gunnison. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Connie Rudd, Superintendent, 

Curecanti National Recreation Area, 102 

Elk Creek, Gunnison, CO 81230; Tel: 

(970) 641–2337 x. 220; E-mail: 

connie_rudd@nps.gov. 

Dated: April 9, 2008. 

Rick M. Frost, 

Acting Regional Director, Intermountain 

Region, National Park Service. 

Editorial Note: This document was 

received by the Office of the Federal Register 

on September 29, 2008. 

[FR Doc. E8–23308 Filed 10–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–EX–M 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–454 and 731– 

TA–1144 (Final)] 

Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe 

From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of 

countervailing duty and antidumping 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of countervailing duty 

investigation No. 701–TA–454 (Final) 

under section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
58266 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 

1For purposes of these investigations, the 

Department of Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise as circular welded austenitic stainless 

pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in outside 

diameter. This merchandise includes, but is not 

limited to, the American Society for Testing and 

Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) A–312 or ASTM A–778 

specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign 

specifications. ASTM A–358 products are only 

included when they are produced to meet ASTM 

A–312 or ASTM A–778 specifications, or 

comparable domestic or foreign specifications. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) Welded stainless 

mechanical tubing, meeting ASTM A–554 or 

comparable domestic or foreign specifications; (2) 

boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, refining 

furnace, feedwater heater, and condenser tubing, 

meeting ASTM A–249, ASTM A–688 or comparable 

domestic or foreign specifications; and (3) 

specialized tubing, meeting ASTM A–269, ASTM 

A–270 or comparable domestic or foreign 

specifications. 

1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act) and 

the final phase of antidumping 

investigation No. 731–TA–1144 (Final) 

under section 735(b) of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1673d(b)) to determine whether 

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 

subsidized and less-than-fair-value 

imports from China of welded stainless 

steel pressure pipe, provided for in 

subheadings 7306.40.50 and 7306.40.10 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States.1

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of the 

investigations, hearing procedures, 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 C (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: September 2, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Haines (202–205–3200), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. The final phase of these 

investigations is being scheduled as a 

result of affirmative preliminary 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce that certain benefits which 

constitute subsidies within the meaning 

of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1671b) are being provided to 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

in China of welded stainless steel 

pressure pipe, and that such products 

are being sold in the United States at 

less than fair value within the meaning 

of section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1673b). The investigations were 

requested in a petition filed on January 

30, 2008, by Bristol Metals (Bristol, TN), 

Felker Brothers Corp. (Marshfield, WI), 

Marcegaglia USA Inc. (Munhall, PA), 

Outoukumpu Stainless Pipe, Inc. 

(Schaumburg, IL), and the United Steel 

Workers of America (Pittsburgh, PA). 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list. Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the final phase of these 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

section 201.11 of the Commission’s 

rules, no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. A 

party that filed a notice of appearance 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigations need not file an 

additional notice of appearance during 

this final phase. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the investigations. 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 the final phase of 

these investigations available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the investigations, provided 

that the application is made no later 

than 21 days prior to the hearing date 

specified in this notice. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the investigations. A 

party granted access to BPI in the 

preliminary phase of the investigations 

need not reapply for such access. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Staff report. The prehearing staff 

report in the final phase of these 

investigations will be placed in the 

nonpublic record on December 18, 2008, 

and a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing. The Commission will hold a 

hearing in connection with the final 

phase of these investigations beginning 

at 9:30 a.m. on January 13, 2009, at the 

U.S. International Trade Commission 

Building. Requests to appear at the 

hearing should be filed in writing with 

the Secretary to the Commission on or 

before January 7, 2009. A nonparty who 

has testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on January 9, 

2009, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 

207.24 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions. Each party who 

is an interested party shall submit a 

prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.23 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is January 6, 2009. Parties may 

also file written testimony in connection 

with their presentation at the hearing, as 

provided in section 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules, and posthearing 

briefs, which must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.25 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is January 23, 

2009; witness testimony must be filed 

no later than three days before the 

hearing. In addition, any person who 

has not entered an appearance as a party 

to the investigations may submit a 

written statement of information 

pertinent to the subject of the 

investigations, including statements of 

support or opposition to the petition, on 

or before January 23, 2009. On February 

11, 2009, the Commission will make 

available to parties all information on 

which they have not had an opportunity 

to comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before February 13, 2009, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.30 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 58267 

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). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s 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 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: September 30, 2008. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–23457 Filed 10–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Air Act 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 

hereby given that, on September 30, 

2008, a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States v. Merit Energy Company, 

LLC and Shell Exploration & Production 

Co., Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-917 (W.D. 

Mich.) was lodged with the United 

States District Court for the Western 

District of Michigan. The Consent 

Decree addresses alleged violations of 

the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401– 

7671q, and its implementing regulations 

at a natural gas processing facility that 

is located approximately eight miles 

northeast of Manistee, Michigan. Shell 

Exploration & Production Co. (‘‘Shell’’) 

constructed the facility in the late 1970s 

and Shell owned and operated the 

facility until it sold it to Merit Energy 

Company, LLC (‘‘Merit’’) in December 

2003. The facility includes a natural gas 

sweetening unit that is used to separate 

sulfur-containing compounds from 

natural gas extracted from nearby 

production wells. The facility also has 

two Claus sulfur recovery units that 

recover elemental sulfur from the 

concentrated sulfur-containing gases 

generated by the sweetening unit. 

The proposed Consent Decree would 

resolve the claims alleged in the 

Complaint in exchange for the 

Defendants’ commitment to implement 

appropriate injunctive relief, pay a 

$500,000 civil penalty, and perform a $1 

million Supplemental Environmental 

Project. Among other things, the 

injunctive relief provisions of the 

Decree would require Merit to eliminate 

all routine emission of sulfur dioxide 

from the facility by September 1, 2009, 

either by shutting the facility down or 

by installing and operating a separatelypermitted acid gas injection control 

system. The Decree also would impose 

strict limits on emissions from the 

facility in non-routine situations, such 

as during any control equipment 

malfunction. Shell and Merit are jointly 

liable for payment of the $500,000 civil 

penalty under the Decree. Finally, the 

Decree would require Merit to perform 

a Supplemental Environmental Project, 

at a cost of at least $1 million, that 

would involve reducing air pollutant 

emissions from gas-fired compressors at 

several other gas handing facilities near 

the Manistee natural gas processing 

facility. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

comments relating to the Consent 

Decree for a period of thirty (30) days 

from the date of this publication. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and mailed either 

electronically to pubcommentees.enrd@usdoj.gov or in hard copy to 

P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611. 

Comments should refer to United States 

v. Merit Energy Company, LLC and Shell 

Exploration & Production Co., Civil 

Action No. 1:08-cv-917 (W.D. Mich.) 

and D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–2–1–09003. 

The Consent Decree may be examined 

at: (1) The offices of the United States 

Attorney, 330 Ionia Avenue, NW., Suite 

501, Grand Rapids, Michigan; and (2) 

the offices of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, 14th Floor, Chicago, 

Illinois. During the public comment 

period, the Consent Decree may also be 

examined on the following Department 

of Justice Web site: http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

Consent Decree may also be obtained by 

mail from the Department of Justice 

Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, 

Washington, DC 20044–7611 or by 

faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia 

Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), 

fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone 

confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In 

requesting a copy from the Consent 

Decree Library, please enclose a check 

in the amount of $14.50 (58 pages at 25 

cents per page reproduction cost) 

payable to the U.S. Treasury. 

Maureen M. Katz, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E8–23423 Filed 10–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Office of Justice Programs 

[OJP (OJJDP) Docket No. 1490] 

Meeting of the Federal Advisory 

Committee on Juvenile Justice 

AGENCY: Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, Office of 

Justice Programs, Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of Meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is 

announcing the fall meeting of the 

Federal Advisory Committee on 

Juvenile Justice (FACJJ), which will be 

held in San Diego, CA October 19–21, 

2008. 

Dates and Locations: The meeting 

will be held at the Courtyard Marriot 

San Diego-Old Town, 2345 Jefferson 

Street, San Diego, CA 92110 at the 

following times: Sunday, October 19, 

2008, 4 to 5:15 p.m,; Monday, October 

20, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. and 

1:45 to 5:30 p.m; and Tuesday, October 

20, 2008; 8 to 11 a.m.. The meeting is 

open to the public. On Sunday, October 

19th, there will be a meeting of the 

FACJJ steering sub-committee from 5:30 

to 8 p.m. that will be open to the public. 

However, the FACJJ sub-committee and 

work group meetings scheduled for 

Sunday, October 19, 2008 from 3 to 

4 p.m. and on Monday, October 20, 

2008 from 12:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m are 

closed to the public. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robin Delany-Shabazz, Designated 

Federal Official, OJJDP, Robin.DelanyShabazz@usdoj.gov, or 202–307–9963. 

[Note: This is not a toll-free number.] 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

4913 

Vol. 74, No. 17 

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 

1Petitioners in this investigation are Bristol 

Metals, L.P., Felker Brothers Corp., Marcegaglia 

USA, Inc., Outokumpu Stainless Pipe Inc., and the 

United Steel Workers of America (collectively, 

Petitioners). 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request; Correction 

January 23, 2009. 

The Department of Agriculture has 

submitted the following information 

collection requirement(s) to OMB for 

review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Comments 

regarding (a) whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of burden including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology should be addressed to: Desk 

Officer for Agriculture, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), 

OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV or 

fax (202) 395–5806 and to Departmental 

Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail 

Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250– 

7602. Comments regarding these 

information collections are best assured 

of having their full effect if received 

within 30 days of this notification. 

Copies of the submission(s) may be 

obtained by calling (202) 720–8958. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless the collection of information 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number and the agency informs 

potential persons who are to respond to 

the collection of information that such 

persons are not required to respond to 

the collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

The following notice that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

Friday, January 23, 2009 (Volume 74, 

No. 14, page 4134) contained an error in 

the OMB Control Number. The correct 

OMB Control Number should be 0579– 

0281, this number replaces 0579–New 

that was originally published in the 

notice. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

Title: Treatment of Fruits and 

Vegetables. 

OMB Control Number: 0579–0281. 

Ruth Brown, 

Departmental Information Collection 

Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–1812 Filed 1–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–930 

Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless 

Pressure Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2009. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) has determined that 

circular welded austenitic stainless 

pressure pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC) is being, or is 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

less than fair value (LTFV), as provided 

in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). The final 

dumping margins for this investigation 

are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Blackledge or Howard Smith; 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3518 

and (202) 482–5193, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 5, 2008, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register its preliminary determination 

that circular welded austenitic stainless 

pressure pipe from the PRC is being, or 

is likely to be, sold in the United States 

at LTFV, as provided in the Act. See 

Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless 

Pressure Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 73 FR 51788 (September 

5, 2008) (Preliminary Determination). 

For the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department calculated a 22.03 percent 

dumping margin for mandatory 

respondent Winner Machinery 

Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Winner) and 

assigned that dumping margin to the 

PRC–wide entity and Zhejiang Jiuli Hi– 

Tech Metals Co., Ltd. (Jiuli), a separate 

rate applicant. 

The Department began its verification 

of Winner’s information on September 

22, 2008. The verification was 

scheduled for September 22, 2008 

through September 26, 2008. On 

September 25, 2008, Winner terminated 

verification, requested that the verifiers 

not take copies of any of the documents 

that were reviewed or presented at 

verification, and submitted a letter to 

the Department stating that Winner 

‘‘hereby withdraws from this 

antidumping investigation and does not 

wish to further participate.’’ See 

Winner’s September 25, 2008 letter to 

the Department. The Department 

documented the events that occurred at 

verification in a memorandum to the file 

dated October 3, 2008. 

Petitioners1 and Winner submitted 

case briefs on October 22, 2008, and 

rebuttal briefs on October 27, 2008. 

Winner filed submissions containing 

new factual information on October 16, 

2008, November 28, 2008, and 

December 2, 2008. The Department 

rejected Winner’s November 28, 2008, 

and December 2, 2008 submissions on 

December 2, 2008 and December 4, 

2008, respectively, as untimely filed. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
4914 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (POI) is 

July 1, 2007, through December 31, 

2007. This period comprises the two 

most recently completed fiscal quarters 

as of the month preceding the month in 

which the petition was filed (i.e., 

January 2008). See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is circular welded 

austenitic stainless pressure pipe not 

greater than 14 inches in outside 

diameter. This merchandise includes, 

but is not limited to, the American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) A–312 or ASTM A–778 

specifications, or comparable domestic 

or foreign specifications. ASTM A–358 

products are only included when they 

are produced to meet ASTM A–312 or 

ASTM A–778 specifications, or 

comparable domestic or foreign 

specifications. Excluded from the scope 

are: (1) welded stainless mechanical 

tubing, meeting ASTM A–554 or 

comparable domestic or foreign 

specifications; (2) boiler, heat 

exchanger, superheater, refining 

furnace, feedwater heater, and 

condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A– 

249, ASTM A–688 or comparable 

domestic or foreign specifications; and 

(3) specialized tubing, meeting ASTM 

A–269, ASTM A–270 or comparable 

domestic or foreign specifications. 

The subject imports are normally 

classified in subheadings 7306.40.5005; 

7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 

7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). They may also 

enter under HTSUS subheadings 

7306.40.1010; 7306.40.1015; 

7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 

7306.40.5080, and 7306.40.5090. The 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes 

only, the written description of the 

scope of this investigation is dispositive. 

Changes since the Preliminary 

Determination 

We have made the following changes 

to our analysis and the dumping 

margins assigned in the Preliminary 

Determination: 

1. We considered Winner to be part of 

the PRC–wide entity, and revised 

the dumping margin that was 

assigned to the PRC–wide entity as 

total adverse facts available (AFA). 

2. We assigned Jiuli a separate rate 

based on an average of the dumping 

margins used in the initiation of 

this investigation. 

For a detailed discussion of the 

dumping margin assigned to the PRC– 

wide entity as AFA, see ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Circular Welded 

Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from 

the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated 

January 21, 2009 (Decision 

Memorandum) which is hereby adopted 

by this notice. For a detailed discussion 

of Jiuli’s dumping margin, see the 

‘‘Separate Rates’’ section below. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

proceeding, and to which we have 

responded, are addressed in the 

Decision Memorandum. Appendix I to 

this notice contains a list of the issues 

that are addressed in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. Parties can find 

a complete discussion of the issues and 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of 

the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy 

and electronic version are identical in 

content. 

Non–Market Economy Treatment 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department considered the PRC to be a 

non–market economy (NME) country. 

See Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 

51789. In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a country is an NME 

country shall remain in effect until 

revoked by the administering authority. 

See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of 2001–2002 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 

(February 14, 2003), unchanged in 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of 2001–2002 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 

2003). No party has commented on the 

Department’s classification of the PRC 

as an NME country. Therefore, for the 

final determination, we continue to 

consider the PRC to be an NME country. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

from the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994), and 19 CFR 

351.107(d). 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that Jiuli and Winner 

demonstrated their eligibility for 

separate–rate status. See Preliminary 

Determination, 73 FR at 51792. Since 

the publication of the Preliminary 

Determination, no parties commented 

on the separate rate determinations. We 

continue to find that the evidence 

placed on the record of this 

investigation by Jiuli demonstrates both 

a de jure and de facto absence of 

government control with respect to its 

exports of the merchandise under 

investigation. Thus, we continue to find 

that Jiuli is eligible for separate–rate 

status. However, as explained below, we 

have determined that it is appropriate to 

apply total AFA to Winner and deny the 

company a separate rate. 

Normally the dumping margin for 

separate rate companies is determined 

based on the estimated weighted– 

average dumping margins established 

for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding de 

minimis margins or margins based 

entirely on AFA. See section 

735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. In the 

Preliminary Determination we assigned 

Jiuli the dumping margin established for 

Winner, i.e., 22.03 percent. See 

Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 

51792 and 51795. Since Winner is no 

longer receiving a separate rate, this 

methodology is not appropriate. In cases 

where the estimated weighted–average 

dumping margins for all individually 

investigated respondents are zero, de 

minimis, or based entirely on AFA, the 

Department may use any reasonable 

method to assign a rate to the separate 

rate companies. See section 735(c)(5)(B) 

of the Act. In this case, where there are 

no mandatory respondents receiving a 

calculated rate, we find that applying 

the simple average of the initiation rates 

to Jiuli is both reasonable and reliable 

for purposes of establishing a separate 

rate. See Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Sodium 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 4915 

Hexametaphosphate From the People’s 

Republic of China, 73 FR 6479 

(February 4, 2008) and the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. Therefore, 

the Department will assign a separate 

rate to Jiuli using the average of the 

initiation margins, pursuant to its 

practice. 

The average initiation margin 

assigned to Jiuli is based on secondary 

information. According to section 776 

(c) of the Act, when the Department 

relies on secondary information, it shall, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that information. During our pre– 

initiation analysis of the petition, we 

examined the information used in the 

petition as the basis of export price and 

normal value (NV) and, where 

appropriate, revised the calculations 

used to derive the petition dumping 

margins in determining the initiation 

dumping margins. Also, during our pre– 

initiation analysis, we examined 

information from various independent 

sources provided either in the petition 

or, based on our requests, in 

supplements to the petition, which 

corroborated various elements of the 

export price and NV information. For 

this final determination, we compared 

the average of the initiation margins to 

Winner’s highest CONNUM–specific 

margin and found that the average of the 

initiation margins does not exceed this 

margin. No other information was 

available for corroboration purposes. 

Based on the foregoing, we have 

concluded that the average of the 

initiation dumping margins is reliable 

and has probative value and, therefore, 

we consider this average dumping 

margin to be corroborated, to the extent 

practicable. 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party or any other 

person (A) withholds information that 

has been requested by the administering 

authority, (B) fails to provide such 

information by the deadlines for the 

submission of the information or in the 

form and manner requested, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, 

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding 

under this title, or (D) provides such 

information but the information cannot 

be verified as provided in section 782(i), 

the administering authority shall, 

subject to section 782(d), use the facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. Because 

Winner withdrew from this proceeding 

during verification, we determine that 

the use of facts otherwise available is 

warranted with respect to Winner. See 

the Decision Memorandum at Comment 

1. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, if the Department finds that an 

interested party ‘‘has failed to cooperate 

by not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with a request for information,’’ 

the Department may draw an inference 

that is adverse to the interests of that 

party in selecting information from the 

petition, the final determination from 

the investigation, a previous 

administrative review, or any 

information placed on the record. The 

Statement of Administrative Action 

(SAA) accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103– 

316, Vol. 1 (1994) at 870, reflects the 

Department’s practice that it may 

employ an adverse inference ‘‘to ensure 

that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

fully.’’ It also instructs the Department 

to consider, in employing adverse 

inferences, ‘‘the extent to which a party 

may benefit from its own lack of 

cooperation.’’ Id. 

By withdrawing from verification, 

Winner has failed to cooperate to the 

best of its ability. Therefore, we find it 

appropriate to use an inference that is 

adverse to Winner’s interest in selecting 

from among facts otherwise available. 

By doing so, we ensure that Winner will 

not obtain a more favorable rate by 

failing to cooperate. For a complete 

discussion of our analysis, see the 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

Moreover, because Winner withdrew 

from verification and prevented the 

Department from verifying its responses 

with regard to separate rate status, the 

Department has no basis upon which to 

grant Winner a separate rate. Thus, 

although Winner remains a mandatory 

respondent, the Department, as AFA, is 

considering Winner to be part of the 

PRC–wide entity. 

The PRC–Wide Rate 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that certain 

companies did not respond to our 

requests for information. See 

Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 

51788. We treated these PRC producers/ 

exporters as part of the PRC–wide entity 

because they did not demonstrate that 

they operate free of government control 

over their export activities. Id. No 

additional information was placed on 

the record with respect to any of these 

companies after the Preliminary 

Determination. Moreover, for the 

reasons noted above, we also consider 

Winner to be part of the PRC–wide 

entity. 

As noted above, section 776(a)(2) of 

the Act provides that, if an interested 

party or any other person withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the administering authority, 

significantly impedes a proceeding 

under this title, or provides such 

information but the information cannot 

be verified as provided in section 782(i), 

the administering authority shall, 

subject to section 782(d), use the facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. Since 

companies within the PRC–wide entity 

withheld information requested by the 

Department, and Winner, which is part 

of the PRC–wide entity, did not allow 

its information to be verified, pursuant 

to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of 

the Act, we determine, as in the 

Preliminary Determination, that the use 

of facts otherwise available is 

appropriate to determine the PRC–wide 

rate. 

As stated above, section 776(b) of the 

Act provides that, in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available, the 

Department may employ an adverse 

inference if an interested party fails to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with requests for 

information. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled Flat– 

Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products 

From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 

5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). See also 

SAA at 870 (1994). We determine that, 

because the PRC–wide entity did not 

respond to our requests for information, 

and Winner prevented the Department 

from verifying its information, the PRC– 

wide entity has failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability. Therefore, the 

Department finds that, in selecting a 

dumping margin from among the facts 

otherwise available, an adverse 

inference is appropriate for the PRC– 

wide entity. 

In this final determination, we have 

assigned to the PRC–wide entity the 

highest CONNUM–specific calculated 

dumping margin, i.e., 55.21 percent. See 

Decision Memorandum. No 

corroboration of this rate is necessary 

because we are relying on information 

obtained in the course of this 

investigation, rather than secondary 

information. 

Since we begin with the presumption 

that all companies within an NME 

country are subject to government 

control, and because only Jiuli has 

overcome that presumption, we are 

applying the single antidumping rate 

(i.e., the PRC–wide entity rate) 

identified above to all entries of subject 

merchandise, except for entries from 

Jiuli. Other than Jiuli, none of the other 

exporters of subject merchandise from 

the PRC demonstrated entitlement to a 

separate rate. See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo 

From the People’s Republic of China: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
4916 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 

(May 3, 2000). 

Combination Rates 

In Circular Welded Austenitic 

Stainless Pressure Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

10221 (February 26, 2008) (Initiation 

Notice), the Department stated that it 

would calculate combination rates for 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Initiation Notice. This change in 

practice is described in Policy Bulletin 

05.1, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. 

Policy Bulletin 05.1, states: 

{w}hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to 

exporters, all separate rates that the 

Department will now assign in its 

NME investigations will be specific 

to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of 

investigation. Note, however, that 

one rate is calculated for the 

exporter and all of the producers 

which supplied subject 

merchandise to it during the period 

of investigation. This practice 

applies both to mandatory 

respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate 

rate as well as the pool of non– 

investigated firms receiving the 

weighted–average of the 

individually calculated rates. This 

practice is referred to as the 

application of ‘‘combination rates’’ 

because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one 

or more producers. The cash– 

deposit rate assigned to an exporter 

will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in 

question and produced by a firm 

that supplied the exporter during 

the period of investigation. 

See Policy Bulletin 05.1, ‘‘Separate 

Rates Practice and Application of 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations Involving Non–Market 

Economy Countries.’’ 

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

percentage dumping margins exist for 

the POI: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin 

(Percent) 

Zhejiang Jiuli Hi–Tech Metals 

Co., Ltd. Produced by: 

Zhejiang Jiuli Hi–Tech Metals 

Co., Ltd. .................................. 10.53% 

PRC–Wide Rate ......................... 55.21% 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of circular 

welded austenitic stainless pressure 

pipe from the PRC, as described in the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after September 

5, 2008, the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. We will instruct CBP 

to require a cash deposit or the posting 

of a bond equal to the weighted–average 

dumping margin amount by which the 

NV exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) 

The rate for the exporter/producer 

combination listed in the chart above 

will be the rate we have determined in 

this final determination; (2) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash–deposit rate will be the PRC–wide 

entity rate; and (3) for all non–PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash–deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporter/producer 

combination that supplied that non– 

PRC exporter. These suspension–ofliquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

our final determination of sales at LTFV. 

As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the 

ITC will determine whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess, upon further instruction by 

the Department, antidumping duties on 

all imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: January 21, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

List of Issues 

Comment 1: Whether, as Adverse Facts 

Available for the PRC–Wide Entity, the 

Department Should Use the Petition, 

Initiation, or Preliminary Determination 

Margins, and Whether Those Margins 

Should be Adjusted Using Thai, Instead 

of Indian, Surrogate Values 

[FR Doc. E9–1827 Filed 1–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–890] 

Amended Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Wooden Bedroom Furniture 

From the People’s Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On August 20, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published in the 

Federal Register the final results of the 

second administrative review and 

concurrent new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order on wooden 

bedroom furniture from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and New Shipper Review, 73 FR 

49162 (August 20, 2008) (‘‘Final 

Results’’) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum (August 8, 2007) 

(‘‘Issues and Decision Memo’’). The 

period of review (‘‘POR’’) covered 

January 1, 2006, through December 31, 

2006. We are amending our Final 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
4936 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports of 

lawn groomers, or sales (or the 

likelihood of sales) for importation, of 

the subject merchandise within 45 days 

of our final determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven days after the date the 

final verification report is issued in this 

proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited 

to issues raised in case briefs, no later 

than five days after the deadline for 

submitting case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(i) and 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(1) and (2). A list of 

authorities used and an executive 

summary of issues should accompany 

any briefs submitted to the Department. 

This summary should be limited to five 

pages total, including footnotes. See 19

CFR 351.309(c)(2) and 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(2).

In accordance with section 774(a)(1) 

of the Act, we will hold a public 

hearing, if requested, to afford interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

arguments raised in case or rebuttal 

briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, 

we intend to hold the hearing three days 

after the deadline of submission of 

rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a 

time and location to be determined. 

Parties should confirm by telephone the 

date, time, and location of the hearing 

two days before the scheduled date. 

Interested parties that wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests 

should contain the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number, the 

number of participants, and a list of the 

issues to be discussed. At the hearing, 

each party may make an affirmative 

presentation only on issues raised in 

that party’s case brief and may make 

rebuttal presentations only on 

arguments included in that party’s 

rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Postponement of Final Determination 

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the 

Act, on December 18, 2008, and 

December 23, 2008, Princeway and 

Superpower, respectively, requested 

that in the event of an affirmative 

preliminary determination in this 

investigation, the Department postpone 

its final determination by 60 days. At 

the same time, Princeway and 

Superpower agreed that the Department 

may extend the application of the 

provisional measures prescribed under 

19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a 4–month 

period to a 6–month period. In 

accordance with section 733(d) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), we are 

granting the request and are postponing 

the final determination until no later 

than 135 days after the publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register 

because: (1) our preliminary 

determination is affirmative, (2) the 

requesting exporters account for a 

significant proportion of exports of the 

subject merchandise (see Respondent 

Selection Memorandum), and (3) no 

compelling reasons for denial exist. 

Suspension of liquidation will be 

extended accordingly. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: January 16, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. E9–1721 Filed 1–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–570–931)

Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless 

Pressure Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) has made a final 

determination that countervailable 

subsidies are being provided to 

producers and exporters of circular 

welded austenitic stainless pressure 

pipe (CWASPP) from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC). For 

information on the estimated subsidy 

rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Copyak, IA Operations, Office 3, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202– 

482–2209.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petitioner

The petitioners in this investigation 

are Bristol Metals LLP, Felker Brothers 

Corp., Marcegaglia U.S.A., Inc., 

Outokumpu Stainless Pipe, Inc., and the 

United Steelworkers (petitioners). 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, or period of 

investigation (POI), is January 1, 2007, 

through December 31, 2007. 

Case History 

On July 10, 2008, we published in the 

Federal Register the preliminary 

determination that countervailable 

subsidies are being provided to 

producers and exporters of CWASPP 

from the PRC, as provided under section 

703 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). See Circular Welded 

Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination and Alignment of 

Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination with Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination, 73 FR 39657 (July 

10, 2008) (Preliminary Determination).

On July 15, 2008, the Winner 

Companies filed timely allegations of 

significant ministerial errors contained 

in the Department’s Preliminary

Determination. After reviewing the 

allegations, we determined that the 

Preliminary Determination included

significant ministerial errors as 

described under 19 CFR 351.224(g). 

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(e), we made changes to the 

Preliminary Determination. On August 

7, 2008, we published in the Federal

Register the amended preliminary 

determination. See Circular Welded 

Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe From 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Amended Preliminary Countervailing 

Duty Determination 73 FR 45954 

(August 7, 2008) (Amended Preliminary 

Determination).

On August 8, 2008, the GOC 

requested a hearing. On August 11, 

2008, petitioners requested a hearing. 

On December 16, 2008, we received 

case briefs regarding the Preliminary

Determination from the Government of 

the People’s Republic of China (GOC), 

petitioners, and Winner Stainless Tube 

Co., Ltd. (Winner), Winner Steel 

Products (Guangzhou)(WSP), and 

Winner Machinery Enterprise Company 

Limited (Winner HK) (collectively the 

Winner Companies). On December 17, 

2008, the GOC filed a letter correcting 

inadvertent errors its case brief. On 

December, 22, 2008, the GOC, 

petitioners, and the Winner Companies 

submitted rebuttal briefs. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 4937

On January 7, 2009, the Department 

issued a post–preliminary 

determination decision memorandum 

regarding the new subsidy allegations 

that were filed by petitioners on May 30, 

2008. On January 12, 2009, we received 

case briefs regarding this post– 

preliminary determination decision 

memorandum from GOC, petitioners, 

and the Winner Companies. On 14, 

2009, the GOC, petitioners, and the 

Winner Companies submitted rebuttal 

briefs on this decision memorandum. 

The GOC and petitioners withdrew 

their requests for a hearing on January 

8, 2009. 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is circular welded 

austenitic stainless pressure pipe not 

greater than 14 inches in outside 

diameter. This merchandise includes, 

but is not limited to, the American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) A–312 or ASTM A–778 

specifications, or comparable domestic 

or foreign specifications. ASTM A–358 

products are only included when they 

are produced to meet ASTM A–312 or 

ASTM A–778 specifications, or 

comparable domestic or foreign 

specifications.

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

welded stainless mechanical tubing, 

meeting ASTM A–554 or comparable 

domestic or foreign specifications; (2) 

boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, 

refining furnace, feedwater heater, and 

condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A– 

249, ASTM A–688 or comparable 

domestic or foreign specifications; and 

(3) specialized tubing, meeting ASTM 

A–269, ASTM A–270 or comparable 

domestic or foreign specifications. 

The subject imports are normally 

classified in subheadings 7306.40.5005, 

7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 

7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States. They may also enter 

under HTSUS subheadings 

7306.40.1010, 7306.40.1015, 

7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 

7306.40.5080, and 7306.40.5090. The 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes 

only; the written description of the 

scope is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

Interested parties submitted 

comments on the scope of investigation. 

Those comments are fully addressed in 

the preliminary determination of the 

companion AD investigation. See

Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless 

Pressure Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 73 FR 51788, 51789 

(September 5, 2008). 

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 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

must determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to a U.S. industry. On March 25, 

2008, the ITC published its preliminary 

determination that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured or 

threatened with material injury by 

reason of imports from the PRC of 

subject merchandise. See Welded 

Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from 

China, USITC Pub. 3986, Inv. Nos. 701– 

TA–454 and 731–TA–1144 

(Preliminary) (March 2008); and Welded

Stainless Pressure Pipe from China, 73 

FR 16911 (Preliminary)(March 31, 

2008).

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

accompanying January 21, 2008, 

memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration from John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping Duty/Countervailing Duty 

Operations, which is titled Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for Final 

Determination (Decision Memorandum) 

and is on file in Central Records Unit 

(CRU), room 1117 of the main 

Commerce building. Attached to this 

notice as an Appendix is a list of the 

issues that parties raised and to which 

we have responded in the Decision 

Memorandum. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this investigation and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Department’s CRU. In addition, a 

complete version of the Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

frn/. The paper copy and electronic 

version of the Decision Memorandum 

are identical in content. 

Application of Facts Available, 

Including the Application of Adverse 

Inferences

For purposes of this final 

determination, we have relied on facts 

available and have used adverse 

inferences to determine the 

countervailable subsidy rates for Froch, 

which is one of the two mandatory 

respondents, in accordance with 

sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. A full 

discussion of our decision to apply 

adverse facts available (AFA) is 

presented in the Decision Memorandum 

in the section ‘‘Application of Facts 

Available and Use of Adverse 

Inferences’’ and in ‘‘Analysis of 

Comments’’ at Comment 11. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have 

calculated an individual rate for the 

companies under investigation, the 

Winner Companies and Froch 

Enterprise Co. Ltd. (Froch). With respect 

to the all–others rate, section 

705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act provides that 

the all others rate is to be the weighted 

average of the rates established for 

respondents individually investigated, 

excluding zero or de minimis rates or 

rates based entirely on facts available. 

Based on the facts and circumstances of 

this investigation, we find that section 

705(c)(5)(A)(i) is applicable in 

determining the all others rate. In this 

case, the Department selected two 

mandatory respondents as 

representative of all producers/exporters 

of CWASPP from the PRC. One of the 

two company respondents, Froch, did 

not respond to the questionnaire, and 

thus we have determined its 

countervailable subsidy rates based 

entirely on adverse facts available 

Because the Winner Companies’ rate is 

not de minimis and is not based entirely 

on facts available, we determine the 

Winner Companies’ rate to be the all 

others rate. 

Exporter/Manufacturer Net Subsidy Rate 

Winner Stainless Steel 

Tube Co. Ltd. (Winner)/ Winner Steel 

Products

(Guangzhou) Co., 

Ltd. (WSP)/ Winner 

Machinery Enterprises Company Limited (Winner HK) 

(Collectively the Winner Companies) ........ 1.10 percent ad

valorem

Froch Enterprise Co. 

Ltd. (Froch) (also 

known as Zhangyuan 

Metal Industry Co. 

Ltd.) ........................... 299.16 percent ad 

valorem

All Others ...................... 1.10 percent ad

valorem

As a result of our Preliminary

Determination and pursuant to section 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
4938 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices 

703(d) of the Act, we instructed the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

CWASPP from the PRC which were 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after July 10, 

2008, the date of the publication of the 

Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. In accordance with 

sections 703(d) of the Act, we will be 

issuing instructions to CBP to 

discontinue the suspension of 

liquidation for countervailing duty 

purposes for subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

on or after November 7, 2008, but to 

continue the suspension of liquidation 

of all entries from July 10, 2008 through 

November 6, 2008. 

We will issue a CVD order and 

reinstate the suspension of liquidation 

under section 706(a) of the Act if the 

ITC issues a final affirmative injury 

determination, and will require a cash 

deposit of estimated countervailing 

duties for such entries of merchandise 

in the amounts indicated above. If the 

ITC determines that material injury, or 

threat of material injury, does not exist, 

this proceeding will be terminated and 

all estimated duties deposited or 

securities posted as a result of the 

suspension of liquidation will be 

refunded or canceled. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all non– 

privileged and non–proprietary 

information related to this investigation. 

We will allow the ITC access to all 

privileged and business proprietary 

information in our files, provided the 

ITC confirms that it will not disclose 

such information, either publicly or 

under an APO, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to an administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 determination is published 

pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: January 21, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

APPENDIX

List of Comments and Issues in the 

Decision Memorandum 

Comment 1: Whether the Department 

Reasonably Treated China as a 

Developed Country for CVD De Minimis 

Purposes

Comment 2: Whether Winner HK 

Should be Treated as a PRC Entity for 

Purposes of Attribution 

Comment 3: Whether the Total Sales 

Figure Used as the Denominator in the 

Preliminary Determination and Interim 

Decision Memorandum is Correct 

Comment 4: Whether the Department 

Has the Legal Authority to Apply the 

CVD Law to the PRC While 

Simultaneously Treating the PRC as an 

NME in Parallel Antidumping 

Investigations

Comment 5: Whether the Provision of 

SSC to SOEs Constitutes the Provision 

of a Good by a Government Authority 

Comment 6: Whether the Sale of HRS 

from Privately–Held Trading Companies 

Constitutes a Financial Contribution 

Under the Act 

Comment 7: Whether the Provision of 

SSC is Specific and the Applicability of 

the Department’s Use of AFA in its 

Determination of De Facto Specificity

Comment 8: Whether the Department 

Should Countervail the Provision of 

Land

Comment 9: Whether the Department 

Should Countervail FIE Tax Programs 

that are Industry, Regionally, or Export/ 

Domestic Use Neutral 

Comment 10: Whether the Department’s 

Prevailing Interest Rate Methodology 

Should be Used to Calculate any 

Subsidy in this Case 

Comment 11: Whether the Department’s 

Choice of Adverse Facts Applied to the 

Non–Cooperating Respondent is 

Contrary to Law 

Comment 12: Whether the Department’s 

Methodology for Determining the All– 

Others rate in its Amended Preliminary 

Results is Unreasonable 

[FR Doc. E9–1829 Filed 1–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–489–806]

Notice of Initiation of Countervailing 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review: 

Certain Pasta from Turkey 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

Marsan Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. 

(‘‘Marsan’’) pursuant to section 751(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’) and 19 CFR 351.216 and 

351.221(c)(3), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

initiating a changed circumstances 

review of the countervailing duty 

(‘‘CVD’’) order on certain pasta (‘‘Pasta’’) 

from Turkey. Marsan, a producer of 

pasta, claims that Gidasa Sabanci Gida 

Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (‘‘Gidasa’’) 

changed its corporate name to Marsan 

and, therefore, Marsan should be 

entitled to the same cash deposit rate as 

its predecessor company, Gidasa. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shelly Atkinson, Office of AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0116. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 24, 1996, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the

CVD order on Pasta from Turkey. See

Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: 

Certain Pasta (‘‘Pasta’’) From Turkey, 61 

FR 38546 (July 24, 1996). Since then, 

the Department has completed two 

administrative reviews of this CVD 

order but is not currently conducting an 

administrative review. See Certain Pasta 

From Turkey: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 66 FR 64398 (December 13, 

2001); Certain Pasta from Turkey: Final 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 52774 

(September 7, 2006) (‘‘Pasta from 

Turkey: Results of Administrative 

Review’’). Also, with respect to Gidasa, 

in July 2003, the Department 

determined that Gidasa was the 

successor–in-interest to Maktas 

Makarnacilik ve Ticaret A.S. (‘‘Maktas’’) 

and that Gidasa was entitled to the cash 

deposit rate assigned to Maktas in the 

most recently completed CVD 

administrative review. See Notice of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
B-1

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from China

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-454 and 731-TA-1144 (Final)

Date and Time: January 13, 2009 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these investigations in the Main Hearing Room (room

101), 500 E Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioner (Roger B. Schagrin, Schagrin Associates)

In Support of the Imposition of

 Countervailing and Antidumping Duties:

Schagrin Associates

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Bristol Metals LLC

Felker Brothers Corporation

Marcegaglia USA., Inc.

Outokumpu Stainless Pipe, Inc.

Michael Boling, President, Bristol Metals LLC

John Tidlow, Vice President, Purchasing &

Planning, Bristol Metals LLC

Thomas Henke, President, Felker Brothers 

Corporation

David Cornelius, President, Marcegaglia USA, Inc.
B-4

In Support of the Imposition of

 Countervailing and Antidumping Duties (continued):

Rob Yespen, Sales Manager, Marcegaglia USA, Inc.

Paul Carpenter, Executive Vice President, 

Outokumpu Stainless Pipe, Inc.

Thomas M. Conway, International Vice President 

(Administration), United Steel, Paper and 

Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing Energy, 

Allied Industrial and Service Workers

International Union, United Steel Workers 

Roger B. Schagrin )

) – OF COUNSEL

John W. Bohn )

CLOSING REMARKS:

Petitioner (Roger B. Schagrin, Schagrin Associates)
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

WSS pressure pipe (<= 14"): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2005-07, January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2005-07 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 69,301 48,568 ***** ***** ***** -29.9

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 29.2 43.2 ***** ***** ***** 14.0

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 36.3 13.8 ***** ***** ***** -22.5

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 34.5 43.0 ***** ***** ***** 8.6

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 70.8 56.8 ***** ***** ***** -14.0

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 412,012 286,473 ***** ***** ***** -30.5

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 36.7 49.2 ***** ***** ***** 12.5

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 30.3 11.7 ***** ***** ***** -18.6

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 33.0 39.1 ***** ***** ***** 6.1

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 63.3 50.8 ***** ***** ***** -12.5

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,394 23,712 30,371 25,169 6,700 111.0 64.7 28.1 -73.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,607 79,360 154,833 124,975 33,592 225.2 66.7 95.1 -73.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,307 $3,347 $5,098 $4,965 $5,014 54.1 1.2 52.3 1.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,810 24,099 29,078 23,879 20,888 33.3 10.5 20.7 -12.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76,573 99,681 158,535 135,942 111,893 107.0 30.2 59.0 -17.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,511 $4,136 $5,452 $5,693 $5,357 55.3 17.8 31.8 -5.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,204 47,811 59,448 49,048 27,588 64.2 32.1 24.3 -43.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124,180 179,041 313,368 260,917 145,485 152.3 44.2 75.0 -44.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,430 $3,745 $5,271 $5,320 $5,274 53.7 9.2 40.8 -0.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 49,041 47,961 ***** ***** ***** -2.2

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 22,421 22,010 ***** ***** ***** -1.8

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 45.7 45.9 ***** ***** ***** 0.2

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 20,253 20,980 ***** ***** ***** 3.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 151,095 140,988 ***** ***** ***** -6.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** $7,460 $6,720 ***** ***** ***** -9.9

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 223 605 ***** ***** ***** 171.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 2,049 4,971 ***** ***** ***** 142.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** $9,188 $8,217 ***** ***** ***** -10.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 10,485 8,680 ***** ***** ***** -17.2

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . ***** ***** ***** 38.4 30.2 ***** ***** ***** -8.2

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 308 348 ***** ***** ***** 13.0

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 540 568 ***** ***** ***** 5.3

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** 8,699 9,392 ***** ***** ***** 8.0

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** $16.11 $16.53 ***** ***** ***** 2.6

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) . ***** ***** ***** 41.5 38.7 ***** ***** ***** -6.7

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** $387.98 $426.72 ***** ***** ***** 10.0

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,688 32,410 26,259 20,394 21,465 -11.6 9.2 -19.0 5.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134,353 167,817 194,820 152,722 145,260 45.0 24.9 16.1 -4.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,525 $5,178 $7,419 $7,489 $6,767 63.9 14.4 43.3 -9.6

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . 128,183 150,065 171,200 127,593 137,392 33.6 17.1 14.1 7.7

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . 6,170 17,752 23,620 25,129 7,868 282.8 187.7 33.1 -68.7

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,731 10,752 9,416 7,320 8,450 -3.2 10.5 -12.4 15.4

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . (3,561) 7,000 14,204 17,809 (582) (2) (2) 102.9 (2)

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . 2,681 1,474 3,808 2,786 4,410 42.0 -45.0 158.4 58.3

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,318 $4,630 $6,520 $6,256 $6,401 51.0 7.2 40.8 2.3

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . $328 $332 $359 $359 $394 9.4 1.2 8.1 9.7

 Unit operating income or (loss) . ($120) $216 $541 $873 ($27) (2) (2) 150.4 (2)

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.4 89.4 87.9 83.5 94.6 -7.5 -6.0 -1.5 11.0

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.7) 4.2 7.3 11.7 (0.4) 9.9 6.8 3.1 -12.1

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) 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 and from official Commerce statistics.

C-3
Table C-2

WSS pressure pipe (all diameters): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2005-07, January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2005-07 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Importers' share (1):

 China (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Importers' share (1):

 China (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

U.S. imports from:

 China (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,394 23,712 30,371 25,169 6,700 111.0 64.7 28.1 -73.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,607 79,360 154,833 124,975 33,592 225.2 66.7 95.1 -73.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,307 $3,347 $5,098 $4,965 $5,014 54.1 1.2 52.3 1.0

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit operating income or (loss) . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-4
Table C-3

WSS pressure pipe and pressure tubing: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2005-07, January-September 2007, and January-September 2008

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2005-07 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Importers' share (1):

 China (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Importers' share (1):

 China (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

U.S. imports from:

 China (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,394 23,712 30,371 25,169 6,700 111.0 64.7 28.1 -73.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,607 79,360 154,833 124,975 33,592 225.2 66.7 95.1 -73.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,307 $3,347 $5,098 $4,965 $5,014 54.1 1.2 52.3 1.0

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit operating income or (loss) . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Note.--U.S.-producers' and importers' data regarding pressure tubing are believed to be understated, primarily due to the absence of data from ***,

and from incomplete importer reporting.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-5
Table C-4

WSS tubular products: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (including pipe > 14" diameter and pressure tubing), 2005-07, January-September 2007,

and January-September 2008

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-September Jan.-Sept.

Item 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2005-07 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Importers' share (1):

 China (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Importers' share (1):

 China (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

U.S. imports from:

 China (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,394 23,712 30,371 25,169 6,700 111.0 64.7 28.1 -73.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,607 79,360 154,833 124,975 33,592 225.2 66.7 95.1 -73.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,307 $3,347 $5,098 $4,965 $5,014 54.1 1.2 52.3 1.0

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Unit operating income or (loss) . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Note.--U.S.-producers' and importers' data regarding large diameter pressure pipe and pressure tubing are believed to be understated, primarily due to the absence of data from 

***, and from incomplete importer reporting.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics.

C-6
D-1

APPENDIX D

TARIFF TREATMENT

D-3

Table D-1

WSS pressure pipe: Tariff treatment, 2008

HTS

provision

Stat

Suffix Article description

General1 Column 22

Rates (percent ad

valorem)

7306

7306.40

7306.40.10

7306.40.50

10

15

90

05

15

40

42

44

62

64

80

85

90

Other tubes, pipes, and hollow profiles (for example, open seamed or

welded, riveted or similarly closed), of iron or steel:

 Other, welded, of circular cross section, of stainless steel:

 Having a wall thickness of less than 1.65 mm. . . . . . . . . . 

 Containing more than 0.5 percent by weight of nickel

 Containing more than 1.5 percent but less than 5

 percent by weight of molybdenum

 

 Other 

 Other 

 Having a wall thickness of 1.65 mm or more. . . . . . . . . . . 

 Of high-nickel alloy steel

 Other:

 Suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat-

 exchangers condensers, refining furnaces and 

feedwater heaters, whether or not cold- drawn

 Other, cold-drawn or cold-rolled (cold- 

 reduced):

 Containing more than 0.5 percent but

 less than 24 percent by weight of nickel

 Other:

 Containing less than 15 percent by 

 weight of chromium

 Other

 Other:

 With an outside diameter not exceeding

 114.3 mm:

 Containing more than 0.5 percent

 but less than 24 percent by weight of nickel:

 Containing more than 1.5 percent but

 less than 5 percent by weight of

 molybdenum

 

 Other

 Other

 With an outside diameter exceeding

 114.3 mm but not exceeding 406.4 mm:

 Containing more than 0.5 percent but less 

 than 24 percent by weight of nickel

 Other

 

Free

 Free

36%

11%

1

 Normal trade relations, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate applicable to imports from China. 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 (2008).

E-1

APPENDIX E

ADDITIONAL PRICE DATA FOR KOREA, MALAYSIA, AND TAIWAN

E-3

Table E-1

WSS pressure pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of imported product 1, by

quarters, January 2005-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Table E-2

WSS pressure pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of imported product 2, by

quarters, January 2005-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Table E-3

WSS pressure pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of imported product 3, by

quarters, January 2005-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Table E-4

WSS pressure pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of imported product 4, by

quarters, January 2005-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Table E-5

WSS pressure pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of imported product 5, by

quarters, January 2005-September 2008

* * * * * * *

Table E-6

WSS pressure pipe: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of imported product 6, by

quarters, January 2005-September 2008

* * * * * * *

F-1

APPENDIX F

ESTIMATED BASE PRICES WITH SURCHARGES EXCLUDED

F-3

Table F-1

WSS pressure pipe: Estimated weighted-average prices for petitioning domestic producers for

products 2 and 5, by quarters, January 2005-September 2008

* * * * * * *

G-1

APPENDIX G

ALLEGED EFFECTS OF IMPORTS ON U.S. PRODUCERS’ EXISTING

DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION EFFORTS, GROWTH, INVESTMENT,

AND ABILITY TO RAISE CAPITAL

G-3

The Commission requested U.S. processors to describe any actual or potential negative effects since

January 1, 2005, 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 WSS pressure pipe from

China. Their responses are as follows:

Actual Negative Effects

Bristol.–***

Felker.–***

Marcegaglia.–***

Outokumpu.–***

Webco.–***

Anticipated Negative Effects

Bristol.–***

Felker.–***

Marcegaglia.–***

Outokumpu.–***

Webco.–***