U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4216 February 2011

Washington, DC 20436

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware 

from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-298 (Third Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson, Vice Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert

Karen Laney

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Keysha Martinez, Investigator 

 Gail Burns, Industry Analyst 

 Michael Haldenstein, Attorney 

 James McClure, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4216 February 2011

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware 

from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-298 (Third Review)

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

The original investigation and subsequent five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s final results of expedited five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Commerce’s administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

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

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

Related Commission investigations and reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

U.S. tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

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

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

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Interchangeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Related party issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

Antidumping actions outside the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

The subject industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

Appendix

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

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

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

published and therefore has been identified by the use of ***.

i

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-298 (Third Review)

PORCELAIN-ON-STEEL COOKING WARE FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

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

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

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cooking

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

the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on October 1, 2010 (75 F.R. 62144) and determined on

January 4, 2011 that it would conduct an expedited review (76 F.R. 2920, January 18, 2011).

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

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

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

of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel

(“POS”) cooking ware from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury

to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Original Determinations

In November 1986, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was being

materially injured by reason of less than fair value (“LTFV”) imports of POS cooking ware from China,

Mexico, and Taiwan, and by reason of subsidized imports from Mexico.1

 Commerce issued antidumping

duty orders and a countervailing duty order with respect to POS cooking ware from the three countries in

December 1986.2

B. The Commission’s Five-Year Reviews

On February 1, 1999, the Commission instituted five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of

the Act to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on POS

cooking ware from China, Mexico, and Taiwan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury.3

 On May 7, 1999, the Commission determined to conduct full five-year reviews for each

of the orders based on adequate domestic industry group responses and adequate respondent group

responses.4

 On January 4, 2000, Commerce published its negative determination of the likelihood of the

continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy in the review of the countervailing duty order on

POS cooking ware from Mexico.5

 The Commission terminated its five-year review of that order on

January 7, 2000.6

 In March 2000, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping orders

on POS cooking ware from China, Mexico, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.7

 In

April 2002, Commerce revoked the antidumping duty order on subject POS cooking ware imports from

Mexico, pursuant to a changed circumstances review.8

 1 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From China, Mexico, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-265, 731-TA-297-299

(Final), USITC Pub. 1911 (Nov. 1986).

 2

 See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People’s Republic of China, 51 Fed. Reg. 43414 (Dec. 2, 1986)

(antidumping duty order); Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from Taiwan, 51 Fed. Reg. 43416 (Dec. 2, 1986)

(antidumping duty order); Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico, 51 Fed. Reg. 43415 (Dec. 2, 1986)

(antidumping duty order); and Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico, 51 Fed. Reg. 44827 (Dec. 12, 1986)

(countervailing duty order).

 3

 64 Fed. Reg. 4896 (Feb. 1, 1999).

 4

 64 Fed. Reg. 38471 (July 16, 1999). 

 5

 65 Fed. Reg. 284 (Jan. 4, 2000).

 6

 65 Fed. Reg. 2430 (Jan. 14, 2000). 

 7

 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from China, Mexico, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-297-299 (Review),

USITC Pub. 3286 (“First Review Det.”) at 1 (March 2000).

 8

 67 Fed. Reg. 19553 (April 22, 2002).

3
On March 1, 2005, the Commission instituted second five-year reviews with respect to the two

remaining orders on POS cooking ware from China and Taiwan.9

 On June 6, 2005, the Commission

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

response was inadequate, and that no other circumstance warranted conducting full reviews; it

accordingly voted to expedite the reviews.10 In October 2005, the Commission determined that

revocation of the antidumping duty orders on POS cooking ware from China and Taiwan would be likely

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

reasonably foreseeable time.11

C. The Current Review

The Commission instituted the current review on October 1, 2010.12 The Commission received

one response to the notice of institution from domestic interested party Columbian Home Products, LLC

(“Columbian”), the sole domestic producer.13 No respondent interested party filed any response to the

notice of institution. On January 4, 2011, the Commission found the domestic interested party response

to the notice of institution adequate and the respondent interested party response inadequate.14 The

Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review, and it

determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.15 

On February 3, 2011, Columbian filed comments pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(d) arguing, as it

had in its response to the notice of institution, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on POS

cooking ware from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the

domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.16

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Act, the Commission defines “the

domestic like product” and the “industry.”17 The 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 under this subtitle.”18 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the like

 9 70 Fed. Reg. 9974 (March 1, 2005).

 10 70 Fed. Reg. 35708 (June 21, 2005) (Vice Chairman Okun and Commissioner Pearson dissenting).

 11 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from China and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-298 and 299 (Second Review)

USITC Pub. 3808 (Oct. 2005).

 12 75 Fed. Reg. 62144 (Oct. 7, 2010). The grouped third reviews that the Commission instituted and the

Department of Commerce initiated also encompassed the antidumping duty order on POS cooking ware from

Taiwan. 75 Fed. Reg. 62144 (Oct. 7, 2010). No domestic interested party filed a response to Commerce’s initiation

notice concerning the review of POS cooking ware from Taiwan. Commerce revoked the antidumping duty order on

POS cooking ware from Taiwan, and the Commission subsequently terminated its five-year review concerning that

order. 76 Fed. Reg. 2708 (Jan. 14, 2011).

 13 Confidential Staff Report, INV-JJ-009 (Jan. 31, 2011) (“CR”) at I-5 n.10, Public Report (“PR”) at I-4 n.10.

 14 See Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy. 

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

 16 See generally Columbian Final Comments (Nov. 15, 2010) (“Columbian Comments”).

 17 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 18 19 U.S.C. § 1677(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

(continued...)

4
product definition from the original determination and any completed reviews and consider whether the

record indicates any reason to revisit the prior findings.19

A. Product Description

In its expedited sunset determination, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as –

porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from the PRC, including tea kettles, which do not have

self-contained electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of steel and

are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses.20

Commerce has issued several scope clarifications with respect to the order.21

The information regarding the nature of POS cooking ware is unchanged since the Commission’s

second five-year review.22 POS cooking ware consists of articles of porcelain-coated steel used as

receptacles for cooking and heating of food.23 Porcelain is an opaque glass suffused onto the steel during

the production process by means of intense heat.24

The most common POS cooking ware articles are skillets, frypans, saucepans, double boilers,

dutch ovens, stock pots, steamers, canners, blanchers, coffee pots, egg poachers, teakettles, broiling pans,

and roasters.25 These articles are sold in a wide variety of shapes, sizes, configurations, steel thicknesses,

colors, decorative patterns, trim, handle designs (either wood, phenolic resin or various metals), and/or

price ranges.26 Over the years, POS cooking ware has become increasingly differentiated, particularly in

terms of style and decoration.27 Several variations of a single article may be offered by a single producer. 

Most articles of POS cooking ware are sold individually; the remainder are sold in sets, the most common

consisting of seven pieces, such as a skillet, dutch oven, two sauce pans, and three lids, with one lid

serving both the skillet and dutch oven.28

 18 (...continued)

CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v.

United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also S.

Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979). 

 19 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review),

USITC Pub. 3831 at 8-9 (December 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC

Pub. 3614 at 4 (July 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC

Pub. 3577 at 4 (February 2003).

 20 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 7534 Feb. 10, 2011).

 21 68 Fed. Reg. 19781 (April 22, 2003); 56 Fed. Reg. 19833 (Apr. 30, 1991); 55 Fed. Reg. 43020 (Oct, 25, 1990).

 22 CR at I-11, PR at I-10.

 23 Items of porcelain-coated steel used only to handle or process food, i.e., POS kitchenware, such as mixing

bowls and colanders, are not included in the scope of the order. CR at I-11, PR at I-10.

 24 CR at I-11, PR at I-10.

 25 CR at I-11, PR at I-10.

 26 CR at I-12, PR at I-10.

 27 CR at I-12, PR at I-10.

 28 CR at I-12, PR at I-10.

5
POS cooking ware is best suited for certain types of cooking. For instance, POS cooking ware’s

heat absorption makes it advantageous for roasting.29 In contrast to POS cooking ware, aluminum and

stainless steel have reflective properties and do not absorb heat. POS cooking ware’s relatively light

construction compared with cast iron or cast aluminum is also preferred for larger vessels.30 POS cooking

ware is relatively low cost, but it lacks the durability that is found in stainless steel, aluminum, iron, and

copper cooking ware.31

B. The Original Investigations and Prior Reviews

1. Original Investigations

In the original investigations, the Commission defined the like product for imported POS cooking

ware to be all domestically produced POS cooking ware. It concluded that tea kettles should not be a

separate like product.32

2. Prior Five-Year Reviews

In the first and second five-year reviews the Commission found no reason to depart from its

conclusion in the original investigations that the domestic like product should be defined as all POS

cooking ware.33 In the first reviews the Commission found that the six factors the Commission typically

considers in its analysis of domestic like product supported its finding that POS cooking ware should be

the domestic like product. It found “clear distinctions” between POS cooking ware, which is available

only in light gauges, and other categories of domestic cooking ware, and it concluded that on the whole,

the relevant factors indicated the existence of a clear dividing line between POS cooking ware and other

categories of cooking ware.34 The Commission also noted that its domestic like product definition

included tea kettles, which were subject merchandise for the order on China but not for the order on

Taiwan.35 In the second reviews, the Commission simply relied on its findings from the first reviews and

original investigations.36

3. The Current Review

In this expedited review, Columbian has indicated that it agrees with the definition of the

domestic like product that the Commission used in its second five-year reviews.37 There is no new

information obtained during this review that would suggest any reason to revisit that definition. Thus, we

define the domestic like product as all POS cooking ware, including tea kettles.

 29 CR at I-13, PR at I-11.

 30 CR at I-13, PR at I-11.

 31 CR at I-13, PR at I-11.

 32 Original Determination at 4-7. Commissioner Rohr dissented and found two like products, POS tea kettles and

other POS cooking ware. Id. at 19-20, n.5.

 33 First Review Det. at 8-9; Second Review Det. at 8.

 34 First Review Det. at 8-9.

 35 Second Review Det. at 8 n.36.

 36 Second Review Det. at 8.

 37 Columbian’s Final Comments at 2; Columbian’s Response to Notice of Institution (“Response”) at 38.

6
III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant industry 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.”38 In defining the domestic

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

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

In its original investigations and in the previous two five-year reviews, the Commission defined

the domestic industry as all U.S. producers of POS cooking ware. No producer was excluded from the

domestic industry.39

The record indicates that Columbian is the only domestic producer of POS cooking ware.40 It has

been the sole domestic producer since it acquired General Housewares Corporation’s (“GHC”) POS

cooking ware business in 1998.41 Columbian urges the Commission to retain the definition of the

domestic industry utilized in the previous reviews and original investigations.42 Based on our definition

of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry to include all U.S. producers of the

domestic like product.

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER IS REVOKED

A. Legal Standard

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

antidumping or countervailing duty order unless (1) it makes a determination that dumping or

subsidization is likely to continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation

of the antidumping or countervailing duty order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”43 The SAA states that “under the likelihood

standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the

reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a

proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”44 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.45 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that

 38 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle containing

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

 39 Original Determination at 5. First Five Year Review Det. at 10; Second Five Year Review Det. at 9.

 40 CR at I-18, PR at I-14.

 41 CR at I-5 n.10, PR at I-4 n.10. At the time of the original investigations, GHC was the sole domestic producer,

manufacturing its entire line of POS cooking ware at a single factory in Terre Haute, Indiana. Original

Determination at 5.

 42 Columbian Final Comments at 3.

 43 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 44 SAA at 883-84. The SAA states that “{t}he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of the nature of

the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of an

industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never completed.” Id. at 883.

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

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

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

(continued...)

7
“likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission

applies that standard in five-year reviews.46 47 48

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

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”49 According to

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

‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”50

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

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

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

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”51 It

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

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

industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked or the suspension agreement is

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

1675(a)(4).52 The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the Commission

is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s

determination.53

 45 (...continued)

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

SAA at 884.

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

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

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

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

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

(Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a

likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002)

(“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

addresses this issue.

 49 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

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

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

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

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

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

 51 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 52 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). We note that Commerce has made no duty absorption findings.

 53 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

8
As discussed above, no foreign producer of POS cooking ware responded to the Commission’s

notice of institution. Accordingly, when appropriate in this review, we have relied on the facts otherwise

available, which consist of information from the original investigations and the first and second five-year

reviews, as well as information submitted in this review, including information provided by the domestic

industry and information available from published sources.54 55

B. Conditions of Competition and Business Cycle

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

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

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”56 We find the following conditions

of competition relevant to our determination.

1. The Original Investigations

The Commission noted that domestic consumption of POS cooking ware increased by 2.0 percent

from 1983 to 1984, and thereafter declined by 0.3 percent in 1985 and by 3.7 percent in interim 1986

(January-June) compared to interim 1985 (January-June).57

The Commission stated that notwithstanding minor differences among the products, there was a

high degree of substitution in the U.S. market between domestically produced POS cooking ware and the

imports from the three subject countries.58 It also observed that there were common channels of

distribution for imports from all of the subject countries.59

 54 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

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

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

manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to 19

U.S.C. § 1677m(i). The verification requirements in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i) are applicable only to Commerce. See

Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“the ITC correctly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 56 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 57 Original Determination at 13.

 58 Original Determination at 11.

 59 Original Determination at 11.

9
2. The Prior Five-Year Reviews

In its first five-year reviews, the Commission identified a number of conditions of competition

pertinent to its analysis of the POS cooking ware market. The Commission observed that POS cooking

ware forms a small but distinctive segment of the large and varied U.S. cooking ware market.60 It noted

that demand for POS cooking ware was at almost the same level as during the original investigations,

suggesting that demand would remain steady in the foreseeable future.61 The Commission explained that

GHC and its successor Columbian have been the only producers of POS cooking ware since the original

investigations.62 GHC had produced both heavy- and light-gauge POS cooking ware, but Columbian

stopped producing heavy-gauge POS cooking ware.63

In the second five-year reviews of the order, the Commission found that the domestic industry

produced only light-gauge POS cooking ware, while producers in China and Taiwan produced light- and

heavy-gauge POS cooking ware.64 The Commission therefore concluded that there was a moderate

degree of substitution between subject imports and the domestic like product.65 The Commission found

no other significant changes in the conditions of competition.66

3. The Current Review

The conditions of competition relied upon by the Commission in making its determinations in the

second five-year reviews generally continued in the current period. Although apparent U.S. consumption

was significantly lower in 2004 than during the original investigation period and the first five-year review

period, apparent U.S. consumption now appears to have stabilized and remains at a level comparable to

that of the previous review period.67

Apparent U.S. consumption of POS cooking ware increased in 2009 relative to 2008.68

Columbian explains that ***.69 Columbian anticipates that this trend ***.70

POS cooking ware is viewed as a lower cost, and generally lower quality cooking ware.71 As

such, it tends to compete with other low-end cooking ware such as pressed aluminum and lower quality

stainless steel.72 During the period of review, however, despite the increase in consumption tied to the

recession noted above, more expensive cooking ware, including cast aluminum, stainless steel and

enameled cast iron products, continued to account for the greatest share of the U.S. market for all cooking

 60 First Review Det. at 16.

 61 First Review Det. at 17.

 62 First Review Det. at 17.

 63 First Review Det. at 17.

 64 Second Review Det. at 15.

 65 Second Review Det. at 15.

 66 See Second Review Det. at 15.

 67 See CR/PR at Table I-7. Apparent U.S. consumption was *** units in 2004 and *** units in 2009. During the

first review period, apparent U.S. consumption exceeded *** units. Id.

 68 Response at 26.

 69 See Columbian’s Final Comments at 12.

 70 See Columbian’s Final Comments at 12.

 71 CR at I-14, PR at I-12.

 72 CR at I-14, PR at I-12.

10
ware.73 Indeed, Columbian reported that competition with other types of cooking ware was the most

significant factor affecting overall demand since the period of the original investigations.74 POS cooking

ware continues, however, to serve distinct markets for tea kettles, roasters, seafood pots (e.g., lobster

pots), other large pots, casseroles, and camp cooking ware.75

POS cooking ware manufacturing is a mature industry. U.S. purchasers reported to the

Commission that there have been no changes in the technology, production methods, or development

efforts to produce POS cooking ware that affected availability in the U.S. market since 2005 and that no

such changes were anticipated.76 Likewise, major U.S. purchasers stated there have been no changes in

end uses and applications for POS cooking ware since 2005.77

Since the previous period of review, nonsubject imports declined while subject imports and U.S.

shipments of domestically produced POS cooking ware increased.78 Nonsubject imports fell from 6.3

million units in 2004 to 4.7 million units in 2009,79 and accounted for a much smaller share of the U.S.

market as compared to the share in the original period of investigation.80 On the other hand, subject

imports increased from 3.6 million units in 2004 to 4.9 million units in 2009,81 and U.S. shipments of

domestically produced POS cooking ware increased from *** units in 2004 to *** units in 2009.82

Thailand, Indonesia and Mexico were the leading sources of nonsubject imports in 2009.83

Nonsubject imports are concentrated in heavy-gauge POS cooking ware that does not compete with

Columbian’s products.84 Subject imports, on the other hand, consist of more light-gauge POS cooking

ware; China is now the domestic industry’s leading competitor in light-gauge POS cooking ware.85

As noted above, the Commission found in the earlier reviews that there was a moderate degree of

substitutability between the domestically produced POS cooking ware and subject imports from China. 

Columbian reported in this review that this remains true, and it also indicated that ***.86

Based on the record evidence, we find that the conditions of competition in the POS cooking

ware market are not likely to change significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, we

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

revocation of the antidumping duty order in the reasonably foreseeable future.

 73 Final Comments at 4.

 74 Response 26-27.

 75 Final Comments at 3.

 76 Final Comments at 3.

 77 Final Comments at 3.

 78 CR/PR at Table I-5. Imports of POS cooking ware enter under statistical reporting numbers 7323.94.0010,

7323.94.0021, and 7323.94.0026. While some other goods enter under these headings, POS cooking ware appears

to account for the majority of the imports entering under these headings. CR at I-9 to I-10, PR at I-8.

 79 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 80 CR/PR at Table I-7. In 1985 nonsubject imports accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in

terms of quantity, but in 2009, they accounted for just *** percent. Id.

 81 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 82 CR/PR at Table I-4.

 83 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 84 Response at 25-26.

 85 CR at I-14 n.40, PR at I-11 n.40; Response at 26.

 86 CR at I-14, PR at I-11 to I-12.

11
C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the order under review were

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

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.87 In

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

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

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

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

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

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

products.88

1. The Original Investigations

The Commission found that the cumulated volume of imports from China, Mexico, Taiwan, and

Spain89 rose 52 percent by quantity and 25 percent by value over the investigation period. Antidumping

duty orders were imposed in late 1986, and imports of Chinese subject merchandise decreased

thereafter.90

2. The Prior Five-Year Reviews

In the first five-year reviews, cumulated subject imports from China, Mexico, and Taiwan

accounted for up to *** percent of the market during the review period. Subject imports were 6.7 million

units in 1997 and 4.7 million units in 1998.91 The Commission found that the lower post-order subject

import volume was attributable to the effects of the antidumping orders.92 The Commission found that

subject imports were likely to be significant if the antidumping duty orders were revoked. It observed

that each of the subject countries appeared to have a substantial volume of underutilized capacity. The

Commission noted that the total output of the POS cooking ware industry in China dwarfed domestic

production, as did the total volume of POS cooking ware exports from China.93

In the second five-year reviews, the Commission noted that since the previous five-year reviews,

cumulated subject imports from China and Taiwan increased from 2.98 million units in 1998 to 3.94

million units in 2004.94 On a value basis, they increased from $6.79 million in 1998 to $9.67 million in

2004.95 The Commission again found a likely significant volume of subject imports if the antidumping

duty orders were revoked. It based this finding on the cumulated imports’ high market share during the

 87 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 88 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A) - (D).

 89 At the time of the original investigations, imports of POS cooking ware from Spain were subject to a

preliminary investigation by the Commission. Original Determination at 9, n. 20. The investigation with regard to

Spain did not result in the issuance of an antidumping or countervailing duty order because it was terminated after

GHC withdrew the dumping petition. See 52 Fed. Reg. 4394 (Feb. 11, 1987).

 90 Original Determination at 13.

 91 First Review Det. at 18; Second Review Det. at 16.

 92 First Review Det. at 18.

 93 First Review Det. at 19.

 94 Second Review Det. at 16.

 95 Second Review Det. at 16.

12
original investigations and continued high U.S. market share as well as the apparent high capacity and

excess capacity in the subject countries.96

3. The Current Review

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

in the event of revocation of the order. Notwithstanding the antidumping duty order, subject imports

from China have continued to enter the U.S. market in substantial quantities and have increased since the

prior period of review, rising from 3.6 million units in 2004 to 4.9 million units in 2009.97 By contrast,

nonsubject imports fell over the same period, from 6.3 million units to 4.7 million units.98 Subject

imports’ market share by quantity was higher in 2009 at *** percent than in 2004 at *** percent.99 Thus,

it is evident that Chinese POS cooking ware has a firm foothold in the U.S. market and Chinese exporters

have been able to increase their exports to the United States even with the antidumping duty order in

place.

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

the Commission has limited information on the foreign industry in this review. In the last review, there

were an estimated 34 producers of POS cooking ware in China.100 At that time, Chinese capacity was

estimated to be equivalent to *** times the amount of apparent U.S. consumption.101 Columbian now

estimates that there are 47 producers in China, but, as a result of the antidumping duty order, only a few

Chinese producers currently export to the United States.102 We find that the available information

indicates that Chinese capacity and production have increased since the previous review.103

Despite China’s large presence in the U.S. market, exports to the United States account for only a

small fraction of total Chinese production and exports of POS cooking ware. The U.S. market accounted

for only 1.1 percent of total Chinese exports in 2009.104 Chinese exports of POS cooking ware have more

than doubled since 1998 and are present in over 100 countries.105 Thus, the record indicates that Chinese

exporters would have the ability to shift large amounts of exports from other markets to the United States

if the antidumping duty order were revoked.106

Accordingly, based on the sustained and large presence of subject imports in the U.S. market, the

size of the industry in China, the Chinese industry’s total volume of exports, and the potential for the

shifting of Chinese exports from other markets to the United States, we find that Chinese producers would

likely increase their exports to the United States above their already significant level if the antidumping

 96 Second Review Det. at 16.

 97 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 98 CR/PR at Table I-5.

 99 CR/PR at Table I-7.

 100 CR at I-26, PR at I-20.

 101 CR at I-26, PR at I-20.

 102 CR at I-26, PR at I-20. Several other Chinese producers export to Canada, however, evidencing their

knowledge of and experience in the North American market. CR at I-27, PR at I-20; Response at 31.

 103 See CR at I-26 to I-28, PR at I-20 to I-21. The record does not indicate whether Chinese producers can shift

from the production of other products to the production of POS cooking ware in order to increase production. 

Likewise, the record also contains no information concerning inventories of subject merchandise.

 104 CR/PR at Tables I-7 & I-8.

 105 Response at 24.

 106 The Chinese industry does not appear to face barriers to entry, such as antidumping findings, in other markets. 

CR at I-26, PR at I-20.

13
duty order were revoked. We find that the likely volume of subject imports, both in absolute terms and as

a share of the U.S. market, would be significant if the order were revoked.

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the order under review were revoked,

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

imports in relation to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the

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

price of the domestic like product.107

1. The Original Investigations

The Commission found that pricing data were difficult to assess because producers changed

styles over the course of the investigation period, and the pricing categories encompassed products of

different gauges and colors.108 The Commission noted that the domestic producer had been unable to

raise prices enough to cover increases in its costs, and that purchasers had provided anecdotal evidence of

price undercutting.109

2. The Prior Five-Year Reviews

In the first five-year reviews, despite conducting full reviews, the Commission obtained no

pricing information for subject imports from China or Taiwan.110 It noted, however, that the domestic like

product and the subject merchandise were quite similar or indistinguishable, price was a critical factor in

purchasing decisions, and domestically produced cooking ware was likely to be highly sensitive to pricebased competition.111 Accordingly, the Commission found that, in order to gain a greater share of the

POS cooking ware market, subject imports from China and Taiwan likely would be priced

aggressively.112 The Commission concluded that underselling would likely be significant in the event of

revocation of the antidumping duty orders given subject producers’ pricing behavior during the original

investigations, the importance of price, the substitutability of the products, and the fact that increased

volumes for this product would likely be achieved through lower prices. The Commission also found a

likelihood of significant price depression and suppression.113

In the second reviews, the Commission again had no new product-specific pricing information. 

Based on information available in the second reviews, including the determinations in the original

investigations and the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that the market for POS cooking

 107 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “{c}onsistent with its practice in investigations, in

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

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

SAA at 886.

 108 Original Determination at 14.

 109 Original Determination at 14.

 110 First Review Det. at 20. Pricing data collected for subject imports from Mexico showed underselling in ***

price comparisons. Id.

 111 First Review Det. at 20.

 112 First Review Det. at 20.

 113 First Review Det. at 21.

14
ware was price-competitive.114 The Commission therefore found that subject imports would likely have

to undersell the domestic like product in order to regain market share if the orders were revoked.115 The

Commission concluded that the volume of subject imports at those prices, in turn, would be likely to have

significant depressing and suppressing effects on prices of the domestic like product.116

3. The Current Review

The record developed in this review and the previous reviews indicates that price remains a

leading consideration in POS cooking ware purchasing decisions.117 POS cooking ware is among the

least expensive cooking ware available.118 Columbian indicates that price remains a critical factor in

purchasing decisions and the domestic product remains highly sensitive to price-based competition from

subject imports.119 More specifically, Columbian reports that it ***, rendering its sales susceptible to

underselling by low-priced imports.120

The record also continues to indicate that there is at least a moderate degree of substitutability

between and among domestically produced POS cooking ware, the subject imports from China, and

nonsubject products.121 As noted, Columbian currently produces only light-gauge POS cooking ware,

which also comprises a substantial portion of the subject imports.122 Columbian additionally reports that

***.123

In this expedited review, the Commission lacks new pricing data comparing the sales prices of

domestic POS cooking ware and the subject imports. Columbian, however, has provided the Commission

with ***.124 These data indicate that the cost of the subject imports to importers was ***.125 The gap

suggests that importers would be able to undersell Columbian’s products by significant margins if the

imports were not subject to the antidumping duty order.

Given the likely significant volume of subject imports, the Commission’s original conclusions

and the current information concerning the landed costs for the subject imports, and the conditions of

competition discussed above, we conclude that subject imports from China likely would significantly

undersell the domestic like product to gain market share and would likely have significant depressing or

suppressing effects on the prices of the domestic like product if the antidumping duty order were revoked.

 114 Second Review Det. at 17.

 115 Second Review Det. at 17.

 116 Second Review Det. at 17.

 117 Response at 37.

 118 CR at I-15 to I-17, PR at I-12 to I-13.

 119 Response at 33-34.

 120 Final Comments at 6 n.15.

 121 CR at I-14, PR at I-11 to I-12.

 122 Response at 25-26.

 123 Response at 37.

 124 CR at I-17, PR at I-13; Response at 33, Exhibit 6.

 125 CR at I-17, PR at I-13.

15
E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports126

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

like product.127 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business

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

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

the order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order were revoked.128

1. Original Investigations

The Commission found that the domestic industry was materially injured, noting that production

and capacity utilization declined over the course of the investigation period, as did domestic shipments,

the number of workers, and the hours worked.129 The Commission also observed that all of the measures

of the domestic industry’s financial condition declined from 1983 to 1985.130

2. Prior Five-Year Reviews

In its first five-year reviews, the Commission found that if the antidumping orders were revoked,

subject imports would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a

reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission noted that the condition of the domestic industry had

improved since the original investigations, and that the industry was not currently vulnerable, yet the

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

dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19

U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission

in five-year reviews as “the dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section

1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887.

Commerce expedited its determination in its review of POS cooking ware from China and found that

revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at a

margin of 66.65 percent by all Chinese producers. 76 Fed. Reg. 7534 (Feb. 10, 2011). Currently, all subject

imports, except those of one firm, are subject to a dumping rate of 66.65 percent ad valorem. Clover Enamelware

Enterprise, Ltd. and its affiliated reseller, Lucky Enamelware Factory Ltd. are subject to a de minimis rate of zero. 

CR at I-6, PR at I-6; CR at I-6 n.20, PR at I-6 n.20.

 127 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 128 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

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 may also demonstrate that an

industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at

885.

 129 Original Determination at 7.

 130 Original Determination at 7-8.

16
industry nonetheless showed several signs of weakness.131 It found that given steady demand for POS

cooking ware, and the fact that nonsubject imports were concentrated in heavy-gauge product, the

increase in shipments of subject imports would cause a decrease in Columbian’s domestic shipments.132

Declines in volumes and prices caused by subject imports were also likely to have a significant adverse

impact on the domestic industry’s production, shipments, sales, and revenue levels.133 The Commission

concluded that revocation of the orders would have a direct adverse effect on the domestic industry’s

profitability and cause commensurate employment declines.134

In the second five-year reviews, the Commission found that it did not have sufficient information

to determine whether or not the domestic industry was vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of

material injury. It noted that domestic production and shipments of POS cooking ware had decreased

since issuance of the orders The domestic producer’s market share based on quantity had declined from

*** percent in 1985 to *** percent in 2004.135

Noting the limits of the available data and relying on the determinations and data in the original

investigations and the first five-year reviews, the Commission concluded that the volume and price effects

of the subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.136

3. The Current Review

Because this is an expedited review, we have only limited information with respect to the

domestic industry’s financial performance. We collected 2009 data for several performance indicators,

but no data from 2005 to 2008.137 The trade data show an industry that has become smaller since the time

of the original investigations but whose condition has stabilized. The domestic industry’s capacity was

*** units in 1985, *** units in 1998, and *** units in 2009.138 Domestic production was *** units in

1985, *** units in 1998, *** units in 2004, and *** units in 2009.139 Capacity utilization was *** percent

in 1985, *** percent in 1998, and *** percent in 2009.140 U.S. shipments were *** units in 1985, ***

units in 1998, *** units in 2004, and *** units in 2009.141 Net sales were $*** in 1985, $*** in 1998,

and $*** in 2009.142

Operating income was $*** in 1985, $*** in 1998, and $*** in 2009.143 Operating income as a

percentage of net sales was *** percent in 1985, *** percent in 1998, and *** percent in 2009.144

 131 First Review Det. at 22.

 132 First Review Det. at 23.

 133 First Review Det. at 23.

 134 First Review Det. at 23.

 135 Second Review Det. at 20.

 136 Second Review Det. at 20.

 137 See CR/PR at Table I-4. The only trade and financial data collected from Columbian in the previous review

were production and shipment data for 2004.

 138 CR/PR at Table I-4.

 139 CR/PR at Table I-4.

 140 CR/PR at Table I-4.

 141 CR/PR at Table I-4.

 142 CR/PR at Table I-4.

 143 CR/PR at Table I-4.

 144 CR/PR at Table I-4. 

17
These data reflect a ***.145 146 The industry was ***.147 On the other hand, it continues to operate

at *** and holds a relatively ***.148

The record indicates that the antidumping duty order has helped Columbian compete with subject

imports, ***.149 Columbian reports that it has been able to *** because of the price-disciplining effects of

the order.150 Columbian increased its market share from *** percent in 1998 to *** percent in 2004 and

*** percent in 2009.151 Columbian’s production and U.S. shipments are also relatively stable compared

to 2004.152

We have also considered the role of factors other than the subject imports. By quantity, the share

of the U.S. market held by nonsubject imports decreased from *** percent in 1998 to *** percent in

2004, and *** percent in 2009.153 In addition to their diminishing role in the U.S. market, nonsubject

imports also tend to be heavy-gauge POS cooking ware rather than the light-gauge POS cooking ware

produced by Columbian.154 Also, as noted above, Columbian expects the economic recovery to reduce

demand for POS cooking ware, making it more likely that subject imports would have adverse effects on

the domestic industry if the antidumping duty order were revoked. Therefore, consideration of factors

such as the nonsubject imports and anticipated demand supports our finding that the subject imports

would likely have a material adverse impact on the domestic industry if the order were revoked.

In the absence of the discipline of the antidumping duty order, we find it likely that Columbian

would face increased competition when competing for sales, particularly at large retail accounts. 

Columbian would likely lose sales to lower-priced subject imports at these large accounts, and any future

increase in market share by low-priced subject imports would likely come primarily at the expense of the

domestic industry because, as noted, nonsubject imports tend to be concentrated in heavy-gauge POS

cooking ware rather than the light-gauge POS cooking ware that Columbian produces.155 To the extent

Columbian is able to retain its sales accounts with large retailers, it would likely have to accept

significantly reduced prices for its POS cooking ware.

Thus, based on the record of this review, we find that the likely volume and price effects of the

subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales,

market share, and revenues of the domestic industry. Declines in these indicators would have a direct

 145 The limited evidence in this expedited review is insufficient for us to make a finding on whether the domestic

industry producing POS cooking ware is vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of material injury in the event

of revocation of the order.

 146 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert find based on the available 2009 data that the domestic industry currently

exhibits strength in regard to both profitability and stable market share. As explained below, however, they find

significant industry weakness with respect to production, the ratios of subject imports to production and total imports

to production, and capacity utilization. In their view, these weaknesses may well warrant a finding of vulnerability.

The industry's production level is currently below 1997, 1998, and 2004 levels. CR/PR at Table I-4. The

ratio of subject imports to production is over ***, and the ratio of total imports to production is almost ***. CR/PR

at Table I-6. Finally, the industry's capacity utilization rate is ***, which means there is considerable unused

capacity. CR/PR at Table I-4.

 147 See CR/PR at Table I-4.

 148 See CR/PR at Table I-4. 

 149 Response at 21-22.

 150 Response at 22.

 151 CR/PR at Table I-7.

 152 See CR/PR at Table I-7. 

 153 CR/PR at Table I-7. 

 154 Response at 25-26.

 155 Response at 25-26.

18
adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and employment, as well as its ability to raise capital, to

make and maintain capital investments, and to fund research and development.

Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty order were revoked, subject imports from

China would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably

foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on POS

cooking ware from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

19

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

I-1

INTRODUCTION

On October 1, 2010, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Act”),1

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

had instituted reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on porcelain-onsteel cooking ware (“POS cooking ware”) from China and Taiwan, and the antidumping and

countervailing duty orders on top-of-the-stove stainless steel cooking ware (“TOS cooking ware”) from

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

foreseeable time.2 3

 Commerce revoked the antidumping duty order on POS cooking ware from Taiwan,

and the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on TOS cooking ware from Korea “{b}ecause no

domestic interested party responded to the sunset review notice of initiation by the applicable

deadline . . .” The Commission subsequently terminated its five-year reviews concerning the relevant

orders. Previously, Commerce revoked the original countervailing and antidumping duty orders on POS

cooking ware from Mexico in 2000 and 2002, respectively; the antidumping and countervailing duty

orders on TOS cooking ware from Taiwan were revoked in 2005.4

 Hence, POS cooking ware from China

is the only remaining order subject to this review.5

On January 4, 2011, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group

response to its notice of institution was adequate6

 and that the respondent interested party group response

was inadequate.7

 In the absence of respondent interested party responses and any other circumstances

that would warrant the conduct of a full review, the Commission determined to conduct an expedited

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

 2 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From China and Taiwan; Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware

From Korea, 75 FR 62144, October 7, 2010. All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by

submitting the information requested by the Commission. The Commission’s notice of institution is presented in

app. A.

 3

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

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

notice of institution. Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 75 FR 60731, October 1, 2010.

 4 Final Results of Full Sunset Review and Revocation of Countervailing Duty Order: Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking

Ware From Mexico, 65 FR 284, January 4, 2000; Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of

Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order, and

Rescission of Administrative Reviews, 67 FR 19553, April 22, 2002; Revocation of Countervailing Duty Order: 

Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cookware from Taiwan, 70 FR 70584, November 22, 2005; Top-of-the-Stove

Stainless Steel Cooking Ware from Taiwan; Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order, 70 FR 69738, November

17, 2005.

 5

 Top of the Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Sunset Reviews

and Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 75 FR 81966, December 29, 2010; Porcelain-onSteel Cooking Ware From Taiwan: Final Results of Sunset Review and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order, 75

FR 81967, December 29, 2010; and Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From Taiwan; Top-of-the-Stove Stainless

Steel Cooking Ware From Korea, 76 FR 2708, January 14, 2011.

 6

 The Commission received one submission in response to its notice of institution in the subject review. It was

filed on behalf of Columbian Home Products, LLC (“Columbian”) (referred to herein as “domestic interested

party”), a domestic producer of POS cooking ware. The domestic interested party reported that it accounted for all

total U.S. production of POS cooking ware in 2009. Response of domestic interested party, November 1, 2010, p.

35.

 7

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

I-3
review of the antidumping duty order pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)).8

The Commission voted on this review on February 16, 2011, and notified Commerce of its determination

on February 28, 2010. The following tabulation presents selected information relating to the schedule of

this five-year review.9

Effective date Action Federal Register

citation

October 1, 2010 Commission’s institution of five-year review 75 FR 62144

October 7, 2010

October 1, 2010 Commerce’s initiation of five-year review 75 FR 60731

October 1, 2010

January 4, 2011 Commission’s determination to conduct an expedited five-year review 76 FR 2920

January 18, 2011

February 10, 2011 Commerce’s final determination in its expedited five-year review 76 FR 7534

February 10, 2011

February 16, 2011 Commission’s vote Not applicable

February 28, 2010 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce Not applicable

The Original Investigation and Subsequent Five-Year Reviews

On December 4, 1985, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an

industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of

POS cooking ware from China.10 On October 10, 1986, Commerce published an affirmative final LTFV

determination11 and, on November 26, 1986, the Commission completed its original investigation,

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

POS cooking ware from China.12 Following receipt of the Commission’s final affirmative determination,

Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on imports of POS cooking ware from China.13

 8 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From China, 76 FR 2920, January 18, 2011. The Commission’s notice of an

expedited review appears in app. A. The Commission’s statement on adequacy is presented in app. B.

 9

 Cited Federal Register notices are presented in app. A.

 10 The petition was filed by General Housewares Corp. (“GHC”), the sole U.S. producer of POS cooking ware at

the time. Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico, the People’s Republic of China, and Taiwan:

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-265 and 731-TA-297-299 (Final), USITC Publication 1911, November 1986, pp. A-1 and

A-6. In March 1998, Columbian acquired GHC's POS cooking ware business and became the successor-in-interest

to the original petitioner. Columbian has remained the only U.S. producer of POS cooking ware since its acquisition

of the GHC POS cooking ware operations in 1998. Response of domestic interested party, November 1, 2010, p. 34.

 11 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From the People’s Republic of China; Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value, 51 FR 36419, October 10, 1986.

 12 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From Mexico, the People’s Republic of China, and Taiwan, 51 FR 42946,

November 26, 1986.

 13 Antidumping Duty Order; Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From the People’s Republic of China, 51 FR

43414, December 2, 1986.

I-4
The Commission instituted the first five-year review of the subject order on February 1, 1999,

and determined on May 7, 1999, that it would conduct a full review.14 On September 16, 1999,

Commerce published its determination that the revocation of the antidumping duty order on POS cooking

ware from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at a rate of 66.65

percent.15 The Commission determined that material injury would be likely to continue or recur within a

reasonably foreseeable time, and published its determination on April 5, 2000. Commerce published

notice of the continuation of the antidumping duty order on April 14, 2000.16

The Commission instituted the second five-year review of the subject order on March 1, 2005,

and determined on June 6, 2005, that it would conduct an expedited review.17 On October 5, 2005,

Commerce published its determination that revocation of the antidumping duty order on POS cooking

ware from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and on

October 27, 2005, the Commission notified Commerce of its determination that material injury would be

likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time.18 Commerce issued the second

continuation of the antidumping duty order effective November 22, 2005.19

Commerce’s Final Results of Expedited Five-Year Review

Commerce published the final results of its review based on the facts available on February 10,

2011. Commerce concluded that revocation of the antidumping duty order on POS cooking ware from

China would be likely to lead continuation or recurrence of dumping at a rate of 66.65 percent by China

National Light Industrial Products and all other producers.

 14 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From China and Taiwan, 64 FR 4896, February 1, 1999; and Certain

Cooking Ware From China, Korea, Mexico, and Taiwan, 64 FR 27295, May 19, 1999.

 15 Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From the People's Republic of

China, 64 FR 50271, September 16, 1999.

 16 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From China, Mexico, and Taiwan, and Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel

Cooking Ware From Korea and Taiwan, 65 FR 17902, April 5, 2000; and Continuation of Antidumping Duty

Orders: Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From China, Mexico, and Taiwan, 65 FR 20136, April 14, 2000.

 17 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From China and Taiwan (Investigations Nos.731-TA-298 and 299 (Second

Review)); Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From Korea and Taiwan (Investigations Nos. 701-TA-267

and 268 and 731-TA-304 and 305 (Second Review)), 70 FR 9974, March 1, 2005; and 70 FR 35708, June 21, 2005.

 18 Porcelain–on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan; Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’)

Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders; Final Results, 70 FR 58187,October 5, 2005; and Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking

Ware From China and Taiwan; Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From Korea and Taiwan,

70 FR 67740, November 8, 2005.

 19 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's Republic of China and Taiwan; Continuation of

Antidumping Duty Orders, 70 FR 70581, November 22, 2005.

I-5
Commerce’s Administrative Reviews

Commerce has completed ten administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on POS

cooking ware from China, as presented in table I-1. Currently, all imports of POS cooking ware from

China, except those of one firm,20 are subject to a dumping rate of 66.65 percent ad valorem. Although

there have been four scope rulings,21 there have been no changed circumstances determinations and no

duty absorption findings.

Table I-1

POS cooking ware: Commerce’s administrative reviews

Period of review Date results published and Federal

Register citation

Firm-specific

margin (percent)

May 20, 1986 to November 30, 1987 November 7, 1990 (55 FR 46850) 13.76 - 66.65

December 1, 1987 to November 30, 1988 March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11632) 66.65

December 1, 1989 to November 30, 1990 October 30, 1991 (56 FR 55891) 66.65

December 1, 1990 to November 30, 1991 July 10, 1992 (57 FR 30717) 66.65

December 1, 1993 to November 30, 1994 October 22, 1997 (62 FR 54825) 66.65

December 1, 1994 to November 30, 1995 June 17, 1997 (62 FR 32757) 57.56

December 1, 1995 to November 30, 1996 May 18, 1998 (63 FR 27262) 0.81 - 66.65

December 1, 1997 to November 30, 1998 May 16, 2000 (65 FR 31144) 0.001

December 1, 2003 to November 30, 2004 April 26, 2006 (71 FR 24641) (2)

December 1, 2006, to November 30, 2007 December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75081) (2

)

 1 Clover Enamelware Enterprise, Ltd. and its affiliated reseller, Lucky Enamelware Factor Ltd. are subject to a de minimis rate

of zero. Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 31144,

May 16, 2000.

 2

 Commerce did not find any company under review eligible for a firm-specific rate. The companies under review are

therefore subject to the country-wide margin of 66.65 percent.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

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

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd

Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty

orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.22 Qualified U.S. producers of POS cooking ware have

been eligible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) under

 20 Clover Enamelware Enterprise, Ltd. and its affiliated reseller, Lucky Enamelware Factory Ltd. are subject to a

de minimis rate of zero. Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 65 FR 31144, May 16, 2000.

 21 See the section of this report entitled “Scope” for information concerning Commerce’s scope rulings.

 22 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)). The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

repealed the CDSOA with respect to duties on entries of goods made and filed on or after October 1, 2007. See Pub.

L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4, 154 (2006).

I-6
CDSOA relating to the order covering the subject merchandise beginning in Federal fiscal year 2001.23 

Columbian, the sole U.S. producer of subject merchandise, filed certifications with Customs from 2001 to

2010.24 Table I-2 presents Columbian’s CDSOA disbursements for Federal fiscal years 2001-2010.

Table I-2

POS cooking ware: CDSOA disbursements, Federal fiscal years 2001-091

Year Amount disbursed

2001 $207,170.32

2002 $747,417.15

2003 $1,612,140.52

2004 $1,442,734.85

2005 $0.00

2006 $1,653,562.62

2007 $811,896.69

2008 $38,554.37

2009 $1,604,439.54

2010 $3,117.88

 1 The Federal fiscal year is October 1-September 30.

Source: Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2001-10, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.

Related Commission Investigations and Reviews

On May 4, 1979, a petition was filed with the Commission by GHC for import relief under

section 201(a)(l) of the Trade Act of 1974. The petition requested that an investigation be instituted to

determine whether cooking ware of steel, enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses, was being imported

into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury to the

domestic industry producing a like product.25

On November 13, 1979, the Commission unanimously determined that imports of POS cooking

ware were a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry.26 In

Proclamation 4713, effective January 17, 1980, and expiring on January 16, 1984, the President imposed

a temporary duty increase on the subject POS cooking ware, valued not over $2.25 per pound and not

including teakettles.27

 23 19 CFR 159.64 (g).

 24 Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2004-2009,

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.

 25 On June 20, 1979, the Commission amended the scope of the investigation by adding other types of nonelectric

cooking ware, such as aluminum, cast iron, and stainless steel cooking ware.

 26 The Commission made negative determinations with respect to all the other types of nonelectric cooking ware.

 27 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico, the People’s Republic of China, and Taiwan: Investigation

Nos. 701-TA-265 and 731-TA-297-299 (Final), USITC Publication 1911, November 1986, pp. A-2-A-3.

I-7
THE PRODUCT

Scope

In its most recent Federal Register notice, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as follows:

The merchandise covered by the order is porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from the PRC,

including tea kettles, which do not have self-contained electric heating elements. All of

the foregoing are constructed of steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous

glasses.28 29

Commerce has issued several scope clarifications on POS cookware from China.30

U.S. Tariff Treatment

Table I-3 presents current tariff rates for POS cooking ware as defined in Commerce’s scope. 

POS cooking ware is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) under

subheading 7323.94.00. Subject imports enter under statistical reporting numbers 7323.94.0010,

7323.94.0021, and 7323.94.0026. Although some nonsubject merchandise may be reported under these

three provisions, POS cooking ware as defined by the scope is believed to account for the majority of

imports reported under statistical reporting numbers 7323.94.0010, 7323.94.0021, and 7323.94.0026.31

 28 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 7534, February 10, 2011.

 29 Tariff treatment of this product is presented in the next section of this report. Although the HTS subheadings

are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

 30 In response to a request from CGS International, on January 30, 1991, Commerce clarified that high quality,

hand finished cookware, including the small basin, medium basin, large basin, small colander, large colander, 8"

bowl, 6" bowl, mugs, ash tray, napkin rings, utensil holder and utensils, ladle, cream & sugar, and mixing bowls are

properly considered kitchen ware and are therefore, outside the scope of the order. Further, Commerce clarified that

CGS International’s casserole, 12-cup coffee pot, 6-cup coffee pot, roasting pan, oval roaster, and butter warmer are

within the scope of the order. See Notice of Scope Rulings, 56 FR 1983, April 30, 1991. In response to a request

from Texsport, on August 8, 1990, Commerce determined that camping sets, with the exception of the cups and

plates included in those sets, are within the scope of the order. In response to a request from Tristar Products,

Commerce determined that grill sets with aluminum grill plate are outside the scope. In response to a request from

the Target Corporation, Commerce determined that certain enamel-clad beverage holders and dispensers are outside

the scope of the order. See Notice of Scope Rulings, 55 FR 43020, October 25, 1990.

 31 Response of domestic interested party, November 1, 2010, pp. 5-6.

I-8
Table I-3

POS cooking ware: Tariff rates, 2011

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special2

Column

23

Rates (percent ad valorem)

7323

7323.94.00

10

21

26

Table, kitchen or other household articles and parts thereof,

of iron or steel; iron or steel wool; pot scourers and scouring

or polishing pads, gloves and the like, of iron or steel:

 Other:

 Of iron (other than cast iron) or steel, enameled

 Cooking and kitchen ware:

 Of steel:

 Teakettles.....................................................

 Other:

 Cooking ware:

 Bakeware (cookware not suitable 

 for stove top use)...............................

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

2.7% Free4 35.5%

 1 Normal trade relations, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate, applicable to China. 

 2

 General note 3(c)(i) defines the special duty program symbols enumerated for this provision. China is not eligible for any

special duty rate.

 3

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

 4

 Applies to imports from A, AU, BH, CA, CL, E, IL, J, JO, MA, MX, OM, P, PE, SG. The Generalized System of Preferences

(shown by the symbol “A”) is not currently in effect.

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2011).

Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry

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

the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the subject merchandise. The domestic

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

whose collective output of the domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic

production of the product. In its original determination, its full first five-year review determination, and

its expedited second five-year review determination concerning POS cooking ware from China, the

Commission defined the domestic like product as all POS cooking ware, including teakettles, and it

defined the domestic industry as all domestic producers of the domestic like product.32 33

 32 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico, the People’s Republic of China, and Taiwan: Investigation

Nos. 701-TA-265 and 731-TA-297-299 (Final), USITC Publication 1911, November 1986, pp. 4-7; Porcelain-onSteel Cooking Ware From China, Mexico, and Taiwan, and Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From

Korea and Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-267 and 268 and 731-TA-297-299, 304 and 305 (Review), USITC

Publication 3286, March 2000, pp. 5-10; and Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From China and Taiwan, and Topof-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From Korea and Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-267 and 268 and

731-TA-298, 299, 304, and 305 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3808, October 2005, p. 8.

 33 In the original determination, Commissioner Rohr dissented and found two like products, POS teakettles and

other POS cooking ware. Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico, the People’s Republic of China, and

Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-265 and 731-TA-297-299 (Final), USITC Publication 1911, November 1986,

pp. 19-20, n. 5.

I-9
The information regarding the nature of POS cooking ware is unchanged since the Commission’s

second five-year review. Domestic producer Columbian indicated in its response to the Commission’s

notice of institution in this third five-year review that it is in agreement with the Commission’s definitions

and “is unaware of any reason that the like product definition should be revised.”34

Physical Characteristics and Uses35

POS cooking ware consists of articles of porcelain-coated steel used as receptacles in the cooking

and heating of food. Related items of porcelain-coated steel used only to handle or process food, i.e.,

POS kitchenware, such as mixing bowls and colanders, are not included. Porcelain is an opaque glass,

suffused onto the steel during the production process by means of intense heat. Among the most common

POS cooking ware articles are skillets, frypans, saucepans, double boilers, dutch ovens, stock pots,

steamers, canners, blanchers, coffee pots, egg poachers, teakettles, broiling pans, and roasters. Although

such articles of POS cooking ware are primarily identified according to the kind of cooking they are

designed to perform and/or the kind of food they are designed to heat, their use, to a greater extent, may

be linked to their unique characteristics for specialized applications. 

POS cooking ware is categorized in terms of the thickness of its steel substrate. Light-gauge POS

cooking ware is typically less than 0.6 mm thick and bears a single coat of dark-colored porcelain, which

may have white flecks. Heavy-gauge POS cooking ware is typically more than 0.6 mm thick and,

accordingly, can support more layers of porcelain, which allows the use of a broader array of colors and

decoration.36 

All of the most common articles of POS cooking ware identified above are sold in a wide variety

of shapes, sizes, configurations, steel thicknesses, colors, decorative patterns, trim, handle designs (either

wood, phenolic resin or various metals), and/or price ranges. Over the years these articles have become

increasingly differentiated, particularly in terms of style and decoration. Several variations of a single

article may be offered by a single producer. Most articles of POS cooking ware are sold individually; the

remainder are sold in sets, the most common consisting of seven pieces, such as a skillet, dutch oven, two

sauce pans, and three lids, with one lid serving both the skillet and dutch oven.

 34 Response of domestic interested party, November 1, 2010, p. 38.

 35 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Porcelain-onSteel Cooking Ware from Mexico, the People’s Republic of China, and Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-265 and

731-TA-297-299 (Final), USITC Publication 1911, November 1986, pp. A-4-A-5; Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware

From China, Mexico, and Taiwan, and Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From Korea and Taiwan: 

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-267 and 268 and 731-TA-297-299, 304 and 305 (Review), USITC Publication 3286,

March 2000, pp. I-14-I-19; and Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From China and Taiwan, and Top-of-the-Stove

Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From Korea and Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-267 and 268 and 731-TA-298,

299, 304, and 305 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3808, October 2005, pp. I-14-I-15.

 36 Columbian currently produces light-gauge POS cooking ware only, while China is reported to produce both

light- and heavy-gauge POS cooking ware. In the first five-year review, the Commission noted that limited evidence

indicated that more than half of Chinese imports are of heavy-gauge POS cooking ware, which does not compete

with the domestic producers’ light-gauge POS cooking ware. Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From China,

Mexico, and Taiwan, and Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From Korea and Taiwan: Investigation

Nos. 701-TA-267 and 268 and 731-TA-297-299, 304 and 305 (Review), USITC Publication 3286, March 2000, p. 44.

I-10
Manufacturing Process37

There are two main stages in the production of POS cooking ware. First, blanks are cut from a

porcelain enameling grade of steel sheet and pressed into the shape of the desired cooking ware article. 

The second stage is the enameling process, in which the articles are coated with a porcelain enamel glaze

and then fired at high temperatures (1,500-1,550 degrees Fahrenheit). Light-gauge POS cooking ware

enamel produced in the United States is limited to only four colors (or variations of the four) as only a

single layer of porcelain will bond to the steel. When producing the heavy gauge POS cooking ware, two

or three layers of glaze may be applied to achieve the desired decoration or color. The presses and other

equipment used to form the various articles are interchangeable, enabling the workers to shift easily from

the production of one article to another.

Interchangeability38

POS cooking ware is best suited for specialized applications rather than for everyday cooking,

especially for roasting where its sturdy steel base and superior heat absorption characteristics are

important advantages. In contrast, both aluminum and stainless steel have reflective properties and do not

absorb heat. Further, the glass surface of POS cooking ware does not interact with certain types of foods

as does aluminum cooking ware. Its relatively light construction is preferred for larger vessels compared

with cast iron or cast aluminum, and it is relatively low cost. POS cooking ware also is reported to lack

the durability that is found in stainless steel, aluminum, iron, and copper cooking ware in these

applications.

In the original investigation, the Commission found that there was a “high degree of substitution

in the U.S. market between domestically produced porcelain-on-steel cooking ware and the imports from

the three countries,” including China. In the full first five-year review, Columbian and all three

responding importers reported that U.S. POS cooking ware and Chinese POS cooking ware could be used

interchangeably.39 In addition, the Commission noted that there was a moderate degree of substitutability

between and among the domestically produced POS cooking ware and subject imports from China. The

Commission also noted that imported light-gauge POS cooking ware is highly substitutable with the

domestic like product, while imported heavy-gauge POS cooking ware is much less substitutable.40

In the current review, Columbian notes that there is at least a moderate degree of substitutability

 37 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Porcelain-onSteel Cooking Ware From China, Mexico, and Taiwan, and Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From

Korea and Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-267 and 268 and 731-TA-297-299, 304 and 305 (Review), USITC

Publication 3286, March 2000, pp. I-14-I-16.

 38 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Porcelain-onSteel Cooking Ware From China, Mexico, and Taiwan, and Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From

Korea and Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-267 and 268 and 731-TA-297-299, 304 and 305 (Review), USITC

Publication 3286, March 2000, pp. I-14-I-16.

 39 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From China, Mexico, and Taiwan, and Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel

Cooking Ware From Korea and Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-267 and 268 and 731-TA-297-299, 304 and 305

(Review), USITC Publication 3286, March 2000, p. II-16.

 40 Subject imports from China appear to consist of both light and heavy-gauge POS cooking ware. While there is

limited information on the record regarding the relative quantities of each type of POS cooking ware that each

country imports, the evidence indicates that more than half of Chinese imports are of heavy-gauge POS cooking

ware, which does not compete with the domestic producers’ light-gauge POS cooking ware.

I-11
between and among domestically produced POS cooking ware, the subject imports from China, and other

foreign production. Columbian also indicated that “***.”41

Customer and Producer Perceptions42

During the first five-year review, it was reported that POS cooking ware was not regarded as

being very durable, especially in comparison with stainless steel cooking ware, but was seen as a good

value in the applications where it is preferred. It was generally not considered everyday cooking ware,

but rather special purpose cooking ware. According to purchaser questionnaire responses, POS cooking

ware was perceived to be less convenient than non-stick cooking ware and less durable than stainless steel

cooking ware. It was seen as a lower cost, lower quality cooking ware used for specialty purposes such as

camping. While some purchasers stipulated that customer preferences and price may limit the

substitutability of these other types of cooking ware for POS cooking ware, the majority of responses

indicated that any other type of cooking ware can easily be substituted for POS cooking ware (e.g.,

stainless steel cooking ware, aluminum, cast iron, etc.). In fact, the Mexican producer indicated that

price, style, shape, and size, rather than the component material, determine which cooking ware article

will be purchased by the consumer. Therefore, retailers will sell a full range of cooking ware based on

different price points rather than material. Additionally, because POS cooking ware was seen as a lower

cost, lower quality cooking ware, it competes directly with other low-end cooking ware such as pressed

aluminum and lower quality stainless steel.

Channels of Distribution43

As reported during the first five-year review, both domestic and foreign producers sold POS

cooking ware in the United States primarily to large retail mass merchandisers and mail-order houses, and

to large houseware distributors which served the smaller retailers. POS cooking ware was not normally

sold to high end department stores, to gourmet shops, or through direct sales (e.g., door-to-door, or inhome demonstrations). In fact, heavy-gauge POS tended to be sold, along with other mid- to high-end

cooking ware, to department stores and specialty stores. The Chinese sold predominantly to large

retailers and had some sales representation.

Pricing

According to information gathered during the first review, prices of cooking ware vary according

to the size, shape, and component material used. Light-gauge POS cooking ware is generally the least

expensive type of cooking ware, along with light-gauge stamped aluminum and lower quality stainless

 41 Response of domestic interested party, November 1, 2010, p. 37.

 42 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Porcelain-onSteel Cooking Ware From China, Mexico, and Taiwan, and Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From

Korea and Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-267 and 268 and 731-TA-297-299, 304 and 305 (Review), USITC

Publication 3286, March 2000, pp. I-14-I-16.

 43 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Porcelain-onSteel Cooking Ware From China, Mexico, and Taiwan, and Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From

Korea and Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-267 and 268 and 731-TA-297-299, 304 and 305 (Review), USITC

Publication 3286, March 2000, pp. I-14-I-16.

I-12
steel cooking ware. Heavy-gauge POS cooking ware is relatively more expensive because of the heavier

steel, added layers of porcelain, and added decorative aspects.44

In the original investigations, the Commission noted that purchasers had identified instances of

price undercutting by the subject imports and that the domestic producer had been unable to raise prices

enough to cover increases in its costs.45

In the first five-year review, the Commission noted in its determinations that it had received no

specific pricing information for subject imports from China. The Commission explained, however, that

the domestic like product and the subject merchandise were quite similar or indistinguishable, price is a

critical factor in purchasing decisions, and domestically produced cooking ware is likely to be highly

sensitive to price-based competition. Accordingly, the Commission noted that, in order to gain a greater

share of the POS cooking ware market, subject imports from China would have to be priced aggressively. 

The Commission found that underselling would likely be significant in the event of revocation of the

antidumping duty orders given subject producers’ pricing behavior during the original investigations, the

importance of price, the substitutability of the products, and the fact that increased volumes for this

product would likely be achieved through lower prices. Accordingly, the Commission found that

revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to significant underselling by the

cumulated subject imports of the domestic like product, as well as significant price depression and

suppression, within a reasonably foreseeable time.46

In the expedited second review, there was no new product-specific pricing information on the

record, and the Commission continued to find that China was likely to significantly increase exports to

the United States in the reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping duty orders were revoked. The

Commission also found that the market for POS cooking ware is price competitive.47

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the current review, Columbian

continued to emphasize the price sensitivity of the POS cooking ware market, particularly in light of the

increased presence of Chinese imports in the U.S. market in 2009.48 The following tabulation presents

recent pricing data *** of ***, which demonstrates that the estimated landed cost of imports from China

was ***.49

* * * * * * *

 44 According to information reported in the first five-year review, the domestic producer only makes light-gauge

POS cooking ware. 

 45 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico, the People’s Republic of China, and Taiwan: Investigation

Nos. 701-TA-265 and 731-TA-297-299 (Final), USITC Publication 1911, November 1986, p. 14. The Commission

noted, however, that pricing data it had obtained in the investigations were difficult to assess because producers

changed POS cooking ware styles over the course of the investigation period and because the pricing categories

encompassed products of different gauges and colors.

 46 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From China, Mexico, and Taiwan, and Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel

Cooking Ware From Korea and Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-267 and 268 and 731-TA-297-299, 304 and 305

(Review), USITC Publication 3286, March 2000, pp. 20-21.

 47 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From China and Taiwan, and Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware

From Korea and Taiwan: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-267 and 268 and 731-TA-298, 299, 304, and 305 (Second

Review), USITC Publication 3808, October 2005, pp. 17-18.

 48 Response of domestic interested party, November 1, 2010, p. 29.

 49 Response of domestic interested party, November 1, 2010, p. 26 and exh. 6.

I-13
THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

The original antidumping duty investigation resulted from a petition filed on behalf of GHC on

December 4, 1985, the sole U.S. producer of POS cooking ware at the time. In March 1998, Columbian

acquired GHC's POS cooking ware business and became the successor-in-interest to the original

petitioner. Columbian has remained the only U.S. producer of POS cooking ware since its acquisition of

the GHC POS cooking ware operations in 1998.50

U.S. Producers’ Trade, Employment, and Financial Data

Table I-4 presents data reported by GHC/Columbian in the Commission’s original investigation

and its subsequent reviews.

Table I-4

POS cooking ware: Columbian's trade, employment, and financial data, 1983-85, 1997-98, 2004, and 2009

* * * * * * *

Related Party Issues

The domestic producer reported in its response to the Commission's notice of institution in this

third five-year review of the antidumping duty order that it is not related to any Chinese producer or

exporter of POS cooking ware. It also indicated that it has not imported POS cooking ware from China at

any time since its acquisition of GHC's POS cooking ware operations.51

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

U.S. Imports

During the first and second five-year reviews of the antidumping duty order, two firms were

identified as U.S. importers of POS cooking ware from China. Domestic producer Columbian identified

five firms as U.S. importers of POS cooking ware from China in its response to the Commission's notice

of institution during this third five-year review. 

Imports from China entering the United States amounted to 4,908,048 pieces ($15,591,214

landed, duty-paid) in 2009. Since the second five-year review, there has been a marked increase in

subject imports that has continued through 2009. China accounted for 50.9 percent of U.S. imports in

2009, compared with 36.7 percent in 2004, based on quantity. The presence of nonsubject sources of

imports, however, has decreased by 24.6 percent since the last five-year review, from 6.3 million pieces

in 2004 to 4.7 million pieces in 2009.

 50 Response of domestic interested party, November 1, 2010, p. 34.

 51 Response of domestic interested party, November 1, 2010, p. 34. In March 1998, Columbian acquired GHC's

POS cooking ware business and became the successor-in-interest to the original petitioner. Columbian has remained

the only U.S. producer of POS cooking ware since its acquisition of the GHC POS cooking ware operations in 1998. 

Response of domestic interested party, November 1, 2010, p. 34.

I-14
Data on U.S. imports of POS cooking ware, by source, during 2004-09 are presented in table I-5. 

Figure I-1 presents the quantity of imports of POS cooking ware from China and from all other countries

from 1983 to 2009.

Table I-5

POS cooking ware: U.S. imports, by source, 2004-09

Source 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 units)

China 3,631 6,265 6,285 4,054 4,665 4,908

Thailand 2,070 1,951 1,901 1,684 1,893 1,739

Indonesia 767 1,284 1,731 1,679 1,172 1,133

Mexico 1,650 1,595 1,449 1,189 748 957

All other 1,786 2,404 1,860 1,583 1,514 903

 Subtotal, nonsubject 6,273 7,234 6,941 6,135 5,327 4,732

 Total 9,905 13,498 13,225 10,190 9,993 9,642

Value ($1,000)

China 8,833 11,778 12,838 13,131 15,854 15,591

Thailand 12,743 15,037 15,076 13,425 15,835 13,845

Indonesia 1,845 4,295 5,108 5,464 3,992 6,172

Mexico 5,391 6,000 5,573 4,834 3,529 4,199

All other 9,135 11,502 9,419 8,232 8,243 3,972

 Subtotal, nonsubject 29,114 36,834 35,176 31,955 31,599 28,188

 Total 37,946 48,613 48,015 45,086 47,455 43,780

Unit value (per unit)

China $2.43 $1.88 $2.04 $3.24 $3.40 $3.18

Thailand 6.16 7.71 7.93 7.97 8.37 7.96

Indonesia 2.40 3.34 2.95 3.25 3.41 5.45

Mexico 3.27 3.76 3.85 4.06 4.72 4.39

All other 5.11 4.79 5.07 5.20 5.44 4.39

 Average, nonsubject 4.64 5.09 5.07 5.21 5.93 5.95

 Average 3.83 3.60 3.63 4.42 4.75 4.54

Table continued on next page.

I-15
Table I-5--Continued

POS cooking ware: U.S. imports, by source, 2004-09

Source 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Share of quantity (percent)

China 36.7 46.4 47.5 39.8 46.7 50.9

Thailand 20.9 14.5 14.4 16.5 18.9 18.0

Indonesia 7.7 9.5 13.1 16.5 11.7 11.8

Mexico 16.7 11.8 11.0 11.7 7.5 9.9

All other 18.0 17.8 14.1 15.5 15.2 9.4

 Subtotal, nonsubject 63.3 53.6 52.5 60.2 53.3 49.1

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China 23.3 24.2 26.7 29.1 33.4 35.6

Thailand 33.6 30.9 31.4 29.8 33.4 31.6

Indonesia 4.9 8.8 10.6 12.1 8.4 14.1

Mexico 14.2 12.3 11.6 10.7 7.4 9.6

All other 24.1 23.7 19.6 18.3 17.4 9.1

 Subtotal, nonsubject 76.7 75.8 73.3 70.9 66.6 64.4

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting numbers 7323.94.0010, 7323.94.0021, and

7323.94.0026.

I-16
Figure I-1

POS cooking ware: U.S. imports from China and all others, 1983-2009

Note.--Since 2003, POS cooking ware has been reported under HTS statistical reporting numbers 7323.94.0010,

7323.94.0021, and 7323.94.0026. Prior to 2003, the subject merchandise was classified as follows: TSUS item

654.02 (1983); TSUS item 654.08 (1984-85); HTS statistical reporting numbers 7323.94.0010 and 7323.94.0020

(1989-2002).

Note.--Data for years 1986-88 are not available.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

I-17
Ratio of Imports to U.S. Production

Information concerning the ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production of POS cooking ware is

presented in table I-6. Imports of POS cooking ware from China were equivalent to *** percent of U.S.

production in 2009, compared to *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 1998, and *** percent in 1985. The

ratio of imports of POS cooking ware from nonsubject countries to domestic production was *** percent

in 2009, compared to *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 1998, and *** percent in 1985. The ratio of

total imports to U.S. production fluctuated throughout the period and was *** percent in 2009, ***

percent in 2004, *** percent in 1998, and *** percent in 1985.

Table I-6

Cooking ware: Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production, by source, 1985, 1998, 2004 and 2009

Item 1985 1998 2004 2009

Quantity (1,000 units)

U.S. production *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

China 1,977 1,335 3,631 4,908

All other 16,498 17,072 6,2381 4,732

 Total 18,475 18,407 9,8681 9,642

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

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

All other *** *** ***1 ***

 Total *** *** ***1 ***

 1 Data as originally tabulated.

Source: Compiled from data presented in the original staff report, the first and second five-year reviews, and

Columbian's response to the Commission's notice of institution (November 1, 2010).

Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares are presented in table I-7.

In its response to the Commission's notice of institution, the domestic interested party reported

that, according to industry reports, in 2009, ***. Poor economic conditions in the United States are

believed to have *** in 2009. Columbian believes that U.S. demand for POS cooking ware “***.”

Columbian states that, although the antidumping duty order has enabled the company “***.”

I-18
Table I-7

POS cooking ware: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption,

1983-85, 1997-98, 2004, and 2009

Item 1983 1984 1985 1997 1998 2004 2009

Quantity (1,000 units)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

 China 472 613 1,977 1,601 1,335 3,631 4,908

 Other sources 14,678 17,242 16,498 20,589 17,072 6,2381 4,732

 Total imports 15,150 17,855 18,475 22,190 18,407 9,8681 9,642

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** *** ***1 ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** (2

) ***

U.S. imports from--

 China 282 1,370 3,305 3,238 3,020 8,833 15,591

 Other sources 57,647 59,127 49,380 67,599 51,091 28,7721 28,188

 Total imports 57,929 60,497 52,685 70,837 54,111 37,6051 43,780

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** *** *** (2

) ***

Share of consumption based on quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. imports from--

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

 Other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of consumption based on value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** (2

) ***

U.S. imports from--

 China *** *** *** *** *** (2

) ***

 Other sources *** *** *** *** *** (2

) ***

 Total imports *** *** *** *** *** (2

) ***

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Data as originally tabulated. Not derivable from official Commerce statistics.

 2

 Not available.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Staff Report on Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From China and Taiwan, and Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel

Cooking Ware From Korea and Taiwan, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-267 and 268 and 731-TA-298, 299, 304, and 305 (Second

Review), June 17, 2005, INV-CC-099, table I-13; official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting numbers 7323.94.0010,

7323.94.0021, and 7323.94.0026; and Response of domestic interested party, November 1, 2010, p. 35.

I-19
ANTIDUMPING ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Based on available information, subject POS cooking ware from China has not been subject to

any other import relief investigations in any other countries.

THE SUBJECT INDUSTRY IN CHINA

In response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the second five-year review of the subject

order, Columbian estimated that there were approximately 34 manufacturers of POS cooking ware in

China with a production capacity *** times the amount of U.S. domestic consumption of POS cooking

ware. 

In its response to the notice of institution in this third five-year review, Columbian indicated that

China is currently the leading global competitor for light-gauge POS cooking ware products and that there

are at least 47 current producers and exporters of POS cooking ware in China.52 Columbian also noted

that, as a result of the duties, only a few companies are currently exporting the subject merchandise to the

United States. The companies identified are as follows: ***. However, Columbian indicated that a large

number of Chinese producers are currently exporting POS cooking ware to the Canadian market and

could readily enter the U.S. market. It identified *** as Zhejiang Sunboat Enamel Co., Ltd. (“Sunboat”). 

Other significant Chinese exporters to Canada identified by Columbian in its response include the

following firms: ***. Columbian noted that there are also numerous other Chinese producers that export

POS cooking ware to other markets that could easily establish export sales to the United States.53

Columbian states that the Chinese POS cooking ware industry has continued to invest and expand

Chinese production, and is supplying the global market.54 Tables I-8 and I-9 present data on the Chinese

cooking ware exports from 2004 to 2009.

Table I-8

Cooking ware: Chinese exports, 2004-2010

Exports to:

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 kilograms)

United States 4,484 6,808 3,639 3,541 3,589 2,258 2,406

All other 244,844 216,431 236,358 266,896 239,415 194,225 219,128

 Total 249,328 223,239 239,998 270,437 243,004 196,483 221,534

Value (1,000 dollars)

United States 4,379 6,903 4,486 4,267 5,230 3,465 3,610

All other 151,025 147,309 161,720 194,450 215,936 167,970 201,064

 Total 155,404 154,212 166,206 198,717 221,166 171,435 204,674

Note–.As the World Trade Atlas provides data according to a six-digit HTS subheading, data for China’s global exports of

cooking ware include nonsubject cooking ware.

Source: Compiled from World Trade Atlas data, HTS 7323.94.

 52 Response of domestic interested party, November 1, 2010, pp. 25-26.

 53 Response of domestic interested party, November 1, 2010, pp. 31-32.

 54 Response of domestic interested party, November 1, 2010, p. 37.

I-20
Table I-9

Cooking ware: Chinese exports, by market, 2004-2010

Market 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Quantity (1,000 kilograms)

Benin 34,393 41,035 35,177 63,564 44,416 27,210 44,414

Nigeria 10,719 6,270 17,413 9,130 23,204 28,553 22,117

Ghana 14,188 11,914 13,618 14,199 12,642 12,274 14,708

United Arab Emirates 29,609 26,004 25,110 24,096 16,928 11,959 10,746

Indonesia 9,419 7,500 9,433 9,546 11,441 8,167 10,422

All other 150,999 130,517 139,248 149,902 134,372 108,319 119,127

 Total 249,328 223,239 239,998 270,437 243,004 196,483 221,534

Value (1,000 dollars)

Benin 18,099 24,205 19,851 39,503 33,538 19,582 33,137

Nigeria 5,741 3,849 9,978 5,934 18,921 20,161 18,453

Ghana 8,853 8,132 8,921 10,631 11,986 10,997 13,908

United Arab Emirates 16,815 16,998 16,068 17,371 14,661 10,417 10,233

Indonesia 5,026 4,580 5,545 6,465 9,539 6,394 8,763

All other 100,869 96,447 105,843 118,813 132,522 103,884 120,181

 Total 155,404 154,212 166,206 198,717 221,166 171,435 204,674

Note.–As the World Trade Atlas provides data according to a six-digit HTS subheading, data for China’s global exports of cooking

ware include nonsubject cooking ware.

Source: Compiled from World Trade Atlas data, HTS 7323.94.

I-21
 
Contains Business Proprietary Information

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

62144 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Notices 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 11–5–227 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country after 2004, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 4, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25287 Filed 10–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–298 and 299 

(Third Review); (Investigation Nos. 701–TA– 

267 and 731–TA–304 (Third Review))] 

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From 

China and Taiwan; Top-of-the-Stove 

Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From 

Korea 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from 

China and Taiwan and the antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders on topof-the-stove stainless steel cooking ware 

from Korea. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on porcelainon-steel cooking ware from China and 

Taiwan and the countervailing and 

antidumping duty orders on top-of-thestove stainless steel cooking ware from 

Korea would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 

consideration, the deadline for 

responses is November 1, 2010. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

December 14, 2010. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On December 2, 1986, 

the Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) issued antidumping duty 

orders on imports of porcelain-on-steel 

cooking ware from China and Taiwan 

(51 FR 43414). On January 20, 1987, 

Commerce issued antidumping and 

countervailing duty orders on imports of 

top-of-the-stove stainless steel cooking 

ware from Korea (52 FR 2138). 

Following five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective April 14, 2000, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty orders on porcelainon-steel cooking ware from China and 

Taiwan (65 FR 20136 and 21504) and, 

effective April 18, 2000, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

countervailing and antidumping duty 

orders on top-of-the-stove stainless steel 

cooking ware from Korea (65 FR 20801). 

Following second five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective November 17, 2005, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

top-of-the-stove stainless steel cooking 

ware from Korea (70 FR 69739). 

Effective November 22, 2005, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

countervailing duty order on top-of-thestove stainless steel cooking ware from 

Korea (70 FR 70585) and the 

antidumping duty orders on porcelainon-steel cooking ware from China and 

Taiwan (70 FR 70581). The Commission 

is now conducting third reviews to 

determine whether revocation of the 

orders would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to the domestic industry within 

a reasonably foreseeable time. It will 

assess the adequacy of interested party 

responses to this notice of institution to 

determine whether to conduct full 

reviews or expedited reviews. The 

Commission’s determinations in any 

expedited reviews will be based on the 

facts available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to these reviews: 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Notices 62145 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews are China, Korea, and Taiwan. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determinations, its full first five-year 

review determinations, and its 

expedited second five-year review 

determinations concerning porcelainon-steel cooking ware from China and 

Taiwan, the Commission defined the 

Domestic Like Product as all porcelainon-steel cooking ware, including 

teakettles. One Commissioner defined 

the Domestic Like Product differently in 

the original determinations concerning 

porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from 

China and Taiwan. In its original 

determinations, its full first five-year 

review determinations, and its 

expedited second five-year review 

determinations concerning top-of-thestove stainless steel cooking ware from 

Korea, the Commission defined the 

Domestic Like Product as all top-of-thestove stainless steel cooking ware as 

defined in Commerce’s scope. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determinations, 

its full first five-year review 

determinations, and its expedited 

second five-year review determinations 

concerning porcelain-on-steel cooking 

ware from China and Taiwan, the 

Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as all domestic producers of 

porcelain-on-steel cooking ware, 

including teakettles. One Commissioner 

defined the Domestic Industry 

differently in the original 

determinations concerning porcelainon-steel cooking ware from China and 

Taiwan. In the original determinations, 

its full first five-year review 

determinations, and its expedited 

second five-year review determinations 

concerning top-of-the-stove stainless 

steel cooking ware from Korea, the 

Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as all domestic producers of 

top-of-the-stove stainless steel cooking 

ware. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews 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 reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official has advised that a five-year 

review is not considered the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the corresponding 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees, and Commission rule 

201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are not 

required to seek Commission approval 

to appear in a review under Commission 

rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification.—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is November 1, 2010. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct expedited 

or full reviews. The deadline for filing 

such comments is December 14, 2010. 

All written submissions must conform 

with the provisions of sections 201.8 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules and 

any submissions that contain BPI must 

also conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in 

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information.—Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
62146 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Notices 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 

Information To Be Provided in 

Response to This Notice of Institution: 

Please provide the requested 

information separately for each 

Domestic Like Product, as defined by 

the Commission in its original 

determinations and its prior five-year 

review determinations, and for each of 

the products identified by Commerce as 

Subject Merchandise. If you are a 

domestic producer, union/worker 

group, or trade/business association; 

import/export Subject Merchandise 

from more than one Subject Country; or 

produce Subject Merchandise in more 

than one Subject Country, you may file 

a single response. If you do so, please 

ensure that your response to each 

question includes the information 

requested for each pertinent Subject 

Country. As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ 

includes any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the countervailing 

and/or antidumping duty orders on the 

Domestic Industry in general and/or 

your firm/entity specifically. In your 

response, please discuss the various 

factors specified in section 752(a) of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the 

likely volume of subject imports, likely 

price effects of subject imports, and 

likely impact of imports of Subject 

Merchandise on the Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

2004. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and E-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2009, except as noted 

(report quantity data in units and value 

data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you 

are a union/worker group or trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms in which your workers are 

employed/which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); 

(d) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s); and 

(e) The value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2009 (report 

quantity data in units and value data in 

U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping or countervailing duties) 

of U.S. imports and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total U.S. 

imports of Subject Merchandise from 

the Subject Country(ies) accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. 

commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country(ies); and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties) of U.S. internal 

consumption/company transfers of 

Subject Merchandise imported from the 

Subject Country(ies). 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2009 (report quantity data 

in units and value data in U.S. dollars, 

landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port 

but not including antidumping or 

countervailing duties). If you are a 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 194 / Thursday, October 7, 2010 / Notices 62147 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country(ies) after 2004, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country(ies), and such merchandise 

from other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 4, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25286 Filed 10–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

[Docket No. OSHA–2010–0031] 

Federal Advisory Council on 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(FACOSH) 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Announcement of meeting and 

member appointments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Advisory Council 

on Occupational Safety and Health 

(FACOSH) will meet October 21, 2010, 

in Washington, DC. FACOSH is 

comprised of 16 members; eight 

representing federal agency 

management and eight from labor 

organizations representing federal 

employees. On July 1, 2010, the 

Secretary appointed eight persons to 

FACOSH. This Federal Register notice 

also announces these appointments. 

DATES: FACOSH meeting: FACOSH will 

meet from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Thursday, October 21, 2010. 

Submission of comments, requests to 

speak, and requests for special 

accommodations: Comments, requests 

to speak at the FACOSH meeting, and 

request for special accommodations to 

attend the FACOSH meeting must be 

submitted (postmarked, sent, 

transmitted) by October 14, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: FACOSH meeting: FACOSH 

will meet in the Great Hall, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. 

Submission of comments and requests 

to speak: Comments and requests to 

speak at the FACOSH meeting, 

identified by Docket No. OSHA–2010– 

0031, may be submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

Electronically: You may submit 

materials, including attachments, 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov, the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the online 

instructions for making submissions. 

Facsimile: If your submission, 

including attachments, does not exceed 

10 pages, you may fax it to the OSHA 

Docket Office at (202) 693–1648. 

Mail, express delivery, hand delivery, 

messenger or courier service: You must 

provide one copy of your submission to 

the OSHA Docket Office, Room N–2625, 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–2350 

(TTY (877) 889–5627). Deliveries (hand, 

express mail, messenger and courier 

service) are accepted during the 

Department of Labor’s and OSHA 

Docket Office’s normal business hours, 

8:15 a.m.–4:45 p.m., e.t. 

Requests for special accommodations 

for FACOSH meeting: Submit requests 

for special accommodations by 

telephone, e-mail or hard copy to Ms. 

Veneta Chatmon, OSHA, Office of 

Communications, Room N–3647, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone (202) 693–1999; e-mail 

chatmon.veneta@dol.gov. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the Agency name and docket 

number for this Federal Register notice 

(Docket No. OSHA–2010–0031). 

Because of security-related procedures, 

submissions by regular mail may result 

in a significant delay in their receipt. 

Please contact the OSHA Docket Office, 

at the address above, for information 

about security procedures for making 

submissions by hand delivery, express 

delivery, and messenger or courier 

service. For additional information on 

submitting comments and requests to 

speak, see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section below. 

Comments and requests to speak, 

including any personal information 

provided, will be posted without change 

at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Therefore, OSHA cautions interested 

parties about submitting certain 

personal information such as social 

security numbers and birthdates. 

Docket: To read or download 

submissions in response to this Federal 

Register notice, go to Docket No. 

OSHA–2010–0031 at http://

www.regulations.gov or the OSHA 

Docket Office at the address above. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

documents (e.g., copyrighted material) 

are not publicly available to read or 

download through http://

www.regulations.gov. All submissions, 

including copyrighted material, are 

available for inspection and copying at 

the OSHA Docket Office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

press inquiries: Ms. MaryAnn Garrahan, 

OSHA, Office of Communications, U.S. 

Department of Labor, Room N–3647, 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 

693–1999. 

For general information: Mr. Francis 

Yebesi, OSHA, Office of Federal Agency 

Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, 

Room N–3622, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone (202) 693–2122; e-mail 

ofap@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 60731 

2See also ‘‘Memorandum to the File, through Scot 

T. Fullerton, Program Manager, ‘‘Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Placing CBP data on the record,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

3See ‘‘Memorandum to the File, through Scot T. 

Fullerton, Program Manager, ‘‘Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: New Shipper Initiation Checklist,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

4See section 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B) of the 

Department’s regulations. 

5See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.

certified that it did not export subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’). In 

addition, pursuant to section 

751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and section 

351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A) of the Department’s 

regulations, Quoc Viet certified that, 

since the initiation of the investigation, 

it has never been affiliated with any 

Vietnamese exporter or producer who 

exported subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POI, including 

those respondents not individually 

examined during the investigation. As 

required by section 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B) 

of the Department’s regulations, Quoc 

Viet also certified that its export 

activities were not controlled by the 

central government of Vietnam. 

In addition to the certifications 

described above, pursuant to section 

351.214(b)(2)(iv) of the Department’s 

regulations, Quoc Viet submitted 

documentation establishing the 

following: (1) The date on which Quoc 

Viet first shipped subject merchandise 

for export to the United States and; (2) 

the volume of its first shipment; and (3) 

the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated 

customer in the United States.2

Initiation of New Shipper Review 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the 

Act and section 351.214(d)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations, we find that 

the request submitted by Quoc Viet 

meets the threshold requirements for 

initiation of a NSR for shipments of 

shrimp from Vietnam produced and 

exported by Quoc Viet.3 The POR is 

February 1, 2010–July 31, 2010.4 The 

Department intends to issue the 

preliminary results of this NSR no later 

than 180 days from the date of 

initiation, and the final results no later 

than 270 days from the date of 

initiation.5

It is the Department’s usual practice, 

in cases involving non-market 

economies, to require that a company 

seeking to establish eligibility for an 

antidumping duty rate separate from the 

NME entity-wide rate provide evidence 

of de jure and de facto absence of 

government control over the company’s 

export activities. Accordingly, we will 

issue questionnaires to Quoc Viet, 

which will include a section requesting 

information with regard to Quoc Viet’s 

export activities for separate rate 

purposes. The NSR will proceed if the 

response provides sufficient indication 

that Quoc Viet is not subject to either de 

jure or de facto government control with 

respect to its export of subject 

merchandise. 

We will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection to allow, at the option 

of the importer, the posting, until the 

completion of the review, of a bond or 

security in lieu of a cash deposit for 

each entry of the subject merchandise 

from Quoc Viet in accordance with 

section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 

section 351.214(e) of the Department’s 

regulations. Because Quoc Viet certified 

that it both produced and exported the 

subject merchandise, the sale of which 

is the basis for this new shipper review 

request, we will apply the bonding 

privilege to Quoc Viet only for subject 

merchandise which Quoc Viet both 

produced and exported. 

Interested parties requiring access to 

proprietary information in this NSR 

should submit applications for 

disclosure under administrative 

protective order in accordance with 

sections 351.305 and 351.306 of the 

Department’s regulations. 

This initiation and notice are in 

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of 

the Act and sections 351.214 and 

351.221(c)(1)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

Dated: September 20, 2010. 

Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24729 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

Review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders listed below. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) 

is publishing concurrently with this 

notice its notice of Institution of FiveYear Review which covers the same 

orders. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

For information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 

13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 

62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on 

methodological or analytical issues 

relevant to the Department’s conduct of 

Sunset Reviews is set forth in the 

Department’s Policy Bulletin 98.3— 

Policies Regarding the Conduct of FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders: 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–351–602 ........ 731–TA–308 ..... Brazil .............................. Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

(3rd Review).

Dana Merrmelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–588–602 ........ 731–TA–309 ..... Japan .............................. Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

(3rd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
60732 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–583–605 ........ 731–TA–310 ..... Taiwan ............................ Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

(3rd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–549–807 ........ 731–TA–521 ..... Thailand .......................... Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

(3rd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–580–601 ........ 731–TA–304 ..... South Korea ................... Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel 

Cooking Ware (3rd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–570–836 ........ 731–TA–718 ..... PRC ................................ Glycine (3rd Review) .......................... Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–583–508 ........ 731–TA–299 ..... Taiwan ............................ Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware (3rd 

Review).

Jennifer Moats (202) 482–5047. 

A–570–855 ........ 731–TA–841 ..... PRC ................................ Apple Juice Concentrate Non-Frozen 

(2nd Review).

Jennifer Moats (202) 482–5047. 

A–570–814 ........ 731–TA–520 ..... PRC ................................ Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

(3rd Review).

Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391. 

A–570–506 ........ 731–TA–298 ..... PRC ................................ Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Cooking 

Ware (3rd Review).

Jennifer Moats (202) 482–5047. 

C–580–602 ........ 701–TA–267 ..... South Korea ................... Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel 

Cooking Ware (3rd Review).

David Goldberger (202) 482–4136. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s Internet 

Web site at the following address: 

‘‘http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’ All 

submissions in these Sunset Reviews 

must be filed in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

format, translation, service, and 

certification of documents. These rules 

can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103 (d), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The 

required contents of the notice of intent 

to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the 

Department’s regulations, if we do not 

receive a notice of intent to participate 

from at least one domestic interested 

party by the 15-day deadline, the 

Department will automatically revoke 

the order without further review. See 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 

(c). 

Dated: September 28, 2010. 

Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24736 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XZ30 

Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee; 

Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of open public meeting. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a 

meeting of the Marine Fisheries 

Advisory Committee (MAFAC). This 

will be the second meeting to be held in 

the calendar year 2010. Agenda topics 

are provided under the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this notice. All 

full Committee sessions will be open to 

the public. 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

October 19–21, 2010, from 8:30 a.m. to 

5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Maryland Inn, Historic Inns of 

Annapolis, 16 Church Circle in 

Annapolis, MD 21401; 410–263–2641. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Holliday, MAFAC Executive 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
2920 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the response 

submitted by Columbia Home Products, LLC to be 

individually adequate. Comments from other 

interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 

207.62(d)(2)). 

Designated Federal Official, 2815 H 

Road, Grand Junction, CO 81506. Phone: 

(970) 244–3049. E-mail: 

kasteven@blm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 10- 

member Council advises the Secretary 

of the Interior, through the BLM, on a 

variety of planning and management 

issues associated with the resource 

management planning process for the 

Dominguez-Escalante National 

Conservation Area and Dominguez 

Canyon Wilderness. 

Topics of discussion during the 

meeting may include informational 

presentations from various resource 

specialists working on the resource 

management plan, as well as Council 

reports relating to the following topics: 

recreation, fire management, land-use 

planning process descriptions, invasive 

species management, travel 

management, wilderness, land exchange 

criteria, cultural resource management, 

and other resource management topics 

of interest to the Council raised during 

the planning process. 

These meetings are anticipated to 

occur monthly, and may occur as 

frequently as every two weeks during 

intensive phases of the planning 

process. Dates, times and agendas for 

additional meetings may be determined 

at future Advisory Council Meetings, 

and will be published in the Federal 

Register, announced through local 

media and on the BLM’s Web site for 

the Dominguez-Escalante planning 

effort, http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/nca/ 

denca/denca_rmp.html. 

These meetings are open to the 

public. The public may present written 

comments to the Council. Each formal 

Council meeting will have time 

allocated at the beginning and end of 

each meeting for hearing public 

comments. Depending on the number of 

persons wishing to comment and time 

available, the time for individual, oral 

comments may be limited at the 

discretion of the chair. 

Dated: January 10, 2011. 

Helen M. Hankins, 

State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2011–865 Filed 1–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–JB–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLNVS00560 L58530000.EU0000 241A; N– 

81926 et al.; 11–08807; TAS: 14X5232] 

Notice of Correction to Notice of Realty 

Action: Competitive Online Auction of 

Public Lands in Clark County, NV 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Correction. 

SUMMARY: This notice amends a Notice 

of Realty Action which published in the 

Federal Register on September 11, 2009 

[74 FR 46790] and a Notice of 

Amendment to Notice of Realty Action 

which published in the Federal Register 

on May 20, 2010, [75 FR 28278]. This 

Notice of Correction is published to 

correct the mineral estate to be reserved 

to the United States upon patent 

issuance for 5 sale parcels N–78190, N– 

81926, N–81927, N–81930, and N– 

86661. The individual patents, when 

issued, will contain a mineral 

reservation to the United States for oil, 

gas, sodium, potassium, and all saleable 

minerals. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Manuela Johnson at (702) 515–5224, or 

e-mail: manuela_johnson@blm.gov. 

Vanessa L. Hice, 

Assistant Field Manager, Division of Lands. 

Authority: 43 CFR 2711. 

[FR Doc. 2011–841 Filed 1–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–298 (Third 

Review)] 

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From 

China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited fiveyear review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on porcelain-on-steel 

cooking ware from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of an expedited 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty order on porcelain-on-steel 

cooking ware from China would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: January 4, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keysha Martinez (202–205–2136), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On January 4, 2011, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (75 

FR 62144, October 7, 2010) of the 

subject five-year review was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

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

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the review will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on 

January 31, 2011, and made available to 

persons on the Administrative 

Protective Order service list for this 

review. A public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Notices 2921 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before 

February 3, 2011 and may not contain 

new factual information. Any person 

that is neither a party to the five-year 

review nor an interested party may 

submit a brief written statement (which 

shall not contain any new factual 

information) pertinent to the review by 

February 3, 2011. However, should the 

Department of Commerce extend the 

time limit for its completion of the final 

results of its review, the deadline for 

comments (which may not contain new 

factual information) on Commerce’s 

final results is three business days after 

the issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II(C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the review must be 

served on all other parties to the review 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 11, 2011. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–837 Filed 1–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–691] 

In the Matter of Certain Inkjet Ink 

Supplies and Components Thereof; 

Notice of Commission Issuance of a 

General Exclusion Order and a Cease 

and Desist Order; Termination of 

Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has issued a general 

exclusion order and a cease and desist 

order in the above-captioned 

investigation under section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 337’’), and has 

terminated the investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James A. Worth, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3065. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on October 29, 2009, based on a 

complaint filed by Hewlett-Packard 

Company of Palo Alto, California (‘‘HP’’). 

74 FR 55856–7 (Oct. 29, 2009). The 

complaint alleged violations of section 

337 in the importation into the United 

States, the sale for importation, or the 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain inkjet ink 

supplies or components thereof that 

infringe one or more of claims 1–7 and 

22–28 of United States Patent No. 

6,959,985; claims 1–10, 11, 12, 14, 18– 

20, 22, 26, 27, and 28–35 of United 

States Patent No. 7,104,630; claims 6, 7, 

9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,089,687 

(‘‘the ’687 patent’’); and claims 1–3, 5, 

and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,264,301 (‘‘the 

’301 patent’’). The complaint named as 

respondents Zhuhai Gree MagnetoElectric Co. Ltd. of Guangdong, China 

(‘‘Zhuhai’’); InkPlusToner.com of Canoga 

Park, California (‘‘InkPlusToner’’); Mipo 

International Ltd. of Kowloon, Hong 

Kong (‘‘Mipo International’’); Mextec 

Group, Inc. d/b/a Mipo America Ltd. of 

Miami, Florida (‘‘Mextec’’); Shanghai 

Angel Printer Supplies Co. Ltd. of 

Shanghai, China (‘‘Shanghai Angel’’); 

SmartOne Services LLC d/b/a 

InkForSale.net of Hayward, California 

(‘‘Smart One’’); Shenzhen Print Media 

Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China 

(‘‘Shenzhen Print Media’’); Comptree Ink 

d/b/a Meritline, ABCInk, EZ Label, and 

CDR DVDR Media of City of Industry, 

California (‘‘Comptree’’); Zhuhai 

National Resources & Jingjie Imaging 

Products Co., Ltd. of Guangdong, China 

(‘‘Zhuhai National’’); Tatrix International 

of Guangdong, China (‘‘Tatrix’’); and 

Ourway Image Co., of Guangdong, China 

(‘‘Ourway’’). 

Seven respondents, Mipo 

International, Mextec, Shanghai Angel, 

Shenzhen Print Media, Zhuhai National, 

Tatrix, and Ourway (collectively, 

‘‘Defaulting Respondents’’), failed to 

answer the Complaint and Notice of 

Investigation. The ALJ granted default 

determinations against the Defaulting 

Respondents (Order No. 9), and the 

Commission determined not to review 

the order. See Notice of Commission 

Determination Not to Review an Initial 

Determination Finding Seven 

Respondents in Default (February 17, 

2010). Three respondents, Comptree, 

InkPlusToner, and SmartOne, reached 

settlement agreements with HP and 

were terminated from the investigation 

(Order Nos. 11, 13, and 14), and the 

Commission determined not to review 

those orders. One respondent, Zhuhai, 

was terminated from the investigation 

on the basis of a consent order (Order 

No. 12), and the Commission 

determined not to review that order. 

On May 7, 2010, HP moved for 

summary determination that a domestic 

industry exists and that the Defaulting 

Respondents have violated section 337. 

The ALJ granted HP’s motion and issued 

his final ID (Order No. 18) on August 30, 

2010, finding substantial, reliable and 

probative evidence of violation by the 

Defaulting Respondents with respect to 

claims 6 and 9 of the ‘687 patent and 

claims 1, 5, and 6 of the ‘301 patent. The 

ID included the ALJ’s recommended 

determination (‘‘RD’’) on remedy and 

bonding. The ALJ recommended that in 

the event the Commission finds a 

violation of section 337, the 

Commission should issue a general 

exclusion order and a cease and desist

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

7534 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2011 / Notices 

Dated: February 3, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3018 Filed 2–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–506] 

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of the Expedited Sunset 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 1, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

porcelain-on-steel cooking ware (‘‘POS 

cookware’’) from the People’s Republic 

of China (‘‘PRC’’) pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘Act’’). See Initiation of FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 60731 

(October 1, 2010) (‘‘Sunset Initiation’’); 

see also Antidumping Duty Order; 

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from 

the People’s Republic of China, 51 FR 

43414 (December 2, 1986) (‘‘Order’’). On 

October 18, 2010, Columbian Home 

Products, LLC (formerly General 

Housewares Corporation) 

(‘‘Columbian’’), the petitioner in the POS 

cookware investigation, notified the 

Department that it intended to 

participate in the sunset review. The 

Department did not receive a 

substantive response from any 

respondent party. Based on the notice of 

intent to participate and adequate 

response filed by the domestic 

interested party, and the lack of 

response from any respondent 

interested party, the Department 

conducted an expedited sunset review 

of the Order pursuant to section 

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of this 

sunset review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the Order would likely 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping, at the levels indicated in the 

‘‘Final Results of Sunset Review’’ section 

of this notice, infra. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 10, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni 

Dach; AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: 202–482–1655. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 1, 2010, the Department 

initiated a sunset review of the order on 

POS cookware pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Act. See Sunset Initiation, 

75 FR 60731. On October 18, 2010, the 

Department received a timely notice of 

intent to participate in the sunset review 

from Columbian, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). In accordance with 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii)(A), Columbian 

claimed interested party status under 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a 

producer of the domestic like product. 

On November 1, 2010, Columbian 

filed a substantive response in the 

sunset review, within the 30-day 

deadline as specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did 

not receive a substantive response from 

any respondent interested party in the 

sunset review. As a result, pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the 

Department conducted an expedited 

sunset review of the Order. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order is porcelain-on-steel cooking ware 

from the PRC, including tea kettles, 

which do not have self-contained 

electric heating elements. All of the 

foregoing are constructed of steel and 

are enameled or glazed with vitreous 

glasses. The merchandise is currently 

classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 7323.94.00. The 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description of the scope remains 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

A complete discussion of all issues 

raised in this sunset review is addressed 

in the accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. See the 

Department’s memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Results in the Expedited 

Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order on Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking 

Ware from the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ dated January 27, 2011 (‘‘I&D 

Memo’’). The issues discussed in the 

accompanying I&D Memo include the 

likelihood of continuation or recurrence 

of dumping and the magnitude of the 

dumping margin likely to prevail if the 

Order was revoked. Parties can obtain a 

public copy of the I&D Memo on file in 

the Central Records Unit, Room 7046, of 

the main Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete public copy of the 

I&D Memo can be accessed directly on 

the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The 

paper copy and electronic version of the 

I&D Memo are identical in content. 

Final Results of Sunset Review 

The Department determines that 

revocation of the Order on POS 

cookware would likely lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

The Department also determines that 

the dumping margins likely to prevail if 

the order was revoked are as follows: 

Manufacturers/exporters/ 

producers 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

China National Light Industrial 

Products Import and Export 

Corporation ............................. 66.65 

PRC-Wide Entity ......................... 66.65 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: January 27, 2011. 

Christian Marsh, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3008 Filed 2–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–890] 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Intent 

To Rescind Review in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES

Contains Business Proprietary Information

B-1

APPENDIX B

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from China, 

Inv. No. 731-TA-298 (Third Review)

On January 4, 2011, the Commission determined that it should proceed to an expedited review in

the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19

U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B).

The Commission received a single response to the notice of institution filed by Columbian Home

Products, LLC (“Columbian”), a domestic producer of porcelain-on-steel (“POS”) cooking ware. The

Commission found Columbian’s individual response to be adequate. In light of Columbian’s assertion

that it is the sole domestic producer of POS cooking ware, the Commission further determined that the

domestic interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission received no response from any respondent interested party, and therefore

determined that the respondent interested party group response to the notice of institution was inadequate. 

In the absence of an adequate respondent interested party group response or any other circumstances

warranting a full review, the Commission determined to conduct an expedited review.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and the

Commission’s web site (www.usitc.gov).