U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4104 October 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Ni-Resist Piston Inserts from Argentina

Investigation No. 701-TA-460 (Final)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman

Deanna Tanner Okun

Charlotte R. Lane

Irving A. Williamson

Dean A. Pinkert

Staff assigned

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Angela M. W. Newell, Investigator

Deborah McNay, Commodity-Industry Analyst

Craig Thomsen, Economist

David Boyland, Accountant/Auditor

Marc Bernstein, Attorney

Lita David-Harris, Statistician

George Deyman, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4104 October 2009

Ni-Resist Piston Inserts from Argentina

Investigation No. 701-TA-460 (Final)
 
i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nature and extent of subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

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

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

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

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

Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

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

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

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4

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

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-7

Comparisons of domestic products with subject and nonsubject imports ................ II-9

Comparisons of subject and nonsubject imports ................................... II-11

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-11

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-11

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-11

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-11

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

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

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

U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments and export shipments ................................. III-2

U.S. producer’s imports and purchases of imports .................................... III-2

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

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-3
ii

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

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

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

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

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

Operations on Ni rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-2

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

Actual negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

Anticipated negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

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

The industry in Argentina ....................................................... VII-1

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-2

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

Antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in third-country markets .............. VII-2

Information on nonsubject countries .............................................. VII-2

Appendixes

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

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

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

D. Quarterly domestic and nonsubject-country price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

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

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

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

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 701-TA-460 (Final)

NI-RESIST PISTON INSERTS FROM ARGENTINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigation, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. § 1671d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened

with material injury, and the establishment of an industry in the United States is not materially retarded,

by reason of imports from Argentina of Ni-resist piston inserts, provided for in subheading 8409.99.91 of

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the Department of

Commerce (Commerce) to be subsidized by the Government of Argentina.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this investigation effective January 26, 2009, following receipt of a

petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Korff Holdings LLC d/b/a Quaker City Castings,

Salem, OH. The final phase of the investigation was scheduled by the Commission following notification

of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of Ni-resist piston inserts from Argentina were

being subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1671b(b)). Notice of the

scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigation and of a public hearing to be held in

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

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

of July 17, 2009 (74 FR 34784). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on September 17, 2009, and

all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.
 
 1

 Material retardation of the establishment of an industry is not an issue in this investigation.

 2 74 Fed. Reg. 48059 (Sept. 21, 2009).

 3 74 Fed. Reg. 51319 (Oct. 6, 2009). 

 4 The second sentence of the second full paragraph on page 12 of Karl Schmidt’s Final Comments contains new

factual information in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(g) and 19 C.F.R. § 207.30(b). Accordingly, we have

disregarded the information in this sentence.

 5 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 6 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in the final phase of this investigation, we unanimously find that an industry

in the United States is neither materially injured nor threatened with material injury by reason of imports

of Ni-resist piston inserts (“Ni rings”) subsidized by the government of Argentina.1

I. BACKGROUND

Korff Holdings, LLC, doing business as Quaker City Castings (“QCC”), filed the petition in this

investigation on January 26, 2009. The petition concerned imports from Argentina and Korea. The U.S.

Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) subsequently made a negative subsidy determination on Ni

rings from Korea,2

 and the Commission accordingly terminated the investigation concerning subject

imports from Korea.3

QCC, the only known domestic producer of Ni rings, appeared at the hearing and submitted

prehearing and posthearing briefs. Three respondents entered appearances as parties. Karl Schmidt

Unisia, Inc. (“Karl Schmidt”), an importer of subject merchandise from Argentina and a purchaser of

domestically produced Ni rings, appeared at the hearing and submitted prehearing and posthearing briefs

and final comments.4

 Clorindo Appo SRL (“Clorindo”), a producer and exporter of subject merchandise

from Argentina, also entered an appearance. Federal-Mogul Corp., an importer of Ni rings from Korea

and a purchaser of domestically produced Ni rings, filed a prehearing brief. Federal-Mogul ceased its

active participation in the Commission investigation (and ceased to be an interested party) once

Commerce reached a final negative subsidy determination in the investigation of Ni rings from Korea. 

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY

A. In General

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

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

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”5

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

(“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a {w}hole 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.”6

 In turn, the Tariff Act defines “domestic like
 7

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trade 1996).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commerce found five classes or kinds).

4

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 ... .”7

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

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

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.8

 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.9

 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.10

Although the Commission must accept Commerce’s determination as to the scope of the imported

merchandise that is subsidized or sold at less than fair value,11 the Commission determines what domestic

product is like the imported articles Commerce has identified.12

B. Scope Definition

Commerce has defined the scope of the imported merchandise under investigation as follows:

all Ni-resist piston inserts regardless of size, thickness, weight, or outside diameter. Niresist piston inserts may also be called other names including, but not limited to, “Ring

Carriers,” or “Alfin Inserts.” Ni-resist piston inserts are alloyed cast iron rings, with or

without a sheet metal cooling channel pressed and welded into the interior of the insert.

Ni-resist piston inserts are composed of the material known as Ni-resist, of the chemical

composition: 13.5% – 17.5% Ni (nickel), 5.5% – 8.0% Cu (copper), 0.8% – 2.5%

Cr(chromium), 0.5% – 1.5% Mn (manganese), 1.0% – 3.0% Si (silicon), 2.4% – 3.0% C
 13 74 Fed. Reg. 47922 (Sept. 18, 2009).

 14 Confidential Report (CR) at I-7, Public Report (PR) at I-6.

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

 16 Ni-Resist Piston Inserts from Argentina and Korea, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-460-461 (Preliminary), USITC Pub.

4066 at 5, 7 (Mar. 2009) (“Preliminary Determinations”).

 17 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 4066 at 6.

 18 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 4066 at 6.

 19 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 4066 at 6.

5

(carbon). The cast iron composition is produced primarily to the material specifications

of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), ASTM A-436 grade 1. The

scope of these investigations does not include piston rings nor any other product

manufactured using the Ni-resist material.13

Ni rings are circular rings fused into the top portions of aluminum pistons used in diesel engines. The Ni

ring expands and contracts at the same rate as the piston, thus improving the piston’s wear resistance and

working life.14 Ni rings used in engines are only found in diesel engines that incorporate aluminum

pistons. These engines are used to power motor vehicles (principally certain light trucks and mediumand heavy-duty trucks in the United States), farm and other off-road equipment, marine transports, and

large compressors.15

C. Domestic Like Product Analysis

In the preliminary phase investigations, in which the issue of domestic like product was not

disputed, the Commission defined a single domestic like product that was coextensive with the scope

definition. It found that, despite variations in size and weight, all Ni rings have the same metal

composition and perform the same function in aluminum pistons. Ni rings are alloyed cast iron rings

whose chemistry consists of 15 percent nickel, 6.5 percent copper, 2 percent chrome, 1 percent

manganese, 2 percent silicon, and 2.5 percent carbon. The Ni ring protects the aluminum piston during

combustion inside the diesel engine cylinder. It absorbs impact from the piston ring and prevents wear to

the piston.16 Additionally, the record did not indicate that there were any substitute products performing

the same functions as Ni rings.17

The Commission further emphasized that Ni rings are sold to the same channel of distribution. 

Domestically produced Ni rings are sold to end users, which are typically manufacturers of aluminum

pistons for diesel engines that incorporate the Ni rings as a component in their production of finished

pistons.18 

The Commission found that all domestically produced Ni rings are produced in the same manner

at the same facilities. The production process involves three steps: (1) metal is melted in an electric

induction furnace; (2) the molten metal is poured into a mold and rotated during solidification, in a

process called centrifugal casting; and (3) the centrifugally cast tube is machined to the desired

specifications.19

The record relevant to the definition of the domestic like product has not changed in any material

manner since the preliminary phase investigations, and no party submitted any argument during the final
 20 See generally CR at I-6-16, II-1, PR at I-5-11, II-1.

 21 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 22 CR at III-1, PR at III-1.

 23 No party has asserted, and we cannot identify, any domestic industry or related party issues in this final phase

investigation.

 24 Negligibility under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24) is not an issue in this investigation. During the most recent 12-

month period prior to filing of the petition, subject imports from Argentina accounted for *** percent of total

imports of Ni rings. CR/PR, Table IV-2. Consequently, subject imports from Argentina exceed the 3 percent

statutory negligibility threshold. 

 25 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b).

 26 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination” but shall “identify each [such] factor . . . [a]nd explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 19

U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

 27 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

6

phase investigation concerning the definition of the domestic like product.20 Accordingly, for the reasons

stated in our opinion in the preliminary phase investigations, we again define a single domestic like

product, encompassing all domestically produced Ni rings with the specifications provided in the scope

definition.

D. Domestic Industry

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

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

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”21 In defining the domestic industry, the

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

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

We define the domestic industry to encompass all domestic producers of Ni rings, consistent with

our definition of the domestic like product. QCC is the only known domestic producer of Ni rings.22

Accordingly, the domestic industry consists of QCC’s Ni ring production operations.23

III. NO MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS24

A. Legal Standards

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

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

injury by reason of the imports under investigation.25 In making this determination, the Commission must

consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices for the domestic like product, and their

impact on domestic producers of the like product, but only in the context of U.S. production operations.26

The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or

unimportant.”27 In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject

imports, we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United
 28 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 29 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 30 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b)(1), 1673d(b)(1).

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

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

1996).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2001).

 33 SAA at 851-52 (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from

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

which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than less-than-fair-value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(continued...)

7

States.28 No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”29

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

“materially injured by reason of” or threatened with material injury by reason of unfairly traded imports,30

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

Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion.31 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject

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

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

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

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

sufficient causal, not merely a temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.32

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

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

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

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

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

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

statutory material injury threshold.33 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.34 Nor does the
 34 (...continued)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

harmful effects on domestic market prices.”). 

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

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

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

injury.”).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

present material injury in certain circumstances, to undertake a particular kind of analysis of nonsubject imports. 

Mittal explains as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

that factor.

542 F.3d at 878.

8

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

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

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.35 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.36

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

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

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

“ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”37 38 Indeed, the
 39 Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at

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

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

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

 41 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 875-79 & n.2 (recognizing the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9

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

adherence to a specific formula.”39

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

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

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

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

imports.40 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether nonsubject imports might have

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

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

and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

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

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

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

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

injury from nonsubject imports or other factors to subject imports.41 Accordingly, we do not consider

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

subsequent to Bratsk.

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

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

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

non-attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.42 43

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

notwithstanding any injury from other factors is factual, subject to review under the substantial evidence
 44 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873; Nippon Steel Corp., 458 F.3d at 1350, citing U.S. Steel Group, 96 F.3d at 1357;

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

matter for the judgment of the ITC”).

 45 We provide in the discussion of impact in section III.E. below a full analysis of other factors alleged to have

caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry.

 46 CR/PR, Table IV-3.

 47 CR at II-7, PR at II-4.

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

 49 Tr. at 42 (J. Korff), 115 (Turcott); Federal-Mogul Prehearing Brief at 3-4.

 50 CR at II-10, PR at II-6.

 51 CR at I-11, PR at I-9; Federal-Mogul Prehearing Brief at 4-5; see also CR/PR at IV-1 n.3 (piston producer

***), Federal-Mogul Prehearing Brief, ex. 3 (showing evolution in demand from particular customers away from

aluminum pistons to steel or articulated pistons).

 52 Tr. at 99 (Turcott); CR at II-8-9, PR at II-5-6.

10

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

institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.44 45

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

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

threat of material injury by reason of subject imports from Argentina.

Demand Conditions. Apparent U.S. consumption of Ni rings declined during the period

examined (January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009). Apparent U.S. consumption of Ni rings declined

from *** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007 and then to *** pounds in 2008. Apparent consumption

was lower in the first six months of 2009 (“interim 2009”), at *** pounds, than it was during interim

2008, when it was *** pounds.46

Demand for Ni rings is directly linked to the demand for diesel engines that incorporate

aluminum pistons.47 These engines are used to power motor vehicles (which, in the United States, are

largely certain light trucks and medium- to heavy-duty trucks), farm and other off-road equipment, marine

transports, and large compressors.48 The parties agree that, at least to some extent, the decline in Ni ring

apparent consumption during the period examined reflects a decline in demand for the motor vehicles

containing diesel engines.49 Indeed, the sales of class 8 trucks, which QCC has identified as a good

indicator for aluminum piston sales, declined by 53.5 percent from 2006 to 2008.50 

Technological changes provide a major reason why demand has declined for motor vehicles

containing diesel engines with aluminum pistons. Several aluminum piston producers characterized use

of Ni rings as an older technology, and observed that as emission standards promulgated by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) become more stringent, engine producers increasingly prefer

steel or articulated pistons, which can better withstand the increased heat associated with the greater

cylinder pressure required under stricter emissions standards than can aluminum pistons. Unlike

aluminum pistons, steel and articulated pistons do not incorporate Ni rings.51 Changes in EPA vehicle

emissions standards may also affect Ni ring demand; the parties have reported that historically there have

been increases in demand just prior to the effective date of revised EPA emissions standards.52
 53 Tr. at 42 (J. Korff), 115 (Turcott).

 54 CR/PR, Table C-1.

 55 CR at II-12 n.42, II-13 & n.43, PR at II-7 n.42, II-8 & n.43; CR/PR, Table III-3.

 56 Tr. at 111, 139-40 (Turcott). ***. See CR at IV-1 n.3, PR at IV-1 n.3.

 57 See CR at III-1, PR at III-1.

 58 Tr. at 12 (J. Korff).

 59 Tr. at 13-14 (J. Korff).

 60 Tr. at 15 (J. Korff); see Federal-Mogul Prehearing Brief, ex. 1.

 61 See Tr. at 36-37 (J. Korff).

 62 Tr. at 22 (J. Korff).

 63 Tr. at 25 (J. Korff).

 64 CR/PR, Table IV-4.

11

The parties also reported that poor economic conditions in the United States affected demand

during the latter portion of the period examined.53 We observe, however, that the rate of decline in annual

apparent U.S. consumption of Ni rings was sharper in 2007, before the current U.S. recession began, than

in 2008.54

There are very few known U.S. producers of aluminum pistons for diesel engines that would

purchase or use Ni rings in their operations. The two principal U.S. aluminum piston producers that

purchase Ni rings are the two importers that entered appearances in this investigation: Federal-Mogul and

Karl Schmidt. Two other firms responded to the Commission purchasers’ questionnaire, but the record

indicates that their purchase quantities ***.55 Another firm, Mahle, was also identified by industry

participants as a firm that produces aluminum pistons, ***.56

Supply Conditions. QCC is the sole known domestic producer of Ni rings.57 QCC was acquired

by the Korff family at a bankruptcy sale in 2004.58 Joseph Korff, the president of QCC, testified that in

the 1990s QCC sold as much as $10 million worth of Ni rings annually and that Ni rings constituted

about half of QCC’s total business.59 By the time Mr. Korff acquired the business in 2004, QCC’s sales

of Ni rings had declined to somewhere in the range of $2.5 to $5 million a year and the Ni ring business

had been unprofitable for several years.60 Most of QCC’s current business is in sand castings, which are

nonsubject products that do not use the same production equipment or processes as Ni rings.61 QCC also

produces other products, such as lapping pots and cylinder liners, on the centrifugal casting equipment it

uses to produce Ni rings.62 QCC acknowledged at the hearing that its current productive capacity for Ni

rings exceeds the sum of apparent U.S. consumption for that product and demand for the other

centrifugally cast products it produces.63 QCC’s share of apparent U.S. consumption of Ni rings declined

from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008, and was lower in interim 2009 (at *** percent) than in

interim 2008 (when it was *** percent).64

Argentina was *** supplier of Ni rings to the U.S. market during the period examined. Subject

imports’ share of the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption of Ni rings declined from *** percent in

2006 to *** percent in 2008. It was higher in interim 2009 (at *** percent) than in interim 2008 (when it
 65 CR/PR, Table IV-4. 

 66 CR at IV-1, PR at IV-1.

 67 CR at IV-1, PR at IV-1.

 68 CR/PR, Table IV-4.

 69 CR at I-7, V-1, PR at I-6, V-1.

 70 CR/PR, Figure V-1.

 71 CR at V-1, PR at V-1.

 72 ***. CR/PR, Table II-3.

 73 CR/PR, Table II-3.

 74 In the comparison with subject imports, ***. In the comparison with nonsubject imports from Korea, ***. 

CR/PR, Table II-5.

 75 Tr. at 94-95 (Turcott).

 76 Tr. at 94-95 (Turcott).

 77 Karl Schmidt Prehearing Brief at 4.

12

was *** percent).65 Karl Schmidt was the sole importer of subject merchandise from Argentina during

the period examined.66

Nonsubject sources supplied the next largest quantity of Ni rings to the U.S. market during the

period examined. *** nonsubject imports were from Korea and were imported by Federal-Mogul.67

Nonsubject imports’ share of the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption of Ni rings rose from *** percent

in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. It was lower in interim 2009 (at *** percent) than in interim 2008 (when

it was *** percent).68

Other Conditions. Nickel is among the principal raw materials used to make Ni rings.69 Nickel

prices were volatile during the period examined, rising sharply in 2006 and early 2007, peaking during

the second quarter of 2007, and declining irregularly thereafter.70 Because of the volatility of nickel

prices, nickel surcharges are common among Ni ring producers worldwide.71

Market participants perceive the subject imports and the domestic like product to be sometimes or

always interchangeable.72 *** reported that nonsubject imports and the domestic like product are always

interchangeable.73 Comparisons between the domestic like product and subject imports and the domestic

like product and nonsubject imports from Korea were made by only one purchaser apiece. In each

comparison, the responding purchaser found the domestic and imported products comparable with regard

to *** purchasing factors.74

Karl Schmidt states that most of its Ni ring purchases are made pursuant to “long-term programs”

of three to seven years in duration that involve commitments to purchase substantial quantities of

product.75 It will occasionally purchase smaller orders – typically in the tens of thousands of pieces – in

the spot market.76 Karl Schmidt states that it does not carry significant inventories of the components it

uses to produce pistons and requires its suppliers to furnish these parts on a “just in time” basis.77

C. Volume of Subject Imports

In evaluating the volume of subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act provides that

the “Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that

volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, is
 78 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 79 Because the Commission terminated the investigation concerning Ni rings from Korea, 74 Fed. Reg. 51319

(Oct. 6, 2009), the statute bars the Commission from cumulating imports from Korea with subject imports from

Argentina for purposes of its final determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(ii)(II).

 80 CR/PR, Table IV-2.

 81 CR/PR, Table IV-3.

 82 CR/PR, Table IV-4. The quantities of shipments of the domestic like product and nonsubject imports also

were lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008. CR/PR, Table IV-3.

 83 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

13

significant.”78

 The quantity of subject imports declined on both an absolute and relative basis from 2006 to

2008.79 Subject imports declined from *** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007 and then increased to

*** pounds in 2008. There were *** pounds of subject imports in 2009, which was lower than the ***

pounds in interim 2008.80 U.S. shipments of subject imports declined from *** pounds in 2006 to ***

pounds in 2007 and then declined further to *** pounds in 2008. There were *** pounds of U.S.

shipments of subject imports in 2009, which was lower than the *** pounds shipped in interim 2008.81

The market penetration of subject imports declined from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in

2007 and then to *** percent in 2008. Market penetration of subject imports was higher in interim 2009,

when it was *** percent, than in interim 2008, when it was *** percent, despite the fact that the quantity

of subject imports was lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008.82

As stated above, Argentina is *** supplier of Ni rings to the U.S. market and the market

penetration of subject imports was substantial throughout the period examined. Consequently, we find

the volume of subject imports, both in absolute terms and relative to consumption in the United States, to

be significant. We do not find there to be a significant increase in the volume of subject imports, because

the quantity of subject imports declined throughout the period examined and their market share declined

during the three full calendar years for which we collected data. As explained below, notwithstanding the

significant volume of subject imports, we reach a negative determination of material injury by reason of

subject imports in light of the lack of significant price effects and the lack of any causal nexus between

the subject imports and any changes in the condition of the domestic industry.

D. Price Effects of Subject Imports

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

provides that the Commission shall consider whether –

 (I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as

compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and

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

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

degree.83

The Commission collected price data concerning four products. QCC reported its prices ***. 

Karl Schmidt, the sole importer of subject merchandise, reported prices for subject imports from
 84 CR at V-5 & n.25, PR at V-3 & n.25. The Commission requested that importers provide prices on a landed

duty-paid basis, excluding U.S. inland transportation costs, if able to do so. ***. Id.

 85 CR/PR, Tables V-1-2, D-1-2.

 86 CR/PR, Tables V-1-2.

 87 Tr. at 94-95 (Turcott).

 88 Tr. at 85-86 (Kane); Karl Schmidt Prehearing Brief at 7.

 89 Tr. at 87 (Kane); Karl Schmidt Posthearing Brief at 4. We discuss in section III.E. below QCC’s unsuccessful

negotiations during the period examined to enter a long-term supply agreement with Karl Schmidt.

 90 CR/PR, Tables V-1-2. Moreover, as Karl Schmidt’s witness testified at the hearing, during the portion of the

period examined when it made many of its spot market purchases from QCC, “we didn’t really have a lot of time to

shop around.” Tr. at 103 (Turcott). During the period examined, Karl Schmidt did not have any qualified suppliers

for Ni rings other than Clorindo and QCC. See Tr. at 131 (Turcott).

 91 QCC did not provide any specific lost sales or revenues allegations to the Commission. CR at V-10-11, PR at

V-4.

 92 Commissioner Lane does not join in this finding. For those pricing comparisons on a *** basis that are in the

record, the subject imports undersold the domestic industry prices by margins ranging from *** to *** percent in six

quarters and the overselling in one quarter was by a margin of approximately *** percent. Commissioner Lane finds

that there was significant underselling by the subject imports.

14

Argentina on *** basis. It also reported its prices for purchases from QCC on *** basis.84 There were 17

quarterly observations of sales prices of the domestic like product, seven quarterly observations of

purchase prices for the domestic like product, and 27 quarterly observations for purchase prices for the

subject imports.85

The pricing data are of limited utility due to the nature of the underlying transactions. Because

Karl Schmidt does not sell Ni rings, but uses them in the production of aluminum pistons, we are unable

to conduct a comparison of domestic producers’ first sales prices with importers’ first sales prices as in a

typical investigation. The most comparable pricing comparisons that the record permits are those

comparing Karl Schmidt’s *** prices for purchases from QCC and Karl Schmidt’s *** prices for

purchases of the subject imports. There are seven such comparisons. In six of them, the *** price for the

subject imports was lower than the *** purchase price for the domestically produced product.86

Besides the absence of comparisons of first sales prices, there are several additional reasons why

the available price comparisons are of limited utility. First, there are only a very limited number of

comparisons. Additionally, Karl Schmidt purchased the subject imports and the domestically produced

product under very different conditions of trade. As previously discussed, Karl Schmidt engages in both

long-term programs for purchases of substantial quantities of Ni rings, and spot purchases of much

smaller quantities.87 Karl Schmidt has used Clorindo, the Argentine producer, as its primary supplier, and

its single long-term supplier, for over a decade.88 During the period examined, it relied on QCC for spot

purchases only.89 As might be expected in light of these purchasing patterns, for both pricing products for

which comparisons can be made, Karl Schmidt purchased *** greater quantities of the subject imports

than it did of the domestically produced product.90 In light of the limitations of the available pricing data,

and because the differences in reported purchase prices reflect the fact that the domestic like product and

the subject imports were purchased in *** different quantities under dissimilar purchasing programs, we

do not find that the record indicates significant underselling of the domestic like product by the subject

imports.91 92
 93 CR/PR, Tables V-1-2.

 94 CR/PR, Figure V-1.

 95 CR/PR, Tables V-1-2, Tables D-1-2.

 96 CR/PR, Tables V-1-2, Tables D-1-2. 

 97 CR/PR, Table VI-1. The *** percent ratio of COGS to sales in interim 2009 was lower than the *** percent

ratio in interim 2008. Id.

 98 CR at VI-7 n.21, PR at VI-3 n.21. The per unit metals margin was also higher in interim 2009 than interim

2008. Id.

 99 CR/PR, Figure V-1.

 100 CR at VI-5-6, PR at VI-3.

 101 CR/PR, Table VI-1.

 102 CR at VI-6-7, PR at VI-3-4.

 103 CR/PR, Tables III-3, IV-2. Karl Schmidt testified at the hearing that its spot market needs peaked in 2007

because of a demand spike for aluminum pistons just prior to new EPA emissions regulations becoming effective in

2008. Tr. at 99 (Turcott). 

QCC contends that it formerly sold significant quantities of Ni rings to piston producer Zollner Corp. until

Karl Schmidt acquired Zollner in 1999. These transactions, however, occurred well before the period examined. 

(continued...)

15

The reported purchase prices for the subject imports rose during 2006, peaked during the second

and third quarters of 2007, and then declined irregularly during the remainder of the period examined.93

This appears generally to reflect the trends in nickel prices observed during the period examined.94

Ascertaining price trends for the domestic like product is difficult because of the lack of any extended

time series of data for any of the individual pricing products. To the extent an analysis is possible, it

indicates that price movements for domestically produced Ni rings appear to be largely coincident with

price fluctuations for nickel.95

For three of the four domestically produced pricing products, the latest available pricing

observation was higher than the earliest available observation.96 In light of this, we do not find significant

price depression.

QCC’s ratio of cost of goods sold (COGS) to net sales rose *** during the period examined,

increasing from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008.97 Notwithstanding this, the record indicates

that QCC was able to recoup changes in raw materials costs on a per-unit basis. Its per unit metal margin

(the difference between per unit sales value and per unit raw materials costs) increased from *** in 2006

to *** in 2008.98 QCC’s ratio of raw materials costs to net sales values did increase, but this is in part a

function of the fact that, while nickel prices generally declined after 2007,99 QCC consumed inventories

of metals because declining sales volumes did not warrant making new metal purchases.100 Declining

sales volumes also explain why QCC was not able to recoup increases in its direct labor and other factory

costs, which both rose *** on a per-unit basis; other factory costs also increased *** as a ratio to net sales

values.101 Because of low and *** declining sales volumes, these costs had to be absorbed over a smaller

share of production.102 

We find that the declines in sales volumes and accompanying revenues cannot be attributed to

any significant degree to the subject imports. Karl Schmidt, the sole importer of subject merchandise,

actually purchased *** more Ni rings from QCC in 2007 and 2008 than it did in 2006, while its subject

import volumes were *** lower in both 2007 and 2008 than in 2006.103 Thus, in 2008, when QCC’s
 103 (...continued)

Moreover, the record does not contain any information about pertinent conditions of competition in 1999, nor does it

indicate that QCC lost these sales for price reasons.

 104 CR/PR, Table III-3, VI-1.

 105 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission

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

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

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

 106 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-

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

 107 The domestic industry’s production declined from *** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007, and then

declined further to *** pounds in 2008. Interim 2009 production of *** pounds was below interim 2008 production

of *** pounds. CR/PR, Table III-1. U.S. shipments declined from *** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007, and

then declined further to *** pounds in 2008. Interim 2009 U.S. shipments of *** pounds were below interim 2008

U.S. shipments of *** pounds. Export shipments also declined from 2006 to 2008, albeit at a *** rate than domestic

shipments, and were lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008. CR/PR, Table III-2.

Inventories declined from *** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007 and then to *** pounds in 2008. 

Interim 2009 inventories of *** pounds were less than interim 2008 inventories of *** pounds. Inventories as a ratio

to U.S. shipments declined from 2006 to 2008 but were higher in interim 2009 than in interim 2008. CR/PR, Table

III-4.

 108 Tr. at 14 (J. Korff).

16

COGS to sales ratio ***, QCC’s sales revenues from Karl Schmidt were higher than they were in 2006.104

We cannot conclude that the cost/price squeeze the domestic industry experienced during the period

examined was caused to any significant degree by the subject imports. In light of these considerations,

we find that the subject imports from Argentina did not have significant price-suppressing effects.

Therefore, we find that subject imports have not had a significant effect on the prices of the

domestic product.

E. Impact of Subject Imports

In examining the impact of subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that

the Commission “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the

industry.”105 These factors include output, sales, inventories, ability to raise capital, research and

development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor is dispositive and all relevant factors

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

to the affected industry.”106

Output-related indicators of domestic industry performance generally declined during the period

examined. Production and shipments fell.107 The confidential data the Commission collected corroborate

QCC’s public testimony that its current shipments are “zero or close to zero.”108 Because capacity
 109 Capacity was at *** pounds on an annual basis throughout the period examined. CR/PR, Table III-1. This

was *** greater than apparent U.S. consumption, which declined from *** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2008. 

CR/PR, Table IV-3. Reported capacity utilization declined from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and

then to *** percent in 2008. It was lower in interim 2009 (when it was *** percent) than in interim 2008 (when it

was *** percent). CR/PR, Table III-1.

 110 The domestic industry’s share of the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption declined from *** percent in

2006 to *** percent in 2007 and then to *** percent in 2008. Its 2009 share of *** percent was below its interim

2008 share of *** percent. CR/PR, Table IV-4.

 111 The number of production and related workers was *** in 2006, declined to *** in 2007, and declined further

to *** in 2008. Employment of *** in interim 2009 was lower than employment of *** workers in interim 2008. 

CR/PR, Table III-5.

 112 Productivity, in pounds per hour, declined from *** in 2006 to *** in 2007 and then increased to *** in 2008. 

The *** pounds per hour in interim 2009 was lower than the *** pounds per hour in interim 2008. Unit labor costs

per pound rose from *** in 2006 to *** in 2007 and remained unchanged in 2008. Unit labor costs per pound were

higher in interim 2009, when they were ***, than in interim 2008, when they were ***. CR/PR, Table III-5.

 113 Total net sales by quantity fell from *** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007 and then to *** pounds in

2008. Interim 2009 sales of *** pounds were below interim 2008 sales of *** pounds. CR/PR, Table VI-1.

 114 Operating *** were *** in 2006, *** in 2007, *** in 2008, *** in interim 2008 and *** in interim 2009. The

operating ratio declined from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, and then declined further to *** percent in

2008. Operating ratios in interim 2008 and interim 2009 were *** percent, respectively. CR/PR, Table VI-1.

There were *** capital or research and development expenditures reported *** during the period. CR/PR,

Table VI-2.

 115 Commissioner Lane finds that although subject imports contributed to the injury to the domestic industry as

reflected in its poor and declining performance during the period of investigation, the harm to the domestic industry

“by reason of” the subject imports is not more than a minimal or tangential cause of such injury.

 116 Commissioner Pinkert discusses his causation analysis more fully in footnote 130.

17

remained constant, the reduced output caused reported capacity utilization to decline to *** levels.109 The

domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption declined throughout the period.110

The number of production and related workers declined during the period examined.111 Because

production declined at a more rapid rate than employment, there were *** declines in productivity and

increases in unit labor costs.112

QCC’s operating performance declined during each year from 2006 to 2008, and was *** after

2007. Sales fell ***,113 and the firm showed operating *** each year.114

The domestic industry’s poor and declining performance during the period examined, however,

was not a function of the subject imports to any significant degree.115 Although the subject imports had a

significant presence in the market, they were not responsible for the domestic industry’s *** decline in

market share from 2006 to 2008, as the subject imports themselves lost market share over that time period

to nonsubject imports. Nor were the declines in the domestic industry’s production, shipments, and

employment caused by the subject imports to any significant degree.

We have examined the other factors that are having adverse effects on the domestic industry, as

discussed herein. We find, in light of these other factors, that there is not a sufficient causal nexus

between subject imports and material injury to the domestic industry.116

Instead, there are two significant factors explaining the declines in QCC’s sales volumes and

revenues. The first is *** reduced purchases by Federal-Mogul. As previously discussed, while Karl

Schmidt’s imports from Argentina declined from 2006 to 2008, its purchases from QCC increased. 
 117 See CR/PR, Tables III-3, IV-3, and VI-1.

 118 CR/PR, Table III-3.

 119 CR/PR, Table III-3.

 120 CR/PR, Tables III-3, IV-2. 

 121 The record of these negotiations provided to us does not indicate that there was any firm discussion of

possible quantities that QCC would supply if it entered an agreement. To the contrary, ***. Karl Schmidt

Posthearing Brief at C-23.

 122 Tr. at 95 (Turcott); see Karl Schmidt Posthearing Brief at C-39-42.

 123 Tr. at 95 (Turcott).

 124 CR at V-3, PR at V-2. QCC president Joseph Korff testified that he personally developed the all-metals

surcharge formula in 1989 during his prior tenure with the company. Tr. at 45 (J. Korff).

 125 Tr. at 95-96 (Turcott), 108 (Turcott), 123-24 (Klingon).

 126 Tr. at 32, 63-64 (J. Korff).

18

Instead, QCC’s production and sales declines were caused by the loss of *** sales to Federal-Mogul, the

customer *** to nonsubject imports from Korea.117 QCC’s Ni ring sales to Federal-Mogul dropped from

*** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2008 as Federal-Mogul shifted its purchases from QCC to imports

from the Korean producer, which, in light of Commerce’s negative subsidy determination, must be

considered fairly traded nonsubject imports.118 Indeed, the decline in purchases by Federal-Mogul *** for

QCC’s total decline in sales from 2006 to 2008.119 

The second factor is declining U.S. demand. While the record indicates that ***, declining

demand also caused the quantity of Karl Schmidt’s imports from Argentina to fall *** in interim 2009.120

Declining demand also reduced the need for spot market purchases by Karl Schmidt. 

We have also examined the degree to which price competition from the subject imports may have

prevented the domestic industry from obtaining additional sales, or caused greater declines in production,

shipments, market share, and employment than would have occurred otherwise. In this respect we have

considered information on record concerning negotiations that took place between QCC and Karl Schmidt

during 2007 and 2008 about a possible long-term supply contract.121 The record corroborates Karl

Schmidt’s testimony that the negotiations ultimately foundered because QCC insisted on a surcharge

based on the prices of all metals, instead of merely nickel.122 Karl Schmidt testified that the common

practice is to use a surcharge based solely on the price of nickel,123 and other information on record

indicates that QCC’s use of surcharges based on prices of all metals ***.124 Karl Schmidt’s witnesses

testified that the firm believes that it is the supplier’s responsibility to accept the risk of fluctuation in

metals prices, and that Karl Schmidt requires a predictable price (aside from nickel surcharges which it

can pass on to its purchasers) before it can commit to a long-term agreement.125 QCC’s president, by

contrast, testified that he does not believe that taking risks for fluctuations in metal prices other than

nickel is prudent.126 In light of this testimony, we find that the QCC-Karl Schmidt long-term contract

negotiations did not fail for price reasons, in that Karl Schmidt was not in a position to compare fairly the

prices offered by QCC and the subject imports because QCC’s prices could fluctuate in a manner that the
 127 Moreover, QCC testified that its surcharge formula could serve to reduce prices (if metals prices declined) as

well as to increase them. Tr. at 45 (J. Korff). This tends to reinforce Karl Schmidt’s view that QCC’s surcharge

formula was problematic less because it inflated prices than because it made them unpredictable.

 128 Commissioner Pinkert finds that Karl Schmidt takes surcharge terms into account as a factor in the total cost

of purchasing Ni rings. Karl Schmidt Posthearing Brief at 10-11, Ex. C at C-16.

 129 Chairman Aranoff notes that before the failure of the 2007-2008 negotiations between Karl Schmidt and

QCC, Karl Schmidt had some reason to hesitate before expanding its business relationship with QCC. Shortly after

his family purchased QCC in 2004, QCC president Joseph Korff sent a letter to three firms then producing aluminum

pistons in the United States stating that “[t]o continue in the business, we need sales volume of at least $500,000 per

month at base prices which allow us to generate sufficient profits to maintain and reinvest in the business as a stand

alone.” Karl Schmidt Prehearing Brief, ex. 3. At the hearing, Mr. Korff conceded that QCC never followed up on

this letter with its customers. Tr. at 56-57 (J. Korff). The fact that QCC was still in the Ni ring business in 2007

despite never achieving the volume commitments it asserted were necessary casts some doubt on Karl Schmidt’s

claim that QCC is an unreliable supplier. Nevertheless, in light of the phrasing of the letter and the lack of any

follow-up to counter potentially negative reactions from the recipients, subsequent negotiations took place against a

pre-existing background of poor customer-supplier relations.

 130 As reflected in whole or in part in the text, Commissioner Pinkert finds that Clorindo has supplied Karl

Schmidt with Ni rings under contract since before the period under examination; Clorindo’s sales to Karl Schmidt

represented a *** share of the U.S. market throughout the period; QCC wished to conclude a contract with Karl

Schmidt during the period but was unable to do so, in large part because it was unable or unwilling to offer metal

surcharge terms comparable to those offered by Clorindo (QCC ultimately insisted on an all-metals, rather than a

nickel-only, surcharge); and QCC's financial performance with respect to Ni rings was *** throughout the period.

Although Commissioner Pinkert finds that QCC’s financial performance with respect to Ni rings would

have improved substantially had it obtained a contract with Karl Schmidt, he does not find that its failure to do so is

by reason of the subsidized imports from Argentina, and he thus does not find that the subsidized imports from

Argentina caused material injury to the domestic industry. Under the facts as set forth above, the only argument that

could have convinced him otherwise would be that Clorindo was able to offer Karl Schmidt more attractive

surcharge terms than QCC, and thereby prevent QCC from concluding a contract with Karl Schmidt, because

Clorindo received countervailable subsidies. Cf. QCC Postconference Brief at 5; Tr. at 157 (G. Korff). 

Commissioner Pinkert finds that argument, however, to be unsupported by the record in that the

subsidization here is of a small magnitude – the net countervailable subsidy rate reported by Commerce is

insufficient when applied to the average of the unit values of imports from Argentina to account for the risk of

increased non-nickel metal costs – and is not related to metal prices. See 74 Fed. Reg. at 47923. In addition, he

notes that the volume of contract sales QCC could have won from Karl Schmidt is unclear. ***. Karl Schmidt

Posthearing Brief, Ex. C at C-23. 

19

subject imports would not.127 128 Instead, QCC’s final offer reflected business practices unacceptable to

Karl Schmidt that Karl Schmidt perceived – with reason – were not standard for such transactions.129

Consequently, QCC’s inability to obtain a long-term contractual agreement with Karl Schmidt, which

might have enabled it to increase output and sales during the period examined, was not a function of the

subject imports having a price advantage over the domestic like product.130

Accordingly, we find that the domestic industry’s poor financial performance during the period

examined was not due in any significant degree to the subject imports. The poor and declining operating

performance of the domestic industry was caused by *** declining sales revenues and concomitant

increases in the ratio of COGS to net sales. As explained above, these revenue declines are not a function

of the subject imports, which did not have significant price effects. Instead, as with the declines in

production and shipments, they are attributable to competition from nonsubject imports and declines in

demand.
 131 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 132 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 133 These factors are as follows:

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be presented to it by the administering

authority as to the nature of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a subsidy

described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement) and whether imports of the subject merchandise

are likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the

exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional

exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise

indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to

produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products;

. . .

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability that there is likely to be material

injury by reason of imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually

being imported at the time).

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i). To organize our analysis, we discuss the applicable statutory threat factors using the

same volume/price/impact framework that applies to a material injury analysis. Statutory threat factors (I), (II), (III),

(V), and (VI) are discussed in the analysis of subject import volume. Statutory threat factor (IV) is discussed in the

(continued...)

20

We therefore find that the subject imports have not had a significant impact on the domestic

industry. Accordingly, we conclude that the domestic industry is not materially injured by reason of

subject imports.

IV. NO THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS

Section 771(7)(F) of the Tariff Act directs the Commission to determine whether the U.S.

industry is threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing whether “further

dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would

occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted.”131 The Commission may not make

such a determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition,” and considers the threat factors “as

a whole” in making its determination whether dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether

material injury by reason of subject imports would occur unless an order is issued.132 In making our

determination, we consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to this investigation.133
 133 (...continued)

price effects analysis, and statutory threat factor (IX) is discussed in the impact analysis. Statutory threat factor

(VII) is inapplicable, as no imports of agricultural products are involved in these investigations. There was no

argument that the industry is currently engaging or will imminently engage in any efforts to develop a derivative or

more advanced version of the domestic like product, which would implicate statutory threat factor (VIII).

 134 Although the market penetration of subject imports was higher in interim 2009 than in interim 2008, and the

domestic industry’s market share was lower, CR/PR at Table IV-4, this does not indicate a likelihood of the subject

imports taking additional market share from the domestic industry. As discussed above, the record does not indicate

that the subject imports used price-based competition to take sales from the domestic industry in interim 2009.

 135 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert do not join the previous footnote and note that, although the market

penetration of subject imports was higher in interim 2009 than in interim 2008, and the domestic industry’s market

share was lower, CR/PR at Table IV-4, this does not indicate a likelihood of the subject imports taking additional

market share from the domestic industry. As discussed above, the domestic industry lost market share due to the

loss of Federal-Mogul’s business and to the *** declines in apparent U.S. consumption, which accelerated in interim

2009, leading to a collapse in spot market demand during that period.

 136 Tr. at 116 (Turcott).

 137 CR/PR, Table VII-1. Clorindo states that it is currently ***. CR at VII-2, PR at VII-1.

 138 CR/PR, Table VII-1.

 139 See CR/PR, Table VII-3 (***).

 140 CR/PR, Table VII-1.

 141 We note that there are no antidumping or countervailing duty orders or investigations concerning the subject

merchandise in other WTO member states. CR at VII-5, PR at VII-2.

21

Likely Subject Import Volume. We find that subject import volume is not likely to increase

significantly in the imminent future. As previously discussed, the quantity of subject imports declined

throughout the period examined and the market penetration of the subject imports declined from 2006 to

2008.134 135 The decline in the quantity of subject imports largely reflected declines in U.S. demand for Ni

rings. As previously discussed, piston producers perceive that Ni rings embody an older technology and

that demand will continue to move away from aluminum pistons incorporating Ni rings as EPA emissions

requirements become more stringent. In particular, Karl Schmidt, which is the sole importer of the

subject merchandise, projects that demand for the aluminum pistons it produces incorporating Ni rings

will continue to decline.136 Consequently, the record does not indicate that the U.S. demand trends for Ni

rings observed during the period examined are likely to change in the imminent future. 

We acknowledge that there is currently *** unused capacity in the Argentine industry, and that

Clorindo projects that this unused capacity is likely to ***.137 Nevertheless, we do not believe that this

unused capacity makes further imports likely. Notwithstanding the unused capacity that existed during

the period examined, Clorindo’s shipments to the United States declined on both an absolute and a

relative basis, as Clorindo directed increasing percentages of its shipments to other export markets.138

Moreover, as discussed in section III.B., *** substantial purchasers of Ni rings in the United States are

Karl Schmidt and Federal Mogul. There is no indication that Federal-Mogul is considering shifting its

purchases from its current Korean supplier to Clorindo.139 In light of these considerations, as well as the

likely demand trends in the United States, we find Clorindo’s projections that it will continue to direct

*** percentages of shipments to export markets outside the United States to be credible.140

We have also examined several other statutory factors pertaining to likely subject import

volume.141 Inventories of the subject merchandise in Argentina were at low levels relative to production

or total shipments throughout the period examined, and declined in both absolute and relative terms from
 142 CR/PR, Table VII-1.

 143 CR/PR, Table VII-2.

 144 CR/PR, Tables VII-1-2; see CR at VII-2 n.4, PR at VII-1 n.4.

 145 CR at VII-1, PR at VII-1.

 146 The first Argentine program Commerce found to be a countervailable subsidy is the Reintegro program,

which entitles Argentine exporters of new and unused goods manufactured in Argentina to a rebate of domestic

indirect taxes that are levied during the production and distribution process of the finished export products. 

Memorandum from John M. Andersen to Ronald K. Lorentzen at 2 (Sept. 14, 2009). The second is Article 183.29

of the Santa Fe Fiscal Code, which provides a full stamp tax exemption on credits and loans to finance import and

export and currency exchange transactions, and to financial and related transactions in the industrial sector. Id. at 6-

7. The third is Article 127 of the Santa Fe Fiscal Code, which exempts export revenue from the province’s turnover

tax. Id. at 8.

 147 Commissioner Lane does not join this sentence.

22

2006 to 2008.142 Inventories of the subject merchandise in the United States also declined both on an

absolute and relative basis from 2006 to 2008.143 Although inventories of the subject merchandise in both

Argentina and the United States were higher on both a relative and absolute basis in interim 2009 than in

interim 2008, this appears to be a function of demand declining more rapidly than production (in

Argentina) or imports (in the United States).144 This does not detract from our conclusion that significant

additional quantities of subject imports are not likely.

Ni rings were *** produced and sold by Clorindo for the period for which data were collected,145

so there is no likelihood of production being shifted to Ni rings from other products. We have also

considered the nature of the subsidies. Commerce found that three Argentine programs provided

countervailable subsidies, but made no findings that the subsidies were of the types described in Article 3

or 6.1 of the WTO Subsidies Agreement.146

Likely Price Effects. We found above that the subject imports do not currently have significant

price effects, notwithstanding that their purchase prices were generally lower than purchase prices for the

domestic like product. In light of our findings that the subject imports did not significantly undersell the

domestic like product, nor depress or suppress prices to a significant degree, the record does not indicate

that there is any significant likelihood that subject imports would use underselling to maintain or increase

market share in relation to the domestic industry should demand for Ni rings continue to decline.147 As

discussed above, price movements appear to be largely coincident with price fluctuations for nickel. In

light of these considerations, our prior finding that subject import volume is not likely to increase

significantly, and the fact that subject import pricing did not stimulate demand for additional subject

import volumes during the period examined, we do not believe that the subject imports will enter at prices

that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices in the imminent

future.

Likely Impact. Although the domestic industry is currently in a poor condition, the declines in

industry performance that occurred during the period examined were not attributable to the subject

imports to any significant degree. Similarly, because there is no likelihood in the imminent future of a

significant increase in import volume, or significant price effects from the subject imports, we find that

the subject imports will not likely have a significant impact. We accordingly conclude that the domestic

industry is not threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports.
23

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the domestic Ni ring industry is not materially

injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports from Argentina.
 
 1

 See the section entitled “The Subject Merchandise” in Part I of this report for a complete description of the

merchandise subject to this investigation.

 2

 Commerce made a final determination that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to producers and

exporters of Ni rings from Korea, and therefore terminated the investigation concerning Korea. Ni-Resist Piston

Inserts from the Republic of Korea: Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 48059, September

21, 2009. The Commission also terminated its investigation on Ni rings from Korea. 74 FR 51319, October 6, 2009.

 3

 Relevant Federal Register notices are presented in app. A.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

This investigation results from a petition filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) on 

January 26, 2009 by Korff Holdings LLC d/b/a Quaker City Castings (“QCC”), Salem, OH, alleging that

an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with further material injury by reason

of subsidized imports of Ni-resist piston inserts (“Ni rings”)1

 from Argentina and Korea.2 Information

relating to the background of the investigation is provided below.3

Effective date Action

January 26, 2009 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of the

Commission’s investigations (74 FR 5946, February 3, 2009)

February 23, 2009 Commerce’s notice of initiation (74 FR 8054)

March 19, 2009 Commission’s preliminary determinations (74 FR 12898, March 25, 2009)

July 6, 2009

Commerce’s preliminary determinations (74 FR 31914 (Argentina)) and (74

FR 31919 (Korea)); scheduling of final phase of Commission investigations

(74 FR 34784, July 17, 2009)

September 17, 2009 Commission’s hearing1

September 18, 2009 Commerce’s affirmative final determination on Argentina (74 FR 47922)

September 21, 2009 Commerce’s negative final determination on Korea (74 FR 48059)

October 19, 2009 Date of the Commission’s vote

October 29, 2009 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce

 1 A list of witnesses appearing at the Commission’s hearing is presented in app. B.
I-2

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in

making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission--

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II)

the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States

for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only

in the context of production operations within the United States; and . . .

may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of

imports.

Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that--

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission

shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any

increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production

or consumption in the United States is significant.

. . .

In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the

Commission shall consider whether . . . (I) there has been significant

price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the

price of domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of

imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph

(B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to

. . . 

(I) actual and potential declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (II)

factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative

effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to

raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects

on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping

investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping.
I-3

Organization of the Report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, subsidy rates, and the

domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of competition and other

relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the U.S. industry, including

data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Parts IV and V present the

volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise, respectively. Part VI presents information on

the financial experience of the U.S. producer. Part VII presents the statutory requirements and

information obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat of material

injury as well as information regarding nonsubject countries.

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

Ni rings are used to prolong the life of aluminum pistons used in diesel engines. The only U.S.

producer of Ni rings is QCC, while producers of Ni rings outside the United States include Clorindo

Appo SRL (“Clorindo”) of Argentina and Incheon Metal Co., Ltd. (“Incheon”) of Korea. The U.S.

importer of Ni rings from Argentina is Karl Schmidt Unisia, Inc. (“Karl Schmidt”) and the importer of Ni

rings from Korea is Federal-Mogul Corp. (“Federal-Mogul”). *** imports of Ni rings into the United

States from nonsubject countries are imports from Korea.

Apparent U.S. consumption of Ni rings totaled *** pounds ($***) in 2008. QCC’s U.S.

shipments of Ni rings totaled *** pounds ($***) in 2008, accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. shipments of imports from Argentina totaled

*** pounds ($***) in 2008, accounting for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and

*** percent by value. The total quantity of U.S. shipments of imports from Argentina was *** percent

lower in January-June 2009 than in January-June 2008, which coincided with apparent U.S. consumption

being *** percent lower in January-June 2009 than in January-June 2008.

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

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

industry data are based on the questionnaire response of QCC, which accounted for all U.S. production of

Ni rings during the period for which data were collected in the investigation (January 2006-June 2009). 

U.S. imports are based on questionnaire responses because the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

States (“HTS”) category that includes Ni rings also includes other products that are not the subject of this

investigation.

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Ni rings have not been the subject of prior countervailing or antidumping duty investigations in

the United States. 
 4 Ni-Resist Piston Inserts from Argentina: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 47922,

September 18, 2009.

I-4

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUBSIDIES

Argentina

On September 18, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its affirmative

final determination of countervailable subsidies for producers and exporters of Ni rings in Argentina.4

 

Table I-1 presents Commerce’s findings of subsidization for Ni rings from Argentina.

Commerce determined that three programs in Argentina are countervailable: (1) Tax Relief

Under the Reintegro, (2) Article 183.29 Provincial Stamp Tax Exemption, and (3) Article 127 Provincial

Turnover Tax Exemption. The Reintegro entitles Argentine exporters of new and unused goods

manufactured in Argentina to a rebate of domestic indirect taxes that are levied during the production and

distribution process of finished export products. Commerce determined the countervailable subsidy

provided to Argentine producer Clorindo under the Reintegro to be 5.25 percent ad valorem. In addition,

Commerce determined the countervailable subsidies obtained by Clorindo under the Provincial Stamp

Tax Exemption to be 0.06 percent ad valorem and under the Provincial Turnover Tax Exemption to be

1.5 percent ad valorem.

Table I-1

Ni rings: Commerce’s final subsidy determination with respect to imports from Argentina

Entity

Final countervailable subsidy

rate (percent)

Clorindo Appo SRL 6.81

All others 6.81

Source: 74 FR 47922, September 18, 2009.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of this investigation as follows:

The scope of this investigation includes all Ni-resist piston inserts regardless of size, thickness,

weight, or outside diameter. Ni-resist piston inserts may also be called other names including, but

not limited to, ‘Ring Carriers,’ or ‘Alfin Inserts.’ Ni-resist piston inserts are alloyed cast iron

rings, with or without a sheet metal cooling channel pressed and welded into the interior of the

insert. Ni-resist piston inserts are composed of the material known as Ni-resist, of the chemical

composition: 13.5%–17.5% Ni (nickel), 5.5%–8.0% Cu (copper), 0.8%–2.5% Cr (chromium),

0.5%–1.5% Mn (manganese), 1.0%–3.0% Si (silicon), 2.4%–3.0% C (carbon). The cast iron

composition is produced primarily to the material specifications of the American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM), ASTM A–436 grade 1. 

The scope of this investigation does not include piston rings nor any other product manufactured

using the Ni- resist material. The subject imports are properly classified under subheading

8409.99.91.90 of the HTSUS, but have been imported under HTSUS 7326.90. The HTSUS
 5 Ni-Resist Piston Inserts from Argentina: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 47922,

September 18, 2009.

 6

 Petition, p. 9.

 7

 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) ***. Email from ***, March 3, 2009. ***.

I-5

subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description is

dispositive of the scope of this investigation.5

Tariff Treatment

Ni rings currently are classifiable in the HTS under subheading 8409.99.91 and reported for

statistical purposes under statistical reporting number 8409.99.9190. This subheading is designated as

according duty-free entry under the Generalized System of Preferences (“GSP”), but products of

Argentina are not GSP-eligible goods under this tariff rate line. Ni rings are believed by QCC to also

have entered the United States under HTS subheading 7326.90 (non-enumerated articles of iron or 

steel).6 7

 Table I-2 presents current tariff rates for Ni rings.

Table I-2

Ni rings: Tariff rates, 2009

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special

Column

22

Rates (ad valorem)

8409

8409.99

8409.99.91

8409.99.9190

Parts suitable for use solely or principally with the

engines of heading 8407 or 8408:

 Other:

 For vehicles of subheading 8701.20, or heading 

 8702, 8703, or 8704.................................................

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

 

2.5% Free (A*,

AU, B,

BH, CA,

CL, E, IL,

J, JO,

MA, MX,

OM, P,

PE, SG)

(

3

)

35%

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

from Argentina. 

 2

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

 3

 General note 3(c)(i) defines the special duty program symbols enumerated for this provision. 

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2009), Supplement 1.

THE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

The product scope consists of all nickel-resist (Ni-resist) piston inserts (“Ni rings”), regardless of

size, thickness, weight, or outside diameter. Ni rings are also referred to as “ring carriers” or “Alfin
 8

 Petition, p. 6.

 9 Request for Submissions made to Department of Commerce, p. 1 - received February 24, 2009. QCC considers

cooled ring carriers to be “. . . the same product {as Ni rings}, produced in the same manner, but with a slight

modification through the addition of the cooling channel.” As a result of this modification, cooled ring carriers and

regular Ni rings are not completely interchangeable, since the piston using a cooled ring carrier must be engineered

to be fused with the cooled ring carrier rather than a regular Ni ring. QCC claims that customers expect both

products to “. . . significantly increase the working life of diesel engines which use aluminum pistons . . .” and that

they are sold to perform essentially the same task. QCC acknowledges that it has not produced a cooled ring carrier. 

Request for Submission made to Department of Commerce, pp. 2-4 - received February 24, 2009.

 10 Request for Submissions made to Department of Commerce, p. 1 - received February 24, 2009.

 11 Ibid.

 12 This gray iron alloy is used to produce Ni rings for use with aluminum pistons designed for diesel engines. 

Type (also referred to as “class” or “grade”) 1 Ni-resist iron alloys are designed for heat-, corrosion-, and wearresistant applications, and are alloyed with 13.5 percent to 17.5 percent nickel and 5.5 percent to 7.5 percent copper. 

Iron Castings Handbook, Iron Castings Society, Inc., 1981, p. 402.

 13 Petition, pp. 32-33.

 14 Petition, p. 7.

 15 Petition, p. 8.

 16 Hearing transcript, p. 163 (J. Korff).

 17 Hearing transcript, p. 94 (Turcott).

 18 “Piston ring tribology: A literature survey,” Peter Anderson, Jaana Tamminen, and Carl-Erik Sandström, VTT

Research Notes 2178, 2002, found at http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2002/T2178.pdf, retrieved February 25,

(continued...)

I-6

inserts,” and these terms are used interchangeably within the industry.8

 The product scope includes

cooled ring carriers, a modification of Ni rings, which incorporate a sheet metal channel pressed and

welded into the interior of the Ni rings.9

 Typical Ni rings range from 2 to 12 inches in outside diameter,

and from 0.180 inch to 1.5 inches in thickness.10 Ni rings are alloyed cast iron rings composed of the

material known as Ni-resist, and are designed for use in aluminum pistons for diesel (compressionignition) engines. The nominal chemistry for Ni-resist is 15 percent nickel, 6.5 percent copper, 2 percent

chrome, 1 percent manganese, 2 percent silicon, and 2.5 percent carbon;11 the cast iron component is

produced primarily to ASTM A-436 grade 1.12 The addition of nickel and other elements into this alloy

replicates the thermal expansiveness of the aluminum piston, permitting the piston insert to expand and

contract at the same rate as the piston, thus improving the wear resistance and working life of the piston.13

Piston inserts are circular rings that are fused into the top portion of aluminum pistons used in

diesel engines.14 Aluminum is used in piston production because of its relatively light weight, which

reduces overall engine and vehicle weight.15 Engine pistons, for both spark-ignition and diesel engines,

generally are of similar design and comprise many of the same types of components, allowing for

differences in engine size and weight, for example (figure I-1). Despite these similarities, petitioner and

respondent agree that each aluminum piston design requires a unique Ni ring. The petitioner notes that 

“. . . each piston is a unique design and each Ni Resist insert carries a very unique part number; that you

don’t use one part number for, say, multiple pistons. It’s one for one.”16 Karl Schmidt concurs, claiming

that Ni rings are “. . . specifically designed to a specifically designed piston, and every piston in every

different engine is different.”17

Ni rings are found near the top of a piston, where piston rings (compression rings and oil control

rings) are located. This section of the piston is grooved for the insertion of these rings. The Ni ring is

generally cast into the piston to protect the first ring groove, but a second Ni ring may also be cast in after

the second ring groove18 (figure I-2). This process is undertaken by the piston producers that purchase the
 18 (...continued)

2009. QCC manufactures a double piston insert that is connected with three pins. Transcript of the February 17,

2009 staff conference in the preliminary phase of the investigations (“Conference transcript”), p. 66 (J. Korff).

 19 Petition, p. 6.

 20 Conference transcript, pp. 133-134 (Turcott).

I-7

Ni rings. They place the inserts into piston molds and pour molten aluminum into the molds. The piston

inserts bond with the aluminum, and become one with the solidified diesel engine piston.19 After

solidification, a groove is cut into the Ni ring to accommodate a piston ring.20

Figure I-1

Piston diagram

Source: “Piston ring tribology: A literature survey,” Peter Anderson, Jaana Tamminen, and Carl-Erik Sandström,

VTT Research Notes 2178, 2002, found at http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2002/T2178.pdf, retrieved February 25,

2009.

Figure I-2

Piston with Ni-resist piston insert

Piston insert 

Source: Mahle, “Aluminum - the material of the future,” found at

http://www.mahle.com/C125705E004FDAF9/CurrentBaseLink/W276RJX2513MARSEN, retrieved February 12, 2009.
 21 Petition, p. 7.

 22 “Piston ring tribology: A literature survey,” Peter Anderson, Jaana Tamminen, and Carl-Erik Sandström, VTT

Research Notes 2178, 2002, found at http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2002/T2178.pdf, retrieved February 25,

2009.

 23 Conference transcript, p. 65 (J. Korff).

 24 Petition, p. 7 and p. 36. Steel pistons predominate in other diesel and non-diesel engines. Steel is a stronger

material and does not wear as fast as aluminum, which eliminates the need for Ni rings. Petition, p. 36.

 25 QCC also manufactures and sells Ni rings for use in compressor pistons that compress air or gas for industrial

processes. Except for size, these Ni rings are essentially the same as those produced for aluminum pistons. Hearing

transcript, pp. 67-68 (J. Korff). 

 26 Compression ratios for spark-ignition engines generally do not exceed 12:1, whereas ratios for diesel engines

generally range between 14:1 to 25:1. Ben Hewitt, “The Case for Diesel: Clean, Efficient, Fast Cars (Hybrids

Beware!),” Popular Mechanics, January 2008, found at

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4237945.html?page=3, retrieved October 1, 2009. 

Compression ratios measure the ratio of the cylinder and combustion chamber volume when the piston is at the

bottom of its stroke, to the volume of the cylinder and combustion chamber when the piston is at the top of its stroke.

Don Goodsell, Dictionary of Automotive Engineering, Second Edition, Society of Automotive Engineers, 1995, p.

48.

 27 Petition, p. 7.

 28 “How Diesel Engines Work,” http://auto.howstuffworks.com/diesel1.htm, retrieved February 20, 2009. 

 29 Petition, p. 7.

 30 Request for Submissions made to Department of Commerce, p. 1 - received February 24, 2009.

 31 Petition, pp. 7-8.

I-8

As an integral part of the piston, the insert absorbs the impact from the piston ring and prevents

wear to the piston itself.21 The insert prevents ring groove wear in aluminum pistons,22 which is the

gradual erosion of the ring groove as a result of the piston movement. As the ring groove wears, the

compression rings are less effective at sealing the combustion/exhaust chamber in the piston and at 

supporting heat transfer from the piston to the cylinder wall. Piston inserts are produced to the

specifications of piston producers, and are unique to individual piston design.23

Because of the nature of the compression-ignition engine operation, Ni rings used in engines are

only found in diesel engines that incorporate aluminum pistons.24 These engines are used to power motor

vehicles (in the United States, largely certain light trucks and medium- and heavy-duty trucks), farm and

other off-road equipment, marine transport, and large compressors.25 Diesel engines operate at very high

compression relative to spark-ignition engines26 and create a greater compressive force.27 Unlike sparkignition engines, which employ an ignition system (spark plugs) to fire the air/fuel mixture in the piston,

diesel engines compress air to very high temperatures. When the fuel is injected into the piston with the

heated air, the fuel ignites.28 This greater concussive force affects all of the parts inside the engine,

including the piston. Because aluminum is a relatively weak metal, the concussive force would cause

rapid wear. By adding a Ni ring, the compression impact is transferred from the compression ring(s)

through the insert(s) and then to the piston, thus absorbing some of the shock and increasing piston life.29

With cooled ring carriers, the added sheet metal channel reduces heat transfer from the piston during

combustion, thus extending the life of the piston.30 Spark-ignition engines operate with a more uniform,

controlled burn, and lower compression ratios, which lessen that impact on engine pistons and obviate the

use of these inserts.31
 32 ***.

 33 ***.

 34 Karl Schmidt noted that “. . . you’re really pushing the limit on aluminum Ni-resist pistons in diesel engines

when you’re getting up close to 400 horsepower.” Hearing transcript, p. 113 (Turcott). 

 35 ***.

 36 Hearing transcript, p. 41 (J. Korff). Karl Schmidt’s parent company, Kolbenschmidt Pierburg, states in its

aluminum piston marketing brochure that there are many good reasons for continued use of aluminum pistons. 

Reasons include: “cost effective, offers excellent heat conductivity, low weight, good reliability and is very

recycling friendly.” QCC’s posthearing brief, p. 4 and exh. 5.

 37 Hearing transcript, p. 116 (Turcott). 

 38 Conference transcript, p. 90 (Lowe).

 39 Petition, p. 6.

 40 Conference transcript, pp. 90-91 (Lowe).

 41 Conference transcript, p. 47 (J. Korff).

 42 ***.

 43 ***.

 44 Conference transcript, p. 25 (J. Korff).

I-9

Three firms noted that the use of Ni rings is an older technology. *** indicated that it no longer

uses this older piston technology in its production.32 *** indicated that the use of Ni rings is an older,

lower cost technology that is in more demand in “other growing areas of the globe.”33 Karl Schmidt

indicated that there has been a movement toward using steel pistons “. . . because the use of an aluminum

piston with a Ni-resist insert has kind of reached its maximum capacity in terms of compression,

horsepower, and the subsequent endurance.”34 *** indicated that aluminum pistons (which are the only

pistons that use Ni rings) are becoming obsolete as new engines are manufactured and old engines are

scrapped.35

However, the petitioner has indicated that, despite the use of steel pistons in higher compression

engine applications, Ni rings will continue to be needed “. . . for a good, long period of time . . .” because

of aftermarket requirements.36 Karl Schmidt also acknowledged that demand for Ni-rings “. . . it’s not

going to just go off an edge of a cliff because there are many, many of those engines out there and they do

last a long time.”37 

Manufacturing Process

The production process for Ni rings includes three basic steps: melting, centrifugal casting, and

machining.38 The process is capital-intensive, with extensive use of melting furnaces, casting machines,

and automated machining equipment. The subject product is produced by pouring molten alloy cast iron

in the shape of tubes by a centrifugal casting process, followed by machining the tubes into circular slices,

or rings.39 Melting of the Ni-resist alloy usually occurs in electric induction furnaces, according to

Federal-Mogul.40 QCC employs electric channel furnaces, a type of induction furnace, to provide a

continuous flow of Ni-resist metal for its production of piston inserts. These channel furnaces are unique

 to its centrifugal casting operation.41 ***, the ***, reported that it *** operates *** in the production of

its Ni rings.42

Ni-resist metal is produced with a combination of scrap and virgin materials.43 To attain the

desired Ni-resist metal chemistry, type I molten scrap Ni-resist machining chips are added to the molten

iron.44 These chips are purchased as scrap on the open market and/or are generated internally as the result
 45 Conference transcript, p. 48 (J. Korff).

 46 Conference transcript, p. 43 (J. Korff).

 47 Monel is a product of the Special Metals Corporation. Special Metals Corp. website, found at

http://www.specialmetals.com/general.php, retrieved February 20, 2009.

 48 Conference transcript, p. 48 (J. Korff).

 49 Conference transcript, p. 44 (J. Korff).

 50 Efunda Engineering Fundamentals, Centrifugal Casting, found at

http://www.efunda.com/processes/metal_processing/centri_casting.cfm, retrieved February 20, 2009.

 51 Conference transcript, p. 63 (J. Korff).

 52 Conference transcript, p. 64 (J. Korff).

 53 Conference transcript, p. 19 (J. Korff).

 54 Hearing transcript, p. 22 (J. Korff).

 55 Conference transcript, p. 19 (J. Korff).

 56 Request for Submissions made to Department of Commerce, p. 3 - received February 24, 2009.

 57 Conference transcript, p. 18 (J. Korff).

 58 Efunda Engineering Fundamentals, Shell Mold Casting, found at

http://www.efunda.com/processes/metal_processing/shell_mold.cfm, retrieved February 20, 2009.

I-10

of the production process.45 The molten chips must also be of the specified Ni-resist chemistry, which

may require the producer to adjust the metal composition by adding certain metals or diluting the molten

metal “to make the chemistry fall within specification.”46 In lieu of adding Ni-resist scrap metal,

producers may dilute Monel,47 a nickel/copper alloy, with pig iron and then add certain ferroalloys to

yield the Ni-resist metal.48 Additionally, producers can also purchase the necessary metallic components

(e.g., copper, chrome, manganese, nickel) to develop the molten Ni-resist alloy.49

 In centrifugal casting, the molten metal is poured into a permanent mold that rotates at high

speeds (300 to 3000 rpm). During rotation, centrifugal force throws the molten metal towards the inside

mold wall, where it solidifies after cooling,50 and pushes any slag towards the inside diameter. The

resulting metal is more uniform and cleaner than that which would result from other forms of casting.51

The centrifugal casting equipment can be semi-automatic, with one worker tapping the metal, pouring the

tube, and extracting the tube from the mold, as a series of molds process through the equipment in a

continuous cycle. Other centrifugal casting equipment is limited to a single mold per unit, with one

casting poured at a time.52

Machining is conducted on computer numerical controlled (“CNC”) turning and boring machines

that cut the rings from the cast tube and bore out the interior to the selected diameter for the rings.53

These machine tools are used exclusively to machine ring or tube type products.54 According to QCC,

piston producers prefer dry machining rather than lubricated, wet machining of the inserts because of the

need to bond the Ni ring with aluminum in the production of a piston.55 Cooled ring carriers have a sheet

metal channel that is pressed and welded into the interior of the Ni ring.56

QCC identified shell molding as another production process for piston inserts.57 In this method, a 

metal pattern is covered with a mixture of sand and thermoset plastic and heated. This causes a thin skin

of the sand/plastic mixture to stick to the pattern. This skin is removed from the pattern to form the shell

mold. The two halves of the mold are fastened together and the metal is poured in the mold to form the

part. Once the metal solidifies, the shell is broken.58 However, QCC considered this process to be costly

and uncompetitive. QCC also noted that piston inserts have been produced by static (nonspinning)
 59 Conference transcript, p. 18 (J. Korff).

 60 Conference transcript, pp. 48-49 (J. Korff).

 61 Hearing transcript, pp. 13, 22, 36 (J. Korf).

 62 ***.

 63 ***.

 64 ***.

 65 ***.

 66 Email from ***, September 24, 2009.

 67 Ibid.

 68 ISO 9001:2000 is an international standard that includes requirements for an organization’s Quality

Management System (QMS), and is the only standard in the ISO 9000 family that can be used for the purpose of

conformity assessment. “The requirements cover a wide range of topics, including {a} supplier’s top management

commitment to quality, its customer focus, adequacy of its resources, employee competence, process management

(for production, service delivery and relevant administrative and support processes), quality planning, product

design, review of incoming orders, purchasing, monitoring and measurement of its processes and products,

calibration of measuring equipment, processes to resolve customer complaints, corrective/preventive actions and a

requirement to drive continual improvement of the QMS.” International Standards Organization, found at

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/management_standards/iso_9000_iso_14000/more_resources_9000/9001supch

ain.htm, retrieved March 4, 2009.

 69 ***.

 70 ***.

 71 Conference transcript, p. 64 (J. Korff).

I-11

casting using sand molds, but the bulk of current known production of Ni rings is believed to be

manufactured by centrifugal casting.59

Following production, the Ni rings are subject to a variety of tests to ensure their conformance

with customer specifications. These tests include spectrographic chemical analysis, microstructure

examination, tensile testing, and carbon analysis.60 In addition, the inserts must meet the dimensional and

weight requirements specified by customers.

QCC also produces cylinder liners and lapping pots on its equipment used to produce Ni rings.61

***.62 Moreover, ***.63 ***;64 ***.65 ***.66 In addition, ***.67

Manufacturers of Ni rings, as well as other original-equipment motor vehicle components, are

subject to independent inspections or first-party audits to verify compliance with customer and product

standards requirements, such as International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) standards.68

*** requires its bill of material (“BOM”) suppliers, including its suppliers of Ni rings, to be ISO

9000 registered by an accredited third party registrar. BOM suppliers must also be approved by ***’s

customers. *** itself must comply with Automotive Industry Action Group (“AIAG”) Production Part

Approval Process (“PPAP”) for all of its BOM components including Ni rings.69 ***.70 QCC, the only

U.S. producer of Ni rings, is certified to the ISO 9001:2000 standard.71

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic product(s) that are “like” the

subject imported product is based on a number of factors including: (1) physical characteristics and uses;

(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and

producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and (6) price. In the preliminary phase of the

investigations, the Commission found that there is a single domestic like product encompassing all
 72 Petition, p. 10.

 73 Conference transcript, p. 42 (J. Korff).

 74 Conference transcript, p. 119 (Lowe and Kane). *** noted that no other products can be substituted for Ni

rings. ***. *** indicated that there was another substitute product, steel pistons. Steel pistons compete with

aluminum pistons (which require Ni rings) for diesel engine applications. ***.

 75 Ni-Resist Piston Inserts from Argentina and Korea, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-460-461 (Preliminary), USITC

Publication 4066, March 2009, pp. 6-7.

I-12

domestically produced Ni rings with the specifications provided in the scope. Information regarding

these factors for the final phase of this investigation is discussed below.

QCC contends that the Commission should find that there is a single domestic like product

coextensive with the scope definition.72 It indicates that all piston inserts have the same characteristics

(subject to customer-specified variations), and that there are no comparable products on the market that

perform the same or similar tasks for aluminum pistons used in diesel engines. QCC did note that there

had been experimentation with ceramic piston inserts, but was unaware of any production of ceramic

piston inserts.73 In the preliminary phase, respondents concurred with the definition of the domestic like

product offered by QCC.74 In the preliminary determinations, the Commission accordingly defined a

single domestic like product encompassing all domestically produced Ni rings with the specifications

provided in the scope definition.75 The parties did not assert any arguments concerning the definition of

the domestic like product during the final phase investigation.
 1

 Petition, pp. 6-7.

 2

 Compressor pistons compress air or gas for industrial processes. ***, and petition, p. 33. Federal-Mogul and

Karl Schmidt reported that ***.

 3

 ***.

II-1

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

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS AND CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

Ni rings are used in the production of aluminum pistons for diesel engines. Specifically, they are

“alloyed cast iron rings . . . placed into molds used by piston producers; then aluminum is poured into the

molds” to form the piston. The Ni rings are “essential for commercial diesel truck engines and other

heavy-duty diesel engines that use aluminum pistons.”1

 Ni rings are also used in the production of

compressor pistons.2

The Commission’s questionnaire asked QCC to report the quantity of U.S. shipments sold to

distributors and end users. *** of QCC’s U.S. shipments went to *** during the period of study. ***.

GEOGRAPHIC MARKETS

The petitioner, QCC, sells the product ***. Accordingly, QCC reported that *** of its Ni rings

were sold within distances of *** from its production facility.3

 QCC reported delivery lead times of ***

for produced-to-order Ni rings and that *** of its products were produced to order. U.S. importers

internally consume all imported Ni rings in their production of aluminum pistons for diesel engines.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

Supplying the entire domestic Ni ring market are one domestic producer and imports from

Argentina and Korea. The largest supplier of Ni rings to the U.S. market in 2008 was ***, which

accounted for *** percent of U.S. consumption of Ni rings in 2008 on a quantity basis, followed by ***. 

Domestic Production

The sensitivity of the domestic supply of Ni rings to changes in price depends on several factors

including the level of excess capacity, the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced Ni rings,

inventory levels, and the ability to shift to the manufacture of other products. The record in this

investigation suggests that QCC has the ability to respond to changes in price with relatively large

changes in output and U.S. shipments in response; this is due primarily to QCC’s *** capacity utilization

rates. 

Industry capacity

QCC’s capacity to produce Ni rings *** during the period of study at ***. ***, QCC’s capacity

utilization declined from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and to *** percent in 2008. 

Capacity utilization was *** percent in the first half of 2009 (i.e., interim 2009), compared with ***

percent in the first half of 2008. 
 4

 Based on submissions by parties, there are other producers of Ni rings in the world, including ***. 

 5

 *** reported changing their level of imports in response to the filing of the petition or Commerce's preliminary

determinations.

II-2

Alternative markets

Exports, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007

and *** percent in 2008. In the first half of 2009, exports accounted for *** percent of QCC’s total

shipments, compared with *** percent in the first half of 2008. 

Inventory levels

The ratio of QCC’s end-of-period inventories to its total shipments decreased from *** percent in

2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008. The ratio of inventories to total shipments was ***

higher in the first half of 2009 (*** percent) compared with the first half of 2008 (*** percent); this

increase is a reflection of ***. 

Production alternatives

QCC reported that it produces other products using the same equipment, machinery, and/or

production and related workers that it uses to produce Ni rings. In 2008, Ni rings accounted for ***

percent of the company’s capital machinery and labor, while production of cylinder liners and lapping

pots accounted for *** and *** percent, respectively. 

Foreign Supply

Argentina and Korea supply *** of the imports of Ni rings to the U.S. market.4

 The

responsiveness of the supply of imports from Argentina and Korea to changes in price in the U.S. market

is affected by factors such as capacity utilization rates, inventory levels, and the availability of home

markets and other export markets. Based on available information, suppliers of subject and nonsubject

imports have the ability to respond in changes in demand with *** changes in the quantity of shipments

of Ni rings to the U.S. market mainly due to the existence of *** capacity and *** shipments to non-U.S.

export markets.5

Subject imports from Argentina

Industry Capacity.–While capacity to produce Ni-rings of the sole known producer in Argentina,

Clorindo ***, the capacity utilization rate decreased irregularly, from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent

in 2007 and *** percent in 2008. In the first half of 2009, Clorindo’s capacity utilization was ***

percent, compared with *** percent in the first half of 2008. Clorindo estimates that its capacity

utilization rate will ***. 

At the hearing, Geoffrey Korff, counsel for QCC, asserted that:

“. . . the province in which this product is produced in Argentina, Santa Fe, has been

undergoing an enormous upheaval in terms of their labor and the status of their

metallurgical industry there, so much so that in fact the {Vice Minister of Labor of Santa

Fe Province, Ms. Alicia Ciciliani,} stated within the past several months that most

metallurgical industries, and that’s in the province, are operating at approximately 30
 6

 Hearing transcript, pp. 7-8 (G. Korff). 

 7

 Hearing transcript, p. 20 (J. Korff).

 8

 Email from ***, September 24, 2009. 

 9

 Clorindo’s other export markets include ***. Clorindo’s foreign producer questionnaire response.

 10 Clorindo’s foreign producer questionnaire response.

 11 Email from ***, September 24, 2009. 

II-3

percent of capacity, and the only reason that they’re able to maintain production is

through a new subsidy program where basically employee wages are provided for by the

government. There have been job walk-offs. Production has been cut.”6

One article which QCC referenced in its testimony reportedly spoke of financial difficulties facing

Clorindo; to the best of QCC’s interpretation, representatives of Clorindo have appeared before a judge to

have some prior judgments against it waived.7

 Clorindo disagreed with QCC’s assessment of the

situation. ***.8

Inventory Levels.–Clorindo’s end-of-period inventories, as a ratio to its total shipments,

decreased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008, and were *** percent in interim 2009

compared with *** percent in interim 2008. Clorindo estimates that its ratio of inventories to total

shipments will *** in 2009 and 2010. End-of-period inventories held by the U.S. importer, Karl Schmidt,

as a ratio to imports from Argentina, decreased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in both 2007 and

2008. The ratio was higher in the first half of 2009 (*** percent) than in the first half of 2008 (***

percent). 

Alternative Markets.–Clorindo’s shipments to the Argentine home market are ***. Since 2006,

they have increased irregularly, from *** percent of total shipments in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and

*** percent in 2008. The ratio of shipments to Clorindo’s home market to its total shipments was ***

higher in the first half of 2009 (*** percent) compared with the first half of 2008 (*** percent). Clorindo

estimates that its home market shipments will account for *** percent of its total shipments in 2009 and

2010. 

Exports to non-U.S. markets,9

 as a share of Clorindo’s shipments, are *** and increased from

2006 to 2008 - from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. This was due to both a decrease in

shipments to the United States (from *** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2008) and an increase in

shipments to the rest of the world (from *** pounds to *** pounds over the same time frame). Export

shipments to both the United States and the rest of the world were lower in interim 2009 than in interim

2008. The share of total shipments sent to the rest of the world was *** percent in interim 2009,

compared with *** percent in interim 2008. ***, Clorindo estimates that it will ship *** of its Ni rings to

countries other than Argentina and the United States in 2009 and 2010.

Clorindo reported that it is ***. ***.10 Clorindo is also ***.11 

Nonsubject imports from Korea

As noted earlier, Incheon is the sole Ni ring producer in Korea; Federal-Mogul reported that

Incheon ***.

Industry Capacity.–Capacity to produce Ni rings in Korea increased from 2006 (*** pounds) to

2007 (*** pounds), then *** for 2008 and into the first half of 2009. During this time, the capacity

utilization rate for the sole known producer of Ni rings in Korea, Incheon Metal Co., Ltd. (“Incheon”),

increased irregularly, from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008. In the

first half of 2009, Incheon’s capacity utilization was *** percent, compared with *** percent in the first
 12 ***.

 13 The inventories of Ni rings reported by Federal–Mogul ***. The constructed data were reviewed by

Federal-Mogul and it agrees with the methodology used and that the data are accurate. Staff telephone interview

with ***, September 15, 2009.

 14 Incheon reported that it also exports to ***. Incheon’s foreign producer questionnaire response.

 15 Incheon’s foreign producer questionnaire response.

 16 Respondent Karl Schmidt’s postconference brief, p. 10.

II-4

half of 2008. For the whole year of 2009, Incheon estimates that its capacity utilization rate will be ***

percent.12

Inventory Levels.–Incheon’s inventories, as a ratio to its total shipments, increased from ***

percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. Its inventories as a share of total shipments were also higher in

the first half of 2009 (*** percent) compared with the first half of 2008 (*** percent). Incheon estimates

that this ratio will be *** percent for full-year 2009.

Inventories held by the U.S. importer, Federal-Mogul, as a ratio to imports from Korea, decreased

from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008. Inventories as a ratio to

imports were higher at the end of the first half of 2009 (*** percent) than at the end of the first half of

2008 (*** percent).13

Alternative Markets.–The share of Incheon’s shipments sold into the Korean home market

decreased consistently from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. The share of shipments was

higher in the first half of 2009 (*** percent) than in the first half of 2008 (*** percent). 

Exports to non-U.S. markets,14 as a share of Incheon’s total shipments, increased *** from ***

percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. These exports accounted for *** percent of its total shipments in

the first half of 2008, but were lower (*** percent) in the first half of 2009. Incheon estimates that this

ratio will be *** in full-year 2009. 

Incheon reported that it intends to ***.15

Other Nonsubject Imports

There have been *** nonsubject imports of Ni rings into the United States ***. Respondent Karl

Schmidt contends that *** have had a negative impact on the U.S. market for Ni rings, however, by

allowing ***.16 

Demand

U.S. Demand

Since Ni rings are used in aluminum pistons for diesel engines, the overall demand for Ni rings is

directly linked to the demand for diesel engines that incorporate aluminum pistons. The price elasticity of

demand for Ni rings is likely to be low since Ni rings have few, if any, substitutes and they account for a

relatively small share of the total cost of the products in which they are used.
 17 On a value basis, apparent consumption decreased from 2006 to 2008, although prices charged for Ni rings

increased due to increases in the cost of raw materials, especially nickel, during that time. As the cost of raw

materials declined in 2009, the dollar value of apparent consumption decreased by a greater amount than the

quantity.

 18 See table C-1.

 19 Hearing transcript, pp. 42-43 (J. Korff).

 20 Conference transcript, pp. 37-38 (J. Korff).

 21 Ibid.

 22 Hearing transcript, p. 41 (J. Korff), and QCC’s posthearing brief, p. 4.

 23 ***.

 24 Federal-Mogul’s postconference brief, p. 28.

 25 ***. ***.

 26 Karl Schmidt’s postconference brief, pp. 10 and 16.

 27 Conference transcript, p. 84 (Kane).

 28 Another factor that could affect the demand for Ni rings is the technological advances prompted by mandates

imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which reportedly have caused a significant increase in the

production of all-steel pistons, a product which does not incorporate Ni rings. Conference transcript, pp. 84-85

(Kane).

 29 U.S. EPA, found at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/highway-diesel/index.htm, retrieved September 21, 2009.

II-5

In terms of quantity, apparent U.S. consumption of Ni rings decreased by *** percent, from ***

pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007 and *** pounds in 2008. Additionally, apparent U.S. consumption

of Ni rings was *** percent lower in interim 2009 (*** pounds) than in interim 2008 (*** pounds).17 18

When asked how the U.S. demand for Ni rings had changed since January 1, 2006, QCC and the

responding importers all reported that demand had decreased. *** attributed the decrease to a decline in

demand for motor vehicles. At the hearing, Joseph Korff of QCC attributed declining demand to four

factors: consolidation of the piston industry, more imports of finished pistons, decreased demand for

diesel engines, and the general decline of the economy.19 According to QCC, demand for Ni rings is

cyclical due to emission requirements imposed by the EPA: every few years, the EPA has mandated new

emission standards, “everybody wants to buy a truck with the old emissions standard it seems and to

avoid the new one because they’re usually . . . higher priced, lower mileage . . .”20 QCC added that the

new emission regulations standards will be announced in 2010, but with the current economic slowdown,

the demand for trucks is low.21 Even if demand for new engines containing Ni rings is declining,

however, Mr. Korff added that there will continue to be a replacement market for rebuilt engines.22

Federal-Mogul attributed the decrease in demand for Ni rings to several factors: ***.23 It, too,

reported that new emissions standards, which began in 1991, were the reason for the shift away from

aluminum pistons.24 Also, increases in mechanical and thermal loading on pistons in more recent engine

designs reportedly cause aluminum pistons to fail more readily, which has led to increased demand for

steel pistons, thus decreasing demand for aluminum pistons, and, accordingly, Ni rings.25 

Karl Schmidt attributed the decline in demand to the general decline in motor vehicle production,

the shift from aluminum pistons to all-steel pistons, and ***.26 A representative for Karl Schmidt also

noted that “the general downturn in the demand for motor vehicles manufactured in the United States,

technological advances, changes in customer requirements, and changes in non-highway uses for engines

with {Ni rings} are the primary causes for the reduced demand for {Ni rings} in the United States.”27 28 

In January 2001, the EPA announced the Highway Diesel Rule that included reductions in

harmful pollutants of 90 percent for 2007 and subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engines.29

Counsel for Karl Schmidt testified that the increased market interest in QCC’s Ni rings during 2007 may
 30 The new emissions standards would allegedly increase the cost of trucks by $5,000 to $10,000. Hearing

transcript, p. 86 (Kane).

 31 Hearing transcript, p. 24 (J. Korff).

 32 Conference transcript, pp. 38-39 (J. Korff).

 33 Class 8 trucks, i.e., those with a gross vehicle weight over 33,000 pounds, accounted for more than half of all

heavy and medium truck sales (Class 3 through Class 8) in 2006-08. 

 34 Ward’s Automotive Yearbook (2007, 2008, 2009).

 35 Federal-Mogul presented ***. Sales of light- and medium-duty diesel vehicles fell 19.7 percent between 2006

and 2008. Ward’s Automotive Yearbook (2007, 2008, 2009).

 36 Conference transcript, p. 42 (J. Korff).

 37 ***, imported aluminum pistons (which contain a Ni ring) compete with domestically produced aluminum

pistons (which also contain a Ni ring). ***.

 38 Karl Schmidt’s postconference brief, p. 16.

II-6

have been due to the new emissions standards that were going into effect that year.30 On the other hand,

QCC reported that it tracked down the increase in interest of domestically produced Ni rings to “some

kind of disruption in . . . shipments coming in for . . . maybe a six- to eight-week period.” It reported that

even MAHLE was interested in buying Ni rings during that time.31

Sales of diesel engine vehicles have declined greatly since 2006. Joseph Korff of QCC testified

that the sales of Class 8 trucks is “a really good surrogate number for the number of . . . aluminum diesel

pistons that are sold.”32 Sales of this heaviest class of trucks33 declined by 53.5 percent from 2006 to

2008: 50.1 percent from 2006 to 2007, and a further 6.8 percent in 2008.34 35

Substitute Products

QCC and the importers were asked to discuss the existence of any substitute products for Ni

rings. *** reported that there are no products that can be substituted for Ni rings. QCC stated that there

are experiments using ceramics, but it is not aware of an actual ceramic piston.36 *** reported that steel

pistons compete with aluminum pistons for diesel engine applications, especially in the original

equipment market where steel pistons are dominant.37 *** reported that there are no substitute products

for Ni rings.

Cost Share

Based on available information, Ni rings account for a relatively small share of the total cost of

the final products in which they are used as an input. *** reported that it did not know the cost share of

the Ni ring relative to the end product. *** reported that the cost of the Ni ring accounted for

approximately *** percent of the total cost of pistons for diesel engines. *** provided cost share

estimates for Ni rings for four different diesel piston products; these estimates ranged from *** to ***

percent.

Foreign Demand

*** reported declining demand outside the United States as well. Importer/purchaser Karl

Schmidt reported that due to declining demand, there has been consolidation in the Ni ring market in

Europe and elsewhere.38 It also stated that globally engines are being built requiring higher peak
 39 Karl Schmidt’s importer/purchaser questionnaire response.

 40 Clorindo’s foreign producer questionnaire response.

 41 The top 15 countries are: Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands,

Portugal, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. MarkLines

Automotive Information Platform, found at http://www.marklines.com/en/numproduct/index.jsp, retrieved August

20, 2009.

 42 *** provided information in response to the Commission’s importer/purchaser questionnaire.

II-7

pressures and temperatures, and, accordingly, “***.”39 Argentine producer Clorindo stated that its

“***.”40 Figure II-1 presents monthly diesel engine vehicle sales for the top 15 countries and Japan.41

Comparing the period between June 2008 and May 2009 with that of the prior year, diesel vehicle sales

dropped 21.5 percent on average.

Figure II-1

Diesel vehicles: Sales in the top 15 countries and Japan, monthly, January 2006-May 2009

Source: MarkLines Automotive Information Platform, found at http://www.marklines.com/en/numproduct/index.jsp,

retrieved August 20, 2009.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The extent of substitutability between domestic products and subject and nonsubject imports,

between subject imports from different sources, and between subject and nonsubject imports is examined

in this section. The discussion is based upon the results of questionnaire responses from QCC and the 

importer/purchasers.42

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Table II-1 summarizes the importer/purchasers’ responses on the top three major factors that they

consider in their purchasing decisions. As indicated in the table, quality was cited as the number one

factor in buying decisions by ***. In determining quality, the responses of *** indicate that a

metallurgical and dimensional tolerance must be met, the surface condition must be clean and in good

condition, and the product must not wear out too quickly.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Thousands of vehicles

2006 2007 2008 2009
 43 In addition, *** reported that *** are very important, but did not note the importance of any other factors. ***. 

***. Staff telephone interview with ***, August 6, 2009.

 44 ***.

 45 QCC’s postconference brief, p. 3, and Karl Schmidt’s prehearing brief, p. 7.

 46 QCC’s postconference brief, p. 3.

 47 Hearing transcript, p. 60 (J. Korff).

 48 The surcharge formulas used by ***. Federal-Mogul’s postconference brief, exhs. 15 and 17. ***. FederalMogul’s postconference brief, exh. 16. 

 49 Hearing transcript, p. 32 (J. Korff) and ***.

 50 Ibid., and ***.

 51 Hearing transcript, p. 63 (J. Korff).

 52 Hearing transcript, p. 47 (J. Korff).

II-8

Table II-1

Ni rings: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions, as reported by U.S.

importer/purchasers

* * * * * * *

Importer/purchasers and purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 16 factors in their

purchasing decisions (table II-2). *** rated availability, delivery terms, delivery time, lowest price,

minimum quantity requirements, product consistency, quality meets industry standards, reliability of

supply, and surcharge formula as very important.43 *** reported that it “usually” buys Ni rings offered at

the lowest price, *** replied that it “usually” or “sometimes” buys Ni rings offered at the lowest price,

*** “sometimes” does and *** “never” does. 

Table II-2

Ni rings: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by U.S. importer/purchasers

* * * * * * *

All suppliers are required by importer/purchasers to become certified or prequalified for ***. 

Karl Schmidt reported that all its suppliers ***. Additionally, Karl Schmidt requires that ***. FederalMogul estimated that it takes ***. ***.44 *** stated that it bases supplier qualification on reliability of

the supplier and the quality of the product. 

*** reported that they had not had any foreign or domestic producers fail to become a

certified/qualified Ni ring supplier, nor had any company lost its certification. Karl Schmidt performed a

quality audit of QCC on June 4, 2007, which noted five deficiencies ***.45 QCC took corrective action

on those five areas, and subsequently shipped tens of thousands of parts to Karl Schmidt with zero

rejected parts.46 QCC reported that it had received awards from Federal-Mogul for supplying parts with

zero defects on a repeated basis.47

Though QCC is a qualified supplier to ***, *** reported that QCC’s *** are inconsistent with

other Ni ring suppliers’ business practices. ***,48 QCC charges *** for variations in prices of steel scrap,

copper, nickel, carbon, chrome, manganese, and silicon, thus passing on the risk of price fluctuations for

any of these inputs;49 these are actual costs, not based on an independent index ***.50 QCC testified that

it does not hedge on metal input prices, as it is “always on the wrong side of that.”51 In the 1990s,

surcharges were company-specific, and most foundries could use an all-metals type surcharge.52
 53 Karl Schmidt’s postconference brief, p. 14, and hearing transcript, pp. 95-96 (Turcott).

 54 Hearing transcript, p. 62 (J. Korff).

 55 Hearing transcript, pp. 95-96 (Turcott).

 56 *** and Karl Schmidt’s postconference brief, p. 6 and exh. 9.

 57 Karl Schmidt’s posthearing brief, pp. 9-10 and exh. C.

 58 ***. 

 59 ***. 

 60 ***.

 61 Hearing transcript, pp. 81-82 (J. Korff).

 62 ***.

 63 Conference transcript, p. 19 (J. Korff).

II-9

In negotiations with Karl Schmidt, QCC reportedly offered ***, but the variable price

components attributable to other metals made the total price too unpredictable for Karl Schmidt, given its

inability to pass that risk downstream and the importance of risk management in its ability to remain

competitive.53 Originally, QCC had been using an all-metals surcharge, and tried to maintain it when it

was told by Karl Schmidt that it needed to be adjusted to incorporate only changes in the price of nickel.54

At the hearing, a representative of Karl Schmidt reported that it took a long time to negotiate agreements

with its customers to accept fluctuations in nickel prices, and those customers will not accept a non-public

surcharge.55 ***, Karl Schmidt submitted that QCC offered on November 8, 2007 to only vary its price

based on the price of nickel.56 Karl Schmidt contends, however, that QCC reverted to offering its prior

all-metals surcharge formula, leading to the breakdown in negotiations by the end of 2008.57 

*** reported *** Ni rings in separate transactions, i.e., not as part of a package of other products. 

Federal-Mogul reported that QCC uses a ***. Since *** of Federal-Mogul’s production at one of its

plants ***.58 Furthermore, Federal-Mogul contends that QCC *** including part numbers that are ***.59

QCC reported that its Ni rings price quotes, sales, or contracts ***.60 QCC testified that the cost of

machine changes, die heat-ups, and warm-up pieces would cause Ni rings with very short runs to

necessitate higher pricing, unless it was as part of an order that also included larger runs of, e.g., 10,000

pieces.61 ***.62

Comparisons of Domestic Products with Subject and Nonsubject Imports

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced Ni rings can generally be used in the same

applications as imports from Argentina and Korea, QCC and importer/purchasers were asked whether the

products can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably (table II-3). 

Table II-3

Ni rings: Interchangeability of product from different sources

* * * * * * *

QCC claims that the domestically made product is like the imported subject and nonsubject

merchandise, and that the products are indistinguishable.63 It considers all Ni rings to be interchangeable

in terms of production process and application, with no appreciable deviation in chemical properties

among U.S. and foreign manufacturers. Because the casting and machining processes are essentially the

same for all producers of Ni rings, they are manufactured using the same types of facilities, production

lines, equipment, and skilled employees. These inserts are sold in bulk to manufacturers of aluminum
 64 QCC notes that compressor pistons used to compress gas for industrial purposes may also use piston inserts,

but that the two orders filled by QCC are considered to be negligible and virtually all Ni rings are believed to be for

use in diesel engine aluminum pistons. Petition, pp. 33-34. Ni rings for compressor pistons are typically larger in

diameter and somewhat thicker. QCC has one customer that buys Ni rings for compressor pistons. Hearing

transcript, pp. 67-68 (J. Korff).

 65 Conference transcript, p. 94 (Lowe).

 66 Conference transcript, p. 99 (Czerwinski) and ***.

 67 Karl Schmidt’s importer/purchaser questionnaire response.

 68 Federal-Mogul’s importer/purchaser questionnaire response.

 69 Additionally, ***.

II-10

pistons used in diesel engines.64 QCC also contends that customers and producers perceive all Ni rings to

be the same product.

Importer/purchaser Federal-Mogul noted agreement with QCC regarding the interchangeability of

the domestic and imported products. Federal-Mogul considers Ni rings to be “ . . . a commodity product,

meaning they are generally interchangeable, regardless of the source.”65 Furthermore, Federal-Mogul

noted that the imported and domestic product were of equivalent quality.66 Karl Schmidt reported that the

products from the United States and Argentina can *** be used interchangeably. Karl Schmidt noted that

“***.”67

QCC and importers were also asked to compare U.S.-produced products with imports from

Argentina and Korea in terms of product differences other than price such as quality, availability, product

range, and technical support. Again, firms were asked whether these product differences are always,

frequently, sometimes, or never significant (table II-4). 

Table II-4

Ni rings: Differences other than price between products from different sources

* * * * * * *

When Federal-Mogul compared the U.S. product with that from Korea, it reported that

differences other than price are *** significant, adding that:

“***.”68

***, when Karl Schmidt compared the U.S. product with that from Argentina, it reported that

differences other than price are *** significant. It added that it has had a ***.

Importer/purchasers and purchasers were also asked to compare subject imports on the 16 factors

which they had previously rated in importance.69 Table II-5 presents their responses. 
 70 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

 71 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change.

II-11

Table II-5

Ni rings: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and subject Argentine and nonsubject Korean

products, as reported by U.S. importer/purchasers

* * * * * * *

Comparisons of Subject and Nonsubject Imports

When QCC compared the Argentine product with the Korean product, it reported that the

products can *** be used interchangeably and that differences other than price are *** significant (tables

II-3 and II-4). 

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses elasticity estimates. While parties were encouraged to comment on these

estimates in their briefs, none submitted any comments.

U.S. Supply Elasticity70

The domestic supply elasticity for Ni rings measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by

U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of Ni rings. The elasticity of domestic supply depends

on several factors including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which producers can alter capacity,

producers’ ability to shift to production of other products, the existence of inventories, and the availability

of alternate markets for U.S.-produced Ni rings. Analysis of these factors earlier indicates that the U.S.

producer has the ability to *** increase shipments to the U.S. market; an estimate in the range of 5 to 8 is

suggested. 

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for Ni rings measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded

to a change in the U.S. market price of Ni rings. This estimate depends on factors discussed earlier such

as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as well as the component

share of the Ni rings in the production of any downstream products. Based on the available information,

the aggregate demand for Ni rings is likely to be inelastic; a range of -0.2 to -0.5 is suggested. 

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.71 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

(e.g., chemistry, appearance, etc.) and conditions of sale (availability, sales terms/discounts/promotions,

etc.). Based on available information, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.-produced Ni rings and

imported Ni rings is likely to be high, in the range of 4 to 6.
 
 1

 Petition, p. 2.

 2

 During the preliminary phase of the investigations, a producers’ questionnaire was also sent to Dana Holding

Corporation (“Dana”), which was identified in the petition as being the only other U.S. producer of the subject

merchandise in recent years that was not acquired by QCC. Petition, p. 3. Dana certified that to the best of the

firm’s knowledge it has not produced Ni rings since ***. Email from ***, February 3, 2009. Furthermore, staff

confirmed that ***. Staff telephone interview with ***, July 22, 2009. 

 3

 Conference transcript, p. 11 (J. Korff) and hearing transcript, pp. 12-15 (J. Korff).

 4

 Although Korff Holdings, LLC is the owner of QCC, Joseph Korff has ultimate responsibility for decisions

pertaining to the management of QCC. Conference transcript, pp. 31-32 (J. Korff). 

 5

 Petition, p. 3.

 6

 http://www.qccast.com/centrifugal.html, retrieved August 12, 2009.

 7

 July 2, 2004 letter from Joseph Korff to Federal-Mogul, Karl Schmidt, and MAHLE. Federal-Mogul’s

postconference brief, exh. 1; Karl Schmidt’s postconference brief, exh. 1 and posthearing brief, exh. B.

III-1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCER’S PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§

1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information presented in this section of the report is based on the

questionnaire response of QCC. This firm is believed to account for all U.S. production of Ni rings

during the period for which data were collected (January 2006-June 2009).

U.S. PRODUCER

The Commission sent a producers’ questionnaire to QCC, the only U.S. producer identified as

having produced Ni rings during the period for which data were collected.1 2

 QCC, a family business that

was acquired at a bankruptcy auction in 2004,3

 is owned by Jason Korff and run by his father, Joseph

Korff.4

 The firm operates an iron and steel foundry in Salem, Ohio5 and uses two types of casting

methods, static (various metal castings created using sand molds) and centrifugal (Ni rings, as well as

other products such as cylinder liners and lapping pots). The firm sells products to the automotive,

marine, and agricultural industries, among others.6

 During the period from ***, proceeds from QCC’s

centrifugal casting operations supported the firm’s static casting operations, but in more recent years the

trend has been reversed and static castings make up the large majority of QCC’s business.7

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

In response to a question about changes to plant operations since January 1, 2006, QCC stated

***. Data on QCC’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization are presented in table III-1. QCC’s

reported capacity was *** the level of apparent U.S. consumption of Ni rings during the period of

investigation.

Table III-1

Ni rings: QCC’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and

January-June 2009

* * * * * * *
 8

 During the hearing, QCC stated that it intends to maintain its capacity to produce any and all Ni rings and that if

its Ni ring business does not return it will utilize its capacity for other centrifugal casting products. Hearing

transcript, pp. 20-21 (J. Korff).

 9

 Most of the decrease in QCC’s shipments during 2006-08 consisted of ***. ***.

 10 According to QCC, unit values increased in recent years due to falling shipments of common size Ni rings

coinciding with increased shipments of more expensive double-inserts to QCC’s customer in Brazil. QCC’s

postconference brief, p. 8.

 11 Email from ***, August 17, 2009.

 12 Hearing transcript, pp. 9-10 (Kane) and Karl Schmidt’s posthearing brief, p. 3. 

III-2

QCC’s capacity remained steady through the period for which data were collected, whereas

production and capacity utilization decreased. In response to a question requesting firms to describe the

constraints and limits experienced on their production capacity, QCC reported ***. QCC also stated that

its plant is operating at less than *** percent capacity and has ***.8

U.S. PRODUCER’S U.S. SHIPMENTS AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

QCC’s total shipments are presented in table III-2. The volume of total shipments decreased by

*** percent from 2006 to 2008, while the value of total shipments decreased by *** percent during the

same period.9

 ***. On both a quantity and value basis, export shipments decreased from 2006 to 2007

and increased from 2007 to 2008. Unit values of total shipments increased from 2006 to 2007 and

decreased *** from 2007 to 2008.10 Unit values of commercial shipments *** from January-June 2008 to

January-June 2009; ***.11 

Table III-2

Ni rings: QCC’s shipments, by type, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-3 presents quantity and value data for QCC’s sales by customers. Sales to the importer

of subject merchandise, Karl Schmidt, ***. The *** of sales to Karl Schmidt during January-June 2009

may be explained by the fact that Karl Schmidt has “only been a spot customer of QCC . . . when the need

arose.”12

Table III-3 

Ni rings: QCC’s sales, by customer, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCER’S IMPORTS AND PURCHASES OF IMPORTS

QCC did not report any imports of subject merchandise during the period for which data were

collected, nor is the firm related to the subject producer in Argentina.

U.S. PRODUCER’S INVENTORIES

Data on end-of-period inventories of Ni rings during the period for which data were collected are

presented in table III-4.
 13 *** hearing transcript, pp. 7 (G. Korff) and 14 (J. Korff). Additionally, QCC has reported that *** employees

solely related to the production of Ni rings have been laid off as a result of its lost business and *** employees have

been transferred. This represents approximately *** percent of QCC’s workforce. QCC’s posthearing brief, p. 5. 

Staff clarified with QCC ***. Email from ***, September 28, 2009. 

III-3

Table III-4

Ni rings: QCC’s end-of-period inventories, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Data provided by QCC on the number of production and related workers (“PRWs”) engaged in

the production of Ni rings, the total hours worked by such workers, and wages paid to such workers

during the period for which data were collected in this investigation, are presented in table III-5. QCC’s

employment declined from 2006 to 2008 and hours worked decreased during the period for which data

were collected. QCC reported its fewest PRWs in January-June 2009, which is consistent with QCC’s

response that its Ni ring business is almost non-existent and that it has laid off employees and its

machines are idle.13 Wages paid decreased during the period for which data were collected. Hourly

wages increased from 2006 to 2008, while unit labor costs increased from 2006 to 2007 and remained the

same from 2007 to 2008. Productivity decreased *** from 2006 to 2008. 

Table III-5

Ni rings: QCC’s employment-related data, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *
 
 1

 The Commission sent questionnaires to firms identified in the petition, and based on a review of proprietary

Customs data. Questionnaires were sent to all substantial importers which imported products under HTS statistical

reporting number 8409.99.9190.

 2

 *** firms responded that they did not import Ni rings. 

 3

 MAHLE ***. Email from ***, February 26, 2009. ***. ***, August 4, 2009. ***. Email from ***, August

17, 2009.

 4

 Conference transcript, p. 84 (Kane) and pp. 131-132 (Lowe); ***; hearing transcript, p. 113 (Turcott). 

 5

 ***. Karl Schmidt reported at the hearing and in its posthearing brief that if its relationship with Clorindo

proves to be disadvantageous it will look overseas to source Ni rings from Korea and/or China. Hearing transcript,

p. 10 (Kane) and Karl Schmidt’s posthearing brief, p. 6.

 6

 Hearing transcript, p. 26 (J. Korff).

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

The Commission sent U.S. importers’/purchasers’ questionnaires to 16 firms believed to be

importers of Ni rings from any country, as well as to the U.S. producer.1

 Questionnaire responses were

received from two firms that are believed to account for *** U.S. imports of Ni rings.2

 Karl Schmidt was

the sole importer of subject merchandise into the United States from Argentina during the period for

which data were collected. Imports from nonsubject countries *** by Federal-Mogul of product from

Korea; *** imports from nonsubject countries. There were no imports by QCC, the sole U.S. producer. 

Table IV-1 lists all responding U.S. importers of Ni rings from Argentina and all other sources,

their U.S. locations, and their quantities of imports, by source, in 2008.3

Table IV-1

Ni rings: Reported U.S. imports, by importers and by sources of imports, 2008

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTS

The quantity of subject imports decreased from 2006 to 2007 and increased *** from 2007 to

2008. Nonsubject imports ***. U.S. importers attribute the decreased imports of Ni rings in recent years

in part to a decrease in demand for the aluminum pistons requiring inserts. Importers contend this decline

is attributable to declining demand for vehicles using diesel engines and a shift in demand from aluminum

pistons to steel pistons resulting from more stringent emissions standards.4

 ***.5 QCC stated that since

the imposition of the provisional duties on subject imports from Argentina there has been no

improvement for its Ni rings business. Currently, QCC has no orders for Ni rings.6

The average unit value of subject imports ***, increasing from 2006 to 2007 and then decreasing

from 2007 to 2008. Table IV-2 shows quantity, value, average unit value, and share data on U.S. imports

of Ni rings.

Table IV-2

Ni rings: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *
 7

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(ii).

 8

 *** and hearing transcript, p. 113 (Turcott).

 9

 ***.

IV-2

NEGLIGIBILITY

The Tariff Act of 1930 provides for the termination of a countervailing duty investigation if

imports of the subject product from a country are less than 3 percent of total imports, or, if there is more

than one such country, their combined share is less than or equal to 7 percent of total imports, during the

most recent 12 months for which data are available preceding the filing of the petition.7

 As the data in

table IV-2 indicate, the share of the total quantity of U.S. imports accounted for by Argentina for the 2008

calendar year (which encompasses the 12-month period prior to filing of the petition) was well above the

negligibility threshold.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data on apparent U.S. consumption of Ni rings are presented in table IV-3. In calculating

apparent U.S. consumption, U.S. shipments of import data were used, based on questionnaire responses.

The quantity of apparent U.S. consumption decreased by *** percent in 2007, by *** percent in

2008, and was *** percent lower in January-June 2009 than in January-June 2008. The value of apparent

U.S. consumption increased by *** percent in 2007 and decreased by *** percent in 2008, and then was

*** percent lower in January-June 2009 than in January-June 2008. In addition to any declining demand

for diesel vehicles, importers reported that the continuing decrease of apparent U.S. consumption of Ni

rings is a result of a demand for higher horsepower with higher emission standards. These standards

result in higher pressures and temperatures which are not as sustainable for aluminum pistons (which use

Ni rings) as for steel pistons. Thus, there has been a migration to purchase steel pistons.8

 Moreover,

***.9

Table IV-3

Ni rings: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. shipments of imports by source, and apparent

U.S. consumption, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. MARKET SHARES

Data on market shares in the U.S. market for Ni rings are presented in table IV-4. On both a

quantity and a value basis, QCC’s market share decreased in the period during which data were collected. 

This decrease in market share coincided with increases in the market share of imports from nonsubject

country Korea, although the market share of imports from Korea decreased in January-June 2009. The

market share of imports from Argentina decreased during 2006-08 and increased in January-June 2009.

Table IV-4

Ni rings: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June

2009

* * * * * * *
IV-3

RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Data on the ratio of imports to U.S. production of Ni rings are presented in table IV-5.

Table IV-5

Ni rings: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S. production, 2006-08, JanuaryJune 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *
 
 1

 See Part VI: Financial Experience and Condition of the U.S. Producer of this report.

 2

 Ibid.

 3

 Conference transcript, p. 104 (Turcott).

 4

 QCC reported that nickel tends to be a “volatile priced material in certain times.” QCC stated that prices for

nickel were very high historically in 2006 and 2007. Conference transcript, p. 23 (J. Korff).

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

The costs of manufacturing Ni rings include raw materials, other factory costs, and direct labor. 

During the period for which data were collected, *** represented the largest share of the cost of goods

sold (*** percent).1

There are *** main raw materials used in manufacturing Ni rings: ***. Other raw materials

include ***.2

 Though nickel is not the most abundant elemental input, its price is highly volatile and,

accordingly, nickel surcharges are common in the Ni-ring industry.3

 Figure V-1 presents the trend of

nickel prices since January 2006.4

Figure V-1

Nickel: Price per pound, monthly, January 2006-August 2009

Source: American Metal Market, http://www.amm.com, retrieved August 6, 2009.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

QCC did not report the share of delivered prices that is accounted for by U.S. inland

transportation costs because ***. ***. *** percent of QCC’s sales are made within 100 miles of its

production or storage facility, and the remaining *** percent is shipped ***. It reported selling in ***.

Nickel spot bid prices

0

5

10

15

20

25

Jan. 2006

Jul. 2006

Jan. 2007

Jul. 200 7

Jan. 2008

Jul. 200 8

Jan. 2009

Jul. 200 9

Dollars per pound
 5

 Hearing transcript, p. 58 (J. Korff).

 6

 Hearing transcript, p. 49 (G. Korff).

 7 Hearing transcript, pp. 89 (Kane), pp. 98-99 (Turcott), and 120 (Kane).

 8

 ***.

 9 Federal-Mogul’s postconference brief, exh. 19.

 10 Federal-Mogul’s postconference brief, exh. 18.

 11 Karl Schmidt’s postconference brief, exh. 2.

 12 Conference transcript, p. 23 (J. Korff).

 13 For more information regarding metal surcharges as a condition of competition, see Part II: Conditions of

Competition in the U.S. Market.

 14 The surcharge is ***. 

 15 QCC noted the following: 

“***.”

***.

 16 The surcharge for ***. ***.

 17 The surcharge formulas used by ***. Federal-Mogul’s postconference brief, exhs. 15 and 17. ***. FederalMogul’s postconference brief, exh. 16.

 18 Hearing transcript, p. 134 (Turcott).

 19 Hearing transcript, pp. 30 (J. Korff), p. 89 (Kane), and pp. 95-96 (Turcott).

 20 A Ni ring part number is specific to a type of engine, which may be produced for a number of years (e.g. three

to seven, with possible extensions), and can be referred to as a “program.” After a particular engine has gone out of

production, there are service requirements for that engine, and thus, some remaining demand for that Ni ring

specification. Hearing transcript, pp. 94-95 (Turcott). As reported by Karl Schmidt, “Long term programs are the

basis of the ni-resist piston business.” Hearing transcript, p. 94 (Turcott).

 21 Karl Schmidt’s posthearing brief, p. 10.

V-2

PRICING PRACTICES

QCC reported that it uses price lists in order to arrive at prices for Ni rings, that it ***, and would

charge the same price for spot or contract sales.5

 QCC quotes prices on *** basis and sells Ni rings

typically on a spot basis.6

 Federal-Mogul reported that it purchases Ni rings ***. Karl Schmidt has

purchased Ni rings on a contract basis from Clorindo, and has bought from QCC on a spot basis during

the period for which data were collected.7

 No responding firm reported any ***. QCC reported that it

typically requires payment on a *** basis. This is in contrast to QCC’s basis as reported by ***.8

 In a

quotation letter dated ***.9

 This differs from a prior ***.10 ***.11

In addition, QCC reported that prices for Ni rings are made up of two components: a base price

and a surcharge.12 13 QCC provided information on its surcharge formulas for ***. For sales to ***, QCC

reported that the surcharge formula calculation ***. According to QCC, the formula ***.14 15 For its

sales to ***, QCC reported that the surcharge is ***.16 17 

Karl Schmidt testified that it has been doing business with QCC for four and a half years, during

which it purchased on a spot basis.18 Whereas QCC considered Karl Schmidt’s orders “significant,” Karl

Schmidt viewed orders of even up to 30,000 pieces as “not a lot, . . . a spot buy,” and not part of a longterm program.19 20 Karl Schmidt stated, “No piston program volume commitments had been made by

{Karl Schmidt} to customers in reliance on QCC’s supplying {Karl Schmidt} with piston inserts.”21

When buying Ni rings from QCC, it was using ***. Karl Schmidt reported, ***, that in negotiations with
 22 Hearing transcript, p. 95 (Turcott).

 23 Karl Schmidt’s posthearing brief, exh. C.

 24 Karl Schmidt’s posthearing brief, pp. 9-11. 

 25 Importers were requested to provide purchase prices on a landed, duty-paid basis (excluding U.S. inland

transportation costs). If, however, importers were not able to provide landed, duty-paid prices, they were instructed

to provide delivered prices (i.e., including costs for delivery to the firm’s U.S. facility). ***.

V-3

QCC in 2007, QCC offered an all-metal surcharge formula like that offered to Federal-Mogul.22 Then, in

November 2007, terms were negotiated that included only nickel surcharges. ***.23 QCC reverted to

offering the more comprehensive all-metals purchase-price surcharge, and negotiations continued and

finally broke down in November 2008.24

PRICE DATA

QCC and importers of Ni rings were asked to provide quarterly data for the total quantity and

f.o.b. (U.S. point of shipment) value of selected products that were shipped to unrelated customers in the

U.S. market from January 2006-June 2009.25 As the importers internally consume all the Ni rings that

they import, they reported purchase prices (direct from the foreign supplier) for the selected products. 

The products for which pricing data were requested were as follows:

Product 1.—Ni rings with a per-unit weight of 0.409 lbs. and an outer 

diameter of 4.602 inches (part number 61256 or 6056).

Product 2.—Ni rings with a per-unit weight of 0.772 lbs. and an outer 

diameter of 5.220 inches (part number N-4590-6).

Product 3.—Ni rings with a per-unit weight of 0.782 lbs. and an outer 

diameter of 5.859 inches (part number Ni-550-104PP).

Product 4.—Ni rings with a per-unit weight of 1.874 lbs. and an outer 

diameter of 5.857 inches (part number Ni-550-233PP1).

QCC, Federal-Mogul, and Karl Schmidt provided price data. Pricing data accounted for ***

percent of the dollar value of QCC’s U.S. shipments during January 2006-June 2009, *** percent of the

dollar value of U.S. shipments of imports from Argentina, and *** percent of the dollar value of U.S.

shipments of imports from Korea. Quarterly weighted-average sales prices for QCC *** for the above

products are shown in tables V-1 and V-2 and figures V-2 and V-3. In addition, purchases made by ***

are also reported in tables V-1 and V-2. These purchase quantities and values do not ***. Quarterly

weighted-average sales prices for QCC and purchase prices for Federal-Mogul of imported Korean Ni

rings are presented in appendix D. ***. 

Table V-1

Ni rings: Average prices and quantities for product ***, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *
 26 Pricing data for products 1 and 2.

 27 It should be noted, however, that these price changes are mainly due to the timing of the available quarters of

data. ***. 

 28 QCC reported that it ***. ***.

 29 QCC noted the following: 

“***.”

***.

V-4

Table V-2

Ni rings: Average prices and quantities for product ***, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2

Ni rings: Average prices and quantities for product ***, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-3

Ni rings: Average prices and quantities for product ***, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Price Trends

Both sales and purchase prices for Ni rings generally increased from the first quarter of 2006 to

the third quarter of 2007 (second quarter for product ***).26 Sales and purchase prices have been

generally declining since that time. Data were not available for all quarters for any country’s Ni rings. 

Between the first and last quarters for which data are available, selling prices for domestically produced

product 1 decreased by *** percent, while those for product 2 increased by *** percent.27 In 2009,

purchase prices for Argentine Ni rings (***) were lower than the price in the first quarter of 2006 ***.

Price Comparisons

Purchase prices for imported Ni rings from Argentina were lower than sales prices for U.S.-

produced Ni rings in seven of eight quarters where both prices were reported. However, it is important to

note that the prices reported by QCC are *** selling prices while the prices reported by ***. Thus, the

U.S. producer’s prices and prices for imported product are for transactions at different levels of trade and

are not directly comparable. In addition, *** reported by Karl Schmidt (for imports of product from

Argentina) ***; ***. On a *** basis, as reported by Karl Schmidt, prices of Ni rings from Argentina

were lower than prices of U.S.-produced Ni rings in six of seven quarters. 

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

The Commission requested QCC to report any instances of lost sales or revenues it experienced

due to competition from imports from Argentina from January 2006 to June 2009. QCC was not able to

provide any specific lost sales or lost revenue allegations.28 QCC did provide a quote that it sent to ***.29
 30 Hearing transcript, p. 71 (J. Korff).

 31 Correspondence from ***.

 32 Federal-Mogul reported that ***. QCC testified that it does have a minimum quantity requirement of 500

pieces that is necessary to cover all its costs; however, it would accept an order of about 200 pieces, even for a new

piece, but QCC would have to charge a higher price. Conference transcript, p. 81 (J. Korff). ***. Federal-Mogul’s

preliminary phase importer/purchaser questionnaire response, supplement to section IV-1, as referenced by FederalMogul’s final phase importer/purchaser questionnaire response.

 33 Hearing transcript, p. 99 (Turcott).

 34 Correspondence from ***, February 13, 2009. Negotiations with QCC continued into November 2008. Karl

Schmidt’s posthearing brief, p. 9.

 35 Karl Schmidt’s posthearing brief, exh. C.

 36 Ibid., pp. 10-11.

V-5

Additionally, QCC testified at the hearing that “about two years ago . . . we were consistently being told

that our prices were high.”30 QCC reported that it was ***.31

Federal-Mogul and Karl Schmidt were requested to provide any information on switching from

purchasing U.S.-made product to subject imports.32 Karl Schmidt reported that it ***. Instead, Karl

Schmidt reported that it used QCC as an alternative source to augment its supply via spot buys to meet

demand33 and ***.34 ***.35 Karl Schmidt noted that QCC ***. In contrast, QCC reportedly ***.36
 
 1

 As noted at the staff conference, QCC’s exports were only to Brazil and represented a single type of Ni ring

(“double ring with pins”). Conference transcript, pp. 12, 39 (J. Korff). ***. Email (first) from QCC to USITC

auditor, August 12, 2009. 

 2

 September 22, 2009 verification report.

 3

 The predecessor company filed bankruptcy in 2003. While the decline in Ni rings revenue may have

contributed to the predecessor company’s financial weakness prior to the period examined, a major factor related to

its bankruptcy in 2003 was reportedly the 2001 bankruptcy of Federal-Mogul, a major customer. Conference

transcript, p. 11 (J. Korff). Federal-Mogul entered and subsequently exited Chapter 11 bankruptcy on October 1,

2001 and December 27, 2007, respectively. “Litigation forces Federal-Mogul to file Ch. 11,” Rubber & Plastics

News, December 10, 2001, p. 18 and “Federal-Mogul makes smooth exit from Chapter 11,” Motor Age, April 2008,

p. 62. 

 4

 With respect to the current owner’s purchase of QCC’s assets in 2004, the Ni ring part of the business was not

characterized as the primary focus of the purchase. Instead, operations related to Ni rings were characterized as a

complement (“adder”) to the company’s sand foundry operations. Conference transcript, p. 57 (J. Korff). Hearing

transcript, p. 34 (J. Korff). Verification report, pp. 3-4. 

 5

 Conference transcript, p. 50 (J. Korff). Staff notes that the description of Ni ring profitability prior to the period

examined was what the QCC company official believed likely, based on the product’s sales volume at that time; i.e.,

the description was not based on a formal review of the predecessor company’s financial results. 

 6

 Sales of Ni rings by the predecessor company reportedly reached their highest level during the mid-1990s after

which they declined. QCC petition, exh. 5 and conference transcript, p. 10 (J. Korff). At their peak prior to the

period examined, sales of Ni rings represented about 50 percent of the company’s total sales revenue. Conference

transcript, p. 51 (J. Korff). 

 7

 Email with attachment from QCC to USITC auditor, February 20, 2009.

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE AND CONDITION OF THE

U.S. PRODUCER

BACKGROUND

QCC, the only U.S. producer of Ni rings during the period examined, reported its financial results

on the basis of U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) and for calendar-year periods. 

U.S. commercial shipments represented *** of QCC’s sales in all years and periods ***.1

 A verification

of QCC’s U.S. producer questionnaire response was conducted on September 9-10, 2009. Changes

resulting from verification are reflected in this and other affected sections of this report.2

As described in Part III of this report, the current owner of QCC purchased the predecessor

company’s assets in 2004.3 4

 At their peak in terms of sales volume prior to the period examined, Ni rings

were characterized generally as a “substantial profit contributor” to the predecessor company’s overall

business.5 6

 

QCC’s Ni ring operations take place within its centrifugal castings department where cylinder

liners and lapping pots are also manufactured. According to QCC, ***.7

 The company’s other major
 8

 Conference transcript, pp. 46-47 (J. Korff). QCC’s sand foundry department and centrifugal department are

separate in terms of their manufacturing operations including the melt phase. The centrifugal department uses

continuous furnaces which are in operation for 9-month periods, 24 hours a day, while the sand foundry department

uses coreless induction furnaces on a batch basis. Conference transcript, p. 48 (J. Korff). As centrifugal department

production and sales declined, QCC switched to using sand foundry furnaces to melt metal for the centrifugal

castings operations. Hearing transcript p. 37 (J. Korff). 

 9

 Email (first) from QCC to USITC auditor, August 12, 2009, and USITC auditor prehearing notes.

 10 ***. USITC auditor preliminary phase notes. 

 11 USITC auditor prehearing notes. ***.

 12 Conference transcript, pp. 12-13 (J. Korff).

VI-2

operations take place within its sand foundry department.8

 In full-year 2008 and interim 2009, Ni rings

represented *** percent and *** percent, respectively, of QCC’s total net sales.9

OPERATIONS ON Ni RINGS

QCC’s income-and-loss data for Ni rings are presented in table VI-1. Due to changes in product

mix during the period examined, as noted below, a variance analysis is not presented.

Table VI-1

Ni rings: Results of operations of the U.S. producer, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and JanuaryJune 2009

* * * * * * *

As shown in table VI-1, higher average sales values correspond in part with the elevated level of

average raw material cost after 2006. To some extent this pattern reflects the use of surcharges in

determining the sales amount charged to customers. Notwithstanding changes in the surcharge amount,

differences in period-to-period average unit sales value also reflect changes in product mix and

underlying base prices.10 For example, QCC’s domestic commercial shipments for most of the period

represented a broader range of Ni rings, while *** exports were concentrated in a single configuration. In

2006, domestic commercial shipments and exports represented *** percent and *** percent, respectively,

of QCC’s total Ni ring sales value. In interim 2009, these relative shares had changed to *** percent and

*** percent.11

QCC’s Ni ring operations historically represented all or the majority of the centrifugal

department’s output. In contrast, the period examined is transitional inasmuch as Ni ring sales volume

has declined *** while the company attempts to shift the centrifugal department’s focus to alternative

production. At the staff conference, a company official stated that “. . . we’re trying to develop other

centrifugal products . . . {w}e’re trying to retail a cylinder liner line of products. We’ve trade named it

EZ Slider and we’re selling it on the retail market. We’re spending lots of money trying to develop it to

maintain our use for our centrifugal capacity . . . but it is not at this point a business that will utilize

effectively the centrifugal capacity.”12 In this context, it appears that QCC’s increased average direct

labor and other factory costs, as noted below, are generally consistent with declining Ni ring sales
 13 In order to reduce costs as production declined in the centrifugal department, QCC redeployed some resources

to the sand foundry department. QCC petition, p. 2. 

 14 Email (first) from QCC to USITC auditor, August 12, 2009.

 15 Email with attachment from QCC to USITC auditor, February 16, 2009.

 16 Email with attachment from QCC to USITC auditor, February 20, 2009. ***. USITC auditor preliminary

phase notes. Type I Ni-resist scrap is reportedly obtained from a variety of mostly domestic sources on a spot basis. 

Conference transcript, p. 49 (J. Korff). 

 17 Verification report, pp. 7-8. ***. 

 18 According to QCC, ***. Email with attachment from QCC to USITC auditor, February 16, 2009. ***. Email

(first) from QCC to USITC auditor, August 12, 2009. 

 19 Email with attachment from QCC to USITC auditor, February 20, 2009. ***. Ibid. At the Commission’s

hearing and with respect to machinery specifically, QCC noted depreciation as an example of a small cost to the

company of maintaining idle centrifugal department production capacity. Hearing transcript, p. 23 (J. Korff). At

smaller production volumes and smaller order sizes, the company also indicated that Ni ring costs increase due to

reduced efficiencies. Hearing transcript, pp. 78, 81-82 (J. Korff). 

 20 Ibid.

 21 As a share of sales value and as revised to reflect changes pursuant to verification, the metal margin (i.e., the

difference between Ni ring sales values and corresponding raw material costs) was *** percent in 2006, *** percent

in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in interim 2008, and *** percent in interim 2009. On a per-pound basis,

the metal margin was $*** per pound in 2006, $*** per pound in 2007, $*** per pound in 2008, $*** per pound in

interim 2008, and $*** per pound in interim 2009. Staff notes that “metal margin” is a benchmark and not an

accounting term and typically refers to the difference between current sales prices and current average raw material

(continued...)

VI-3

***.13 As shown in table III-1, Ni ring production and capacity utilization went from *** percent in 2006

to *** percent in 2008. With regard to interim 2009, QCC stated that ***.14

With respect to cost of goods sold (“COGS”), raw material is the *** to Ni rings; i.e., direct labor

and other factory costs *** in order to develop the information reported to the Commission.15 On a

cumulative basis, other factory costs accounted for *** percent of total COGS during the period

examined. This was followed closely by raw material costs at *** percent and then direct labor at ***

percent. 

The primary components of Ni ring raw material costs reflect the following items: ***. With the

exception of ***, which declined marginally in 2007, the average prices paid by QCC for these inputs

increased *** in 2007 and then generally declined in 2008.16 Pursuant to verification, ***.17 

As indicated above, during the period examined QCC’s Ni ring product mix ***. According to

the company, while weight on a per-insert basis varies, average per-pound raw material costs are

reportedly not affected by changes in product mix.18 

The *** share of total COGS accounted for by other factory costs, while generally consistent

with a capital-intensive production process, also in part reflects relatively low and declining production

volumes. According to QCC, other factory costs reflect a number of items: ***. Supplemental

information provided by QCC shows that, consistent with its declining share of sales, the absolute amount

of overall other factory costs allocated to Ni rings declined throughout the period.19

Direct labor cost, as described by QCC, reflects multiple items/activities identified as follows: 

***.20

An important factor contributing to QCC’s increasing gross loss margins between 2006 and 2008

was the decline in its metal margin as a share of sales value. QCC’s gross losses (on an absolute basis

and as a share of sales) in 2007 and 2008 also increased due to ***. In contrast, QCC’s lower gross loss

margin in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008 was *** due to an increase in its metal margin which in

turn ***.21
 21 (...continued)

prices. Because it is based on revenue and cost information recognized by QCC for accounting purposes, the metal

margin calculated by staff does not generally correspond to a standard industry definition. USITC auditor

posthearing notes and preliminary-phase notes.

 22 ***. Email with attachment from QCC to USITC auditor, February 20, 2009. ***. Email (first) from QCC to

USITC auditor, August 12, 2009. 

 23 ***. QCC questionnaire response, attachment to III-12. 

 24 ***. Email with attachment from QCC to USITC auditor, February 16, 2009. 

 25 ***. Ibid. 

VI-4

In conjunction with consistent gross loss margins after 2006, QCC’s higher selling, general and

administrative (“SG&A”) expense ratios exacerbated its operating loss margins. According to the

company, SG&A expenses reflect the following items: ***. Consistent with the overall decline in sales

volume, there was a *** decline in the absolute level of SG&A expenses allocated to Ni rings in 2007

(see table VI-1).22 SG&A expenses as a share of sales increased throughout the period, however, as

corresponding revenue declined. In contrast with the full-year period, the *** increase in QCC’s SG&A

expense ratio in interim 2009 was offset by a higher metal margin and corresponding reduction in gross

loss margin, as noted above. On anabsolute basis, however, it should be noted that QCC’s lower

operating loss in interim 2009 compared to interim 2008 was primarily due to reduced sales volume. 

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES

Capital expenditures, research and development (“R&D”) expenses, total assets, and return on

investment (“ROI”) are shown in table VI-2. 

Table VI-2

Ni rings: Capital expenditures, research and development expenses, assets, and return on

investment of the U.S. producer, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

QCC *** incur capital expenditures related to Ni rings during the period examined. With respect

to the property, plant, and equipment component of total assets, QCC stated that ***.23

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested QCC to describe any actual or potential negative effects of imports

from Argentina and Korea on its growth, investment, ability to raise capital, development and production

efforts, or the scale of capital investments. QCC’s responses are shown below.

Actual Negative Effects

QCC: ***.24 

Anticipated Negative Effects

QCC ***.25
 1

 Foreign producer questionnaires were sent to the following firms in Argentina identified using proprietary

Customs data and internet research: ***.

 2

 Clorindo’s foreign producer questionnaire response and email from ***, September 24, 2009.

 3

 Email from ***, September 24, 2009.

 4

 During the hearing and in its posthearing brief, QCC suggested that Argentina’s Santa Fe Province is

experiencing an enormous upheaval in terms of its labor and its metallurgical industry and that as a result

metallurgical plants are operating at 30 percent capacity and the Argentinian Government is subsidizing employee

wages. Furthermore, it was reported by QCC that Clorindo may be part of a bankruptcy proceeding. Hearing

transcript, pp 7-8 and 18-19 (G. Korff) and QCC’s posthearing brief, pp. 2-3 and exhs. 2-4. ***. Email from ***,

September 24, 2009.

 5

 Email from ***, September 24, 2009.

 6

 Clorindo’s postconference brief, p. 2 and ***.

VII-1

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON

NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making threat determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(F)(i)). Information on the nature and the extent of the subsidies was presented earlier in this

report; information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts

IV and V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on the U.S. producer’s

existing development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the

subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any

other threat indicators, if applicable; and any subsidization in third-country markets, follows. Also

presented in this section of the report is information obtained for consideration by the Commission on

nonsubject countries. 

THE INDUSTRY IN ARGENTINA

The Commission requested data from four firms1

 in Argentina believed to be possible producers

of Ni rings. Clorindo, which was listed in the petition as the sole Argentinian producer, provided a

questionnaire response which accounted for all known Ni ring production in Argentina during the period

for which data were collected. ***. Clorindo stated that the firm has ***. Ni rings were *** produced

and sold by Clorindo during the period for which data were collected; ***.2

 Additionally, ***.3

Capacity remained steady during the period for which data were collected and is projected to ***

in the next two years because, as stated above, Clorindo reports it is ***. Production fluctuated during

the period of investigation (decreasing from 2006 to 2007, then increasing from 2007 to 2008, and was

lower in January-June 2009 than in January-June 2008).4

 Clorindo’s projections call for *** production

from 2008 to 2009 followed by *** production in 2010 ***. Capacity utilization was between *** and

*** percent during 2006-2008, with projections showing *** percent utilization in 2009 followed by ***

in 2010 corresponding with the *** production level predicted for that year. Specifically, Clorindo plans

to ***.5

Clorindo’s exports to the United States as a share of the firm’s total exports decreased during the

period for which data were collected, from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. Clorindo also

exported some of its 2007-08 production to Brazil (between *** and *** percent of production), France

(approximately *** percent), the Czech Republic, Mexico, and ***.6

 Table VII-1 presents data for

reported production and shipments of Ni rings in Argentina by Clorindo.
 7

 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 2007-1552 at 17 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 18, 2008), quoting from

Statement of Administrative Action on Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. I at 851-52; see

also Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

 8

 Clorindo’s postconference brief, p. 1, and conference transcript, pp. 40 (J. Korff) and 97 (Lowe).

 9

 Foreign producer questionnaires were sent to the following firms in Korea identified using proprietary Customs

data and internet research: ***.

VII-2

Table VII-1

Ni rings: Clorindo’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2006-

08, January-June 2008, January-June 2009, and projections for 2009 and 2010

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Reported inventories held by U.S. importers of subject merchandise from Argentina are shown in

table VII-2.

Table VII-2

Ni rings: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of all imports, by source, 2006-08, JanuaryJune 2008, and January-June 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of Ni rings from Argentina after June 30, 2009. ***.

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY INVESTIGATIONS 

IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

There are no known antidumping or countervailing duty investigations on Ni rings reported in

third-country markets.

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury

“by reason of subject imports,” the legislative history states “that the Commission must examine all

relevant evidence, including any known factors, other than the dumped or subsidized imports, that may be

injuring the domestic industry, and that the Commission must examine those other factors (including nonsubject imports) ‘to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.’”7

There is no publicly available information regarding international production or exports of Ni

rings during the period for which data were collected. Countries other than Argentina believed to produce

Ni rings are Brazil, China, Germany, India, Korea, Poland, Taiwan, and Turkey.8

The known producer in Korea, Incheon, exports Ni rings to Federal-Mogul in the United States.

The Commission requested data from three firms9

 in Korea believed to be possible producers of Ni rings. 

Incheon, which was listed in the petition as the sole Korean producer, provided a questionnaire response

which accounted for all known Ni ring production in Korea during the period for which data were
 10 Incheon’s foreign producer questionnaire response.

 11 Incheon was ***. However, ***. Incheon’s foreign producer questionnaire response.

 12 Incheon expects ***. Incheon is ***. Incheon’s foreign producer questionnaire response. 

 13 ***. ***. ***, August 4, 2009. Interestingly, ***. Email from ***, August 17, 2009.

 14 Email from ***, March 13, 2009.

 15 Email from ***, March 18, 2009.

VII-3

collected. ***. Ni rings represented *** percent of the firm’s production in 2008, and other products

produced on the same equipment were ***.10 

Incheon’s capacity increased from 2006 to 2007 and is projected to *** 2009.11 Production and

capacity utilization both increased from 2006 to 2007, decreased *** from 2007 to 2008, and are

projected to *** in 2009.12 Interim data collected for January-June 2008 and 2009 show production to be

*** percent lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008, and capacity utilization *** percent lower

between the two periods. ***. Table VII-3 presents data for reported production and shipments of Ni

rings in Korea by Incheon.

Table VII-3

Ni rings: Incheon’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2006-

08, January-June 2008, January-June 2009, and projections for 2009 and 2010

* * * * * * *

The known producers in *** are affiliated with *** and the known producers in *** are affiliated

with ***.13 *** plant in *** had a capacity of *** Ni rings (referred to as “ring carriers”) in 2008. It

produced *** Ni rings, but its production ***. It exported *** percent of its production in 2008 to ***. 

It received ***. The plant in *** is not known to have ***.14

*** plant in *** had a capacity of *** Ni rings in 2008. It produced *** Ni rings and exported

*** percent of its production in 2008 to ***. ***.15
 
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

34784 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 

1Section 207.21(b) of the Commission’s rules 

provides that, where the Department of Commerce 

has issued a negative preliminary determination, 

the Commission will publish a Final Phase Notice 

of Scheduling upon receipt of an affirmative final 

determination from Commerce. 

Written submissions.—Each party 

who is an interested party shall submit 

a prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.23 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is October 9, 2009. Parties may 

also file written testimony in connection 

with their presentation at the hearing, as 

provided in section 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules, and posthearing 

briefs, which must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.25 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is October 27, 

2009; witness testimony must be filed 

no later than three days before the 

hearing. In addition, any person who 

has not entered an appearance as a party 

to the investigations may submit a 

written statement of information 

pertinent to the subject of the 

investigations, including statements of 

support or opposition to the petition, on 

or before October 27, 2009. On 

November 10, 2009, the Commission 

will make available to parties all 

information on which they have not had 

an opportunity to comment. Parties may 

submit final comments on this 

information on or before November 12, 

2009, but such final comments must not 

contain new factual information and 

must otherwise comply with section 

207.30 of the Commission’s rules. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s rules; any submissions 

that contain BPI must also conform with 

the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

investigations must be served on all 

other parties to the investigations (as 

identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: July 13, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–16994 Filed 7–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–460–461 (Final)] 

Ni-Resist Piston Inserts From 

Argentina and Korea 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of 

countervailing duty investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of countervailing duty 

investigation Nos. 701–TA–460–461 

(Final) under section 705(b) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the 

Act) to determine whether an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured or threatened with material 

injury, or the establishment of an 

industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

subsidized imports from Argentina and 

Korea of Ni-resist piston inserts, 

provided for in subheading 8409.99.91 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of the 

investigations, hearing procedures, and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Dates: July 6, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Angela M.W. Newell (202–708–5409), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—The final phase of 

these investigations is being scheduled 

as a result of an affirmative preliminary 

determination by the Department of 

Commerce that certain benefits which 

constitute subsidies within the meaning 

of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1671b) are being provided to 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

in Argentina of Ni-resist piston inserts. 

These investigations were requested in 

a petition filed on January 26, 2009, by 

Korff Holdings LLC d/b/a Quaker City 

Castings, Salem, OH. 

Although the Department of 

Commerce has preliminarily determined 

that imports of Ni-resist piston inserts 

from Korea are not being and are not 

likely to be subsidized, for purposes of 

efficiency the Commission hereby 

waives rule 207.21(b) 1 so that the final 

phase of the investigations may proceed 

concurrently in the event that 

Commerce makes a final affirmative 

determination with respect to such 

imports. 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the final phase of these 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

section 201.11 of the Commission’s 

rules, no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. A 

party that filed a notice of appearance 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigations need not file an 

additional notice of appearance during 

this final phase. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the investigations. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in the final phase of these 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 34785 

investigations available to authorized 

applicants under the APO issued in the 

investigations, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days prior to the hearing date specified 

in this notice. Authorized applicants 

must represent interested parties, as 

defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are 

parties to the investigations. A party 

granted access to BPI in the preliminary 

phase of the investigations need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the final phase of these 

investigations will be placed in the 

nonpublic record on September 2, 2009, 

and a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the final 

phase of these investigations beginning 

at 9:30 a.m. on September 17, 2009, at 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Requests to 

appear at the hearing should be filed in 

writing with the Secretary to the 

Commission on or before September 9, 

2009. A nonparty who has testimony 

that may aid the Commission’s 

deliberations may request permission to 

present a short statement at the hearing. 

All parties and nonparties desiring to 

appear at the hearing and make oral 

presentations should attend a 

prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 

a.m. on September 11, 2009, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Oral testimony and written 

materials to be submitted at the public 

hearing are governed by sections 

201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules. Parties must submit 

any request to present a portion of their 

hearing testimony in camera no later 

than 7 business days prior to the date of 

the hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party 

who is an interested party shall submit 

a prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.23 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is September 10, 2009. Parties 

may also file written testimony in 

connection with their presentation at 

the hearing, as provided in section 

207.24 of the Commission’s rules, and 

posthearing briefs, which must conform 

with the provisions of section 207.25 of 

the Commission’s rules. The deadline 

for filing posthearing briefs is 

September 24, 2009; witness testimony 

must be filed no later than three days 

before the hearing. In addition, any 

person who has not entered an 

appearance as a party to the 

investigation may submit a written 

statement of information pertinent to 

the subject of the investigation, 

including statements of support or 

opposition to the petition, on or before 

September 24, 2009. On October 9, 

2009, the Commission will make 

available to parties all information on 

which they have not had an opportunity 

to comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before October 14, 2009, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.30 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

investigations must be served on all 

other parties to the investigations (as 

identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: July 13, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–16995 Filed 7–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–628] 

In the Matter of Certain Computer 

Products, Computer Components and 

Products Containing Same; Notice of 

Commission Decision Not To Review 

the ALJ’s Final Initial Determination 

Finding No Violation of Section 337; 

Termination of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review the presiding administrative law 

judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) final initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) issued on March 

16, 2009, finding no violation of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 

1337 in this investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Panyin Hughes, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3042. 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 at 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 January 14, 2008, based on a 

complaint filed by International 

Business Machines Corporation of 

Armonk, New York (‘‘IBM’’). 73 FR 2275 

(Jan. 14, 2008). 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 computer products, computer 

components and products containing 

same by reason of infringement of 

certain claims of United States Patent 

Nos. 5,008,829 (‘‘the ’829 patent’’); 

5,249,741 (‘‘the ’741 patent’’); and 

5,371,852 (‘‘the ’852 patent’’). The

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

47922 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 180 / Friday, September 18, 2009 / Notices 

2See Message number 9170203, available at 

http://addcvd.cbp.gov. 

3See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and 

Tube from Turkey: Notice of Rescission, in Part, of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

7394 (February 17, 2009). 

1The public version of the verification reports 

and all public documents for this investigation are 

on file in the Central Records Unit, room 1117 in 

the main building of the Commerce Department. 

2The GOA submitted a case brief on August 25, 

2009; however, the case brief was rejected because 

it contained untimely new factual information. See 

Letter to Roberto Salafia, Minister, Economic and 

Commercial Section, Embassy of Argentina from 

Melissa G. Skinner, Director, Operations Office 3, 

regarding Rejection of Case Brief with Untimely 

Filed Information (August 26, 2009), which stated 

that the GOA could resubmit the case brief by 

August 28, 2009 provided the untimely information 

was removed. 

3The petitioner submitted a case brief on August 

20, 2009; however, the case brief was rejected 

because it contained an untimely new subsidy 

allegation and untimely new factual information. 

See Letter to Geoffrey Korff of the Korff Law Firm 

from Melissa G. Skinner, Director, Operations 

Office 3 (August 25, 2009), which stated that 

petitioner could resubmit the case brief, provided 

the untimely information was removed. On 

September 1, 2009, the Department granted to the 

petitioner an extension of time to resubmit the case 

brief. See Letter to Geoffrey Korff of the Korff Law 

Firm from Melissa G. Skinner, Director, Operations 

Office 3 (September 1, 2009). 

received no comments from any other 

party on Yucel’s no–shipment claim. 

We conducted an internal customs 

data query on June 16, 2009. We also 

issued a ‘‘no shipments inquiry’’ 

message to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), which posted the 

message on June 19, 2009.2 The customs 

data query indicated that Yucel had no 

sales, shipments, or entries of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. We did not receive any 

information from CBP contrary to 

Yucel’s claim of no sales, shipments, or 

entries of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. See 

Memorandum to the File through 

Melissa Skinner, Director, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, titled ‘‘Customs 

Data Query,’’ (July 7, 2009). 

Based on our analysis of the shipment 

data, we determine that Yucel did not 

ship subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR. Therefore, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), 

and consistent with our practice,3 we 

are rescinding the review for Yucel. We 

will continue this administrative review 

with respect to the Borusan Group, 

Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve 

Ticaret A.S., Borusan Istikbal Ticaret 

T.A.S., Tosyali dis Ticaret A.S., and 

Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: September 14, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–22498 Filed 9–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–357–819] 

Ni–Resist Piston Inserts from 

Argentina: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) determines that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to a producer and exporter of 

Ni–resist piston inserts from Argentina. 

For information on the estimated 

subsidy rate, see the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 18, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 3, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

4014, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4793. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This investigation covers 22 

programs. Clorindo Appo SRL 

(Clorindo) is the only producer/exporter 

of subject merchandise from Argentina 

under investigation. The petitioner is 

Korff Holdings, LLC d/b/a Quaker City 

Castings. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (the POI) 

for which we are measuring subsidies is 

January 1, 2008, through December 31, 

2008, which corresponds to Argentina’s 

most recently completed fiscal year. See 

19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the preliminary determination 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register on July 6, 2009. See Ni–Resist 

Piston Inserts From Argentina: 

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination, 74 FR 31914 (July 

6, 2009) (Preliminary Determination). 

From July 23 through July 29, 2009, 

we conducted verification of the 

questionnaire responses submitted by 

the Government of Argentina (GOA), 

including the provincial government of 

Santa Fe, and Clorindo. We issued the 

verification reports on August 13, 2009.1

On August 25 and 27, 2009, we 

received a case brief from Clorindo and 

the GOA, respectively.2 On August 31, 

2009, we received a rebuttal brief from 

Clorindo. On September 2, 2009, we 

received a case brief from the 

petitioner.3 On September 9, 2009, we 

received from the GOA a rebuttal brief 

to the petitioner’s case brief. We did not 

hold a hearing in this investigation, as 

one was not requested. 

Scope of Investigation 

The scope of this investigation 

includes all Ni–resist piston inserts 

regardless of size, thickness, weight, or 

outside diameter. Ni–resist piston 

inserts may also be called other names 

including, but not limited to, ‘‘Ring 

Carriers,’’ or ‘‘Alfin Inserts.’’ Ni–resist 

piston inserts are alloyed cast iron rings, 

with or without a sheet metal cooling 

channel pressed and welded into the 

interior of the insert. Ni–resist piston 

inserts are composed of the material 

known as Ni–resist, of the chemical 

composition: 13.5% - 17.5% Ni (nickel), 

5.5% - 8.0% Cu (copper), 0.8% - 2.5% 

Cr (chromium), 0.5% - 1.5% Mn 

(manganese), 1.0% - 3.0% Si (silicon), 

2.4% - 3.0% C (carbon). The cast iron 

composition is produced primarily to 

the material specifications of the 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM), ASTM A–436 grade 

1. 

The scope of this investigation does 

not include piston rings nor any other 

product manufactured using the Ni– 

resist material. The subject imports are 

properly classified under subheading 

8409.99.91.90 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), 

but have been imported under HTSUS 

7326.90. The HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes. The written description is 

dispositive of the scope of this 

investigation. 

Injury Test 

Because Argentina is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the 

International Trade Commission (the 

ITC) is required to determine whether 

imports of the subject merchandise from 

Argentina materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, a U.S. industry. On 

March 25, 2009, the ITC published its 

preliminary determination finding that 

there is a reasonable indication that an 

industry in the United States is 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 180 / Friday, September 18, 2009 / Notices 47923 

materially injured by reason of imports 

from Argentina of the subject 

merchandise. See Ni–Resist Piston 

Inserts from Argentina and Korea; 

Determinations, Investigation Nos. 701– 

TA–460–461 (Preliminary), 74 FR 12898 

(March 25, 2009). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

Decision Memorandum dated 

concurrently with, and which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. Attached to this 

notice as an Appendix is a list of the 

issues that parties raised and to which 

we have responded in the Decision 

Memorandum. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this investigation and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Department’s Central Records Unit. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Internet at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), we have 

calculated an individual rate for 

Clorindo, the only company under 

investigation. We determine that the 

total estimated net countervailable 

subsidy rate is 6.81 percent ad valorem. 

The All Others rate is 6.81 percent ad 

valorem, which is the rate calculated for 

Clorindo. 

As a result of the Preliminary 

Determination and pursuant to section 

703(d) of the Act, we instructed the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of Ni– 

resist piston inserts from Argentina 

which were entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

July 6, 2009, the date of the publication 

of the Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. 

We will issue a countervailing duty 

order under section 706(a) of the Act if 

the ITC issues a final affirmative injury 

determination, and will require a cash 

deposit of estimated countervailing 

duties for such entries of merchandise 

in the amounts indicated above. If the 

ITC determines that material injury, or 

threat of material injury, does not exist, 

this proceeding will be terminated and 

all estimated duties deposited or 

securities posted as a result of the 

suspension of liquidation will be 

refunded or canceled. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all non– 

privileged and non–proprietary 

information related to this investigation. 

We will allow the ITC access to all 

privileged and business proprietary 

information in our files, provided the 

ITC confirms that it will not disclose 

such information, either publicly or 

under an administrative protective order 

(APO), without the written consent of 

the Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to an APO of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 14, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix Issues and Decision 

Memorandum 

List of Comments and Issues in the 

Decision Memorandum 

Comment 1: Tax Relief under the 

Reintegro 

Comment 2:Stamp Tax Exemption 

Comment 4:Procedural Guarantees 

Provided in the WTO SCM Agreement 

Comment 5:More Expansive POI 

[FR Doc. E9–22493 Filed 9–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XR69 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council’s (Council) 

Herring Oversight Committee along with 

the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission’s Herring Section will meet 

to consider actions affecting New 

England fisheries in the exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ). 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Eastland Park Hotel, 157 High 

Street, Portland, ME 04101; telephone: 

(207) 775–5411; fax: (207) 775–1066. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council; 

telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The items 

of discussion in the committee’s agenda 

are as follows: 

1. Review/discuss Scientific and 

Statistical Committee (SSC) 

recommendations for acceptable 

biological catch (ABC) and ABC control 

rule; 

2. Discuss herring fishery 

specifications for 2010–12 fishing years 

and develop preliminary 

recommendations for domestic annual 

harvesting (DAH), domestic annual 

processing (DAP), joint venture 

processing (JVP), border transfer (BT), 

total allowable level of foreign fishing 

(TALFF), optimum yield (OY), and 

other related specifications; 

3. Discuss/address management 

uncertainty and develop related 

recommendations; develop options for 

2010–12 annual catch limits (ACLs) for 

herring management areas to be 

analyzed in the specifications package; 

4. Address other issues related to 

2010–12 herring fishery specifications. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

identified in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Council’s intent to take 

final action to address the 

emergency.Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 181 / Monday, September 21, 2009 / Notices 48059 

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha): threatened lower 

Columbia River (LCR), threatened upper 

Willamette River (UWR), endangered 

upper Columbia River (UCR), threatened 

Snake River (SR) spring/summer (spr/ 

sum), threatened SR fall. 

Chum salmon (O. keta): threatened 

Columbia River (CR). 

Steelhead (O. mykiss): threatened 

LCR, threatened UWR, threatened 

middle Columbia River (MCR), 

threatened SR, threatened UCR. 

Coho salmon (O. kisutch): threatened 

LCR, threatened Oregon Coast (OC). 

Sockeye salmon (O. nerka): 

endangered SR. 

Authority 

Scientific research permits are issued 

in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) 

of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq) and 

regulations governing listed fish and 

wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222–226). 

NMFS issues permits based on findings 

that such permits: (1) are applied for in 

goodfaith; (2) if granted and exercised, 

would not operate to the disadvantage 

of the listed species that are the subject 

of the permit; and (3) are consistent 

with the purposes and policy of section 

2 of the ESA. The authority to take 

listed species is subject to conditions set 

forth in the permits. 

Anyone requesting a hearing on an 

application listed in this notice should 

set out the specific reasons why a 

hearing on that application would be 

appropriate (see ADDRESSES). Such 

hearings are held at the discretion of the 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

NMFS. 

Applications Received 

Permit 1523–2R 

The National Council of Air and 

Stream Improvements (NCASI) is 

seeking to renew its permit to annually 

take listed salmon while conducting 

research in the McKenzie and 

Willametterivers in Oregon. The NCASI 

is requesting another 5-year permit to 

take juvenile UWR Chinook salmon 

while studying water quality and 

biological conditions in rivers receiving 

paper- and pulpmill discharges. The 

research will provide information on 

existing conditions in the watersheds 

and on changes in those conditions over 

time, and ultimately on the aquatic 

communities’responses to 

environmental stressors. The 

information will be used in a larger 

effort to monitor watershed health, 

water quality, and salmon recovery in 

the Upper Willamette watershed. The 

NCASI proposes to capture (using boat 

electrofishers), handle, and release 

listed salmon. The NCASI does not 

intend to capture adult fish but some 

may be in the areas being fished and 

will be avoided as much as possible. 

While most of the fish would not be 

harmed, some juveniles may 

unintentionally be killed during the 

course of the research. 

Permit 1525–3R 

The Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center (NWFSC) is seeking to renew its 

permit to annually take listed salmonids 

in the Lower Willamette River, Oregon, 

and in the Columbia River from its 

mouth up to Bonneville Dam. The 

NWFSC is requesting another 5-year 

permit to take juvenile SR spring/ 

summer Chinook salmon, SR fall 

Chinook salmon, SR steelhead, UCR 

Chinook salmon, UCR steelhead, MCR 

steelhead, LCR Chinook salmon, LCR 

steelhead, UWRChinook salmon, UWR 

steelhead, and CR chum salmon. The 

purposes of the study are to (1) 

determine contaminant concentrations 

in fish, (2) understand contaminant 

bioaccumulation injuvenile salmon and 

determine site-specific factors leading to 

any contamination, (3) analyze the fish 

for the presence of physiological 

biomarkers, and (4) determine if the fish 

exhibit any indicators of exposure to 

environmental estrogens. The NWFSC 

would collect samples with seines or 

high-speed rope trawls and is asking for 

authorization to handle juvenile fish 

and tointentionally kill some of them for 

pathogen assays, biochemical 

composition, histopathological 

attributes, and stomach content 

analyses. 

Permit 1318–7M 

Permit 1318 currently authorizes the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) to take juvenile UCR Chinook 

salmon, UCR steelhead, SR steelhead, 

SR fall-run Chinook salmon,SR spring/ 

summer-run Chinook salmon, SR 

sockeye salmon, MCR steelhead, UWR 

Chinook salmon, UWR steelhead, LCR 

Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, LCR 

steelhead, CR chum salmon, and OC 

coho salmon in streams in the 

Willamette and Columbia basins, and on 

the Oregon coast. The ODFW is seeking 

to modify the permit by adding an 

eighth project. The application contains 

the following projects: (1) warm water 

fish management surveys; 

(2)investigations of natural production 

of spring Chinook salmon in the 

Mohawk basin; (3) genetic 

characterization of rainbow trout in the 

upper Willamette subbasin; (4) fish 

abundance,population status, genetics 

and disease surveys in the upper 

Willamette subbasin; (5) native trout 

surveys for abundance, size 

composition, and migration patterns in 

the mainstem McKenzieRiver; (6) 

resident redband population estimates 

in the Deschutes River; (7) resident 

redband population estimates in the 

Crooked River; and (8) fish population 

sampling in the NorthWillamette 

Watershed District. The research would 

benefit the fish by providing 

information on population structure, 

abundance, genetics, disease 

occurrence, and species interactions. 

Thatinformation would be used to direct 

management actions to benefit listed 

species. Juvenile salmonids would be 

collected (using boat electrofishing). 

Some fish would be 

anesthetized,sampled for length and 

weight, allowed to recover from the 

anesthesia, and released. Most 

salmonids would only be shocked and 

allowed to swim away, or be netted and 

releasedimmediately. The ODFW does 

not intend to kill any of the fish being 

captured, but a small number may die 

as an unintended result of the activities. 

This notice is provided pursuant to 

section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will 

evaluate the applications, associated 

documents, and comments submitted to 

determine whether the applications 

meet the requirements of section 10(a) 

of the ESA and Federal regulations. The 

final permit decisions will not be made 

until after the end of the 30-day 

comment period. NMFS will publish 

notice of its final action in the FEDERAL

REGISTER. 

Dated: September 15, 2009. 

Therese Conant, 

Acting Division Chief, Endangered Species 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–22652 Filed 9–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–580–862] 

Ni–Resist Piston Inserts from the 

Republic of Korea: Final Negative 

Countervailing Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) determines that 

countervailable subsidies are not being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

Ni–resist piston inserts from the 

Republic of Korea (Korea). 

DATES: Effective Date: September 21, 

2009. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

48060 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 181 / Monday, September 21, 2009 / Notices 

1The public version of the verification report and 

all public reports are on file in the Central Records 

Unit, Room 1117 in the main building of the 

Department. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Conniff, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, 

Operations, Import Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 

14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–1009. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This investigation covers 15 programs 

and a single producer/exporter, Incheon 

Metal Co., Ltd. (Incheon Metal). The 

petitioner in this investigation is Korff 

Holdings LLC dba Quaker City Castings 

(Petitioner). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (the POI) 

for which we are measuring subsidies is 

January 1, 2008, through December 31, 

2008, which corresponds to the most 

recently completed fiscal year for 

Incheon Metal and the government of 

Korea (GOK). See 19 CFR 351.204(b) (2). 

Case History 

On July 6, 2009, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary determination in the 

countervailing duty investigation of Ni– 

resist piston inserts from Korea. See Ni– 

Resist Piston Inserts from the Republic 

of Korea: Preliminary Negative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 

FR 31919 (July 6, 2009) (Preliminary 

Determination). 

In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), from July 30 through August 4, 

2009, we conducted verification of the 

questionnaire responses submitted by 

the GOK and Incheon Metal 

(collectively, respondents). We issued 

the verification reports on August 14, 

2009, and August 21, 2009, 

respectively.1

On August 27, 2009, we received a 

case brief from Petitioner. On August 

31, 2009, we received a case brief from 

the GOK. On September 3, 2009 and 

September 8, 2009, we received rebuttal 

briefs from Incheon Metal and the GOK. 

No hearing was requested. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation 

includes all Ni–resist piston inserts 

regardless of size, thickness, weight, or 

outside diameter. Ni–resist piston 

inserts may also be called other names 

including, but not limited to, ‘‘Ring 

Carriers,’’ or ‘‘Alfin Inserts.’’ Ni–resist 

piston inserts are alloyed cast iron rings, 

with or without a sheet metal cooling 

channel pressed and welded into the 

interior of the insert. Ni–resist piston 

inserts are composed of the material 

known as Ni–resist, of the chemical 

composition: 13.5% - 17.5% Ni (nickel), 

5.5% - 8.0% Cu (copper), 0.8% - 2.5% 

Cr (chromium), 0.5% - 1.5% Mn 

(manganese), 1.0% - 3.0% Si (silicon), 

2.4% - 3.0% C (carbon). The cast iron 

composition is produced primarily to 

the material specifications of the 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM), ASTM A–436 grade 

1. 

The scope of this investigation does 

not include piston rings nor did any 

other product manufacture using the 

Ni–resist material. The subject imports 

are properly classified under 

subheading 8409.99.91.90 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), but have been 

imported under HTSUS 7326.90. The 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes. The 

written description is dispositive of the 

scope of this investigation. 

Injury Test 

Because Korea is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the 

International Trade Commission (the 

ITC) is required to determine whether 

imports of the subject merchandise from 

Korea materially injure, or threaten 

material injury, to a U.S. industry. On 

March 25, 2009, the ITC published its 

preliminary determination finding that 

there is a reasonable indication that an 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured by reason of imports 

from Korea of the subject merchandise. 

See Ni–Resist Piston Inserts from 

Argentina and Korea, Investigation Nos. 

701–TA–460–461 (Preliminary), 74 FR 

12898 (March 25, 2009). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

Decision Memorandum. Attached to this 

notice as an Appendix is a list of the 

issues that parties raised and to which 

we have responded in the Decision 

Memorandum. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this investigation and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Department’s Central Records Unit. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Internet at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 705(c) (1) 

(B) (i) (I) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as 

amended) (the Act), we have calculated 

an individual rate for the company 

under investigation, Incheon Metal 

which is the producer/exporter of the 

subject merchandise under 

investigation. We determine the total 

estimated net countervailable subsidy 

rates are as follows: 

Producer/Exporter Net Subsidy Rate 

Incheon Metal Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................................. de minimis percent ad valorem 

All Others ................................................................................................................................................................... de minimis percent ad valorem 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

total net countervailable subsidy rate 

was de minimis and, therefore, we did 

not suspend liquidation. Because the 

rate for Incheon Metal remains de 

minimis, we are not directing U.S. 

Customs and Border Patrol to suspend 

liquidation of entries of Ni–resist 

pistons from Korea. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

This notice 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(a)(3). 

Failure to comply is a violation of the 

APO. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 705(d) 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 181 / Monday, September 21, 2009 / Notices 48061 

Dated: September 14, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix–Issues and Decision 

Memorandum 

List of Comments and Issues in the 

Decision Memorandum 

Comment 1: Whether the Tax Benefits 

under the Namdong National Industrial 

Complex are Countervailable 

Comment 2: Whether the Technical 

Development for Innovation Production 

Environment Program is de facto 

Specific 

Comment 3: Whether the Department 

Should Expand the POI 

[FR Doc. E9–22647 Filed 9–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Notice of Public Meeting 

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on 

Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES) 

will meet October 8, 2009. 

DATES: Date and Time: The meeting is 

scheduled as follows: October 8, 2009, 

9 a.m.–4 p.m. The first part of this 

meeting will be closed to the public. 

The public portion of the meeting will 

begin at 2 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in 

the Ronald Reagan Conference Center 

Polaris Suite located at 1300 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. The public portion of the 

meeting may have limited seating 

capacity. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As 

required by section 10(a)(2) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 

U.S.C. App. (1982), notice is hereby 

given of the meeting of ACCRES. 

ACCRES was established by the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on 

May 21, 2002, to advise the Secretary 

through the Under Secretary of 

Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere 

on long- and short-range strategies for 

the licensing of commercial remote 

sensing satellite systems. 

Matters To Be Considered 

During this open public meeting, the 

Committee will receive updates on 

NOAA’s Commercial Remote Sensing 

Regulatory Affairs (CRSRA) activities. 

The Committee will also be available to 

receive public comments on its 

activities. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for special accommodations 

may be directed to ACCRES, NOAA/ 

NESDIS CRSRA office, 1335 East-West 

Highway, Room 8260, Silver Spring, 

Maryland 20910. 

Additional Information and Public 

Comments 

Any member of the public wishing 

further information concerning the 

meeting or who wishes to submit oral or 

written comments should contact Jane 

D’Aguanno, Designated Federal Official 

for ACCRES, NOAA/NESDIS/CRSRA, 

1335 East-West Highway, Room 8260, 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. Copies 

of the draft meeting agenda can be 

obtained from David Hasenauer at (301) 

713–1644, fax (301) 713–0406, or e-mail 

crsra@noaa.gov 

The ACCRES expects that public 

statements presented at its meetings will 

not be repetitive of previouslysubmitted oral or written statements. In 

general, each individual or group 

making an oral presentation may be 

limited to a total time of five minutes. 

Written comments (please provide at 

least 13 copies) received in the NOAA/ 

NESDIS Commercial Remote Sensing 

Regulatory Affairs Office on or before 

March 31, 2009, will be provided to 

Committee members in advance of the 

meeting. Comments received too close 

to the meeting date will normally be 

provided to Committee members at the 

meeting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane 

D’Aguanno, NOAA/NESDIS 

Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory 

Affairs Office, 1335 East-West Highway, 

Room 8260, Silver Spring, Maryland 

20910; telephone (301) 713–3385, fax 

(301) 713–0204, e-mail 

Jane.Daguanno@noaa.gov, David 

Hasenauer at (301) 713–1644, fax (301) 

713–0406, or e-mail 

David.Hasenauer@noaa.gov. 

Mary E. Kicza, 

Assistant Administrator for Satellite and 

Information Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–22644 Filed 9–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–HR–P 

SUMMARY: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

4314(c)(4), NOAA announces the 

appointment of three new members to 

serve with the current membership on 

the NOAA Performance Review Board 

(PRB). The NOAA PRB is responsible 

for reviewing performance appraisals 

and ratings of Senior Executive Service 

and Senior Professional members and 

making written recommendations to the 

appointing authority on retention and 

compensation matters, including 

performance-based pay adjustments, 

awarding of bonuses and reviewing 

recommendations for potential 

Presidential Rank Award nominees. The 

appointment of members to the NOAA 

PRB will be for a period of 12 months. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

of service of the three new appointees 

to the NOAA Performance Review 

Board is September 30, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sabrina D. Lewis, Executive Resources 

Program Manager, Workforce 

Management Office, NOAA, 1305 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 

20910, (301) 713–6306. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

names and position titles of the 

members of the NOAA PRB are set forth 

below: 

John E. Oliver, Jr. ................................ Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Maureen E. Wylie ................................ Chief Financial Officer. 

Vickie L. Nadolski ............................... Deputy Assistant Administrator, National Weather Service. 

Charles S. Baker .................................. Deputy Assistant Administrator, National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service. 

Alexander E. MacDonald .................... Deputy Assistant Administrator for Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes and Director, ESRL, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. 

John S. Gray III .................................... Director, Officer of Legislative Affairs. 

Paul N. Doremus ................................. Director, Strategic Planning Office of Program Planning and Integration. 

David M. Kennedy .............................. Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Ocean 

Service. 

Tyra D. Smith ...................................... Director, Human Resources Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICE


S
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 / Notices 51319 

investigations and parties in opposition 

to the imposition of such duties will 

each be collectively allocated one hour 

within which to make an oral 

presentation at the conference. A 

nonparty who has testimony that may 

aid the Commission’s deliberations may 

request permission to present a short 

statement at the conference. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the 

Commission’s rules, any person may 

submit to the Commission on or before 

October 26, 2009, a written brief 

containing information and arguments 

pertinent to the subject matter of the 

investigations. Parties may file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the conference no later 

than three days before the conference. If 

briefs or written testimony contain BPI, 

they must conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, 

and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. 

The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the investigations 

must be served on all other parties to 

the investigations (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.12 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: September 30, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–23988 Filed 10–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–678] 

In the Matter of Certain Energy Drink 

Products; Notice of Commission 

Decision Not To Review an Initial 

Determination Granting Motion To 

Amend the Complaint and the Notice 

of Investigation To Add Six Additional 

Respondents 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 7) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the 

above-captioned investigation granting a 

motion filed by complainants Red Bull 

GmbH and Red Bull North America, Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘Red Bull’’) to amend the 

complaint and notice of investigation to 

add six new respondents. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

M. Bartkowski, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–5432. 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 at 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 June 17, 2009, based on a complaint 

filed by Red Bull GmbH and Red Bull 

North America, Inc. (‘‘Red Bull’’). 74 FR 

28725 (June 17, 2009). The complaint as 

amended alleged violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1337) in the importation into the United 

States, the sale for importation, and the 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain energy drink 

products by reason of infringement of 

U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 

3,092,197; 2,946,045; 2,994,429; and 

3,479,607 and U.S. Copyright 

Registration No. VA0001410959. The 

complaint initially named six 

respondents: Chicago Import, Inc.; 

Lamont Dist., Inc. a/k/a Lamont 

Distributors Inc.; India Imports, Inc., 

a/k/a International Wholesale Club; 

Washington Food and Supply of DC, 

Inc., a/k/a Washington Cash & Carry; 

Vending Plus, Inc.; and Baltimore 

Beverage Co. 

On September 8, 2009, the ALJ issued 

the subject ID, granting Red Bull’s 

motion to amend the complaint and 

notice of investigation to add six new 

respondents: Posh Nosh Imports; 

Greenwich, Inc.; Advantage Food 

Distributors, Ltd.; Wheeler Trading, Inc.; 

Avalon International General Trading, 

LLC; and Central Supply, Inc. No 

petitions for review were filed. The 

Commission has determined not to 

review the subject ID. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

sections 210.42 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42). 

Issued: September 30, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–23989 Filed 10–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 701–TA–461 (Final)] 

Ni-Resist Piston Inserts From Korea 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Termination of investigation. 

SUMMARY: On September 21, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce published 

notice in the Federal Register of a 

negative final determination of 

subsidies in connection with the subject 

investigation (Ni-Resist Piston Inserts 

from the Republic of Korea: Final 

Negative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, 74 FR 48059, September 

21, 2009). Accordingly, pursuant to 

section 207.40(a) of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

207.40(a)), the countervailing duty 

investigation concerning Ni-resist piston 

inserts from Korea (investigation No. 

701–TA–461 (Final)) is terminated. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 21, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Angela M. W. Newell (202–708–5409), 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
51320 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 6, 2009 / Notices 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired individuals are 

advised that information on this matter 

can be obtained 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 investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

Authority: This investigation is being 

terminated under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 201.10 of the 

Commission’s rules (19 CFR 201.10). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 30, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–23990 Filed 10–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Certification of the Attorney General; 

Bethel Census Area, AK 

In accordance with Section 8 of the 

Voting Rights Act, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 1973f, I hereby certify that in my 

judgment the appointment of federal 

observers is necessary to enforce the 

guarantees of the Fourteenth and 

Fifteenth Amendments of the 

Constitution of the United States in the 

Bethel Census Area, Alaska. This area is 

included within the scope of the 

determinations of the Attorney General 

and the Director of the Census made 

under Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973b(b), and published 

in the Federal Register on October 22, 

1975 (40 FR 49,422). 

Dated: October 1, 2009. 

Eric H. Holder Jr., 

Attorney General of the United States. 

[FR Doc. E9–24109 Filed 10–2–09; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Office of Justice Programs 

[OJP (OJP) Docket No. 1503] 

Meeting of the Public Safety Officer 

Medal of Valor Review Board 

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs 

(OJP), Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 
 
B-1

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Ni-Resist Piston Inserts from Argentina and Korea

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-460-461 (Final)

Date and Time: September 17, 2009 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these investigations in the Main Hearing Room (room

101), 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, DC.

OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Geoffrey Korff, The Korff Law Firm, LLC )

Respondents (Christopher M. Kane, Simon Gluck & Kane LLP)

In Support of the Imposition of a

 Countervailing Duty Order:

The Korff Law Firm, LLC

Canfield, OH

on behalf of

Korff Holdings LLC d/b/a Quaker City Castings

Joseph Korff, President, Quaker City Castings

Geoffrey Korff ) – OF COUNSEL
B-4

In Opposition to the Imposition of a

 Countervailing Duty Order:

Simon Gluck & Kane LLP

New York, NY

on behalf of

Karl Schmidt Unisia, Inc.

Robert G. Turcott, Vice President and General

Counsel, Karl Schmidt Unisia, Inc.

Christopher M. Kane )

) – OF COUNSEL

Robert M. Klingon )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Geoffrey Korff, The Korff Law Firm, LLC )

Respondents (Christopher M. Kane, Simon Gluck & Kane LLP)
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

Ni rings: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-June 2008, and JanuaryJune 2009

* * * * * * *
 
D-1

APPENDIX D

QUARTERLY DOMESTIC AND 

NONSUBJECT-COUNTRY PRICE DATA

D-3

Table D-1

Ni rings: Average prices and quantities for product ***, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Table D-2

Ni rings: Average prices and quantities for product ***, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure D-1

Ni rings: Average prices and quantities for product ***, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure D-2

Ni rings: Average prices and quantities for product ***, January 2006-June 2009

* * * * * * *