U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4090 July 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and

Parts Thereof from China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-457 and 731-TA-1153 (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

Jennifer Merrill, Investigator

Linda White, Industry Analyst

Nancy Bryan, Economist

Charles Yost, Accountant

Karl von Schriltz, Attorney

Lemuel Shields, Statistician

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

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4090 July 2009

Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and

Parts Thereof from China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-457 and 731-TA-1153 (Final)

i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Additional and dissenting views of Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

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

Previous Commission investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

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

Subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

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

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

Interchangeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-21

Customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-24

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-25

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

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

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

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

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4

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

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

Comparison of domestic products and subject imports .............................. II-9

Other country comparisons ................................................... II-11

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-12

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-12

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-12

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-12
ii

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

Production, capacity, and capacity utilization by product type ....................... III-2

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and exports ........................................ III-3

U.S. shipments by product type ................................................ III-3

U.S. shipments by region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ............................................. III-4

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-5

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

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

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

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments by region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

Apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

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

Exchange rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

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

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

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

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

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

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

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

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

Operations on TBLGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-2

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Actual negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

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

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

U.S. inventories of TBLGs from China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-3

U.S. importers’ current orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-3

Antidumping and countervailng duty investigations in third-country markets .............. VII-4

Information on nonsubject countries .............................................. VII-4

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-4

Appendixes

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

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

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

D. Purchasers’ reported purchases by source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Purchaser response to questions concerning TBLGs and tow-behind lawn carts and 

push lawn groomers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

F. Delivered purchase prices as reported by *** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

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

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

 1

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

 2

 Vice Chairman Pearson finds that the domestic industry is threatened with material injury by reason of subject

imports.

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-457 and 731-TA-1153 (Final)

CERTAIN TOW-BEHIND LAWN GROOMERS AND PARTS THEREOF FROM CHINA

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

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

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

injured by reason of imports from China of certain tow-behind lawn groomers and parts thereof, provided

for in subheadings 8432.40.00, 8432.80.00, 8432.90.00, 8479.89.98, 8479.90.94, and 9603.50.00 of the

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

(Commerce) to be subsidized by the Government of China and sold in the United States at less than fair

value (LTFV).2

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these investigations effective June 24, 2008, following receipt of a

petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Agri-Fab, Inc., Sullivan, IL. The final phase of the

investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by

Commerce that imports of certain tow-behind lawn groomers and parts thereof from China were being

subsidized by the government of China and being sold at LTFV within the meaning of sections 703(b)

and 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § § 1671b(b) and 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase

of the Commission’s investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given

by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission,

Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of March 13, 2009 (74 FR 10964). 

The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on June 16, 2009, and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

 1

 Vice Chairman Pearson determines that an industry in the United States is not materially injured but threatened

with material injury by reason of imports of TBLGs from China that Commerce has found to be sold in the United

States at less than fair value and subsidized by the Government of China. See Additional and Dissenting Views of

Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson. He joins the majority opinion except as noted in those views.

 2

 Confidential Staff Report (“CR”) at I-1; Public Staff Report, (“PR”) at I-1; CR/PR at Table III-1 (***).

 3

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 4

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 5

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

 6

 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

(continued...)

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

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

United States is materially injured by reason of imports of certain tow-behind lawn groomers and parts

thereof (“TBLGs”) from China that the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) has found to be

sold in the United States at less than fair value and imports of TBLGs from China that Commerce has

found to be subsidized by the Government of China.1

I. BACKGROUND

The petitions were filed on June 24, 2008 by Agri-Fab, Inc. (“Agri-Fab”), the leading domestic

producer of TBLGs, which participated fully in the final phase of these investigations.2

 Only one

respondent, Jiashan Superpower Tools Co., Ltd. (“Superpower”), a Chinese producer of subject

merchandise, participated as a party in the final phase of these investigations. Superpower filed a

prehearing brief but did not participate in the hearing or file a posthearing brief or final comments.

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

A. In General

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

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

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”3

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

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

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

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”4

 In turn, the Tariff Act defines “domestic like

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

with, the article subject to an investigation.”5

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.6

 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission
 6

 (...continued)

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).

 7

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

 8

 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.”).

 9

 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).

 10 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 in

which Commerce found five classes or kinds).

4

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.7

 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.8

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,9

 the Commission determines what domestic

product is like the imported articles Commerce has identified.10

B. Product Description

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

follows:

The scope of this investigation covers certain non-motorized tow behind lawn groomers

(“lawn groomers”), manufactured from any material, and certain parts thereof. Lawn

groomers are defined as lawn sweepers, aerators, dethatchers, and spreaders. Unless

specifically excluded, lawn groomers that are designed to perform at least one of the

functions listed above are included in the scope of this investigation, even if the lawn

groomer is designed to perform additional non-subject functions (e.g., mowing). 

All lawn groomers are designed to incorporate a hitch, of any configuration, which

allows the product to be towed behind a vehicle. Lawn groomers that are designed to

incorporate both a hitch and a push handle, of any type, are also covered by the scope of

this investigation. The hitch and handle may be permanently attached or removable, and

they may be attached on opposite sides or on the same side of the lawn groomer. Lawn

groomers designed to incorporate a hitch, but where the hitch is not attached to the lawn

groomer, are also included in the scope of the investigation. 

Lawn sweepers consist of a frame, as well as a series of brushes attached to an axle or

shaft which allows the brushing component to rotate. Lawn sweepers also include a

container (which is a receptacle into which debris swept from the lawn or turf is

deposited) supported by the frame. Aerators consist of a frame, as well as an aerating

component that is attached to an axle or shaft which allows the aerating component to
5

rotate. The aerating component is made up of a set of knives fixed to a plate (known as a

“plug aerator”), a series of discs with protruding spikes (a “spike aerator”), or any other

configuration, that are designed to create holes or cavities in a lawn or turf surface.

Dethatchers consist of a frame, as well as a series of tines designed to remove material

(e.g., dead grass or leaves) or other debris from the lawn or turf. The dethatcher tines are

attached to and suspended from the frame. Lawn spreaders consist of a frame, as well as a

hopper (i.e., a container of any size, shape, or material) that holds a media to be spread on

the lawn or turf. The media can be distributed by means of a rotating spreader plate that

broadcasts the media (“broadcast spreader”), a rotating agitator that allows the media to

be released at a consistent rate (“drop spreader”), or any other configuration. 

Lawn dethatchers with a net fully-assembled weight (i.e., without packing, additional

weights, or accessories) of 100 pounds or less are covered by the scope of the

investigation. Other lawn groomers- sweepers, aerators, and spreaders-with a net fullyassembled weight (i.e., without packing, additional weights, or accessories) of 200

pounds or less are covered by the scope of the investigation. 

Also included in the scope of the investigation are modular units, consisting of a chassis

that is designed to incorporate a hitch, where the hitch may or may not be included,

which allows modules that perform sweeping, aerating, dethatching, or spreading

operations to be interchanged. Modular units-when imported with one or more lawn

grooming modules-with a fully assembled net weight (i.e., without packing, additional

weights, or accessories) of 200 pounds or less when including a single module, are

included in the scope of the investigation. Modular unit chasses, imported without a lawn

grooming module and with a fully assembled net weight (i.e., without packing, additional

weights, or accessories) of 125 pounds or less, are also covered by the scope of the order.

When imported separately, modules that are designed to perform subject lawn grooming

functions (i.e., sweeping, aerating, dethatching, or spreading), with a fully assembled net

weight (i.e., without packing, additional weights, or accessories) of 75 pounds or less,

and that are imported with or without a hitch, are also covered by the scope. 

Lawn groomers, assembled or unassembled, are covered by this investigation. For

purposes of this investigation, “unassembled lawn groomers” consist of either 1) all parts

necessary to make a fully assembled lawn groomer, or 2) any combination of parts,

constituting a less than complete, unassembled lawn groomer, with a minimum of two of

the following “major components”-: 

1) an assembled or unassembled brush housing designed to be used in a lawn

sweeper, where a brush housing is defined as a component housing the brush

assembly, and consisting of a wrapper which covers the brush assembly and two

end plates attached to the wrapper; 

2) a sweeper brush; 

3) an aerator or dethatcher weight tray, or similar component designed to allow

weights of any sort to be added to the unit; 

4) a spreader hopper; 

5) a rotating spreader plate or agitator, or other component designed for

distributing media in a lawn spreader; 

6) dethatcher tines; 

7) aerator spikes, plugs, or other aerating component; or 

8) a hitch. 

The major components or parts of lawn groomers that are individually covered by this
 11 CR at I-5-7; PR at I-5-7.

 12 CR at I-12; PR at I-11.

 13 CR at I-14; PR at I-12.

 14 CR at I-15; PR at I-12-13.

 15 CR at I-16; PR at I-13.

 16 CR at I-18; PR at I-15.

6

investigation under the term “certain parts thereof” are: (1) brush housings, where the

wrapper and end plates incorporating the brush assembly may be individual pieces or a

single piece; and (2) weight trays, or similar components designed to allow weights of

any sort to be added to a dethatcher or an aerator unit. 

The products for which relief is sought specifically exclude the following: 1) agricultural

implements designed to work (e.g., churn, burrow, till, etc.) soil, such as cultivators,

harrows, and plows; 2) lawn or farm carts and wagons that do not groom lawns; 3)

grooming products incorporating a motor or an engine for the purpose of operating and/or

propelling the lawn groomer; 4) lawn groomers that are designed to be hand held or are

designed to be attached directly to the frame of a vehicle, rather than towed; 5) “push”

lawn grooming products that incorporate a push handle rather than a hitch, and which are

designed solely to be manually operated; 6) dethatchers with a net assembled weight (i.e.,

without packing, additional weights, or accessories) of more than 100 pounds, or lawn

groomers-sweepers, aerators, and spreaders-with a net fully-assembled weight (i.e.,

without packing, additional weights, or accessories) of more than 200 pounds; and 7)

lawn rollers designed to flatten grass and turf, including lawn rollers which incorporate

an aerator component (e.g., “drum-style” spike aerators). 

The lawn groomers that are the subject of this investigation are currently classifiable in

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) statistical reporting

numbers 8432.40.0000, 8432.80.0000, 8432.90.0030, 8432.90.0080, 8479.89.9897,

8479.90.9496, and 9603.50.0000. These HTSUS provisions are given for reference and

customs purposes only, and the description of merchandise is dispositive for determining

the scope of the product included in this petition.11

TBLGs consist of four types of equipment – aerators, dethatchers, spreaders, and sweepers –

designed to be towed behind a lawn tractor, riding lawn mower, or similar vehicle and used for the

promotion of healthy, attractive lawns.12 Tow-behind aerators punch small holes in the soil to facilitate

the penetration of oxygen, water, and fertilizer, which nourish grass.13 Tow-behind dethatchers use a

series of spring steel tines to rake and dislodge debris compacted on the surface of the soil, further

promoting the penetration of oxygen, water, and fertilizer.14 Tow-behind spreaders distribute granular

material such as grass seed or fertilizer using a hopper or bin to hold the material and a mechanism for

either dropping (in the case of a drop spreader) or flinging (in the case of a broadcast spreader) the

material across a lawn.15 Tow-behind sweepers use rotating brushes to sweep debris, such as grass

clippings, leaves, and twigs, off the surface of a lawn and into a catcher bag for disposal, in order to

improve the lawn’s appearance.16 
 17 Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts Thereof from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-457 and 731-TA-1153

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4028 (Aug. 2008) (“USITC Pub. 4028"), at 10; see also Confidential Views of the

Commission, Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-457 and 731-TA-1153 (Preliminary)

(“Confidential Preliminary Views”), at 13-14.

 18 USITC Pub. 4028 at 10; Confidential Preliminary Views at 14. 

 19 See USITC Pub. 4028 at 12-15; Confidential Preliminary Views at 14-20.

 20 USITC Pub. 4028 at 14; Confidential Preliminary Views at 20.

 21 See Agri-Fab’s Prehearing Br. at 2-11; Agri-Fab’s Posthearing Br. at 2-10.

 22 See Superpower’s Prehearing Br. at 2-19. Unlike its argument in the preliminary phase investigations,

Superpower does not argue that the Commission should include products from outside the scope within the domestic

like product if it defines a single domestic like product. See id.

 23 See Superpower’s Prehearing Br. at 5, 17-19.

7

C. Like Product Analysis

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the Commission defined a single domestic like

product comprised of all TBLGs that is coextensive with the scope of the investigations defined by

Commerce, as advocated by Agri-Fab. It based its conclusion on evidence that the four types of TBLGs

possess both similarities and differences with respect to their physical characteristics and uses,

interchangeability, and customer and producer perceptions, but are predominantly similar with respect to

the Commission’s three other like product factors.17 Noting that the question of how to define the

domestic like product was a close one, the Commission indicated that it would explore the issue further in

any final phase investigations, particularly with respect to customer and producer perceptions.18 

 

The Commission also determined not to expand the definition of the domestic like product to

encompass products outside the scope of the investigations, including motorized groomers, agricultural

implements, ground-engaging attachments, carts, push groomers, sprayers, and rollers.19 It based this

decision on evidence that the differences between products outside the scope and products inside the

scope were such that a reasonable dividing line could be drawn between TBLGs and products outside the

scope.20

In the final phase of these investigations, Agri-Fab again argues that the Commission should

define a single domestic like product encompassing all TBLGs that is coextensive with the scope of the

investigations defined by Commerce.21 Superpower argues that the Commission should define three

domestic like products: dethatchers/sweepers, aerators, and spreaders.22 The spreader like product would

include push spreaders and tow sprayers that are outside the scope of the investigations.23 

For the reasons discussed below, we define one domestic like product that is coextensive with the

scope of the investigations. 

1. Analysis

Physical characteristics and uses

All TBLGs, including tow-behind aerators, dethatchers, spreaders, and sweepers, share certain

physical characteristics. All incorporate a towing hitch so that they can be towed behind a lawn tractor,
 24 CR at I-12; PR at I-11.

 25 CR at I-22-23; PR at I-19. Many spreaders also possess a significant plastic component in the form of a

hopper. See Agri-Fab Responses to Commissioner Questions at A-34. 

 26 CR at I-13; PR at I-11; see also Agri-Fab Responses to Commissioner Questions at A-32. 

 27 CR at I-13; PR at I-11.

 28 Staff Notes, Field Visit to Agri-Fab Inc., Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-457 and

731-TA-1153 (Final), April 14, 2009 (“April 14, 2009 Field Visit Notes”), at 2.

 29 CR at I-14; PR at I-12.

 30 CR at I-15; PR at I-12-13.

 31 CR at I-16; PR at I-13.

 32 CR at I-18; PR at I-15.

 33 See CR at I-14-15, 18; PR at I-12-13, 15. Superpower claims that spreaders are used several times during the

growing season and also to spread ice melt in the winter months. Superpower Prehearing Br. at 7.

 34 CR at I-21; PR at I-18; CR/PR at Table I-4. Out of 133 comparisons of one type of TBLG with another,

questionnaire respondents reported that the physical characteristics and uses of the different TBLGs were fully

similar with respect to zero comparisons, mostly similar with respect to three comparisons (of dethatchers to

aerators), somewhat similar with respect to 31 comparisons and not at all similar with respect to 99 comparisons. 

See id. at Table I-4. 

 35 CR at I-25-26; PR at I-21; CR/PR at Table I-6. Out of 142 comparisons of one type of TBLG with another,

questionnaire respondents reported that in terms of interchangeability, the different types of TBLGs were fully

similar with respect to zero comparisons, mostly similar with respect to one comparison, somewhat similar with

respect to six comparisons and not at all similar with respect to 136 comparisons. See id. at Table I-6. 

 36 CR at I-26; PR at I-21; see also Hearing Tr. at 30 (Smirnow).

8

riding lawn mower, or similar vehicle.24 All are made primarily of steel25 and are designed to ***.26 All

are a similar size and shape and incorporate a steel frame, engage/disengage transport handle, two wheels,

and a single axle (in most cases).27 ***28

The physical differences between specific types of TBLGs correspond to their distinct uses. Only

aerators have rows of spurs or funnel type knives rotating on an axle to punch holes in the soil.29 Only

dethatchers have rows of spring steel tines to dislodge debris packed onto the surface of a lawn.30 Only

spreaders include a hopper and a mechanism for spreading solid material, such as fertilizer, on the surface

of a lawn.31 Only sweepers include brushes and a catcher bag for sweeping and collecting debris off the

surface of a lawn for disposal.32 The four types of TBLGs also differ in terms of their frequency of use,

with aerators used twice a year, dethatchers used once a year, and sweepers used frequently.33 

Accordingly, most producers, importers, and purchasers reported that the four types of TBLGs are

somewhat or not at all similar in terms of their physical characteristics and uses.34

Interchangeability

Producers, importers, and purchasers reported that tow-behind aerators, dethatchers, spreaders,

and sweepers are generally not interchangeable with respect to their specific functions.35 The record,

however, demonstrates significant production and U.S. sales of combination TBLGs that are

interchangeable with individual TBLGs that perform the same lawn grooming functions.36 Specifically,

combination spreader/aerators are interchangeable with spreaders and aerators and combination
 37 Hearing Tr. at 30 (Smirnow). Brinly-Hardy also produces combination dethatcher-sweepers and aeratorspreaders. See Petition at Exhibit I-9 (Brinly-Hardy product catalog).

 38 Agri-Fab Responses to Commission Staff Questions at 2.

 39 CR at I-20, 26; PR at I-16-17, 21. 

 40 Agri-Fab Responses to Commissioner Questions at A-33 (***).

 41 CR at I-24; PR at I-20; CR/PR at Table I-5. Out of 68 comparisons of one type of TBLG with another,

questionnaire respondents reported that the manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production

employees used to produce the products were fully similar with respect to one comparison, mostly similar with

respect to 24 comparisons, somewhat similar with respect to 40 comparisons, and not at all similar with respect to

three comparisons. See id. at Table I-5. Most responding purchasers reported no familiarity with the TBLG

manufacturing process. CR at I-24; PR at I-20; CR/PR at Table I-5. 

 42 CR at I-22; PR at I-19; April 14, 2009 Field Visit Notes, at 2 (noting that ***). Agri-Fab reports that its

employees are cross-trained to produce all types of TBLGs. Hearing Tr. at 25 (Smirnow). It also uses the same

tooling, machinery, and tube bending equipment to make parts for all types of TBLGs and the same powder coating

equipment to paint all types of TBLGs. CR at I-23-24; PR at I-19-20; Agri-Fab Prehearing Br. at 4; Hearing Tr. at

24-25 (Smirnow). Indeed, ***. April 14, 2009 Field Visit Notes, at 2. 

 43 Domestic Producers’ Questionnaire Response of Brinly-Hardy at Questions I-2 (***), V-3a-3d (***), V-4

(***).

 44 See CR/PR at Table III-1. Ohio Steel Industries, which produced ***, accounted for *** percent of domestic

TBLG production during the period examined. See Domestic Producers’ Questionnaire Response of Ohio Steel

Industries at Questions V-3a-3d; CR/PR at Table III-1. Spyker, which produces ***, accounted for *** percent of

domestic TBLG production during the period examined. See Domestic Producers’ Questionnaire Response of

Spyker at Questions V-3a-3d; CR/PR at Table III-1. Precision Products produced *** and accounted for *** percent

of domestic TBLG production during the period. See Domestic Producers’ Questionnaire Response of Precision

Products at Questions V-3a-3d; CR/PR at Table III-1. We note that all responding domestic producers reported that

they produced products other than TBLGs, such as ***, using the same equipment used to produce TBLGs in 2008. 

See CR/PR at Table III-2. 

9

sweeper/dethatchers are interchangeable with sweepers and dethatchers.37 Such combination TBLGs

accounted for *** percent of the value of Agri-Fab’s TBLG sales in 2007.38 In addition, Agri-Fab’s new

“SmartLink” modular TBLG, which uses a “master platform” into which consumers can plug aerator and

dethatcher modules, is interchangeable with the individual TBLGs performing the same functions as the

lawn grooming modules.39 Agri-Fab reports that it sold *** SmartLink units between February and May

of 2009.40

Common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees

Producers, importers, and purchasers generally reported that the manufacturing facilities,

production processes, and production employees used to produce the four types of TBLGs are mostly or

somewhat similar.41 Agri-Fab produces all four types of TBLGs in the same facility, on the same

assembly lines, using the same equipment and the same employees, ***.42 Domestic producer BrinlyHardy ***.43 Since Agri-Fab and Brinly-Hardy together accounted for *** percent of domestic TBLG

production over the period examined, their experience indicates that domestic TBLGs are generally

produced using common manufacturing facilities, processes, and employees.44 
 45 CR/PR at Table I-8. Out of 128 comparisons of one type of TBLG with another, questionnaire respondents

reported that the channels of distribution for the products were fully similar with respect to 60 comparisons, mostly

similar with respect to 54 comparisons, somewhat similar with respect to 12 comparisons, and not at all similar with

respect to two comparisons. See id. 

 46 CR at II-1; PR at II-1; CR/PR at Table II-1 & nn.1-2. 

 47 See Agri-Fab Prehearing Br. at 5; Superpower Prehearing Br. at 16; Hearing Tr. at 16 (Cohan) (“The vast

majority of our sales are to home improvement retailers, and a good number of these sales are to a few large national

or regional retail chains.”); Conference Tr. at 26 (Cohan) (“The vast majority of our sales are to home improvement

retailers . . .”), 44 (Harshamn), 100 (Swisher) (testifying that the channels of distribution for subject imports and the

domestic like product are “very similar, very similar.”).

 48 CR at I-27; PR at I-22.

 49 CR at I-27; PR at I-22; CR/PR at Table I-7. Out of 26 comparisons of one type of TBLG with another,

responding producers reported that customer and producer perceptions of the products were fully similar with

respect to six comparisons, mostly similar with respect to six comparisons, somewhat similar with respect to zero

comparisons, and not at all similar with respect to 14 comparisons. See id. at Table I-7. 

 50 CR at I-27; PR at I-22; CR/PR at Table I-7. Out of 36 comparisons of one type of TBLG with another,

responding importers reported that customer and producer perceptions of the products were fully similar with respect

to six comparisons, mostly similar with respect to six comparison, somewhat similar with respect to zero

comparisons, and not at all similar with respect to 24 comparisons. See id. at Table I-7. Out of 54 comparisons of

one type of TBLG with another, responding purchasers reported that customer and producer perceptions of the

products were fully similar with respect to six comparisons, mostly similar with respect to one comparison,

somewhat similar with respect to nine comparisons, and not at all similar with respect to 38 comparisons. See id. 

10

Channels of distribution

Most producers, importers, and purchasers reported that the four types of TBLGs are either fully

or mostly distributed through similar channels of distribution.45 Domestic producers and importers

reported that *** percent and *** percent of their U.S. shipments, respectively, were made to

“distributors,” which was understood to include retailers.46 Agri-Fab, Superpower, and Swisher, an

importer of subject merchandise from China, agree that all TBLGs are distributed through the same

channels of distribution, with most sold to large home improvement retailers such as Sears, Lowe’s, TSC,

and Home Depot.47 

Customer and producer perceptions

Producers, importers, and purchasers were divided on the extent to which customers and

producers perceive the four types of TBLGs to be similar.48 Domestic producers reported that customers

and producers perceive the four types of TBLGs as fully or mostly similar with respect to just under half

of their comparisons of one type of TBLG to another, but not at all similar with respect to just over half of

their comparisons.49 Importers and purchasers reported that customers and producers perceive the four

types of TBLGs as not at all similar with respect to about two-thirds of their comparisons of one type of

TBLG to another, but fully, mostly, or somewhat similar with respect to about one-third of their

comparisons.50 

The way in which the four types of TBLGs are marketed also suggests that customers and

producers perceive both similarities and differences among the products. Agri-Fab reports that large

retailers typically employ a buyer dedicated to purchasing TBLGs, as opposed to push groomers or other

products, and that its sales representatives market the four types of TBLGs to retailers as a single product
 51 CR at I-27; PR at I-22. In response to Vice Chairman Pearson’s request for “some documentation that {AgriFab’s} salesmen actually are marketing the four products together as a group,” Hearing Tr. at 87, Agri-Fab

submitted ***. Agri-Fab Responses to Commissioner Questions at A-10, Exhibit 5. Agri-Fab also submitted ***. 

Agri-Fab Prehearing Br. at Exhibit 2. 

 52 CR at I-29 n.54; PR at I-23 n.54; Hearing Tr. at 48-49 (Harvey) (“[T]raditionally in the past it was more of a

one stop shop. The customer would come to us and buy pretty much all the products at once. But that’s one of the

changes we’ve seen in the industry and in the marketplace is that as these lower priced products became available

from China we started to see more what we call cherry-picking where they will pick a lower priced aerator or

spreader or something like that from the Chinese competition, and then fill the rest of the line out with our or maybe

with some other domestic producers’ product.”).

 53 CR at II-3; PR at II-2; see also Purchasers’ Questionnaire Response of *** at Question V-1 (***); Purchasers’

Questionnaire Response of *** at Question V-1 (***); Purchasers’ Questionnaire Response of *** at Question V-1

(***); see also Agri-Fab Prehearing Br. at 5. We note that *** and *** were the only domestic producers of all four

types of TBLGs. CR at VI-1; PR at VI-1.

 54 Hearing Tr. at 25 (Smirnow) (“Part of the reason lawn groomers are viewed as one like product is because lawn

groomers are sold alongside one another in the same sections of the same home improvement retail stores.”), 35

(Cohan) (testifying that retailers display the four types of TBLGs “usually all right together.”); Conference Tr. at 88

(Swisher) (“Our entry into the lawn grooming product line was motivated by several factors. Several of our longtime [retail] customers had been asking us to consider this category . . . .”) (emphasis added). 

 55 CR at I-28; PR at I-22-23; Agri-Fab Responses to Commissioner Questions at A-10-11, Exhibit 9 (sales flyers

from ***); Agri-Fab Prehearing Br. at Exhibit 7 (***).

 56 CR at II-2; PR at II-1.

 57 Agri-Fab’s product catalog features separate sections on “sweepers,” “spreaders,” and “groomers” (including

aerators and dethatchers), including both push and tow-behind groomers in each section. See Petition at Exhibit 7. 

Agri-Fab claims that its catalogs are for “general distribution,” and are not the focus of its sales presentations to

customers. CR at I-28; PR at I-22. Brinly-Hardy’s product catalog has separate sections for spreaders, sweepers,

dethatchers, plug aerators, and spike aerators, as well as nonsubject lawn rollers. See Petition at Exhibit 9. 

 58 CR at I-28; PR at I-22; Superpower Prehearing Br. at Exhibit 4. 

11

line.51 Although purchasers often purchase different types of TBLGs from different manufacturers,52

several large retailers purchase all four types of TBLGs from a single manufacturer, with *** and ***

carrying the full *** line and *** carrying the full *** line.53 

There is also evidence that some retailers market TBLGs to consumers as a single family of

products. Both Agri-Fab and Swisher, in the preliminary phase investigations, indicated that retailers

typically market TBLGs to consumers as a family of complementary products.54 Agri-Fab submitted

photographs of all four types of TBLGs displayed together in a Lowe’s retail establishment and provided

sales flyers from three retailers that advertised three or four different types of TBLGs together, along with

mowers and other types of lawn equipment.55 

On the other hand, *** of 14 responding purchasers reported that they do not market the four

types of TBLGs together.56 Agri-Fab’s and Brinly-Hardy’s product catalogs organize the four types of

TBLGs into different sections, often interspersed with nonsubject products like rollers, carts, vacuums,

and, in Agri-Fab’s case, push groomers.57 Similarly, Sears markets the four types of TBLGs among ten

categories of “tractor attachments” on its website, with a single section marketing “aerators &

dethatchers,” with separate sections marketing “lawn sweepers & vacs” and “sprayers & spreaders.”58 
 59 Specifically, producers and retailers do not agree with Superpower’s argument that a clear dividing line

separates TBLGs into three domestic like products consisting of spreaders, aerators, and sweepers/de-thatchers. In

Agri-Fab’s product catalog, aerators and dethatchers are grouped together within a single “groomers” category, with

separate sections for sweepers and spreaders. See Petition at Exhibit 7. Precision Products also devotes a single

section of its website to “aerators/dethatcher/seeder,” but separate sections to “lawn sweepers” and “spreaders.” 

Agri-Fab Prehearing Br. at Exhibit 4. On its website, Sears has a single section marketing “aerators & dethatchers,”

with separate sections marketing “lawn sweepers & vacs” and “sprayers & spreaders.” Superpower Prehearing Br.

at Exhibit 4. By contrast, Brinly-Hardy’s product catalog has separate sections for each type of TBLG. See Petition

at Exhibit 9.

 60 CR at I-32; PR at I-25; CR/PR at Table I-9. Out of 134 comparisons of one type of TBLG with another,

responding producers, importers, and purchasers reported that product prices were fully similar with respect to zero

comparisons, mostly similar with respect to 25 comparisons, somewhat similar with respect to 52 comparisons, and

not at all similar with respect to 57 comparisons. Id. at Table I-9. 

 61 CR at I-32; PR at I-25. Average unit value data concerning the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments generally

corroborate Agri-Fab’s reported price ranges for each type of TBLG. See CR/PR at Tables C-2-5. In 2008, the

average unit value of sweepers was highest, at $***; the average unit values of aerators and spreaders were next

highest, at $*** and $***, respectively; and the average unit value of dethatchers was the lowest, at $***. See id. 

 62 CR at I-32; PR at I-25. 

 63 CR at I-32; PR at I-25.

 64 See CR/PR at Tables V-1-7.

12

Consequently, producers and retailers do not agree on how different types of TBLGs should be

grouped together in their catalogs and websites.59 This evidence suggests that no clear dividing line

exists. 

Price

Producers, importers and purchasers reported that prices for the four types of TBLGs are “mostly

similar” or “somewhat similar” with respect to a majority of comparisons of one type of TBLG with

another, but “not at all similar” with respect to a significant minority of comparisons.60 Agri-Fab reports

that TBLGs are priced from $60 to $400, depending on the type of TBLG and its particular attributes

(e.g., size).61 The price ranges for tow-behind sweepers, aerators, and spreaders substantially overlap in

the middle of the TBLG price range, while the price ranges for aerators, spreaders, and dethatchers

substantially overlap on the lower end of the TBLG price range.62 The price ranges for dethatchers and

sweepers reported by Agri-Fab, however, do not overlap at all.63 Pricing product data collected by the

Commission also indicate that sweepers, spreaders, and aerators are priced within a similar range, but that

prices for dethatchers were significantly lower than prices for sweepers, spreaders, and aerators.64

 

Conclusion

The record indicates that tow-behind aerators, dethatchers, spreaders, and sweepers possess both

similarities and differences with respect to their physical characteristics and uses, interchangeability, and

customer and producer perceptions, but predominantly similarities with respect to channels of

distribution, manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees, and price. 

On balance, on this record and applying the factors discussed above, we cannot discern clear

enough dividing lines to warrant finding multiple like products, as advocated by Superpower. Among

other pertinent facts, combination and modular TBLGs are interchangeable with individual TBLGs

performing the same functions, and there is a significant market for such products. Customers and
 65 In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the Commission defined the domestic like product to include

TBLG parts within the scope of the investigations, based on its semi-finished products analysis. USITC Pub. 4028

at 10 n.72; Confidential Preliminary Views at 13 n.72. In these final phase investigations, Agri-Fab again argues

that the Commission should define the domestic like product to include TBLG parts. There is no contrary evidence

on the record of these final phase investigations concerning this issue, and no party has argued that the Commission

should define TBLG parts as a separate like product. Accordingly, we define the domestic like product to include

TBLG parts. 

 66 As in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we also do not expand the domestic like product beyond the

scope of the investigations to include tow-behind sprayers and push spreaders. See USITC Pub. 4028 at 12-14;

Confidential Preliminary Views at 14-20. There is no new information in the final phase of these investigations that

would warrant our reconsideration of those findings. Although the Commission expressed a willingness to

reconsider this issue in the final phase investigations, no party proposed that we seek data on any out-of-scope

products in our questionnaires. Therefore, we have not reconsidered our preliminary findings. 

 67 Commissioner Pinkert notes that he found in the preliminary phase of the investigation that the record

supported finding at least four domestic like products (aerators, dethatchers, sweepers, and spreaders). Nevertheless,

for purposes of the preliminary phase, he joined the rest of the Commission in finding a single domestic like product

that was coextensive with the scope of the investigation because of the possibility that additional information in any

final phase of the investigation might alter this finding. Preliminary Determination at 7 n.40. In this final phase of

the investigation, he again finds a single like product. Although he has considered all of the record evidence

discussed in the text, he relies for this finding largely on evidence, developed for the most part since the preliminary

phase, indicating significant production and sales by different market participants of combination or modular

products that combine certain physical elements and functions of different TBLGs. CR at I-19-20, 26; PR at I-15-

16, 21; Agri-Fab Responses to Commissioner Questions at A-6, 33 and Exhibit 6; Agri-Fab Responses to

Commission Staff Questions at 2; Hearing Tr. at 10-11, 30; Petition at Exhibit I-9. As noted in the text, the

Commission has been instructed by Congress to look for clear dividing lines among products, and the existence of

these combination and modular units tends to blur the distinctions among the different types of TBLGs in terms of

their physical characteristics and uses and thus narrowly tilts the balance in this case toward finding them to

comprise a single domestic like product.

 68 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 69 CR/PR at Table III-1. Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioners Okun and Pinkert define the domestic

industry as all domestic producers of TBLGs, including ***, but excluding *** and ***.

13

producers disagree as to how to group together different types of TBLGs within the broad category of

TBLGs, indicating that a clear dividing line does not exist. Thus, although this is a close issue, we define

a single domestic like product encompassing the continuum of TBLG products within the scope of the

investigations.65 66 67 

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

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

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

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”68 In defining the domestic industry, the

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

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

Based on our definition of the domestic like product and our analysis of related parties below, we define

the domestic industry as all domestic producers of TBLGs, including Agri-Fab, Brinly-Hardy, and Spyker

Spreaders, but excluding ***.69 
 70 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 71 USITC Pub. 4028 at 15-16; Confidential Preliminary Views at 22-23.

 72 See CR/PR at Table III-9; 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). Agri-Fab argues that *** is a related party that should be

excluded from the domestic industry because it changed from being a domestic producer of TBLGs to an importer of

TBLGs from China during the period examined. Agri-Fab Prehearing Br. at 13-14. Superpower did not address the

issue of related parties.

 73 CR/PR at Table III-9.

 74 CR/PR at Table III-9; Importers’ Questionnaire Response of *** at Question II-3.

 75 See Importers’ Questionnaire Response of *** at Question II-3; Domestic Producers’ Questionnaire Response

of *** at Question V-3d. Commerce imposed provisional countervailing duty measures at margins ranging from

13.3 to 254.52 percent in November 2008 and provisional antidumping duty measures at margins ranging from

154.72 to 324.43 percent in January 2009. Confidential Prehearing Staff Report at Tables I-1-2; Public Prehearing

Staff Report at Tables I-1-2. 

14

A. Related Parties

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

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

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

related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers.70 Exclusion

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

investigation.

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the Commission determined that circumstances

warranted the exclusion of *** from the domestic industry as a related party.71 In the final phase of these

investigations, we have examined whether two domestic producers – *** and *** – are related parties and

should be excluded from the industry by virtue of their imports of subject merchandise.

1. *** 

In the final phase of these investigations, we find that *** qualifies as a related party because it

imported TBLGs from China during the period examined.72 *** demonstrated a waning commitment to

domestic production during the period examined, as its domestic production declined from *** units in

2006 and *** units in 2007 to only *** units in 2008.73 As it reduced its domestic production, ***

increased its imports of TBLGs from China dramatically, from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007 and

*** units in 2008.74 As of 2008, *** primary interest was in importing TBLGs from China. After

Commerce’s imposition of provisional measures, however, *** imported *** TBLGs from China and

produced *** TBLGs domestically in the first quarter of 2009.75 
 76 Consistent with her practice in past investigations and reviews, Chairman Aranoff does not rely on individualcompany operating income margins, which reflect a domestic producer’s financial operations related to production

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

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

domestic production and whether its primary interest lie in domestic production or importation. Based on the record

of the final phase of these investigations, Chairman Aranoff finds that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude

*** from the domestic industry.

 77 Commissioner Pinkert does not rely upon this company's financial performance as a factor in determining

whether there are appropriate circumstances to exclude it from the domestic industry. The record is not sufficient to

infer from the company's profitability on U.S. operations whether it has derived a specific benefit from importing. 

See Allied Mineral Products v. United States, 28 C.I.T. 1861, 1865-1867 (2004). 

 78 See CR/PR at Table VI-2. 

 79 See Domestic Producers’ Questionnaire Response of *** at Question III-15 (***).

 80 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 81 CR/PR at Table III-9. *** inventoried *** of its domestically-produced TBLGs and made *** U.S. shipments

of domestically-produced TBLGs in the first quarter of 2009. Domestic Producers’ Questionnaire Response of ***

at Question II-9. 

 82 CR/PR at Table III-9. 

 83 CR/PR at Table III-9. 

 84 *** also claims that *** Domestic Producers’ Questionnaire Response of *** at Questions I-3 and II-12 n. 1. 

 85 *** accounted for *** percent of domestic industry production during the period of investigation. CR/PR at

Table III-1.

 86 Chairman Aranoff and Commissioners Lane and Williamson note that between 2006 and 2008 *** was an

importer, not a domestic producer, such that the related parties provision would not apply. See CR/PR at Table III-9. 

In interim 2009, the only period in which *** was a domestic producer, it imported no subject merchandise,

indicating that its primary interest was in domestic production. See id.

 87 Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioners Okun and Pinkert find *** qualifies as a related party and that

(continued...)

15

The domestic operations of *** also appear to have benefitted from its importation of dumped

and subsidized TBLGs from China.76 77 In this regard, *** margin was significantly higher than that of

any other domestic producer throughout the period of investigation.78 *** indicated that ***79

Nonetheless, the inclusion or exclusion of *** data would not skew the data for the rest of the industry

because *** accounted for *** percent of domestic TBLG production during the period examined.80

Because the record indicates that *** primary interest had shifted to importing TBLGs from China before

Commerce’s imposition of provisional measures, we find that circumstances warrant the exclusion of ***

from the domestic industry. 

2. ***

*** was primarily an importer of TBLGs from China during the period examined and produced

*** TBLGs domestically ***, when it produced *** units.81 The volume of *** imports of TBLGs from

China was *** units in 2006, *** units in 2007, *** units in 2008, and *** units in the first quarter of

2008.82 *** imported *** TBLGs from China in the first quarter of 2009,83 however, and ***.84 Since

*** reported *** domestic production data for 2006, 2007, or 2008, the inclusion or exclusion of its data

would not skew the data for the rest of the industry.85 The Commission is evenly divided over whether

*** should be excluded from the industry under the related parties provision.86 87
 87 (...continued)

circumstances warrant its exclusion from the domestic industry because *** was *** an importer of TBLGs from

China until after Commerce’s imposition of provisional measures.

 88 Vice Chairman Pearson and Commissioners Okun and Pinkert define the domestic industry as all domestic

producers with the exception of *** and ***.

 89 In these investigations, subject imports accounted for more than 3 percent of the volume of TBLGs imported

into the United States from all sources in the most recent 12-month period for which data are available preceding the

filing of the petition. CR at IV-3; PR at IV-1. Thus, we find that subject imports are not negligible under 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677(24).

 90 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b).

 91 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 ... and explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

 92 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 93 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 94 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 95 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(a), 1673d(a).

 96 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’d, 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1996).

16

In conclusion, we define the domestic industry as all domestic producers of TBLGs with the

exception of ***.88

IV. MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF IMPORTS OF SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

FROM CHINA89

A. Legal Standards

In the final phase of antidumping and 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.90 In making this determination, the Commission must

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

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

operations.91 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or

unimportant.”92 In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject

imports, we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United

States.93 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.”94

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

“materially injured by reason of” unfairly traded imports,95 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.96 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
 97 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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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.”).

17

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.97

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

be having adverse effects on the domestic industry. Such economic factors might include non-subject

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

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

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

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

statutory material injury threshold.98 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.99 Nor does the

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

contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors, such as non-subject
 100 S. Rep. 96-249 at 74-75; H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47.

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

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

injury.”).

 102 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.

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

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

to undertake a particular kind of analysis of non-subject imports. Mittal explains as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

that factor.

542 F.3d at 878.

 104 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.”).

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

18

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.100 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.101

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.”102 103 Indeed, the

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

adherence to a specific formula.”104

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

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

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

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

imports.105 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether non-subject imports might have

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

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

and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

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

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

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

the harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,” and requires that the Commission not attribute
 106 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).

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

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

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

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

information or send out information requests in final phase investigations to producers in non-subject countries that

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

import suppliers). 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 non-subject imports.

 109 We provide in our respective discussions of volume, price effects, and impact a full analysis of other factors

alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry.

 110 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.”).

 111 CR at II-7; PR at II-4.

 112 CR at II-9; PR at II-5.

 113 CR at II-7; PR at II-4. Agri-Fab contends that homeowners trying to sell their house in a depressed housing

market might groom their lawns in order to increase their home’s “curb appeal” and reported that TBLGs are

designed to have a useful life of approximately *** under normal operating conditions. CR at II-8; PR at II-4-5.

19

injury from non-subject imports or other factors to subject imports.106 Accordingly, we do not consider

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

subsequent to Bratsk.

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

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

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

non-attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.107 108

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

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

standard.109 Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s

institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.110

B. Conditions of Competition

Several conditions of competition inform our analysis in the final phase of these investigations.

1. Demand Conditions 

Demand for TBLGs largely depends upon the overall economy, consumers’ discretionary

income, and weather conditions, but is also influenced by the housing market.111 According to the

National Association of Realtors, the index of pending sales of existing homes decreased by 24.2 percent

from 2006 to 2008 and was 7.1 percent lower in March 2009 than in March 2008.112 Although this

decline in home sales may have affected sales of TBLGs, it is unclear whether existing homeowners have

changed their TBLG consumption patterns based on the housing market.113 TBLG purchases are also

seasonal, with most TBLG sales concentrated in the January-May period, with a leveling off of TBLG
 114 CR at II-9; PR at II-5

 115 CR at II-7; PR at II-4 (excluding ***).

 116 CR at II-7-8; PR at II-4; Hearing Tr. at 20 (Harvey) (“The downturn in both the housing market and the

economy in general has certainly hurt.”), 52 (Harvey) (“Getting into late 2008 certainly we saw or we felt like there

were declines in the overall industry and overall demand related to the economy and the housing situation.”), 63

(Harvey) (“I think, you know, our retailers, our customers, tend to try to forge ahead with business as well as they

can, and they continued to try to drive volume maybe even when the housing market did start to weaken, which

helped us some. But again, we really didn't see much of the weakness, the general weakness, until later in 2008.”). 

 117 CR at II-7; PR at II-4.

 118 CR at II-7-8; PR at II-4.

 119 CR at II-8; PR at II-4.

 120 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 121 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 122 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 123 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 124 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 125 CR/PR at Tables III-1, VI-2 n.2. 

 126 CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10. Domestic industry capacity declined *** from *** units in 2006 to *** units in

2008, for an overall decline of *** percent. Id. Including ***, domestic TBLG capacity was *** higher in January-

(continued...)

20

sales in the summer months and a slight increase in sweeper sales in the fall.114 

*** of *** domestic producers reported that TBLG demand had *** since January 2006, citing

the weakness of the housing market and the economic downturn.115 Agri-Fab reported that the downturn

in the economy and the housing market began to affect sales of TBLGs toward the end of 2008.116 ***,

however, reported that demand had increased due to rural development and the increased use of power

lawn equipment.117 *** responding importers reported that TBLG demand had declined since January

2006, citing the housing market, general economic conditions, and decreased sales of lawn equipment,

although one responding importer reported no change.118 Seven responding purchasers reported that

TBLG demand had decreased since January 2006, but three reported that it had increased.119 

Apparent U.S. consumption of TBLGs increased *** percent between 2006 and 2007, from ***

units to *** units, but declined *** percent between 2007 and 2008, to *** units, for an overall ***

percent decline between 2006 and 2008.120 Apparent U.S. consumption in the first quarter of 2009, at ***

units, was *** percent lower than in the first quarter of 2008, at *** units.121 

2. Supply Conditions

The U.S. market for TBLGs is supplied by domestic production, subject imports, and nonsubject

imports from Mexico. U.S. producers accounted for the majority of apparent U.S. consumption

throughout the period examined.122 Nonsubject imports were the next largest supply source in 2006, but

were overtaken by subject imports in 2007 and 2008.123

Agri-Fab and Brinly-Hardy were *** domestic producers during the period examined, accounting

for *** percent and *** percent of domestic TBLG production, respectively.124 Spyker Spreaders

accounted for *** percent of domestic TBLG production over the period and ***.125 Domestic TBLG

capacity remained fairly constant during the period of investigation, although unused capacity grew from

2006 to 2008 as production declined.126 
 126 (...continued)

March 2009, at *** units, than in January-March 2008, at *** units. CR/PR at Table C-6. Excluding ***, domestic

TBLG capacity was *** lower in January-March 2009, at *** units, than in January-March 2008, at *** units. 

CR/PR at Table C-10. 

 127 CR/PR at Table IV-6. Subject import shipments were *** units, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption,

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

2008. Id.

 128 CR/PR at Table IV-6. Nonsubject import shipments were *** units, or *** percent of apparent U.S.

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

January-March 2008. Id.

 129 CR at VII-8; PR at VII-4.

 130 CR at II-14; PR at II-9; CR/PR at Table II-4.

 131 Agri-Fab Prehearing Br. At 18; Hearing Tr. at 13-14 (Cohan) (“In many cases, Chinese producers are

exporting products to the U.S. that are direct copies of our own products . . . . At the invitation of a Chinese

manufacturer, we went to China to view its manufacturing facility and observe the company copying our products. 

We later discovered that this producer had obtained pictures from our website and samples of our products which

had been used to reverse engineer our groomers.”). 

 132 CR at II-17; PR at II-10; CR/PR at Table II-6.

 133 CR at II-17; PR at II-10; CR/PR at Table II-6.

 134 CR at II-17;PR at II-10; CR/PR at Table II-6.

 135 See CR at II-11; PR at II-7; see also Hearing Tr. at 16-17 (Cohan) (“For a long time, both we and our

customers perceived value to constitute a complete package of service and quality. While it was important to sell

our products at a reasonable price, it was just as important, if not more so, to have the best customer service, product

(continued...)

21

Subject import shipments increased by over *** percent from 2006 to 2008, growing from ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2006 to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2008.127

Nonsubject import shipments declined from *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2006 to ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2008.128 Nonsubject imports consisted entirely of *** imported

from Mexico ***.129 

3. Substitutability

The record indicates that there is a high degree of substitutability between TBLGs of the same

type, regardless of the source. All responding domestic producers, half of responding importers, and all

but one responding purchasers reported that subject imports are always or frequently interchangeable with

the domestic like product.130 Indeed, Agri-Fab claims that subject imported TBLGs are exact copies of its

own TBLGs.131 All or nearly all responding purchasers reported that the domestic like product and

subject imports are comparable in terms of availability, delivery terms, discounts offered, extension of

credit, minimum quantity requirements, product consistency, quality meeting or exceeding industry

standards, product range, and reliability of supply.132 With respect to price, five responding purchasers

reported that the domestic like product is inferior to subject imports (i.e., is generally higher in price), five

reported that it is comparable, and one reported that it is superior.133 A slight majority (7 of 11) of

responding purchasers reported that the domestic like product is superior to subject imports in terms of

delivery time.134

The record also indicates that price is an important consideration, although not the only

consideration, when purchasers are choosing among competing suppliers of TBLGs.135 Most responding
 135 (...continued)

range and availability, technical support and warranty coverage. This combination of factors was where we could

show our customers that we were offering the best value for our products. Now the game has changed. While you

still hear the term value, it has come to mean that price is the factor above all others. When our customers come to

us explaining the need to offer the best value for our products, it is nothing more than their way of asking us to lower

our prices to meet the Chinese imports.”). When asked to list the top three factors considered when choosing among

suppliers, 9 of 14 purchasers ranked “price” as their first or second most important factor, behind only “quality,”

which 12 of 14 purchasers ranked as their first or second most important factor. CR/PR at Table II-2. Twelve of 14

purchasers ranked “price” as a “very important” factor used in making purchasing decisions. CR/PR at Table II-3. 

 136 CR at II-15; PR at II-10; CR/PR at Table II-5 (Two domestic producers reported that differences other than

price are sometimes significant, while one reported that such differences are frequently significant. Three importers

reported that differences other than price are frequently significant, while one reported that such differences are

sometimes significant.).

 137 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 138 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 139 CR/PR at Table IV-6. 

 140 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 141 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 142 CR/PR at Table IV-8. 

 143 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

22

domestic producers reported that differences other than price are sometimes significant, while most

responding importers reported that differences other than price, such as quality, lead time and availability,

are frequently significant.136 Nevertheless, the record indicates no meaningful differences between

domestic and subject imported TBLGs with respect to non-price factors. 

B. Volume of Subject Imports

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

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

production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”137

The volume and market share of subject imports both increased significantly between 2006 and

2008. Subject import volume increased *** percent over the period, from *** units in 2006 to *** units

in 2007 and *** units in 2008.138 The volume of U.S. shipments of subject imports increased by ***

percent over the same period, from *** units in 2006, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, to

*** units in 2007, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, and *** units in 2007, or *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption.139 It is particularly noteworthy that the quantity of U.S. shipments of subject

imports increased *** percent between 2007 and 2008 notwithstanding the *** percent decline in

apparent U.S. consumption over the period.140 

The *** percentage points of market share that subject imports captured between 2006 and 2008

came *** at the expense of the domestic industry, which lost *** percentage points of market share over

the period.141 As subject imports displaced domestic TBLGs in the U.S. market, the ratio of subject

imports to domestic production increased significantly, from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007

and *** percent in 2008.142

Subject import volume was *** percent lower in January-March 2009, at *** units, than in

January-March 2008, at *** units.143 U.S. shipments of subject imports were *** percent lower in

January-March 2009, at *** units or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, than in January-March
 144 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 145 Commerce imposed provisional countervailing duty measures at margins ranging from 13.3 to 254.52 percent

in November 2008 and provisional antidumping duty measures at margins ranging from 154.72 to 324.43 percent in

January 2009. Confidential Prehearing Staff Report at Tables I-1-2; Public Prehearing Staff Report at Tables I-1-2. 

 146 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I) provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he Commission shall consider whether any change in

the volume, price effects, or impact of imports of the subject merchandise since the filing of the petition in an

investigation under part I or II of this subtitle is related to the pendency of the investigation and, if so, the

Commission may reduce the weight accorded to the data for the period after the filing of the petition in making its

determination of material injury . . . .”

 147 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 148 See CR at II-9-11; PR at II-5-7; CR/PR at Table II-2.

 149 CR at V-28-29; PR at V-7-8 (*** and *** both reported that they had increased purchases of subject imports,

and reduced purchases of the domestic like product, due to the lower price of subject imports).

 150 CR at V-6; PR at V-4. Not all firms reported prices for all products for all quarters. Because we excluded

*** from the domestic industry as a related party, we also have excluded pricing data reported by *** from our

analysis. We note that *** reported pricing data for ***. Domestic Producers’ Questionnaire Response of *** at

Question IV-2. Because no subject import pricing data were reported for ***, and *** accounted for only ***

percent of domestic shipments of product 3 in the first quarter of 2009, the exclusion of *** pricing data had no

(continued...)

23

2008, at *** units or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption.144 The significantly lower level of

subject import volume in January-March 2009 than in January-March 2008, however, corresponds to

Commerce’s imposition of provisional countervailing duty measures in November 2008 and provisional

antidumping duty measures in January 2009.145 Thus, we accord less weight to the data for interim 2009

as it accounts for a single quarter and the trend in these data is related to the pendency of the

investigations.146 

We conclude that subject import volume is significant, both in absolute terms and relative to

consumption and production in the United States and that the increase in subject import volume and

market share also is significant.

C. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

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

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

by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the

United States, and (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses

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

occurred, to a significant degree.147

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

substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product with respect to TBLGs of the same

type and that price is an important consideration for purchasers choosing among competing TBLG

suppliers.148 As further evidence of the importance of price to purchasing decisions, we note that two

purchasers, when queried by Commission staff about domestic producer allegations of lost sales and lost

revenues, acknowledged that they switched their purchases from the domestic like product to subject

imports due to price.149 

*** domestic producers and *** importers provided usable quarterly net U.S. f.o.b. selling price

data for seven products.150 Pricing data reported in the final phase of these investigations by these firms
 150 (...continued)

effect on our analysis of subject import underselling in those quarters. *** reported no pricing data. See Domestic

Producers’ Questionnaire Response of *** at Question IV-2.

 151 See CR at V-6; PR at V-4. 

 152 See CR/PR at Tables V-8-9. We note that coverage of subject imports was low with respect to product 4, with

importers reporting total shipments of *** units in *** quarters, including ***. Id. at Table V-4. Based on these

data, subject imports undersold the domestic like product in *** of the *** quarterly comparisons between the first

quarter of 2006 and the fourth quarter of 2008 at margins ranging from *** to *** percent. Id. Subject imports

oversold the domestic like product in *** at a margin of *** percent. Id.

 153 CR/PR at Tables V-1-7, 9. As noted above, we give less weight to pricing data for the first quarter of 2009

because it is a single quarter and we find these data to be influenced by the pendency of the investigations. In the

first quarter of 2009, subject imports undersold the domestic like product in *** quarterly comparisons, at margins

ranging from *** to *** percent, and oversold the domestic like product in *** quarterly comparisons, at margins

ranging from *** to *** percent. Id. at Tables V-1-7. We note that Commerce’s imposition of provisional measures

would not have directly affected prices for the *** of subject import shipments in the first quarter of 2009 that were

sold out of inventory. U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports amounted to *** units in the first quarter of

2009, while only *** units were imported from China during the period. Compare CR/PR at Table IV-3 with id. at

Table IV-6. 

 154 CR/PR at Table V-7. With respect to product ***, subject imports oversold the domestic like product in ***

quarterly comparisons, at margins ranging from *** to *** percent, and undersold the domestic like product in ***

quarterly comparisons, at margins ranging from *** to *** percent. Id. 

 155 CR/PR at Table V-9. Products *** accounted for *** percent (*** of *** units) of subject import shipments

covered by pricing data and *** percent (*** of *** units) of domestic like product shipments covered by pricing

data. See id. at Tables V-1-7.

 156 We also find it noteworthy that ***, which accounted for *** percent of all TBLG imports from China during

the period of investigation, reported delivered purchase prices that indicate that it paid, on average, *** percent less

for subject imported TBLGs than for comparable domestically produced TBLGs. See CR/PR at Tables F-1-5. The

delivered purchase prices for subject imports paid by *** were lower than its delivered purchase prices for the

domestic like product in *** of *** quarterly comparisons, at margins ranging from *** to *** percent for product

2, *** to *** percent for product 4, *** to *** percent for product 5, *** to *** percent for product 6, and *** to

*** percent for product 7. See id. These data lend additional support to our finding that subject import underselling

was significant during the period of investigation.

 157 See CR/PR at Tables V-1-7. The domestic price of product 2 was *** percent lower in the fourth quarter of

(continued...)

24

accounted for approximately *** percent of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments of TBLGs and ***

percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from China.151 These data indicate that subject imports

pervasively undersold the domestic like product throughout the period of investigation, with the exception

of product ***.152

Specifically, between the first quarter of 2006 and the fourth quarter of 2008, subject imports

undersold the domestic like product in *** of *** quarterly comparisons, or *** percent of the time, at

margins ranging from *** to *** percent.153 Although subject imports generally oversold the domestic

like product with respect to product ***,154 subject imports undersold the domestic like product in ***

quarterly comparisons, *** of *** quarters, with respect to products ***, which accounted for *** of

both subject import and domestic like product shipments covered by pricing data.155 Accordingly, we

find subject import underselling of the domestic like product to be significant.156

We do not find that subject import underselling depressed or suppressed prices for the domestic

like product to a significant degree. Domestic prices for all products but product 2 were higher in the

fourth quarter of 2008 than in the first quarter of 2006.157 Domestic prices for all pricing products
 157 (...continued)

2008 than in the first quarter of 2006. Id. at Table V-2.

 158 See CR/PR at Figures V-3-9.

 159 See CR/PR at Table VI-1. We recognize that the increase in the domestic industry’s ratio of COGS to the

value of net sales from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 was due in part to the industry’s purported

inability to increase its prices sufficiently to cover its increased costs. CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10. The domestic

industry tellingly was able to realize significantly higher prices on its U.S. shipments of TBLGs in January-March

2009 than in January-March 2008, after Commerce’s imposition of provisional measures, resulting in a lower

industry ratio of COGS to net sales in interim 2009, *** percent, compared to interim 2008, *** percent. CR/PR at

Tables C-6, 10 (the average unit value of domestic industry U.S. shipments increased from $*** in the first quarter

of 2008 to $*** in the first quarter of 2009).

 160 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 161 CR at V-25-26, 28; PR at V-7-8; CR/PR at Table V-10. There were no confirmed lost revenue allegations. 

See CR/PR at Table V-11.

 162 CR at V-26; PR at V-7.

 163 See CR/PR at Tables F-1-5.

 164 See CR at V-26; PR at V-7; Agri-Fab Prehearing Br. at Exhibit 2 (***). *** Agri-Fab Posthearing Br. at 3.

 165 We have considered the magnitude of the dumping margins found by Commerce. In its final determinations,

Commerce found a weighted-average dumping margin of 386.28 percent for Jiasham Superpower Tools Co. and

Princeway Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., 154.72 percent for Nantong D & B Machinery Co. Ltd. and Qingdao

Huatian Truck Co., Ltd., and a PRC-wide entity rate of 386.28 percent. CR/PR at Table I-2. 

25

generally fluctuated within a narrow band from the first quarter of 2006 until the fourth quarter of 2008.158

The industry’s ratio of domestic industry cost of goods sold (“COGS”) to the value of its net sales

fluctuated from 2006 to 2008, declining *** overall from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008.159 

The principal adverse impact of subject import underselling on the domestic industry was its

significant contribution to the *** percentage point market share shift from domestic producers to subject

imports between 2006 and 2008.160 The record evidence concerning sales lost by domestic producers to

subject imports supports our finding that subject import underselling significantly contributed to the

domestic industry’s loss of market share to subject imports. *** purchasers either partly or fully

confirmed lost sales allegations involving *** units worth $***. In addition, *** purchaser, although ***

lost sales allegations involving *** units worth $***, nevertheless reported that it had purchased subject

imports in lieu of the domestic like product since 2005 due to price.161 

*** denied lost sales allegations involving *** units and $***, stating that its purchasing

decisions were predicated on many factors other than price.162 We note, however, that the delivered

purchase prices paid by *** for subject imports were *** to *** percent *** its delivered purchase prices

for comparable domestic TBLGs.163 *** itself emphasized the importance of price to its purchasing

decisions ***.164 Given this evidence and other record evidence on the importance of price to purchasing

decisions, we find that ***. 

For the foregoing reasons, we find that subject import underselling was significant and

contributed significantly to the *** percentage point shift in market share from the domestic industry to

subject imports between 2006 and 2008.

D. Impact of the Subject Imports165

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

subject imports on the domestic industry, “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a
 166 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.”)

 167 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-

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

 168 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 169 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 170 CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10.

 171 CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10. 

 172 CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10. 

 173 CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10. 

 174 CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10. 

 175 CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10.

 176 CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10.

26

bearing on the state of the industry.”166 These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity

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

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

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

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”167

We find that subject imports had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry between

2006 and 2008. As addressed above, U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports increased ***

percent between 2006 and 2008, by volume, as subject imports captured *** percentage points of market

share from domestic producers.168 This massive shift in market share from the domestic industry to

subject imports was driven, in large part, by pervasive subject import underselling. Consequently, the

domestic industry experienced declines in almost every statutory performance indicator during the period.

As the domestic industry’s market share declined, so too did its U.S. shipments and net sales

quantity. The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity declined from ***

percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008.169 At the same time, its U.S. shipments

declined *** percent between 2006 and 2008, from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007 and *** units

in 2008.170 The domestic industry’s net sales quantity declined *** percent between 2006 and 2008, from

*** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007 and *** units in 2008.171

Because the domestic industry’s production declined while its capacity remained relatively stable,

the industry’s capacity utilization rate declined *** over the period of investigation. Specifically,

capacity declined *** percent between 2006 and 2008, from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007 and

*** units in 2008,172 while production declined *** percent, from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007

and *** units in 2008.173 As a result, capacity utilization declined from *** percent in 2006 to ***

percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008.174 The domestic industry’s average number of production

workers declined *** percent between 2006 and 2008, from *** to ***, while wages paid declined ***

percent, from $*** to $***.175 The industry’s labor productivity fluctuated over the period, declining

from *** units per thousand hours in 2006 to *** units per thousand hours in 2007 before increasing to

*** units per thousand in 2008, ***.176

Domestic industry end-of-period inventories *** between 2007 and 2008 as net sales quantity

declined at a *** faster rate than production. Between 2006 and 2007, the industry’s net sales declined

by *** percent but its production declined by *** percent, reducing end-of-period inventories from ***
 177 CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10.

 178 CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10.

 179 CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10 (domestic industry net sales were *** percent lower in the first quarter of 2009 as

compared to the first quarter of 2008).

 180 CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10.

 181 CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10.

 182 CR/PR at Table VI-5.

 183 CR/PR at Table VI-4; CR at VI-9-10; PR at VI-2; see also Agri-Fab Responses to Commissioner Questions at

A-6.

 184 See CR/PR at Tables I-1-2. The domestic industry earned operating income of $***, equivalent to *** percent

of net sales, in the first quarter of 2009; this was an increase from operating income of $***, equivalent to ***

percent of net sales, in the first quarter of 2008. Id. at Tables C-6, 10.

 185 CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10.

 186 See CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10. 

27

units, equivalent to *** percent of total sales, to *** units, equivalent to *** percent of total sales.177

Between 2007 and 2008, however, the industry’s *** percent decline in net sales far exceeded its ***

percent decline in production, *** its end-of-period inventories to *** units in 2008, equivalent to ***

percent of total sales that year.178 Because domestic producers reduced these *** inventories in the first

quarter of 2009, the industry’s production was *** percent lower in that quarter than in the first quarter of

2008, even though its U.S. shipments were *** percent higher.179 

The domestic industry’s financial performance also deteriorated between 2006 and 2008. The

industry’s net sales value declined *** percent over the period, from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2007 and

$*** in 2008.180 Its operating income increased from $*** (or *** percent of sales) in 2006 to $*** (or

*** percent of sales) in 2007, before declining *** to a loss of $*** (or *** percent of sales) in 2008.181

Its return on investment followed a similar trend, increasing from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in

2007 before declining to *** percent in 2008.182 Nevertheless, domestic industry capital expenditures

increased *** percent between 2006 and 2008, and R&D expenditures ranged from $*** to $*** during

the period, largely due to Agri-Fab’s efforts to *** and develop new products in the face of intensifying

Chinese competition.183 

We recognize that the domestic industry’s financial condition improved in the first quarter of

2009 relative to the first quarter of 2008.184 The domestic industry’s improved profitability coincided

with a *** percentage point gain in domestic industry market share in January-March 2009 relative to

January-March 2008, as Commerce imposed provisional measures and subject imports relinquished ***

percentage points of market share during the same period.185 As stated above, we place reduced weight

on data for the first quarter of 2009 because it accounts for a single quarter and the changes reflected in

these data are related to the pendency of the investigations. 

Based on all the foregoing trends, we find that there is a causal nexus between subject imports

and the deteriorating condition of the domestic industry. This conclusion is based on the substantial

increase in subject import volume and market share, driven by pervasive subject import underselling,

which had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry between 2006 and 2008. The domestic

industry suffered declining production and sales volume as it lost *** percentage points of market share

to subject imports over the period, significantly reducing the industry’s rate of capacity utilization,

employment, revenues, and operating income.186 

We have considered whether there are other factors that have had an impact on the domestic
 187 For the reasons given in our preliminary determinations, we remain unpersuaded by Superpower’s argument

that the domestic industry’s declining performance resulted entirely from factors unrelated to imports, such as the

aging population, climate change, zero-turn mowers, or mulching mowers. See USITC Pub. 4028 at 24;

Confidential Preliminary Views at 34-35. Superpower’s contention that these factors have contributed to a secular

decline in TBLG demand conflicts with the trend in apparent U.S. consumption, which increased *** percent

between 2006 and 2007 and declined *** percent between 2007 and 2008 due to the economic downturn. See

CR/PR at Table VI-6. As addressed above, Superpower’s argument that Lowe’s switched from domestic TBLGs to

subject imports purely for non-price reasons, as part of a “branding” strategy, conflicts with evidence that price

played a central role in *** purchasing decisions. See CR/PR at Tables F-1-5 (the delivered purchase prices for

subject imports paid by *** were *** to *** percent lower than its delivered purchase prices for comparable

domestic TBLGs); Agri-Fab Prehearing Br. at Exhibit 2. We also reject Superpower’s argument that the

Commission should exclude purchases by *** of subject imports from its analysis of subject import volume because

such purchases were made for non-price reasons. See Superpower’s Prehearing Br. at 20-22. The Commission must

consider all imports within the scope of the investigations, see 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B), and we are unconvinced that

purchases by *** of subject imports had nothing to do with price. 

 188 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 189 CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10.

 190 CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10.

 191 CR/PR at Tables C-6, 10.

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

that, within each individual product type, TBLGs are highly substitutable regardless of the source, CR/PR at Table

II-14, and may therefore constitute a commodity product. Although the evidence is mixed with respect to whether

price-competitive non-subject imports were a significant factor in the U.S. market during the period of investigation,

he finds that non-subject imports would not have replaced subject imports without any beneficial effect on the

domestic industry. The only known importer from Mexico is ***, which would have no incentive to sell imports

from Mexico at prices or volumes that would be injurious to its own domestic operations. CR at VII-8; PR at VII-4. 

In addition, the imports from Mexico consist of ***, and the available information indicates that the Mexican

producer does not have the capability of producing other types of TBLGs, Agri-Fab Responses to Commissioner

(continued...)

28

industry.187 Although the economic downturn may have had a role in the domestic industry’s lagging

performance in 2008, we find that the modest decline in demand that year does not explain the magnitude

of the deterioration in the domestic industry’s performance. The *** percent decline in apparent U.S.

consumption between 2007 and 2008 did not prevent U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from

increasing *** percent, as subject imports gained *** percentage points of market share at the domestic

industry’s expense.188 Consequently, in 2008, the domestic industry bore the full brunt of the decline in

apparent U.S. consumption, equivalent to ***, and suffered from a significant loss of market share to

subject imports, equivalent to ***.189 Furthermore, the industry’s significantly reduced sales volume in

2008 came on top of its significantly reduced sales volume in 2007, when subject imports captured not

only the *** percent increase in apparent U.S. consumption over 2006 levels, but also took ***

percentage points of market share from the domestic industry.190 Between 2006 and 2008, the ***

percent decline in apparent U.S. consumption would have reduced the domestic industry’s commercial

shipments by at most *** units, while the industry’s loss of *** percentage points of market share to

subject imports represented a reduction in the industry’s commercial shipments of *** units.191 We find

that the economic downturn in 2008 does not sever the causal link between subject imports and the injury

suffered by the domestic industry, and we do not attribute to subject imports the effects of any adverse

demand conditions.

We also recognize that nonsubject imports were a factor in the U.S. market during the period

examined.192 Although the record indicates that there is a high degree of substitutability among
 192 (...continued)

Questions at A-34, thus making it exceedingly unlikely that imports from Mexico either could or would have

replaced subject imports during the period of investigation.

 193 One domestic producer reported that nonsubject imports are always interchangeable with the domestic like

product and frequently interchangeable with subject imports. CR/PR at Table II-4. All purchasers reported that

nonsubject imports are always (5 of 6 responding purchasers) or frequently (1 of 6 responding purchasers)

interchangeable with the domestic like product. Id. Similarly, all purchasers reported that nonsubject imports are

always (4 of 5 responding purchasers) or frequently (1 of 5 responding purchasers) interchangeable with subject

imports. Id. No responding importer responded to the question regarding interchangeability. Id. In addition, no

questionnaire respondent responded to the question asking whether differences other than price are ever significant

as between nonsubject imports and either the domestic like product or subject imports. Id. at Table II-5. According

to ***, *** similar to *** were imported from China during the period of investigation, and no domestic producer

but *** produced *** during the period. See Agri-Fab Prehearing Br. at 46; Agri-Fab Responses to Commissioner

Questions at A-10, Exhibit 8. 

 194 CR at VII-8; PR at VII-4. The sole Mexican producer of TBLGs reportedly ***. Agri-Fab Responses to

Commissioner Questions at A-34. ***. Agri-Fab Responses to Commissioner Questions at A-34. The Mexican

producer also was *** from significantly increasing its exports to the United States between 2006 and 2008, with

excess capacity of *** units in 2006, *** units in 2007, and *** units in 2008. CR/PR at Table VII-5. Mexican

excess capacity as a share of apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, and ***

percent in 2008. Id. at Tables IV-6, VII-5. 

 195 See Agri-Fab Posthearing Br. at 12 & n. 34.

 196 CR at VII-8; PR at VII-4.

 197 U.S. commercial shipments of nonsubject imports declined *** percent over the period, from *** units in

2006, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, to *** units in 2007, or *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption, and *** units in 2008, or *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption. CR/PR at Table IV-6. We note

that nonsubject import volume declined over the period of investigation notwithstanding the relatively low average

unit value of nonsubject import shipments. The average unit value of U.S. commercial shipments of nonsubject

imports was $*** in 2006, $*** in 2007, and $*** in 2008. Id. at Tables C-6, 10. By comparison, the average unit

value of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports was $*** in 2006, $*** in 2007, and $*** in 2008, while the

average unit value of the domestic industry’s U.S. commercial shipments was $*** in 2006, $*** in 2007, and $***

in 2008. Id. We cite these data only as evidence of the low overall price level of nonsubject imports and recognize

that these AUV comparisons reflect differences in product mix. 

29

nonsubject imports, subject imports, and the domestic like product of the same type of TBLG,193

nonsubject imports were limited to a single type of TBLG: ***.194 The only domestic product with which

the imported nonsubject *** competed was reportedly a single spreader model produced by ***.195

Moreover, ***.196 Nonsubject imports also declined between 2006 and 2008 in terms of both volume and

market share.197 We have not attributed to subject imports any effects from nonsubject imports.

Consequently, we conclude that there is a causal nexus between the subject imports and an

adverse impact on the domestic industry, which demonstrates that the domestic industry is materially

injured by reason of subject imports.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the domestic industry producing TBLGs is materially

injured by reason of subject imports of TBLGs from China found to be sold in the United States at less

than fair value and subsidized by the Government of China.

1

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

2

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

3

 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). This investigation does not involve an agricultural product, so statutory threat factor

(continued...)

29

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS OF VICE CHAIRMAN DANIEL R. PEARSON

Based on the record in these investigations, I determine that an industry in the United States is

threatened with material injury by reason of imports of certain tow-behind lawn groomers and parts

thereof (“TBLGs”) from China that the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) has found are

subsidized and sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”). I join sections I, II, III, IV-A,

and IV-B of the Views of the Commission concerning background, domestic like product and industry,

conditions of competition, and the legal standard concerning material injury.

A. Legal Standard for Threat of Material Injury

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

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

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

occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted.”1

 The Commission may not make

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

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

material injury by reason of subject imports would occur unless an order is issued.2

 In making my

determinations, I consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to these investigations.3

 
3

 (...continued)

(VII) is not implicated. 

4

 CR/PR at Table IV-3. During the first three months of 2009, subject imports were *** units compared with

*** units during the same period in 2008. Id.

5

 The market share of subject imports increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007. From 2006 to

2007, the market share of domestic producers declined from *** percent to *** percent, while the market share of

nonsubject imports fell from *** percent to *** percent. CR/PR at Table C-10.

6

 The market share of subject imports increased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008. From 2007 to

2008, the market share of domestic producers declined from *** percent to *** percent, while the market share of

nonsubject imports increased very slightly from *** percent to *** percent. CR/PR at Table C-10.

7

 Demand for TBLGs, as measured by apparent U.S. consumption, first increased slightly from *** units in

2006 to *** units in 2007, before declining more markedly to *** units in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-10.

8

 CR at VII-3; PR at VII-3.

9

 Reported capacity in China increased from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007, and remained unchanged in

2008. Reported capacity is expected to decline slightly, to *** units in 2009, and remain at that level in 2010. 

CR/PR at Table VII-1.

10 CR/PR at Table VII-1.

30

B. Likely Volume of the Subject Imports

As discussed in the views of the majority, the volume of subject imports increased significantly

over the period examined. The volume of subject imports increased strongly and steadily from *** units

in 2006 to *** units in 2007, and then to *** units in 2008.4

 In 2007, subject imports captured

substantial market share from both the domestic industry and nonsubject imports as nonsubject imports’

market share declined.5

 By contrast, in 2008, gains by subject imports were at the exclusive expense of

the domestic industry.6

 Thus, the domestic industry’s overall loss of market share to subject imports was

due in large part to the rapid increase in subject imports.

The increase in subject imports occurred not only when demand in the U.S. market was

increasing from 2006 to 2007, but also after demand declined from 2007 to 2008.7

 That subject import

volumes increased during both periods indicates that the increases did not simply track trends in

consumption in the U.S. market. It was only after the petitions were filed that subject import volume

began to decline, and I concur with the majority’s views that the decline in subject imports was due to the

pendency of the investigations. Hence, I find that the rate of increase in volume of the subject imports

during the period examined indicates that increased volumes of subject imports are likely in the absence

of import relief.

With regard to production capacity for TBLGs in China, as an initial matter I note that the

Commission does not have anywhere near comprehensive information concerning the Chinese industry.

The domestic interested parties identified *** TBLGs producers in China. Only *** of these producers,

however, responded to the Commission questionnaire, and they estimated that they comprised no more

than *** percent of Chinese production and exports to the United States.8

 Based on data from these

firms, reported Chinese production capacity rose only slightly during the period examined, and is not

expected to change much in 2009 and 2010.9

 These firms, however, reported ample excess capacity; in

2008, they operated at a capacity utilization rate of only *** percent, or approximately *** units.10

Assuming that other non-responding Chinese firms have similar amounts of excess capacity, and taking

the responding firms’ estimate of their share in total production at face value, as of the end of 2008 there
11 CR/PR at Table C-10. Apparent U.S. consumption in 2008 was *** units.

12 The share of exports in total shipments by reporting Chinese producers first declined very slightly from ***

percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, and then increased to *** percent in 2008. CR/PR at Table VII-1.

13 Home market shipments by responding firms, which had accounted for *** percent of total shipments in

2007, declined to *** percent in 2008. CR/PR at Table VII-1.

14 The share of responding Chinese producers’ shipments exported to the United States was *** percent in

2006, *** percent in 2007, and *** percent in 2008. CR/PR at Table VII-1.

15 CR/PR at Table II-3.

16 Nine of 13 responding purchasers viewed the subject imports as “always” interchangeable with the domestic

like product, and three viewed them as “frequently” interchangeable. CR/PR at table II-4.

17 Apparent U.S. consumption first increased slightly from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007, and then

declined to *** units in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-10.

18 As discussed infra, however, I find that 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.

31

was approximately *** units of excess capacity in China, which is over *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption in that year, a level I find to be significant.11 

Moreover, to the extent the excess capacity would be utilized, much of the new production will

be devoted to export markets as the Chinese producers have become increasingly export-oriented.12

Indeed, by 2008 the home market for Chinese production of TBLGs had disappeared.13 Further, a

substantial share of exports are likely to be directed to the U.S. market. Reporting Chinese producers of

TBLGs directed at least two-thirds of their shipments to the U.S. market during the period examined.14 I

find that the substantial excess capacity in the Chinese industry and its consistent focus on the U.S.

market during the period examined indicate the likelihood of increased subject imports in the absence of

import relief.

C. Likely Underselling and Price Effects of the Subject Imports

I evaluate the likely underselling and price effects in light of key conditions of competition in the

U.S. market. First, I note that, although price was ranked as a very important factor by a majority of

purchasers, other factors, such as availability, product consistency, overall product quality, and supply

reliability, were ranked more frequently as very important factors.15 That said, a majority of purchasers

considered the subject imports to be “always” interchangeable with the domestic product.16 This

suggests that, once made to industry standards, the subject imports and the domestic product are highly

substitutable and, therefore, price is an important factor in purchasing decisions. Second, as measured by

apparent U.S. consumption, demand for TBLGs increased, but only slightly, from 2006 to 2007, before

declining, by *** percent, from 2007 to 2008.17 

I concur with my colleagues’ views that subject imports undersold domestic TBLGs to a

significant degree during the period by large and consistent margins, and that, notwithstanding this

underselling, prices for the domestic like product were not depressed during the period examined. I do

not, however, concur with their view that the subject imports prevented price increases for the domestic

product that otherwise would have occurred during the period examined.18 

In examining whether the domestic industry’s prices were suppressed by subject import

competition, I examine two factors. First, a rising ratio of the cost of goods sold to the value of net sales

suggests that the industry was unable to raise prices sufficiently in order to keep up with rising costs. In

these investigations, this ratio declined from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, and then rose to
19 CR/PR at Table C-10.

20 CR/PR at Table V-11.

21 The capacity of the domestic TBLG industry was *** units in 2006, *** units in 2007, and *** units in 2008. 

Production was *** units in 2006, *** units in 2007, and *** units in 2008. Capacity utilization fell from ***

percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, and then to *** percent in 2008. The volume of U.S. shipments dropped

steadily from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007, and then to *** units in 2008. The value of net sales first

declined from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2007, and then declined further to $*** in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-10.

22 The unit value of U.S. shipments first rose from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2007, then declined to $*** in 2008. 

CR/PR at Table C-10.

23 The ratio of operating income to sales was *** percent in 2006, and rose to *** percent in 2007, before

falling *** percent in 2008. CR/PR at Table C-10.

32

*** percent in 2008, for an overall decline over the 3-year period of *** percentage points.19 Thus, we do

not see sufficient evidence of an increasing COGS-to-sales ratio. Second, more direct evidence of price

suppression can be furnished by confirmed lost revenue allegations, which would indicate that domestic

firms had to lower their prices in order to retain business. In these investigations, however, only two

customers were subject to allegations, and none of these allegations was confirmed.20

Therefore, because the record does not contain sufficient evidence of either price depression or

price suppression, I cannot conclude that subject imports had a significant adverse effect on domestic

prices during the period examined. Nonetheless, given my finding supra that the substantial excess

capacity in the Chinese industry and its consistent focus on the U.S. market during the period examined

indicate the likelihood of increased subject imports in the absence of import relief, and in light of

consistent underselling, I determine that 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. Even though demand for TBLGs is declining, I find that it is likely that,

given the fact that Chinese TBLGs are consistently priced below the domestic like product, and given the

importance of price in purchasing decisions, those purchasers that are in the market for TBLGs would

likely purchase the imported product. This purchasing pattern would likely result in either price

depression or suppression. 

D. Vulnerability and Likely Impact

The domestic industry experienced very few positive changes over the period examined as it

participated in a market characterized by an overall decline in demand. Indeed, most volume-based

indicators declined significantly. From 2006 to 2008, the domestic industry saw capacity fall by 1.3

percent, production by 19.4 percent, and capacity utilization by 13.0 percentage points. The volume of

U.S. shipments decreased by 31.0 percent and net sales values decreased by 30.5 percent.21 The fact that

shipments declined faster than production toward the end of the period likely reflects the impact of

declining demand.

Price-based indicators, however, demonstrate different trends. As subject imports increased

rapidly between 2006 and 2008, the unit value of U.S. shipments first rose, then declined, for an overall

increase of 3.0 percent.22 The industry’s profitability, measured by the ratio of operating income to sales,

actually improved a bit in 2007 over its 2006 level, despite the presence of subject imports.23

Consequently, in this industry there appears to be a strong correlation between production volume

and profitability, suggesting that the negative impact on the industry’s profitability is coming from losses

in volume rather than declining prices. In the current market environment facing this industry, however,

it is difficult to conclude that it was the presence of subject imports, rather than declining demand for the
24 With regard to lost sales, *** alleged a total of approximately $*** million of lost sales. Total confirmed lost

sales allegations amounted to approximately $***, or *** percent, of the total amount alleged. CR/PR at table V-10;

CR at V-26, n.12, PR at V-7, n.12. Similarly, for lost revenues, as noted above, no lost revenue allegations were

confirmed.

25 Apparent U.S. consumption first increased slightly from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007, and then

declined to *** units in 2008. Consumption in January-March 2009 was *** units, compared to *** units in January

-March 2008. CR/PR at Table C-10.

26 CR at II-7-II-8, PR at II-4-II-5.

27 CR/PR at table VII-3. Inventories of imports from China held by U.S. importers increased from *** units in

2006 to *** units in 2008. Such imports declined as a ratio to preceding-period U.S. shipments of imports from ***

percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. That ratio, however, was *** percent in January-March 2009 compared with

*** percent in January-March 2008.

33

product, that caused the industry’s volume losses. This conclusion is made even more problematic by the

fact that the record does not contain a significant number of confirmed lost sales or lost revenue

allegations.24

Accordingly, I find that the impact of subject imports on the operations of the TBLG industry was

not significant during the period examined. Nonetheless, while the domestic industry has not yet

experienced material injury by reason of subject imports, the market conditions that allowed the domestic

industry to avoid such injury have deteriorated. While steady to slightly increasing demand from 2006 to

2007 mitigated the impact of subject imports, demand declined in 2008 and has fallen even faster in early

2009, compared to the corresponding period of 2008.25 Indeed, the domestic industry faces a much

different environment in 2009 and 2010 than it did at the beginning of the period examined, when it first

began facing competition from subject imports. As detailed in the majority views, demand for TBLGs

has recently fallen dramatically due to the weakening housing market.26 Further evidence of the

industry’s vulnerability is found in the fact that inventories of Chinese product held in the United States

increased steadily over the period examined, peaking in 2008, and were significant in relation to

preceding-period U.S. shipments throughout the period, particularly so in the most recent period, JanuaryMarch 2009.27 Hence, based on my consideration of the record and the recent developments in the

marketplace in particular, I find that the domestic industry is vulnerable to material injury from likely

increased volumes of subject imports.

Because of worsening demand conditions, the domestic industry is no longer shielded from the

impact of subject imports, which are likely to increase significantly in volume and continue to undersell

significantly the domestic like product in the absence of import relief. The domestic industry would

likely experience significantly reduced profitability due to significantly depressed or suppressed prices as

well as reduced production, shipments and market share.

I also find that subject imports will have negative effects on the development and production

efforts of the domestic industry. From 2006 to 2007, steady to slowly rising demand mitigated the impact

of subject imports, and allowed the domestic industry to increase its profits even as it lost significant

market share. This trend did not continue in the following year, however, as demand sagged, subject

imports continued to increase, and the domestic industry experienced declining financial performance. 

As subject imports continue to increase in the imminent future in the absence of import relief, the

domestic industry will lose not only market share, but sales volumes as well. Given the clear link

between production volumes and profitability, if volumes fall further the domestic industry will

experience declining operating income margins, and will experience declines in employment, returns on

assets, and in its ability to maintain and upgrade production facilities. 

In considering whether the domestic industry is threatened with material injury by reason of

subject imports, I have also considered the extent to which other factors are likely to contribute to injury
28 Demand for TBLGs, as measured by apparent U.S. consumption, was *** units in January-March 2009,

compared with *** units in January-March 2008. Industry profitability, as measured by the ratio of operating

income to net sales, was *** percent in January-March 2009, compared with *** percent in January-March 2008. 

CR/PR at Table C-10.

29 U.S. shipments of imports from Mexico declined from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007, and then

declined again, to *** units, in 2008. Their market share declined from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007,

and then increased very slightly to *** percent in 2008, for an overall decline of *** percentage points. CR/PR at

Table C-10.

30 I further determine, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §1671d(b)(4)(B) and 19 U.S.C. §1673d(b)(4)(B), that I would not

have made a material injury determination but for Commerce’s suspension of liquidation of subject imports on

November 24, 2008. The period examined, and thus the comprehensive record evidence available, in these

investigations was through March 31, 2009, which was approximately four months subsequent to the date on which

liquidation was suspended. While the record evidence demonstrates that the domestic industry is vulnerable to

material injury by reason of subject imports. I do not find that but for the suspension of liquidation the domestic

industry’s condition would have worsened in this period to a level reflecting material injury. I note, however, that I

join my colleagues in finding, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I), that the reductions in the volume of subject

imports, increases in prices for the domestic like product, and improvements in the domestic industry’s performance

during interim 2009 (as compared to interim 2008) are related to the filing of the petitions in June 2008 and, hence, I

have accorded less weight to the 2009 data in my analysis.

34

to ensure that I do not attribute injury from other factors to subject imports. As discussed above, I find

that reduced demand for TBLGs is likely to render the industry more vulnerable to the effects of imports. 

Even so, I do not find that the likely imminent material injury to the domestic industry described above

can be attributed in any significant way to the effects of weak demand or nonsubject imports. First, in

interim 2009, the industry’s fortunes actually improved despite rapidly weakening demand, once subject

imports left the market.28 Second, I concur with my colleagues that nonsubject imports are not a

significant factor in the TBLG market, inasmuch as during the period examined they were limited to a

single spreader model imported from Mexico by petitioner Agri-Fab and their volumes declined in both

absolute volume and market share.29 Thus, there is no indication that, in the imminent future, nonsubject

imports would capture market share from the domestic industry to the same extent as subject imports. 

Therefore, I do not find that these other factors would lead to material injury to the domestic industry in

the absence of subject imports.30

Considering the statutory threat factors and the record as a whole, I determine that further

subsidized and LTFV imports of TBLGs from China are imminent and that material injury by reason of

subject imports would occur unless an order is issued. Accordingly, I determine that the domestic

industry producing TBLGs is threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from China.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, I find that an industry in the United States is threatened with

material injury by reason of imports of TBLGs from China that have been found by Commerce to be

subsidized by the Government of China and sold at less than fair value.
 1

 A complete description of the imported products subject to these investigations is presented in the “Subject

Merchandise” section of this part of the report.

 2 Federal Register notices cited in this tabulation are presented in app. A of this report.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from a petition filed by Agri-Fab, Inc. (“Agri-Fab or “petitioner”),

Sullivan, IL, on certain tow-behind lawn groomers (“TBLGs”) and parts thereof1

 from China alleging that

an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of lessthan-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of TBLGs from China and by reason of imports of subsidized TBLGs

from China. Information relating to the background of the investigations is provided below.2

Effective date Action

June 24, 2008 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission

investigations

July 21, 2008 Commerce’s notice of initiation

August 8, 2008 Commission’s preliminary determination

November 24, 2008 Commerce’s preliminary CVD determination and alignment of final

countervailing duty determination with final antidumping duty determination

January 28, 2009 Commerce’s preliminary AD determination and postponement of final

determination

March 13, 2009 Scheduling of final phase of Commission's investigation (74 FR 10964)

June 19, 2009 Commerce’s final CVD and AD determinations (74 FR 29180 and 74 FR

29167, respectively)

June 16, 2009 Commission’s hearing 1

July 15, 2009 Scheduled date for the Commission’s vote

July 27, 2009 Commission’s determination due 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.
 3 Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China: Final

Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 29180, June 19, 2009.

I-3

Organization of the Report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, dumping margins and

subsidies, and domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of

competition and other relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the

U.S. industry, including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Parts IV

and V present the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise, respectively. Part VI

presents information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. Part VII presents the statutory

requirements and information obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat

of material injury as well as information regarding nonsubject countries.

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

TBLGs are used to maintain a healthy lawn. Trade in the U.S. market for TBLGs totaled $***

million or *** thousand units during 2008, of which *** percent was accounted for by sales of U.S.-

produced TBLGs by value and *** percent by quantity. In 2008, imports from the subject source

accounted for *** percent of the U.S. market by value and *** percent by quantity. Imports from

nonsubject sources accounted for *** percent of the U.S. market by value and *** percent by quantity. 

Five producers supplied the Commission with data on their U.S. TBLG operations. Nine firms reported

that they imported TBLGs during the January 2006 to March 2009 period.

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1 in appendix C presents a summary of data collected in these investigations. U.S.

industry data are based on questionnaire responses from U.S. producers (see Part III of this report). U.S.

import data are based on questionnaire responses from U.S. importers (see Part IV of this report). 

Information on the industries that produce TBLGs in China and Mexico is based on questionnaire

responses from foreign producers and exporters (see Part VII of this report). Data from other sources are

referenced and footnoted where appropriate. Table C-2 presents data collected concerning tow-behind

aerators; table C-3 presents data concerning tow-behind dethatchers; table C-4 presents data concerning

tow-behind spreaders; and table C-5 presents data concerning tow-behind sweepers. 

PREVIOUS COMMISSION INVESTIGATIONS

There have been no previous import injury investigations on the merchandise subject to these

investigations.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV

Subsidies

On June 19, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final determination

of net countervailing duty rates with respect to imports from China,3

 as summarized in Table I-1.
 4 Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China: Final

Determination of Sales at LTFV, 74 FR 29167, June 19, 2009.

I-4

Table I-1

TBLGs: Commerce’s final countervailing duty rates with respect to imports from China

Exporter/Manufacturer Net Subsidy Rate (percent)

Princeway Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd. and Princeway Limited 0.56 (de minimis)

Jiashan Superpower Tools Co.,Ltd. 13.3

Maxchief Investments, Ltd. 264.98

Qingdao EA Huabang Instrument Co., Ltd. 264.98

Qingdao Hundai Tools Co., Ltd. 264.98

Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd. 264.98

World Factory, Inc. 264.98

All Others 13.3

Source: Final determination, 74 FR 29180, June 19, 2009.

 Sales at LTFV

On June 19, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final

determinations of sales at LTFV with respect to imports from China,4

 as summarized in Table I-2.

Table I-2

TBLGs: Commerce’s final weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from China

Exporter & Producer Final dumping margin (percent)

Jiashan Superpower Tools Co., Ltd. 386.28

Princeway Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd. 386.28

Nantong D & B Machinery Co., Ltd. 154.72

Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd. 154.72

PRC–wide Entity 386.28

Source: Final determination 74 FR 29167 June 19, 2009.
I-5

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations as follows: 

{These investigations cover} certain non–motorized tow behind lawn groomers

(‘‘lawn groomers’’), manufactured from any material, and certain parts thereof.

Lawn groomers are defined as lawn sweepers, aerators, dethatchers, and

spreaders. Unless specifically excluded, lawn groomers that are designed to

perform at least one of the functions listed above are included in the scope of

these investigations, even if the lawn groomers designed to perform additional

non– subject functions (e.g., mowing). 

All lawn groomers are designed to incorporate a hitch, of any configuration,

which allows the product to be towed behind a vehicle. Lawn groomers that are

designed to incorporate both a hitch and a push handle, of any type, are also

covered by the scope of these investigations. The hitch and handle may be

permanently attached or removable, and they may be attached on opposite sides

or on the same side of the lawn groomer. Lawn groomers designed to

incorporate a hitch, but where the hitch is not attached to the lawn groomer, are

also included in the scope of the investigations. Lawn sweepers consist of a

frame, as well as a series of brushes attached to an axle or shaft which allows the

brushing component to rotate. Lawn sweepers also include a container (which is

a receptacle into which debris swept from the lawn or turf is deposited)

supported by the frame. Aerators consist of a frame, as well as an aerating

component that is attached to an axle or shaft which allows the aerating

component to rotate. The aerating component is made up of a set of knives fixed

to a plate (known as a “plug aerator”), a series of discs with protruding spikes

(a “spike aerator”), or any other configuration, that are designed to create holes

or cavities in a lawn or turf surface. Dethatchers consist of a frame, as well as a

series of tines designed to remove material (e.g., dead grass or leaves) or other

debris from the lawn or turf. The dethatcher tines are attached to and suspended

from the frame. Lawn spreaders consist of a frame, as well as a hopper (i.e., a

container of any size, shape, or material) that holds a media to be spread on the

lawn or turf. The media can be distributed by means of a rotating spreader plate

that broadcasts the media (“broadcast spreader”), a rotating agitator that

allows the media to be released at a consistent rate (“drop spreader”), or any

other configuration. 

Lawn dethatchers with a net fully–assembled weight (i.e., without packing,

additional weights, or accessories) of 100 pounds or less are covered by the

scope of the investigations. Other lawn groomers–sweepers, aerators, and

spreaders–with a net fully–assembled weight (i.e., without packing, additional

weights, or accessories) of 200 pounds or less are covered by the scope of the

investigations. 

Also included in the scope of the investigations are modular units, consisting of a

chassis that is designed to incorporate a hitch, where the hitch may or may not
I-6

be included, which allows modules that perform sweeping, aerating, dethatching,

or spreading operations to be interchanged. Modular units–when imported with

one or more lawn grooming modules–with a fully assembled net weight (i.e.,

without packing, additional weights, or accessories) of 200 pounds or less when

including a single module, are included in the scope of the investigations. 

Modular unit chasses, imported without a lawn grooming module and with a

fully assembled net weight (i.e., without packing, additional weights, or

accessories) of 125 pounds or less, are also covered by the scope of the

investigations. When imported separately, modules that are designed to perform

subject lawn grooming functions (i.e., sweeping, aerating, dethatching, or

spreading), with a fully assembled net weight (i.e., without packing, additional

weights, or accessories) of 75 pounds or less, and that are imported with or

without a hitch, are also covered by the scope. 

Lawn groomers, assembled or unassembled, are covered by these investigations.

For purposes of these investigations, “unassembled lawn groomers” consist of

either 1) all parts necessary to make a fully assembled lawn groomer, or 2) any

combination of parts, constituting a less than complete, unassembled lawn

groomer, with a minimum of two of the following “major components.”

1) an assembled or unassembled brush housing designed to be used in a 

lawn sweeper, where a brush housing is defined as a component housing

the brush assembly, and consisting of a wrapper which covers the brush

assembly and two end plates attached to the wrapper; 

2) a sweeper brush;

3) an aerator or dethatcher weight tray, or similar component designed

to allow weights of any sort to be added to the unit; 

4) a spreader hopper;

5) a rotating spreader plate or agitator, or other component designed for

distributing media in a lawn spreader;

6) dethatcher tines;

7) aerator spikes, plugs, or other aerating component; or

8) a hitch.

The major components or parts of lawn groomers that are individually covered

by these investigations under the term “certain parts thereof” are: (1) brush

housings, where the wrapper and end plates incorporating the brush assembly

may be individual pieces or a single piece; and (2) weight trays, or similar

components designed to allow weights of any sort to be added to a dethatcher or

an aerator unit. 

The products for which relief is sought specifically exclude the following: 1)

agricultural implements designed to work (e.g., churn, burrow, till, etc.) soil,

such as cultivators, harrows, and plows; 2) lawn or farm carts and wagons that

do not groom lawns; 3) grooming products incorporating a motor or an engine

for the purpose of operating and/or propelling the lawn groomer; 4) lawn

groomers that are designed to be hand held or are designed to be attached

directly to the frame of a vehicle, rather than towed; 5) “push” lawn grooming

products that incorporate a push handle rather than a hitch, and which are

designed solely to be manually operated; 6) dethatchers with a net assembled
I-7

weight (i.e., without packing, additional weights, or accessories) of more than

100 pounds, or lawn groomers–sweepers, aerators, and spreaders–with a net

fully–assembled weight (i.e., without packing, additional weights, or accessories)

of more than 200 pounds; and 7) lawn rollers designed to flatten grass and turf,

including lawn rollers which incorporate an aerator component (e.g.,

“drum–style” spike aerators). 

The lawn groomers that are the subject of these investigations are currently

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”)

statistical reporting numbers 8432.40.0000, 8432.80.0000, 8432.80.0010,

8432.90.0030, 8432.90.0080, 8479.89.9896, 8479.89.9897, 8479.90.9496, and

9603.50.0000. These HTSUS provisions are given for reference and customs

purposes only, and the description of merchandise is dispositive for determining

the scope of the product included in these investigations.”

Tariff Treatment

Table I-3 presents the statistical reporting numbers of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTS) under which TBLGs and parts thereof are imported. Essentially, tow-behind lawn

spreaders are imported under subheading 8432.40.00, while the other three types of TBLGs are imported

under subheading 8479.89.98 (statistical reporting number 8479.89.9896). Commerce identified other

subheadings of the HTS under which TBLGs and their “major components” may be classified, including

8432.80.00 (statistical reporting number 8432.80.0010), 8432.90.00 (8432.90.0030 or 8432.90.0080),

8479.90.94 (8479.90.9496), and 9603.50.00.
I-8

Table I-3

TBLGs: Statistical reporting numbers of the HTS, 2009

HTS

provision Article description1

General2 Special

Column

24

Rates (percent ad valorem)

8432.40.0000

Agricultural, horticultural, or forestry machinery for

soil preparation or cultivation:

Manure spreaders and fertilizer distributors Free Free

8432.80.0010

Agricultural, horticultural, or forestry machinery for

soil preparation or cultivation:

Other machinery (than of plows; harrows,

scarifiers, cultivators, weeders and hoes;

seeders, planters and transplanters; manure

spreaders and fertilizer distributors)

Tow behind spreaders, aerators, and 

dethatchers Free Free

8432.90.0030

Agricultural, horticultural, or forestry machinery for

soil preparation or cultivation:

Parts:

Of seeders, planters, transplanters, manure 

spreaders and fertilizer distributors Free Free

8432.90.0080

Agricultural, horticultural, or forestry machinery for

soil preparation or cultivation:

Parts:

Of other machinery (than of plows; harrows, 

scarifiers, cultivators, weeders and hoes; 

seeders, planters, transplanters, manure 

spreaders and fertilizer distributors) Free Free

8479.89.9896

Machines and mechanical appliances having

individual functions, not specified or included

elsewhere in this chapter; parts thereof:

Other machines and mechanical appliances (than

of machinery for public works, building or the like;

machinery for extraction or preparation of animal

or fixed vegetable fats or oils; presses for the

manufacture of particle board or fiber building

board of wood or other ligneous materials and

other machinery for treating wood or cork; rope or

cable making machines; evaporative air coolers):

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add

to the totals shown.

Other (than of for treating metal, including

electric wire coil-winders; mixing, kneading,

crushing, grinding, screening, sifting,

homogenizing, emulsifying or stirring

machines):

Other (than of electromechanical

appliances with self-contained electric

motor; carpet sweepers; and machines

for manufacturing optical media):

Tow behind sweepers

2.5 Free3 35.0
I-9

Table I-3 – Continued

TBLGs: Statistical reporting numbers of the HTS, 2009

HTS

provision Article description

General1 Special2 Column 23

Rates (percent ad valorem)

8479.90.9496

Machines and mechanical appliances having

individual functions, not specified or included

elsewhere in this chapter, parts thereof:

Parts:

Other (than of articles of subheading 

8479.89.10, air humidifiers or dehumidifiers, 

or 8479.89.70, carpet sweepers):

Other (than of industrial robots):

Other (than of machinery for public

works, building, or the like; of

presses for the manufacture of

particle board or fiber building

board of ligneous materials and

other machinery for treating wood

or cork; of machines or mechanical

appliances for treating metal) Free 35.0

9603.50.0000

Brooms, brushes (including brushes constituting parts

of machines, appliances or vehicles), hand-operated

mechanical floor sweepers, not motorized, mops and

feather dusters; prepared knots and tufts for broom or

brush making; paint pads and rollers; squeegees

(other than roller squeegees):

Other brushes constituting parts of machines,

appliances or vehicles (than of brooms and

brushes, consisting of twigs or other vegetable

materials bound together, with or without

handles; toothbrushes, shaving brushes, air

brushes, nail brushes, eyelash brushes and other

brushes of use on the person, including such

brushes constituting parts of appliances; artists'

brushes, writing brushes and similar brushes for

the application of cosmetics; paint, distemper,

varnish or similar brushes, paint pads and rollers) Free 35.0

1

 An abridged description is provided for convenience. However, an unabridged description is available from the respective

headings, subheadings, and legal notes of the 2009 Harmonized Tariff Schedule. 2

 Normal trade relations rate applicable to imports from China. 3 For eligible goods of beneficiary or partner countries: Generalized System of Preferences, U.S.-Australia Free Trade

Agreement, Automotive Products Trade Act, U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement, Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft, North

American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement, Caribbean Basin Economic

Recovery Act, Israel Free Trade Area, Andean Trade Preference Act, Jordan Free Trade Area, U.S.-Dominican Republic-Central

America Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement, and U.S.-Singapore

Free Trade Agreement. 4 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal or preferential trade relations duty status.

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2009).
 5

 In so doing, the Commission additionally stated:

“We also define the domestic like product to include TBLG parts within the scope of the

investigations, based on our semi-finished products analysis. See, e.g., Glycine from India, Japan,

and Korea, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1111-1113 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3921 (May 2007) at 7. 

Pursuant to that analysis, we examine 1) whether the upstream article is dedicated to the

production of the downstream article or has independent uses; 2) whether there are perceived to be

separate markets for the upstream and downstream article; 3) differences in the physical

characteristics and functions of the upstream and downstream articles; 4) differences in the costs or

value of the vertically differentiated articles, and 5) the significance and extent of the processes

used to transform the upstream article into the downstream article. See id. According to Agri-Fab,

the TBLG parts within the scope are dedicated to the production of TBLGs and essential to their

operation; are not sold on the merchant market; possess similar physical characteristics and

functions as TBLGs insofar as they are incorporated into TBLGs; represent a significant

proportion of the cost of producing TBLGs; and are transformed into TBLGs through simple

assembly operations. See Petition at 23-24. The record contains no evidence to the contrary, and

no party has argued that the Commission should define TBLG parts as a separate like product. 

Accordingly, for purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, we define the domestic

like product to include TBLG parts.” 

Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts Thereof from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-457 and 731-TA1153 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4028, August 2008, p. 10 and n. 72.

 6

 In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the respondent counsel for Superpower argued that the

Commission should find three distinct domestic like products consisting of (i) sweepers and dethatchers, (ii)

spreaders, and (iii) aerators. The respondent counsel for Superpower, a Chinese producer, further argued if three

separate domestic like products are not found, "then the Commission should include other items in the single like

product such as dump carts" and "push spreaders and other groomers" which, it argued, would otherwise meet the

Commission's factors based on the petitioner's own domestic like product arguments.

Respondent counsel’s postconference brief, pp. 15, 25.

 7 Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts Thereof from China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-457 and 731-

TA-1153 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4028, August 2008, p. 10.

I-10

THE DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

The Commission's decision regarding the appropriate domestic products that are "like" the subject

imported product is based on a number of factors, including (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2)

common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; (3)

interchangeability; (4) customer and producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and, where

appropriate, (6) price. Information regarding these factors are discussed below.

 For the purposes of its determinations in the preliminary phase of these investigations, the

Commission found “a single domestic like product consisting of all TBLGs, coextensive with the scope of

the investigations,”5 6

 as urged by petitioner. In finding a single domestic like product, the Commission

commented:

“We note that the question of whether to define a single domestic like

product, or multiple domestic like products, is a close one, and we intend

to explore this issue further in any final phase of these investigations. In

particular, we intend to examine further the customer and producer

perceptions of the four types of TBLGs.”7

 
 8

 In its views, the Commission advised the parties that written comments on the Commission’s draft

questionnaires for the final phase of the investigations should in particular address how the Commission should

collect data necessary to the resolution of these domestic like product issues. No party requested the collection of

additional information on domestic like product issues in the final phase of these investigations.

 9

 The petitioner’s ***. The petitioner has also testified that TBLGs may be appropriate for a person with a lawn

size of 5 acres or more. The petitioner believes that although lawn size may be a factor in the decision to purchase a

tow groomer versus a push groomer, the decision is just as often based on whether or not the end-user has an

appropriate towing vehicle. Petitioner’s posthearing brief, pp. A-4 to A-5 and Exhibit 5.

 10 The petitioner has not seen an increase in the trend for consumers to repair TBLGs rather than replace them at

the end of a product’s life cycle. Petitioner’s posthearing brief, pp. A-19 and A-32.

 11 Hearing transcript, p. 40 (Smirnow).

 12 In addition, these products share general use parts, including washers, screws, nuts, and bolts. 

 13 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 6.

 14 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 6.

 15 Respondent presents arguments for three like products—dethatchers and sweepers, spreaders, and

aerators—based primarily on each products contact with the soil and turf as well as frequency of use. Respondent

also suggests that spreaders cover tow-behind, push, and spreaders mounted on lawn tractors by other means; and

that aerators should cover all towed types including drum spike aerators. Respondent’s prehearing brief, pp. 3-8.

 16 Each TBLG product does have a corresponding push-style product that is designed to perform the same

function. However, push products lack the physical features that would allow them to be attached to a residential

lawn tractor or similar towing vehicle, and results in a different means for achieving the lawn grooming function.

Hearing transcript, pp. 26-27 (Smirnow).

I-11

In light of these comments by the Commission and as was the case in the preliminary phase of

these investigations, data were collected for TBLGs as well as separately for each of the four types of

TBLGs.8

Physical Characteristics and Uses

In these investigations, non-motorized TBLGs are a group of four distinct pieces of lawn

grooming equipment: lawn aerators, dethatchers, spreaders, and sweepers. Each type of TBLG

incorporates a hitch and is intended to be towed behind a lawn tractor, all terrain vehicle, utility type

vehicle, riding lawn mower, or similar vehicle. Within the group, each piece of equipment has a different

configuration and application, but all share the physical characteristics and uses imparted by their

common requirement of a towing apparatus, and by their complementary functions for the common

purpose of maintaining a healthy lawn. TBLGs are generally intended for personal use on residential

lawn areas of a size that will effectively accommodate the apparatus (towing vehicle and piece of

equipment) as opposed to manually powered (push) groomers, which are intended for smaller lawn areas,

and motorized groomers, which tend to be of a size and weight designed for high-volume, commercial

use.9

 Depending on the application, TBLGs are designed to perform through ***, which represents an

average life cycle of approximately *** years.10

There are similarities and differences among the four types of TBLGs.11 In terms of physical

characteristics, each of the four pieces share several features in addition to the tow hitch, including a

similar size, a steel frame, an engage/disengage transport handle, and, in most cases, two wheels and a

single axle.12 13 In terms of use, each of the four TBLG pieces features a separate and distinct

function—aerating, dethatching, spreading, and sweeping—to achieve the collective lawn grooming

purpose.14 15 The following sections provide a detailed description of the physical characteristics and use

of each of the four types of TBLGs.16
17 Clemson University. Home and Garden Information Center. Aerating Lawns, HGIC 1200. 

http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/hgic1200.htm (accessed July 11, 2008).

 18 Bachman's Floral Home of Garden. Dethatching and Aerating Lawns.

http://www.bachmans.com/tipsheets/lawn/Dethatching.cfm (accessed July 13, 2008).

I-12

Aerators

Tow-behind aerators are designed to perforate the lawn with small holes, thereby loosening the

soil and allowing air (primarily oxygen), water, and fertilizer to penetrate closer to the grass roots. This in

turn enables the roots to grow deeper for a healthier lawn. Depending on the type of grass and lawn

traffic, it is generally recommended that lawns be aerated once or twice a year, in the spring and/or fall.17 

There are two basic types of aerators: one that simply slits openings in the soil (a “spike aerator”) and one

which removes and drops out plugs of soil (a “plug aerator”). Spike aerators have the appearance of a

series of spurs rotating on an axle, and plug aerators have the appearance of star-shaped, funnel-type

knives rotating on an axle. The axle is suspended from and rotates beneath a tray with sides, which serves

as the frame for the aerator and holds optional weights (e.g., concrete blocks) in place to control the depth

of the aerating action. Figure I-1 presents an image of a tow-behind spike aerator produced by Agri-Fab.

Figure I-1 

TBLGs: Subject tow-behind aerator

Source: http://www.agri-fab.com/.

Dethatchers

Tow-behind dethatchers are designed to scrape the lawn like a rake and loosen up any thatch,

accumulated dried vegetation that collects around the blades of grass above the soil. A healthy lawn

should have some thatch, which conserves moisture and serves to protect the roots from heat stress during

periods of long hot summer sun and drought. However, too much thatch can compact and prevent

sufficient penetration of air, water, and nutrients to the grass roots. Depending on thatch buildup, it is

generally recommended that lawns be dethatched once a year to maintain their health.18 Dethatchers

have a series of spring steel tines assembled along an alignment wire that is attached to a tray with sides,
 19 Respondent argues that push spreaders should be included with tow-behind spreaders as a separate like product. 

Respondent’s prehearing brief, p. 5. 

I-13

which serves as the frame and holds optional weights (e.g., concrete blocks) to control the depth of the

dethatching action. Figure I-2 presents an image of a tow-behind dethatcher produced by Agri-Fab.

Figure I-2 

TBLGs: Subject tow-behind dethatcher

Source: http://www.agri-fab.com/

Spreaders

Tow-behind spreaders are designed to distribute material such as grass seed and fertilizers from a

funnel-shaped bin or hopper onto the lawn in an even fashion.19 Spreaders are generally used as

necessary for feeding, seeding, and maintaining lawns. There are two basic types of spreaders. The "drop

spreader" drops material from a funnel-shaped bin through a rotating agitator onto the lawn at a consistent

rate, while the "broadcast spreader" dispenses material from the funnel-shaped bin onto a spinning tray

that broadcasts or widely disseminates the material out and onto the lawn. Spreader sizes are usually

distinguished by bin capacity in terms of either volume or weight (e.g., 14 gallon dry or 125 pound). The

bin assembly is attached to a frame. Figures I-3 and I-4 present images of subject tow-behind spreaders

produced by Agri-Fab.
I-14

Figure I-3 

TBLGs: Subject tow-behind "broadcast" spreader

Source: http://www.agri-fab.com/.

Figure I-4 

TBLGs: Subject tow-behind "drop" spreader

Source: http://www.agri-fab.com/.
 20 Wisegeek. What is a Lawn Sweeper? Http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-lawn-sweeper.htm (accessed July

13, 2008).

 21 Customers may select a brush housing width on the basis of the lawn area size and/or on the basis of the size of

their mowing deck should they want to sweep as they mow. Conference transcript, pp. 67-68 (Harshman).

I-15

Sweepers

Tow-behind sweepers are designed to sweep debris (e.g., grass clippings, leaves, and twigs) off of

lawns and into a catcher bag for disposal. Although, lawns must generally be swept frequently for a

pleasing appearance, it is recommended that some clippings be allowed to accumulate as a thin protective

layer for the grass roots during periods of hot sun and drought.20 Sweepers have a series of brushes

attached to a drive shaft contained in a "brush housing," which is a curved piece of metal, plastic, or other

material ("wrapper") designed to protect the brushes and control the flow of swept up debris into the

catcher. As the sweeper is pulled over a lawn, the brushes rotate, sweeping up lawn debris and throwing

it back into a catcher bag, which typically consists of a durable fabric (e.g., canvas or a heavy nylon)

supported by a frame that is attached to the brush housing. Sweepers vary in the width of the brush

housing,21 height adjustment of the brushes, bag capacity, and brush speed. Figure I-5 presents an image

of a tow-behind sweeper produced by Agri-Fab.

Figure I-5 

TBLGs: Subject tow-behind sweeper

Source: http://www.agri-fab.com/.

The four distinct pieces of TBLG equipment share the common purpose of lawn maintenance and

are frequently used together. In addition, certain TBLGs are designed to perform two grooming functions

simultaneously. For example, a TBLG implement may combine the functions of an aerator and spreader

or those of a sweeper and dethatcher. Figure I-6 presents an image of a combo tow-behind aerator and
 22 Since the primary function of the combo tow-behind spreader/aerator is spreading, any trade in these products

is classified as "spreaders" for the purpose of this report.

 23 ***, of China, is believed to also produce a combo tow-behind aerator and spreader sold under what is believed

to be *** name, “Precise Fit.” Petitioner’s posthearing brief, p. A-6 and Exhibit 6.

 24 Since the primary function of the combo tow-behind sweeper/dethatcher is sweeping, any trade in these

products is classified as "sweepers" for the purpose of this report.

 25 The petitioner reports selling *** SmartLINKTM products ***. Of these, *** are reported to be within the

domestic like product category, including *** plug aerator modules, *** spike aerator modules, and *** tine

dethatcher modules. Petitioner’s posthearing brief, p. A-33

I-16

spreader produced by Agri-Fab,22 23 while figure I-7 presents an image of a combo tow-behind sweeper

and dethatcher produced by Agri-Fab.24

Figure I-6 

TBLGs: Subject combo tow-behind aerator and spreader

Source: http://www.agri-fab.com/.

Figure I-7 

TBLGs: Subject combo tow-behind sweeper and dethatcher

Source: http://www.agri-fab.com/.

The petitioner recently introduced a system of modular TBLGs to the market called

“SmartLINKTM.”25 This system consists of a “master” platform—a common chassis and a common

hitch—into which modular units—including a plug aerator, a turf shark curved blade (spike) aerator, and
 26 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 10.

 27 The petitioner has patents or is in the process of attaining patents for each of the SmartLINKTM products. In

addition, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has registered or is in the process of registering the petitioner’s ***.

Petitioner’s posthearing brief, p. A-10 and A-33.

I-17

a tine dethatcher— can be easily attached and changed without the use of tools.26 27 Figures I-8, I-9, and

I-10 present images of a SmartLINK master platform holding a plug aerator module, a SmartLINK tine

dethatcher module, and a SmartLINK turf shark curved blade aerator module, respectively.

Figure I-8 

TBLGs: SmartLINK master platform and plug aerator 

 

Source: http://www.agri-fab.com/.

Figure I-9 

TBLGs: SmartLINK tine detatcher

Source: http://www.agri-fab.com/.
 28 The petitioner argued that aerators, dethatchers, spreaders, and sweepers all share certain common physical

characteristics, such as having a steel frame, and are used generally for “lawn grooming” purposes, even if the

individual products have distinct lawn grooming functions. Hearing transcript, pp. 26-27 (Smirnow).

I-18

Figure I-10 

TBLGs: SmartLINK turf shark curved blade aerator

Source: http://www.agri-fab.com/.

Table I-4 presents rankings by U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and U.S. purchasers, of the degree

to which each of the four types of TBLGs share physical characteristics and uses with other types of

TBLGs. Responding firms typically indicated that all types of TBLGs were “somewhat similar” or “not

at all similar” in terms of their physical characteristics and end uses.28 

Table I-4 

TBLGs: Firms' reporting of the degree of similarity between types of TBLGs in terms of physical

characteristics and uses

Reporting firms / product

comparison

Number of firms reporting--

No

familiarity

Fully

similar

Mostly

similar

Somewhat

similar

Not at all

similar

U.S. producers:

Aerators Dethatchers 1 1 2

Spreaders 1 4

Sweepers 1 1 3

Dethatchers Spreaders 1 4

Sweepers 1 1 3

Spreaders Sweepers 1 1 3

U.S. importers:

Aerators Dethatchers 1 1 3 4

Spreaders 3 2 4

Sweepers 1 2 6

Dethatchers Spreaders 4 1 4

Sweepers 2 3 4

Spreaders Sweepers 4 1 4

Table continued on next page.
 29 Staff tour of the petitioner's plant facility on July 1, 2008 and April 14, 2009.

 30 In addition to each of the four types of TBLGs, the petitioner produces products other than TBLGs on the same

assembly line with the same employees, including push spreaders and tow sprayers.

 31 Conference transcript, pp. 77-78 (Harshman).

 32 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 4.

 33 Staff tour of the petitioner's plant facility on July 1, 2008 and April 14, 2009.

 34 Petition, p. 10.

I-19

Table I-4 – Continued

TBLGs: Firms' reporting of the degree of similarity between types of TBLGs in terms of physical

characteristics and uses

Reporting firms / product

comparison

Number of firms reporting--

No

familiarity

Fully

similar

Mostly

similar

Somewhat

similar

Not at all

similar

Purchasers:

Aerators Dethatchers 1 1 6 5

Spreaders 2 1 10

Sweepers 1 2 10

Dethatchers Spreaders 2 1 10

Sweepers 1 3 9

Spreaders Sweepers 2 1 10

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes, and Production Employees

Agri-Fab produces the four types of TBLGs in the same facillity, on the same assembly lines,

using the same equipment and the same employees.29 30 Although TBLGs can reportedly be made of any

material, the primary material used in the production of TBLGs has always been steel.31 Non-alloy, hot

rolled steel, ***, is used to make steel tubing for frames, supporting trays, and the brush housing for

sweepers.32 Cold rolled steel is used for the axles or shafts. These steel parts are formed by stamping,

cutting, and/or pressing them from the steel material into the desired shape. The formed parts are welded

as necessary, cleaned, dried, painted, dried again, inspected, and assembled as necessary into

sub-components. These fabricated parts are then inspected, packaged for shipment with the various

purchased items, and weighed to check for any missing parts. TBLGs generally require some hand

assembly by the end user.33

In addition to fabricating the major steel parts, the petitioner purchases various general purpose

items to complete the product, including catcher bags, brushes, bearings, and gears for sweepers; plastic

hoppers for the spreaders; spring steel tines for dethatchers; and wheels and a variety of fasteners (bolts,

nuts, washers, and rivets) to complete each of the TBLGs.34

Agri-Fab has increasingly automated the processes used to fabricate the major steel components

of TBLGs for greater production efficiency. Agri-Fab ***. The combination of these *** with

computerized machining equipment has allowed operators to ***. Robot technology is used for

applications requiring welding and drilling, and laser equipment is used for the ***, precision tooling

required for certain parts ***. The paint shop is automated with powder-coating (a form of powder paint)

spray booths, which provide a cleaner working environment, reduced hazardous waste, and improved

handling of painted parts within the plant for higher quality. The painting of all components is handled

on the same paint line. Finally, the installation of computer-controlled assembly lines monitors each
 35 Staff tour of the petitioner's plant facility on July 1, 2008 and April 14, 2009, and Lori Pfeiffer, A Miracle in the

Making; The History of Agri-Fab, Inc., Phoenix, AZ: Heritage Publishers, Inc., 2001, pp. 19-20.

 36 Petitioner argues that this factor is met since the production and related workers and machinery used in

production are the same for each of the four types of TBLG throughout most, if not all, stages of TBLG production. 

Petitioner's prehearing brief, pp. 4-5.

I-20

product unit by weight as a check for missing parts,***.35 Agri-Fab produces all of the TBLGs covered

in these investigations are made on the same equipment with the same employees, some of whom ***. 

Table I-5 presents rankings by U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and U.S. purchasers of the degree

to which each of the four types of TBLGs share common manufacturing facilities, production processes,

and production employees with other types of TBLGs. In terms of this factor, most responding

producers and importers indicated that all types of TBLGs share “mostly similar” to “somewhat

similar”common manufacturing processes, while responding purchasers reported “no familiarity” with the

manufacturing process.36

Table I-5 

TBLGs: Firms' reporting on the degree of similarity between types of TBLGs in terms of common

manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees

Reporting firms / product

comparison

Number of firms reporting--

No

familiarity

Fully

similar

Mostly

similar

Somewhat

similar

Not at all

similar

U.S. producers:

Aerators Dethatchers 1 3 1

Spreaders 1 3 1

Sweepers 1 2 2

Dethatchers Spreaders 1 2 2

Sweepers 1 2 2

Spreaders Sweepers 1 1 3

U.S. importers:

Aerators Dethatchers 5 2 2

Spreaders 5 1 3

Sweepers 5 2 2

Dethatchers Spreaders 5 1 3

Sweepers 5 2 2

Spreaders Sweepers 5 1 3

U.S. Purchasers:

Aerators Dethatchers 7 1 2

Spreaders 7 1 2

Sweepers 7 1 2

Dethatchers Spreaders 7 1 2

Sweepers 7 1 2

Spreaders Sweepers 7 1 2

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 37 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 10.

I-21

Interchangeability

Table I-6 presents rankings by U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and U.S. purchasers of the degree

to which each type of TBLG is interchangeable with other types of TBLGs. In terms of this factor,

responding firms, for the most part, indicated that the four types of TBLGs are typically “not at

all”interchangeable. However, Agri-Fab contends that the combo and SmartLINKTM. TBLGs are

interchangeable with the individual TBLGs that perform the same lawn grooming functions.37

Table I-6 

TBLGs: Firms reporting of the degree of similarity between types of TBLGs in terms of

interchangeability

Reporting firms / product

comparison

Number of firms reporting--

No

familiarity

Fully

similar

Mostly

similar

Somewhat

similar

Not at all

similar

U.S. producers:

Aerators Dethatchers 1 4

Spreaders 5

Sweepers 1 4

Dethatchers Spreaders 5

Sweepers 1 4

Spreaders Sweepers 1 4

U.S. importers:

Aerators Dethatchers 1 1 7

Spreaders 1 1 7

Sweepers 1 1 7

Dethatchers Spreaders 2 7

Sweepers 2 1 6

Spreaders Sweepers 2 7

U.S. Purchasers:

Aerators Dethatchers 1 1 11

Spreaders 1 12

Sweepers 1 12

Dethatchers Spreaders 1 12

Sweepers 1 2 10

Spreaders Sweepers 1 12

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 38 Petitioner argues that “with respect to the perceptions of U.S. purchasers, it is important to note their responses

throughout the Commission’s questionnaires, not just their direct responses to question III-23. For example, when

asked how *** exhibit price leadership, *** responds that ‘***.’ This passing reference to the phrase *** evidences

an understanding of the product line as a collective family of products, rather than four discrete and unrelated

articles.” Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 8.

 39 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 5 and hearing transcript, p. 16 (Cohan).

 40 The investigation record also indicates that the vast majority of TBLG sales, both domestic and imported, are to

retailers. Staff prehearing report, pp. II-1 and II-2.

 41 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 28.

 42 Petitioner’s posthearing brief, p. A-10 and Exhibit 9, p.5 (last sheet).

 43 Hearing transcript, p. 77 (Smirnow).

 44 *** Petitioner’s posthearing brief, p. A-4 and Exhibit 5

 45 Petition, Exhibit I-7 and respondent’s prehearing brief, p. 15.

 46 Respondent and the Commission also noted that the petitioner’s catalog included tow-behind models and push

models in the same categories. Respondent’s prehearing brief, p. 15 and hearing transcript, p. 76 (Aranoff),

respectively.

 47 While the petitioner acknowledges the organization of their product catalog, they state that the sales

representative is focused on the family of TBLG products, and that meetings concerning products other than towbehind models are conducted in a separate meeting with separate buyers. Hearing transcript, pp. 77-79 (Smirnow). 

 48 The petitioner further points out that the market for its push products is relatively *** compared to that for its

TBLGs and does not warrant a separate catalog or catalog section for push products. Petitioner’s posthearing brief,

p. A-4.

 49 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, pp. 5 and 7; Brinly Hardy Company’s questionnaire response, p. 34; and hearing

transcript, p. 35 (Cohan).

 50 ***. Petitioner’s posthearing brief, A-10 and Exhibit 9.

I-22

Customer and Producer Perceptions

Table I-7 presents rankings by U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and U.S. purchasers of the degree

to which customers and producers perceive each type of TBLG as similar to other types of TBLGs. In

terms of this factor, half of the producers indicated that customers and producers perceive the four types

of TBLGs as “not at all similar” with the balance of their responses being distributed among “fully

similar” or “mostly similar” and “no familiarity” categories. Importers mostly indicated that customers

and producers perceive the four types of TBLGs as “not at all similar” or that they had “no familiarity”

with such perceptions. Purchasers, for the most part, indicated that customers and producers perceive the

four types of TBLGs as “not at all similar” or else indicated that they had “no familiarity” with such

perceptions. 38

The way in which TBLGs are marketed indicates that customers and producers perceive both

similarities and differences between the four types of TBLGs. Agri-Fab reported that the vast majority of

their sales are to home improvement retailers, which typically employ a buyer dedicated to TBLGs,39 40

and that their sales representatives generally “present and treat lawn groomers as a complete product line

within the same family”41 42 when they meet with a customer.43 In addition, Agri-Fab reports that its sales

representatives prepare ***.44 Agri-Fab’s product catalog, groups the different types of TBLGs by

function with separate sections on sweepers and spreaders, but a single section titled groomers covering

aerators and dethatchers.45 46 47 Agri-Fab claims that its catalogs are prepared for “general distribution”

and are not ***.48 

With respect to how customers (retailers) market the four types of TBLGs, Agri-Fab and another

domestic producer reported that retailers generally display all four TBLGs together in their

establishment.49 Agri-Fab submitted sales flyers from three retailers that advertised multiple types of

TBLGs together, along with mowers and other types of lawn care equipment.50 Sears markets all four

types of TBLGs under “tractor attachments” on it’s website, grouping aerators with dethatchers, sweepers
 51 Respondent’s prehearing brief, p. 15, Exhibit 4.

 52 With respect to customer and producer perceptions, ***.

 53 In response to a question concerning the practice of a retailer selling its private label TBLG along side the same

manufacturer’s own branded product, petitioner responded that this is a *** practice in “brick-and-mortar”

establishments. The petitioner further noted that if ***, they would *** be found on the internet as provided in a

***. Hearing transcript, p. 49 (Aranoff) and Petitioner’s posthearing brief, p. A-l and Exhibit 4.

 54 The petitioner reported that depending on the customer and their particular situation in terms of inventory and

availability of lower priced imports, some customers will buy all four types of TBLGs from them and some

customers buy specific types of TBLGs. Hearing transcript, pp. 47-48 (Cohan).

I-23

with lawn vacs, and sprayers with spreaders.51 52 53 A majority of purchasers reported that they buy and

market each type of TBLG separately rather than together.54 U.S. market characteristics are discussed in

more detail in Part II of this report, Conditions of Competition in the U.S. Market.

Table I-7 

TBLGs: Firms’ reporting of the degree of similarity between types of TBLGs in terms of customer

and producer perceptions

Reporting firms / product

comparison

Number of firms reporting--

No

familiarity

Fully

similar

Mostly

similar

Somewhat

similar

Not at all

similar

U.S. producers:

Aerators Dethatchers 1 1 1 2

Spreaders 1 1 3

Sweepers 1 1 1 2

Dethatchers Spreaders 1 1 3

Sweepers 1 1 1 2

Spreaders Sweepers 1 1 1 2

U.S. importers:

Aerators Dethatchers 3 1 1 4

Spreaders 3 1 1 4

Sweepers 3 1 1 4

Dethatchers Spreaders 3 1 1 4

Sweepers 3 1 1 4

Spreaders Sweepers 3 1 1 4

U.S. Purchasers

Aerators Dethatchers 3 1 1 3 4

Spreaders 3 1 1 7

Sweepers 3 1 1 7

Dethatchers Spreaders 3 1 1 7

Sweepers 3 1 2 6

Spreaders Sweepers 3 1 1 7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 55 Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. A detailed breakout of U.S.

producers’ and U.S. importers’ shipments is presented in Part II, Table II-1 of this report, p. II-2

I-24

Channels of Distribution

Table I-8 presents rankings by U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and U.S. purchasers of the degree

to which each type of TBLG shares channels of distribution with other types of TBLGs. In terms of this

factor, two-thirds of the responding U.S. producers and importers indicated that channels of distribution

were “fully similar” or “mostly similar” among the four types of TBLGs with the balance of their

responses falling mostly in the “no familiarity” category. U.S. producers and importers reported that over

*** percent of their U.S. shipments of the domestic like product and subject imports were made to

retailers in 2008.55 Three-fourths of the responding U.S. purchasers indicated that channels of distribution

were “fully similar,” “mostly similar,” or “somewhat similar.” Channels of distribution are discussed in

more detail in Part II of this report, Conditions of Competition in the U.S. Market.

Table I-8 

TBLGs: Firms’ reporting of the degree of similarity between types of TBLGs in terms of channels

of distribution

Reporting firms / product

comparison

Number of firms reporting--

No

familiarity

Fully

similar

Mostly

similar

Somewhat

similar

Not at all

similar

U.S. producers:

Aerators Dethatchers 1 2 2

Spreaders 2 2 1

Sweepers 1 2 2

Dethatchers Spreaders 2 2 1

Sweepers 1 2 2

Spreaders Sweepers 1 2 2

U.S. importers:

Aerators Dethatchers 3 2 4

Spreaders 3 2 4

Sweepers 3 2 4

Dethatchers Spreaders 3 2 4

Sweepers 3 2 4

Spreaders Sweepers 3 2 4

U.S. Purchasers:

Aerators Dethatchers 2 6 3 2

Spreaders 2 6 3 2

Sweepers 2 6 3 2

Dethatchers Spreaders 2 6 3 2

Sweepers 2 6 3 2

Spreaders Sweepers 2 6 3 2

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 56 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 9.

I-25

Price

Table I-9 presents rankings by U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and U.S. purchasers of the degree

to which each TBLG is priced similarly to other types of TBLGs. In terms of this factor, responding U.S.

producers, U.S. importers, and U.S. purchasers were split, indicating that prices were “mostly similar,”

“somewhat similar,” or “not at all similar” among the four types of TBLGs. Agri-Fab reports that prices

for TBLGs generally fall within a range of $60 to $400, with some overlap among the specific TBLG

products as shown in the following tabulation:56

TBLG product General price range (dollars)

Aerators $60-300

Dethatchers 60-100

Spreaders 60-300

Sweepers 200-400

Pricing practices and prices reported for TBLGs in response to Commission questionnaires are

presented in Part V of this report, Pricing and Related Information.

Table I-9 

TBLGs: Firms’ reporting on the degree of similarity between types of TBLGs in terms of price

Reporting firms / product

comparison

Number of firms reporting--

No

familiarity

Fully

similar

Mostly

similar

Somewhat

similar

Not at all

similar

U.S. producers:

Aerators Dethatchers 1 1 3

Spreaders 2 2 1

Sweepers 1 1 2 1

Dethatchers Spreaders 1 2 2

Sweepers 1 1 1 2

Spreaders Sweepers 1 1 1 2

U.S. importers:

Aerators Dethatchers 2 2 3 2

Spreaders 2 2 3 2

Sweepers 2 2 2 3

Dethatchers Spreaders 2 2 3 2

Sweepers 2 2 2 3

Spreaders Sweepers 2 2 2 3

Table continued on next page.
I-26

Table I-9 – Continued

TBLGs: Firms’ reporting on the degree of similarity between types of TBLGs in terms of price

Reporting firms / product

comparison

Number of firms reporting--

No

familiarity

Fully

similar

Mostly

similar

Somewhat

similar

Not at all

similar

Purchasers:

Aerators Dethatchers 1 1 5 5

Spreaders 1 1 6 4

Sweepers 1 1 3 7

Dethatchers Spreaders 1 1 4 6

Sweepers 1 1 3 7

Spreaders Sweepers 1 1 5 5

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 1

 ***.

 2

 Hearing transcript, p. 48 (Harvey).

 3

 One purchaser that reported that it purchases the different types of TBLGs separately, ***, also stated that ***.

 4 See app. D for purchases, by source, as reported by purchasers, from January 2006 to March 2009.

II-1

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

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS AND CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

TBLGs consist of four categories: sweepers, aerators, dethatchers, and spreaders. Spreaders

accounted for a plurality of apparent U.S. consumption in 2008, at *** percent, sweepers accounted for

*** percent, dethatchers accounted for *** percent, and aerators accounted for *** percent. Individual

homeowners generally use TBLGs to manage and groom their lawns, towing them behind lawn tractors,

sit-down lawn mowers, or other vehicles. 

Based on questionnaire responses, there is considerable overlap between the customers of

U.S. producers and importers of TBLGs, including ***. Table II-1 shows TBLG sales by channel of

distribution as reported by producers and importers. A *** of sales were to ***.

The Commission received questionnaire responses from 14 purchasers: ***.1

 Purchasers were

asked how many suppliers they generally contact before making a purchase. *** purchasers reported that

they contact ***, *** purchasers reported that they contact *** suppliers, *** purchasers reported that

they contact *** suppliers, and *** reported that it contacts *** suppliers. Agri-Fab stated that, prior to

competition from imports from China, purchasers were more likely to purchase a full product line from

one supplier, but that purchasers are increasingly purchasing individual products from different suppliers

based on price.2

Table II-1 

TBLGs: Channels of distribution for U.S. producers' and U.S. importers U.S. shipments, 2006-08,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Purchasers were asked if they purchase each type of TBLG (aerators, lawn sweepers, spreaders, 

and dethatchers) separately or if they purchase different types of TBLGs together. Twelve of 13

responding purchasers reported that they purchase them separately.3

 Purchasers were also asked if they

market and/or sell different types of TBLGs together. Twelve of 14 responding purchasers that they do

not market different types of TBLGs together. One of the *** purchasers that reported marketing

different types of TBLGs together noted that each type of TBLG is priced separately and the other

purchaser stated that it markets the different types together to increase awareness of its product range,

although its customers typically purchase each type of TBLG individually. 

When purchasers were asked if the relative shares of their total purchases of TBLGs from 

different sources had changed since 2006, five of 13 reported that their share of purchases from U.S.

producers had decreased; two reported that their share of purchases from U.S. producers fluctuated, with

one of the two reporting that its share of purchases from China had increased; and six reported that their

relative shares of purchases from U.S. producers had remained constant. Three of seven purchasers

reported that their share of purchases from China had increased; two purchasers reported that it had

decreased, with one stating that its supplier discontinued a product and the other citing increased freight

costs; one purchaser reported that its share of purchasers from China had remained constant; and one

reported that its share of purchasers from China had fluctuated.4

 One purchaser, ***, reported that its

share of purchases from U.S. producers had decreased while its share of purchases from China had
II-2

increased, and cited factors such as assembly, packaging, brand, price, and quality as reasons for the shift. 

Another purchaser, ***, reported that its purchases from both U.S. producers and suppliers of imports

from China were constant, though ***.

Five purchasers reported that they only purchase from U.S. suppliers: ***; ***; ***, which cited 

quality, location, and company reputation; ***, which cited availability; and ***, which reported that it

***.

U.S. producers reported that the vast majority of their TBLGs are sold from inventory, with lead

times ranging from two days to two weeks. *** producers reported that *** percent or fewer of their

TBLGs are produced to order, with lead times ranging from ***. *** of the *** responding importers of

TBLGs from China reported that *** of *** sales of TBLGs are made from inventory, with lead times

***; *** reported that a majority of *** sales are made from the foreign manufacturer’s inventory with

lead times of ***; and *** reported that *** of TBLGs are produced to order, with lead times of ***. 

*** of TBLGs from Mexico reported that a *** of *** sales are made from inventory, with lead times

***.

When firms were asked to list the geographic regions of the United States where they sell

TBLGs, both producers and importers reported that they served a nationwide market, with the largest

share of U.S. producers’ shipments in 2008 going to the ***. The largest share of U.S. shipments of

imports from China in 2008 went to ***.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

Domestic Production

The supply responsiveness of U.S. producers to changes in price depends on such factors as the

level of excess capacity, the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced TBLGs, inventory levels,

and the ability to shift production to the manufacture of other products. Available information indicates

that U.S. producers have the ability to respond to changes in prices with changes in quantities, due

primarily to ***.

Industry capacity

U.S. producers’ annual capacity utilization rates for TBLGs decreased over the period of

investigation, from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. This level of capacity utilization

indicates that the U.S. producers *** unused capacity with which they could increase production of

TBLGs in the event of a price change.

Alternative markets

U.S. producers’ exports, as a share of its total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2006 to

*** percent in 2007 and declined to *** percent in 2008. These data indicate that the U.S. producers

have *** ability to divert shipments to or from alternative markets in response to changes in the price of

TBLGs.

Inventory levels

U.S. producers’ ratio of end-of-period inventories to total shipments decreased from ***

percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and increased to *** percent in 2008. These data indicate that the

U.S. producers *** ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of TBLGs to the U.S.

market.
II-3

Production alternatives

*** responding U.S. producers reported that they produce other products using the same

manufacturing equipment and the same workers used in the production of TBLGs. These other products

include ***.

Subject Imports

The responsiveness of supply of imports from China to changes in price in the U.S. market is

affected by such factors as capacity utilization rates and the availability of home markets and other export

markets. Based on available information, producers in China have the capability to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of TBLGs to the U.S. market. The main

contributing factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are ***.

Industry capacity

During the period of investigation, the capacity utilization rate for reporting Chinese producers of

TBLGs increased over the period, from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008, and is projected to be

*** percent in 2009.

Alternative markets

Available data indicate that producers in China have the ability to divert shipments to or from

alternative markets in response to changes in the price of TBLGs. The share of China’s shipments that

went to the United States decreased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008, and is projected to

be *** percent in 2009. The share of China’s shipments to export markets other than the United States

increased from *** in 2006 to *** percent in 2008, and is projected to be *** percent in 2009. The share

of China’s shipments going to the home market decreased from *** percent in 2006 to *** in 2008, and

is projected to be *** percent in 2009.

Inventory levels

Responding Chinese producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, increased from

*** in 2006 to *** percent in 2008, and are projected to be *** percent in 2009.
 5

 Petitioner argued that most Chinese TBLG manufacturers would be able to transfer production from other

products to TBLGs with little or no difficulty . Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 24.

 6

 For more information on demand, see parties’ arguments from the preliminary phase of these investigations as

summarized on the following page.

 7

 ***. Narrative responses from these firms are included as responses from U.S. producers.

 8

 Hearing transcript, p. 52 (Harvey). Petitioner also stated that it expects demand to further weaken in 2009 and

slightly increase in 2010. Hearing transcript, p. 53 (Harvey).

 9

 ***.

 10 ***.

II-4

Production alternatives

*** of three responding Chinese producers reported that they produce other products using the

same manufacturing equipment and same workers used in the production of TBLGs. These other

products include ***. One firm, ***, reported that it ***.5

Nonsubject Imports

Imports from Mexico, the only nonsubject source of TBLGs, as a share of the quantity of total

U.S. imports of TBLGs, decreased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008 and were ***

percent in the first quarter of 2009. They decreased as a share of the value of total U.S. imports of

TBLGs from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008 and were *** percent in the first quarter of

2009.

U.S. Demand

Demand Characteristics

The existence of substitutes for TBLGs, discussed below, indicates that demand for TBLGs is

likely to be relatively price elastic. Demand for TBLGs is mostly determined by the overall economy,

consumers’ discretionary income, and weather conditions. Demand is also partly determined by the

housing market, as the number of new homeowners may impact consumption of TBLGs, though it is

unclear if existing homeowners would change their demand for TBLGs based on home sales.6

 U.S.

apparent consumption decreased by *** percent from 2006 to 2008, and the first quarter of 2009 is ***

percent lower than the first quarter of 2008.

When asked how overall demand for TBLGs has changed since January 2006, *** of ***

responding U.S. producers reported that demand had decreased, mostly citing the weakness in the housing

market and the downturn in the economy.7

 More specifically, Agri-Fab reported that demand was flat or

slightly growing in 2006 and 2007 and decreased in 2008.8

 *** reported that demand had increased,

citing rural development and increased use of power lawn equipment. *** of four responding importers

reported that demand for TBLGs has decreased since January 2006, due to the downturn in the housing

market, general economic conditions, and decreased sales of lawn equipment.9

 *** reported that demand

had not changed. Seven of ten responding purchasers reported that demand had decreased since 2006,

while three reported that it had increased.10

Agri-Fab stated that the economic recession has hurt sales of TBLGs, but also reported that the

U.S. TBLGs industry has weathered recessions and downturns in the housing market before and that

existing homeowners trying to sell their house in a depressed housing market might groom their lawns
 11 Hearing transcript, pp. 20-21 (Harvey). Conference transcript, pp. 31-32 (Harvey).

 12 Petitioner’s posthearing brief, att. A, pp. A-19 and A-32.

 13 Conference transcript, pp. 91-93, Swisher.

 14 In particular, petitioner asserted that poor weather conditions could provide a greater incentive for homeowners

to use TBLGs to keep their lawns groomed; that there is no evidence suggesting baby boomers are more likely to

hire professional lawn grooming services, and that, in fact, the economic slowdown could be providing an incentive

for baby boomers to save their discretionary income and begin grooming their lawns themselves. Petitioner’s

postconference brief, pp. 27-28.

 15 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 29.

 16 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 28 and exh. 4.

 17 Conference transcript, p. 85 (Craven). Respondent asserted that Sears had specific failures in lawn and garden

products in 2006, citing a message from the Chair of Sears Holding Corporation in 2007. Respondent’s brief, p. 9.

 18 See app. D.

 19 Petitioner’s posthearing brief, att. A, p. A-32.

 20 U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/const/sold_cust.xls.

 21 National Association of Realtors. http://www.realtor.org/research/research/ehsdata.

II-5

with TBLGs in order to increase their home’s “curb appeal” and thus their chances of finding a buyer.11

Agri-Fab reported that its products are designed to have a life span of approximately *** under normal

conditions.12 

One respondent argued that several factors have impacted demand negatively: declining sales of

lawn tractors; declining sales of single family homes; the general economic slowdown negatively

impacting consumers’ discretionary income; an aging baby boomer population which may be downsizing

the sizes of their homes and lawns or may be more likely to hire professional lawn grooming services

rather than groom their lawns themselves; the rise of mulching mowers that obviate the need for most

TBLG functions; and the rise of zero-turn mowers which do not function efficiently with TBLGs.13

Petitioner countered that these factors are speculative and might just as easily have resulted in

increased demand for TBLGs.14 Petitioner also asserted that if factors unrelated to low-priced subject

imports were responsible for the declining demand for its products, then these factors should have

reduced demand for subject imports to a similar degree, but subject import volume instead increased

significantly.15 Moreover, it observed that zero-turn and mulching technologies have been in existence

for far too long to account for any recent decline in demand for TBLGs.16

Respondent also alleged that decreased demand for petitioner’s products could be at least partly

due to the financial instability of Sears, allegedly one of petitioner’s largest customers, over the period of

investigation.17 *** reported that its annual purchases ***.18 Agri-Fab claimed that the trend for ***

reflects the decline that the broader U.S. TBLGs market experienced by over the period of investigation.19

According to the Census Bureau, new home sales in the United States on an annual basis

decreased by 53.9 percent from 2006 to 2008.20 According to the National Association of Realtors, the

index of pending sales of existing homes decreased by 24.2 percent from 2006 to 2008, and the index in

March 2009 was 7.1 percent below the March 2008 level.21
 22 Conference transcript, pp. 60-61 (Cohan).

 23 Conference transcript, p. 61 (Cohan).

 24 Conference transcript, p. 15 (Smirnow).

 25 Respondent’s postconference brief, p. 6.

 26 Respondent’s postconference brief, p. 7.

 27 Conference transcript, p. 119 (Swisher).

 28 Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 4.

 29 See app. E for purchasers’ full responses.

II-6

Business Cycle

Seasonality exists in the TBLGs market, with shipments to retailers peaking in the January 

through May period, leveling off during the summer, and then increasing slightly with respect to sweepers

in the fall.22 This seasonality does not, however, reportedly affect the sales contracts or prices offered by

suppliers because sales are often based on annual contracts that set a price and an estimated volume for

the duration of the contract.23

Substitute Products

U.S. producers reported that substitutes for TBLGs include push lawn groomers, lawn vacuums,

baggers or grass catchers, and tow-behind lawn sprayers. However, petitioner reported that such products

are limited in their substitutability for TBLGs because most homeowners that use TBLGs have lawns that

are so big as to preclude the practical use of push lawn groomers.24 Importer *** reported that mulching

units attached to mowers can serve as a substitute for all four categories of TBLGs.25 *** also reported

that increasingly popular zero-turn mowers do not function efficiently with TBLGs because TBLGs

eliminate the turning capabilities that give zero-turn mowers their value.26 Such zero-turn mowers instead

use bumper-mounted attachments to perform lawn grooming functions.27 Three purchasers reported that

push lawn groomers are possible substitutes for TBLGs, with one noting that they require manual force

and thus take longer to use than TBLGs. Two of these purchasers also reported that motor driven

versions of lawn groomers may substitute for tow behind sweepers and one reported that rakes may be

possible substitutes for tow behind dethatchers or sweepers. 

Agri-Fab disagreed with respondent’s characterization that new technologies such as mulching

units and zero-turn mowers obviate the need for TBLGs, noting that *** chose to begin importing TBLGs

after both zero-turn and mulching technology had already penetrated the U.S. market.28

Purchasers were asked to describe the similarities and differences between TBLGs and tow

behind lawn carts and push lawn groomers.29 Purchasers mostly reported that tow behind lawn carts are

not interchangeable with TBLGs because they have a different use and application than TBLGs in that

they only haul items and do not preform lawn grooming functions such as spraying, spreading,

dethatching, or aerating. Purchasers also reported that TBLGs are used on larger plots of land than push

lawn groomers, which require manual force. Three purchasers reported that the prices of TBLGs are

generally higher than those of push lawn groomers or lawn carts, whereas two other purchasers reported

that the prices may overlap, depending on quality, size, and features.
II-7

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitutability between domestic products and subject and nonsubject imports and

between subject and nonsubject imports is examined in this section. Information is based primarily on

questionnaire responses from producers, importers, and purchasers.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Available information indicates that a variety of factors are considered important in the

purchasing decision for TBLGs. While quality and price were mentioned as being important factors in

the sale of the product, other factors such as availability are also important considerations. Purchasers

were asked to list the top three factors that they consider when choosing a supplier of TBLGs. Table II-2

summarizes the responses.

Table II-2

TBLGs: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Quality 9 3 2

Price 3 6 3

Availability 1 4 5

Other1 12 4

 1 Other factors include one instance of “pre-arranged contracts/approved supplier” for the number one factor;

one instance of “innovation” for the number two factor; one instance of “product consistency” for the number two

factor; one instance of “on-time delivery” for the number three factor; one instance of “reliability” for the number

three factor; one instance of “service” for the number three factor; and one instance of “product range” for the

number three factor. One instance of “brand name,” one instance of “technical support,” one instance of “assembly

time,” one instance of “packaging,” and one instance of “delivery time” were cited as the number four factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 

Quality was named by nine of 14 purchasers as the number one factor generally considered in

deciding from whom to purchase TBLGs, while three purchasers indicated that it was the number two

factor, and two reported that it was the number three factor. As indicated in table II-3, all responding

purchasers indicated that product consistency and quality meeting industry standards were “very

important” factors in their purchasing decisions.

Price was named by three purchasers as the number one factor generally considered in deciding

from whom to purchase TBLGs, while six purchasers indicated that it was the number two factor, and two

purchasers responded that it was the number three factor. As indicated in table II-3, twelve of fourteen

responding purchasers indicated that price was a “very important” factor in their purchasing decisions. 

When asked how often they purchase the TBLGs that are offered at the lowest price, *** of thirteen

responding purchasers reported “sometimes,” and the *** reported “usually.”

Availability was named by one purchaser as the number one factor generally considered in

deciding from whom to purchase TBLGs, while four indicated that it was the number two factor, and five

purchasers reported that it was the number three factor. As indicated in table II-3, thirteen of fourteen

responding purchasers indicated that availability was a “very important” factor in their purchasing

decisions and all responding purchasers indicated that reliability was a “very important” factor.
II-8

*** of fourteen responding purchasers, *** reported that they require suppliers to become

certified for *** of their purchases. *** of these purchasers reported that the certification time is ***,

another reported ***, while another reported ***. *** of the purchasers reported that *** supplier had

failed in its attempt to qualify product with them. When purchasers were asked what factors they

consider when qualifying a new supplier, purchasers most often cited product quality, delivery time, and

cost. Other factors cited included brand recognition, existing relationship, service, sales terms, discounts,

technical support, packaging, ease of use, and the manufacturing capacity of the producer. When

purchasers were asked what characteristics they consider when determining quality, they most often cited

the quality of the materials used (durability), ease of use (functionality), and construction/workmanship. 

Other characteristics cited included size, ruggedness, innovation, and customer satisfaction.

Table II-3

TBLGS: Importance of factors used in purchasing decisions, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Availability 13 1 0

Delivery terms 7 7 0

Delivery time 11 3 0

Discounts offered 6 7 1

Extension of credit 5 5 4

Price 12 2 0

Minimum quantity requirements 6 5 3

Packaging 8 6 0

Product consistency 14 0 0

Quality meets industry standards 14 0 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 5 8 1

Product range 7 6 1

Reliability of supply 14 0 0

Technical support/service 10 4 0

U.S. transportation costs 6 8 0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Eleven of fourteen responding purchasers reported that they “always” know whether the TBLGs

they purchase are imported or produced domestically and ten reported that they “always” know the

manufacturer. Six of fourteen responding purchasers reported that TBLGs produced in the United States

“always” meet minimum quality specifications, while the remaining eight reported that they “usually”

meet minimum quality specifications. One of nine responding purchasers reported that TBLGs produced

in China “always” meet minimum quality specifications, six reported “usually,” and two reported

“sometimes.”

When purchasers were asked if they had purchased from one source although comparable TBLGs

were available from another source at a lower price, *** of fourteen responding purchasers reported that

they had done so due to brand recognition, loyalty or existing relationship with supplier, quality, lead
 30 Petition, volume I, pp. 29-30 and exh. I-24.

II-9

time, innovation, technical support, service, availability, reliability, reputation of company, price, and

location of warehouse to limit freight costs.

Comparisons of Domestic Products and Subject Imports

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced TBLGs can generally be used in the same

applications as imports from China, producers, importers, and purchasers were asked whether the

products can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably. The majority of

U.S. producers reported that they are always interchangeable, as shown in table II-4. Two of four

importers that compared TBLGs from China with those from the United States reported that they are

always or frequently interchangeable, while the remaining two reported that they are sometimes

Table II-4

TBLGs: Perceived degree of interchangeability of product produced in the United States and in

other countries

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers

AFSNAFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. China 3 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 9 3 1 0

U.S. vs. Nonsubject 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0

China vs. Nonsubject 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0

Note: “A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

interchangeable. One importer, ***, noted that, ***. A majority of purchasers reported that TBLGs from

all sources are always interchangeable. 

As indicated in table II-5, one of three responding U.S. producers reported that differences other

than price between TBLGs produced in the United States and in China are frequently significant, and two

reported that they are sometimes significant. Three of four responding importers reported that differences

other than price between TBLGs produced in the United States and in China are frequently significant,

and one reported that they are sometimes significant. One U.S. producer reported that the paint quality of

imports from China is still problematic. Petitioner also reported that non-price factors such as technical

and customer service, warranties, availability, and product range used to be significant factors in the sale

of TBLGs, but that price has increasingly become the primary, if not sole, factor driving sales. Petitioner

also reported that producers in China have directly copied its products, thus minimizing the non-price

differences between its TBLGs and subject imports.30 

Two importers reporting that differences other than price are frequently significant cited quality,

lead times, and availability in particular. Importer ***. It also reported that differences in lead time and

availability are significant factors.

 In the preliminary phase of these investigations, importer Swisher reported that it entered the

TBLGs industry after hearing complaints from customers about leading manufacturers of TBLGs “not 

providing the innovation, top notch quality, and excellent service in brand” that the customers were

demanding. Swisher also reported that it “developed novel ideas about branding, advertising,

merchandising, and product improvements,” noting in particular its use of “striking white boxes,” four

color labels, and graphics, that contrasted sharply to the “drab brown boxes” with two color printing on
 31 Conference transcript, p. 89 (Swisher).

 32 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 16, fn. 29.

 33 Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 16-17 and ***.

 34 Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 1.

 35 Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 4.

II-10

the packaging that its competitors offered at the time.31 Petitioner asserted that many retailers display

TBLGs outside of their packaging and that packaging, therefore, is not a factor that affects retail

customers’ willingness to purchase the product.32 Petitioner also argued that the alleged “lack of

innovation” on the part of U.S. manufacturers is not credible, ***.33 Purchaser *** also reported that it

*** partly due to innovation.

Table II-5

TBLGs: Differences other than price between products from different sources1

Country comparison

U.S. producers U.S. importers

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. China 0 1 2 0 0 3 1 0

U.S. vs. Nonsubject 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

China vs. Nonsubject 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 1

 Producers and importers were asked if differences other than price between TBLGs produced in the United

States and in other countries are a significant factor in their firms’ sales of TBLGs.

Note: “A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, and “N” = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 

Petitioner reported that producers in China do not currently *** to the United States; however, it

notes that producers in China are quick to copy products and currently produce a *** that can compete

against its ***.34 Petitioner also reported that imported 48-inch sweepers may compete against its 46-inch

sweepers.35

*** of fourteen purchasers reported that there was a certain grade, size, or type of TBLG that is

only available from a single source. *** reported that 48-inch sweepers are only available from China

and *** reported that 42-inch core plug aerators are only available from ***.

When asked if there had been any significant changes in product range or marketing of TBLGs

since 2006, all U.S. producers reported “yes,” mostly citing the importance of private labeling, price, size,

and the production capabilities and product offerings of Chinese producers. No responding purchaser

reported making a significant change in the pattern of its purchases since 2006.

As indicated in table II-6, all or nearly all responding purchasers reported that U.S. product is

comparable to the product from China with respect to availability, delivery terms, discounts offered,

extension of credit, minimum quantity requirements, product consistency, quality meeting or exceeding

industry standards, product range, and reliability of supply. Five of eleven responding purchasers

indicated that the U.S. product is inferior to the product from China with respect to price (i.e., the U.S.

product is generally higher in price), with five reporting the U.S. product is comparable, and one

reporting that the U.S. product is superior. A slight majority of purchasers reported that the U.S. product

is superior to the product from China with respect to delivery time.
II-11

Other Country Comparisons

In addition to comparisons between the U.S. product and imports from the subject country, U.S.

producer and importer comparisons between the United States and imports from nonsubject countries and

between subject imports and nonsubject imports are also shown in tables II-4 and II-5. One producer

reported that TBLGs produced in nonsubject countries are always interchangeable with domestically

produced TBLGs. Five purchasers reported that TBLGs produced in nonsubject countries are always

interchangeable with domestically produced TBLGs, while another reported that they are frequently

interchangeable.

Table II-6

TBLGs: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and subject imported product, as reported by U.S.

purchasers

Factor

China

SC I

Availability 1 9 1

Delivery terms 3 8 0

Delivery time 7 3 1

Discounts offered 0 9 2

Extension of credit 1 9 1

Lower price1 1 5 5

Minimum quantity requirements 2 9 0

Packaging 3 6 2

Product consistency 2 9 0

Quality meets industry standards 2 9 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 2 8 0

Product range 2 9 0

Reliability of supply 2 9 0

Technical support/service 5 6 0

Lower U.S. transportation costs 3 7 0

 1

 A rating of superior means that the price is generally lower. For example, if a firm reports “U.S. superior,” this

means that it rates the U.S. price generally lower than the subject import price.

Note.--S=U.S. product is superior, C=U.S. product is comparable, I=U.S. product is inferior.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 
 36 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

 37 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-12

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

U.S. Supply Elasticity36

The domestic supply elasticity for TBLGs measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by

U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of TBLGs. 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 TBLGs. Analysis of these factors above indicates that the U.S.

industry is likely to be able to increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market; an estimate in the range

of 5 to 7 is suggested. 

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for TBLGs measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded

to a change in the U.S. market price of TBLGs. This estimate depends on factors discussed above such as

the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products. Based on the available

information, the aggregate demand elasticity for TBLGs is likely to be in the range of -1.25 to -1.5.

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.37 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

and conditions of sale (availability, sales terms/discounts, etc.). Based on available information, the

elasticity of substitution between U.S.-produced TBLGs and TBLG from China is likely to be in the

range of 2 to 4.
 1

 Table III-1.

III-1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§

1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the margins of dumping and subsidies was presented earlier

in this report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is

presented in Parts IV and V. Information on the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or

Part VI and (except as noted) is based on the questionnaire responses of five firms that accounted for

virtually all of U.S. production of TBLGs units during the period examined. 

U.S. PRODUCERS

Table III-1 lists U.S. producers of TBLGs, their production locations, positions on the petition,

production, and shares of reported production over the period for which data were collected.

Table III-1

TBLGs: U.S. producers, locations, positions on the petition, and production and shares of

production in January 2006 to March 2009

Firm

Production

location(s) Position

Total

production

(units)

Share of

production

 (percent)

Agri-Fab Sullivan, IL Petitioner *** ***

Brinly Hardy 1 Jeffersonville, IN *** *** ***

Ohio Steel Industries Columbus, OH ***2 *** ***

Precision Products Los Angeles, CA Supports *** ***

Spyker Spreaders Urbana, IL Supports *** ***

Total *** ***

1 Brinly Hardy produced a ***. Staff telephone interview with ***.

2

 ***. *** U.S. Producers' questionnaire response, section I-3.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Agri-Fab and Brinly Hardy accounted for *** of the reported U.S. production of TBLGs over the

period examined. These two firms accounted for *** percent of reported U.S. production of TBLGs

based on data gathered in the final phase of these investigations.1

 

Table III-2 presents information on U.S. producers’ ownership, TBLGs’ share of firms’

production of all products produced on the same equipment in 2008, and lists of other products produced

on the same equipment.
III-2

Table III-2

TBLGs: U.S. producers’ ownership, TBLGs’ share of firms’ production of all products produced

on the same equipment, and lists of other products produced on the same equipment, 2008

Firm Ownership

TBLGs’

Share of

Firms’ Total

Production

Other products produced on the

same equipment and their shares

Agri-Fab AF Holding Company *** Tow-behind carts (*** percent) and

collectively, lawn mowers, lawn

vacuums, blades, and snow-throwers

(*** percent).

Brinly Hardy *** *** Tow-behind carts (*** percent),

agricultural implements (*** percent),

lawn vacuums (*** percent), and lawn

rollers and sprayers (*** percent).

Ohio Steel Industries *** *** Tow-behind carts (*** percent), lawn

rollers (*** percent), and loading

ramps (*** percent).

Precision Products *** (1)

Spyker Spreaders *** *** Various other metal fabrication parts

for firms, including poultry equipment. 

1

***.

Note: – Because of rounding, figures may not add up to 100.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCTION, CAPACITY, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION 

Table III-3 presents U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization. U.S.

producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization all declined from 2006 to 2008.

Table III-3

TBLGs: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Production, Capacity, and Capacity Utilization by Product Type

Table III-4 presents data on U.S. producers’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization of

tow-behind aerators, dethatchers, spreaders, and sweepers. Table III-5 presents data on shares of U.S.

production by product type. Tow-behind sweepers, which is the product accounting for the largest

volume of TBLG production, and tow-behind spreaders experienced the sharpest declines in production

and capacity utilization of the four types of TBLGs between 2006 and 2008. Production and capacity

utilization was lower for all four types of TBLGs in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008. In

general, producers reported that this was due to a decrease in sales in 2009 coupled with an inventory

build-up at the end of 2008.
 2

 Agri-Fab’s U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, section II-9, e-mail from ***, and staff telephone interview

with ***.

III-3

Table III-4 

TBLGs: U.S. producers’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization by product type, 2006-08,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-5 

TBLGs: Shares of U.S. production by type, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ U.S. SHIPMENTS AND EXPORTS

Table III-6 presents U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, export shipments, and total shipments. U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments of TBLGs decreased by *** percent by quantity between 2006 and 2008. 

Agri-Fab accounted for *** of this decline, with its U.S. shipments declining by *** units out of a total

decline of *** units as reported by responding U.S. producers. Further, Agri-Fab’s decline in U.S.

shipments between 2006 and 2008 related largely to ***. Of Agri-Fab’s decrease of *** units in U.S.

shipments between 2006 and 2008, *** units related to Agri-Fab’s decreased shipments to *** and ***

units related to Agri-Fab’s decreased shipments to customers other than ***. ***. 2

 

Table III-6

TBLGs: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, export shipments, and total shipments, 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

US producer exports as a share of total shipments of TBLGs decreased irregularly from ***

percent to *** percent between 2006 and 2008. Exports as a share of shipments were 10.5 percentage

points lower during January-March 2009 than January-March 2008. The primary export markets were

Canada, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Eastern Europe.

U.S. Shipments by Product Type

Table III-7 presents data on U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments by product type. Between 2006 and

2008, U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of tow-behind aerators, dethatchers, spreaders, and sweepers all

declined. When comparing the January-March period in 2009 with the comparable period in 2008, U.S.

producers’ U.S. shipments of tow-behind spreaders were lower, while shipments of tow-behind aerators,

dethatchers, and sweepers were higher.

Table III-7 

TBLGs: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments by product type, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
 3

 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 13.

 4

 ***. *** U.S Producer and Importer questionnaires, sections V-3d and II-6a, respectively.

 5 Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts Thereof from China, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-457 and 731-TA-1153

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4028, August 2008, p. 15.

 6

 Data excluding *** production are presented in appendix C at C-6. Data for tow-behind aerators, spreaders, and

sweepers excluding *** production are presented in appendix C at C-7, C-8, and C-9, respectively. Data excluding

*** production are presented in appendix C at C-10.

III-4

U.S. Shipments by Region

Table III-8 presents U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments by region in 2008. Most producer shipments

were made to customers in the Midwest and Southeast.

Table III-8 

TBLGs: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments by region, 2008

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

Three responding U.S. producers of TBLGs also import subject merchandise: ***. ***. ***. 

Agri-Fab argued that *** should be excluded from the domestic industry due to its business in the lawn

grooming market “***” by decreasing production and increasing imports.3 4

 This argument was also

made during the preliminary phase of the investigation and the Commission found that “circumstances

warrant the exclusion of related party *** from the domestic industry.”5 6

 ***. Only one of the

responding U.S. producers reported purchasing domestic TBLGs. ***. Table III-9 presents U.S.

producers’ production and imports of TBLGs as well as the ratio of their imports to U.S. production over

the period for which data were gathered.

Table III-9 

TBLGs: Select producers’ U.S. production, imports, and imports as a ratio to production, 2006-08,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table III-10 presents U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories and the ratio of these inventories

to U.S. producers’ production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments over the period examined. U.S.

producers typically increase their production of TBLGs in anticipation of the increase in demand for

TBLGs in the spring, i.e., increased sales at the retail level. U.S. producers also ship out of inventory to

meet demand in the first quarter of each year. This caused U.S. producers to generally have lower ratios

of inventories to production in the partial year period than in the calendar years due to the seasonal nature

of the TBLG business. 

Table III-10

TBLGs: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and JanuaryMarch 2009

* * * * * * *
III-5

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Table III-11 presents U.S. producers’ employment-related data during the period examined. 

During 2006-08, production and related workers, hours worked by PRWs, wages paid to PRWs, hourly

wages, and unit labor costs decreased, while productivity increased.

Table III-11

TBLGs: Average number of production and related workers, hours worked, wages paid to such

employees, hourly wages, productivity, and unit labor costs, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

 1

According to data provided in the petition, the responding U.S. importers’ U.S. imports of TBLGs represent an

estimated *** percent of Chinese-origin TBLG supply in the U.S. market in 2008. Calculated from petition, exh. 2. 

 2

 See "Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production" later in Part IV for data on U.S. imports by product type.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

Since the HTS does not provide for the importation of TBLGs under its own statistical reporting

number, official import statistics are not available for use in these investigations. Import statistics,

therefore, are compiled from data gathered in response to Commission questionnaires. The Commission

requested information on 47 firms’ import operations based on data provided in the petition and a review

of proprietary Customs data. Of the 47 firms contacted, nine firms provided the Commission with

useable data on their import operations.1

 An additional 16 firms responded to the Commission’s inquiry

to indicate that they did not import TBLGs during the period examined. Table IV-1 presents data on

responding U.S. importers of TBLGs. Table IV-2 presents information on the types of TBLGs the

responding U.S. importers import.

Table IV-1 

TBLGs: U.S. importers by source, January 2006 to March 2009 aggregated

* * * * * * *

Table IV-2 

TBLGs: Types of TBLGs importers, January 2006 to March 2009 aggregated

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTS

Table IV-3 presents information on U.S. imports of TBLGs over the period examined.2

 Between

2006 and 2008, subject imports increased by *** percent, while nonsubject imports, i.e., *** imports

from Mexico, decreased by *** percent, resulting in an overall increase of 81.4 percent for imports from

all sources. With respect to negligibility, subject imports were *** percent of all imports in 2007, the

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

imports possessed a lower average unit value than subject imports, because nonsubject imports consist of

a single type of *** tow-behind spreader that ***, while subject imports consist of a wide variety of

TBLGs (see table IV-4). The average unit value of imports by *** were noticeably lower than the unit

value of imports by other companies. ***. 

Table IV-3

TBLGs: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
IV-2

U.S. IMPORTERS’ U.S. SHIPMENTS OF IMPORTS

Table IV-4 presents data on U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of imports by product type over the

period examined. 

Table IV-4 

TBLGs: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of imports by product type, 2006-08, January-March 2008,

and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. Importers’ U.S. Shipments by Region

Table IV-5 presents information on U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments by region in 2008. As with

domestic producer shipments, most U.S. importer shipments were made to customers in the Midwest and

Southeast.

Table IV-5 

TBLGs: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments by region and source, 20081

* * * * * * *

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND U.S. MARKET SHARES

Table IV-6 presents data on apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares over the period

examined for all TBLGs, while table IV-7 presents data on U.S. apparent consumption and U.S. market

shares by product type (quantity only). Over the period examined, U.S. imports from China increased

their share of the TBLG market as a whole (table IV-6). Subject import market share with respect to

each type of TBLG increased between 2006 and 2008, but decreased when interim 2008 is compared with

interim 2009. Subject imported tow-behind sweepers exhibited the largest increase in market share

between 2006 and 2008.

Table IV-6

TBLGs: Apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table IV-7

TBLGs: Apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares by product type, 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

RATIO OF U.S. IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Table IV-8 presents data on the ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production for both total TBLGs and

each product type.
IV-3

Table IV-8

TBLGs: Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production for total TBLGs and by each product type,

2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009 

* * * * * * *

 1

 Conference transcript, p. 71 (Harvey).

 2

 Conference transcript, p. 107 (Swisher).

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

U.S. producers reported that hot and cold rolled steel, rubber, tires and wheels, and sweeper bags

are the principal raw materials used in producing TBLGs, with steel accounting for *** of total raw

material costs. Other raw materials cited included plastic, packaging, paint, spreader hoppers, and

fasteners, nuts, and bolts. U.S. producers reported that their costs for steel have increased by *** percent

since 2006 and that their costs for tires and wheels have increased by *** percent over the same period. 

Figure V-1 below presents monthly prices of hot-rolled steel.

Figure V-1

Hot-rolled steel coil prices: Selling prices, monthly, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

TBLGs are sold on a f.o.b. basis. U.S. producers reported that U.S. inland transportation costs of

TBLGs range from *** to *** percent of the delivered price. Importers reported that U.S. inland

transportation costs of TBLGs range from *** to *** percent of the delivered price. 

U.S. inland shipping distances for U.S.-produced TBLGs and Chinese TBLGs were requested

from both U.S. producers and U.S. importers. For the U.S. producers, *** percent of their U.S. sales in

2008 occurred within distances of 100 miles from their facilities, *** percent occurred within distances of

101 to 1,000 miles, and *** percent occurred within distances over 1,000 miles from their facilities. 

Responding importers of TBLGs from China reported that *** percent of their sales in 2008 occurred

within 100 miles of their storage facilities, *** percent of their sales occurred within 101 to 1,000 miles,

and *** percent of their sales occurred within distances over 1,000 miles. *** of TBLGs from Mexico

reported that *** percent of its sales in 2008 occurred within 100 miles of its storage facilities, ***

percent of its sales occurred within 101 to 1,000 miles, and *** percent of its sales occurred within

distances over 1,000 miles.

Exchange Rate

As shown in figure V-2, the U.S. dollar depreciated by 17.7 percent relative to the yuan in

nominal terms from January 2006 to March 2009. A real value is unavailable.

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the petitioner reported that the prices of subject

imports were trending upward, but it does not know how much of this price change was related to the

exchange rate of the U.S. dollar.1 Importer Swisher reported that the weakening of the U.S. dollar has

substantially changed its prices in the United States.2
V-2

China

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

2006

2007

2008

2009

(January-March 2005=100)

Nominal

Figure V-2

Exchange rate: Index of the nominal exchange rate of the Chinese currency relative to the U.S.

dollar, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, May 6, 2009.

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

When questionnaire respondents were asked how they determined the prices that they charge for

TBLGs, *** U.S. producers reported the use of price lists, while *** (***) reported ***. Among

importers of TBLGs from China, *** reported the use of transaction-by-transaction negotiations and

contracts; *** of TBLGs from Mexico reported the use of price lists.

Prices of TBLGs are generally quoted on an f.o.b. rather than a delivered basis, for both U.S.

producers and the importers. 

When purchasers were asked which firms, if any, they considered price leaders, U.S. producer

*** was named by seven purchasers, U.S. producer and importer *** was named by two purchasers, U.S.

producer *** was named by two purchasers, importer *** was named by one purchaser, and importer ***

was named by one purchaser. One purchaser reported that *** has the best quality and best pricing;

another reported that *** has higher-end products and sets the upper price limit; another purchaser

reported that ***’s prices are generally increasing; another reported that ***’s prices are based on raw

material costs; another reported that *** accounts for the largest market share; another reported that ***

supplies the *** and that *** supplies the ***; and another reported that *** offers a product mix at

strategic price points to offer a good/better/best option for customers.

Sales Terms and Discounts

U.S. producers and importers of TBLGs from China were asked what share of their sales were on

a (1) long-term contract basis (multiple deliveries for more than 12 months), (2) short-term contract basis

(up to and including 12 months), and (3) spot sales basis (for a single delivery) during 2008. *** of ***

responding U.S. producers reported that *** of their sales are on a short-term contract basis, one of

which, ***, reported that *** percent of its sales are on a spot basis. *** reported that *** sales are on a
 3

 Firms were also asked to report pricing data on sales of products imported from Mexico. *** reported importing

any of the selected pricing products from Mexico. ***.

V-3

spot basis, while *** reported a mixture of sales on a short-term contract basis and spot basis. These

producers’ contracts typically last 8 to 12 months, have fixed prices, and do not contain meet-or-release

provisions. Among the importers that reported sales of imports from China, *** reported that *** of their

sales are on a short-term contract basis, *** reported that *** sales were on a spot basis, and *** reported

that a majority of sales (*** percent) are on a short-term contract basis with the remainder being spot

sales. *** of TBLGs from Mexico reported that *** percent of its sales are on a short-term contract basis

and that the remainder were on a spot basis. These importers’ contracts typically last 8 to 12 months,

have fixed prices, and do not contain meet-or-release provisions. ***.

*** responding U.S. producers reported the use of discounts, with most citing discounts based on

annual volume. Other specific arrangements cited included ***. *** importers that import TBLGs from

China reported ***. ***. *** of TBLGs from Mexico reported ***.

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of TBLGs from China to provide

quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of selected products that were shipped to unrelated

customers in the U.S. market.3

 Data were requested for the period January 2006-March 2009. The

products for which pricing data were requested are as follows:

Product 1.--Lawn sweeper: 38 inch (nominal housing width) "standard" sweeper; or a lawn

sweeper with the following characteristics: cantilever bag, steel frame, and brush width of

37 inches or less.

Product 2.--Lawn sweeper: 42 inch (nominal housing width) "standard" sweeper; or a lawn

sweeper with the following characteristics: cantilever bag, steel frame, brush width 41

inches or less.

Product 3.--Lawn sweeper: 42 inch (nominal housing width) "heavy duty" sweeper; 

or a lawn sweeper with the following characteristics: cantilever bag, steel frame, brush

width 41 inches or less.

Product 4.--Aerator: 40 inch (nominal tray width) plug type; or a lawn aerator with 

the following characteristics: steel frame tray width of 39 to 41 inches, plug width of 

approximately 39 inches.

Product 5.--Aerator: 48 inch (nominal tray width) plug type; or a lawn aerator with 

the following characteristics: steel frame tray width of 47 to 49 inches, plug width of 

approximately 47 inches.

Product 6.--Spreader: Broadcast type, plastic hopper, 125 pound capacity (14 gallon 

dry) (nominal hopper capacity).

Product 7.--Dethatcher: 40 inch (nominal tray width) tine dethatcher; or a lawn 

dethatcher with the following characteristics: steel frame, tray width of 39 to 43 

inches, tine assembly width of 38.5 to 42.5 inches.
 4 ***. ***. Staff requested that *** submit its delivered purchase prices from all sources; the data are presented

in appendix F. E-mail from ***, May 21, 2009; e-mail from staff, May 11, 2009; and e-mail from ***, July 22,

2008. ***.

 Petitioner contended that ***. Petitioner’s posthearing brief, att. A, pp. A-18. Staff notes that ***.

 5 *** of sales prices of product 2 imported from China reported by *** excluded because the unit value was

extremely high and involved *** quantity.

 6 *** quarters of sales prices of product 4 imported from China reported by *** were excluded because the

quantities were *** and thus an accurate price could not be calculated. *** of sales prices of product 4 imported

from China reported by *** excluded because the unit values were ***. In its original submission to the

Commission, importer ***. E-mail from staff to ***, June 15, 2009 and e-mail from ***, June 22, 2009.

 7 *** quarters of sales prices of product 5 imported from China reported by *** were excluded because the

quantities were *** and thus staff could not calculate accurate prices. 

 ***. Petitioner’s prehearing brief, pp. 26-27. Staff notes that ***.

 8

 *** quarters of sales prices of product 7 imported from China reported by *** were excluded because the

quantities were *** and thus staff could not calculate accurate prices. 

V-4

*** U.S. producers and *** importers provided pricing data for sales of the requested products,

although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. Pricing data reported by these

firms accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. commercial shipments of TBLGs

during January 2006-March 2009 and *** percent of U.S. commercial shipments of imports from China

over the same period.4

Price Trends

Weighted-average f.o.b. prices reported for U.S. producers and importers are presented in tables

V-1 through V-7 and in figures V-2 through V-8 on a quarterly basis during January 2006-March 2009.

For sales reported by U.S. producers, ***. For sales of products imported from China, ***.

Domestic prices of pricing products ***. The prices of products imported from China ***. 

The weighted-average sales prices of U.S.-produced product 1 ***. The weighted-average sales

prices of product 1 imported from China ***.

The weighted-average sales prices of U.S.-produced product 2 ***. The weighted-average sales 

prices of product 2 imported from China ***.5

The weighted-average sales prices of U.S.-produced product 3 ***. The weighted-average sales

prices of product 3 imported from China ***.

The weighted-average sales prices of U.S.-produced product 4 ***. The weighted-average sales

prices of product 4 imported from China ***.6

The weighted-average sales prices of U.S.-produced product 5 ***. The weighted-average sales

prices of product 5 imported from China ***.7

The weighted-average sales prices of U.S.-produced product 6 ***. The weighted-average sales

prices of product 6 imported from China ***.

The weighted-average sales prices of U.S.-produced product 7 ***. The weighted-average sales

prices of product 7 imported from China ***.8

Table V-1

TBLGs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *
V-5

Table V-2

TBLGs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-3

TBLGs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-4

TBLGs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-5

TBLGs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-6

TBLGs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 6 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-7

TBLGs: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 7 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-3

TBLGs: Weighted-average f.o.b prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1, by

quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-4

TBLGs: Weighted-average f.o.b prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2, by

quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *
V-6

Figure V-5

TBLGs: Weighted-average f.o.b prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3, by

quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-6

TBLGs: Weighted-average f.o.b prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4, by

quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-7

TBLGs: Weighted-average f.o.b prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5, by

quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-8

TBLGs: Weighted-average f.o.b prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 6, by

quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-9

TBLGs: Weighted-average f.o.b prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 7, by

quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Price Comparisons

Margins of underselling and overselling for the period are presented by product category in tables

V-8 and V-9 below. There were 67 quarterly comparisons of products 1-7. The data show that prices of

imports from China were lower than the U.S. producer prices in 52 quarterly comparisons, by margins

ranging from *** percent. The prices of imports from China oversold U.S. producers prices in 15

quarterly comparisons, by margins ranging from *** percent. *** of the 15 instances of overselling

occurred in comparisons involving product ***.

Table V-8

TBLGs: Margins of underselling/(overselling) by product, quarterly, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-9

TBLGs: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins for products

1-7, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *
 9 Respondent alleged in the preliminary phase of these investigations that petitioner’s lost sales over the period of

investigation were at least partly due to the financial instability of Sears, allegedly one of petitioner’s largest

customers, over the period of investigation. Conference transcript, p. 85 (Craven). Petitioner’s postconference brief,

pp. 28-29. Purchase data reported by *** shows that its annual purchases ***. See app. D.

 10 Petitioner’s posthearing brief, att. A, p. A-8.

 11 ***.

 12 *** did not respond to the specific lost sales allegations in which it was cited, valued at $***. If those

transaction are considered confirmed lost sales allegations, the value of confirmed lost sales allegations would total

$***.

 13 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, exh. 2. 

 14 See app. F.

 15 Staff notes that *** reported purchases from suppliers of imports from China in *** and from U.S. suppliers in

***. It stated that it switched some purchases *** in *** due to better pricing. ***’s purchaser questionnaire,

questions II-2 and II-3.

V-7

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

The Commission requested that U.S. producers report any instances of lost sales or revenues it

experienced due to competition from imports of TBLGs from China since January 2005. *** provided

*** lost sales allegations totaling $*** and *** lost revenues allegations totaling $***.9

 Petitioner noted

that lost sales allegations occurring in *** involving purchasers *** and *** would not appear as lost

sales volume until ***.10 Another U.S. producer (***) reported that it had lost sales to lower-priced

imports from China since January 2006 but did not provide specific allegations. Staff contacted the ***

purchasers cited in the allegations; *** responded. *** purchasers confirmed lost sales allegations

totaling $***.11 *** reported that it switched purchases of TBLGs from U.S. producers to suppliers of

imports from China due to price.12 The results are summarized in tables V-10 and V-11 and are discussed

below.

*** was named in a lost sales allegation involving *** units of TBLGs valued at $***, allegedly

occurring in ***. It agreed with the allegation.

*** was named in *** lost sales allegations involving *** units of TBLGs valued at $***,

allegedly occurring in ***. It reported that it ***.

*** was named in *** lost sales allegations involving *** units of *** valued at a total of $***,

allegedly occurring in ***. ***.13 It disagreed with the allegations, stating that it considers many factors

including ***. ***.14

Table V-10

TBLGs: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

Table V-11

TBLGs: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations

* * * * * * *

*** was named in *** lost sales allegations involving *** units of *** valued at a total of $***,

allegedly occurring in ***. *** reported that it ***. However, it did report that it switched purchases of

TBLGs from U.S. producers to suppliers of TBLGs imported from China since 2005 due to price.15

*** was named in *** lost revenues allegations involving *** units of *** for total lost revenues
 16 ***. *** chose Chinese suppliers “because of their flexibility in shipping small quantities to fill out containers,

thereby minimizing freight and similar charges.” Respondent’s postconference brief, p. 13.

V-8

of $***, allegedly occurring in *** . It disagreed with all of the allegations, stating that the accepted

price quotes from U.S. suppliers cited in the allegations were prices it had previously paid for U.S.

product and that its U.S. supplier could not adequately justify a price increase at the time of the

transactions cited. *** also stated that ***.16

*** was named in a lost sale allegation involving *** units valued at $***, allegedly occurring in

***. It agreed with the allegation, stating, however, that it only ordered *** units from its import

supplier, which implies a lost sale valued at $***. It also stated that the transaction ***. *** also

commented that ***, due to lower-priced imports. It further commented that *** did not reduce its prices

to compete with imports, stating that ***’s prices ***.
 1

 The U.S. producers of TBLGs are ***. Three U.S. producers reported a fiscal year end of Dec. 31. ***. 

Separate income-and-loss data for U.S. producers of aerators, dethatchers, spreaders, and sweepers are presented in

tables C-2 through C-5; these data for ***. Spyker Spreaders stated in its questionnaire response that it had ***; it

also stated that it ***. E-mail to staff from ***, Cyclone, May 6, 2009. A fifth firm, ***, provided limited data in

the trade section of its U.S. producers’ questionnaire response. Its ***.

 2

 Commission staff verified the questionnaire response of Agri-Fab. See Verification Report, June 12, 2009

(EDIS document 405275).

 3

 ***.

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Four U.S. producers of TBLGs provided usable financial data on their operations on TBLGs.1 2

These data are believed to account for the great majority of U.S. production of TBLGs in 2008. During

the period for which data were requested, *** reported production and sales of all four types of TBLGs

(aerators, dethatchers, spreaders, and sweepers), while *** reported production and sales of three types

(aerators, spreaders, and sweepers), and *** reported production and sales of ***. No firm reported

tolling operations, internal consumption, or transfers to related firms.

OPERATIONS ON TBLGs

Income-and-loss data for U.S. producers of TBLGs are presented in table VI-1. Selected

company-specific financial data are presented in table VI-2. Reported aggregate net sales quantities and

values both declined by about one-third from 2006 to 2008, most of which occurred between 2007 and

2008. Sales quantity was lower in January-March 2009 compared to the same period in 2008, but sales

value was *** higher. Unit sales values increased from 2006 to 2007 but declined in 2008 to the same

level as in 2006, and were higher in January-March 2009 compared to the same period in 2008. While

per-unit revenues were flat between 2006 and 2008, per-unit combined operating costs and expenses (cost

of goods sold (“COGS”) and selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses) 

increased marginally. Thus, operating income, which ***.3

 The reporting firms together registered ***.

Table VI-1

TBLGs: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2006-2008, January-March 2008, and JanuaryMarch 2009

* * * * * * *

Operations on aerators, dethatchers, spreaders, and sweepers (tables C-2 through C-5) showed

some variation in terms of net sales quantity, per-unit revenues, and operating income. ***. 

Table VI-2

TBLGs: Selected results of operations of U.S. producers, by firms, 2006-2008, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
 4

 Agri-Fab reported its financial data separately on aerators, dethatchers, spreaders, and sweepers. These data

reconciled with its total sales reported in this section of the report. In 2008, sweepers accounted for *** percent of

total sales, by quantity and value, respectively; dethatchers accounted for *** percent; spreaders accounted for ***

percent; and aerators accounted for *** percent. As noted earlier, ***. There were ***. Sales AUVs ***. AgriFab reported ***. 

 5

 Brinly Hardy reported its financial data separately for aerators, dethatchers, spreaders, and sweepers. ***. The

discussion that follows is based upon the calendar year data. In 2008, sweepers accounted for *** percent of total

sales, by quantity and value, respectively; dethatchers accounted for *** percent; spreaders accounted for ***

percent; and aerators accounted for *** percent. As a share of total sales of the four types of TBLGs, Brinly Hardy

sold *** between those years; the ***. Overall, the total quantity sold of the four types of TBLGs ***. Sales AUVs

***. Brinly Hardy reported ***. Two factors accounted for the ***.

 6

 Ohio Steel ***. 

 7

 A variance analysis is calculated in three parts, sales variance, cost of sales variance, and SG&A expense

variance. Each part consists of a price variance (in the case of the sales variance) or a cost variance (in the case of

the cost of sales and SG&A expense variance) and a volume variance. The sales or cost variance is calculated as the

change in unit price times the new volume, while the volume variance is calculated as the change in volume times

the old unit price. Summarized at the bottom of the table, the price variance is from sales; the cost/expense variance

is the sum of those items from COGS and SG&A variances, respectively, and the volume variance is the sum of the

lines under price and cost/expense variance. The volume component of price variance is nearly always negative

because of the way in which the volume component of the sales variance is calculated.

 8

 Hearing transcript, p. 13 (Cohan).

 9

 E-mail correspondence from ***, July 24, 2008. R&D expenses include the recently-introduced line of “Smart”

series of lawn groomers. Hearing transcript, p. 15 (Cohan).

VI-2

Agri-Fab ***.4

 Brinly Hardy ***.5 Ohio Steel’s ***.6 Finally, Spyker Spreaders produced and

sold ***.

A variance analysis for the operations of U.S. producers of TBLGs is presented in table VI-3. 

The information for this variance analysis is derived from table VI-1. The variance analysis provides an

assessment of changes in profitability as it relates to changes in pricing, cost, and volume.7

 The analysis

shows that the decline in the operating income from 2006 to 2008 was attributable to the combined

variances of price, net cost/expense, and volume (i.e., costs and expenses increased, while prices were

flat). On the other hand, the favorable price variance was much greater than the unfavorable variance of

net cost/expense, and operating income was higher in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008.

Table VI-3

TBLGs: Variance analysis on the operations of U.S. producers, 2006-2008, and January-March

2008 to January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES

Capital expenditures and research and development (“R&D”) expenses are shown in table VI-4. 

Among the firms, *** accounted for *** of reported capital expenditures and R&D expenses. According

to ***, its capital expenditures primarily reflect ***. Agri-Fab testified at the hearing that it had

improved its production methods, including the way in which personnel are used during production and

assembly, invested in computer technology, powder coat painting methods, automation and other

technological advances to increase productivity, and analyzed its business practices.8

 The firm’s R&D

expenses include ***.9

 ***. Overall, total reported capital expenditures were less than total reported
VI-3

depreciation expense; capital expenditures also were lower than R&D expenses in each period except

2008. 

Table VI-4

TBLGs: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. producers, 2006-

2008, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

Item

Fiscal year January-March

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009

Value (1,000 dollars)

Capital expenditures *** *** *** *** ***

R&D expenses *** *** *** *** ***

Note: Capital expenditures and most R&D expenses are accounted for by ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Data on the U.S. producers’ total assets and their return on investment (“ROI”) are presented in

table VI-5. For U.S. producers of TBLGs, the total assets utilized in the production, warehousing, and

sale of such products declined from 2006 to 2008; a substantial part of the decline was accounted for by

lower values reported in the *** category. Other categories were lower as well in 2008 compared with

2006. ROI generally followed operating income and rose from 2006 to 2007 before falling *** in 2008.

Table VI-5

TBLGs: U.S. producers’ total assets and return on investment, fiscal years 2006-2008

* * * * * * *

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers of TBLGs to describe any actual or potential negative

effects of imports of TBLGs from China on their firms’ growth, investment, ability to raise capital,

development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments. Their responses are as follows:

Actual Negative Effects

*** ***.

*** “Yes. Reduction in the size of capital investments.”

*** “Yes. Reduction in the size of capital investments.”

*** “Yes. Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects; a reduction in the

size of capital investments.”

Anticipated Negative Effects

*** “Yes. Due to the low price of imports, we have had to offer our largest customer the

option of importing, through our company, several of the products we have previously

manufactured in the United States.” 
VI-4

*** “Yes-lower sales are expected as well as lower margins from the sales that are retained. 

This will translate to fewer hours of work needed and fewer employees needed. In

addition, it will not make economic sense to continue to invest in equipment and facilities

for a business that is experiencing lower sales and lower margins.”

*** “Retail channels & low volume commercial opportunities are unavailable due to

continued sinking price points.”

*** ***.
 1

 Section 771(7)(F)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii)) provides that “The Commission shall consider

{these factors} . . . as a whole in making a determination of whether further dumped or subsidized imports are

imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension

agreement is accepted under this title. The presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to

consider . . . shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the determination. Such a determination

may not be made on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition.”

VII-1

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON

NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

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

In determining whether an industry in the United States is threatened

with material injury by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of the

subject merchandise, the Commission shall consider, among other

relevant economic factors1

--

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be

presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the

subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a

subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement), and

whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase,

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

increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the

likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export

markets to absorb any additional exports,

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

imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of

substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices

that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on

domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the

foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise,

are currently being used to produce other products,
 2

 Section 771(7)(F)(iii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(iii)) further provides that, in antidumping

investigations, “. . . the Commission shall consider whether dumping in the markets of foreign countries (as

evidenced by dumping findings or antidumping remedies in other WTO member markets against the same class or

kind of merchandise manufactured or exported by the same party as under investigation) suggests a threat of material

injury to the domestic industry.”

 3

 Two of the 12 firms identified had addresses in Taiwan. The petitioner believes that these firms transship

TBLGs produced in mainland China to the United States. 

 4

 Of these three, only two are actual producers, as *** reportedly purchases its TBLGs that it exports to the

United States from other firms in China.

VII-2

(VII) in any investigation under this title which involves imports of both

a raw agricultural product (within the meaning of paragraph (4)(E)(iv))

and any product processed from such raw agricultural product, the

likelihood that there will be increased imports, by reason of product

shifting, if there is an affirmative determination by the Commission

under section 705(b)(1) or 735(b)(1) with respect to either the raw

agricultural product or the processed agricultural product (but not both),

(VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing

development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including

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

like product, and

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability

that there is likely to be material injury by reason of imports (or sale for

importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually

being imported at the time).2

Information on the nature of the subsidies and sales at less than fair value was presented earlier in

this report; information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in

Parts IV and V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’

existing development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the

subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” and

dumping in third-country markets, follows. Also presented in this section of the report is information

obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries and the global market.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The petition identified 12 potential producers of TBLGs in China.3

 Three firms responded to the

Commission’s foreign producers’/exporters’ questionnaire, including: ***.4

 Table VII-1 presents

information on the TBLG operations for the responding producers and exporters in China, while table

VII-2 presents information on responding Chinese producers’ and exporters’ production and exports by

type of TBLG.

TBLG production for responding Chinese producers/exporters increased irregularly from 2006 to

2008. In terms of Chinese producers’ projections, two of the responding firms projected that their 2009

and 2010 exports to the United States would decrease to ***, and the third responding firm, ***,

projected that its exports to the United States would decline 24.4 percent in 2009, relative to 2008, and

12.5 percent in 2010, relative to 2009. 

Two of the responding Chinese producers, ***, provided estimates of their 
 5

 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p.24 and Jiashan Superpower’s foreign producers’/exporters’ questionnaire

response, section II-3.

VII-3

share of Chinese production and exports to the United States of TBLGs. *** reported its share of Chinese

production and exports to the United States were 15 and 20 percent, respectively, and *** reported its

share of both Chinese production and exports to the United States were 1 percent. Petitioner argued that

most Chinese TBLG manufacturers would be able to transfer production from other products to TBLGs

with little or no difficulty. However, *** reported that it ***.5

Table VII-1

TBLGs: China’s production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, January-March 2009, and projected 2009-10

* * * * * * *

Table VII-2

TBLGs: Data on Chinese producers’ production and exports to the United States by product type

2006-08, January-March 2008, January-March 2009, and projected 2009-10

* * * * * * *

U.S. INVENTORIES OF TBLGS FROM CHINA

Table VII-3 presents data on U.S. importers’ reported inventories of TBLGs. Most of the

 reported U.S. inventories of Chinese-origin TBLGs relate to one firm, ***. However, as another firm,

***, began its import operations in 2006, it also began maintaining some inventories of TBLGs. The

single largest importer of TBLGs from China over the period examined, ***, did not report any U.S.

inventories of the subject merchandise because it reportedly ***. 

Table VII-3

TBLGs: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories, 2006-08, January-March 2009, and JanuaryMarch 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

Table VII-4 presents data on imports arranged for importation after April 1, 2009 by quarter.

Table VII-4 

TBLGs: U.S. importers’ arranged imports after April 1, 2009, by quarter

* * * * * * *
 6

 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).

 7

 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, pp. 46-47.

VII-4

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY INVESTIGATIONS 

IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

None of the parties to these investigations is aware of any dumping findings or antidumping

remedies imposed on TBLGs 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.’”6

Global Market

Mexico

Besides China, Mexico is the only other known source of TBLGs in the U.S. market. The only

known importer of TBLGs from Mexico is ***. *** imports only a single type of *** from Mexico. 

Petitioner argues that the second triggering factor for a Bratsk replacement/benefit analysis, i.e., existence

of price competitive nonsubject imports, is not met in that the merchandise being imported from Mexico

relates to a single type of TBLG, a ***. Agri-Fab also argues that: 

“...to the best of its knowledge, ***. For that reason alone, it would be

illogical to conclude that the domestic industry would have been injured

by reason of imports form Mexico, or that Mexican imports contributed

in any meaningful way to the domestic industry’s material injury.”7

In response to a Commission question at the hearing as to how the Commission should evaluate

the presence of non-subject imports in each type of TBLG if the Commission were to find four like

products, petitioner responded:

“Petitioner reiterates that the Commission should not find more than one

domestic like product based on the record of this investigation. Should

the Commission disagree and segment the domestic like product into two

or more products, however, the Bratsk analysis remains largely

unchanged.

“For *** of the TBLGs at issue, *** there is no need to conduct

a Bratsk analysis whatsoever, as *** from countries other than China. 

For ***, the record suggests that there are a significant number of

potentially price-competitive imports from Mexico. Therefore, while

some form of Bratsk analysis may be necessary in this scenario, it does
 8

 Petitioner’s posthearing brief, exh. A, p. A-15.

 9

 Respondent’s prehearing brief, pp. 23-24.

VII-5

not lead to the conclusion that the domestic injury was injured by reason

of non-subject imports.”8

Counsel for respondent Superpower argued that the Commission should conduct a full Bratsk

analysis whether a single or multiple like products was found, stating “if the Commission finds a single

like product, it should consider the impact of both the TBLG production facilities and other production

facilities which may be able to be used for the production of TBLGs.” Regarding the finding of multiple

like products, Superpower argued “the quantity of imports from Mexico of groomers produced in Mexico,

when compared to the total U.S. shipments is not ***. However, if the like product is subdivided into

multiple categories, the share of *** imported from Mexico, when compared to all imports of *** and to

total U.S. shipments of *** is far greater.” Superpower admitted, however, that Mexican product ***.9

Table VII-5 presents the information on the TBLG operations for the one producer in Mexico, ***.

Table VII-5 

TBLGs: Data for the producer in Mexico, 2006-08, January-March 2008, January-March 2008, and

projected 2009-10

* * * * * * *

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 29167 

use a computer-assisted data collection 

instrument on a laptop to obtain 

information about the current residents 

of the sample housing unit including 

those who may have moved into the 

selected housing unit since Census Day 

(April 1, 2010). The interviewer will 

also attempt to collect data on certain 

persons who moved out of the sample 

housing unit between Census Day and 

the CCM PI interview. We will include 

nonmatched Census addresses in the 

CCM PI so we can ascertain their Census 

enumeration status earlier than if they 

were included in the Person Followup 

operation that is conducted later in the 

CCM processing. 

The CCM PI operation will collect the 

information listed below only for 

persons in housing units (PI is not 

conducted in businesses or Group 

Quarters). The automated CCM PI 

instrument will collect the following 

information for the housing units 

included in this operation: 

1. Roster of people living at the 

housing unit at the time of the CCM PI 

Interview. 

2. Census Day address information for 

people who moved into the sample 

address since Census Day. 

3. Other addresses where a person 

may have been counted on Census Day. 

4. Information to determine where 

each person should be counted on 

Census Day (according to Census 

residence rules). For example, 

interviewers will probe for persons who 

might have been left off the household 

roster; ask additional questions about 

persons who moved from another 

address on Census Day to the sample 

address; collect additional information 

for persons with multiple addresses. 

5. Demographic information for each 

person in the household on Interview 

Day or Census Day, including name, 

date of birth, age, Hispanic Origin, race, 

and relationship. 

6. Name and above information for 

any person who has moved out of the 

sample address since Census Day (if 

known). 

The CCM Person Interview Reinterview 

(PI RI) is a quality control operation that 

will be conducted on 10 percent of the 

PI cases. The purpose of the PI RI is to 

confirm that the CCM PI interviewer 

conducted a CCM PI interview with a 

household member or a proxy 

respondent and to conduct the complete 

CCM PI interview as needed if the 

original interview seems questionable. 

II. Method of Collection 

The CCM Person Interview and 

Reinterview operations will be 

conducted using a computer-assisted 

data collection instrument on a laptop. 

The CCM PI will be conducted through 

personal interviews while the CCM PI 

RI will be conducted by telephone and 

person interviews. The CCM PI and PI 

RI operations will occur starting August 

14, 2010 through October 9, 2010. 

Definition of Terms 

Components of Coverage Error—The 

two components of census coverage 

error are census omissions (missed 

persons or housing units) and erroneous 

enumerations (persons or housing units 

enumerated in the census that should 

not have been). Examples of erroneous 

enumerations are persons or housing 

units enumerated in the census that 

should not have been enumerated at all, 

persons or housing units enumerated in 

an incorrect location, and persons or 

housing units enumerated more than 

once (duplicates). 

Net Coverage Error—Net Coverage 

Error is a measure of the difference 

between census omissions and 

erroneous enumerations. A positive net 

error indicates an undercount, while a 

negative net error indicates an 

overcount. 

For more information about the 

Census 2010 Coverage Measurement 

Program, please visit the following page 

of the Census Bureau’s Web site: 

http://www.census.gov/cac/www/pdf/ 

coverage-measurement-program.pdf. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: None. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

Households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

362,250 sample addresses for PI and 

36,225 sample addresses for PI RI. 

Estimated Time per Response: 15 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 99,619 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: No cost 

to the respondents except for their time 

to respond. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. 

Legal Authority: Title 13, U.S. Code, 

Sections 141, 193, and 221. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: June 16, 2009. 

Glenna Mickelson, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–14479 Filed 6–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–939 

Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 2009. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) has determined that 

certain tow behind lawn groomers and 

certain parts thereof (‘‘lawn groomers’’) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’) are being, or is likely to be, sold 

in the United States at less than fair 

value (‘‘LTFV’’) as provided in section 

735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the ‘‘Act’’). The final 

dumping margins for this investigation 

are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below. The period 

covered by the investigation is October 

1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karine Gziryan, Thomas Martin or 

Zhulieta Willbrand, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4081, (202) 482– 

3936, and (202) 482- 3147 respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on January 28, 2009. See Certain 

Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and 

Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

29168 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 74 FR 4929 (January 28, 

2009) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

On February 19, 2009, Jiashan 

Superpower Tools Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Superpower’’), informed the 

Department that it would not participate 

in the verification of its information and 

withdrew from the investigation. See 

Letter to Secretary of Commerce, 

‘‘Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China; A–570–939; 

Notice by Jiashan Superpower Tools 

Co., Ltd.,’’ dated February 19, 2009. On 

March 2, 2009, Princeway Furniture 

(Dong Guan) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Princeway’’) 

also informed the Department that it 

would not participate in the verification 

of its information and withdrew from 

the investigation, and Princeway 

requested that the Department remove 

all of its submissions from the 

administrative record, certify the 

destruction of the submissions, and 

certify the destruction of Princeway’s 

submissions that are in the possession 

of interested parties to the proceeding. 

See Letter to Secretary of Commerce, 

‘‘Lawn Groomers from China’’ dated 

March 2, 2009. On March 6, 2009, 

Superpower also requested that the 

Department remove all of its business 

proprietary submissions from the 

administrative record. See Letter to 

Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘Certain Tow 

Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China; A–570–939; 

Withdrawal of Confidential Business 

Proprietary Information by Jiashan 

Superpower Tools Co., Ltd.,’’ dated 

February 19, 2009. On March 6, 2009, 

Agri–Fab, Inc. (‘‘Petitioner’’) requested 

that the Department amend the 

Preliminary Determination with regards 

to Princeway. See Letter to Secretary of 

Commerce, ‘‘Tow Behind Lawn 

Groomers and Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China, Request to 

Reconsider and Amend Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value for Princeway’’ dated March 6, 

2009. 

On March 12, 2009, Petitioner filed its 

case brief. After requesting an extension, 

Superpower filed a case brief on March 

17, 2009. On March 18, 2009, Petitioner 

filed its rebuttal brief. Neither 

Princeway nor Superpower filed a 

rebuttal brief. No party requested a 

hearing. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation covers 

certain non–motorized tow behind lawn 

groomers, manufactured from any 

material, and certain parts thereof. Lawn 

groomers are defined as lawn sweepers, 

aerators, dethatchers, and spreaders. 

Unless specifically excluded, lawn 

groomers that are designed to perform at 

least one of the functions listed above 

are included in the scope of this 

investigation, even if the lawn groomer 

is designed to perform additional non– 

subject functions (e.g., mowing). 

All lawn groomers are designed to 

incorporate a hitch, of any 

configuration, which allows the product 

to be towed behind a vehicle. Lawn 

groomers that are designed to 

incorporate both a hitch and a push 

handle, of any type, are also covered by 

the scope of this investigation. The 

hitch and handle may be permanently 

attached or removable, and they may be 

attached on opposite sides or on the 

same side of the lawn groomer. Lawn 

groomers designed to incorporate a 

hitch, but where the hitch is not 

attached to the lawn groomer, are also 

included in the scope of the 

investigation. 

Lawn sweepers consist of a frame, as 

well as a series of brushes attached to 

an axle or shaft which allows the 

brushing component to rotate. Lawn 

sweepers also include a container 

(which is a receptacle into which debris 

swept from the lawn or turf is 

deposited) supported by the frame. 

Aerators consist of a frame, as well as 

an aerating component that is attached 

to an axle or shaft which allows the 

aerating component to rotate. The 

aerating component is made up of a set 

of knives fixed to a plate (known as a 

‘‘plug aerator’’), a series of discs with 

protruding spikes (a ‘‘spike aerator’’), or 

any other configuration, that are 

designed to create holes or cavities in a 

lawn or turf surface. Dethatchers consist 

of a frame, as well as a series of tines 

designed to remove material (e.g., dead 

grass or leaves) or other debris from the 

lawn or turf. The dethatcher tines are 

attached to and suspended from the 

frame. Lawn spreaders consist of a 

frame, as well as a hopper (i.e., a 

container of any size, shape, or material) 

that holds a media to be spread on the 

lawn or turf. The media can be 

distributed by means of a rotating 

spreader plate that broadcasts the media 

(‘‘broadcast spreader’’), a rotating 

agitator that allows the media to be 

released at a consistent rate (‘‘drop 

spreader’’), or any other configuration. 

Lawn dethatchers with a net fully 

assembled weight (i.e., without packing, 

additional weights, or accessories) of 

100 pounds or less are covered by the 

scope of the investigation. Other lawn 

groomers–sweepers, aerators, and 

spreaders–with a net fully assembled 

weight (i.e., without packing, additional 

weights, or accessories) of 200 pounds 

or less are covered by the scope of the 

investigation. 

Also included in the scope of the 

investigation are modular units, 

consisting of a chassis that is designed 

to incorporate a hitch, where the hitch 

may or may not be included, which 

allows modules that perform sweeping, 

aerating, dethatching, or spreading 

operations to be interchanged. Modular 

units–when imported with one or more 

lawn grooming modules–with a fully 

assembled net weight (i.e., without 

packing, additional weights, or 

accessories) of 200 pounds or less when 

including a single module, are included 

in the scope of the investigation. 

Modular unit chasses, imported without 

a lawn grooming module and with a 

fully assembled net weight (i.e., without 

packing, additional weights, or 

accessories) of 125 pounds or less, are 

also covered by the scope of the 

investigation. When imported 

separately, modules that are designed to 

perform subject lawn grooming 

functions (i.e., sweeping, aerating, 

dethatching, or spreading), with a fully 

assembled net weight (i.e., without 

packing, additional weights, or 

accessories) of 75 pounds or less, and 

that are imported with or without a 

hitch, are also covered by the scope. 

Lawn groomers, assembled or 

unassembled, are covered by this 

investigation. For purposes of this 

investigation, ‘‘unassembled lawn 

groomers’’ consist of either 1) all parts 

necessary to make a fully assembled 

lawn groomer, or 2) any combination of 

parts, constituting a less than complete, 

unassembled lawn groomer, with a 

minimum of two of the following 

‘‘major components’’: 

1) an assembled or unassembled 

brush housing designed to be used 

in a lawn sweeper, where a brush 

housing is defined as a component 

housing the brush assembly, and 

consisting of a wrapper which 

covers the brush assembly and two 

end plates attached to the wrapper; 

2) a sweeper brush; 

3) an aerator or dethatcher weight 

tray, or similar component designed 

to allow weights of any sort to be 

added to the unit; 

4) a spreader hopper; 

5) a rotating spreader plate or agitator, 

or other component designed for 

distributing media in a lawn 

spreader; 

6) dethatcher tines; 

7) aerator spikes, plugs, or other 

aerating component; or 

8) a hitch, defined as a complete hitch 

assembly comprising of at least the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 29169 

following two major hitch 

components, tubing and a hitch 

plate regardless of the absence of 

minor components such as pin or 

fasteners. Individual hitch 

component parts, such as tubing, 

hitch plates, pins or fasteners are 

not covered by the scope. 

The major components or parts of 

lawn groomers that are individually 

covered by this investigation under the 

term ‘‘certain parts thereof’’ are: (1) 

brush housings, where the wrapper and 

end plates incorporating the brush 

assembly may be individual pieces or a 

single piece; and (2) weight trays, or 

similar components designed to allow 

weights of any sort to be added to a 

dethatcher or an aerator unit. 

The products for which relief is 

sought specifically exclude the 

following: 1) agricultural implements 

designed to work (e.g., churn, burrow, 

till, etc.) soil, such as cultivators, 

harrows, and plows; 2) lawn or farm 

carts and wagons that do not groom 

lawns; 3) grooming products 

incorporating a motor or an engine for 

the purpose of operating and/or 

propelling the lawn groomer; 4) lawn 

groomers that are designed to be hand 

held or are designed to be attached 

directly to the frame of a vehicle, rather 

than towed; 5) ‘‘push’’ lawn grooming 

products that incorporate a push handle 

rather than a hitch, and which are 

designed solely to be manually 

operated; 6) dethatchers with a net 

assembled weight (i.e., without packing, 

additional weights, or accessories) of 

more than 100 pounds, or lawn 

groomers–sweepers, aerators, and 

spreaders–with a net fully assembled 

weight (i.e., without packing, additional 

weights, or accessories) of more than 

200 pounds; and 7) lawn rollers 

designed to flatten grass and turf, 

including lawn rollers which 

incorporate an aerator component (e.g., 

‘‘drum-style’’ spike aerators). 

The lawn groomers that are the 

subject of this investigation are 

currently classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) statistical reporting numbers 

8432.40.0000, 8432.80.0000, 

8432.80.0010, 8432.90.0030, 

8432.90.0080, 8479.89.9896, 

8479.89.9897, 8479.90.9496, and 

9603.50.0000. These HTSUS provisions 

are given for reference and customs 

purposes only, and the description of 

merchandise is dispositive for 

determining the scope of the product 

included in this investigation. 

Scope Comments 

On December 30, 2008, and on 

January 7, 2009, Brinly–Hardy Company 

(‘‘Brinly–Hardy’’), a domestic producer 

of the merchandise under consideration, 

submitted comments on the scope of the 

investigation. Specifically, Brinly– 

Hardy requested that the scope be 

revised to define one of the eight listed 

‘‘major components,’’ specifically a 

hitch, as a complete hitch assembly, 

with all necessary components. Brinly– 

Hardy requested that individual 

components such as tubing, hitch plates 

or pins, not be covered by the scope. 

On January 12, 2009, Petitioner 

submitted comments in response to 

Brinly–Hardy’s request. Petitioner 

agreed that a hitch should be defined, 

but stated that a hitch should be defined 

as consisting of its own major 

components, i.e., tubing and a hitch 

plate, rather than all necessary 

components. Petitioner stated that the 

absence of minor components such as a 

hitch pin or fasteners is not intended to 

remove a hitch assembly from the 

definition of a hitch. 

We have received no further 

comments on the scope of the 

investigation. Thus, we are making a 

final determination that hitches are 

defined as a complete hitch assembly 

comprising of at least the following two 

major hitch components, tubing and a 

hitch plate regardless of the absence of 

minor components such as pin or 

fasteners. The revised scope language is 

included in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigation’’ section, above. See also 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Determination in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice, which is 

hereby adopted by this notice (‘‘Issues 

and Decision Memorandum’’) at 

Comment 4. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All of the issues that were raised in 

the case and rebuttal briefs that were 

submitted in this investigation, and to 

which we have responded, are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. Appendix I to this notice 

contains a list of the issues that are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. The Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, which is a public 

document, is on file in the Central 

Records Unit, at the main Commerce 

Building, Room 1117, and is accessible 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

We have made the following changes 

to our calculations in the Preliminary 

Determination: 

1. We considered Princeway and 

Superpower to be part of the PRC– 

wide entity because, as a result of 

their withdrawal from the 

investigation and refusal to allow 

the Department to verify their 

respective submitted information, 

both entities failed to demonstrate 

their qualification for a separate 

rate. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

2. For the final determination we 

continue to assign an AFA rate to 

the PRC–wide entity, which now 

includes Princeway and 

Superpower. As AFA, we have 

assigned the PRC–wide entity a 

CONNUM–specific dumping 

margin, i.e., 386.28 percent, 

calculated for Superpower in the 

Preliminary Determination. See 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

at Comment 2. 

3. We have assigned the separate rate 

companies a dumping margin equal 

to the initiation margin. See Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 3. 

4. We made a clarification to the 

scope language concerning the 

definition of hitch. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 

4. 

Adverse Facts Available 

As noted in the ‘‘Background’’ section 

above, Superpower and Princeway 

withdrew from the investigation and 

refused to allow the Department to 

verify the information they had 

submitted in this proceeding. As a result 

both entities failed to demonstrate 

eligibility for a separate rate and thus 

are considered part of the PRC–wide 

entity. 

Section 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the Act 

provides that, if an interested party 

significantly impedes a proceeding, or 

provides information that cannot be 

verified, the Department shall use facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. 

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes 

the Department to use an adverse 

inference with respect to an interested 

party if the Department finds that the 

party failed to cooperate by not acting 

to the best of its ability to comply with 

a request for information. As the PRC– 

wide entity, which includes both 

Superpower and Princeway, failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

29170 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 

information an adverse inference is 

warranted under section 776(b) of the 

Act. 

In our Preliminary Determination, we 

calculated antidumping duty margins 

for both Princeway and Superpower 

based on their submitted information. 

See Preliminary Determination. On 

February 19, 2009, Superpower 

withdrew from the investigation. Also, 

on March 2, 2009, Princeway withdrew 

from the investigation. Thus, both 

Princeway and Superpower withdrew 

from the investigation before the 

Department had an opportunity to verify 

their respective submitted information. 

Therefore, because both Princeway and 

Superpower withdrew from the 

investigation and failed to allow the 

Department to verify their information, 

we find that neither has demonstrated 

their eligibility for separate–rate status 

in this investigation and, thus, both are 

considered part of the PRC–wide entity. 

See Section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. 

Additionally, we find that due to their 

failure to act to the best of their ability 

in responding to the Department’s 

requests for information, Princeway and 

Superpower, as part of the PRC–wide 

entity, significantly impeded the 

Department’s proceeding. See Section 

776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the Act. Further, 

we have determined that when selecting 

from among facts available, an adverse 

inference is warranted for the PRC–wide 

entity pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act. 

The PRC–Wide Rate 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

a non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country are subject to government 

control and because only the companies 

listed under the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section, below, have overcome 

that presumption, we are applying a 

single antidumping rate (i.e., the PRC– 

wide rate) to all other exporters of 

subject merchandise from the PRC. 

These other companies did not 

demonstrate entitlement to a separate 

rate. See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the 

People’s Republic of China; Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 

(May 3, 2000). The PRC–wide rate 

applies to all entries of subject 

merchandise except for entries from the 

companies eligible for separate rate 

status. 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that certain 

companies did not respond to our 

requests for information. See 

Preliminary Determination, 74 FR at 

4932. We treated these PRC producers/ 

exporters as part of the PRC–wide entity 

because they did not demonstrate that 

they operate free of government control 

over their export activities. Id. No 

additional information was placed on 

the record with respect to any of these 

companies after the Preliminary 

Determination. Moreover, for the 

reasons noted above, we also consider 

Superpower and Princeway to be part of 

the PRC–wide entity. 

As noted above, section 776(a)(2) of 

the Act provides that, if an interested 

party or any other person withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the administering authority, 

significantly impedes a proceeding 

under this title, or provides such 

information but the information cannot 

be verified as provided in section 782(i) 

of the Act, the administering authority 

shall, subject to section 782(d) of the 

Act, use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

Because the PRC–wide entity did not 

respond to our requests for information 

and because companies within the PRC– 

wide entity withheld information 

requested by the Department, and 

Superpower and Princeway, which are 

part of the PRC–wide entity, did not 

allow their information to be verified, 

pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), 

and (D) of the Act, we determine, as in 

the Preliminary Determination, that the 

use of facts otherwise available is 

appropriate to determine the PRC–wide 

rate. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold– 

Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel 

Products From the Russian Federation, 

65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). 

See also Statement of Administrative 

Action accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 

103–316, Vol. 1 (1994), at 870. We 

determine that, because the PRC–wide 

entity did not respond to our requests 

for information, and Superpower and 

Princeway, which are part of that entity, 

prevented the Department from 

verifying its information, the PRC–wide 

entity has failed to cooperate to the best 

of its ability. Therefore, we have 

determined that, in selecting a dumping 

margin from among the facts otherwise 

available, an adverse inference is 

appropriate for the PRC–wide entity. 

With respect to adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’), for the final determination, we 

have assigned the PRC–wide entity a 

CONNUM–specific dumping margin, 

i.e., 386.28 percent, calculated for 

Superpower in the Preliminary 

Determination. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. No 

corroboration of this rate is necessary 

because we are relying on information 

obtained in the course of this 

investigation, rather than secondary 

information. See 19 CFR 351.308(c) and 

section 776(b) of the Act; see also Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, in Part: Light–Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 

35652, 35653 (June 24, 2008), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at 1. In selecting a facts– 

available margin, we sought a margin 

that is sufficiently adverse so as to 

effectuate the statutory purposes of the 

adverse facts–available rule, which is to 

induce respondents to provide the 

Department with complete and accurate 

information in a timely manner. We also 

sought a margin that is indicative of the 

respondents’ customary selling practices 

and is rationally related to the 

transactions to which the adverse facts 

available are being applied. To that end, 

we selected the highest margin on an 

individual model which fell within the 

mainstream of Superpower’s 

transactions (i.e., a model that reflects 

sales of products that are representative 

of the broader range of sales used to 

determine U.S. price). 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

From the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

From the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994); see also 19 CFR 

351.107(d). 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department granted separate–rate status 

to Superpower, Princeway, Qingdao 

Huatian Truck Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huatian’’), 

and Nantong D & B Machinery Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Nantong’’). As discussed above, the 

Department has determined to treat 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 29171 

Superpower and Princeway as part of 

the PRC–wide entity. We note that the 

information that Superpower and 

Princeway provided to the Department 

to demonstrate the absence of de facto 

and de jure control could not be verified 

due to their failure to cooperate. 

Consequently we have not granted 

Superpower and Princeway separate 

rates. 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that Huatian and Nantong 

demonstrated their eligibility for 

separate–rate status. See Preliminary 

Determination, 74 FR at 4931. Since the 

publication of the Preliminary 

Determination, no parties commented 

on the separate rate determinations. We 

continue to find that the evidence 

placed on the record of this 

investigation by Huatian and Nantong 

demonstrates both a de jure and de facto 

absence of government control with 

respect to their exports of the 

merchandise under investigation. Thus, 

we continue to find that Huatian and 

Nantong are eligible for separate–rate 

status. 

Normally the dumping margin for 

separate rate companies is determined 

based on the estimated weighted– 

average dumping margins established 

for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding de 

minimis margins or margins based 

entirely on AFA. See Section 

735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. In the 

Preliminary Determination, we assigned 

Huatian and Nantong the dumping 

margin established equal to a simple 

average of the dumping margins 

calculated for the two mandatory 

respondents, i.e., Superpower and 

Princeway. See Preliminary 

Determination, 74 FR at 4931 and 4935. 

Since both Superpower and Princeway 

are no longer receiving a separate rate, 

this methodology is not appropriate. In 

cases where the estimated weighted– 

average dumping margins for all 

individually investigated respondents 

are zero, de minimis, or based entirely 

on AFA, the Department may use any 

reasonable method to assign a rate to the 

separate rate companies. See Section 

735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. In this case, 

where there are no mandatory 

respondents receiving a calculated rate 

and the PRC–wide entity’s rate is based 

upon total AFA, we find that applying 

the rate alleged in the petition, 

incorporating revisions made in 

Petitioner’s supplemental responses, to 

Huatian and Nantong is both reasonable 

and reliable for purposes of establishing 

a separate rate. See Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 6479 

(February 4, 2008) and the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. Therefore, 

the Department will assign a separate 

rate to Huatian and Nantong using the 

initiation rate of 154.72 percent, 

pursuant to its practice. 

The initiation margin assigned to 

Huatian and Nantong is based on 

secondary information. According to 

section 776 (c) of the Act, when the 

Department relies on secondary 

information, it shall, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate that 

information. During our pre–initiation 

analysis of the petition, we examined 

the information used in the petition as 

the basis of export price and normal 

value (‘‘NV’’) and, where appropriate, 

revised the calculations used to derive 

the petition dumping margins in 

determining the initiation dumping 

margins. Also, during our pre–initiation 

analysis, we examined information from 

various independent sources provided 

either in the petition or, based on our 

requests, in supplements to the petition, 

which corroborated various elements of 

the export price and NV information. 

For the final determination, we 

compared the average of the initiation 

margins to Superpower’s CONNUM– 

specific margins and found that the 

initiation margin falls within these 

margins. No other information was 

available for corroboration purposes. 

Based on the foregoing, we have 

concluded that the initiation dumping 

margin is reliable and has probative 

value and, therefore, we consider this 

average dumping margin to be 

corroborated, to the extent practicable. 

While Agri–Fab,Inc. argued in its case 

brief that Huatian and Nantong should 

receive the PRC–wide rate based on the 

actual rate calculated for Superpower, 

we have assigned the separate–rate 

companies the dumping margin of 

154.72 percent alleged and revised in 

the petition. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 3. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

42315 (July 21, 2008) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’). 

This practice is described in Policy 

Bulletin 05.1: 

{w}hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to 

exporters, all separate rates that the 

Department will now assign in its 

NME investigations will be specific 

to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of 

investigation. Note, however, that 

one rate is calculated for the 

exporter and all of the producers 

which supplied subject 

merchandise to it during the period 

of investigation. This practice 

applies both to mandatory 

respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate 

rate as well as the pool of non– 

investigated firms receiving the 

weighted–average of the 

individually calculated rates. This 

practice is referred to as the 

application of ‘‘combination rates’’ 

because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one 

or more producers. The cash– 

deposit rate assigned to an exporter 

will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in 

question and produced by a firm 

that supplied the exporter during 

the period of investigation. 

See Policy Bulletin 05.1, ‘‘Separate Rates 

Practice and Application of 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations Involving Non–Market 

Economy Countries’’ available on the 

Import Administration’s website at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html. 

For the final determination, we continue 

to apply this practice. 

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

weighted–average dumping margins 

exist for the period October 1, 2007, 

through March 31, 2008: 

LAWN GROOMERS FROM THE PRC 

Exporter and Producer 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

(Percent) 

Nantong D & B Machinery Co., 

Ltd.1 ......................................... 154.72 

Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd., 

a.k.a. Qingdao Huatian Hand 

Truck Co., Ltd.2 ....................... 154.72 

PRC–wide Entity (including Superpower and Princeway) ....... 386.28 

1 Nantong D & B Machinery Co., Ltd. exports and manufactures subject merchandise. 2Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd. exports 

and manufactures subject merchandise. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose to parties the 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of public announcement of 

this determination in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.224(b). For merchandise 

under consideration from the exporter 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

29172 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 

1Sunlake is a company located in Thailand. 

producer combinations listed in the 

table above that have been granted 

separate rates, we have assigned the 

initiation rate. Therefore, for 

merchandise under consideration from 

these exporter producer combinations, 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of this final 

determination, we will instruct CBP to 

require an antidumping cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond for each entry 

equal to 154.72 percent, as indicated 

above. The cash deposit rate for 

Superpower, Princeway, and other 

exporter–producer combinations is 

386.28 percent, as indicated above. 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

U.S Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all imports of subject 

merchandise as described in the ‘‘Scope 

of the Investigation’’ section, that are 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after January 28, 

2009, which is the date of publication 

of the Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. We will instruct CBP 

to require a cash deposit or the posting 

of a bond equal to the weighted–average 

dumping margin amount by which the 

NV exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) 

the rate for the exporter/producer 

combination listed in the chart above 

will be the rate we have determined in 

this final determination; (2) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash–deposit rate will be the PRC–wide 

entity rate; and (3) for all non–PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash–deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporter/producer 

combination that supplied that non– 

PRC exporter. These suspension–ofliquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of our final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will 

determine whether the domestic 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise 

within 45 days of this final 

determination. If the ITC determines 

that material injury or threat of material 

injury does not exist, the proceeding 

will be terminated and all securities 

posted will be refunded or canceled. If 

the ITC determines that such injury 

does exist, the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess upon further instruction by the 

Department antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. This 

determination and notice are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: June 12, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Parties’ Comments 

Comment 1: Whether to retain 

Superpower’s Business Proprietary 

Information (‘‘BPI’’) data 

Comment 2: Whether to assign the PRC– 

wide rate as total adverse facts available 

to both mandatory respondents 

Comment 3: Whether to assign the PRC– 

wide rate to the separate rate 

respondents 

Comment 4: Whether to clarify the 

scope language for hitches 

Comment 5: Whether to amend the 

preliminary determination for 

Princeway 

[FR Doc. E9–14470 Filed 6–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–894 

Certain Tissue Paper Products from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Affirmative Final Determination of 

Circumvention of the Antidumping 

Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

FINAL DETERMINATION We determine that 

certain tissue paper products exported 

to the United States from Thailand by 

Sunlake De ́cor Co., Ltd. (Sunlake)1 are 

made from jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets 

of tissue paper produced in the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC), and are 

circumventing the antidumping duty 

order on certain tissue paper products 

from the PRC, as provided in section 

781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). See Notice of 

Amended Final Determination of Sales 

at Less than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Tissue Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 16223 (March 

30, 2005) (Order). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gemal Brangman or Brian Smith, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3773 or (202) 482– 

1776, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 30, 2009, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) issued its 

affirmative preliminary determination 

that certain tissue paper products 

produced in, and exported from, 

Thailand by Sunlake using PRC–origin 

jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets of tissue 

paper are circumventing the 

antidumping duty order on tissue paper 

from the PRC, as provided in section 

781(b) of the Act. See Certain Tissue 

Paper from the People’s Republic of 

China: Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Circumvention of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 20915 

(May 6, 2009) (Preliminary 

Determination). 

On May 1, 2009, the Department 

notified the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (ITC) of its affirmative 

preliminary determination of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

29180 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 

comment the following document 

identifier: File No. 1032–1917–01. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Swails or Tammy Adams, (301) 713– 

2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject amendment to Permit No. 1032– 

1917 is requested under the authority of 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 

1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.), and the regulations governing the 

taking and importing of marine 

mammals (50 CFR part 216). 

Permit No. 1032–1917, issued on 

September 4, 2007 (72 FR 51621), 

authorizes the permit holder to continue 

long-term studies of the Weddell seal 

(Leptonychotes weddellii) population in 

the Erebus Bay, McMurdo Sound, Ross 

Sea, and White Island areas of 

Antarctica. Up to 325 adults and 800 

pups may be captured annually. 

Animals may be weighed, tissued 

sampled, flipper tagged, and released. 

Annually up to 2000 Weddell, 50 

crabeater (Lobodon carcinophagus), and 

50 leopard (Hydrurga leptonyx) seals 

may be incidentally disturbed as a result 

of the research activities. The permit 

authorizes up to 4 (2 adults and 2 pups) 

Weddell seal research-related 

mortalities annually. The permit holder 

is requesting the permit be amended to 

include authorization for use of a small 

temperature logging tag on pups. The 

additional tag would be used to measure 

the amount of time pups spend in the 

water. This information would be used 

as part of the mass dynamics studies. 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial 

determination has been made that the 

activity proposed is categorically 

excluded from the requirement to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. 

Concurrent with the publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register, 

NMFS is forwarding copies of this 

application to the Marine Mammal 

Commission and its Committee of 

Scientific Advisors. 

Dated: June 16, 2009. 

P. Michael Payne, 

Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–14476 Filed 6–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–940] 

Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Department) has determined that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

certain tow-behind lawn groomers (lawn 

groomers) and certain parts thereof from 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC). 

For information on the estimated 

countervailing duty rates, please see the 

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section, 

below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gene Calvert or Jun Jack Zhao, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3586 and (202) 

482–1396, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, i.e., the period of 

investigation (POI), is January 1, 2007 

through December 31, 2007. 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the announcement of the 

preliminary determination, which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 24, 2008. See Certain TowBehind Lawn Groomers and Certain 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Alignment of Final 

Countervailing Duty Determination with 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 

73 FR 70971 (November 24, 2008) 

(Preliminary Determination). 

The Department issued several 

supplemental questionnaires to the 

Government of the People’s Republic of 

China (GOC), Princeway Furniture 

(Dong Guan) Co., Ltd. and Princeway 

Limited (collectively, Princeway) and 

Jiashan Superpower Tools Co., Ltd. 

(Superpower). The Department received 

responses to these questionnaires in 

November and December 2008. Public 

versions of the questionnaires and 

responses, as well as the various 

memoranda cited below, are available at 

the Department’s Central Records Unit 

(Room 1117 in the HCHB Building) 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘CRU’’). 

From January 5 through January 21, 

2009, we conducted verification of the 

questionnaire responses submitted by 

the GOC, Superpower and Princeway. 

We issued verification reports on 

February 27, 2009. See Verification of 

the Questionnaire Responses Submitted 

by the Government of the People’s 

Republic of China (GOC), Verification of 

the Questionnaire Responses Submitted 

by Princeway Furniture (Dong Guan) 

Co., Ltd. & Princeway Limited, and 

Verification of the Questionnaire 

Responses Submitted by Jiashan 

Superpower Tools Co., Ltd. 

On May 13, 2009, we issued our postpreliminary determination regarding the 

‘‘Provision of Hot-Rolled Steel at Less 

Than Adequate Remuneration,’’ ‘‘Export 

Incentive Payments Characterized as 

VAT Rebates,’’ ‘‘Patent Subsidy 

Authorized by the Administration Rule 

for Patent Specific Fund of Jiashan 

County, SHAN KE [2006] No. 58,’’ 

‘‘Foreign Trade Assistance Subsidy 

(Exhibition Attendance Incentive Policy 

of Jiashan County: Article II.24 of SZF 

132),’’ and ‘‘Amortization of Startup 

Costs Under Article 49 of the FIE Tax 

Regulations.’’ See Memorandum to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

‘‘Countervailing Duty Investigation of 

Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers 

and Certain Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China’’ (May 13, 

2009). 

We received a case brief from the GOC 

on May 20, 2009. Agri-Fab, Inc. 

(Petitioner) and respondent companies 

did not submit case briefs or rebuttal 

briefs. On December 23, 2008, the GOC 

submitted a timely request for a hearing 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c). On May 

27, 2009, the GOC withdrew its request 

for a hearing. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation covers 

certain non-motorized tow behind lawn 

groomers, manufactured from any 

material, and certain parts thereof. Lawn 

groomers are defined as lawn sweepers, 

aerators, dethatchers, and spreaders. 

Unless specifically excluded, lawn 

groomers that are designed to perform at 

least one of the functions listed above 

are included in the scope of this 

investigation, even if the lawn groomer 

is designed to perform additional nonsubject functions (e.g., mowing). 

All lawn groomers are designed to 

incorporate a hitch, of any 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 29181 

configuration, which allows the product 

to be towed behind a vehicle. Lawn 

groomers that are designed to 

incorporate both a hitch and a push 

handle, of any type, are also covered by 

the scope of this investigation. The 

hitch and handle may be permanently 

attached or removable, and they may be 

attached on opposite sides or on the 

same side of the lawn groomer. Lawn 

groomers designed to incorporate a 

hitch, but where the hitch is not 

attached to the lawn groomer, are also 

included in the scope of the 

investigation. 

Lawn sweepers consist of a frame, as 

well as a series of brushes attached to 

an axle or shaft which allows the 

brushing component to rotate. Lawn 

sweepers also include a container 

(which is a receptacle into which debris 

swept from the lawn or turf is 

deposited) supported by the frame. 

Aerators consist of a frame, as well as 

an aerating component that is attached 

to an axle or shaft which allows the 

aerating component to rotate. The 

aerating component is made up of a set 

of knives fixed to a plate (known as a 

‘‘plug aerator’’), a series of discs with 

protruding spikes (a ‘‘spike aerator’’), or 

any other configuration, that are 

designed to create holes or cavities in a 

lawn or turf surface. Dethatchers consist 

of a frame, as well as a series of tines 

designed to remove material (e.g., dead 

grass or leaves) or other debris from the 

lawn or turf. The dethatcher tines are 

attached to and suspended from the 

frame. Lawn spreaders consist of a 

frame, as well as a hopper (i.e., a 

container of any size, shape, or material) 

that holds a media to be spread on the 

lawn or turf. The media can be 

distributed by means of a rotating 

spreader plate that broadcasts the media 

(broadcast spreader), a rotating agitator 

that allows the media to be released at 

a consistent rate (drop spreader), or any 

other configuration. 

Lawn dethatchers with a net fully– 

assembled weight (i.e., without packing, 

additional weights, or accessories) of 

100 pounds or less are covered by the 

scope of the investigation. Other lawn 

groomers sweepers, aerators, and 

spreaders with a net fully–assembled 

weight (i.e., without packing, additional 

weights, or accessories) of 200 pounds 

or less are covered by the scope of the 

investigation. 

Also included in the scope of the 

investigation are modular units, 

consisting of a chassis that is designed 

to incorporate a hitch, where the hitch 

may or may not be included, which 

allows modules that perform sweeping, 

aerating, dethatching, or spreading 

operations to be interchanged. Modular 

units when imported with one or more 

lawn grooming modules with a fully 

assembled net weight (i.e., without 

packing, additional weights, or 

accessories) of 200 pounds or less when 

including a single module, are included 

in the scope of the investigation. 

Modular unit chassis, imported without 

a lawn grooming module and with a 

fully assembled net weight (i.e., without 

packing, additional weights, or 

accessories) of 125 pounds or less, are 

also covered by the scope of the 

investigation. When imported 

separately, modules that are designed to 

perform subject lawn grooming 

functions (i.e., sweeping, aerating, 

dethatching, or spreading), with a fully 

assembled net weight (i.e., without 

packing, additional weights, or 

accessories) of 75 pounds or less, and 

that are imported with or without a 

hitch, are also covered by the scope. 

Lawn groomers, assembled or 

unassembled, are covered by this 

investigation. For purposes of this 

investigation, ‘‘unassembled lawn 

groomers’’ consist of either 1) all parts 

necessary to make a fully assembled 

lawn groomer, or 2) any combination of 

parts, constituting a less than complete, 

unassembled lawn groomer, with a 

minimum of two of the following 

‘‘major components’’: 

1) an assembled or unassembled 

brush housing designed to be used 

in a lawn sweeper, where a brush 

housing is defined as a component 

housing the brush assembly, and 

consisting of a wrapper which 

covers the brush assembly and two 

end plates attached to the wrapper; 

2) a sweeper brush; 

3) an aerator or dethatcher weight 

tray, or similar component designed 

to allow weights of any sort to be 

added to the unit; 

4) a spreader hopper; 

5) a rotating spreader plate or agitator, 

or other component designed for 

distributing media in a lawn 

spreader; 

6) dethatcher tines; 

7) aerator spikes, plugs, or other 

aerating component; or 

8) a hitch, defined as a complete hitch 

assembly comprising of at least the 

following two major hitch 

components, tubing and a hitch 

plate regardless of the absence of 

minor components such as pin or 

fasteners. Individual hitch 

component parts, such as tubing, 

hitch plates, pins or fasteners are 

not covered by the scope. 

The major components or parts of 

lawn groomers that are individually 

covered by this investigation under the 

term ‘‘certain parts thereof’’ are: (1) 

brush housings, where the wrapper and 

end plates incorporating the brush 

assembly may be individual pieces or a 

single piece; and (2) weight trays, or 

similar components designed to allow 

weights of any sort to be added to a 

dethatcher or an aerator unit. 

The products for which relief is 

sought specifically exclude the 

following: 1) agricultural implements 

designed to work (e.g., churn, burrow, 

till, etc.) soil, such as cultivators, 

harrows, and plows; 2) lawn or farm 

carts and wagons that do not groom 

lawns; 3) grooming products 

incorporating a motor or an engine for 

the purpose of operating and/or 

propelling the lawn groomer; 4) lawn 

groomers that are designed to be hand 

held or are designed to be attached 

directly to the frame of a vehicle, rather 

than towed; 5) ‘‘push’’ lawn grooming 

products that incorporate a push handle 

rather than a hitch, and which are 

designed solely to be manually 

operated; 6) dethatchers with a net 

assembled weight (i.e., without packing, 

additional weights, or accessories) of 

more than 100 pounds, or lawn 

groomers sweepers, aerators, and 

spreaders with a net fully–assembled 

weight (i.e., without packing, additional 

weights, or accessories) of more than 

200 pounds; and 7) lawn rollers 

designed to flatten grass and turf, 

including lawn rollers which 

incorporate an aerator component (e.g., 

‘‘drum–style’’ spike aerators). 

The lawn groomers that are the 

subject of this investigation are 

currently classifiable in the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) statistical reporting numbers 

8432.40.0000, 8432.80.0000, 

8432.80.0010, 8432.90.0030, 

8432.90.0080, 8479.89.9896, 

8479.89.9897, 8479.90.9496, and 

9603.50.0000. These HTSUS provisions 

are given for reference and customs 

purposes only, and the description of 

merchandise is dispositive for 

determining the scope of the product 

included in this investigation. 

Scope Comments 

On December 30, 2008, and on 

January 7, 2009, Brinly–Hardy Company 

(Brinly–Hardy), a domestic producer of 

the merchandise under consideration, 

submitted comments on the scope of the 

investigation. Specifically, Brinly– 

Hardy requested that the scope be 

revised to define one of the eight listed 

‘‘major components,’’ specifically a 

hitch, as a complete hitch assembly, 

with all necessary components. Brinly– 

Hardy requested that individual 

components such as tubing, hitch plates 

or pins, not be covered by the scope. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

29182 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 

On January 12, 2009, Petitioner 

submitted comments in response to 

Brinly–Hardy’s request. Petitioner 

agreed that a hitch should be defined, 

but stated that a hitch should be defined 

as consisting of its own major 

components, i.e., tubing and a hitch 

plate, rather than all necessary 

components. Petitioner stated that the 

absence of minor components such as a 

hitch pin or fasteners is not intended to 

remove a hitch assembly from the 

definition of a hitch. 

We have received no further 

comments on the scope of the 

investigation. Thus, we are making a 

final determination that hitches are 

defined as a complete hitch assembly 

comprising of at least the following two 

major hitch components, tubing and a 

hitch plate regardless of the absence of 

minor components such as pin or 

fasteners. The revised scope language is 

included in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Investigation’’ section, above. See also 

Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final 

Determination in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigation of Certain TowBehind Lawn Groomers and Certain 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China’’ (June 12, 2009) 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice, at Comment 12. 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the 

meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) is 

required to determine pursuant to 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act whether 

imports of the subject merchandise from 

the PRC materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, a United States 

industry. On August 21, 2008, the ITC 

published its preliminary determination 

that there is a reasonable indication that 

an industry in the United States is 

materially injured by reason of allegedly 

subsidized imports from the PRC of 

subject merchandise. See Certain TowBehind Lawn Groomers and Parts 

Thereof From China Determinations, 73 

FR 49489 (August 21, 2008); and Certain 

Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts 

Thereof from China (Preliminary), 

USITC Pub. 4028, Inv. Nos. 701–TA– 

457 and 731–TA–1153 (August 2008). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case brief 

submitted by the GOC are addressed in 

the Decision Memorandum. Attached to 

this notice as an Appendix is a list of 

the issues that parties have raised and 

to which we have responded in the 

Decision Memorandum. Parties can find 

this public memorandum in the 

Department’s CRU. In addition, a 

complete version of the Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

frn/. The paper copy and electronic 

version of the Decision Memorandum 

are identical in content. 

Use of Adverse Facts Available 

For purposes of this final 

determination, we have continued to 

rely on facts available and have again 

used adverse inferences in accordance 

with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act 

to determine the countervailable 

subsidy rates for the following five 

companies that provided no response to 

the Department’s ‘‘quantity and value’’ 

questionnaire issued during the 

respondent selection process: Qingdao 

Hundai Tools Co., Ltd., Qingdao Taifa 

Group Co., Ltd., Maxchief Investments 

Ltd., Qingdao EA Huabang Instrument 

Co., Ltd., and World Factory Inc. 

(collectively, non-h;cooperative 

companies). A full discussion of our 

decision to apply adverse facts available 

(AFA) is presented in the Decision 

Memorandum in the section ‘‘Use of 

Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse 

Facts Available.’’ On this basis, we 

determine that the AFA countervailable 

subsidy rate for the five non– 

cooperating companies is 264.98 

percent ad valorem. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have 

calculated an individual rate for the 

companies under investigation, 

Superpower and Princeway. Section 

705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for 

companies not investigated, we will 

determine an all others rate equal to the 

weighted average countervailable 

subsidy rates established for exporters 

and producers individually 

investigated, excluding any zero and de 

minimis countervailable subsidy rates, 

and any rates determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. As Princeway’s 

rate was de minimis, it is not included 

in the all others rate. 

Exporter/Manufacturer Net Subsidy Rate 

Princeway Furniture 

(Dong Guan) Co., 

Ltd. and Princeway 

Limited ....................... 0.56% (de minimis) 

Jiashan Superpower 

Tools Co., Ltd ........... 13.30% 

Maxchief Investments 

Ltd ............................. 264.98% 

Exporter/Manufacturer Net Subsidy Rate 

Qingdao EA Huabang 

Instrument Co., Ltd ... 264.98% 

Qingdao Hundai Tools 

Co., Ltd ..................... 264.98% 

Qingdao Taifa Group 

Co., Ltd ..................... 264.98% 

World Factory, Inc ........ 264.98% 

All Others ...................... 13.30% 

In accordance with section 703(d) of 

the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection to discontinue the 

suspension of liquidation for 

countervailing duty purposes for subject 

merchandise entered on or after March 

24, 2009, but to continue the suspension 

of liquidation of entries made from 

November 24, 2008 through March 23, 

2009. 

We will issue a countervailing duty 

order and reinstate the suspension of 

liquidation under section 706(a) of the 

Act if the ITC issues a final affirmative 

injury determination, and will require a 

cash deposit of estimated countervailing 

duties for such entries of merchandise 

in the amounts indicated above, except 

for Princeway, which has a de minimis 

rate and will be excluded from an order. 

This exclusion will apply only to 

subject merchandise both produced and 

exported by Princeway. 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 nonprivileged 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/ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices 29183 

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: June 12, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

APPENDIX 

List of Comments and Issues in the 

Decision Memorandum 

Comment 1: Application of CVD Law to 

a Country that the Department Treats as 

an NME in a Parallel AD Investigation 

Comment 2: Double Counting/ 

Overlapping Remedies 

Comment 3: Cut–off Date for 

Countervailing Subsidies 

Comment 4: Discount Rate Used for 

Benefit Calculations 

Comment 5: Public Authority Status of 

Hot–Rolled Steel Producer 

Comment 6: Preferential Tax Policies for 

Enterprises with Foreign Investment 

(Two Free, Three Half Program) 

Comment 7: Refund of Enterprise 

Income Taxes on FIE Profits Reinvested 

in an Export Oriented Enterprise 

Comment 8: Import Tariff and VAT 

Exemptions for Encouraged Industries 

Importing Equipment for Domestic 

Operations 

Comment 9: Export Incentive Payments 

Characterized as ‘‘VAT Rebates’’ 

Comment 10: Amortization of Startup 

Costs in the PRC Tax Law 

Comment 11: Calculation of the All 

Others Rate 

Comment 12: Whether to Clarify the 

Scope Language for Hitches 

[FR Doc. E9–14471 Filed 6–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

The Manufacturing Council: Meeting 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of an open meeting. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Announcing a Workshop on the 

Protocol for Lightweight 

Authentication of Identity (PLAID) 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public workshop. 
10964 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Notices 

11For purposes of these investigations, the 

Department of Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise as: 

‘‘* * * Certain non-motorized tow behind lawn 

groomers (‘‘lawn groomers’’), manufactured from 

any material, and certain parts thereof. Lawn 

groomers are defined as lawn sweepers, aerators, 

dethatchers, and spreaders. Unless specifically 

excluded, lawn groomers that are designed to 

perform at least one of the functions listed above 

are included in the scope of these investigations, 

even if the lawn groomer is designed to perform 

additional non-subject functions (e.g., mowing). All 

lawn groomers are designed to incorporate a hitch, 

of any configuration, which allows the product to 

be towed behind a vehicle. Lawn groomers that are 

designed to incorporate both a hitch and a push 

handle, of any type, are also covered by the scope 

of these investigations. The hitch and handle may 

be permanently attached or removable, and they 

may be attached on opposite sides or on the same 

side of the lawn groomer. Lawn groomers designed 

to incorporate a hitch, but where the hitch is not 

attached to the lawn groomer, are also included in 

the scope of the investigations. Lawn sweepers 

consist of a frame, as well as a series of brushes 

attached to an axle or shaft which allows the 

brushing component to rotate. Lawn sweepers also 

include a container (which is a receptacle into 

which debris swept from the lawn or turf is 

deposited) supported by the frame. Aerators consist 

of a frame, as well as an aerating component that 

is attached to an axle or shaft which allows the 

aerating component to rotate. The aerating 

component is made up of a set of knives fixed to 

a plate (known as a ‘‘plug aerator’’), a series of discs 

with protruding spikes (a ‘‘spike aerator’’), or any 

other configuration, that are designed to create 

holes or cavities in a lawn or turf surface. 

Dethatchers consist of a frame, as well as a series 

of tines designed to remove material (e.g., dead 

grass or leaves) or other debris from the lawn or 

turf. The dethatcher tines are attached to and 

suspended from the frame. Lawn spreaders consist 

of a frame, as well as a hopper (i.e., a container of 

any size, shape, or material) that holds a media to 

be spread on the lawn or turf. The media can be 

distributed by means of a rotating spreader plate 

that broadcasts the media (‘‘broadcast spreader’’), a 

rotating agitator that allows the media to be released 

at a consistent rate (‘‘drop spreader’’), or any other 

configuration. Lawn dethatchers with a net fullyassembled weight (i.e., without packing, additional 

weights, or accessories) of 100 pounds or less are 

covered by the scope of the investigations. Other 

lawn groomers—sweepers, aerators, and 

spreaders—with a net fully-assembled weight (i.e., 

without packing, additional weights, or accessories) 

of 200 pounds or less are covered by the scope of 

the investigations. Also included in the scope of the 

investigations are modular units, consisting of a 

chassis that is designed to incorporate a hitch, 

where the hitch may or may not be included, which 

allows modules that perform sweeping, aerating, 

dethatching, or spreading operations to be 

interchanged. Modular units—when imported with 

one or more lawn grooming modules—with a fully 

assembled net weight (i.e., without packing, 

additional weights, or accessories) of 200 pounds or 

less when including a single module, are included 

in the scope of the investigations. Modular unit 

chasses, imported without a lawn grooming module 

and with a fully assembled net weight (i.e., without 

packing, additional weights, or accessories) of 125 

pounds or less, are also covered by the scope of the 

investigations. When imported separately, modules 

that are designed to perform subject lawn grooming 

functions (i.e., sweeping, aerating, dethatching, or 

spreading), with a fully assembled net weight (i.e., 

without packing, additional weights, or accessories) 

of 75 pounds or less, and that are imported with 

or without a hitch, are also covered by the scope. 

Lawn groomers, assembled or unassembled, are 

covered by these investigations. For purposes of 

these investigations, ‘‘unassembled lawn groomers’’ 

consist of either (1) all parts necessary to make a 

fully assembled lawn groomer, or (2) any 

combination of parts, constituting a less than 

complete, unassembled lawn groomer, with a 

minimum of two of the following ‘‘major 

components’’: 

(1) An assembled or unassembled brush housing 

designed to be used in a lawn sweeper, where a 

brush housing is defined as a component housing 

the brush assembly, and consisting of a wrapper 

which covers the brush assembly and two end 

plates attached to the wrapper; 

(2) a sweeper brush; 

(3) an aerator or dethatcher weight tray, or similar 

component designed to allow weights of any sort 

to be added to the unit; 

(4) a spreader hopper; 

(5) a rotating spreader plate or agitator, or other 

component designed for distributing media in a 

lawn spreader; 

(6) dethatcher tines; 

(7) aerator spikes, plugs, or other aerating 

component; or 

(8) a hitch. 

The major components or parts of lawn groomers 

that are individually covered by these 

investigations under the term ‘‘certain parts 

thereof’’ are: (1) Brush housings, where the wrapper 

and end plates incorporating the brush assembly 

may be individual pieces or a single piece; and (2) 

weight trays, or similar components designed to 

allow weights of any sort to be added to a 

dethatcher or an aerator unit. The products for 

which relief is sought specifically exclude the 

following: (1) Agricultural implements designed to 

work (e.g., churn, burrow, till, etc.) soil, such as 

cultivators, harrows, and plows; (2) lawn or farm 

carts and wagons that do not groom lawns; (3) 

grooming products incorporating a motor or an 

engine for the purpose of operating and/or 

propelling the lawn groomer; (4) lawn groomers that 

are designed to be hand held or are designed to be 

attached directly to the frame of a vehicle, rather 

than towed; (5) ‘‘push’’ lawn grooming products 

that incorporate a push handle rather than a hitch, 

and which are designed solely to be manually 

operated; (6) dethatchers with a net assembled 

weight (i.e., without packing, additional weights, or 

accessories) of more than 100 pounds, or lawn 

groomers-sweepers, aerators, and spreaders-with a 

net fully-assembled weight (i.e., without packing, 

additional weights, or accessories) of more than 200 

pounds; and (7) lawn rollers designed to flatten 

grass and turf, including lawn rollers which 

incorporate an aerator component (e.g., ‘‘drumstyle’’ spike aerators). The lawn groomers that are 

the subject of these investigations are currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) statistical reporting 

numbers 8432.40.0000, 8432.80.0000, 8432.80.0010, 

8432.90.0030, 8432.90.0080, 8479.89.9896, 

8479.89.9897, 8479.90.9496, and 9603.50.0000. 

These HTSUS provisions are given for reference 

and customs purposes only, and the description of 

merchandise is dispositive for determining the 

scope of the product included in these 

investigations.’’ 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–5426 Filed 3–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigations Nos. 701–TA–457 (Final) and 

731–TA–1153 (Final)] 

Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers From 

China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of 

countervailing duty and antidumping 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of countervailing duty 

investigation No. 701–TA–457 (Final) 

under section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act) and 

the final phase of antidumping 

investigation No. 731–TA–1153 (Final) 

under section 735(b) of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1673d(b)) to determine whether 

an industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, or the establishment of 

an industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

subsidized and less-than-fair-value 

imports from China of tow-behind lawn 

groomers, provided for in subheadings 

8432.40.00, 8432.80.00, 8432.90.00, 

8479.89.98, 8479.90.94, and 9603.50.00 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States.11

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of the 

investigations, hearing procedures, and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: January 28, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Merrill (202–205–3188), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—The final phase of 

these investigations is being scheduled 

as a result of affirmative preliminary 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce that certain benefits which 

constitute subsidies within the meaning 

of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 48 / Friday, March 13, 2009 / Notices 10965 

1671b) are being provided to 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

in China of tow-behind lawn groomers, 

and that such products are being sold in 

the United States at less than fair value 

within the meaning of section 733 of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The 

investigations were requested in a 

petition filed on June 24, 2008, by AgriFab, Inc., Sullivan, IL. 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the final phase of these 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

section 201.11 of the Commission’s 

rules, no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. A 

party that filed a notice of appearance 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigations need not file an 

additional notice of appearance during 

this final phase. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the investigations. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in the final phase of these 

investigations available to authorized 

applicants under the APO issued in the 

investigations, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days prior to the hearing date specified 

in this notice. Authorized applicants 

must represent interested parties, as 

defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are 

parties to the investigations. A party 

granted access to BPI in the preliminary 

phase of the investigations need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the final phase of these 

investigations will be placed in the 

nonpublic record on May 21, 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 June 16, 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 June 10, 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 June 12, 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 June 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 June 23, 

2009; witness testimony must be filed 

no later than three days before the 

hearing. In addition, any person who 

has not entered an appearance as a party 

to the investigations may submit a 

written statement of information 

pertinent to the subject of the 

investigations, including statements of 

support or opposition to the petition, on 

or before June 23, 2009. On July 8, 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 July 10, 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. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 9, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission, 

[FR Doc. E9–5427 Filed 3–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

Temporary Change to Filing 

Procedures 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States 

International Trade Commission 

(Commission) hereby notifies all users 

of its Electronic Document Information 

System (EDIS) that the system will not 

be available for use from 6 p.m. on 

Thursday, March 26, 2009, until 6 a.m. 

on Monday, March 30, 2009. Alternative 

filing procedures will apply, as outlined 

below. 

DATES: March 26–March 30, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Telephone inquiries should be directed 

to EDIS Help (202–205–3347) or Docket 

Services (202–205–1802). E-mail 

inquiries should be directed to 

(Edishelp@usitc.gov). Written inquiries 

should be directed to Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary, United States International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Room 112, Washington, DC 20436. At 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
B-1

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers from China

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-457 and 731-TA-1153 (Final)

Date and Time: June 16, 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, D.C.

In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping and Countervailing

 Duty Orders:

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Chicago, IL

on behalf of

Agri-Fab, Inc.

Michael Cohan, President, Agri-Fab, Inc.

Gary Harvey, Vice President, Finance, Agri-Fab, Inc.

Mark S. Zolno )

Kazumune V. Kano ) – OF COUNSEL

John P. Smirnow )

C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-3

Appendix C Index

Page

Table C-1 summary data on all TBLGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5

Table C-2 summary data on tow-behind AERATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5

Table C-3 summary data on tow-behind DETHATCHERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5

Table C-4 summary data on tow-behind SPREADERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5

Table C-5 summary data on tow-behind SWEEPERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5

Table C-6 summary data on all TBLGs excluding production by *** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5

Table C-7 summary data on tow-behind AERATORS excluding production by *** . . . . . . . . . . C-5

Table C-8 summary data on tow-behind SPREADERS excluding production by *** . . . . . . . . . C-5

Table C-9 summary data on tow-behind SWEEPERS excluding production by *** . . . . . . . . . . C-5

Table C-10 summary data on all TBLGs excluding production by *** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-6
C-4
C-5

Table C-1

TBLGs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and JanuaryMarch 2009

* * * * * * *

Table C-2

Tow-behind AERATORS: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-March 2008,

and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table C-3

Tow-behind DETHATCHERS: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table C-4

Tow-behind SPREADERS: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table C-5

Tow-behind SWEEPERS: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-March 2008,

and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table C-6

TBLGs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market EXCLUDING ***, 2006-08, January-March 2008,

and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table C-7

Tow-behind AERATORS: Summary data concerning the U.S. market EXCLUDING ***, 2006-08,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table C-8

Tow-behind SPREADERS: Summary data concerning the U.S. market EXCLUDING ***, 2006-08,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table C-9

Tow-behind SWEEPERS: Summary data concerning the U.S. market EXCLUDING ***, 2006-08,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
C-6

Table C-10

TBLGs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market EXCLUDING ***, 2006-08, January-March 2008,

and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
D-1

APPENDIX D

PURCHASERS’ REPORTED PURCHASES BY SOURCE

D-3

Table D-1

TBLGs: Purchases of TBLGs, as reported by purchasers, 2006-08, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

E-1

APPENDIX E

PURCHASER RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING TBLGs AND

TOW BEHIND LAWN CARTS AND PUSH LAWN GROOMERS

E-3

Purchasers were asked the following question concerning tow behind carts and/or push lawn groomers:

Please describe the differences and similarities between TBLGs and tow behind carts and/or push lawn

groomers with respect to the following factors: (a) characteristics and uses--describe the differences

and similarities in the physical characteristics and end uses; (b) interchangeability--discuss the

interchangeability in end use of the two products; (c) manufacturing processes--describe the two

processes and include a discussion of the interchangeability of production inputs, machinery and

equipment, and skilled labor; (d) channels of distribution--describe the specific end use/customer

requirements and channels of distribution/market situation in which the products are sold; (e) customer

and producer perceptions--describe any perceived differences in the two products (e.g., sales/marketing

practices); and (f) price--provide a discussion and specific examples of prices for the two products. 

***

II-5a. Lawn carts are used for hauling. None of the TBLGs defined are used for hauling. Push lawn

groomers are a walk behind style, where the user manually pushes the tool. The TBLGs are all

defined as 'Tow-behind' which means that they are attached to a tractor or ATV, etc. when in

use.

II-5b. Usually tow-behind products are used in larger applications compared to push style lawn

groomers.

II-5c. I have not seen the manufacturing process for either tow-behind or push lawn groomers.

II-5d. These products are sold anywhere from hardware stores to farm stores, home centers, power

equipment dealerships, etc.

II-5e. Customers typically are looking for specific application types for these tools; i.e., someone who

does not own a tractor would not be interested in tow-behind products.

II-5f. In the past, *** have bought from one source. The price range in TBLGs's have

fluctuated over the past few years due to vast changes in raw materials. On average, the 10

TBLGS's that we stock range from a cost of $46 to $267, with retails ranging from $69.99 to

$299.99.

***

II-5a. Tow behind carts can be pulled behind lawn tractors loaded with material such as dirt or sand and

transported from one area to another, then dumped. Carts cannot sweep, aerate, dethatch or

spread material.

II-5b. TBLGs and carts are not interchangeable. They are not designed to do the same job or for the

same end use.

II-5c. The production process may be similar in that both carts and TBLGs are stamped and formed

from metal. Both are welded products in as much. In as much that we do not produce these

products, we do not know of all equipment, machinery, and labor involved in the production of

these products.

II-5d. These products are sold anywhere from hardware stores to farm stores, home centers, and other

retail environments. Generally a tow or three step distribution process. Customers’ use will

depend on need for product.

II-5e. Customers know and see the differences between carts and TBLGs. Customers look at how

product is built and assembled for quality.

II-5f. Pricing differences between carts and TBLGs will vary. For example, a 42" pull behind lawn

sweeper may retail for $230. A tow behind 10 cubic foot cart may retail for $100. Carts and

TBLGs are not interchangeable in use. Completely different design and application.
E-4

***

II-5a. 38" lawn sweeper intended for use in lawn care and home applications

II-5b. TBLG's and carts are not interchangeable, they perform completely different functions. TLBGs

are used to treat (aerate, dethatch, apply fertilizer, etc). Carts are used to transport items. 

However, TBLGs and push lawn groomers are somewhat interchangeable with differences likely

based on user preference and or size of area being groomed. For example a user may chose to use

a tow or push for a 1 acre lawn while a tow behind unit may be more appropriate for a 5 acre

tract.

II-5c. Same processes apply to both TBLGs and carts as well as push lawn groomers.

II-5d. Product is sold at mass retailer outlet channels.

II-5e. Not aware of significant customer and producer perceptions that are similar or different for

TBLGs, carts and push lawn groomers.

II-5f. The towing aspect ofTBLGs and carts may result in higher prices for these items versus push

lawn groomers due to strength requirements for towing. However, pricing is primarily a function

of quality, specification, and the size of the products. All products have similar price points based on

market position or brand.

***

II-5a. ***.

II-5b. ***

II-5c. Components are interchangeable.

II-5d. ***.

II-5e. Industry leading product or only one in market.

II-5f. Prices are comparable with industry pricing.

***

II-5a. TBLGs and tow behind carts are similar only in that they are both towed behind a powered

vehicle. Push lawn groomers may be similar in function to their TBLGS counterparts, but differ in

that they are not towed behind a powered vehicle.

II-5b. TBLGs and tow behind carts are not at all interchangeable, as each item has its own specific

function. Within TBLGs the only items that are somewhat interchangeable are Dethatchers and

Sweepers in that each is used to collect debris from turf or grass. Push lawn groomers are

somewhat interchangeable with their TBLGS counterparts; however, they require manual force as

opposed to being towed by a powered vehicle.

II-5c. Not applicable - We have no knowledge of the manufacturing process comparisons between

TBLGs and tow behind carts and/or push lawn groomers.

II-5d. The channels of distribution for TBLGs and tow behind carts and/or push groomers are somewhat

similar in that each item is sold (to a degree) through distributors, independent dealers and retail.

II-5e. Not applicable - We have no knowledge of customer and producer perceptions.

II-5f. The prices of TBLGs and tow behind carts and/or push groomers are somewhat similar in that

they all fall within the range of $45 to $1075 in *** catalog depending on the specific product. The

price differentials in the products are based on size and component quality.

***

II-5a. Carts are generally used for hauling and dumping. TBLGs are generally used for grooming mid to

large size yards that require a tractor and push lawn groomers are used for smaller areas.

II-5b. Due to the very distinct end uses these products would probably not be interchangeable.

II-5c. This purchaser is not familiar with the manufacturing process to the extent it would allow

comment on interchangeability of parts.

II-5d. Customer requirements vary by climate. geography and demographics (e.g. farming communities

may have different requirements than subdivisions). These products are generally available
E-5

through internet, big box retailer, national department stores, local vendors or franchise 

dealerships.

II-5e. Marketing and sales generally are focused on the customer needs. See II-5(a) above.

II-5f. Pricing is generally based on the size of the product (e.g. TBLG and tow behind carts are

similarly priced. Push groomers and carts tend to be less expensive).

***

II-5a. A cart is used to haul and dump items. A groomer is used for a specific purpose for lawn care.

II-5b. These are not used for the same thing and not interchangeable.

II-5c. I do not have knowledge of the manufacturing process.

II-5d. Both products require a motorized device to pull these items.

II-5e. Carts are more frequently purchased.

II-5f. Tow carts are a higher retail price than lawn groomers. 

***

II-5a. TBLGs are typically wider, larger capacity and more heavy duty versus push lawn groomers,

which are designed for use by single person *** don’t require power equipment.

II-5b. N/a.

II-5c. Unknown.

II-5d. Unknown.

II-5e. Unknown.

II-5f. TBLGs (sweepers) range: $150-250. Push groomers (sweepers) range: $70-100. TBLGs

(spreaders) range: $50-75. Push groomers (spreaders) range: $25-50.

***

II-5a. TBLGs and push groomers both provide the same end result, but TBLGs are usually used for

bigger pieces of land and commercial end users, while push groomers are intended for more

residential users with smaller, tighter spaces aud less frequent usage.

II-5b. There are limited instances were interchangeability between TBLGs and push groomers are

acceptable - primarily residential lawns from 1/3 to 1 acre in size.

II-5c. We do not manufacture TBLGs.

II-5d. We sell TBLGs through our retail stores, over the internet, and in our catalogs to home

handymen, farmers, and small contractors.

II-5e. TBLGs are primarily perceived for agricultural and commercial usage where use is more frequent

and more demanding. Push groomers are perceived for residential, light duty use.

II-5f. TBLGs and push groomers have overlapping pricing depending all quality and features.

***

II-5a. Same characteristics as far as materials. Same end user–usually end user has both.

II-5b. Not really interchangeable–two different products that are sometimes used together.

II-5c. I am not familiar with the manufacturing process.

II-5d. TBLGs and cars are generally sold at mass market, hardware chains, and independent retailers.

II-5e. Customers perceive name brands to be better.

II-5f. Not sure what you want here.
E-6

***

II-5a. TBLGs and tow-behind carts are made for ride-on mowers. Push lawn groomers are not made

for ride-on mowers.

II-5b. See above.

II-5c. We have no direct knowledge of the manufacturing processes for the various products.

II-5d. All TBLGs have a similar distribution channel and all push products would have a similar

distribution channel, though the two channels mayor may not overlap.

II-5e. Customers seeking a TBLG or tow-behind cart likely have a ride-on mower and are not seelcing

a push product.

II-5f. Push products may be dramatically cheaper than TBLGs and tow-behind carts, but serve a

different customer.

***

II-5a. TBLG’s typically have a specific function or duty other than that of tow behind carts. Push lawn

groomers would have the same specific duties as TBLG’s but through “push” power rather than

“tow” power.

II-5b. No interchangeability with tow behind carts. Much interchangeability with walk behind units.

II-5c. Very similar or exactly the same in all cases.

II-5d. Same in all cases.

II-5e. Walk behind lawn groomers are generally viewed as for smaller or specialty applications.

Customers would see no relation between TBLG’s and tow behind carts.

II-5f. Similar price range.

***

II-5a. The end uses are the same, characteristics vary based on end use and options or accessories.

II-5b. Completely interchangeable in end uses.

II-5c. Do not know.

II-5d. Similar channels of distribution – retail or specialty with on-line and brick and mortar.

II-5e. Do not know.

II-5f. Varies depending on use, quality, and equipment options.
F-1

APPENDIX F

DELIVERED PURCHASE PRICES AS REPORTED BY 

***

F-3

Table F-1

TBLGs: Delivered purchase prices and quantities of product 2, domestically produced and

imported from China, reported by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table F-2

TBLGs: Delivered purchase prices and quantities of product 4, domestically produced and

imported from China, reported by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table F-3

TBLGs: Delivered purchase prices and quantities of product 5, domestically produced and

imported from China, reported by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table F-4

TBLGs: Delivered purchase prices and quantities of product 6, domestically produced and

imported from China, reported by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table F-5

TBLGs: Delivered purchase prices and quantities of product 7, domestically produced and

imported from China, reported by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure F-1

Delivered purchase prices and quantities of product 2, domestically produced and imported from

China, reported by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure F-2

Delivered purchase prices and quantities of product 4, domestically produced and imported from

China, reported by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure F-3

Delivered purchase prices and quantities of product 5, domestically produced and imported from

China, reported by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure F-4

Delivered purchase prices and quantities of product 6, domestically produced and imported from

China, reported by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *
F-4

Figure F-5

Delivered purchase prices and quantities of product 7, domestically produced and imported from

China, reported by ***, by quarters, January 2006-March 2009

* * * * * * *