ITC Investigation 701-TA-748 is a U.S. International Trade Commission countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding on Float Glass Products from China and Malaysia; Inv. No. 701-TA-748-749 and 731-TA-1726-1727 (Final) from China and Malaysia. It's in the final phase and currently in completed status. It links to AD/CVD case C-570-189 — see the linked order for the active deposit rate, scope text, and Federal Register citation.
Phase, parties, documents, and full text from USITC IDS
Float Glass Products from China and Malaysia; Inv. No. 701-TA-748-749 and 731-TA-1726-1727 (Final)
ITC final injury determination completed.
Parties
Documents
Full text (861,326 chars)
=== USITC Determination - Final === 16014 Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 61 / Tuesday, March 31, 2026 / Notices 1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 2 91 FR 5708, 91 FR 5713, 91 FR 5720, and 91 FR 5723 (February 9, 2026). 3 Commissioner David S. Johanson dissenting. 4 The Commission initially voted in these investigations on March 5, 2026. The Commission found that imports of float glass products from Malaysia determined by Commerce to be sold at LTFV were not negligible. Chair Amy A. Karpel, Commissioner Jason E. Kearns, and Commissioner David S. Johanson voted to reconsider their votes in these investigations on March 20, 2026. On March 23, 2026, following this decision to reconsider, the Commission changed its determination in the antidumping duty investigation of imports from Malaysia from affirmative to negative based on negligibility grounds. 5 Due to the lapse in appropriations and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, the Commission tolled its schedule for this proceeding. The schedule was revised in subsequent notices published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2025 (90 FR 52999) and December 11, 2025 (90 FR 57483). 6 91 FR 5510, February 6, 2026. notice in the Federal Register will segregate the land from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws, except for the sale provisions of FLPMA. Until completion of the sale, the BLM will no longer accept land use applications affecting the public land. The effect of this segregation will terminate upon issuance of a patent, publication in the Federal Register of a termination of the segregation, or 2 years after the date of publication in the Federal Register, unless extended by the BLM Arizona State Director in accordance with 43 CFR 2711.1–2(d) prior to the termination date. The BLM will publish this notice in the Parker Pioneer newspaper once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. The conveyance document, if issued, will include the following terms, conditions, and reservations: 1. A reservation to the United States for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States under the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945); 2. An appropriate indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the patentee’s use, occupancy, or operations on the patented land; 3. Valid existing rights issued prior to conveyance; and 4. Additional terms and conditions that the authorized officer deems appropriate. The BLM will make available reports pertaining to the land, which include an appraisal; environmental site assessment, per the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and a draft EA, per the National Environmental Policy Act, for review at the Hassayampa Field Office and online (see ADDRESSES above). Interested parties may submit, in writing, any comments concerning the land being considered for sale, including notification of any encumbrances or other claims relating to the parcel, at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section by the deadline listed in the DATES section. The land is suitable for direct sale under FLPMA, without competition, consistent with 43 CFR 2711.3–3(a)(4), as direct sales may be used ‘‘when in the opinion of the authorized officer, a competitive sale is not appropriate and the public interest would best be served by a direct sale,’’ including when ‘‘the adjoining ownership pattern and access indicate a direct sale is appropriate.’’ The BLM Arizona State Director will review adverse comments regarding the parcel and may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action, in-whole or in-part. In the absence of timely objections, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us, in your comment, to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. (Authority: 43 CFR 2711.1–2) Raymond Suazo, BLM Arizona State Director. [FR Doc. 2026–06225 Filed 3–30–26; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4331–12–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–748–749 and 731–TA–1726–1727 (Final)] Float Glass Products From China and Malaysia; Determinations On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of float glass products from China, provided for in subheadings 7005.10.80, 7005.21.10, 7005.21.20, 7005.29.18, 7005.29.25, 7007.29.00, 7008.00.00, 7009.91.50, and 7009.92.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), and imports of the subject merchandise from China and Malaysia that have been found to be subsidized by the governments of China and Malaysia.2 3 The Commission further determines that imports of float glass products from Malaysia found by Commerce to be sold in the United States at LTFV are negligible and terminates the antidumping duty investigation concerning Malaysia.4 Background The Commission instituted these investigations effective November 21, 2024, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Vitro Flat Glass, LLC, Cheswick, Pennsylvania, and Vitro Meadville Flat Glass, LLC, Cochranton, Pennsylvania. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of float glass products from China and Malaysia were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and sold at LTFV within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 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 on August 13, 2025 (90 FR 38991). 5 The public hearing in connection with the investigations, scheduled for February 5, 2026, was cancelled. 6 The Commission made these determinations pursuant to §§ 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on March 26, 2026. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5715 (March 2026), entitled Float Glass Products from China and Malaysia: Investigation Nos. 701–TA–748–749 and 731–TA–1726–1727 (Final). By order of the Commission. Issued: March 26, 2026. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2026–06129 Filed 3–30–26; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:01 Mar 30, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31MRN1.SGM 31MRN1 khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICE ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Publication 5715 === Float Glass Products from China and Malaysia Investigation Nos. 701-TA-748–749 and 731-TA-1726–1727 (Final) Publication 5715 March 2026 U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 COMMISSIONERS Amy A. Karpel, Chair David S. Johanson Jason E. Kearns Catherine DeFilippo Director of Operations Staff assigned Kristina Lara, Investigator Charles Cummings, Investigator Sarah Scott, Industry Analyst Hau Nguyen, Economist Jennifer Brinckhaus, Accountant Christine Lee, Statistician Anthony Famiglietti, Attorney Mary Messer, Supervisory Investigator U.S. International Trade Commission Address all communications to Secretary to the Commission United States International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 Washington, DC 20436 www.usitc.gov Float Glass Products from China and Malaysia Investigation Nos. 701-TA-748–749 and 731-TA-1726–1727 (Final) U.S. International Trade Commission Publication 5715 March 2026 CONTENTS Page i Determinations ..................................................................................................................... 1 Views of the Commission....................................................................................................... 3 Dissenting Views of David S. Johanson ................................................................................. 67 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1.1 Background............................................................................................................................... 1.1 Statutory criteria ...................................................................................................................... 1.2 Organization of report.............................................................................................................. 1.4 Market summary ...................................................................................................................... 1.4 Summary data and data sources .............................................................................................. 1.5 Previous and related investigations ......................................................................................... 1.6 Nature and extent of subsidies and sales at LTFV ................................................................... 1.7 Subsidies ............................................................................................................................... 1.7 Sales at LTFV ......................................................................................................................... 1.8 The subject merchandise ....................................................................................................... 1.11 Commerce’s scope ............................................................................................................. 1.11 Tariff treatment .................................................................................................................. 1.14 The product ............................................................................................................................ 1.17 Description and applications .............................................................................................. 1.17 Manufacturing processes ................................................................................................... 1.18 Domestic like product issues.................................................................................................. 1.27 Intermediate products ........................................................................................................... 1.27 CONTENTS Page ii Part 2: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market ....................................................... 2.1 U.S. market characteristics....................................................................................................... 2.1 U.S. purchasers......................................................................................................................... 2.2 Impact of section 301 tariffs and new or modified tariffs ....................................................... 2.2 Channels of distribution ........................................................................................................... 2.5 Geographic distribution ........................................................................................................... 2.8 Supply and demand considerations ......................................................................................... 2.8 U.S. supply ............................................................................................................................ 2.8 U.S. demand ....................................................................................................................... 2.13 Substitutability issues............................................................................................................. 2.15 Factors affecting purchasing decisions............................................................................... 2.15 Purchase factor comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports ............................................................................................................................... 2.20 Comparison of U.S.-produced and imported FGP .............................................................. 2.22 Elasticity estimates ................................................................................................................. 2.25 U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................................................................... 2.25 U.S. demand elasticity ........................................................................................................ 2.25 Substitution elasticity ......................................................................................................... 2.26 CONTENTS Page iii Part 3: U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ production, shipments, and employment .... 3.1 U.S. producers and U.S. processors ......................................................................................... 3.2 Production related activities .................................................................................................. 3.10 U.S. production and processing, capacity, and capacity utilization....................................... 3.11 Alternative products ........................................................................................................... 3.24 U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments and exports ........................................ 3.25 Captive consumption ............................................................................................................. 3.30 Transfers and sales ............................................................................................................. 3.30 First statutory criterion in captive production ................................................................... 3.30 Second statutory criterion in captive production .............................................................. 3.32 U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ inventories .................................................................. 3.33 U.S. producers’ imports from subject sources ....................................................................... 3.34 U.S. producers' purchases of imports from subject sources ................................................. 3.34 U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ........................................................................... 3.35 Part 4: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares .............................. 4.1 U.S. importers........................................................................................................................... 4.1 U.S. imports .............................................................................................................................. 4.4 Negligibility ............................................................................................................................. 4.11 Critical circumstances............................................................................................................. 4.12 Cumulation considerations .................................................................................................... 4.13 Fungibility ........................................................................................................................... 4.14 Geographical markets ........................................................................................................ 4.17 Presence in the market ...................................................................................................... 4.19 Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares .................................................................... 4.22 Total market by quantity .................................................................................................... 4.22 Total market by value ......................................................................................................... 4.25 U.S. imports by HTS classification .......................................................................................... 4.29 CONTENTS Page iv Part 5: Pricing data ......................................................................................................... 5.1 Factors affecting prices ............................................................................................................ 5.1 Raw material costs ............................................................................................................... 5.1 Transportation costs to the U.S. market .............................................................................. 5.1 U.S. inland transportation costs ........................................................................................... 5.1 Pricing practices ....................................................................................................................... 5.2 Pricing methods .................................................................................................................... 5.2 Sales terms and discounts .................................................................................................... 5.3 Price leadership .................................................................................................................... 5.3 Price and purchase cost data ................................................................................................... 5.4 Price data .............................................................................................................................. 5.4 Import purchase cost data ................................................................................................. 5.15 Price and purchase cost trends .......................................................................................... 5.25 Price and purchase cost comparisons ................................................................................ 5.26 Lost sales and lost revenue .................................................................................................... 5.30 Part 6: Financial experience of U.S. producers ................................................................. 6.1 Background............................................................................................................................... 6.1 Operations on FGP ................................................................................................................... 6.3 Net sales ............................................................................................................................. 6.20 Cost of goods sold and gross profit or loss......................................................................... 6.21 SG&A expenses and operating income or loss................................................................... 6.24 All other expenses and net income or loss ........................................................................ 6.25 Variance analysis .................................................................................................................... 6.26 Capital expenditures and research and development expenses ........................................... 6.27 Assets and return on assets ................................................................................................... 6.31 Capital and investment .......................................................................................................... 6.34 CONTENTS Page v Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries .......................... 7.1 Subject countries ...................................................................................................................... 7.3 Changes in operations .......................................................................................................... 7.5 Installed and practical overall capacity ................................................................................ 7.5 Constraints on capacity ........................................................................................................ 7.6 Operations on FGP................................................................................................................ 7.7 Alternative products ........................................................................................................... 7.11 Exports ................................................................................................................................ 7.12 U.S. inventories of imported merchandise ............................................................................ 7.14 U.S. importers’ outstanding orders........................................................................................ 7.16 Third-country trade actions ................................................................................................... 7.16 Information on nonsubject countries .................................................................................... 7.18 Appendixes A. Federal Register notices.................................................................................................. A.1 B. Federal Register notice: Cancellation of hearing ............................................................ B.1 C. Summary data ................................................................................................................. C.1 D. Semi-finished product analysis ....................................................................................... D.1 E. U.S. processing of FGP, by source ................................................................................... E.1 F. U.S. producers’, U.S. processors’, and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments by type ............. F.1 G. Merchant market data .................................................................................................... G.1 H. Nonsubject country price data ....................................................................................... H.1 I. Pricing data of combined U.S. producers and processors vs. imports ........................... I.1 J. U.S. importer questionnaire coverage calculations........................................................ J.1 Note.—Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual firms may not be published. Such information is identified by brackets ([ ]) in confidential reports and is deleted and replaced with asterisks (***) in public reports. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as em dashes (—) in tables. If using a screen reader, we recommend increasing the verbosity setting. 1 UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Investigation Nos. 701-TA-748-749 and 731-TA-1726-1727 (Final) Float Glass Products from China and Malaysia DETERMINATIONS On the basis of the record1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of float glass products from China, provided for in subheadings 7005.10.80, 7005.21.10, 7005.21.20, 7005.29.18, 7005.29.25, 7007.29.00, 7008.00.00, 7009.91.50, and 7009.92.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), and imports of the subject merchandise from China and Malaysia that have been found to be subsidized by the governments of China and Malaysia.2 3 The Commission further determines that imports of float glass products from Malaysia found by Commerce to be sold in the United States at LTFV are negligible and terminates the antidumping duty investigation concerning Malaysia.4 BACKGROUND The Commission instituted these investigations effective November 21, 2024, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Vitro Flat Glass, LLC, Cheswick, Pennsylvania, and Vitro Meadville Flat Glass, LLC, Cochranton, Pennsylvania. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of float glass products from China and Malaysia 1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 2 91 FR 5708, 91 FR 5713, 91 FR 5720, and 91 FR 5723 (February 9, 2026). 3 Commissioner David S. Johanson dissenting. 4 The Commission initially voted in these investigations on March 5, 2026. The Commission found that imports of float glass products from Malaysia determined by Commerce to be sold at LTFV were not negligible. Chair Amy A. Karpel, Commissioner Jason E. Kearns, and Commissioner David S. Johanson voted to reconsider their votes in these investigations on March 20, 2026. On March 23, 2026, following this decision to reconsider, the Commission changed its determination in the antidumping duty investigation of imports from Malaysia from affirmative to negative based on negligibility grounds. 2 were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and sold at LTFV within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 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 on August 13, 2025 (90 FR 38991).5 The public hearing in connection with the investigations, scheduled for February 5, 2026, was cancelled.6 5 Due to the lapse in appropriations and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, the Commission tolled its schedule for this proceeding. The schedule was revised in subsequent notices published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2025 (90 FR 52999) and December 11, 2025 (90 FR 57483). 6 91 FR 5510, February 6, 2026. 3 VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we determine that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of float glass products (“FGP”) from China found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the government of China. We further determine that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of FGP subsidized by the government of Malaysia. Finally, we determine that imports of FGP from Malaysia found by Commerce to be sold in the United States at less than fair value are negligible and terminate the antidumping duty investigation with respect to FGP from Malaysia.1 2 3 Background Vitro Flat Glass, LLC and Vitro Meadville Flat Glass, LLC (collectively “Vitro” or “Petitioner”), a U.S. producer of FGP, filed the petitions in these investigations on November 1 Due to the lapse in appropriations and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, the Commission tolled its schedule for this proceeding. The schedule was revised in subsequent notices published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2025, and December 11, 2025. See Float Glass Products From China and Malaysia; Revised Schedule for the Subject Proceeding, 90 Fed. Reg. 52999 (Nov. 24, 2025); Float Glass Products From China and Malaysia; Revised Schedule for the Subject Proceeding, 90 Fed. Reg. 57483 (Dec. 11, 2025). 2 Commissioner David S. Johanson determines that an industry in the United States is not materially injury or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of FGP from China and Malaysia. See Dissenting Views of Commissioner David S. Johanson. He joins sections I-VI.B of the Commission’s views, except where noted. 3 The Commission initially voted in these investigations on March 5, 2026. The Commission found that imports of float glass products from Malaysia determined by Commerce to be sold at less than fair value were not negligible. See Commission Summary Voting Sheet, EDIS Doc. 874444 (Mar. 5, 2026). However, it became apparent after this vote that the Commission’s negligibility analysis had not accounted for Commerce’s final determinations in the antidumping duty investigation for Malaysia, in which Commerce assigned a de minimis margin to one firm. CR/PR at Table 1.5; see also Float Glass Products From Malaysia: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 91 Fed. Reg. 5723, 5724 (Feb. 9, 2026). Accordingly, on March 20, 2026, the Commission decided to reconsider its vote in these investigations to ensure the correctness and integrity of its proceedings, see EDIS Doc. 876055, and it voted again in these investigations on March 23, 2026, reaching the above results. See EDIS Doc. 876192. We note that both Commerce’s final antidumping duty margins and the relevant importer data were on the record of these proceedings at the time of the initial March 5, 2026, vote. 4 21, 2024.4 Petitioner submitted prehearing and posthearing briefs and final comments.5 No respondent firms participated in these final phase investigations.6 Upon request of Petitioner, and in the absence of opposition from any party, the Commission did not hold a hearing in these investigations.7 U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire responses from six U.S. producers and 24 U.S. processors of FGP.8 The six U.S. producers accounted for *** percent of domestic production of FGP in 2024.9 Sixty U.S. importers of FGP provided responses to the questionnaires out of the 162 firms believed to be importers of FGP.10 The responding importers accounted for an estimated *** percent of imports of FGP from China, *** percent of imports of FGP from Malaysia, *** percent of imports from subject sources, and *** percent of imports from nonsubject sources in 2024.11 Thus, subject imports as reported in the 4 Petition, EDIS Doc. 837757 (Nov. 21, 2024); see also Confidential Staff Report, INV-YY-022 at 1.1 (“CR”), EDIS Doc. 873280 (Feb. 23, 2026); Float Glass Products from China and Malaysia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-748-749 and 731-TA-1726-1727 (Final), USITC Publication 5715 at 1.1 (Mar. 2026)(“PR”) (together “CR/PR”). 5 Petitioner Prehearing Brief, EDIS Doc. 870619 (Jan. 29, 2026); Petitioner Posthearing Brief, EDIS Doc. 872397 (Feb. 12, 2026); Petitioner Final Comments, EDIS Doc. 873957 (Mar. 2, 2026). Petitioner’s posthearing brief was limited to answering questions from the Commission. 6 Larson Manufacturing and Therma-Tru Corp., U.S. importers of FGP, and Carlex Glass America, LLC, a domestic producer of FGP, entered appearances, but none of them filed a brief. American Bath Group, LLC (“ABG”), an importer of subject merchandise, submitted a nonparty statement in opposition to the petitions but did not file an appearance or otherwise participate in the investigations as a respondent. See ABG Nonparty Statement, EDIS Doc. 872459 (Feb. 12, 2026). 7 Float Glass Products from China and Malaysia; Cancellation of Hearing for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 91 Fed. Reg. 5510 (Feb. 6, 2026). 8 CR/PR at 1.5. 9 CR/PR at 1.5. 10 CR/PR at 4.1. 11 CR/PR at 1.5. Importer questionnaire data was calculated using adjusted imports in 2024 under primary HTS statistical reporting numbers 7005.10.8000, 7005.21.1010, 7005.21.1030, 7005.21.2000, 7005.29.1810, 7005.29.1850, 7005.29.2500, 7007.29.0000, 7008.00.0000, 7009.91.5010, 7009.91.5095 and 7009.92.5010 as the denominator. Id. The importer data coverage estimates are understated because the primary HTS codes include basket categories that contain out-of-scope merchandise, although official import statistics were adjusted to remove out-of-scope merchandise reported in questionnaire responses as well as the value of imports reported in proprietary, Census- edited Customs’ import records for firms that submitted responses during the preliminary and final phases of this proceeding certifying that their firms had not imported FGP. Official U.S. import statistics used in the denominator were also adjusted to include the value of imports reported in questionnaire responses as being imported under HTS codes other than the primary codes. CR/PR at 4.1. As set forth in Appendix J of the Staff Report, the Commission has attempted to further estimate coverage of importer questionnaire data through comparisons with adjusted official import data, and these refined estimates show that subject importers responding to the questionnaire accounted for *** percent of (Continued...) 5 questionnaires understates the volume and value of subject imports during the POI. Because of the non-responsiveness by firms which are believed to be U.S. importers of FGP and in the absence of other data that adjusts for these gaps, in addition to the questionnaire responses the Commission supplements data from the staff report with alternative data provided by Petitioner in its prehearing brief to measure the volume of subject imports.12 13 The Commission received a response to its questionnaires from one firm in China, Unitex Glass (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. (“Unitex) and one firm in Malaysia, Malaysian Sheet Glass Sdn Bhd/NSG (Malaysian Sheet Glass) (“NSG”). Unitex, a producer of FGP in China, estimated that it accounted for *** percent of FGP production in China in 2024,14 and the company accounted for *** percent of total exports of FGP to the United States from China in 2024 as compared to adjusted official import statistics.15 NSG, a producer of FGP in Malaysia ***, indicated that it “***.”16 subject imports from China, *** percent of subject imports from Malaysia, *** percent of subject imports, and *** percent of non-subject imports. See CR/PR at Table J.2. We also note that importer data coverage estimates may be overstated due to the denominator only including imports under the primary HTS numbers when subject imports also entered under secondary HTS numbers that cover subject and non-subject merchandise; subject imports entered under secondary HTS numbers were reported in questionnaire responses for responding U.S. importers. See CR/PR at 4.4, Tables 4.2, 4.11, App. at J.3. As discussed in Appendix J to the Staff Report, Staff has compared questionnaire reported in- scope import values by firms responding to the questionnaire with proprietary Customs data for the same firms under primary HTS codes, by period and by source (China, Malaysia, subject, Mexico, all other, nonsubject, and all sources). Differences between the two datasets for each source and period provide estimates of out-of-scope merchandise imported under primary HTS codes. Using this methodology implies out-of-scope shares of *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, and *** percent in the interim 2025 period for subject sources. Derived from CR/PR at Tables J.1 and J.2. 12 See Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 38, Table 2 and Exhibit 2. These data are based on official Census data for primary HTS codes and supplemented with Datamyne records for in-scope tempered glass, which enter under secondary HTS codes. These data may include out-of-scope merchandise imported under the primary HTS codes and therefore import volumes may be overstated. Additionally, in the data submitted by Petitioner, domestic shipments represent U.S. producers’ shipments to the merchant market (as Petitioner did not provide equivalent data for the total market). While, as discussed below, we find that the threshold criteria for application of the captive production provision is not met in these investigations, conditions in the merchant market are a relevant condition of competition since competition with subject and nonsubject imports is centered in that market. 13 Commissioner Johanson does not join this sentence. 14 CR/PR at Table 7.1. The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to 23 firms in China and 5 firms in Malaysia believed to produce or export FGP. CR/PR at 7.3. 15 CR/PR at Table 7.1. 16 CR/PR at Tables 7.1, 7.4, and 7.7. 6 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 subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”17 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.”18 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.”19 By statute, the Commission’s “domestic like product” analysis begins with the “article subject to an investigation,” i.e., the subject merchandise as determined by Commerce.20 Therefore, Commerce’s determination as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is subsidized and/or sold at less than fair value is “necessarily the starting point of the Commission’s like product analysis.”21 The Commission then defines the domestic like product in light of the imported articles Commerce has identified.22 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 17 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 18 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 19 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). 20 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). The Commission must accept Commerce’s determination as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is subsidized and/or sold at less than fair value. See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 34 Fed. App’x 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). 21 Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Hitachi Metals, Ltd. v. United States, Case No. 19-1289, slip op. at 8-9 (Fed. Circ. Feb. 7, 2020) (the statute requires the Commission to start with Commerce’s subject merchandise in reaching its own like product determination). 22 Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298 n.1 (“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s {like product} determination.”); 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); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748–52 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (affirming the Commission’s determination defining six like products in investigations where Commerce found five classes or kinds). 7 uses” on a case-by-case basis.23 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.24 The Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.25 B. Product Description Commerce defined the scope of the imported merchandise under investigation as follows: Float glass products (FGP), which are articles of soda-lime-silica glass that are manufactured by floating a continuous strip of molten glass over a smooth bath of tin (or another liquid metal with a density greater than molten glass), cooling the glass in an annealing lehr, and cutting it to appropriate dimensions. For purposes of the investigation, float glass products have an actual thickness of at least 2.0 mm (0.0787 inches) and an actual surface area of at least 0.37 square meters (4.0 square feet). The country of origin of each float glass product is determined by the location where the soda-lime-silica glass is first manufactured by floating a continuous strip of molten glass over a smooth bath of tin and cooling the glass in an annealing lehr, regardless of the location of any downstream finishing or fabrication operations. 23 See, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v. Dep’t of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of factors, including the following: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). 24 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979). 25 Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49; see also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (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.”). 8 Prior to being subjected to further treatment, finishing, or fabrication, float glass products meet the requirements of Type I under ASTM–C1036 of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Float glass products may be clear, stained, tinted, or coated with one or more materials. Examples of coated float glass products include Low-E architectural glass (i.e., glass with a low emissivity coating to limit the penetration of radiant heat energy) and frameless mirrors (i.e., flat glass with a silver, aluminum, or other reflective layer) such as mirror stock sheet. Float glass products may be annealed, chemically strengthened, heat strengthened, or tempered to achieve a desired surface compression, pursuant to ASTM–C1048, ASTM–C1422/C1422M, or other similar specifications. Float glass products include tub and shower enclosures (i.e., doors and panels) made of tempered glass, which may be sold with attached or unattached hardware. In such cases, the scope covers only the tempered glass, to the exclusion of any non-glass hardware. The only float glass product assemblies included within the scope are: (1) articles consisting of two or more sheets of float glass that are bonded together using a polymer interlayer (i.e., laminated glass); (2) insulating glass units (IGUs), which consist of two or more sheets of float glass separated by a spacer material and hermetically sealed together at the edge in order to create a thermal barrier using air or one or more gases but excluding any non-float glass components (other than the spacer and insulating materials) that may be mounted within the space between sheets of float glass (e.g., blinds, wrought iron cores, and camed patterned glass), as such non-float glass components are deemed outside the scope and not subject to duties; and (3) LED mirrors (i.e., float glass mirrors with one or more light-emitting diodes attached to or integrated with the mirror, as well as framed float glass mirrors with one or more light-emitting diodes attached to or integrated with the mirror or the 9 mirror frame, but without other electronic functionality such as digital or video displays or audio circuitry). Float glass products covered by the scope may meet one or more of the ASTM–C162, ASTM–C1036, ASTM–C1048, ASTM–C1172, ASTM–C1349, ASTM–C1376, ASTM–C1422/C1422M, ASTM–C1464, ASTM–C1503, ASTM–C1651, ASTM–E1300, and ASTM–E2190 specifications, definitions, and/or standards. Float glass products may be further worked, including, but not limited to, operations such as: cutting; beveling; edging; notching; drilling; etching; bending; curving; chipping; embossing; engraving; surface grinding; or polishing; and sandblasting (i.e., using high velocity air to stream abrasive particles and thereby impart a frosted aesthetic to the glass surface). A float glass product which undergoes further work remains within the scope so long as the soda-lime-silica glass originally satisfied the requirements of ASTM–C1036 Type I and was first manufactured in a subject country, regardless of where it is further worked. Excluded from the scope are: (1) wired glass (i.e., glass with a layer of wire mesh embedded within); (2) patterned flat glass (i.e., rolled glass with a pattern impressed on one or both sides) meeting the requirements of Type II under ASTM–C1036, including greenhouse glass and patterned solar glass (i.e., photovoltaic glass with a textured surface); (3) safety glazing materials for vehicles certified to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard Z26.1; (4) vacuum insulating glass (VIG) units, which consist of two or more sheets of float glass separated by a spacer material, with at least one hermetically sealed compartment that uses a gas-free vacuum as a thermal barrier; (5) framed mirrors without any LEDs integrated with the mirror or the mirror frame; (6) unframed ‘‘over- the-door’’ mirrors that are ready for use as imported without undergoing after importation any processing, finishing, or fabrication; and (7) heat- strengthened washing machine lid glass with an actual surface area less than 6.0 square feet (0.56 square meters). 10 Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are: (1) soda-lime-silica glass containing less than 0.01 percent iron oxide by weight, annealed with a surface compression less than 3,500 pounds per square inch (PSI), having a transparent conductive oxide base coating (e.g., tin oxide), and with an actual thickness less than or equal to 4.0 mm (0.1575 inches) (i.e., ‘‘coated solar glass’’); and (2) heat treated soda-lime-silica glass with a surface compression between 3,500 and 10,000 PSI, containing two or more drilled holes, and having an actual thickness less than 2.5 mm (0.0984 inches) (i.e., ‘‘clear back solar glass’’). Solar glass products (also known as photovoltaic glass) are designed to facilitate the conversion of solar energy into electricity. Also excluded are metal-camed glass products (i.e., panels of glass joined together with metal banding) where the constituent glass panels would otherwise be excluded by reason of their size (e.g., an actual surface area less than 0.37 square meters, or 4.0 square feet) and/or by reason of consisting of patterned flat glass (i.e., rolled glass with a pattern impressed on one or both sides) meeting the requirements of Type II under ASTM–C1036. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are any products already covered by the scope of any extant antidumping and/or countervailing duty orders, including Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011), and Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 FR 30653 (May 26, 2011). The products subject to the investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7005.10.8000, 7005.21.1010, 7005.21.1030, 7005.21.2000, 7005.29.1810, 7005.29.1850, 7005.29.2500, 7007.29.0000, 7008.00.0000, 7009.91.5010, 7009.91.5095, and 7009.92.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Products subject to the investigation may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7006.00.4010, 7006.00.4050, 7007.19.0000, 7013.99.2000, 7013.99.9090, 7610.10.0030, and 7610.90.0080. Although the HTSUS 11 subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.26 There are six stages in the production of FGP before the products are suitable for their ultimate end uses: (1) batching and mixing raw materials, (2) melting, refining, and conditioning, (3) floating the molten glass in a float bath, (4) annealing, (5) inspection and cutting, and (6) finishing.27 FGP is made primarily from silica (silicon dioxide) sand, soda ash (sodium carbonate), limestone (calcium carbonate), dolomite (calcium-magnesium carbonate), salt cake (sodium sulfate), and cullet (recycled or waste glass).28 The unprocessed float glass product or primary float glass is produced by floating molten glass over a bed of molten tin in a manufacturing process that requires heavy-duty machinery, strict raw material formulas, and strict tolerances.29 Once the producer pulls the initial glass ribbon, the manufacturing process is continuous, lasting 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the next 12 to 15 years, at almost 100 percent capacity utilization.30 After the inspection and cutting stage, FGP meet the requirements of Type I under ASTM-C1036.31 FGP then undergo further treatment, finishing, or fabrication operations that impart certain characteristics to the final product. Further processing includes chemical strengthening, heat strengthening, tempering, working, laminating, and other fabrication processes such as assembly into IGUs or mirrors.32 While the final specifications for FGP vary according to their end uses, all FGP share the same basic physical characteristics in that they are produced with smooth surfaces, uniform thickness, and relatively high optical quality and clarity.33 FGP is used in various downstream 26 Float Glass Products From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 91 Fed. Reg. 5708 (Feb. 9, 2026). The scopes of the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations are identical for each subject country. See, e.g., Float Glass Products From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 91 Fed. Reg. 5713, 5714 (Feb. 9, 2026). In its final determinations, Commerce modified the scope language used in its preliminary determinations by adding certain Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings to the scope. See id. at 5714. 27 CR/PR at 1.20-1.24. 28 CR/PR at 1.18. 29 CR/PR at 1.17. 30 CR/PR at 1.18. 31 CR/PR at 1.17. ASTM-C1036 is the “Standard Specification for Flat Glass.” Id. at 1.17 n.23. Type I glass is transparent flat glass and Type II is patterned and wired flat glass, which is excluded from the scope in these investigations. Type I glass is only clear while Type II glass can be clear or tinted. Id. In the U.S. market, the standard stock sizes of float glass are 96 x 130 inches and 100 x 144 inches, and jumbo size sheets are also available with dimensions of 130 x 204 inches. Id. at 1.18. 32 CR/PR at 1.24-1.26. 33 CR/PR at 1.17. 12 applications, including in architectural, automotive and non-automotive transportation, electronics, furniture, and construction applications.34 C. Arguments of the Parties Petitioner contends, as it did in the preliminary phase, that unprocessed “primary” float glass and downstream in-scope FGP should be defined as a single domestic like product pursuant to the Commission’s semi-finished product analysis, and that the Commission should define a single domestic like product pursuant to its traditional six-factor analysis comprising all FGP, coextensive with the scope. D. Domestic Like Product Analysis 1. Whether to Include Primary Float Glass and Processed FGP Within a Single Domestic Like Product In the preliminary phase, the Commission defined a single domestic like product encompassing both primary float glass and downstream in-scope FGP using its semi-finished products analysis, albeit based on limited information.35 The Commission found that the vast majority of primary float glass is dedicated to the production of downstream FGP, and that primary float glass and downstream FGP shared essential physical characteristics and had similar end uses. Although the record indicated that the value of primary float glass was substantially less than that of downstream FGP and that transforming primary float glass into FGP can require substantial processing, depending on the end use, the Commission found that primary float glass and downstream in-scope FGP belong in the same domestic like product.36 In this final phase, the Commission obtained questionnaire response data on the semi- finished product factors.37 These additional data support the Commission’s preliminary 34 CR/PR at 1.17. 35 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 5579 at 12-14. The Commission stated that “{it} did not request information on the semi-finished product factors in the preliminary phase questionnaires because Petitioner addressed this issue, after it had filed the petitions, in response to questions received from Commerce.” Id. at 14 n.42. 36 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 5579 at 13-14. 37 See CR/PR at 1.27; Appendix D. In a semi-finished products analysis, the Commission examines the following: (1) the significance and extent of the processes used to transform the upstream into the downstream articles; (2) whether the upstream article is dedicated to the production of the downstream article or has independent uses; (3) differences in the physical characteristics and functions of the upstream and downstream articles; (4) whether there are perceived to be separate markets for the upstream and downstream articles; and (5) differences in the costs or value of the vertically differentiated articles. See, e.g., Glycine from India, Japan, and Korea, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1111-1113 (Continued...) 13 determination that primary float glass and processed in-scope downstream FGP belong in a single domestic like product under the Commission’s semi-finished product analysis.38 Considering these data, and in the absence of any contrary argument, we again define the domestic like product to include primary float glass and downstream in-scope FGP. 2. Whether to Define a Single Domestic Like Product Comprised of All FGP In the preliminary phase, the Commission, applying its traditional six-factor test, defined a single domestic like product consisting of all FGP coextensive with Commerce’s scope. Specifically, the Commission considered whether there were differences between in-scope IGUs and other FGP that warranted defining them as two separate domestic like products.39 Ultimately, the Commission found that the preponderance of similarities between all in-scope FGP, including IGUs, supported their inclusion in a single domestic like product. It found that all FGP share the same fundamental physical characteristics, although specific FGP products possess physical characteristics tailored to their intended end use applications.40 The Commission also found that vertically integrated U.S. producers of FGP produce multiple types of FGP in the same facilities with the same employees, although production processes can differ depending on the product.41 Additionally, the record indicated that all types of FGP are sold (Preliminary), USITC Pub. No. 3921 at 7 (May 2007); Artists' Canvas from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1091 (Final), USITC Pub. No. 3853 at 6 (May 2006); Live Swine from Canada, Inv. No. 731-TA-1076 (Final), USITC Pub. 3766 at 8 n.40 (Apr. 2005); Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam, Inv. No. 731-TA-1012 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. No. 3533 at 7 (Aug. 2002). 38 See generally CR/PR at Appendix D. In sum, the additional data on the record in the final phase continue to indicate that primary float glass is primarily dedicated to the production of downstream in-scope FGP and there are limited uses for unprocessed primary float glass. For example, 26 of 29 responding U.S. producers and processors, 42 of 51 responding importers, and 28 of 29 responding purchasers reported that there are no other uses for primary float glass other than for processing into downstream FGP. CR/PR at Table 1.7. The record also indicates that primary float glass and processed FGP share essential physical characteristics and have similar ultimate end uses. Although the final specifications for processed FGP may vary to meet the requirements of certain end uses, all FGP share the same basic physical characteristics in that they are produced with smooth surfaces, uniform thickness, and relatively high optical quality and clarity. CR/PR at 1.17. On the other hand, the record indicates that there may be separate markets for primary float glass and processed FGP. See CR/PR at Tables 4.6 & D.4. Furthermore, the value of primary float glass is substantially less than that of processed FGP and that transforming primary float glass into processed FGP can require substantial processing, depending on the product. See CR/PR at 1.28 & Table D.1. 39 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 5579 at 14-17. 40 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 5579 at 16. 41 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 5579 at 16-17. 14 through the same channels of distribution, primarily to fabricators but also to transportation OEMs, distributors, and other end users.42 The Commission noted that while the interchangeability between specific types of FGP, and between IGUs and other in-scope FGP, was limited, given that each product had been produced for a specific end use application, the Commission found that is typical for products that exist on a continuum.43 Furthermore, the record indicated that a majority of processors and producers viewed all in-scope FGP as mostly interchangeable.44 Although the record indicated that there were differences between different types of FGP, including IGUs, in terms of producer and customer perceptions and price, the Commission found on balance, and in the absence of any contrary argument, that there were no clear dividing lines separating different types of in-scope FGP, including IGUs, in terms of the Commission’s domestic like product factors. Consequently, the Commission defined a single domestic like product encompassing all in-scope FGP, including IGUs.45 The record in these final phase investigations does not contain any new information suggesting that the Commission should revisit the domestic like product definition from the preliminary determinations, and no party contests the Petitioner’s argument that the Commission should adopt the same definition in the final phase of these investigations.46 Accordingly, we again define a single domestic like product encompassing all primary float glass and processed FGP, coextensive with the scope. 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.”47 In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all 42 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 5579 at 17. 43 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 5579 at 17 (citing Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Belarus, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1349, 1352, and 1357 (Final), USITC Pub. 4752 at 14-15 (Jan. 2018) (differences between grade 1080 tire cord and other types of wire rod within the scope do not warrant separate domestic like product treatment); Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from China, Germany, and Turkey, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1099-1101 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3832 at 10 (Jan. 2006) (“a lack of interchangeability among products comprising a continuum is not unexpected and not inconsistent with finding a single like product.”) 44 CR/PR at Table 1.7. 45 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 5579 at 17. 46 See CR/PR at 1.27. 47 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 15 domestic production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market. These investigations raise two sets of domestic industry issues. The first concerns whether U.S. processors engage in sufficient production-related activities to qualify as domestic producers of FGP. The second concerns whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude any domestic producers from the domestic industry pursuant to the related parties provision. A. Sufficient Production-Related Activities In deciding whether a firm qualifies as a domestic producer of the domestic like product, the Commission generally analyzes the overall nature of a firm’s U.S. production-related activities, although production-related activity at minimum levels could be insufficient to constitute domestic production.48 In the preliminary phase, the Commission found that U.S. processors engaged in sufficient production-related activities to qualify as domestic producers for purposes of the preliminary phase of the investigations.49 The Commission found that the activities of U.S. processors were substantial in several respects, including in the complexity of operations, employment levels, and value-added,50 and the Commission found that U.S. processors sourced the *** majority, *** percent, of their primary float glass from domestic sources.51 The Commission noted that while U.S. processors’ aggregated assets, capital expenditures, and R&D expenses appeared smaller than that of U.S. producers, it was likely due to the limited questionnaire responses received from U.S. processors.52 48 The Commission generally considers six factors: (1) source and extent of the firm’s capital investment; (2) technical expertise involved in U.S. production activities; (3) value added to the product in the United States; (4) employment levels; (5) quantity and type of parts sourced in the United States; and (6) any other costs and activities in the United States directly leading to production of the like product. No single factor is determinative and the Commission may consider any other factors it deems relevant in light of the specific facts of any investigation. Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-481 and 731-TA-1190 (Final), USITC Pub. 4360 at 12-13 (Nov. 2012). 49 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 5579 at 19-23. The Commission acknowledged that this determination was based on “limited information” given that only eight U.S. fabricators had provided questionnaire responses. Id. at 19. 50 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 5579 at 22. 51 Confidential Preliminary Determinations, EDIS Doc. 842572 at 30. 52 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 5579 at 22. 16 In this final phase, the Commission received U.S. producer questionnaire responses from 24 U.S. processors, 23 of which provided usable financial data,53 and the additional information supports the Commission’s determination in the preliminary phase that domestic producers engage in sufficient-production related activities.54 Accordingly, and in the absence of any contrary argument, we find that domestic firms that process primary float glass into downstream FGP engage in sufficient production-related activities to qualify as domestic producers. B. Related Parties We must determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from the domestic industry pursuant to section 771(4)(B) of the Tariff Act. This provision 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 53 CR/PR at 1.5 and 6.1. While 23 processors provided usable financial data, Processor *** began operations in 2025 and, therefore, only provided financial data for interim 2025. CR/PR at 6.1 n.4. Processor *** ceased its FGP processing operations in 2024 and provided financial data for all periods except interim 2025. Id. 54 See generally CR/PR Appendix E. In this final phase, although the record indicates that the relevant production-related activities of the responding U.S. processors on an aggregated basis, are on a smaller scale than those of U.S. producers in some respects, that could be due to the fact that U.S. processor data coverage might still be understated in the final phase. Only 23 processors provided usable financial data out of the more than 100 processors estimated by Petitioner. See CR at 3.1 n.2. Nevertheless, the additional data received in the final phase show that the aggregate value of responding U.S. producers’ assets and capital expenditures were each only *** those of U.S. processors, compared to the preliminary phase when the available data showed that U.S. producers’ aggregated assets were more than *** the value of U.S. processors’ assets, and their capital expenditures were more than *** those of U.S. processors. See CR/PR at Table E.3; Confidential Preliminary Determinations at 25-26. On average, U.S. processors reported that their operations were only slightly less complex and important than those of U.S. producers, at *** out of *** compared to *** out of *** as reported by U.S. producers. CR/PR at Table E.4. There also is some overlap between the processes that U.S. producers and processors perform, as a majority of U.S. producers reported some degree of vertical integration that allows them to engage in processing of FGP. CR/PR at Table E.3. U.S processors also reported substantial employment levels, ranging between *** PRWs from 2022 to 2024, which was approximately *** higher than U.S. producers in the same period. CR/PR at Table E.3. The record also indicates that the value-added by U.S. processors is high, ranging from *** percent, which was only slightly lower than the value-added by U.S. producers, which ranged from *** percent, and U.S. processors source the *** majority, *** percent, of their raw materials from domestic sources. See CR/PR at Table E.3. 17 or which are themselves importers.55 Exclusion of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each investigation.56 One domestic producer, *** is subject to possible exclusion under the related parties provision because it is directly controlled by an exporter of FGP in ***, and because it imported subject merchandise during the January 2022 to June 2025 period of investigation (“POI”).57 Moreover, since we have determined that U.S. processors engage in sufficient production- related activities to be included in the definition of the domestic industry, *** U.S. processors are subject to possible exclusion under the related parties provision because they imported subject merchandise during the POI.58 Petitioner does not argue that any U.S. producer or processor should be excluded from the domestic industry pursuant to the related-party 55 See Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161, 1168 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1322, 1331-32 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989), aff’d mem., 904 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Empire Plow Co. v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 1348, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1987). 56 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude a related party include the following: (1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer; (2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation (whether the firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue production and compete in the U.S. market); (3) whether inclusion or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry; (4) the ratio of import shipments to U.S. production for the imported product; and (5) whether the primary interest of the importing producer lies in domestic production or importation. Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. USITC, 100 F. Supp.3d 1314, 1326-31 (Ct. Int’l. Trade 2015); see also Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. at 1168. 57 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(i). *** indicated that it is ***. CR/PR at Table 3.2. *** reported that it is ***, but that it is ***. CR/PR at 3.5 & Table 3.2, see also *** Questionnaire Response at I-6. Because it is not related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise, it is not subject to possible exclusion under the related parties provision. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(B)(i). In the preliminary phase, domestic producer *** was subject to possible exclusion as a related party because it *** subject merchandise *** in 2021. The Commission determined that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry given that it imported subject merchandise in only one year of the preliminary phase period of investigation, and its ratio of subject imports to domestic production was low. Confidential Preliminary Determinations at 33. In this final phase, *** did not provide a final phase questionnaire response and to estimate U.S. producer coverage, staff assumed that *** 2024 production was equal to its 2023 production reported in its preliminary phase questionnaire. CR/PR at 3.1 n.1. As *** did not submit a final phase U.S. producer questionnaire response, there is no additional information regarding its status as a related party and no data to consider excluding if *** were deemed to be a related party. 58 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(i); see also CR/PR at 4.9 n.18. The *** processors subject to possible exclusion are ***. Id. 18 provision. Petitioner contends that “there is certainly reason to believe that companies like {processor} *** benefit from cheap imported feedstock for their operations,” but states that “there is no basis to exclude such companies from the Commission’s analysis under applicable legal precedent.”59 ***. *** accounted for *** percent of U.S. production of primary float glass, and was the *** U.S. producer in 2024.60 It takes *** on the petitions.61 It imported subject merchandise in 2023, 2024, and in interim 2024 and interim 2025, but the ratio of its subject imports to its domestic production remained less than *** percent during the POI.62 *** indicates that it imported subject merchandise “***.”63 Given that the ratio of *** subject imports to domestic production was very low, its primary interest appears to be in domestic production. Furthermore, there is no information on the record suggesting that *** was shielded from subject import competition by virtue of its affiliation with *** or benefited from its imports of subject merchandise such that its inclusion in the domestic industry would skew industry data or mask injury. In light of these considerations, and in the absence of any contrary argument, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry. U.S. Processors. Because we have found that U.S. processors engage in sufficient production-related activities to be included in the domestic industry, the following U.S. processors are subject to possible exclusion from the domestic industry because they imported subject merchandise during the POI.64 ***. *** accounted for *** percent of U.S. processing of FGP in 2024.65 It imported subject imports in 2022, 2023, 2024, and interim 2025, and its ratio of subject imports to domestic production exceeded *** throughout the POI.66 *** reported that it “***” and that 59 Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 20. 60 CR/PR at Table 3.1, Table 3.10. 61 CR/PR at Table 3.1. 62 CR/PR at Table 3.23. *** domestic production was *** pounds in 2022, *** pounds in 2023, *** pounds in 2024, *** pounds in interim 2024, and *** pounds in interim 2025. Its imports from *** were *** pounds in 2023, *** pounds in 2024, *** pounds in interim 2024, and *** pounds in interim 2025. Id. 63 CR/PR at 3.34. 64 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(i). 65 CR/PR at Table 3.1. *** *** the petitions. Id. at Table 3.1. 66 CR/PR at Table E.7. *** domestic processing was *** pounds in 2022, *** pounds in 2023, *** pounds in 2024, *** pounds in interim 2024, and *** pounds in interim 2025. Its imports from *** were *** pounds in 2022, *** pounds in 2023, *** pounds in 2024, and *** pounds in interim 2025. Id. We note that a substantial portion of FGP that U.S. processors purchase ends up being scrapped during (Continued...) 19 relying on U.S.-origin inputs would threaten its business viability.67 *** reported that it has made *** but ***.68 Although its ratio of imports to production is high, *** reported operating losses in each full year of the POI, and in the interim periods, and net losses in 2023, 2024, and the interim periods.69 Thus, its financial performance was worse than the average for domestic processors, and given the relatively small percentage of domestic processing for which it accounted, its inclusion in the domestic industry would not likely skew the domestic industry data or mask injury, even to the extent that its domestic operations would have benefited from its subject imports. Therefore, and in the absence of any argument to the contrary, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry. ***. *** accounted for *** percent of U.S. processing of FGP in 2024.70 It imported subject imports in 2022, 2023, 2024, and interim 2025, but the ratio of its subject imports to its domestic production was *** percent in each period.71 Given that the ratio of *** subject imports to domestic production was relatively low, and its capital expenditures were substantial,72 its primary interest appears to be in domestic production. Although *** ratios of gross profit to net sales, operating income to net sales, and net income to net sales were generally higher than the average of U.S. processors for most of the POI, given the relative small percentage of domestic processing for which accounted, it is unlikely that its inclusion in the domestic industry would skew the domestic industry data or mask injury, even to the extent that its domestic production operations would have benefited the fabrication process, and the yield loss can range from 25 to 40 percent, depending on the product. CR/PR at 3.1 n.2. 67 CR/PR at 5.37. 68 CR/PR at Tables 6.13, E.2. 69 CR/PR at Table E.36. *** ratios of operating income to net sales and net income to net sales were lower than the average of U.S. processors. *** ratio of operating income to net sales was *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, *** percent in interim 2024, and *** percent in interim 2025. CR/PR at Table E.36. U.S. processors’ ratio of operating income to net sales was 13.2 percent in 2022, 14.1 percent in 2023, 11.2 percent in 2024, 13.1 percent in interim 2024, and 6.0 percent in interim 2025. Id. *** ratio of net income to net sales was *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, *** percent in interim 2024, and *** percent in interim 2025. CR/PR at Table E.36. U.S. processors’ ratio of net income to net sales was 12.8 percent in 2022, 13.3 percent in 2023, 10.4 percent in 2024, 12.2 percent in interim 2024, and 5.4 percent in interim 2025. Id. 70 CR/PR at Table 3.1. *** the petitions. Id. 71 CR/PR at Table E.9. *** domestic processing was *** pounds in 2022, *** pounds in 2023, *** pounds in 2024, *** pounds in interim 2024, and *** pounds in interim 2025. Its imports from China and Malaysia were *** pounds in 2022, *** pounds in 2023, *** pounds in 2024, *** pounds in interim 2024, and *** pounds in interim 2025. Id. 72 *** reported capital expenditures ranging from $*** to $*** in the full years of the POI. CR/PR at Table E.36. 20 from its subject imports.73 In light of these considerations, and in the absence of any contrary argument, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry. ***. *** accounted for *** percent of U.S. processing of FGP in 2024.74 It imported subject imports from China in 2022 and 2023, and its ratio of subject imports to domestic production was *** percent in 2022 and *** percent in 2023.75 *** indicates that ***.76 Given that *** imported subject imports during only two years of the POI and its ratio of subject imports to domestic production was low, as well as its relatively substantial capital expenditures,77 its primary interest appears to be in domestic production. There also is no information on the record suggesting that *** benefited from its subject imports to such an extent that its inclusion in the domestic industry would skew the domestic industry data or mask injury. *** ratios of gross profit to net sales, operating income to net sales, and net income to net sales were lower than the average of all U.S. processors.78 In light of these 73 *** ratio of gross profit to net sales was *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, *** percent in interim 2024, and *** percent in interim 2025. CR/PR at Table E.36. U.S. processors’ ratio of gross profit to net sales was 26.7 percent in 2022, 27.7 percent in 2023, 26.1 percent in 2024, 27.9 percent in interim 2024, and 22.3 percent in interim 2025. Id. *** ratio of operating income to net sales was *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, *** percent in interim 2024, and *** percent in interim 2025. CR/PR at Table E.36. U.S. processors’ ratio of operating income to net sales was 13.2 percent in 2022, 14.1 percent in 2023, 11.2 percent in 2024, 13.1 percent in interim 2024, and 6.0 percent in interim 2025. Id. *** ratio of net income to net sales was *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, *** percent in interim 2024, and *** percent in interim 2025. CR/PR at Table E.36. U.S. processors’ ratio of net income to net sales was 12.8 percent in 2022, 13.3 percent in 2023, 10.4 percent in 2024, 12.2 percent in interim 2024, and 5.4 percent in interim 2025. Id. 74 CR/PR at Table 3.1. *** the petitions. Id. 75 CR/PR at Table E.12. *** domestic processing was *** pounds in 2022, *** pounds in 2023, *** pounds in 2024, *** pounds in interim 2024, and *** pounds in interim 2025. Its imports from China were *** pounds in 2022 and *** pounds in 2023. Id. 76 CR/PR at Table 6.13. 77 *** reported capital expenditures ranging from $*** to $*** in the full years of the POI. CR/PR at Table E.36. 78 CR/PR at Table E.36. *** ratio of gross profit to net sales was *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, *** percent in interim 2024, and *** percent in interim 2025. CR/PR at Table E.36. U.S. processors’ ratio of gross profit to net sales was 26.7 percent in 2022, 27.7 percent in 2023, 26.1 percent in 2024, 27.9 percent in interim 2024, and 22.3 percent in interim 2025. Id. *** ratio of operating income to net sales was *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, *** percent in interim 2024, and *** percent in interim 2025. CR/PR at Table E.36. U.S. processors’ ratio of operating income to net sales was 13.2 percent in 2022, 14.1 percent in 2023, 11.2 percent in 2024, 13.1 percent in interim 2024, and 6.0 percent in interim 2025. Id. (Continued...) 21 considerations, and in the absence of any contrary argument, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry. ***. *** accounted for *** percent of U.S. processing of FGP in 2024.79 It imported subject imports from China in 2022, 2023, 2024, and interim 2025. Its ratio of subject imports to domestic production was *** percent in 2022 but did not exceed *** percent for the remainder of the POI.80 *** indicates that ***.81 Given that *** ratio of subject imports to domestic production was low and decreased substantially after 2022 through the remainder of the POI, as well as its relatively substantial capital expenditures,82 its primary interest appears to be in domestic production. Although *** ratios of gross profit to net sales and operating income to net sales were generally higher than the average of U.S. processors for most of the POI, given the relatively small percentage of domestic processing for which it accounted, it is unlikely that its inclusion in the domestic industry would skew the domestic industry data or mask injury, even to the extent that its domestic operations would have benefited from its subject imports.83 In light of these considerations, and in the absence of any contrary argument, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry. *** ratio of net income to net sales was *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, *** percent in interim 2024, and *** percent in interim 2025. CR/PR at Table E.36. U.S. processors’ ratio of net income to net sales was 12.8 percent in 2022, 13.3 percent in 2023, 10.4 percent in 2024, 12.2 percent in interim 2024, and 5.4 percent in interim 2025. Id. 79 CR/PR at Table 3.1. *** the petitions. Id. 80 CR/PR at Table E.14. *** domestic processing was *** pounds in 2022, *** pounds in 2023, *** pounds in 2024, *** pounds in interim 2024, and *** pounds in interim 2025. Its imports from China were *** pounds in 2022, *** pounds in 2023, *** pounds in 2024, *** pounds in interim 2024, and *** pounds in interim 2025. Id. 81 CR/PR at Table 6.13. 82 *** reported capital expenditures of $*** in 2024. CR/PR at Table E.36. 83 *** ratio of gross profit to net sales was *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, *** percent in interim 2024, and *** percent in interim 2025. CR/PR at Table E.36. U.S. processors’ ratio of gross profit to net sales was 26.7 percent in 2022, 27.7 percent in 2023, 26.1 percent in 2024, 27.9 percent in interim 2024, and 22.3 percent in interim 2025. Id. *** ratio of operating income to net sales was *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, *** percent in interim 2024, and *** percent in interim 2025. CR/PR at Table E.36. U.S. processors’ ratio of operating income to net sales was 13.2 percent in 2022, 14.1 percent in 2023, 11.2 percent in 2024, 13.1 percent in interim 2024, and 6.0 percent in interim 2025. Id. *** ratio of net income to net sales was *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, *** percent in interim 2024, and *** percent in interim 2025. CR/PR at Table E.36. U.S. processors’ ratio of net income to net sales was 12.8 percent in 2022, 13.3 percent in 2023, 10.4 percent in 2024, 12.2 percent in interim 2024, and 5.4 percent in interim 2025. Id. 22 ***. *** accounted for *** percent of U.S. processing of FGP in 2024 and reported U.S. FGP processing *** in interim 2025.84 It imported subject merchandise from China in interim 2025 but its ratio of subject imports to domestic production was *** percent.85 Given that *** imported subject imports during only interim 2025 and its ratio of subject imports to domestic production was low, its primary interest appears to be in domestic production. Furthermore, there is no information on the record suggesting that *** benefited from its subject imports to such an extent that its inclusion in the domestic industry would skew the domestic industry data or mask injury, given its very small size and that it reported financial data only for interim 2025.86 In light of these considerations, and in the absence of any contrary argument, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry. ***. *** accounted for *** percent of U.S. processing of FGP in 2024.87 It imported subject merchandise from China throughout the POI, but its ratio of subject imports to domestic production was *** throughout the POI.88 Given *** low ratio of subject imports to domestic production and its significant capital expenditures,89 its primary interest appears to be in domestic production. There also is no information on the record suggesting that *** benefited from its subject imports to such an extent that its inclusion in the domestic industry would skew the domestic industry data or mask injury, given that *** ratios of gross profit to net sales, operating income to net sales, and net income to net sales were generally lower than the average of U.S. processors for most of the POI.90 In light of these considerations, and in the absence of any contrary argument, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry. 84 CR/PR at Tables 3.1, 3.11. *** the petitions. Id. 85 CR/PR at Table E.16. *** domestic processing was *** pounds in in interim 2025 and its imports from China were *** pounds. Id. 86 CR/PR at Table E.36. 87 CR/PR at Table 3.1. *** the petitions. Id. 88 CR/PR at Table E.21. *** domestic processing was *** pounds in 2022, *** pounds in 2023, *** pounds in 2024, *** pounds in interim 2024, and *** pounds in interim 2025. Its imports from China were *** pounds in 2022, *** pounds in 2023, *** pounds in 2024, *** pounds in interim 2024, and *** pounds in interim 2025. Id. 89 *** reported capital expenditures ranging from $*** to $*** in the full years of the POI. CR/PR at Table E.36. 90 *** ratio of gross profit to net sales was *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, *** percent in interim 2024, and *** percent in interim 2025. CR/PR at Table E.36. U.S. processors’ ratio of gross profit to net sales was 26.7 percent in 2022, 27.7 percent in 2023, 26.1 percent in 2024, 27.9 percent in interim 2024, and 22.3 percent in interim 2025. Id. *** ratio of operating income to net sales was *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, *** percent in interim 2024, and *** percent in interim 2025. CR/PR at Table E.36. (Continued...) 23 ***. *** accounted for *** percent of U.S. processing of FGP in 2024.91 It imported subject imports from subject sources in 2022, 2023, and 2024. Its ratio of subject imports to domestic production was *** percent in 2023, but was below *** percent in 2022 and 2024, and was *** percent in interim 2024.92 Given that the *** ratio of subject imports to domestic production was low for two of the three full years of the POI, its primary interest appears to be in domestic production. Furthermore, there is no information on the record suggesting that *** benefited from its imports to such an extent that its inclusion in the domestic industry would skew industry data or mask injury. *** accounted for a relatively small percentage of domestic processing and its ratios of operating income to net sales and net income to net sales were *** than other U.S. processors in 2023, when its ratio of subject imports to domestic production was highest, and its *** financial performance later occurred in years when its ratio of subject imports to domestic production did not ***.93 In light of these considerations, and in the absence of any contrary argument, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry. Accordingly, consistent with our definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry to include all U.S. producers of FGP. U.S. processors’ ratio of operating income to net sales was 13.2 percent in 2022, 14.1 percent in 2023, 11.2 percent in 2024, 13.1 percent in interim 2024, and 6.0 percent in interim 2025. Id. *** ratio of net income to net sales was *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, *** percent in interim 2024, and *** percent in interim 2025. CR/PR at Table E.36. U.S. processors’ ratio of net income to net sales was 12.8 percent in 2022, 13.3 percent in 2023, 10.4 percent in 2024, 12.2 percent in interim 2024, and 5.4 percent in interim 2025. Id. 91 CR/PR at Table 3.1. *** the petitions. Id. 92 CR/PR at Table E.25. *** domestic processing was *** pounds in 2022, *** pounds in 2023, *** pounds in 2024, and *** pounds in interim 2024. Its imports from subject sources were *** pounds in 2022, *** pounds in 2023, *** pounds in 2024, and *** pounds in interim 2024. Id. 93 *** ratio of gross profit to net sales was *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, and *** percent in interim 2024. CR/PR at Table E.36. U.S. processors’ ratio of gross profit to net sales was 26.7 percent in 2022, 27.7 percent in 2023, 26.1 percent in 2024, 27.9 percent in interim 2024, and 22.3 percent in interim 2025. Id. *** ratio of operating income to net sales was *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, and *** percent in interim 2024. CR/PR at Table E.36. U.S. processors’ ratio of operating income to net sales was 13.2 percent in 2022, 14.1 percent in 2023, 11.2 percent in 2024, 13.1 percent in interim 2024, and 6.0 percent in interim 2025. Id. *** ratio of net income to net sales was *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, and *** percent in interim 2024. CR/PR at Table E.36. U.S. processors’ ratio of net income to net sales was 12.8 percent in 2022, 13.3 percent in 2023, 10.4 percent in 2024, 12.2 percent in interim 2024, and 5.4 percent in interim 2025. Id. 24 Negligible Imports Pursuant to Section 771(24) of the Tariff Act, imports from a subject country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic like product that account for less than 3 percent of all such merchandise imported into the United States during the most recent 12 months for which data are available preceding the filing of the petition shall be deemed negligible.94 The statute further provides that subject imports from a single country which comprise less than 3 percent of total such imports of the product may not be considered negligible if there are several countries subject to investigation with negligible imports and the sum of such imports from all those countries collectively accounts for more than 7 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States.95 In the case of countervailing duty investigations involving developing countries (as designated by the United States Trade Representative), the statute indicates that the negligibility limits are 4 percent and 9 percent, rather than 3 percent and 7 percent.96 Additionally, even if subject imports are found to be negligible for purposes of present material injury, they shall not be treated as negligible for purposes of a threat analysis should the Commission determine that there is a potential that subject imports from the country concerned will imminently account for more than 3 percent (4 percent for countervailing duty investigations of developing countries) of all such merchandise imported into the United States.97 The Commission also assesses whether there is a potential that the aggregate volumes of subject imports from all countries with currently negligible imports will imminently exceed 7 percent (9 percent for countervailing duty investigations of developing countries) of all such merchandise imported into the United States.98 During the 12-month period preceding the filing of the petitions (November 2023 through October 2024), based on questionnaire data, imports of FGP from China in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations accounted for 39.7 percent of total imports, imports of FGP from Malaysia in the countervailing duty investigation accounted for 4.9 percent of total imports, 99 and imports from Malaysia in the antidumping duty investigation accounted 94 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a), 1677(24)(A)(i), 1677(24)(B). 95 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(ii). 96 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(B); see also 15 C.F.R. § 2013.1 (developing countries for purposes of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(36)). 97 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(iv). 98 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(iv). 99 CR/PR at Table 4.5. 25 for 2.5 percent of total imports.100 As subject imports from China exceeded the three percent negligibility threshold in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, we find that the imports of FGP from China are not negligible for the relevant antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. As subject imports from Malaysia subject to the countervailing duty investigation exceeded the three percent threshold, we find that these imports are not negligible for purposes of the countervailing duty investigation. Subject imports from Malaysia in the antidumping duty investigation, however, were below the 3 percent threshold during the 12-month period prior to filing the petition.101 Accordingly, we find that these imports are negligible for present material injury in the antidumping duty investigation on imports of FGP from Malaysia. We next consider whether subject imports of FGP from Malaysia in the antidumping duty investigation have the potential to imminently exceed 3 percent of total imports of FGP for purposes of a threat analysis. Based on questionnaire data, subject imports from Malaysia subject to the antidumping investigation did not exceed 2.5 percent of total imports during any of the rolling 12-month periods including and following the twelve-month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition ending in October 2024 to June 2025.102 Furthermore, reported arranged imports from Malaysia subject to the antidumping duty investigation were on a declining trend, from *** pounds in the third quarter of 2025, and only *** pounds in the fourth quarter of 2025, with *** arranged imports reported for the first or second quarters of 100 Supplemental negligibility tables compiled from data on the record to account for Commerce’s final determination in the Malaysia antidumping duty investigation are attached to this opinion. See Tables Supp. 1 to 4. The volume of subject imports from Malaysia exceeded the three percent negligibility threshold at 4.9 percent before one producer/exporter in that country was excluded in Commerce’s final antidumping determination. CR/PR at Table 4.5. With that one producer/exporter now excluded, the volume of subject imports from Malaysia declined to below the negligibility threshold (at 2.5 percent). See Table Supp.1. 101 Table Supp.1 and Table Supp.2. 102 See Table Supp. 2. The share of imports from Malaysia subject to the AD investigation were as follows for the 12-month rolling period ending in each listed month: October 2024--2.5 percent; November 2024--2.5 percent; December 2024 – 2.4 percent; January 2025 –2.4 percent; February 2025 – 2.4 percent; March 2025 –2.4 percent; April 2025 – 2.3 percent; May 2025 – 2.3 percent; June 2025 – 2.3 percent. The total volumes of imports from Malaysia subject to the AD investigation during those 12-month rolling periods remained steady between 9.3 million and 9.8 million pounds. See Table Supp. 2. Further, in the 12 months of the negligibility period, imports from Malaysia subject to the AD investigation exceeded 3 percent of total imports calculated on a monthly basis in only three of the 12 months (January, April, and July 2024) and were below three percent in the three full months prior to the filing of the petition (August 2024 (2.2 percent), September 2024 (2.5 percent), and October (2.8 percent)). Table Supp.4. The petition was filed on November 21, 2024, and imports from Malaysia subject to the AD investigation accounted for 1.6 percent of total imports that month. Id. 26 2026.103 Based on information in the petition and information obtained from third-party sources, the Commission issued foreign producers’/exporters’ questionnaires to five firms in Malaysia believed to be producers of FGP. The only responding producer of FGP from Malaysia, NSG, reported that it ***.104 Because Malaysian imports accounted for less than 2.5 percent of total imports during the 12-months preceding the filing of the petition and that percentage declined over that 12- month period, the minimal arranged imports from Malaysia, and the absence of further information regarding the Malaysian FGP industry, the available information and data do not support a finding that subject dumped imports from Malaysia will imminently exceed 3 percent of total imports. Therefore, we find that subject imports of FGP from Malaysia are negligible for threat purposes and terminate the antidumping duty investigation with respect to subject imports from Malaysia.105 Cumulation For purposes of evaluating the volume and effects for a determination of material injury by reason of subject imports, section 771(7)(G)(i) of the Tariff Act requires the Commission to cumulate subject imports from all countries as to which petitions were filed and/or investigations self-initiated by Commerce on the same day, if such imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product in the U.S. market. In assessing whether subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product, the Commission generally has considered four factors: (1) the degree of fungibility between subject imports from different countries and between subject imports and the domestic like product, including 103 See Table Supp. 3. While a total of *** pounds of FGP were reported as arranged for importation from Malaysia in the third quarter of 2025, and *** pounds were reported as arranged for importation from Malaysia in the fourth quarter of 2025, the large majority of those imports were reported as imports from Xinyi, which Commerce excluded from the antidumping order. See Table Supp. 3; CR/PR at Tables 1.5 & 7.12. Imports from Malaysia subject to the AD investigation accounted for *** percent of all reported arranged imports from the third quarter of 2025 through the second quarter of 2026. Id. 104 CR/PR at Table 7.3. NSG was the only subject producer in Malaysia to respond to the Commission’s questionnaire, and the record, including Petitioner’s submissions, otherwise does not contain information on Malaysian producers’ production, capacity, or other data relevant to an analysis of whether imports from Malaysia may imminently exceed the negligibility threshold. 105 See 19 U.S.C. § 1673d (“If the Commission determines that imports of the subject merchandise are negligible, the investigation shall be terminated.”). 27 consideration of specific customer requirements and other quality related questions; (2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets of subject imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar channels of distribution for subject imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the subject imports are simultaneously present in the market.106 While no single factor is necessarily determinative, and the list of factors is not exhaustive, these factors are intended to provide the Commission with a framework for determining whether the subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.107 Only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is required.108 Petitioner argues that the Commission should cumulate subject imports from China and Malaysia for an analysis of present material injury. It asserts that the petitions for both countries were filed on the same day, that none of the statutory exceptions to cumulation apply, and that there is a reasonable overlap in competition between and among subject imports from China and Malaysia.109 As discussed above, we have terminated the antidumping duty investigation with respect to subject imports from Malaysia because we have found that imports from Malaysia in the antidumping duty investigation are negligible. However, imports from Malaysia subject to the countervailing duty investigation are not negligible and thus are eligible for cumulation with imports from China subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations for 106 See Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-278-280 (Final), USITC Pub. 1845 (May 1986), aff’d, Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898 (Ct. Int’l Trade), aff’d, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 107 See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989). 108 The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), expressly states that “the new section will not affect current Commission practice under which the statutory requirement is satisfied if there is a reasonable overlap of competition.” H.R. Rep. No. 103- 316, Vol. I at 848 (1994) (citing Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. at 902; see Goss Graphic Sys., Inc. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1087 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998) (“cumulation does not require two products to be highly fungible”); Wieland Werke, AG, 718 F. Supp. at 52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”). 109 Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 32-36. 28 purposes of analyzing present material injury.110 The statutory threshold for cumulation is satisfied in these investigations because Petitioner filed the antidumping and countervailing duty petitions with respect to both subject countries on the same day, November 21, 2024. Fungibility. The record indicates that domestic produced FGP and imports of FGP from China and Malaysia are generally fungible. Most responding U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and purchasers reported that subject imports from each source were either “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with the domestic like product and with each other.111 Most purchasers reported that U.S.-produced FGP was comparable to imports of FGP from China with respect to 12 of 17 purchasing factors,112 and U.S.-produced FGP was comparable to imports of FGP from Malaysia with respect to 12 of 17 purchasing factors.113 In addition, the Commission’s pricing data indicate overlap and head-to-head competition between the domestic like product and imports from China and Malaysia in sales 110 None of the statutory exceptions to cumulation applies. We observe that these investigations involve dumping and subsidy allegations regarding FGP from both China and Malaysia. As previously discussed, subject imports from Malaysia are below the negligibility threshold for the antidumping duty investigation but above the negligibility threshold in the countervailing duty investigation. Consequently, cumulating subject imports from China and Malaysia will involve “cross- cumulating” dumped imports with subsidized imports. The Commission has previously explained why it continues its longstanding practice of cross-cumulating. See Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin from Canada, China, India, and Oman, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-531-532 and 731-TA-1270-1273 (Final), USITC Pub. 4604 at 9-11 (April 2016). 111 CR/PR at Tables 2.14-2.16. 112 CR/PR at Table 2.13. A majority of purchasers indicated that U.S.-produced FGP was comparable to imports from China with respect to custom fabrication options, glass transparency/clarity, minimum quantity requirements, packaging, payment terms, product consistency, product range, quality meeting industry standards, quality exceeding industry standards, reliability of supply, technical support/service, and U.S. transportation costs. Most U.S. purchasers indicated that U.S.-produced FGP was superior to imports from China with respect to availability, delivery terms, and delivery time. Most U.S. purchasers indicated that U.S.- produced FGP was inferior to imports from China with respect to discounts offered and price (i.e., U.S.- produced-FGP was higher in price). Id. at Table 2.13. 113 CR/PR at Table 2.13. A majority of purchasers indicated that U.S.-produced FGP was comparable to imports from Malaysia with respect to custom fabrication options, glass transparency/clarity, minimum quantity requirements, packaging, payment terms, product consistency, product range, quality meeting industry standards, quality exceeding industry standards, reliability of supply, technical support/service, and U.S. transportation costs. Id. Most U.S. purchasers indicated that U.S.- produced FGP was superior to imports from Malaysia with respect to availability, delivery terms, and delivery time. Id. Most U.S. purchasers indicated that U.S.- produced FGP was inferior to imports from Malaysia with respect to discounts offered and price (i.e., U.S.- produced FGP was higher in price). Id. 29 of pricing product 1.114 U.S. purchasers’ responses to the Commission’s lost sales and lost revenue survey also indicate that domestically produced FGP are fungible with subject imports from China and Malaysia, as almost half of responding purchasers reported shifting purchases from the domestic industry to subject imports from China or Malaysia during the POI.115 Furthermore, the record indicates that subject imports from each subject country substantially overlapped with the domestic like product in terms of product type. U.S. producers reported that *** percent of their U.S. shipments in 2024 were primary float glass. U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of primary float glass accounted for *** percent of U.S. importers’ total U.S. shipments of FGP from China, and *** percent of U.S. importers’ total U.S. shipments of FGP from Malaysia.116 Furthermore, when comparing U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments, subject imports from China and Malaysia substantially overlapped with the domestic like product in U.S. shipments of mirrors, 117 and overlapped to a lesser degree in U.S. shipments of tempered glass and IGUs.118 Thus, the record indicates that there was a sufficient degree of fungibility between subject imports and the domestic like product for purposes of cumulation. 114 CR/PR at Table 5.3. The Commission’s pricing data also indicate overlap and head-to-head competition between the domestic like product and imports from China in sales of pricing products 4 and 5. See CR/PR at Tables 5.6 & 5.7. 115 CR/PR at 5.30. Of the 33 responding purchasers, 16 reported that, since 2022, they had purchased imported FGP from China and Malaysia instead of U.S-produced product. Id. 116 CR/PR at Table 4.6. 117 CR/PR at Table 4.6. U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments of mirrors accounted for *** percent of their total U.S. shipments in 2024. Importers’ imports of mirrors from China accounted for *** percent of their total imports of FGP from China in 2024. Importers’ imports of mirrors from Malaysia accounted for *** percent of their total imports of FGP from Malaysia in 2024. 118 CR/PR at Table 4.6. U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments of tempered glass accounted for *** percent of their total U.S. shipments in 2024. Importers’ imports of tempered glass from China accounted for *** percent of their total of FGP from China in 2024. Importers’ imports of tempered glass from Malaysia accounted for *** percent of their total imports of FGP from Malaysia in 2024. U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments of IGUs accounted for *** percent of their total U.S. shipments in 2024. Importers’ imports of IGUs from China accounted for *** percent of their total imports of FGP from China in 2024. Importers’ imports of IGUs from Malaysia accounted for *** percent of their total U.S. shipments of FGP from Malaysia in 2024. In 2024, U.S. fabricators’ U.S. shipments of in-scope FGP were the following volumes: *** pounds of IGUs; *** pounds of mirrors, *** pounds of tempered glass, *** pounds of laminated FGP, and *** pounds of all other FGP. CR/PR at Table F.1. In 2024, importers’ U.S. shipments of FGP from China were the following volumes: *** pounds of IGUs; *** pounds of mirrors, *** pounds of tempered glass, *** pounds of laminated FGP, and *** pounds of all other FGP. Id. In 2024, importers’ U.S. shipments of FGP from Malaysia were the following volumes: *** pounds of IGUs; *** pounds of mirrors, and *** pounds of tempered glass. Accordingly, the record shows that U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments overlapped with subject imports in sales of IGUs, mirrors, and tempered glass. 30 Channels of Distribution. During the POI, U.S. producers sold FGP in the United States to fabricators, automotive and transportation OEMs, and distributors, but the vast majority of their sales were to fabricators/processors.119 Sales of subject imports from China were more varied in their channels of distribution in the U.S. and were sold to distributors, fabricators, contractors/glaziers, and other end users, with a small percentage of sales to automotive and transportation OEMs.120 Subject imports from Malaysia were sold to mostly to fabricators, followed by sales to contractors/glaziers, with small percentages of sales to automotive and transportation OEMs, and other end users.121 Regarding U.S. processors’ channels of distribution, the record shows that U.S. processors sold most of their U.S. shipments to contractors, builders and glaziers, with smaller amounts to distributors and other fabricators/processors.122 Geographic Overlap. U.S. producers and importers of subject merchandise from China and Malaysia each reported selling FGP to all regions of the contiguous United States.123 Official import statistics indicate that imports from China and Malaysia entered the United States through ports located in all four border of entry regions.124 119 CR/PR at Table 2.3. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments to fabricators accounted for *** percent of domestic producers’ U.S. shipments in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, *** percent in interim 2024, and *** percent in interim 2025. Id. 120 CR/PR at Table 2.3. U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of FGP from China to fabricators accounted for *** percent of importers’ U.S. shipments in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, *** percent in interim 2024, and *** percent in interim 2025. Id. 121 CR/PR at Table 2.3. U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of FGP from Malaysia to fabricators accounted for *** percent of importers’ U.S. shipments in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024, *** percent in interim 2024, and *** percent in interim 2025. Id. 122 Specifically, during the POI, U.S. processors sold more than *** percent of their U.S. shipments to contractors, builders and glaziers, with smaller percentages to distributors (between *** to *** percent), and processors/fabricators (between *** and *** percent). Staff Worksheet: U.S. Processors’ Channels of Distribution, EDIS Doc. 873598. U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of FGP from China to contractors, builders, and glaziers accounted for between *** percent to *** percent of their total U.S. shipments during the POI. CR/PR at Table 2.3. U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of FGP from Malaysia to contractors, builders, and glaziers accounted for between *** percent to *** percent of their total U.S. shipments during the POI. CR/PR at Table 2.3. 123 CR/PR at Table 2.4. U.S. importers of FGP from China and Malaysia also reported selling FGP to “other” markets in the United States, which includes Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 124 CR/PR at Table 4.7. The official import statistics include out-of-scope products and are likely overstated. Id. at 4.18. 31 Simultaneous Presence in Market. The domestic like product and imports from both subject sources were present in the U.S. market in all months of the POI.125 Conclusion. The record indicates that imports from China in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, and imports from Malaysia in the countervailing duty investigation, are generally fungible with the domestic like product and each other. It also shows that subject imports from both countries and the domestic like product were sold through similar channels of distribution, primarily in sales to U.S. processors/fabricators.126 Furthermore, subject imports from both countries and the domestic like product were sold in overlapping geographic markets and were simultaneously present in the U.S. market. Because the record indicates a reasonable overlap of competition between and among subject imports from China and Malaysia and the domestic like product, we cumulate imports from China subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations with imports from Malaysia subject to the countervailing duty investigations for purposes of our present material injury analysis. Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports 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 FGP from China that Commerce has found to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and imports of FGP from China and Malaysia that Commerce has found to be subsidized by the governments of China and Malaysia. 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.127 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 125 CR/PR at Table 4.8; see also CR/PR at Table 5.5. 126 With U.S. processors included in the domestic industry, the record shows that U.S. fabricators’ U.S. shipments and subject imports from both China and Malaysia overlapped in sales to contractors, builders, and glaziers. See CR/PR at Table 2.3 and Staff Worksheet: U.S. Processors’ Channels of Distribution, EDIS Doc. 873598. 127 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b). 32 like product, but only in the context of U.S. production operations.128 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”129 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.130 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.”131 Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether the domestic industry is “materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of” unfairly traded imports,132 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.133 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject imports and material injury to the domestic industry, the Commission examines the facts of record that relate to the significance of the volume and price effects of the subject imports and any impact of those imports on the condition of the domestic industry. This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard must ensure that subject imports are more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a sufficient causal, not merely a temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.134 In many investigations, there are other economic factors at work, some or all of which may also be having adverse effects on the domestic industry. Such economic factors might include nonsubject imports; changes in technology, demand, or consumer tastes; competition 128 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). 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). 129 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A). 130 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 131 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 132 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b). 133 Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484-85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he statute does not ‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’g, 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). 134 The Federal Circuit, in addressing the causation standard of the statute, observed that “{a}s long as its effects are not merely incidental, tangential, or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than fair value meets the causation requirement.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This was further ratified in Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the Federal Circuit, quoting Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997), stated that “this court requires evidence in the record ‘to show that the harm occurred “by reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a minimal or tangential contribution to material harm caused by LTFV goods.’” See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 33 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.135 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.136 Nor does the “by reason of” standard require that unfairly traded imports be the “principal” cause of injury or contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors, such as nonsubject imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.137 It is clear that the existence of injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.138 135 SAA at 851-52 (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (1979) (the Commission “will consider information which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than less- than-fair-value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47 (1979) (“in examining the overall injury being experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take into account evidence presented to it which demonstrates that the harm attributed by the Petitioner to the subsidized or dumped imports is attributable to such other factors;” those factors include “the volume and prices of nonsubsidized imports or imports sold at fair value, contraction in demand or changes in patterns of consumption, trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the export performance and productivity of the domestic industry”); accord Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877. 136 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, 266 F.3d at 1345 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports ... . Rather, the Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha de Chile AG v. United States, 180 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“{t}he Commission is not required to isolate the effects of subject imports from other factors contributing to injury” or make “bright-line distinctions” between the effects of subject imports and other causes.); see also Softwood Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928 (Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 100-01 (Dec. 2003) (Commission recognized that “{i}f an alleged other factor is found not to have or threaten to have injurious effects to the domestic industry, i.e., it is not an ‘other causal factor,’ then there is nothing to further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722 (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.”). 137 S. Rep. 96-249 at 74-75; H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47. 138 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.”). 34 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.”139 The Commission ensures that it has “evidence in the record” to “show that the harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,” and that it is “not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.” 140 The Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid adherence to a specific formula.”141 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.142 Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.143 B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is material injury by reason of subject imports. 1. Captive Production The domestic industry captively consumes and internally transfers a portion of its FGP production.144 We therefore consider the applicability of the statutory captive production 139 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 876 &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. In its decision in Swiff-Train v. United States, 793 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s causation analysis as comporting with the Court’s guidance in Mittal. 140 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 877-79. We note that one relevant “other factor” may involve the presence of significant volumes of price-competitive nonsubject imports in the U.S. market, particularly when a commodity product is at issue. In appropriate cases, the Commission collects information regarding nonsubject imports and producers in nonsubject countries in order to conduct its analysis. 141 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.”). 142 We provide in our discussion below a full analysis of other factors alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry. 143 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.”). 144 See CR/PR at 3.30; see also Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 29-32. 35 provision.145 Petitioner argues that the Commission should apply the captive production provision because all criteria are satisfied.146 Petitioner argues that the threshold criterion is satisfied because “between *** and *** percent of the U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments of FGP were internally consumed; between *** and *** of their shipments were transferred to related firms for processing into downstream products; and between *** percent and *** percent of their shipments were sold on the merchant market.”147 Petitioner contends that the first criterion is satisfied because “*** U.S. producers reported internal consumption of FGP for out-of-scope products, which satisfies the first statutory criterion that U.S. producers internally transferred FGP for processing into out-of- scope ‘downstream articles,’ and there was no diversion of the FGP intended for internal consumption into the merchant market for FGP.”148 It argues that the second criterion is satisfied in the final phase because the record indicates that FGP comprises *** percent of the finished cost of downstream FGP, and *** percent of the quantity of downstream FGP resulting from captive production.149 If the Commission determines that the captive production provision is not satisfied, Petitioner argues that the Commission should consider the merchant market as a condition of competition that is where “competition between subject imports and the domestic like product is concentrated{.}”150 145 The captive production provision, 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iv) provides: (iv) CAPTIVE PRODUCTION – If domestic producers internally transfer significant production of the domestic like product for the production of a downstream article and sell significant production of the domestic like product in the merchant market, and the Commission finds that- (I) the domestic like product produced that is internally transferred for processing into that downstream article does not enter the merchant market for the domestic like product, and (II) the domestic like product is the predominant material input in the production of that downstream article. The SAA indicates that where a domestic like product is transferred internally for the production of another article coming within the definition of the domestic like product, such transfers do not constitute internal transfers for the production of a “downstream article” for purposes of the captive production provision. SAA at 853. 146 See Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 32. 147 Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 29 (citing Prehearing Staff Report, EDIS Doc. 869790 at Table 3.17). 148 Petitioner Posthearing Brief at 8-9. 149 Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 31. 150 Petitioner Posthearing Brief at 7. 36 The record indicates that during the POI, between only *** and *** percent of the U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments of FGP by quantity, and between only *** and *** percent by value were internally consumed to produce downstream out-of-scope products.151 Accordingly, we find that the threshold criterion for application of the captive production provision has not been met because domestic producers’ internal transfers did not constitute a significant portion of production throughout the entire POI. Nevertheless, we consider the merchant market as an important condition of competition in our analysis of present material injury to the domestic industry. 2. Demand Considerations Domestic demand for FGP is primarily tied to downstream applications in construction and transportation, and to a lesser extent, in electronics, furniture, and interior design.152 From January 2021 to December 2024, total monthly construction spending in the United States increased by 36.1 percent, from $1.6 trillion in January 2021 to $2.2 trillion in December 2024.153 Half of reporting U.S. producers (3 of 6) reported a decrease in demand for FGP during the POI, while nearly half of importers (23 of 51) reported an increase in U.S. demand over the POI.154 Twenty of 30 purchasers reported a decrease in U.S. demand for FGP over the POI.155 All responding U.S. producers and nearly all of importers (43 of 46) and purchasers (30 of 31) reported that there are no substitutes for FGP.156 Firms that did report substitute products listed formed glass, acrylic, and tempered glass as alternative products.157 Six of seven domestic producers, 30 of 53 importers, and 26 of 33 purchasers indicated that the U.S. FGP market is subject to business cycles.158 Firms generally reported that demand is seasonally tied to construction activity, with stronger demand in warmer months and weaker demand in the winter.159 151 CR/PR at Table 3.17. 152 CR/PR at 2.1, 2.13. 153 CR/PR at 2.13. 154 CR/PR at 2.14 and Table 2.7. Six importers reported that there was no change in U.S. demand during the POI. Id. 155 CR/PR at 2.14 and Table 2.7. 156 CR/PR at 2.14. 157 CR/PR at 2.14. 158 CR/PR at 2.13-2.14. 159 CR/PR at 2.14. U.S. producers *** reported increased demand during construction season, and U.S. producer *** and importer *** indicated that demand is stronger from April through November and decreases in the winter months. Id. Importers *** reported that demand is tied to consumer or retail seasonality, such as increased fourth-quarter demand related to the holidays. Id. 37 Based on questionnaire responses, from 2022 to 2024, apparent U.S. consumption decreased irregularly, decreasing from 8.3 billion pounds in 2022 to 7.5 billion pounds in billion in 2023, and increasing slightly to 7.7 billion pounds in 2024, a level 8.2 percent lower than in 2022.160 It was 3.0 percent higher in interim 2025, at 3.9 billion pounds, than in interim 2024, at 3.8 billion pounds. Additionally, as a supplement to data from the staff report, based on petitioner’s data, from 2022 to 2024, apparent U.S. consumption in the merchant market likewise decreased irregularly, decreasing from *** pounds in 2022 to *** pounds in 2023, and increasing slightly to *** pounds in 2024. It was *** percent higher in interim 2025, at *** pounds, than in interim 2024, at *** pounds.161 3. Supply Considerations The domestic industry was the largest source of supply by quantity in the U.S. market during the POI.162 Based on questionnaire responses, the industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption declined irregularly by 0.8 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 95.8 percent in 2022 to 94.7 percent in 2023, before increasing slightly to 95.0 percent in 2024; it was 0.2 percentage points lower in interim 2025, at 95.0 percent, compared to 95.2 percent in interim 2024.163 Additionally, based on Petitioner’s data, the industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption in the merchant market declined by *** percentage points from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2023 and to *** percent in 2024; 160 CR/PR at Tables 4.9 & C.1. As noted in section I above, apparent U.S. consumption data for import volumes based on questionnaire responses are estimated to account for approximately half of subject imports, and approximately a quarter of imports from nonsubject sources. See CR/PR at 1.5. Because of the non-responsiveness by firms which are believed to be U.S. importers of FGP, the Commission also presents additional data submitted by Petitioners to measure the volume of subject imports and in turn to calculate apparent U.S. consumption. 161 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 38, Table 2. 162 CR/PR at Tables 4.9 & C.1. 163 CR/PR at Tables 4.9 & C.1. The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity in the merchant market, based on questionnaire responses, declined irregularly by 1.6 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 93.4 percent in 2022 to 91.6 percent in 2023, before increasing slightly to 91.9 percent in 2024; it was 0.2 percentage points lower in interim 2025, at 92.0 percent, compared to 92.2 percent in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables G.1 & C.2. We again note that since the coverage of the importers’ questionnaire responses relative to official import statistics declined between 2022 and 2024, the increase in subject imports relative to apparent U.S. consumption over the POI may be understated. The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption by value in the total market, including the incremental value added to imports, declined by 1.2 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 94.7 percent in 2022 to 93.9 percent in 2023 and to 93.6 percent in 2024; it was 93.4 percent in interim 2024 and interim 2025. CR/PR at Tables 4.10 & C.1. 38 it was *** percentage points lower in interim 2025 at *** percent compared to *** percent in interim 2024.164 The domestic industry consists of seven producers of primary FGP, some of whom perform fabrication operations, as well as numerous processors.165 In this final phase, the Commission received U.S. producer questionnaire responses from 24 U.S. processors, 23 of which provided usable financial data,166 compared to eight in the preliminary phase.167 We note that that although U.S. processor data are more extensive than in the preliminary phase, U.S. processor data might still be understated because Petitioner estimates that there are more than 100 U.S. processors of FGP.168 There were several changes to the domestic industry during the POI. U.S. producers Cardinal and Pilkington announced expansions to their float glass production facilities. U.S. processor Tristar expanded its facility in 2023, and U.S. processor Glass Enterprises acquired a shuttered facility that it reopened for FGP processing. U.S. producer Vitro Architectural Glass closed its Oregon glass-coating facility in 2024.169 U.S. processors Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope, Solar Seal, and Naverra closed FGP processing plants during the POI.170 Domestic primary float glass producers’ practical FGP capacity increased from 9.24 billion pounds in 2022 to 9.4 billion pounds in 2023, and then decreased to 9.2 billion pounds in 2024, for an overall decrease of 0.7 percent.171 U.S. producers’ practical FGP capacity was 1.2 percent lower in interim 2025, at 4.51 billion pounds, than in interim 2024, at 4.57 billion pounds.172 U.S. producers’ FGP capacity utilization decreased from 92.9 percent in 2022 to 81.4 percent in 2023, and increased slightly to 84.4 percent in 2024, for an overall decrease of 8.5 164 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 38, Table 2. 165 See CR/PR at 3.2. 166 CR/PR at 6.1 n.4. While 23 processors provided usable financial data, Processor *** began operations in 2025 and, therefore, only provided financial data for interim 2025. CR/PR at 6.1 n.4. Processor *** ceased its FGP processing operations in 2024 and provided financial data for all periods except interim 2025. 167 See CR/PR at 6.1; see also Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 5579 at 4 n.7. 168 CR/PR at 3.1 n.2. 169 CR/PR at Table 3.3. 170 CR/PR at Table 3.3. Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope announced a closure of a plant in California in 2024, and closed plants in New York and Kentucky in 2025. Id. Solar Seal closed a plant in Massachusetts in 2022, and Naverra Glass closed its plant in Connecticut in 2023. In March 2024, Processor Glass Enterprises purchased Naverra Glass’ Connecticut facility for FGP processing operations. Id. 171 CR/PR at Tables 3.10 & C.1. 172 CR/PR at Tables 3.10 & C.1. 39 percentage points between 2022 and 2024.173 U.S. producers’ capacity utilization was higher in interim 2025, at 84.7 percent, compared to interim 2024, at 81.9 percent.174 U.S. processors’ practical FGP capacity decreased from 1.4 billion pounds in 2022 to 1.3 billion pounds in 2023 and to 1.2 billion pounds in 2024, for an overall decrease of 10.2 percent. U.S. fabricators’ practical FGP capacity was 1.0 percent higher in interim 2025, at 624.7 million pounds, than in interim 2024, at 618.4 million pounds.175 U.S. processors’ capacity utilization increased slightly from 71.0 percent in 2022 to 71.2 percent in 2023, and decreased to 66.4 percent in 2024, for an overall decrease of 4.6 percentage points.176 U.S. processors’ capacity utilization was 3.3 percentage points lower in interim 2025, at 63.7 percent, than in interim 2024, at 66.9 percent.177 Based on questionnaire responses, cumulated subject imports178 were the smallest source of supply throughout the POI, although their share of apparent U.S. consumption increased irregularly by 0.4 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, increasing from 1.9 percent in 2022 to 2.5 percent in 2023, and decreasing slightly to 2.3 percent in 2024.179 Cumulated subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption was 2.2 percent in interim 2024 and interim 2025. Additionally, based on Petitioner’s data, cumulated subject imports were the second largest source of supply in the merchant market throughout the POI. On this basis, subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption increased by *** percentage points from 2022 to 2024, increasing from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2023, and to *** percent in 2024. Cumulated subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption in the merchant market was *** percent in interim 2025, compared to *** percent in interim 2024.180 173 CR/PR at Tables 3.10 & C.1. 174 CR/PR at Tables 3.10 & C.1. 175 CR/PR at Tables 3.11 & C.1. 176 CR/PR at Tables 3.11 & C.1. 177 CR/PR at Tables 3.11 & C.1. 178 As noted above, import volumes based on questionnaire responses are understated in apparent U.S. consumption data, and subject imports’ increase in volume relative to apparent U.S. consumption may also be understated. In addition, we note that, since the coverage of the importers’ questionnaire responses relative to official import statistics declined between 2022 and 2024, the increase in subject imports relative to apparent U.S. consumption over the POI may be understated. See CR/PR at Table J.1. 179 CR/PR at Tables 4.9 & C.1. Based on questionnaire responses, subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity in the merchant market increased irregularly by 0.7 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, increasing from 3.0 percent in 2022 to 4.0 percent in 2023, before decreasing slightly to 3.7 percent in 2024; it was 0.1 percentage points lower in interim 2025, at 3.5 percent, compared to 3.6 percent in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables G.1 & C.2. 180 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 38, Table 2. 40 Based on questionnaire responses, nonsubject imports were the second largest source of supply throughout the POI and their share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity increased irregularly by 0.4 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, increasing from 2.3 percent in 2022 to 2.8 percent in 2023, and decreasing slightly to 2.7 percent in 2024.181 Nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption was higher in interim 2025, at 2.8 percent, than in interim 2024, at 2.6 percent.182 Mexico was the largest source of nonsubject imports by value in 2024.183 Additionally, based on Petitioner’s data, nonsubject imports were the smallest source of supply in the merchant market throughout the POI. On this basis, nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption increased by *** percentage points from 2022 to 2024, increasing from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2023, before declining to *** percent in 2024. Nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption in the merchant market was *** percent in both interim periods.184 Three of six U.S. producers and 29 of 52 responding importers reported that they had experienced supply constraints since January 1, 2022.185 Of those that reported they had experienced supply constraints, two U.S. producers and ten importers reported supply constraints during 2022, six importers reported supply constraints during 2023, one U.S. producer and four importers reported supply constraints during 2024, and nine importers reported supply constraints during 2025. The constraints reported by domestic producers included operational disruptions.186 The constraints reported by importers included allocations and supply chain disruptions, freight constraints, and later in the POI, tariff and price-related disruptions.187 Eleven of 33 responding purchasers reported that they had experienced supply constraints since January 1, 2022, with purchasers reporting supply constraints from domestic producers in 2022 (11 firms), 2023 (7 firms), 2024 (7 firms), and 2025 (4 firms). One purchaser ***, reported supply constraints from foreign producers or importers in each year from 2022 to 2025. The constraints most often reported by purchasers included capacity limits, allocations, 181 CR/PR at Tables 4.9 & C.1. Nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity in the merchant market increased by 0.8 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, increasing from 3.6 percent in 2022 to 4.4 percent in 2023 and 2024; it was 0.2 percentage points higher in interim 2025, at 4.5 percent, compared to 4.3 percent in interim 2024. 182 CR/PR at Tables 4.9 & C.1. 183 CR/PR at 2.10. 184 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 38, Table 2. 185 CR/PR at 2.11. 186 CR/PR at 2.11. U.S. producer *** reported constraints from July to October 2022 related to ***. Id.187 CR/PR at 2.11. 41 and limited availability/inventory, frequently tied to COVID pandemic-era disruptions and/or elevated demand.188 4. Substitutability and Other Conditions We find that there is a high degree of substitutability between domestically produced FGP and subject imports. Most U.S. producers reported that FGP from China and Malaysia were always or frequently interchangeable with FGP from the U.S. and with one another.189 Similarly, most U.S. importers reported that subject imports from each subject country were either “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with the domestic like product and one another, although a plurality indicated that FGP from China and FGP from other sources were only “sometimes” interchangeable with FGP from the United States.190 Most responding purchasers reported that subject imports from each subject country were either “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with the domestic like product and one another.191 Most purchasers reported that U.S.-produced FGP and FGP imported from China and Malaysia were comparable on nearly all of 17 purchasing factors, except for delivery time, delivery terms, and availability, for which a majority indicated that U.S. product was superior to China and Malaysia, and price and discounts offered, for which a majority of purchasers indicated that U.S. product was inferior to China and Malaysia.192 Factors mitigating substitutability between domestically produced FGP and subject imports include some firms reporting quality or capability differences for certain specialty or processed products, occasional availability constraints or allocation practices that may limit access to certain products or suppliers, and that purchasing decisions may be influenced by non-price factors such as reliability of supply and customer specifications in particular end uses.193 We also find that price is the most important factor in purchasing decisions for FGP, although there are other important purchasing factors.194 The top three most often-cited factors firms consider in their purchasing decisions for FGP were quality (28 purchasers), price/cost (27 purchasers), and availability/supply (26 purchasers).195 Price/cost was the most frequently cited first-most important factor (cited by 15 firms), followed by quality (11 firms).196 188 CR/PR at 2.11. 189 CR/PR at Table 2.14. 190 CR/PR at Table 2.15. 191 CR/PR at Table 2.16. 192 CR/PR at Table 2.13. 193 CR/PR at 2.15. 194 Commissioner Johanson finds price is an important factor in purchasing decisions. 195 CR/PR at Table 2.9. 196 CR/PR at Table 2.9. 42 The majority of purchasers (22 of 33) reported that they always or usually purchase the lowest- priced product.197 Additionally, twenty-nine of 33 purchasers listed price as “very important,” three listed price as “somewhat important,” and only one listed price as “not important.”198 U.S. producers reported that non-price differences were only sometimes significant across country pairs, while importers and purchasers reported non-price differences were sometimes or always significant.199 U.S. producers reported that *** percent of their commercial shipments came from inventories, with lead times averaging *** days. The remaining *** percent of their commercial shipments were produced-to-order, with lead times averaging *** days.200 U.S. importers reported that *** percent of their commercial shipments were produced-to-order, with lead times averaging *** days. Their remaining commercial shipments came from inventories, with *** percent from U.S. inventories with lead times averaging *** days, and *** percent from foreign inventories with lead times averaging *** days.201 Eight of 33 responding purchasers reported that they require their suppliers to become certified or qualified to sell FGP to their firms, and the qualification times ranged from 30 to 180 days.202 No purchasers reported that domestic or foreign suppliers had failed in their attempt to qualify to supply FGP or had lost approved status during the POI.203 In 2024, domestic producers primarily sold FGP through spot sales (*** percent), annual contracts (*** percent), and long-term contracts (*** percent).204 In 2024, importers sold most of their U.S. shipments of subject imports through spot sales (***percent), followed by short terms contracts (*** percent), and annual contracts (*** percent).205 U.S. producers reported that the average duration for a long-term contract was either two or five years.206 For both annual and long-term contracts, about half of responding U.S. producers reported the typical contract allowed for price renegotiation and fixed both price and quantity, while the remaining U.S. producers reported their contracts allowed for fixed prices only.207 All responding U.S. producers reported their contracts do not typically index to 197 CR/PR at 2.17. 198 CR/PR at Table 2.10. 199 CR/PR at Tables 2.17-2.19. 200 CR/PR at 2.17. 201 CR/PR at 2.17. 202 CR/PR at 2.18. 203 CR/PR at 2.18. 204 CR/PR at Table 5.2. 205 CR/PR at Table 5.2. 206 CR/PR at 5.2. 207 CR/PR at 5.2. 43 raw materials.208 Importers reported that the average duration of short term contracts was 90 days. For short-term contracts, importers were evenly split on whether prices are typically renegotiated, and only one importer reported that short-term contracts are indexed to raw materials.209 The main raw materials used in the production of FGP are silica (sand), soda ash (sodium carbonate), limestone, dolomite, salt cake (sodium sulfate), and cullet (recycled or waste glass).210 U.S. producers’ and fabricators’ raw materials as a share of total cost of goods sold (“COGS”) was 38.9 percent in 2022 and 2023, 38.3 percent in 2024, 37.3 percent in interim 2024, and 38.0 percent in interim 2025.211 As noted in section II.B. above, once a U.S. producer commences production with a new furnace by pulling the initial glass ribbon, the manufacturing process is continuous, lasting 24 hours a day, seven days a week for the next 12 to 15 years, at almost 100 percent capacity utilization.212 Accordingly, the FGP industry is energy intensive because it involves continuous production, and energy costs account for a substantial portion of the total cost of production.213 U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments were highly concentrated in shipments to processors/fabricators throughout the POI, with *** percent in of shipments in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024; they were *** percent in interim 2025 compared to *** percent in interim 2024.214 Importers’ U.S. shipments of cumulated subject imports were more varied. Shipments to fabricators accounted for *** percent of U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of subject imports in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024; *** percent in interim 2025 compared to *** percent in interim 2024.215 Importers also made significant shipments to distributors, with *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, *** percent in 2024; *** percent in interim 2025 compared to *** percent in interim 2024.216 During the POI, U.S. processors sold more than *** percent of their U.S. shipments to contractors, builders and transportation OEMs, with smaller percentages to distributors (between *** to *** percent), and processors/fabricators (between *** and *** percent).217 208 CR/PR at 5.2. 209 CR/PR at 5.3. 210 CR/PR at 5.1. 211 CR/PR at Table 6.5. 212 CR/PR at 1.18. 213 CR/PR at 1.19. 214 CR/PR at Table 2.3. 215 CR/PR at Table 2.3. 216 CR/PR at Table 2.3. 217 See Staff Worksheet: U.S. Processors’ Channels of Distribution, EDIS Doc. 873598. 44 Effective September 24, 2018, FGP originating in China became subject to an additional 10 percent ad valorem duty under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Effective May 10, 2019, the section 301 duty for FGP imported from China was increased to 25 percent. In 2025, the United States imposed tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), including on subject imports, but after the POI on February 20, 2026, it was announced that the IEEPA tariffs were no longer in effect.218 Regarding the Section 301 tariffs, one of six responding U.S. producers reported they had an impact on overall demand, supply, prices, and or/raw material costs, one reported they did not, and four reported that they did not know the impact of the tariffs had on the FGP industry since 2022. Among responding U.S. importers, a bare majority (27 of 52) reported that the 301 duty has had an impact on the FGP industry.219 Among responding purchasers, nine reported that the tariffs had an impact, 16 reported that they did not, and seven reported that they did not know if the 301 tariffs affected the FGP industry.220 Regarding the IEEPA tariffs, three of six responding U.S. producers reported that the new or modified tariffs had an impact on the FGP industry during the POI, while the remaining three did not know if they had an impact.221 Among responding importers, a majority (36 of 52) reported that new or modified tariffs have had an impact, while 15 reported they did not know and one reported that the tariffs have not had an impact.222 Among responding purchasers, a majority (17 of 32) reported they did not know what impact such tariffs have had, while 13 218 CR/PR at 1.15. While the IEEPA tariffs were in effect, FGP from China became subject to a 10 percent ad valorem duty under IEEPA, effective February 4, 2025, in connection with the national emergency declaration regarding the illicit importation of fentanyl into the United States, which increased to 20 percent effective March 4, 2025. See Executive Order 14195 of February 1, 2025, Imposing Duties To Address the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People's Republic of China, 90 Fed. Reg. 9121 (Feb. 7, 2025); see also CR/PR at 1.15. Effective April 5, 2025, FGP originating in China and Malaysia became subject to additional 10 percent “reciprocal” ad valorem duties under IEEPA. See Executive Order 14257 of April 2, 2025, Regulating Imports With a Reciprocal Tariff To Rectify Trade Practices That Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits, 90 Fed. Reg. 15041 (Apr. 7, 2025). Effective April 9, 2025, China was assigned an individualized additional rate of 84 percent (instead of 10 percent), which rose again to 125 percent effective April 10, 2025. However, effective May 14, 2025, the individualized country duty for China returned to 10 percent. See CR/PR at 1.15-16. Effective April 9, 2025, Malaysia was assigned an individualized country duty rate of 24 percent ad valorem, which was suspended on April 10, 2025, and the duty rate was returned to 10 percent. Effective August 7, 2025, Malaysia was assigned an individualized country duty rate of 19 percent. CR/PR at 1.16. 219 CR/PR at 2.2. 220 CR/PR at Table 2.1. 221 CR/PR at 2.3-2.4 222 CR/PR at 2.4. 45 reported the tariffs have had an impact and two reported that the tariffs have not had an impact.223 C. Volume of Subject Imports Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”224 Based on the questionnaire responses of U.S. importers, the volume of cumulated subject imports of FGP from China and Malaysia, by quantity, increased 8.6 percent overall from 2022 to 2024, increasing from 164.2 million pounds in 2022 to 187.6 million pounds in 2023, and then decreased to 178.4 million pounds in 2024; the volume of cumulated subject imports was 0.7 percent lower in interim 2025, at 83.4 million pounds, compared to 84.0 million pounds in interim 2024.225 226 Based on the questionnaire responses of U.S. importers, cumulated U.S. shipments of subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity increased by 0.4 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, increasing from 1.9 percent in 2022 to 2.5 percent in 2023, and decreasing slightly to 2.3 percent in 2024; their share was 2.2 percent in interim 2024 and interim 2025.227 Based on data submitted by Petitioner, subject imports increased by *** percent from 2022 to 2024 in absolute terms (from *** pounds in 2022 to *** pounds in 2024), and further increased by *** percent across the interim periods (from *** to *** pounds). On this same 223 CR/PR at 2.4. 224 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i). 225 CR/PR at Tables 4.2 and 4.3. 226 As noted in sections I and VI.B above, the volume and share of apparent U.S. consumption for subject imports based on U.S. importers’ questionnaire responses are estimated to account for approximately half of subject imports. Petitioner asserts that this estimate, which is calculated as a share of Census imports under the “primary” HTS subheadings, largely ignores the significant and sharply increasing volumes of tempered glass (including shower doors), which enter under “secondary” subheading HTS 7007.19.0000, and therefore, the subject import volumes used in the Staff Report “grossly understate” both the import penetration and the growth rate of subject imports in the U.S. market during the POI. Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 35-36. 227 CR/PR at Tables 4.9, C.1. Based on questionnaire responses, in the merchant market, cumulated subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity increased by 0.7 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, increasing from 3.0 percent in 2022 to 4.0 percent in 2023, and decreasing slightly to 3.7 percent in 2024; their share was 3.5 percent in interim 2025 compared to 3.6 percent in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables G.3, C.2. The ratio of subject imports to U.S. production was 1.9 percent in 2022, 2.5 percent in 2023, 2.3 percent in 2024, and 2.2 percent in both interim 2024 and interim 2025. CR/PR at Table 4.2. 46 basis, subject imports also increased significantly relative to U.S. consumption in the merchant market: subject imports’ share of the merchant market increased from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024, and further increased from *** percent to *** percent across the interim periods. The total share increase for subject imports from the beginning to the end of the POI was *** percentage points, and these gains came at the expense of the domestic industry, which lost *** percentage points of merchant market share from the beginning to the end of the POI.228 Based on the foregoing, we find that the volume of cumulated subject imports from China and Malaysia is significant in absolute terms and relative to apparent U.S. consumption. Chair Karpel finds that the increase in the volume of cumulated subject imports is significant in absolute terms and relative to apparent U.S. consumption.229 Commissioner Kearns finds that the increase in the volume of cumulated subject imports is significant in absolute terms. D. Price Effects of the Subject Imports Section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of the 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.230 As discussed in section VI.B.3 above, we find that there is a high degree of substitutability between cumulated subject imports and the domestic like product, and that price is the most important factor in purchasing decisions. The Commission collected quarterly quantity and f.o.b. pricing data on sales of five pricing products shipped to unrelated U.S. customers during the POI.231 Three U.S. 228 Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 38, Table 2. 229 See infra note 244 discussing Petitioner’s data. 230 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii). 231 CR/PR at 5.4. The five pricing products are: Product 1.-- Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm (i.e., >0.01% iron content by weight); clear; uncoated. (Continued...) 47 producers and five importers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.232 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for approximately 7.6 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of FGP, 10.1 percent of imports from China, and 76.9 percent of imports from Malaysia in 2024.233 Prices for subject imports from China and Malaysia were below those for U.S.- produced FGP in 30 instances, at an average of *** percent, accounting for *** square feet of subject imports, and above the price of U.S.-produced FGP in the remaining 20 instances, at an average of *** percent, accounting for *** square feet of subject imports.234 In other words, there was underselling by subject imports in 60 percent of quarterly comparisons, which encompassed *** percent of the volume of subject imports reported in the pricing data. The Commission also requested firms that imported subject merchandise for their own use to provide import purchase cost data. Six importers provided information for products 1, 3, 4, and 5. Purchase cost data reported by these firms accounted for 4.2 percent of imports from China and 65.8 percent of imports from Malaysia in 2024.235 The purchase cost data indicate that landed duty-paid costs for cumulated subject imports were below the sales prices of the domestic like product in 34 instances, with volumes of *** square feet at price-cost differentials averaging *** percent, and were above the sales price of the domestic like product in the remaining 10 instances, with volumes of *** square feet at price-cost differentials averaging *** percent.236 We recognize that import purchase cost data may not reflect the total cost of importing, and therefore requested that importers provide additional information regarding the costs and benefits of importing FGP themselves. Six of 15 importers reported that they incurred additional costs beyond the landed duty-paid costs associated with importing FGP. Five importers estimated that the total additional costs incurred ranged from 5 to 20 percent, and Product 2.-- Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper backing. Product 3.-- Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper-free backing. Product 4.-- Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating. Product 5.-- Tempered float glass with a nominal thickness of 10mm (or 3/8”) for use in bath/shower doors or enclosures; clear; uncoated. 232 CR/PR at 5.4. 233 CR/PR at 5.5. 234 CR/PR at Table 5.13. 235 CR/PR at 5.15. 236 CR/PR at Table 5.16. 48 included costs for ocean/inland freight and drayage, shipping costs, demurrage or per diem charges, cargo insurance, and imported-related logistics and inventory carrying costs such as warehousing.237 Given that the subject import purchase costs were, on average, *** percent below domestic sales prices, these additional costs of between 5 to 20 percent of the landed duty-paid value still amounted to *** less than the average price-cost differential.238 We have also considered information concerning lost sales. The Commission sent a lost sales/lost revenue survey to 106 firms.239 Of the 33 purchasers that responded to the Commission’s survey, 16 reported purchasing imported FGP rather than U.S.-produced FGP during the POI.240 Of those 16 purchasers, 14 reported that subject import prices were lower than U.S.-produced product, and 12 purchasers reported that price was the primary reason for purchasing *** pounds of subject imports of FGP instead of the domestic like product.241 The total volume of lost sales is equal to approximately *** percent of reported purchases of subject imports and *** percent of U.S. producers’ shipments over the POI.242 Purchaser questionnaire responses regarding the comparability of domestic FGP and subject imports further supports that cumulated subject imports were generally priced lower than the domestic like product. Those responses compared domestic FGP and subject imports with respect to 17 purchasing factors and indicate that U.S. prices were reported as being “inferior” to subject import prices by 23 of 29 responding 237 CR/PR at 5.15. LDP import value does not include any potential additional costs that a purchaser may incur by importing rather than purchasing from another importer or U.S. producer. CR/PR at 5.15, n.10. Ocean freight should be reflected in the landed duty-paid value and would therefore not be considered a cost that is paid in addition to the LDP value. 238 In determining whether to import FGP, nine of 20 importers reported that they compare costs of importing to the cost of purchasing from a U.S. producer, six reported comparing costs to purchasing from a U.S. importer, and five reported not comparing costs to either U.S. producers or importers. CR/PR at 5.16. Although firms reported that importing generally entails higher transportation and logistics-related costs than purchasing domestically, fifteen importers identified benefits from importing FGP themselves, including cost or unit pricing advantages. Id. at 5.15-16. Importer *** reported that while transport costs are higher when sourcing from China, the overall delivered cost can still be lower than sourcing comparable product domestically. Id. at 5.16. Five importers estimated that they saved between *** percent of the purchase price by importing FGP rather than purchasing from a U.S. importer and saving between *** percent compared to purchasing FGP from a U.S. producer. Id. 239 CR/PR at 5.30. 240 CR/PR at 5.30-31. 241 CR/PR at Table 5.21. 242 Derived from CR/PR at Tables 5.19, 5.20 and C.1. 49 purchasers with respect to China, and 15 of 16 responding purchasers with respect to Malaysia.243 Given the foregoing, including the high degree of substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product, the importance of price in purchasing decisions, the pricing data showing predominant underselling by subject imports from China and Malaysia, the purchase-cost data showing subject import costs were substantially lower than domestic prices, and the lost sales data reflecting that nearly half of purchasers reported that subject imports are priced lower than the domestic like product, we find that subject imports from China and Malaysia undersold the domestic like product to a significant degree throughout the POI. The underselling led to cumulated subject imports capturing market share at the expense of the domestic industry. Commissioner Kearns finds that, based on questionnaire data, cumulated subject imports gained 0.4 percentage points of market share from 2022 to 2024, a shift which he believes, while small, is underestimated, as subject import coverage declined over that period.244 Supportive evidence that the market share shift is underestimated in the questionnaire responses is the Petitioner’s data, in which cumulated subject imports gained *** percentage points of merchant market share from 2022 to 2024, which came entirely at the expense of the domestic industry.245 Chair Karpel finds that the underselling led subject imports to gain significant market share from the domestic industry. While based on questionnaire data, the gain in market share is small, Chair Karpel recalls that questionnaire data is based on questionnaire responses covering approximately half of subject imports and that that coverage declined over the POI. Because of the substantial non-cooperation of importers in responding to the Commission’s questionnaires, Chair Karpel finds it appropriate to rely on Petitioner’s data to find that subject import underselling allowed subject imports to gain significant market share from the domestic 243 CR/PR at Table 2.13. 244 CR/PR at Tables 4.9 & C.1. As noted above, subject import coverage declined over that POI, which would have the likely effect of understating increases in subject import volume. Based on questionnaire responses, in the merchant market, cumulated subject imports gained 0.7 percentage points of market share from 2022 to 2024, while the domestic industry’s market share decreased by 1.6 percentage points. CR/PR at Tables C.2 & G.1. 245 See Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 38, Table 2. Because he believes the record clearly establishes that subject imports suppressed prices for the domestic like product, as described below, Commissioner Kearns does not find it necessary to determine whether subject imports gained significant market share from the domestic industry. 50 industry.246 That data shows that cumulated subject imports gained *** percentage points of merchant market share from 2022 to 2024, which came entirely at the expense of the domestic industry.247 We have also considered price trends during the POI and whether subject imports depressed domestic prices to a significant degree. The pricing data indicate that prices for domestically produced FGP increased for all reported pricing products for which data are available. The domestic price increases for *** ranged from *** percent to *** percent from January 2022 through June 2025.248 U.S. primary float glass producers’ U.S. shipment average unit value (“AUV”) was $0.33 per pound throughout the POI.249 Subject import prices trends were mixed over the POI, while the available purchase cost data indicate that subject imports’ landed duty-paid purchase costs decreased for almost all pricing products for which data were available.250 Of six responding U.S. primary float glass producers, three reported that they had to reduce prices, two reported that they had to roll back announced price increases, and three reported that they had lost sales to subject imports during the POI.251 We have also examined whether subject imports prevented price increases which would have otherwise occurred. U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ COGS-to- net sales ratio increased by 6.3 percentage points from 2022 to interim 2025, first falling slightly from 70.9 percent in 2022 to 70.6 percent in 2023 and then rising to 73.3 246 Chair Karpel also finds Petitioner’s data a reliable indicator of subject import volume. While as noted in section I Petitioner’s data may overstate the volume of subject imports imported under the primary HTS numbers it uses Datamyne records to pinpoint in-scope subject merchandise imported under secondary HTS numbers and thus its data for subject imports under those secondary HTS numbers would not generally be overstated. Further, the Staff Report has estimated the share of out- of-scope merchandise imported under the primary HTS numbers and concluded that out-of-scope merchandise accounts for approximately *** percent of imports under the primary HTS numbers in calendar years 2022-2024 and the interim 2025 period. CR/PR at App. J. Thus, even accounting for that level of overstatement of subject imports under the primary HTS numbers in Petitioner’s data, subject imports’ market share and gain in market share would be significant. 247 See Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 38, Table 2. 248 CR/PR at 5.25. 249 CR/PR at Table 3.17. 250 CR/PR at 5.25 and Table 5.12. Subject imports from China decreased in price for *** by a range of *** to *** percent, while prices for product *** increased by *** percent. Subject imports from Malaysia increased in price for product *** by *** percent. The landed duty-paid purchase costs for subject imports from China decreased for ***, ranging from *** to *** percent. CR/PR at 5.25. The landed duty-paid purchase costs for subject imports from Malaysia decreased for *** by *** percent. CR/PR at 5.25. 251 CR/PR at 5.30. 51 percent in 2024 and then to 77.2 in interim 2025, as compared to 72.0 percent in interim 2024.252 The domestic industry’s per-unit COGS increased by 5.8 percent, or from $0.43 per pound in 2022 to $0.45 per pound in 2024 for an overall increase of $0.02 per pound.253 Over this same period, the domestic industry’s net sales AUV increased by 2.4 percent, from $0.60 per pound in 2022 to $0.61 per pound in 2024, for an overall increase of $0.01 per pound.254 Over the interim periods, the net sales AUV declined by 5.3 percent, or $0.03 per pound, from $0.62 per pound to $0.59 per pound, while unit COGS (including unit raw material costs) remained constant in absolute terms when rounded to the nearest cent and increased by 1.5 percent in percentage terms, resulting in a 5.2 percentage point increase in the industry’s COGS-to-net-sales ratio over this period. As the industry incurred an increase in unit COGS that exceeded the increase in their net sales AUV on an absolute and percentage basis between 2022 and 2024, and the industry’s net sales AUV declined while its COGS remained constant over the interim periods, the domestic industry experienced a cost-price squeeze. The cost-price squeeze was particularly pronounced between 2023 and 2024 when the domestic industry’s net sales AUVs declined $0.04, or 5.2 percent, while the domestic industry’s unit COGS declined only $0.01, or 1.6 percent, leading to a 2.7 percentage point increase in the COGS-to-net sales ratio that occurred when apparent U.S. consumption also increased.255 We observe that the decline in the domestic industry’s net sales AUVs in 2024 occurred after the instances and volume of underselling significantly increased in 2023 and producers reported pressure to drop prices in 2024 due to low priced subject imports.256 The industry’s cost-price squeeze continued into interim 2025, as net sales AUVs declined $0.03, or 5.3 percent, over the interim periods as unit COGS remained constant in absolute terms when rounded to the nearest cent and increased by 1.5 percent in percentage terms, as mentioned above, leading to a 5.2 percentage point increase in the COGS to net sales ratio as underselling continued.257 Furthermore, of the 33 responding purchasers, 13 reported that U.S. producers had reduced prices to compete with lower-priced imports subject imports. The reported estimated 252 CR/PR at Tables 6.5 & C.1. 253 CR/PR at Table 6.5, 6.6 & C.1. 254 CR/PR at Tables 6.5, 6.6 & C.1. 255 CR/PR at C.1. 256 CR/PR at Table 5.15; Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 48-49 and Petitioner Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 1, Attachments A-K. 257 CR/PR at Table C.1. 52 price reduction ranged from *** percent with average price reduction due to imports from China by *** percent and Malaysia by *** percent. In describing the price reductions, purchasers indicated that U.S. producers reduced prices primarily in response to low priced imports from China and Malaysia and related competitive pressure, with several purchasers reporting that domestic suppliers were forced to cut intended or announced increases and reposition prices to remain competitive, particularly in 2024 and into the first half of 2025.258 In consideration of the cost-price squeeze faced by the domestic industry particularly in 2024 and into the interim 2025 period, along with the pricing data, purchasers’ lost sales and revenue information, and the documentary evidence submitted by Petitioner which evidence pressure pricing259 on the domestic industry by subject imports, we find that subject imports suppressed domestic prices to a significant degree during the POI. In sum, we find that significant underselling by cumulated subject imports enabled the significant and increasing volume of cumulated subject imports to take market share from the domestic industry during the POI and suppressed domestic prices to a significant degree. We therefore find that cumulated subject imports had significant price effects.260 E. Impact of the Subject Imports261 Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that examining the impact of subject imports, the Commission “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the industry.”262 These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity 258 CR/PR at 5.31 and Tables 5.22 and 5.23. 259 See Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 48-49; Petitioner Posthearing Brief at Exhibits A-K. For example, Petitioner provided a *** email exchange between U.S. processor *** and its customer in which the processor lost business because of lower-priced imports from China. In the email exchange, the customer stated that the processor’s ***. Petitioner Posthearing Brief, Exhibit A. 260 Chair Karpel finds that the significant underselling by subject imports led to a significant market share shift at the expense of the domestic industry. 261 The statute instructs the Commission to consider the “magnitude of the dumping margin” in an antidumping proceeding as part of its consideration of the impact of imports. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii)(V). In its final determinations, Commerce found dumping margins of 151.29 percent to 181.54 percent for imports from China. Float Glass Products From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 91 Fed. Reg. 5713, 5714 (Feb. 9, 2026). We take into account in our analysis the fact that Commerce has made a final determination that all subject producers in China are selling subject imports in the United States at less than fair value. 262 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 (Continued...) 53 utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, gross profits, net profits, operating profits, cash flow, return on investment, return on capital, ability to raise capital, ability to service debts, 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.”263 U.S. primary float glass producers’ practical capacity decreased irregularly by 0.7 percent from 2022 to 2024, increasing from 9.24 billion pounds in 2022 to 9.39 billion pounds in 2023, before declining to 9.18 billion pounds in 2024; it was 1.2 percent lower in interim 2025, at 4.5 billion pounds, than in interim 2024, at 4.6 billion pounds.264 U.S. processors’ practical capacity decreased by 10.2 percent from 2022 to 2024, from 1.4 billion pounds in 2022 to 1.3 billion pounds in 2023 and 1.2 billion pounds in 2024; it was 1.0 percent higher in interim 2025, at 624.7 million pounds, than in interim 2024, at 618.4 million pounds.265 U.S. primary float glass producers’ production by quantity decreased overall by 9.8 percent from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 8.6 billion pounds in 2022 to 7.6 billion pounds in 2023, and increasing slightly to 7.7 billion pounds in 2024; it was 2.2 percent higher in interim 2025, at 3.8 billion pounds, than in interim 2024, at 3.7 billion pounds.266 U.S. processors’ processing decreased by 16.0 percent from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 968.8 million pounds in 2022 to 938.3 million pounds in 2023 and to 813.4 million pounds in 2024; it was 3.9 percent lower in interim 2025 at 397.7 million pounds than in interim 2024 at 413.8 million pounds.267 U.S. primary float glass producers’ capacity utilization decreased irregularly by 8.5 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 92.9 percent in 2022 to 81.4 percent in 2023 and increasing to 84.4 percent in 2024; it was 2.8 percentage points higher in interim 2025, at 84.7 percent, than in interim 2024 at 81.9 percent.268 U.S. processors’ capacity utilization decreased irregularly by 4.6 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, increasing from 71.0 percent in 2022 to 71.2 percent in 2023, and decreasing to 66.4 percent in 2024; it was 3.3 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.”). 263 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). This provision was amended by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-27. 264 CR/PR at Tables 3.6 & C.1. 265 CR/PR at Tables 3.11 & C.1. 266 CR/PR at Tables 3.9 & C.1. 267 CR/PR at Tables 3.11 & C.1. 268 CR/PR at Tables 3.9 & C.1. 54 percentage points lower in interim 2025, at 63.7 percent, than in interim 2024 at 66.9 percent.269 Most of the domestic industry’s employment-related indicia declined from 2022 to 2024 and over the interim periods. The domestic industry’s employment decreased by 6.5 percent from 2022 to 2024, from 14,347 production related workers (“PRWs”) in 2022 to 14,222 PRWs in 2023 and to 13,410 PRWs in 2024; employment was 6.0 percent lower in interim 2025, at 12,621 PRWs, than in interim 2024, at 13,433 PRWs.270 The domestic industry’s hours worked decreased by 4.1 percent from 2022 to 2024, from 30.3 million in 2022 to 30.0 million in 2023 and to 29.1 million in 2024; they were 4.8 percent lower in interim 2025, at 13.8 million, than in interim 2024 at 14.5 million.271 The domestic industry’s wages paid increased by 5.4 percent from 2022 to 2024, from $759.5 million in 2022 to $791.8 million in 2023 and to $800.6 million in 2024; wages paid were 0.8 percent lower in interim 2025, at $390.0 million, than in interim 2024 at $393.0 million.272 The domestic industry’s average hourly wages paid increased by 9.9 percent from 2022 to 2024, from $25.04 per hour in 2022 to $26.43 per hour in 2023 and to $27.51 per hour in 2024; average hourly wages were 4.2 percent higher in interim 2025, at $28.17 per hour, than in interim 2024 at $27.03 per hour.273 U.S. producers’ productivity decreased irregularly from 2022 to 2024 by 6.8 percent, decreasing from 794.5 pounds per hour in 2022 to 722.1 pounds per hour in 2023, and increasing to 740.8 pounds per hour in 2024; it was 3.2 percent lower in interim 2025, at 699.4 pounds per hour, than in interim 2024, at 722.8 pounds per hour.274 U.S. processors’ productivity decreased from 2022 to 2024 by 12.1 percent, decreasing from 49.6 pounds per hour in 2022 to 48.4 pounds per hour in 2023 and to 43.6 pounds per hour in 2024; it was 7.4 percent higher in interim 2025, at 47.4 pounds per hour, than in interim 2024, at 44.2 pounds per hour.275 The domestic industry’s total market U.S. shipments decreased irregularly by 9.0 percent from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 8.0 billion pounds in 2022 to 7.1 billion pounds in 2023, before increasing to 7.3 billion pounds in 2024; they were 2.9 percent higher in interim 269 CR/PR at Tables 3.11 & C.1. 270 CR/PR at Tables 3.27 & C.1. 271 CR/PR at Tables 3.27 & C.1. 272 CR/PR at Tables 3.27 & C.1. 273 CR/PR at Tables 3.27 & C.1. U.S. producers’ unit labor costs increased from $0.03 dollars per pound in 2022 to $0.04 dollars per pound in 2024, an increase of 20.1 percent, and U.S. processors’ unit labor costs increased from $0.49 per pound in 2022 to $0.60 per pound in 2024, an increase of 23.4 percent.274 CR/PR at Tables 3.24 & C.1. 275 CR/PR at Tables 3.26 & C.1. 55 2025, at 3.7 billion pounds, than in interim 2024, at 3.6 billion pounds.276 Based on questionnaire responses, the domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity in the total market decreased irregularly by 0.8 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 95.8 percent in 2022 to 94.7 percent in 2023 before increasing to 95.0 percent in 2024; it was lower in interim 2025, at 95.0 percent, than in interim 2024, at 95.2 percent.277 Additionally, based on Petitioner’s data, the domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity in the merchant market decreased by *** percentage points from 2022 to 2024, from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2023 and to *** percent in 2024; it was *** percentage points lower in interim 2025 at *** percent compared to *** percent in interim 2024.278 U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories increased by 18.9 percent overall from 2022 to 2024, increasing from 1.0 billion pounds in 2022 to 1.1 billion pounds in 2023 and to 1.2 billion pounds in 2024; they were 2.9 percent higher in interim 2025, at 1.11 billion pounds, than in interim 2024, at 1.08 billion pounds.279 U.S. fabricators’ end-of-period inventories decreased 19.9 percent overall from 2022 to 2024, increasing from 105.7 million pounds in 2022 to 109.5 million in 2023, and decreasing to 84.7 million pounds in 2024; they were 9.0 percent lower in interim 2025, at 93.5 million pounds, than in interim 2024, at 102.8 million pounds.280 276 CR/PR at Tables 3.17 & C.1. The domestic industry’s merchant market U.S. shipments decreased irregularly by 13.2 percent from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 5.0 billion pounds in 2022 to 4.29 billion pounds in 2023, before increasing to 4.35 billion pounds in 2024; they were 4.5 percent higher in interim 2025, at 2.3 billion pounds, than in interim 2024, at 2.2 billion pounds. CR/PR at Tables G.1 & C.2. 277 CR/PR at Tables 4.9 & C.1. Based on questionnaire responses, the domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity in the merchant market decreased irregularly by 1.6 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 93.4 percent in 2022 to 91.6 percent in 2023 before increasing to 91.9 percent in 2024; it was lower in interim 2025, at 92.0 percent, than in interim 2024, at 92.2 percent. CR/PR at G.1 & C.2. Based on questionnaire responses, the domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption (by fully domestic value in the total market) decreased overall by 1.1 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 92.9 percent in 2022 to 91.9 percent in 2023 and to 91.8 percent in 2024; it was lower in interim 2025 at 91.3 percent, than in interim 2024, at 91.4 percent. CR/PR at Tables 4.10 & C.1. Based on questionnaire responses, the domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption (by total value, including the incremental domestic value added to imports by U.S. processors in the total market) decreased overall by 1.2 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 94.7 percent in 2022 to 93.9 percent in 2023 and to 93.6 percent in 2024; it was the same in interim 2024 and interim 2025 at 93.4 percent. CR/PR at Tables 4.10 & C.1. 278 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 38, Table 2. 279 CR/PR at Tables 3.21 & C.1. 280 CR/PR at Tables 3.22 & C.1. 56 Most of the domestic industry’s financial indicators in the total market decreased from 2022 to 2024, and across the interim periods.281 The domestic industry’s net sales value decreased by 7.6 percent from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from $5.4 billion in 2022 to $5.3 billion in 2023, and to $5.0 billion in 2024; net sales value was 3.2 percent lower in interim 2025, at $2.4 billion, than in interim 2024, at $2.5 billion.282 The domestic industry’s gross profit decreased from $1.59 billion in 2022 to $1.55 billion in 2023 and to 1.3 billion in 2024, for an overall decrease of 15.2 percent.283 The domestic industry’s gross profit was 21.1 percent lower in interim 2025, at $555.7 million, than in interim 2024 at $703.9 million.284 The domestic industry’s operating income decreased irregularly by 22.5 percent from 2022 to 2024, increasing from $713.0 million in 2022 to $737.5 million in 2023 and to $552.7 million in 2024.285 The domestic industry’s operating income was 51.5 percent lower in interim 2025, at $150.5 million, than in interim 2024 at $310.3 million.286 The domestic industry’s operating income as a ratio of net sales increased from 13.1 percent in 2022 to 14.0 percent in 2023, and decreased to 11.0 percent in 2024; it was lower in interim 2025, at 6.2 percent, than in interim 2024, at 12.3 percent.287 The domestic industry’s net income decreased irregularly by 19.8 percent from 2022 to 2024, increasing from $522.2 million in 2022, to $619.1 million in 2023, before declining to $419.0 million in 2024; the domestic industry’s net income was 62.6 percent lower in interim 281 As we note below, the domestic industry’s financial indicators also similarly decreased in the merchant market. See generally CR/PR at Tables G.3 & C.2. 282 CR/PR at Tables 6.5 & C.1. In the merchant market, the domestic industry’s commercial sales by total value (including sales by both U.S. producers and processors) decreased by 8.1 percent from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from $4.8 billion in 2022 to $4.7 billion in 2023 and to $4.4 billion in 2024; merchant market commercial sales value was 4.3 percent lower in interim 2025, at $2.1 billion, than in interim 2024, at $2.2 billion. CR/PR at Tables G.4 & C.2. 283 CR/PR at Tables 6.5 & C.1. The domestic industry’s gross profit in the merchant market decreased from $1.42 billion in 2022 to $1.38 billion in 2023 and to 1.2 billion in 2024, for an overall decrease of 16.0 percent. CR/PR at Tables G.4 & C.2. 284 CR/PR at Tables 6.5 & C.1. The domestic industry’s gross profit in the merchant market was 19.4 percent lower in interim 2025, at $506.7 million, than in interim 2024 at $628.9 million. 285 CR/PR at Tables 6.5 & C.1. The domestic industry’s operating income in the merchant market decreased irregularly by 25.1 percent from 2022 to 2024, increasing from $696.7 million in 2022 to $701.6 million in 2023 and to $521.5 million in 2024. CR/PR at Tables G.4 & C.2. 286 CR/PR at Tables 6.5 & C.1. The domestic industry’s operating income in the merchant market was 44.3 percent lower in interim 2025, at $163.9 million, than in interim 2024 at $294.4 million. CR/PR at Tables G.4 & C.2. 287 CR/PR at Tables 6.5 & C.1. In the merchant market, the domestic industry’s operating income as a ratio of net sales increased from 14.4 percent in 2022 to 15.0 percent in 2023, and decreased to 11.8 percent in 2024; it was lower in interim 2025, at 7.7 percent, than in interim 2024, at 13.3 percent. CR/PR at Tables G.4 & C.2. 57 2025, at $90.7 million, than in interim 2024, at $242.2 million.288 The domestic industry’s net income as a ratio of net sales increased from 9.6 percent in 2022 to 11.7 percent in 2023 and decreased to 8.3 percent in 2024; it was lower in interim 2025, at 3.7 percent, than in interim 2024, at 9.6 percent.289 The domestic industry’s capital expenditures increased by 23.4 percent from 2022 to 2024, increasing from $217.4 million in 2022 to $240.7 million in 2023 and to $268.3 million in 2024; it was higher by 48.7 percent in interim 2025, at $191.3 million, than in interim 2024, at $128.7 million.290 The domestic industry’s research and development (“R&D”) expenditures increased irregularly by 1.6 percent from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from $16.5 million in 2022 to $16.1 million in 2023 and increasing to $16.7 million in 2024; they were 5.2 percent higher in interim 2025, at $9.3 million, than in interim 2024, at $8.8 million.291 The domestic industry’s return on assets decreased from 12.9 percent in 2022 to 12.4 percent in 2023 and to 9.1 percent in 2024,a level 3.8 percentage points lower than in 2022.292 Several U.S. producers and U.S. processors reported negative effects on their investments that they attributed to subject imports, including cancelling plans to expand FGP production facilities, the inability to obtain financing, and reduced ability to invest in production equipment maintenance and upgrades.293 As discussed above, the high degree of substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product and the importance of price in purchasing decisions resulted in a significant and increasing volume of lower priced subject imports gaining market share at the expense of the domestic industry during the POI and suppressing U.S. prices to a significant degree.294 As a result, over the POI, the industry (both U.S. producers and processors) experienced a decline in capacity utilization, a decline in the number of PRWs and hours worked by these PRWs, an increase in its COGS-to-net-sales ratio, and a decline in its operating 288 CR/PR at Tables 6.5 & C.1. In the merchant market, the domestic industry’s net income decreased by 32.9 percent from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from $598.1 million in 2022, to $589.7 million in 2023 and to $401.6 million in 2024; the domestic industry’s net income was 52.8 percent lower in interim 2025, at $110.0 million than in interim 2024, at $233.1 million. CR/PR at Tables G.4 & C.2. 289 CR/PR at Tables 6.5 & C.1. In the merchant market, the domestic industry’s net income as a ratio of net sales increased from 12.4 percent in 2022 to 12.6 percent in 2023 and decreased to 9.1 percent in 2024; it was lower in interim 2025, at 5.2 percent, than in interim 2024, at 10.5 percent. CR/PR at Tables G.4 & C.2. 290 CR/PR at Tables 6.12 & C.1. 291 CR/PR at Tables 6.14 & C.1. *** U.S. producers, ***, and *** U.S. processors, reported total R&D expenses. Id. at 6.27. 292 CR/PR at Table 6.17. 293 CR/PR at Table 6.20. 294 As noted above, Chair Karpel finds that the significant underselling led to a significant market share shift. 58 margin. This is true whether looking at the total or merchant markets.295 Accordingly, we find that subject imports had an adverse impact on the domestic industry. We have also considered whether there are other factors that may have had an impact on the domestic industry to ensure that we are not attributing injury to such other factors to subject imports. Although nonsubject imports gained 0.4 percentage points of market share from 2022 to 2024 based on questionnaire responses, the same as subject imports, nonsubject imports do not explain the significant adverse price effects that we have found the domestic industry experienced during the POI.296 The Commission collected quarterly pricing data and purchase-cost data on U.S. shipments of FGP from Mexico, which was the largest source of nonsubject FGP in 2024. *** reported price data for product 4 from Mexico and *** reported purchase cost data for product 3 from Mexico. Price data reported by these firms accounted for 9.3 percent of U.S. shipments of FGP from Mexico in 2024.297 In comparing pricing data for commercial shipments of imports of FGP from Mexico with U.S. producer pricing data, prices for product imported from Mexico were lower than prices for U.S.-produced product in *** instances, involving volumes of *** square feet, and higher in *** instances.298 In comparing Mexican pricing data with subject country pricing data, prices for product imported from Mexico were lower than prices for product imported from subject countries in *** instances, involving volumes of *** square feet, and higher in *** instances, *** square feet.299 The purchase cost data indicate that landed duty-paid costs for FGP from Mexico were below the landed duty-paid costs for subject imports from China and Malaysia in *** instances, and were above the landed duty-paid costs for subject imports from China and Malaysia in *** instances.300 Accordingly, imports from Mexico generally oversold subject imports during the POI. Furthermore, we note that the AUVs of U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of nonsubject imports, while below that of subject imports in 2022, was well above that of subject imports in 295 Compare CR/PR at Table C.1 and Table C.2. 296 CR/PR at Table C.1. Based on data submitted by Petitioner, nonsubject imports gained *** percentage points of market share in the merchant market from 2022 to 2024 (as compared to subject imports which gained *** percentage points). Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 38, Table 2. Based on questionnaire responses, in the merchant market, from 2022 to 2024 nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption increased by 0.8 percentage points and subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption increased by 0.7 percentage points. CR/PR at Table C.2. 297 CR/PR at H.3. 298 CR/PR at Table H.3. 299 CR/PR at Table H.3. 300 CR/PR at Table H.3. 59 2023 and 2024.301 Therefore, nonsubject imports cannot explain the material injury that we have attributed to cumulated subject imports. Furthermore, although apparent U.S. consumption declined overall by 8.2 percent from 2022 to 2024, such a decline would not account for the market share shift from the domestic industry to subject imports.302 Furthermore, as discussed above, the domestic industry’s COGS to net sales ratio increased 2023 to 2024 and over the interim periods when apparent U.S. consumption increased.303 Accordingly, the decline in apparent U.S. consumption of FGP does not explain the material injury that we have attributed to cumulated subject imports.304 For the reasons stated above, we determine that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of FGP from China found by Commerce to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and by reason of FGP from China and Malaysia found to be subsidized by the governments of China and Malaysia.305 301 CR/PR at Table C.1. 302 As noted above, Chair Karpel finds that the significant underselling led to a significant market share shift. 303 CR/PR at Table C.1 and Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 38, Table 2. 304 We note that the domestic industry’s operating income as a ratio of net sales decreased by 2.1 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, and was 6.2 percentage points lower in interim 2025 compared to interim 2024, while the domestic industry’s ratio of COGS to net sales increased by 2.4 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, and was 5.2 percentage points higher in interim 2025 compared to interim 2024. See CR/PR at Table C.1. Moreover, when apparent U.S. consumption increased from 2023 to 2024 and over the interim periods, the domestic industry’s operating income ratio decreased by 3.0 percentage points from 2023 to 2024, and was 6.2 percentage points lower in interim 2025 compared to interim 2024. Id. 305 In its final antidumping duty determinations concerning FGP from Malaysia, Commerce found that critical circumstances exist with respect to subject imports from NSG (Malaysian Sheet Glass) (“NSG”). Float Glass Products From Malaysia: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 91 Fed. Reg. 5723, 5724 (Feb. 9, 2026). Since we have terminated the antidumping duty investigation with respect to FGP from Malaysia because subject imports were negligible, we do not make a critical circumstances finding with respect to those subject imports from Malaysia. See Collated Roofing Nails from China and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-757 and 759 (Final), USITC Pub. 3070 (Nov. 1997) at 24-25 (stating the Commission renders “critical circumstances determinations only when it ma{kes} an affirmative determination of {present} material injury by reason of subject imports”). Commerce determined that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to FGP from Malaysia in the countervailing duty investigation. Float Glass Products From Malaysia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; Correction, 91 Fed. Reg. 9239 (Feb. 25, 2026). 60 Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we determine that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of FGP from China that are sold in the United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the government of China. We further determine that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of FGP that are subsidized by the government of Malaysia. Finally, we determine that imports of FGP from Malaysia that are sold in the United States at less than fair value are negligible and terminate the antidumping duty investigation with respect to FGP from Malaysia. 61 SUPPLEMENTAL NEGLIGIBILITY TABLES AND FIGURES Table Supp.1 FGP: U.S. imports in the twelve-month period preceding the filing of the petition, by source, November 2023 through October 2024 Quantity in 1,000 pounds; Share of quantity in percent Source of imports Quantity Share of quantity China 155,022 39.7 Malaysia CVD 19,289 4.9 Malaysia AD 9,612 2.5 Mexico 67,703 17.4 All other sources 147,986 37.9 All import sources 390,000 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Malaysia CVD equals imports from all suppliers in Malaysia; while Malaysia AD equals imports from all suppliers except Xinyi in Malaysia. Table Supp.2 FGP: U.S. imports from affirmative AD sources in Malaysia and all other sources in various twelve-month periods including and following the twelve-month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition Quantity in 1,000 pounds; Share in percent Twelve-month period through to and including Malaysia AD quantity All other sources quantity All import sources quantity Malaysia AD share All other sources share All import sources share October 2024: Actual negligibility period 9,612 380,388 390,000 2.5 97.5 100.0 November 2024 9,816 386,303 396,119 2.5 97.5 100.0 December 2024 9,662 388,567 398,229 2.4 97.6 100.0 January 2025 9,553 391,557 401,110 2.4 97.6 100.0 February 2025 9,830 396,314 406,144 2.4 97.6 100.0 March 2025 9,839 397,629 407,468 2.4 97.6 100.0 April 2025 9,335 390,898 400,233 2.3 97.7 100.0 May 2025 9,529 397,822 407,351 2.3 97.7 100.0 June 2025 9,305 398,447 407,752 2.3 97.7 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 62 Figure Supp.1 FGP: Share of U.S. imports from affirmative AD sources in Malaysia in various twelve-month periods including and following the twelve-month period immediately preceding the filing of the petitions 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 October November December January February March April May June 2024 2025 Share (percent) 12-month period through to and including Contains buisiness proprietary information Threshold Neg. period Malaysia AD 63 Table Supp.3 FGP: Arranged imports, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; shares in percent Source Measure Q3 2025 Q4 2025 Q1 2026 Q2 2026 Total China Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia CVD Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia AD Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All other sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Quantity *** *** *** *** 176,692 China Share *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia CVD Share *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia AD Share *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Share *** *** *** *** *** All other sources Share *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Malaysia CVD equals imports from all suppliers in Malaysia; while Malaysia AD equals imports from all suppliers except Xinyi in Malaysia. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. 64 Table SUPP.4 FGP: Monthly U.S. imports from affirmative AD sources in Malaysia and all other sources, by period and source Quantity in 1,000 pounds; Share in percent Year and month Malaysia AD quantity All other sources quantity All import sources quantity Malaysia AD share All other sources share All import sources share 2023: November 387 29,324 29,711 1.3 98.7 100.0 2023: December 609 35,369 35,978 1.7 98.3 100.0 2024: January 1,036 30,279 31,315 3.3 96.7 100.0 2024: February 480 28,686 29,166 1.6 98.4 100.0 2024: March 745 33,139 33,884 2.2 97.8 100.0 2024: April 1,201 31,766 32,967 3.6 96.4 100.0 2024: May 837 27,902 28,739 2.9 97.1 100.0 2024: June 683 30,442 31,125 2.2 97.8 100.0 2024: July 1,015 32,108 33,123 3.1 96.9 100.0 2024: August 822 35,854 36,676 2.2 97.8 100.0 2024: September 804 30,799 31,603 2.5 97.5 100.0 2024: October 993 34,720 35,713 2.8 97.2 100.0 2024: November 591 35,239 35,830 1.6 98.4 100.0 2024: December 455 37,633 38,088 1.2 98.8 100.0 2025: January 927 33,269 34,196 2.7 97.3 100.0 2025: February 757 33,443 34,200 2.2 97.8 100.0 2025: March 754 34,454 35,208 2.1 97.9 100.0 2025: April 697 25,035 25,732 2.7 97.3 100.0 2025: May 1,031 34,826 35,857 2.9 97.1 100.0 2025: June 459 31,067 31,526 1.5 98.5 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Malaysia AD equals imports from all suppliers in Malaysia except Xinyi. 65 Figure SUPP.2 FGP: Share of U.S. imports from affirmative AD sources in Malaysia, by year and month, including the share in various twelve-month periods including and following the twelve- month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Malaysia AD equals the imports from all suppliers in Malaysia except Xinyi as a share of all imports by month. 12-month period (Malaysia AD) is the share of U.S. imports from affirmative AD sources in Malaysia in various twelve-month periods including and following the twelve-month period immediately preceding the filing of the petitions (see Table Supp.2 FGP and Figure Supp.1 FGP). 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2023 2024 2025 Neg. period Post neg. period Share (percent) Contains buisiness proprietary information Threshold Malaysia AD 12-month period (Malaysia AD) 67 DISSENTING VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER DAVID S. JOHANSON Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, I find that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of float glass products (“FGPs”) from China found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and imports of FGPs from China and Malaysia found to be subsidized by the governments of China and Malaysia. Except as otherwise noted, I join with and adopt sections I-VI.B of the majority’s affirmative opinion. VI. No Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports C. Volume of Subject Imports Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”1 I begin by noting that, unlike the majority, I am basing my analysis entirely on the import volume and market share data contained in the Commission’s final report.2 While I recognize that such volumes are likely underreported, as illustrated by the difference between these data and the broader Census Bureau data found in Appendix J of the Commission’s report,3 I nevertheless did not consider the petitioner’s proposed dataset to be a permissible alternative. Although petitioner states that, in its search of supplementary ocean manifest data, it “{s}pecifically excluded from the analysis are any references to out-of-scope solar glass, patterned glass, AR solar glass, and low-iron patterned glass . . .,”4 the word “solar” nevertheless appears in petitioner’s exhibit 3 spreadsheet several hundred times. This indicates that, while the data in the Commission’s report are likely underinclusive, the petitioner’s preferred data are likely overinclusive, supplemented by data from HTS subheadings that contain an indeterminate portion of out-of-scope merchandise. That the application of petitioner’s selection methodology still results in a dataset containing apparently out-of-scope entries leaves me no option but to rely on the questionnaire data collected by the Commission. The volume of cumulated U.S. shipments of subject imports increased irregularly by 9.5 percent over the full three years, rising from 158.7 million pounds in 2022 to 188.0 million 1 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i). 2 CR/PR at Tables 4.9 and C.1. 3 The questionnaire coverage for subject imports from China and Malaysia is estimated to be about *** percent in 2024. See CR at 4.1 n.3 and Appendix J. 4 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, exhibit 2. 68 pounds in 2023, then declining to 173.8 million pounds in 2024, for an overall increase of 15.1 million pounds. The cumulated volume was 2.1 percent higher in interim 2025 (84.9 million pounds) than in interim 2024 (83.2 million pounds).5 6 The market share of U.S. shipments of cumulated subject imports also increased irregularly by an overall 0.4 percentage points, rising from 1.9 percent in 2022 to 2.3 percent in 2024. It was the same in interim 2025 (2.2 percent) as it was in interim 2024.7 I find that there is a significant absolute volume of subject imports. However, for the reasons discussed below, I do not find that the subject imports had significant price effects or a significant impact on the domestic industry. D. Price Effects of Subject Imports Section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of the 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.8 As discussed in section VI.B.3 of the majority’s views, which I joined (except where noted), I find that there is a high degree of substitutability between cumulated subject imports and the domestic like product, and that while price is an important factor in purchasing decisions, a variety of other factors including quality and availability are also important to purchasers.9 The Commission collected quarterly quantity and f.o.b. pricing data on sales of five pricing products during the POI.10 Pricing data reported in 2024 accounted for approximately 5 CR/PR at Tables 4.9 and C.1. 6 The use of Census data, by itself, does not fully support petitioner’s arguments. Although the adjusted Census data in Appendix J might capture more imports than the Commission’s questionnaire data, the adjusted Census data show that the cumulated value of imports from China and Malaysia declined by *** percent from $*** in 2022 to $*** and was *** percent lower in interim 2025 (at $***) than in interim 2024 ($***). CR/PR at Table J.1. 7 CR/PR at Tables 4.9 and C.1. 8 19 U.S.C. 1677(7)(C)(ii). 9 In n.194 of the majority’s views, I clarified that I found price to be “an important” factor rather than the “most important” factor. 10 CR/PR at 5.4. 69 7.6 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of FGPs, 10.1 percent of imports from China, and 76.9 percent of imports from Malaysia.11 Prices for subject imports from China and Malaysia undersold U.S.-produced FGPs in 30 instances, at an average of *** percent, accounting for *** square feet of subject imports, and oversold U.S.-produced FGPs in the remaining 20 instances, at an average of *** percent, accounting for *** square feet of subject imports.12 The Commission also collected import purchase cost data based on the same five pricing products. Purchase cost data reported accounted for 4.2 percent of imports from China and 65.8 percent of imports from Malaysia in 2024.13 The purchase cost data indicate that landed duty-paid costs for cumulated subject imports were below the sales prices of the domestic like product in 34 instances, with volumes of *** square feet at price-cost differentials averaging *** percent, and were above the sales price of the domestic like product in the remaining 10 instances, with volumes of *** square feet at price-cost differentials averaging *** percent.14 The pattern of underselling varies among the pricing products. The least processed product, product 1 (uncoated), demonstrates more overselling by subject imports even though it is the only pricing product in which all three countries compete.15 The other two pricing products for which there are comparisons, products 4 (mirror glass) and 5 (tempered bath/shower doors), are more processed products and for these there is predominant underselling by imports from China.16 The overall significance of the underselling is demonstrated by the results of the lost sales/lost revenue survey. Of 33 purchasers that responded to the Commission’s survey, 16 reported purchasing subject FGPs during the period of investigation rather than U.S.-produced FGPs.17 Of those 16 purchasers, 14 agreed that subject import prices were lower than U.S.-produced product, and 12 purchasers reported that price was the primary reason for purchasing *** pounds of subject imports rather than the domestic like product.18 Total lost sales over the period of investigation were equal to *** percent of reported purchases of subject imports and *** percent of U.S. producers’ 11 CR/PR at 5.5. 12 CR/PR at Table 5.13. There was underselling in 60 percent of quarterly comparisons, involving *** percent of the volume of subject imports reported in the pricing data. 13 CR/PR at 5.15. 14 CR/PR at Table 5.16. 15 CR/PR at Tables 5.13 (f.o.b. comparisons) and 5.16 (price-cost differentials). For product 1, there are a combined 20 quarters showing lower unit values for subject imports and 29 quarters showing higher unit values for subject imports. 16 CR/PR at Tables 5.13 (f.o.b. comparisons) and 5.16 (price-cost differentials). For products 4 and 5, there are a combined 44 quarters showing lower unit values for subject imports and 1 quarter showing higher unit values for subject imports. 17 CR/PR at 5.30-31. 18 CR/PR at Table 5.21. 70 shipments.19 Although the relative share of the documented lost sales is modest, the high frequency of purchasers reporting lower subject import prices allows me to conclude that, despite underselling that is of a mixed nature overall, subject imports from China and Malaysia undersold the domestic like product to a significant degree over the POI. Nevertheless, while I have concluded there was significant underselling, its significance was mitigated by several factors. Despite the underselling which, as noted above was particularly found for products 4 and 5, there have been no notable adverse price effects: (1) there was no significant market share shift away from the domestic industry toward subject imports; (2) there was an increase in U.S. producers’ U.S. prices, not a decline, with U.S. prices stable throughout the period; and (3) the domestic industry’s COGS-to-net-sales ratio was stable, indicating an absence of any cost-price squeeze. U.S. shipments of cumulated subject imports increased their market share, increasing initially from 1.9 percent in 2022 to 2.5 percent in 2023 and then declining to 2.3 percent in 2024, for an overall increase of 0.4 percentage points over the three full years; in both interim 2024 and interim 2025 the market share was 2.2 percent.20 The U.S. market share held by the domestic industry initially decreased from 95.8 percent in 2022 to 94.7 percent in 2023 and then increased to 95.0 percent in 2024, for an overall decrease of 0.8 percentage points over the three full years; the domestic industry’s share in interim 2025 was 0.2 percentage points lower (at 95.0 percent) than in interim 2024, when it was 95.2 percent.21 I do not find these market share shifts to be significant as they are less than a percentage point. Further evidence that there was not a significant market share shift is found in the results of the lost sales/lost revenue survey, which show that responding purchasers overall moved toward purchases from domestic sources (by *** percent) and away from subject import sources (by *** percent).22 Therefore, despite the underselling that was present and the lost sales that were reported, these did not result in a significant loss of market share for the domestic industry. I have also considered U.S. price trends and whether subject imports depressed domestic prices to a significant degree. The pricing data indicate that prices for domestically produced FGPs increased for all pricing products for which U.S. producers’ data are available; the domestic price increases for products *** ranged from *** percent to *** percent.23 U.S. 19 Derived from CR/PR at Tables 5.19, 5.20 and C.1. 20 CR/PR at Tables 4.9 & C.1. 21 CR/PR at Tables 4.9 & C.1. 22 CR/PR at Table 5.19. 23 CR/PR at 5.25 and Table 5.12. 71 float glass producers’ U.S. shipment average unit value (“AUV”) was $0.33 per pound throughout the POI.24 U.S. float glass processors’ U.S. shipment AUV increased steadily by 7.8 percent over the three full years of the period, from $2.77 per pound in 2022 to $2.98 per pound in 2024; it was $0.05 per pound lower (1.6 percent lower) in interim 2025 ($2.94 per pound) than in interim 2024 ($2.99 per pound).25 Of the 33 responding purchasers, 13 stated that domestic producers reduced prices in order to compete with lower-priced imports from China and Malaysia; the reported estimated price reduction ranged from *** percent.26 The average price reduction due to imports from China was by *** percent and Malaysia by *** percent.27 Despite these reported reductions, the U.S. price trends are quite stable and do not evince any adverse effect from the underselling.28 Such reported reductions are not inconsistent with the normal give and take of a competitive environment.29 I have also examined whether subject imports prevented price increases which would have otherwise occurred. U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ combined COGS-to-net sales ratio increased by 2.4 percentage points over the three full years of the period, initially declining from 70.9 percent in 2022 to 70.6 percent in 2023, and then increasing to 73.3 percent in 2024; the COGS-to-net-sales ratio was 5.2 percentage points higher in interim 2025, at 77.2 percent, than in interim 2024, when it was 72.0 percent.30 Despite the modest 2.4 percentage point increase in the ratio, I do not find that price increases which would have otherwise occurred were prevented, especially given the relatively steady level of unit COGS, the overall increase in U.S. prices and AUVs, and the decline in demand. Over the full three years of the period, the combined domestic industry’s per-unit COGS increased by 5.8 percent, or by $0.02 per pound while the domestic industry’s net sales AUV increased by 2.4 percent for an overall increase of $0.01 per pound.31 I do not find these relatively modest changes to constitute a cost-price squeeze, especially given that the net sales AUV increased as a decline in demand was occurring. In interim 2025, the net sales AUV was lower by 5.3 percent, or $0.03 per pound, than in interim 2024, while unit COGS was 1.5 percent higher, resulting in the industry’s COGS- 24 CR/PR at Table 3.14. 25 CR/PR at Table 3.15. 26 CR/PR at Table 5.22. 27 CR/PR at Table 5.23. 28 CR/PR at Figures 5.1, 5.4, and 5.5. 29 I have examined the communications attached to petitioner’s submission following the hearing cancellation in response to Commissioner’s written questions. Petitioner’s Answers to Commission Questions at 2. ***. CR/PR at Table 4.1 and EDIS Doc. 866284. ***. CR/PR at Table 4.1. I did not find these exhibits persuasive. 30 CR/PR at Tables 6.5 & C.1. 31 CR/PR at Tables 6.5 & C.1. 72 to-net-sales ratio being 5.2 percentage points higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.32 While the net sales AUV in interim 2025 may have been $0.03 per pound lower than in interim 2024, its value of $0.59 per pound was only slightly lower than it had been in 2022, when it was $0.60 per pound, reflecting the relative stability of U.S. net sales AUVs. In consideration of my findings that there was no significant market share shift away from the domestic industry toward subject imports; that there was an increase in U.S. producers’ U.S. prices, not a decline, with U.S. prices stable throughout the period; and that the domestic industry’s COGS-to-net-sales ratio was stable, indicating an absence of any cost-price squeeze, I conclude that despite significant underselling, there were no adverse price effects by subject imports. E. Impact of Subject Imports33 Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that in examining the impact of subject imports, the Commission “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the industry.” These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, gross profits, net profits, operating profits, cash flow, return on investment, return on capital, ability to raise capital, ability to service debts, 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.”34 In commencing my analysis of impact factors for the domestic industry, I reiterate that above I made a narrow volume finding for subject imports and a finding of no price effects and so there are limited channels through which subject imports could impact the domestic industry. As part of that finding of no price effects, I found that there had not been a market share shift toward subject imports as a result of subject import underselling. The domestic industry’s total market U.S. shipments decreased irregularly by 9.0 percent from 2022 to 2024; 32 CR/PR at Tables 6.5 & C.1. 33 The statute instructs the Commission to consider the “magnitude of the dumping margin” in an antidumping proceeding as part of its consideration of the impact of imports. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii)(V). In its final determinations, Commerce found dumping margins of 151.29 percent to 181.54 percent for imports from China. Float Glass Products From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 91 Fed. Reg. 5713, 5714 (Feb. 9, 2026). I take into account in my analysis the fact that Commerce has made a final determination that all subject producers in China are selling subject imports in the United States at less than fair value. 34 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 73 they were 2.9 percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.35 The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity in the total market decreased irregularly by 0.8 percentage points from 2022 to 2024; it was 0.1 percentage points lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.36 The market share held by the domestic industry changed little because U.S. shipments by the domestic industry closely tracked trends in demand. I also note that of the six domestic producers listed in Table 3.1, only *** (accounting for only *** percent of U.S. production), ***, support the petition, but of the 24 domestic processors, *** support the petition, accounting for *** percent of U.S. processing.37 This difference in the level of support for the petition between the primary production and processing segments may reflect the patterns within the pricing product data, i.e., that there is more subject import underselling in the processed products 4 and 5 than in the unprocessed product 1. In fact, petitioner makes a similar argument: “while subject imports certainly compete with unprocessed float glass in the merchant market, even greater merchant market competition occurs between subject imports and processed FGPs made in the United States.”38 It might be expected, consequently, that the financial results for the two segments would also show more pressure on the processors’ segment. As shown below, however, that is not the case. The operating income margin for the U.S. processors segment was slightly higher than the operating income margin for the U.S. producers’ segment in all three full years of the period and only slightly lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. In other words, the profitability 35 CR/PR at Tables 3.17 & C.1. The domestic industry’s total market U.S. shipments decreased irregularly by 9.0 percent from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 8.0 billion pounds in 2022 to 7.1 billion pounds in 2023, before increasing to 7.3 billion pounds in 2024; they were 2.9 percent higher in interim 2025, at 3.7 billion pounds, than in interim 2024, at 3.6 billion pounds. 36 CR/PR at Tables 4.9 & C.1. The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity in the total market decreased irregularly by 0.8 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 95.8 percent in 2022 to 94.7 percent in 2023 before increasing to 95.0 percent in 2024; it was lower in interim 2025, at 95.0 percent, than in interim 2024, at 95.2 percent. Based on questionnaire responses, the domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption (by fully domestic value in the total market) decreased overall by 1.1 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 92.9 percent in 2022 to 91.9 percent in 2023 and to 91.8 percent in 2024; it was lower in interim 2025 at 91.3 percent, than in interim 2024, at 91.4 percent. CR/PR at Tables 4.10 & C.1. Based on questionnaire responses, the domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption (by total value, including the incremental domestic value added to imports by U.S. processors in the total market) decreased overall by 1.2 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 94.7 percent in 2022 to 93.9 percent in 2023 and to 93.6 percent in 2024; it was the same in interim 2024 and interim 2025 at 93.4 percent. CR/PR at Tables 4.10 & C.1. 37 CR/PR at Table 3.1. 38 Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 32. 74 levels and trends were nearly identical in both segments.39 Considered as a whole, the domestic industry’s operating income as a ratio of net sales was robust but decreased by 2.1 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, initially increasing from 13.1 percent in 2022 to 14.0 percent in 2023, and then decreasing to 11.0 percent in 2024.40 Despite the 2.1 percentage point decline in profitability, it is lower demand, leading to a lower volume of net sales, that accounts for all of the decline in the value of total net sales and profitability decline over the three full years.41 The operating income margin was lower by 6.2 percentage points in interim 2025, at 6.2 percent, than in interim 2024, at 12.3 percent.42 Lower net sales AUVs in interim 2025, combined with higher unit COGS, as compared to interim 2024, was the reason for lower operating income margins in interim 2025 as compared with interim 2024.43 Nevertheless, as discussed above in the price effects section, the net sales AUV in interim 2025, $0.59 per pound, was only 2.1 percent below the level that it was at in 2022 when the domestic industry recorded a 13.1 percent operating income margin, which indicates that it was primarily an increase in unit COGS (which is not tied to price pressure from subject imports) since 2022 that led to the erosion of profitability in interim 2025. Net sales value decreased by 7.6 percent from 2022 to 2024; it was 3.2 percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.44 Over the three full years, however, this decline was almost entirely due to the lower volume of net sales, which tracked declining demand. For U.S. float glass producers, the AUV of net sales was relatively steady, declining only 0.7 percent over the three full years, from $0.35 per pound in 2022 and 2023 to $0.34 per pound in 2024, and was $0.34 in both interim periods (1.9 percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024).45 For 39 Compare CR/PR at Table 6.1 with Table 6.3. 40 CR/PR at Tables 6.5 & C.1. 41 CR/PR at Table 6.5. The AUV of total net sales increased over the three full years, meaning that higher unit costs and the lower volume of net sales accounted for the lower operating income margin in 2024 as compared to 2022. 42 CR/PR at Tables 6.5 & C.1. 43 CR/PR at Table 6.5. 44 CR/PR at Tables 6.5 & C.1. The domestic industry’s net sales value decreased by 7.6 percent from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from $5.4 billion in 2022 to $5.3 billion in 2023, and to $5.0 billion in 2024; net sales value was 3.2 percent lower in interim 2025, at $2.4 billion, than in interim 2024, at $2.5 billion. 45 CR/PR at Table 6.1. There is an indirect indication that U.S. producers did not experience adverse price effects on float glass sold to processors: the unit COGS paid by U.S. processors for float glass increased from $0.80 per pound in 2022 to $0.84 per pound in 2024 and was higher in interim 2025, at $0.86 per pound, than in interim 2024, when it was $0.80 per pound. Nevertheless, this was not a source of cost-price squeeze as the ratio of float glass inputs to the value of U.S. processors’ net sales fluctuated in a narrow range, declining slightly from 28.6 percent in 2022 to 28.1 percent in 2024. It was higher in interim 2024 at 29.0 percent, than in interim 2024 when it was 26.6 percent. CR/PR at 75 U.S. processors, the AUV of net sales increased by 7.2 percent from $2.80 per pound in 2022 to $3.00 per pound in 2024; it was 1.9 percent lower in interim 2025, at $2.96 per pound, than in interim 2024, when it was $3.02 per pound (but still 5.7 percent higher in interim 2025 than it was in 2022).46 These steady, and even increasing, net sales AUVs confirm my conclusion from the price effects discussion above that there was no price depression and that the fluctuations observed in the domestic industry’s profitability are not attributable to price effects of subject imports. U.S. float glass producers’ capacity experienced a slight downward trend with practical capacity declining irregularly by 0.7 percent from 2022 to 2024; it was 1.2 percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.47 U.S. float glass producers’ production by quantity decreased by 9.8 percent from 2022 to 2024; it was 2.2 percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.48 U.S. float glass producers’ capacity utilization decreased irregularly by 8.5 percentage points from 2022 to 2024; it was 2.8 percentage points higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.49 With capacity in this segment nearly constant, the capacity utilization figures moved in the same direction as production (which, in turn, tracked trends in demand). U.S. processors’ capacity decreased by 10.2 percent from 2022 to 2024; it was 1.0 percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.50 U.S. processors’ processing decreased by 16.0 percent from 2022 to 2024; it was 3.9 percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim Table 6.3. A large majority of float glass inputs used by U.S. processors (*** percent) were sourced from U.S. producers of float glass; a small and declining share of processors’ float glass inputs were sourced from subject countries (*** percent in 2024). CR/PR at Tables 3.5 and 6.10. 46 CR/PR at Table 6.3. 47 CR/PR at Tables 3.10 & C.1. U.S. float glass producers’ capacity decreased irregularly by 0.7 percent from 2022 to 2024, increasing from 9.24 billion pounds in 2022 to 9.39 billion pounds in 2023, before declining to 9.18 billion pounds in 2024; it was 1.2 percent lower in interim 2025, at 4.5 billion pounds, than in interim 2024, at 4.6 billion pounds. 48 CR/PR at Tables 3.10 & C.1. U.S. float glass producers’ production by quantity decreased overall by 9.8 percent from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 8.6 billion pounds in 2022 to 7.6 billion pounds in 2023, and increasing slightly to 7.7 billion pounds in 2024; it was 2.2 percent higher in interim 2025, at 3.8 billion pounds, than in interim 2024, at 3.7 billion pounds. 49 CR/PR at Tables 3.10 & C.1. U.S. float glass producers’ capacity utilization decreased irregularly by 8.5 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 92.9 percent in 2022 to 81.4 percent in 2023 and increasing to 84.4 percent in 2024; it was 2.8 percentage points higher in interim 2025, at 84.7 percent, than in interim 2024 at 81.9 percent. 50 CR/PR at Tables 3.11 & C.1. U.S. processors’ capacity decreased by 10.2 percent from 2022 to 2024, from 1.4 billion pounds in 2022 to 1.3 billion pounds in 2023 and 1.2 billion pounds in 2024; it was 1.0 percent higher in interim 2025, at 624.7 million pounds, than in interim 2024, at 618.4 million pounds. 76 2024.51 U.S. processors’ capacity utilization decreased irregularly by 4.6 percentage points from 2022 to 2024; it was 3.3 percentage points lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.52 Most of the domestic industry’s employment-related indicia declined from 2022 to 2024 and were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. The domestic industry’s employment decreased by 6.5 percent from 2022 to 2024; employment was 6.0 percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.53 The domestic industry’s hours worked decreased by 4.1 percent from 2022 to 2024; they were 4.8 percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.54 The domestic industry’s wages paid increased by 5.4 percent from 2022 to 2024; wages paid were 0.8 percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.55 U.S. producers’ productivity decreased irregularly from 2022 to 2024 by 6.8 percent; it was 3.2 percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.56 U.S. processors’ productivity decreased from 2022 to 2024 by 12.1 percent; it was 7.4 percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.57 With employment measures declining by less than did demand and production over the three full years of the period, labor productivity in turn declined; U.S. processors’ productivity was higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. 51 CR/PR at Tables 3.11 & C.1. U.S. processors’ processing decreased by 16.0 percent from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from 968.8 million pounds in 2022 to 938.3 million pounds in 2023 and to 813.4 million pounds in 2024; it was 3.9 percent lower in interim 2025 at 397.7 million pounds than in interim 2024 at 413.8 million pounds. 52 CR/PR at Tables 3.11 & C.1. U.S. processors’ capacity utilization decreased irregularly by 4.6 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, increasing from 71.0 percent in 2022 to 71.2 percent in 2023, and decreasing to 66.4 percent in 2024; it was 3.3 percentage points lower in interim 2025, at 63.7 percent, than in interim 2024 at 66.9 percent. 53 CR/PR at Tables 3.27 & C.1. The domestic industry’s employment decreased by 6.5 percent from 2022 to 2024, from 14,347 production related workers (“PRWs”) in 2022 to 14,222 PRWs in 2023 and to 13,410 PRWs in 2024; employment was 6.0 percent lower in interim 2025, at 12,621 PRWs, than in interim 2024, at 13,433 PRWs. 54 CR/PR at Tables 3.27 & C.1. The domestic industry’s hours worked decreased by 4.1 percent from 2022 to 2024, from 30.3 million in 2022 to 30.0 million in 2023 and to 29.1 million in 2024; they were 4.8 percent lower in interim 2025, at 13.8 million, than in interim 2024 at 14.5 million. 55 CR/PR at Tables 3.27 & C.1. The domestic industry’s wages paid increased by 5.4 percent from 2022 to 2024, from $759.5 million in 2022 to $791.8 million in 2023 and to $800.6 million in 2024; wages paid were 0.8 percent lower in interim 2025, at $390.0 million, than in interim 2024 at $393.0 million. 56 CR/PR at Tables 3.24 & C.1. U.S. producers’ productivity decreased irregularly from 2022 to 2024 by 6.8 percent, decreasing from 794.5 pounds per hour in 2022 to 722.1 pounds per hour in 2023, and increasing to 740.8 pounds per hour in 2024; it was 3.2 percent lower in interim 2025, at 699.4 pounds per hour, than in interim 2024, at 722.8 pounds per hour. 57 CR/PR at Tables 3.26 & C.1. U.S. processors’ productivity decreased from 2022 to 2024 by 12.1 percent, decreasing from 49.6 pounds per hour in 2022 to 48.4 pounds per hour in 2023 and to 43.6 pounds per hour in 2024; it was 7.4 percent higher in interim 2025, at 47.4 pounds per hour, than in interim 2024, at 44.2 pounds per hour. 77 U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories increased by 18.9 percent overall from 2022 to 2024; inventories were 2.9 percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.58 U.S. processors’ end-of-period inventories decreased 19.9 percent overall from 2022 to 2024; processors’ inventories were 9.0 percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.59 Data reported by the domestic industry evinced an optimistic view of its future as capital expenditures increased by 23.4 percent from 2022 to 2024; it was higher by 48.7 percent in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.60 The domestic industry’s research and development (“R&D”) expenditures increased irregularly by 1.6 percent from 2022 to 2024; they were 5.2 percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.61 The record contains examples of investment in the domestic industry, including planned capacity expansions by Cardinal, Pilkington, Tristar, and Fuyao Glass America and acquisitions by Oldcastle, Glass Enterprises, and Trulite Glass.62 Several U.S. producers and U.S. processors experienced closures as well, including Solar Seal, Naverra, Vitro, and Oldcastle.63 Negative effects on the domestic industry’s investments attributed to subject imports included cancelling plans to expand FGP production facilities, the inability to obtain financing, and reduced ability to invest in production equipment maintenance and upgrades.64 As discussed above, the steady volume and small market share of cumulated subject imports exhibiting no adverse price effects leads me to conclude that any deterioration over 58 CR/PR at Tables 3.21 & C.1. U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories increased by 18.9 percent overall from 2022 to 2024, increasing from 1.0 billion pounds in 2022 to 1.1 billion pounds in 2023 and to 1.2 billion pounds in 2024; they were 2.9 percent higher in interim 2025, at 1.11 billion pounds, than in interim 2024, at 1.08 billion pounds. 59 CR/PR at Tables 3.22 & C.1. U.S. processors’ end-of-period inventories decreased 19.9 percent overall from 2022 to 2024, increasing from 105.7 million pounds in 2022 to 109.5 million in 2023, and decreasing to 84.7 million pounds in 2024; they were 9.0 percent lower in interim 2025, at 93.5 million pounds, than in interim 2024, at 102.8 million pounds. 60 CR/PR at Tables 6.12 & C.1. The domestic industry’s capital expenditures increased by 23.4 percent from 2022 to 2024, increasing from $217.4 million in 2022 to $240.7 million in 2023 and to $268.3 million in 2024; it was higher by 48.7 percent in interim 2025, at $191.3 million, than in interim 2024, at $128.7 million. 61 CR/PR at Tables 6.14 & C.1. The domestic industry’s research and development (“R&D”) expenditures increased irregularly by 1.6 percent from 2022 to 2024, decreasing from $16.5 million in 2022 to $16.1 million in 2023 and increasing to $16.7 million in 2024; they were 5.2 percent higher in interim 2025, at $9.3 million, than in interim 2024, at $8.8 million. *** U.S. producers, ***, and *** U.S. processors, reported total R&D expenses. Id. at 6.27. 62 CR/PR at Table 3.3. Narrative explanations of these capital expenditures, and others, are found in CR/PR at Table 6.13. 63 CR/PR at Table 3.3. 64 CR/PR at Table 6.20. 78 the POI in the domestic industry’s financial indicators is not attributable to subject imports.65 Despite significant price underselling in the processed segment, the domestic industry maintained market share, did not see significant erosion in pricing, attracted investment and capital expenditures, and saw stable and healthy profitability over the POI. Lower profitability in interim 2025, when compared with 2022, when the operating income margin was 13.1 percent, is attributable largely to higher unit COGS, which do not result from subject import competition. Accordingly, I find that subject imports did not have an adverse impact on the domestic industry. For the reasons stated above, I determine that an industry in the United States is not materially injured by reason of FGPs from China found by Commerce to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and by reason of FGPs from China and Malaysia found to be subsidized by the governments of China and Malaysia. VII. No Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports A. Legal Standards Section 771(7)(F) of the Tariff Act directs the Commission to determine whether the domestic 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.”66 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.67 In making my determination, I consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to these investigations. investigations.68 65 Compare CR/PR at Table C.1 and Table C.2. 66 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii). 67 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii). 68 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 WTO Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement (“WTO SCM 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 79 B. Cumulation for Threat Analysis Under section 771(7)(H) of the Tariff Act, the Commission may “to the extent practicable” cumulatively assess the volume and price effects of subject imports from all countries as to which petitions were filed on the same day if the requirements for cumulation in the material injury context are satisfied.69 As discussed in Section V of the majority’s views above, which I joined in their entirety, a reasonable overlap of competition was found between and among subject imports from China and Malaysia and the domestic like product, and the Commission cumulated imports from China subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations with imports from Malaysia subject to the countervailing duty investigations for purposes of the present material injury analysis. I next determine if subject imports from China and Malaysia are likely to compete under different conditions of competition than subject imports from other sources. Although subject imports from Malaysia only compete with U.S.-produced FGPs in pricing product 1, subject imports from both subject countries and the domestic like product are present both in the unprocessed segment as well as across all of the major processed products.70 Although subject imports from Malaysia primarily oversell the domestic like product in pricing product 1,71 unlike subject imports from China, in the purchase cost comparisons the behavior of subject imports from Malaysia is not distinct from those from China.72 Further, although fewer purchasers reported purchases from Malaysia in the lost sales/lost revenue survey, these purchasers 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; (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). 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i). To organize my analysis, I discuss the applicable statutory threat factors using the same volume/price/impact framework that applies to my material injury analysis. Statutory threat factors (I), (II), (III), (V), and (VI) are discussed in the analysis of likely subject import volume. Statutory threat factor (IV) is discussed in the analysis of likely subject import price effects. Statutory factors (VIII) and (IX) are discussed in the analysis of likely impact. Statutory factor (VII) concerning agricultural products is inapplicable to these investigations. 69 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(H). 70 CR/PR at Table 4.6. 71 CR/PR at Table 5.14. 72 CR/PR at Table 5.17. 80 reported similar results with respect to the questions of whether subject imports from Malaysia were lower priced and whether subject imports from Malaysia were purchased primarily because they were lower priced.73 Purchasers also reported similar U.S. producer price reductions for imports from both China and Malaysia.74 It was reported that Malaysian producer NSG ***.75 As stated in Section V of the majority’s views (n.104 supra), the record is unclear as to whether NSG is the only FGPs producer or exporter in Malaysia.76 Nevertheless, NSG *** and did not claim that ***.77 Additionally, Commerce assigned CVD rates to two other Malaysian firms in addition to NSG.78 Given the uncertainties regarding the Malaysia FGPs industry, I am unable to find distinctive conditions of competition that would support a decision to not cumulate its imports with those from China. I therefore exercise my discretion to cumulate subject imports from China and Malaysia for my analysis of whether there is a threat of material injury to the domestic industry by reason of imports from China and Malaysia. C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports79 As discussed above in Section VI(C), I have found the absolute volume of U.S. shipments of cumulated subject imports to be significant during the POI. The volume of cumulated U.S. 73 CR/PR at Table 5.21. 74 CR/PR at Table 5.23. 75 CR/PR at 7.6 and Tables 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3. 76 Cf. CR/PR at 7.5 n.5 (***). 77 Foreign producer questionnaire, Malaysian Sheet Glass Sdn Bhd dba NSG, EDIS Doc. 870605. 78 CR/PR at Table 1.3. 79 In my analysis, I have considered the nature of the subsidies Commerce has found to be countervailable, particularly whether the countervailable subsidies are ones described in Articles 3 or 6.1 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)(I). I observe that in its final countervailing duty determination concerning FGPs from China, Commerce found the following programs to be countervailable: (1) Provision of Silica Sand for Less than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR); (2) Provision of Soda Ash for LTAR; (3) Provision of Limestone for LTAR; (4) Policy Loans to the Float Glass Industry; (5) Income Tax Deduction for R&D Expenses Under the Enterprise Income Tax Law (EITL); (6) Income Tax Reductions for High and New Technology Enterprises (HNTEs); (7) Provision of Electricity for LTAR; (8) Provision of Land-Use Rights for LTAR; (9) Foreign Trade Development Grants; (10) Export Assistance Grants; (11) Other Subsidies. Float Glass Products From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 91 Fed. Reg. 5708 (Feb. 9, 2026), citing Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Float Glass Products from the People’s Republic of China, Feb. 3, 2026, EDIS Doc. 872186-2497008, at 5-7. Commerce did not characterize any of these programs as export specific subsidies. In its final countervailing duty determination concerning FGPs from Malaysia, Commerce found the following programs to be countervailable: (1) Policy Lending from Chinese Banks for BRI Capacity Cooperation Projects; (2) Provision of Land in Industrial Parks for LTAR; (3) Import Duty and Sales Tax Program; (4) 81 shipments of subject imports increased irregularly by 9.5 percent over the full three years, rising from 158.7 million pounds in 2022 to 188.0 million pounds in 2023, then declining to 173.8 million pounds in 2024, for an overall increase of 15.1 million pounds; the cumulated volume was 2.1 percent higher in interim 2025 (84.9 million pounds) than in interim 2024 (83.2 million pounds).80 I did not find the increase in the volume of subject imports to be significant due to the small changes reported. The market share of cumulated subject imports also increased irregularly by an overall 0.4 percentage points, rising from 1.9 percent in 2022 to 2.3 percent in 2024. It was the same in interim 2025 (2.2 percent) as it was in interim 2024.81 I did not find the increase in volume relative to consumption to be significant due to the increase being less than a percentage point. Not only was the change in volume small in magnitude but there was a decline in both absolute and relative measures from 2023 to 2024. Nor was the volume or market share significantly higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Trends from the last full year of the period and the interim period, which would typically be used as support in order to find a likelihood of substantially increased imports, do not support such a finding here. Two usable questionnaire responses were received from foreign producers: one from China and one from Malaysia. The responding company from China estimated that it accounted for *** share of production of FGPs in China and the firm’s exports to the United States accounted for *** percent of subject imports from China as reported in official import statistics; the responding company from Malaysia indicated that it ***.82 Practical production capacity in subject countries declined steadily by *** percent over the three full years of the POI, from *** pounds in 2022 to *** pounds in 2024; capacity in interim 2025 was lower than in interim 2024.83 Capacity utilization in the subject countries increased by *** percentage points, from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024; capacity utilization was higher in interim 2025, at *** percent, than in interim 2024, at *** percent.84 Excess capacity in subject countries in 2024 Provision of Electricity for LTAR; (5) Investment Tax Allowance; (6) Other Subsidies. Float Glass Products From Malaysia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 91 Fed. Reg. 5720 (Feb. 9, 2026), citing Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Float Glass Products from Malaysia, Feb. 3, 2026, EDIS Doc. 872186-2497007, at 8- 9. Commerce did not characterize any of these programs as export specific subsidies. I have also taken into account that third-country trade remedy actions on FGPs from China or Malaysia have been implemented in Brazil, India, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan. CR/PR at 7.16 to 7.18. 80 CR/PR at Tables 4.9 and C.1. 81 CR/PR at Tables 4.9 and C.1. 82 CR/PR at Table 7.1. 83 CR/PR at Table 7.5. 84 CR/PR at Table 7.5. 82 was *** pounds, *** share of apparent U.S. consumption in 2024. Exports to the United States accounted for less than *** percent of total shipments by the responding foreign producers throughout the three full years of the POI and in interim 2025.85 In 2024, total global exports of merchandise under the various highlighted six-digit subheadings were $4 billion for China and $0.45 billion for Malaysia; less than *** of Chinese exports were directed to the U.S. market and less than *** percent of Malaysian exports were sent to the U.S. market.86 Although inventories of subject imports held by importers in United States increased by 10.5 percent over the three full years of the period and was 8.3 percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024, the ratio of inventories to U.S. shipments of imports only increased by 0.2 percentage points over the three full years and was 1.1 percentage points higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.87 Merchandise held in subject countries as inventory decreased steadily and was lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024; such inventories also declined as a ratio to total shipments.88 Section 301 duties of 25 percent on imports of FGPs from China have been in place since 2019.89 The Commission’s report notes that a majority of importers reported that section 301 tariffs had an impact on the U.S. market and that these tariffs had increased the prices of FGPs.90 With respect to product shifting, no responding foreign firm reported production of any alternative products on the same machinery used to produce FGPs over the POI.91 In sum, given the modest and steady volumes of subject imports, modest and declining inventory levels, and the lack of potential for product shifting, I do not find a likelihood of substantially increased subject import volume in the imminent future. D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports In my discussion above in Section VI(D), I found that despite mixed but significant underselling, there were no significant price effects. There was no notable market share shift toward cumulated subject imports.92 U.S. prices for all three pricing products for which there were U.S. prices (products 1, 4, and 5) were steady, ending higher in 2025 Q2 than they were in 85 CR/PR at Table 7.6. 86 CR/PR at Table 7.10. 87 CR/PR at Table 7.11. 88 CR/PR at Table 7.9. 89 CR/PR at 1.14 and 1.16. 90 CR/PR at 2.3 and Tables 2.1 and 2.2. 91 CR/PR at 7.11. 92 CR/PR at Table 4.9. 83 2022 Q1.93 Net sales AUV data also lends support to the picture of steady U.S. prices.94 Although the COGS-to-net-sales ratio increased by 2.4 percentage points over the three full years of the period, this occurred as the net sales AUV increased, but as unit COGS increased by more (not attributable to subject imports).95 The COGS-to-net-sales ratio in interim 2025 was 5.2 percentage points higher than in interim 2024. The reason for the increase in the combined COGS-to-net-sales ratio from 2022 to interim 2025 can be examined by comparing the component unit values (net sales AUV and unit COGS), both of which fluctuated in a narrow band. While the AUV of net sales was 5.3 percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024, the AUV of net sales in interim 2025 was only 2.1 percent lower than when the period started in 2022, highlighting the relatively stable pricing products trends shown in Part 5.96 It is apparent that a 2.83 cent (6.6 percent) increase in unit COGS from 2022 to interim 2025 was more relevant than was the 1.25 cent (2.1 percent) decrease in net sales AUV in leading to the 4.24 cent decline in unit operating income.97 As mentioned in Section VI(D) above, the domestic industry was able to raise its prices during the period of investigation, with the U.S. price for product 1 having increased by *** percent, the U.S. price for product 4 having increased by *** percent, and the U.S. price for product 5 having increased by *** percent.98 There is no reason to expect that, within the imminent future, the domestic industry will not be able to raise prices to account for the increase in unit COGS in interim 2025 and regain its prior level of profitability. In light of my finding that an imminent significant increase in the volume of subject imports is unlikely, and the absence of evidence that subject imports from China and Malaysia have caused significant price effects, I find that these imports are unlikely to cause significant price effects in the imminent future. The record indicates that subject imports from China and Malaysia are not likely to enter the U.S. market at prices that are likely to have significant price depressing or suppressing effects on prices of the domestic like product and to increase demand for further imports. E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports In my discussion above in Section VI(D), I found that despite significant price underselling in the processed segment, the domestic industry maintained its market share, did not see significant erosion in pricing, attracted investment and capital expenditures, and saw 93 CR/PR at Table 5.12. 94 CR/PR at Table 6.5. 95 CR/PR at Table 6.5 and C.1. 96 CR/PR at Figures 5.1, 5.4, and 5.5. 97 Calculations using CR/PR at Table 6.5. 98 CR/PR at Table 5.12. 84 stable and healthy profitability over the POI. Lower profitability in interim 2025 is attributable largely to higher unit COGS, which do not result from subject import competition. As noted above in the likely price effects discussion, given the domestic industry’s ability to raise prices over the period of investigation, I do not expect that it will not be able to again raise prices in the imminent future and regain its previous level of profitability. Given the level of domestic industry investment and operating income margin, I do not find it vulnerable to material injury by reason of subject imports, nor do I find that subject imports would likely have an adverse impact on the domestic industry in the imminent future. For the reasons stated above, I find that the domestic industry is not threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports. VIII. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, I determine that an industry producing FGPs in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of FGPs from China that are sold in the United States at less than fair value and by reason of subject imports of FGPs from China and Malaysia that are subsidized by the governments of China and Malaysia. 1.1 Introduction Background These investigations result from petitions filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by Vitro Flat Glass, LLC, Cheswick, Pennsylvania, and Vitro Meadville Flat Glass, LLC, Cochranton, Pennsylvania (collectively “Vitro”) on November 21, 2024, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized and less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of float glass products (“FGP”)1 from China and Malaysia. Table 1.1 presents information relating to the background of these investigations.2 3 1 See the section entitled “The subject merchandise” in Part 1 of this report for a complete description of the merchandise subject in this proceeding. 2 Pertinent Federal Register notices are referenced in appendix A and may be found at the Commission’s website (www.usitc.gov). 3 Appendix B presents the Federal Register notice cancelling the Commission’s hearing. 1.2 Table 1.1 FGP: Information relating to the background and schedule of this proceeding Effective date Action November 21, 2024 Petitions filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of the Commission's investigations (89 FR 93651, November 27, 2024) December 31, 2024 Commerce’s notices of initiation of antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CD”) investigations (90 FR 1435 (AD) and 90 FR 1443 (CVD), January 8, 2025) January 27, 2025 Commission preliminary determinations (90 FR 8533, January 30, 2025) May 19, 2025 Commerce’s preliminary CVD determinations (90 FR 21281 (China) and 90 FR 21278 (Malaysia)) July 15, 2025 Commerce’s preliminary AD determinations (90 FR 31602 (China) and 90 FR 31605 (Malaysia)); scheduling of final phase of Commission investigations (90 FR 38991, August 13, 2025) November 20, 2025 First revised scheduling of final phase of Commission investigations (90 FR 52999, November 24, 2025) December 8, 2025 Second revised scheduling of final phase of Commission investigations (90 FR 57483, December 11, 2025) February 5, 2026 Scheduled date for the Commission’s hearing (90 FR 57483, December 11, 2025); hearing cancelled, effective February 3, 2026 (91 FR 5510, February 6, 2026) February 9, 2026 Commerce’s final determinations (91 FR 5708 (China CVD), 5713 (China AD), 5723 (Malaysia AD), and 5720 (Malaysia CVD)) March 23, 2026 Commission’s vote March 26, 2026 Commission’s views Note: Due to the lapse in appropriations and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, the Commission revised its schedule for this proceeding. 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. 1.3 Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that—4 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 decline in output, sales, market share, gross profits, operating profits, net profits, ability to service debt, productivity, return on investments, return on assets, 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. In addition, Section 771(7)(J) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(J)) provides that—5 (J) EFFECT OF PROFITABILITY.—The Commission may not determine that there is no material injury or threat of material injury to an industry in the United States merely because that industry is profitable or because the performance of that industry has recently improved. 4 Amended by PL 114—27 (as signed, June 29, 2015), Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. 5 Amended by PL 114—27 (as signed, June 29, 2015), Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. 1.4 Organization of report Part 1 of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, subsidy rates/dumping margins, and domestic like product. Part 2 of this report presents information on conditions of competition and other relevant economic factors. Part 3 presents information on the condition of the U.S. industry, including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Parts 4 and 5 present the volume of subject imports and pricing of domestic and imported products, respectively. Part 6 presents information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. Part 7 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. Market summary FGP can be used in various downstream applications, including: (1) architectural applications such as windows, doors, partitions, facades, and other building elements, (2) automotive and non-automotive transportation, including front windshields, door windows, sunroofs, and rear windows, (3) electronics, (4) furniture, and (5) interior design applications. Of those firms responding to the Commission’s questionnaire, the leading U.S. producers of FGP are ***, while the leading U.S. processor of FGP is ***.6 Leading producers of FGP outside the United States are believed to include *** of China and *** of Malaysia. The leading U.S. importers of FGP from China are ***, while the leading importers of FGP from Malaysia are ***. 6 For the purposes of this staff report, U.S. producers are defined as firms that manufacture soda- lime-silica glass by floating a continuous strip of molten glass over a smooth bath of tin and cooling the glass in an annealing lehr. U.S. producers may or may not also conduct further processing on the resulting float glass product. U.S. processors are defined as firms that purchase or otherwise procure in- scope FGP from another entity (i.e., either domestically manufactured or imported FGP), and conduct further processing of those already in-scope FGP into another form of in-scope product in the United States, including coating (e.g., Low-E coating, mirror coating), heat strengthening or tempering, laminating, assembly of insulating glass units, and/or assembly of LED mirrors. 1.5 Leading importers of product from nonsubject countries (primarily Mexico, Germany, Turkey, and Canada) include ***. U.S. purchasers of FGP include fabricators which purchase glass for secondary processing, such as heat strengthening, tempering, or laminating, or assembling glass into products such as insulating glass units (“IGUs”) or mirrors; leading purchasers include ***. Apparent U.S. consumption of FGP totaled approximately 7.7 billion pounds ($4.5 billion) in 2024. Currently, seven firms are known to produce FGP in the United States. U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments of FGP totaled 7.3 billion pounds ($4.2 billion) in 2024, and accounted for 95.0 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 93.6 percent by value.7 U.S. shipments of imports from subject sources totaled 173.8 million pounds ($117.3 million) in 2024 and accounted for 2.3 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 2.6 percent by value. U.S. imports from nonsubject sources totaled 209.7 million pounds ($172.6 million) in 2024 and accounted for 2.7 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and 3.8 percent by value. Summary data and data sources A summary of data collected in these investigations is presented in appendix C, table C.1 (total market) and C.2 (merchant market). The Commission’s questionnaires collected data for the years 2022 to 2024 and interim periods January through June of 2024 (“interim 2024”) and January through June of 2025 (“interim 2025”). Except as noted, U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of 6 U.S. producers and 24 U.S. processors. Six U.S. producers accounted for an estimated *** percent of U.S. production of FGP during 2024. U.S. imports are based on questionnaire responses of 60 companies, representing an estimated *** percent of U.S. imports from China, *** percent of U.S. imports from Malaysia, *** percent of U.S. imports from subject sources, and *** percent of U.S. imports from nonsubject sources in 2024 under primary HTS subheadings 7005.10.8000, 7005.21.1010, 7005.21.1030, 7005.21.2000, 7005.29.1810, 7005.29.1850, 7005.29.2500, 7007.29.0000, 7008.00.0000, 7009.91.5010, 7009.91.5095 and 7009.92.5010. 7 The quantity presented reflects only U.S. producers’ U.S. shipment quantities to avoid double counting. The value presented represents U.S. shipment value reported by U.S. producers and the value added by U.S. processors to both domestically manufactured and imported FGP. 1.6 Previous and related investigations Unprocessed float glass, a subset of float glass products, from Belgium and Italy has been the subject of prior countervailing duty investigations in the United States.8 The U.S. Department of the Treasury issued countervailing duty orders on imports of unprocessed float glass from Belgium and Italy in 1976.9 On October 8, 1982, the Commission instituted investigation Nos. 104-TAA-11 and 104-TAA-12 to determine whether an industry in the United States would be materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States would be materially retarded, by reason of imports of unprocessed float glass from Belgium and Italy if the countervailing duty orders were to be revoked.10 Following negative determinations by the Commission in February 1983,11 the countervailing duty orders were revoked.12 8 Unprocessed float glass was defined as float glass in rectangles, not containing wire, whether or not colored, that has not been laminated, tempered, bent, frosted, sanded, enameled, beveled, etched, embossed, engraved, flashed, stained, painted, coated, ornamented, or decorated. Unprocessed Float Glass from Belgium and Italy, USITC Publication 1344, February 1988 (“Publication 1344”), p. 3, fn. 2. 9 Publication 1344, pp. 8 and 11. 10 47 FR 46775, October 20, 1982. 11 48 FR 6794, February 15, 1983. 12 48 FR 11307, March 19, 1983 and 48 FR 25255, June 6, 1983. 1.7 Nature and extent of subsidies and sales at LTFV Subsidies Commerce published notices in the Federal Register of its preliminary determinations on May 19, 2025, and its final determinations on February 9, 2026, of countervailable subsidies for producers and exporters of FGP from China and Malaysia.13 Tables 1.2 and 1.3 present Commerce’s findings of subsidization of FGP in China and Malaysia. Table 1.2 FGP: Commerce’s subsidy determination with respect to imports from China Entity Preliminary countervailable subsidy rate (percent) Final countervailable subsidy rate (percent) Xinyi Group (Glass) Company Limited 11.41 19.75 Shandong Jinjing Science and Technology Stock Co., Ltd 891.62 113.34 Hubei Sanxia New Building Materials Co., Ltd. 891.62 113.34 Shanghai Yaohua Pilkington Glass Group Co., Ltd. (SYP) 891.62 113.34 Shenzhen New Kibing Technology Co., Ltd. 891.62 19.75 All others 11.41 19.75 Source: 90 FR 21281, May 19, 2025, and 91 FR 5708, February 9, 2026. Note: For further information on programs determined to be countervailable, see Commerce’s associated Issues and Decision Memorandum. Shenzhen New Kibing Technology Co. Ltd.’s preliminary countervailable subsidy rate was based on facts available with adverse inferences (“AFA”) but Commerce decided to no longer determine its subsidy rate using AFA for its final countervailable subsidy rate and is thus assigned the “all others” rate. 13 90 FR 21278 and 90 FR 21281, May 19, 2025; 91 FR 5708 and 91 FR 5720, February 9, 2026. 1.8 Table 1.3 FGP: Commerce’s subsidy determination with respect to imports from Malaysia Entity Preliminary countervailable subsidy rate (percent) Final countervailable subsidy rate (percent) Jingjing Technology Malaysia Sdn. Bhd 19.09 17.25 Xinyi Energy Smart (M) Sdn. Bhd 27.54 28.45 NSG (Malaysian Sheet Glass) 101.99 101.99 All others 26.63 27.32 Source: 90 FR 21278, May 19, 2025, and 91 FR 5720, February 9, 2026. Note: For further information on programs determined to be countervailable, see Commerce’s associated Issues and Decision Memorandum. Note: *** Sales at LTFV Commerce published notices in the Federal Register of its preliminary determinations on July 15, 2025, and its final determinations on February 9, 2026, of sales at LTFV with respect to imports from China and Malaysia.14 Tables 1.4 and 1.5 present Commerce’s dumping margins with respect to imports of product from China and Malaysia. Table 1.4 FGP: Commerce’s weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from China Exporter Producer Preliminary dumping margin (percent) Final dumping margin (percent) Benxi Fuyao Float Glass Co., Ltd Benxi Fuyao Float Glass Co., Ltd 246.68 151.29 Changshu Chenming High-Tech International Trading Co., Ltd. Changshu High-Tech Energy- Saving Dorwin Co., Ltd 246.68 151.29 Dong Guan City Bathnology Industrial Co., Ltd Dong Guan City Bathnology Industrial Co., Ltd 246.68 151.29 Dongguan Gongying Supply Chain Management Co., Ltd. Lamxon Technology Building Materials Co., Ltd 246.68 151.29 Guangdong Guang Yi Import and Export Co., Ltd Lamxon Technology Building Materials Co., Ltd 246.68 151.29 14 90 FR 31602 and 90 FR 31605, July 15, 2025; 91 FR 5713 and 91 FR 5723, February 9, 2026. 1.9 Exporter Producer Preliminary dumping margin (percent) Final dumping margin (percent) Guangdong Rosery Bath Science and Technology Co., Ltd. Guangdong Rosery Bath Science and Technology Co., Ltd. 246.68 151.29 Orient Resource Corporation Limited Orient Resource Corporation Limited 246.68 151.29 Qingdao Apis Glass Industries Co., Ltd Qingdao Apis Glass Industries Co., Ltd 246.68 151.29 Qingdao Oriental Brother New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. Qingdao Oriental Brother New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. 246.68 151.29 Qinhuangdao Xinhua Glass Processing Co., Ltd Qinhuangdao Xinhua Glass Processing Co., Ltd 246.68 151.29 Shandong Jinjing Science and Technology Stock Co., Ltd. Boshan Branch. Shandong Jinjing Science and Technology Stock Co., Ltd. Boshan Branch. 246.68 151.29 Tengzhou Eternal Glass Co., Ltd Tengzhou Fenghua Glass Co., Ltd 246.68 151.29 Tengzhou Haolong Glass Co., Ltd Tengzhou Haolong Glass Co., Ltd 246.68 151.29 Tengzhou Jingcheng Mirror Co., Ltd Tengzhou Jingcheng Mirror Co., Ltd 246.68 151.29 Tengzhou Jinjing Glass Co., Ltd Tengzhou Jinjing Glass Co., Ltd 246.68 151.29 Tengzhou Jinjing Glass Co., Ltd Langfang Jinbiao Glass Co., Ltd 246.68 151.29 Tengzhou Yichuang Commercial Trading Co., Ltd Tengzhou Yichuang Commercial Trading Co., Ltd 246.68 151.29 Xiamen Guorui Hengsheng Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. Xiamen Guorui Hengsheng Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. 246.68 151.29 Xiamen Guorui Hengsheng Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. Xiamen Shiner Glass Co., Ltd 246.68 151.29 Xinyi Group (Glass) Co., Ltd Xinyi Glass (Tianjin) Co., Ltd 246.68 151.29 Xinyi Group (Glass) Co., Ltd Xinyi Glass (Wuhu) Co., Ltd 246.68 151.29 Zhongshan Neptum Sanitary Ware Co., Ltd Zhongshan Neptum Sanitary Ware Co., Ltd 246.68 151.29 Zhongshan Ninghe Intelligent Kitchen and Bath Co., Ltd. Zhongshan Ninghe Intelligent Kitchen and Bath Co., Ltd. 246.68 151.29 All others 311.81 181.54 Source: 90 FR 31602, July 15, 2025; 91 FR 5713, February 9, 2026. 1.10 Table 1.5 FGP: Commerce’s weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from Malaysia Exporter or producer Preliminary dumping margin (percent) Final dumping margin (percent) Jinjing Technology Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. 8.55 8.78 NSG (Malaysian Sheet Glass) 850.42 31.55 Xinyi Energy Smart (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. 16.26 0.00 All others 14.01 8.78 Source: 90 FR 31605, July 15, 2025, and 91 FR 5723, February 9, 2026. Note: ***. 1.11 The subject merchandise Commerce’s scope In the current proceeding, Commerce has defined the scope as follows:15 Float glass products (FGP), which are articles of soda-lime-silica glass that are manufactured by floating a continuous strip of molten glass over a smooth bath of tin (or another liquid metal with a density greater than molten glass), cooling the glass in an annealing lehr, and cutting it to appropriate dimensions. For purposes of the investigation, float glass products have an actual thickness of at least 2.0 mm (0.0787 inches) and an actual surface area of at least 0.37 square meters (4.0 square feet). The country of origin of each float glass product is determined by the location where the soda-lime-silica glass is first manufactured by floating a continuous strip of molten glass over a smooth bath of tin and cooling the glass in an annealing lehr, regardless of the location of any downstream finishing or fabrication operations. Prior to being subjected to further treatment, finishing, or fabrication, float glass products meet the requirements of Type I under ASTM–C1036 of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Float glass products may be clear, stained, tinted, or coated with one or more materials. Examples of coated float glass products include Low-E architectural glass (i.e., glass with a low emissivity coating to limit the penetration of radiant heat energy) and frameless mirrors (i.e., flat glass with a silver, aluminum, or other reflective layer) such as mirror stock sheet. Float glass products may be annealed, chemically strengthened, heat strengthened, or tempered to achieve a desired surface compression, pursuant to ASTM–C1048, ASTM–C1422/C1422M, or other similar specifications. Float glass products include tub and shower enclosures (i.e., doors and panels) made of tempered glass, which may be sold with attached or unattached hardware. In such cases, the scope covers only the tempered glass, to the exclusion of any non-glass hardware. 15 91 FR 5708, 5713, 5720 and 5723, February 9, 2026. 1.12 The only float glass product assemblies included within the scope are: (1) articles consisting of two or more sheets of float glass that are bonded together using a polymer interlayer (i.e., laminated glass); (2) insulating glass units (IGUs), which consist of two or more sheets of float glass separated by a spacer material and hermetically sealed together at the edge in order to create a thermal barrier using air or one or more gases but excluding any non-float glass components (other than the spacer and insulating materials) that may be mounted within the space between sheets of float glass (e.g., blinds, wrought iron cores, and camed patterned glass), as such non-float glass components are deemed outside the scope and not subject to duties; and (3) LED mirrors (i.e., float glass mirrors with one or more light-emitting diodes attached to or integrated with the mirror, as well as framed float glass mirrors with one or more light-emitting diodes attached to or integrated with the mirror or the mirror frame, but without other electronic functionality such as digital or video displays or audio circuitry). Float glass products covered by the scope may meet one or more of the ASTM–C162, ASTM–C1036, ASTM–C1048, ASTM–C1172, ASTM–C1349, ASTM–C1376, ASTM–C1422/C1422M, ASTM–C1464, ASTM–C1503, ASTM–C1651, ASTM–E1300, and ASTM–E2190 specifications, definitions, and/or standards. Float glass products may be further worked, including, but not limited to, operations such as: cutting; beveling; edging; notching; drilling; etching; bending; curving; chipping; embossing; engraving; surface grinding; or polishing; and sandblasting (i.e., using high velocity air to stream abrasive particles and thereby impart a frosted aesthetic to the glass surface). A float glass product which undergoes further work remains within the scope so long as the soda-lime-silica glass originally satisfied the requirements of ASTM–C1036 Type I and was first manufactured in a subject country, regardless of where it is further worked. Excluded from the scope are: (1) wired glass (i.e., glass with a layer of wire mesh embedded within); (2) patterned flat glass (i.e., rolled glass with a pattern impressed on one or both sides) meeting the requirements of Type II under ASTM–C1036, including greenhouse glass and patterned solar glass (i.e., photovoltaic glass with a textured surface); (3) safety glazing materials for vehicles certified to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard Z26.1; (4) vacuum insulating glass (VIG) units, which consist of two or more sheets of float glass separated by a spacer material, with at least one hermetically sealed compartment that uses a gas-free vacuum as a thermal barrier; (5) framed mirrors without any LEDs integrated with the mirror or the mirror frame; (6) unframed ‘‘over- 1.13 the-door’’ mirrors that are ready for use as imported without undergoing after importation any processing, finishing, or fabrication; and (7) heat- strengthened washing machine lid glass with an actual surface area less than 6.0 square feet (0.56 square meters). Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are: (1) soda-lime-silica glass containing less than 0.01 percent iron oxide by weight, annealed with a surface compression less than 3,500 pounds per square inch (PSI), having a transparent conductive oxide base coating (e.g., tin oxide), and with an actual thickness less than or equal to 4.0 mm (0.1575 inches) (i.e., ‘‘coated solar glass’’); and (2) heat treated soda-lime-silica glass with a surface compression between 3,500 and 10,000 PSI, containing two or more drilled holes, and having an actual thickness less than 2.5 mm (0.0984 inches) (i.e., ‘‘clear back solar glass’’). Solar glass products (also known as photovoltaic glass) are designed to facilitate the conversion of solar energy into electricity. Also excluded are metal-camed glass products (i.e., panels of glass joined together with metal banding) where the constituent glass panels would otherwise be excluded by reason of their size (e.g., an actual surface area less than 0.37 square meters, or 4.0 square feet) and/or by reason of consisting of patterned flat glass (i.e., rolled glass with a pattern impressed on one or both sides) meeting the requirements of Type II under ASTM–C1036. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are any products already covered by the scope of any extant antidumping and/or countervailing duty orders, including Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011), and Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 FR 30653 (May 26, 2011). 1.14 Tariff treatment FGP is currently imported under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) statistical reporting numbers 7005.10.8000, 7005.21.1010, 7005.21.1030, 7005.21.2000, 7005.29.1810, 7005.29.1850, 7005.29.2500, 7007.29.0000, 7008.00.0000, 7009.91.5010, 7009.91.5095, and 7009.92.5010. These HTS statistical reporting numbers may contain some out-of-scope products such as FGP with a nominal thickness of less than 2.0 mm (0.079 inches) and a nominal surface area of less than 0.37 square meters (4.0 square feet). The general rate of duty is 4.4 percent ad valorem for HTS subheading 7005.10.80, 14.5 cents per meter squared plus 0.4 percent ad valorem for subheading 7005.21.10, 5.6 percent ad valorem for subheading 7005.21.20, 14.5 cents per meter squared for subheading 7005.29.18, 4.9 percent ad valorem for subheadings 7005.29.25 and 7007.29.00, 3.9 percent ad valorem for subheading 7008.00.00, and 6.5 percent ad valorem for subheadings 7009.91.50 and 7009.92.50.16 Decisions on the tariff classification and treatment of imported goods are within the authority of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Section 301 tariffs Effective September 24, 2018, FGP originating in China was subject to an additional 10 percent ad valorem duty under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Effective May 10, 2019, the section 301 duty for FGP was increased to 25 percent.17 Section 122 tariffs Effective February 24, 2026, FGP originating in China and Malaysia is subject to an additional 10 percent ad valorem duty under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.18 16 The merchandise subject to these investigations may also be imported under the following HTS statistical reporting numbers: 7006.00.4010, 7006.00.4050, 7007.19.0000, 7013.99.2000, 7013.99.9090, 7610.10.0030, and 7610.90.0080. USITC, HTS (2026) Basic Edition, Publication 5966, January 2026, pp. 70.6 to 70.11. 17 83 FR 47974, September 21, 2018; 84 FR 20459, May 9, 2019. See also HTS headings 9903.88.03 and 9903.88.04 and U.S. notes 20(e)–20(g) to subchapter 3 of chapter 99 and related tariff provisions for this duty treatment. USITC, HTS (2026) Revision 2, Publication 5699, February 2026, pp. 99.3.90 to 99.3.115, and 99.3.452. Goods exported from China to the United States prior to May 10, 2019, and entering the United States prior to June 1, 2019, were not subject to the escalated 25 percent duty (84 FR 21892, May 15, 2019). 18 The White House, Imposing a Temporary Import Surcharge to Address Fundamental International Payments Problems, February 20, 2026. 1.15 Tariffs initiated under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) 19 Effective February 20, 2026, all tariffs initiated under IEEPA were terminated. Below is a history of the IEEPA tariffs relevant to FGP originating in China that were in effect until February 20, 2026.20 China specific IEEPA tariffs Effective February 4, 2025, FGP originating in China were subject to an additional 10 percent ad valorem duty under IEEPA, and on March 4, 2025, that additional duty increased to 20 percent ad valorem. However, effective November 10, 2025, that additional duty was reduced back to 10 percent.21 Effective February 20, 2026, tariffs initiated under IEEPA and the associated duties imposed under IEEPA were terminated.22 Tariffs initiated in April 2025 under IEEPA In addition to the other ad valorem duty under IEEPA discussed above, effective April 5, 2025, FGP originating in China were subject to an additional 10 percent ad valorem duty as part of tariffs initiated in April 2025 under IEEPA. That duty rose to 84 percent ad valorem effective April 9, 2025, and rose again to 125 percent effective April 10, 2025. However, effective May 14, 2025, the duty rate for tariffs initiated in April 2025 under IEEPA on products originating in 19 Multiple tariffs were enacted under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), including tariffs that applied to countries that may not be subject in this proceeding. Tariffs specific to Canada, China, and Mexico were initiated in February 2025. Tariffs initiated in April 2025 under IEEPA were applied globally. Tariffs specific to Brazil were initiated in July 2025. Tariffs specific to India were initiated in August 2025 and terminated effective February 7, 2026. Tariffs under IEEPA were amended over time. All tariffs initiated under IEEPA were terminated effective February 20, 2026. The White House, Ending Certain Tariff Actions, February 20, 2026. 20 The White House, Ending Certain Tariff Actions, February 20, 2026. 21 90 FR 9121, February 7, 2025; 90 FR 11426, March 6, 2025; 90 FR 11463, March 7, 2025; 90 FR 50725, November 7, 2025. See also HTS heading 9903.01.20 and U.S. note 2(s) and HTS heading 9903.01.24 and U.S. note 2(u) to subchapter 3 of chapter 99 and related tariff provisions for this duty treatment. USITC, HTS (2026) Revision 2, Publication 5699, February 2026, pp. 99.3.4, 99.3.5, and 99.3.366. 22 The White House, Ending Certain Tariff Actions, February 20, 2026. 1.16 China was reduced to 10 percent.23 Effective February 20, 2026, tariffs initiated under IEEPA and the associated duties imposed under IEEPA were terminated.24 Effective April 5, 2025, FGPs originating in Malaysia were subject to an additional 10 percent ad valorem duty as part of tariffs initiated in April 2025 under IEEPA. Effective April 9, 2025, Malaysia was instead assigned an individualized country duty of 24 percent ad valorem. However, effective April 10, 2025, the individualized country duties were suspended and the additional duty rate as part of tariffs initiated in April 2025 under IEEPA for FGP originating in Malaysia was returned to 10 percent.25 Effective August 7, 2025, Malaysia was instead assigned an individualized country duty of 19 percent.26 Effective February 20, 2026, tariffs initiated under IEEPA and the associated duties imposed under IEEPA were terminated.27 Table 1.6 presents a summary of additional tariffs in place as of February 24, 2026. Table 1.6 FGP: Additional tariffs on imports originating in China and Malaysia as of February 24, 2026. Duty rates in percent ad valorem Additional tariff China Malaysia Section 301 25 Not applicable Section 122 10 10 Total additional ad valorem rate 35 10 Source: Federal Register notices and other sources cited in this section (Tariff treatment). Note: Duty rates in the table reflect the duty rates as of the writing of this report. See the text above for historical changes to the additional tariffs. 23 The duty as part of tariffs initiated in April 2025 under IEEPA is in addition to the 10 percent ad valorem duty under IEEPA that went into effect on November 10, 2025, for China. 90 FR 15041, April 7, 2025; 90 FR 15509, April 14, 2025; 90 FR 15625, April 15, 2025; 90 FR 21831, May 21, 2025; 90 FR 39305, August 14, 2025; 90 FR 50729, November 7, 2025. See also HTS headings 9903.01.25 and 9903.01.63 and U.S. note 2(v) to subchapter 3 of chapter 99 and related tariff provisions for this duty treatment. USITC, HTS (2026) Revision 2, Publication 5699, February 2026, pp. 99.3.5 to 99.3.42, 99.3.366, and 99.3.373. 24 The White House, Ending Certain Tariff Actions, February 20, 2026. 25 Individualized country duties as part of tariffs initiated in April 2025 under IEEPA for all countries other than China were suspended until August 1, 2025. 90 FR 15041, April 7, 2025; 90 FR 15625, April 15, 2025; 90 FR 30823, July 10, 2025; and 90 FR 37963, August 6, 2025. See also HTS headings 9903.01.25 and 9903.01.53 and U.S. note 2(v) to subchapter 3 of chapter 99 and related tariff provisions for this duty treatment. USITC, HTS (2026) Revision 2, Publication 5699, February 2026, pp. 99.3.5 to 99.3.42, 99.3.366, and 99.3.371. 26 90 FR 37963, August 6, 2025. See also HTS heading 9903.02.39 and U.S. note 2(v) to subchapter 3 of chapter 99 and related tariff provisions for this duty treatment. USITC, HTS (2026) Revision 2, Publication 5699, February 2026, pp. 99.3.5 to 99.3.42, and 99.3.389. 27 The White House, Ending Certain Tariff Actions, February 20, 2026. 1.17 The product Description and applications FGP is created by floating molten glass over a bed of molten tin in a manufacturing process that requires heavy-duty machinery, strict raw material formulas, and strict tolerances. At this stage, prior to being subjected to further treatment, finishing, or fabrication operations, FGP meets the requirements of Type I under ASTM-C1036.28 While the final specifications for FGP may vary to meet the requirements of certain end uses, all FGP share the same basic physical characteristics in that they are produced with smooth surfaces, uniform thickness, and relatively high optical quality and clarity. FGP can also undergo further processing operations which impart certain characteristics on the final product. FGP can be: • clear, stained, tinted, or coated with one or more materials to affect heat insulation properties, electrical conductivity, sound reduction, strength, durability, color, and/or the transmission of light; • annealed, chemically strengthened, heat strengthened, or tempered to achieve a desired surface compression; • further worked, including but not limited to finishing operations such as sandblasting, etching, bending, curving, beveling, edging, notching, drilling, chipping, embossing, and engraving; and • assembled into laminates, mirrors with light-emitting diodes (“LEDs”), or insulated glass units. FGP is used in various downstream applications including: (1) architectural;29 (2) automotive and non-automotive transportation;30 (3) electronics; (4) furniture; and (5) construction applications.31 28 ASTM-C1036 is the “Standard Specification for Flat Glass.” Type I glass is transparent flat glass. Type II glass is patterned and wired flat glass, which is excluded from the scope of these investigations. Type I glass is only clear while Type II glass can be clear or tinted. ASTM International, “ASTM C1036-21: Standard Specification for Flat Glass,” https://www.astm.org/c1036-21.html, accessed July 30, 2025. 29 Architectural applications are a leading end use for FGP and include windows, doors, partitions, facades, and other building elements. 30 Automotive applications include front windshields, door windows, sunroofs, and rear windows. 31 A key market segment for float glass is construction, which can be separated into exterior architectural applications and interior applications. The terms “commercial” and “residential” in the (continued...) 1.18 Manufacturing processes FGP is made primarily from silica (silicon dioxide) sand, soda ash (sodium carbonate), limestone (calcium carbonate), dolomite (calcium-magnesium carbonate), salt cake (sodium sulfate), and cullet (recycled or waste glass).32 Silica sand and cullet generally comprise most of the raw material mix by weight. Cullet is a particularly desirable input for FGP production because it lowers the melting point of the mix, thereby reducing energy costs and carbon emissions.33 Other raw materials (e.g., iron oxide, graphite) are typically controlled to affect the chemical or physical characteristics of the glass. Once the initial glass ribbon is pulled, the process is continuous, lasting 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at almost 100 percent capacity utilization. Typically, furnaces continuously run for about 12 to 15 years without shutting down after the initial glass ribbon pull.34 In the U.S. market, the standard stock sizes of float glass are 96 x 130 inches and 100 x 144 inches. Jumbo size sheets are also available with dimensions of 130 x 204 inches. FGP is manufactured on a line where a molten ribbon of glass is formed by floating the liquid glass over a bed of molten tin, allowing it to spread evenly in all directions.35 The tin bath is heated with electrodes to keep the tin in a molten state and is also continuously replenished construction segment refer to the customer base. For example, if a fabricator makes tempered shower doors for resale at Home Depot, that would be considered a residential product and if the fabricator makes the same tempered shower door for sale into a large construction project like a hotel, then it would be considered a commercial product. Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 12 to 13. 32 The manufacturing process for float glass is the same in all countries. However, in Europe, manufacturers can recycle outside glass as cullet during the manufacturing process. European manufacturers use a process called heat-soaked testing for any tempered glass to reduce the risk of breakage from contamination. In the United States, heat-soaked testing is typically available from fabricators as the domestic manufacturers do not have the capacity to conduct heat-soaked testing on all the tempered glass. Conference transcript, p. 128 (Burg); and Guardian Glass, “Heat-Soaking,”2025, accessed July 30, 2025, https://www.guardianglass.com/us/en/tools-and- resources/resources/glossary/heat-soaking. 33 Glass manufacturers can achieve approximately 2 to 3 percent reduction in energy consumption for every 10 percent of recycled cullet used in the batch. Also, adding 40 percent cullet allows manufacturers to reduce the melting temperature to 1,150 degrees Celsius, down from 1,600 degrees Celsius, which provides significant cost savings. Delvin, F. “Flat Glass Recycling,” Glass Magazine, March 22, 2022, https://www.glassmagazine.com/article/flat-glass-recycling. 34 Float glass furnaces’ theoretical output ranges from 600 to 1,200 tons daily. For the company to operate on a sustainable basis, the continuous process requires close to 100 percent capacity utilization. If the furnace is shutdown it needs to be rebuilt because the molten glass will harden in place. Rebuilding a glass furnace requires a substantial amount of investment. Conference transcript, pp. 12 (Bush), 20 (Stipetich), 42 (Levy), and 108 (Bush). 35 Since molten tin is denser, the molten glass forms a continuous ribbon on top of the heaver tin when the batch is fed into the furnace for melting. Conference transcript, p. 12 (Bush). 1.19 with tin. 36 The molten glass can be applied (“pulled”) from the furnace at various rates onto the bed of molten tin.37 While lying on the bed of molten tin, the upper surface of the glass is polished with fire and is called the “air side” or “score side” and the lower surface is not polished with fire and is called the “tin side.”38 As it floats over the tin and into an annealing oven (lehr), it gradually cools, solidifies, and is ready for inspection and cutting (figure 1.1). This process makes FGP ideal for applications requiring high transparency and minimal distortion. Figure 1.1 FGP: Float glass ready for inspection and cutting Source: Vitro Architectural Glass, Glass Education Center, “Float Glass Process,” August 25, 2023, https://glassed.vitroglazings.com/topics/float-glass-process, accessed July 30, 2025. FGP production is highly energy-intensive, with energy costs accounting for a substantial portion of the total cost of production. Because the equipment involved in the production process is costly to purchase and maintain, it is also capital-intensive. 36 Conference transcript, p. 109 (Bush). 37 The rate at which the molten glass is removed from the furnace is called the “pull rate.” The pull rate can be adjusted to change the thickness of the glass. The faster the pull rate, the thinner the glass. Likewise, the slower the pull rate, the thicker the glass. Conference transcript, p. 12 (Bush). 38 Polished with fire refers to the smoothness and shininess of glass after being exposed to flames. The flame causes the surface to melt slightly then harden with a smooth finish. 1.20 Production of FGP has six stages: (1) batching and mixing raw materials, (2) melting, refining, and conditioning, (3) floating the molten glass in a float bath, (4) annealing, (5) inspection and cutting, and (6) finishing. Figure 1.2 provides an overview of the manufacturing process for FGP. Figure 1.2 FGP: Manufacturing process Source: Petitions, p. 1.12. 1.21 Batching and mixing raw materials The “batch” refers to the measured mixture of sand, soda ash, sodium sulfate, dolomite, limestone, cullet, and small quantities of other chemicals that are fed into the furnace for melting. Raw materials are weighed prior to mixing to ensure consistent batch proportions. Cullet is weighed and added to the batch after the raw materials are mixed. Once the cullet is fully mixed with the raw materials, the batch is transported to the furnace, also known as the “melting tank.” Figure 1.3 provides an overview of the process for batching and mixing raw materials. Figure 1.3 FGP: Batching and mixing raw materials Source: Petitions, p. 1.12. 1.22 Melting, refining, and conditioning The batch is fed into the furnace or melt tank where it is heated to approximately 1,500 degrees Celsius. In this stage, the batch undergoes several processes known as “melting, refining, and homogenizing (conditioning)” to form molten glass. In the melting process, the solid particulates are heated until molten. In the refining process, gas bubbles are released that would otherwise cause distortions or impurities in the finished product. Finally, the homogenizing (conditioning) process makes the thermal profile of the molten glass uniform before it flows onto the tin bath, ensuring the appropriate viscosity for the float process. These processes occur in a continuous melting flow that, in the following steps, feed molten glass onto the tin bath smoothly and consistently, at 1,100 degrees Celsius, and virtually free of inclusions or bubbles. Figure 1.4 shows the melting, refining, and conditioning (homogenizing) processes. Figure 1.4 FGP: Melting, refining, and conditioning processes Source: Petitions, p. 1.13. 1.23 Floating the molten glass in a float bath Following the melting, refining, and conditioning processes, the molten glass flows in a continuous ribbon onto a bath of molten tin (which has a higher density). This floating process creates smooth and uniform surfaces of high optical clarity, allowing the glass to form a flat sheet without the need for grinding or polishing. As the glass floats, its thickness is controlled by the speed at which the glass ribbon is pulled through the bath by edge rollers. In most manufacturing, the float glass naturally spreads to a thickness of approximately 6 millimeters; to attain a different thickness, the manufacturers will typically modify the draw rate of the glass ribbon flowing from the furnace. Figure 1.5 shows the float bath. Figure 1.5 FGP: Float bath Source: Petitions, p. 1.14. 1.24 Annealing Once the desired thickness has been achieved, the glass ribbon enters an annealing lehr. Within the lehr, the glass is gradually cooled from 600 degrees Celsius to room temperature. This controlled cooling process prevents deformities, flaws, and internal stresses that can result from a more rapid cooling process. Figure 1.6 shows the annealing process. Figure 1.6 FGP: Annealing process Source: Petitions, p. 1.14. Inspection and cutting Once the glass is sufficiently cooled, it is ready for inspection and cutting. The glass is electronically scanned for defects, such as bubbles, cracks, or imperfections that can arise during production.39 After inspection, the cooled glass is cut into sheets. The cutting is done using diamond-tipped cutters or other high-precision tools. The glass can be sold in this form or variously finished by further processing. Finishing (further processing) Depending on the desired product characteristics, the FGP may undergo additional processing, the following are examples:40 Coating: Coatings typically involve applying a thin layer or layers of material(s) to the cleaned surface of the glass within a vacuum chamber to affect heat insulation, electrical conductivity, sound reduction, strength, durability, color, and/or the transmission of light. 39 For example, a particulate might not fully melt during the melting process, a bubble might not have properly escaped the molten glass during the refining process, and ripples might be imparted in the glass ribbon by a tremor in the tin float surface. 40 Besides cutting and breaking FGP to the desired dimension, any further processing requires a significant amount of capital investment such as equipment purchases, capacity to accommodate in equipment, storage, and specially trained employees. Some facilities may require tens of millions of dollars as capital investment. Conference transcript, p. 23 (Burg). 1.25 Examples of coated FGP include low emissivity (“Low-E”) architectural glass and frameless mirrors (i.e., flat glass with a silver, aluminum, or other reflective layers) such as mirror stock sheet and mirror lehr end.41 Chemical strengthening: Chemical strengthening, or ion exchange, enhances glass by submerging it in a molten potassium salt bath, where larger potassium ions replace the smaller sodium ions, thereby imparting compressive stress on the surface and tension in the core. This process can be tailored through variations in the bath’s composition, enabling the production of high-performance glass with minimal distortion and a strengthened, alkali-rich layer. The result is a glass that is highly durable, ideal for demanding environments and advanced applications in fields like energy, medicine, and semiconductors. Heat strengthening: Heat-strengthened glass is heated and cooled similarly to tempered glass; however, heat-strengthened glass has a slower cooling process, which results in lower strength, with a surface compression more than 3,500 pounds per square inch (“PSI”). It is commonly used when moderate strength is needed to resist wind or thermal stress without requiring the higher strength or breakage pattern of fully tempered glass. When broken, its larger fragments stay in place longer and minimize injury risk, although it does not meet safety glazing standards. Tempering: Tempered glass, or toughened glass, is a type of safety glass designed for enhanced strength and durability. It is manufactured by heating the glass to a high temperature and quickly cooling it with air, a process that significantly improves its resistance to breakage. Fully tempered glass typically has a minimum surface compression of 10,000 PSI. Working: FGP may be further worked by means of bending, beveling, curving, edging, notching, drilling, chipping, sanding, embossing, engraving, etching, and other similar operations to impart certain desired physical characteristics. Lamination: Lamination is a process that involves bonding two or more glass sheets (also known as “lites”42), typically using a polymer interlayer. Lamination can enhance the safety performance of glass by binding glass fragments to the interlayer to reduce the risk of injury in the event of breakage. Other fabrication processes: Assembled FGP can also take the form of insulating glass units (“IGUs”). An IGU commonly consists of two or more lites of glass separated by a spacer material and sealed together at the edge. The insulating airspace can be filled with air, or an 41 Mirror lehr end is intended for recutting into smaller sizes. 42 Lites are the panes of glass, such as those commonly used for windows or doors. Clear Estimates, blog, “What are window lites?” November 12, 2018, https://www.clearestimates.com/blog/what-are- window-lites. 1.26 inert gas such as argon or krypton, to provide a thermal barrier. Another common example of a fabricated float glass product is a mirror (i.e., flat glass coated with a silver, aluminum, or another reflective layer) with one or more LEDs integrated with the mirror, as well as framed mirrors with one or more LEDs integrated with the mirror or the mirror frame. Finally, the manufacturing process of primary FGP production comes with a high amount of yield loss.43 It typically occurs as the following: (1) transitioning between batch production,44 (2) the cutting of glass,45 (3) damage from breaking or scratching, and (4) surface corrosion during inventory.46 43 Yield loss occurs for both primary manufacturers and processors when they are fulfilling an order. Yield loss for some fabricators can range from 25 percent to 40 percent depending on the specialty product. Conference transcript, p. 47 (Burg). 44 Transitioning between batch production can range from a couple of hours to a couple of days, as transitional off-spec glass is produced in the interim while the molten glass reaches the desired chemistry in the furnace. Conference transcript, pp. 41 (Levy) and 43 (Bush). 45 There is a loss of width when certain standard dimensions are produced which becomes cullet. Conference transcript, p. 41 (Levy). 46 Keeping inventory of FGP is very limited because it is not economical. At a certain point, manufacturers decide to use the already produced glass as cullet because sodium ions change the surface of the glass to an alkaline surface (alkali migration or alkaline leaching). The glass producers will typically coat the surface of the glass with food-grade adipic acid to neutralize alkaline migration after it is produced. However, surface corrosion occurs if the acid coating is depleted when it has been in place too long, or if there has been too much moisture in the environment where the glass has been stored. Washing the glass for the first time stops that migration process and takes away the alkalinity at the surface. Hence, customers wash the FGP before they begin further processing. It takes approximately *** depending on specifications but may be *** depending on surface treatment and storage conditions. Conference transcript, pp. 37 to 38 (Bush) and petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 2.3 to 2.4. 1.27 Domestic like product issues In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the Commission defined a single domestic like product, coextensive with the scope.47 In the final phase of these investigations, no parties requested data or other information necessary for the analysis of the domestic like product. Intermediate products The domestic like product proposed by the petitioner includes primary float glass and further processed FGP.48 Commission questionnaires asked U.S. producers, U.S. processors, and U.S. importers to compare unprocessed primary FGP to further-processed FGP by the five like product factors under the Commission’s semifinished like product analysis. Table 1.7 presents “yes” and “no” counts by factor and firm type. Firms’ narrative explanations are presented in appendix D. A majority of firms (96 of 109) reported that there are no other uses for primary float glass other than for the production of further-processed FGP. Some respondents reported that primary float glass does have some uses that do not require further processing, including ***. A majority of U.S. producers and U.S. processors (21 of 28) and purchasers (23 of 29) reported that the market for primary float glass is not separate and distinct from the market for further-processed FGP, while a majority of U.S. importers (27 of 50) reported that there are two separate and distinct markets. Respondents that did report that the markets are separate and distinct characterized purchasers of primary float glass as ***. Half of U.S. producers and U.S. processors (14 of 28) and more than half of purchasers (17 of 29) reported that there are no differences in characteristics between primary float glass and further-processed FGP, while more than half of U.S. importers (35 of 53) reported that there are such differences. Firms that reported there are differences noted that *** 47 Float Glass Products from China and Malaysia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-748-749 and 731-TA-1726-1727 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 5579, February 2025, (“Preliminary publication”), p. 17. 48 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. I-6. 1.28 ***. A majority of firms (91 of 108) reported that there are differences in costs between primary float glass and further-processed FGP. As presented in appendix D, table D.4, the average unit value of U.S. producers’ unprocessed FGP is $*** per pound, while the average unit values of U.S. producers’ processed FGP and U.S. processors’ processed FGP are higher, at $*** and $*** per pound, respectively. A majority of firms (80 of 111) reported that they would describe the processes used to transform the primary float glass into further processed FGP as significant and particularly labor or capital intensive. Some noted ***. Information regarding the manufacturing and fabrication of FGP are presented above in the “manufacturing process” section. Table 1.7 FGP: Count of firms' responses regarding the semi-finished product analysis comparing unprocessed primary float glass to processed float glass products, by firm type and factor Count in number of firms reporting Firm type Factor No Yes U.S. producers and U.S. processors Other uses 26 3 U.S. producers and U.S. processors Separate market 21 7 U.S. producers and U.S. processors Differences in characteristics 14 14 U.S. producers and U.S. processors Differences in costs 1 27 U.S. producers and U.S. processors Transformation intensive 6 23 Importers Other uses 42 9 Importers Separate market 23 27 Importers Differences in characteristics 18 35 Importers Differences in costs 10 41 Importers Transformation intensive 12 40 Purchasers Other uses 28 1 Purchasers Separate market 23 6 Purchasers Differences in characteristics 17 12 Purchasers Differences in costs 6 23 Purchasers Transformation intensive 13 17 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: See appendix D for firms' narrative responses regarding the semi-finished product analysis. 2.1 Part 2: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market U.S. market characteristics FGP are flat glass products made from float glass, which may be sold as basic float glass or further processed. FGP can undergo a wide range of processing operations such as heat treatment, tempering, lamination, and coating. Some producers of FGP are vertically integrated and perform these additional processing operations in-house, while other producers sell to independent fabricators.1 According to U.S. producer Vitro, demand for FGP is primarily tied to downstream applications in construction and transportation, and to a lesser extent in electronics, furniture, and interior design.2 Conditions of competition in the U.S. market are characterized by specification-driven requirements such as quality/spec compliance, availability, lead times, and product range, with trade policy such as Section 301 duties and new or modified tariffs contributing to cost pressures and uncertainty. While products are generally interchangeable across sources, some firms noted limits tied to coating or color consistency and other non-price factors. Three of 5 responding U.S. producers, 17 of 50 importers, and 9 of 31 purchasers indicated that the market was subject to distinctive conditions of competition. U.S. producer *** and importer *** cited capacity and supply-related factors as such conditions, including the timing of furnace or line repairs, the broader construction cycle, and environmental energy policy effects. Importers *** indicated that some firms reported limited availability from domestic suppliers including sales to preferred customers and limited access for new customers, which they indicated required sourcing from foreign suppliers for certain products. Apparent U.S. consumption of FGP fluctuated during January 2022 to June 2025, decreasing by 9.9 percent during 2022 to 2023, but then increasing by 1.9 percent from 2023 to 2024. Overall, apparent U.S. consumption in 2024 was 8.2 percent lower than in 2022. 1 Conference transcript, p. 13 (Bush). 2 Conference transcript, p. 73 (Levy). 2.2 U.S. purchasers The Commission received 33 usable questionnaire responses from firms that had purchased FGP during January 2022 to June 2025.3 4 5 Twenty-three responding purchasers are processors or fabricators, six are distributors, two are contractors, and five are other purchasers (retailer, supplier of engineered products, window and door manufacturer, and curtain wall subcontractor). In general, responding U.S. purchasers were located in all regions of the United States. The responding purchasers represented firms in a variety of domestic industries, including construction and general contracting (home builders, commercial contractors, and stadium and shopping center developers); glass and glazing services (glass shops, window installers, shower door installers, and glazing contractors); manufacturing and fabrication (glass fabricators, garage door manufacturers, and processors); furniture and interior design (furniture manufacturers and decorative wall designers); transportation and housing (recreational vehicle manufacturers, transportation sectors, and manufactured housing); and retail and distribution (window/door distributors, dealers, and e-commerce firms). Large purchasers of FGP include ***. Impact of section 301 tariffs and new or modified tariffs U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to report the impact of Section 301 tariffs on imports from China on overall demand, supply, prices, and/or raw material costs (table 2.1). One of six U.S. producers reported the tariffs have had an impact, one U.S. producer reported the tariffs have not had an impact, and four reported they did not know what impact the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese-origin products have had on the FGP industry. Among responding importers, 27 of 52 reported the tariffs have had an impact, 8 reported that the tariffs have not had an impact, and 17 reported they did not know. Among responding 3 The following firms provided purchaser questionnaire responses: ***. 4 Of the 33 responding purchasers, 30 purchased the domestic FGP, 18 purchased imports of the subject merchandise from China, 5 purchased imports of subject merchandise from Malaysia, and 8 purchased imports of FGP from other sources. 5 Thirty-two purchasers indicated they had marketing/pricing knowledge of domestic product, 26 of product imported from China, 14 of product imported from Malaysia, and 19 of product imported from nonsubject countries. 2.3 purchasers, 9 reported that the tariffs have had an impact, 16 reported the tariffs have not had an impact, and 7 reported they did not know. Table 2.1 FGP: Count of firms' responses regarding the impact of the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese origin products Count in number of firms Firm type No Yes Don’t know U.S. producers 1 1 4 Importers 8 27 17 Purchasers 16 9 7 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. According to U.S. producer ***, Section 301 tariffs were in effect continuously throughout the period of investigation, so there were no changes that affected competition during the period. Importer *** reported that large float glass suppliers implemented 25- to 40- percent price increases. Additionally, several importers reported that the Section 301 tariffs increased their import costs and landed prices. Specifically, importer *** reported reduced sourcing from China and increased sourcing from other countries, while importer *** reported increased supply outside of China. Some importers reported broader market effects associated with tariffs. Importer *** reported increases in material prices and lead times and supplier allocation practices, while importer *** added that there are disruptions in shipments originating in China. Several importers also reported that U.S. producers increased prices following the imposition of Section 301 tariffs. U.S. importers (***) reported absorbing a portion of the tariff to remain competitive, which increased internal cost pressures and affected margins. Importer *** reported that Section 301 tariffs increased costs and that it observed a shift in market or owner sentiment away from Chinese manufacturers. U.S. purchasers (***) reported higher prices and costs attributed to tariffs. Purchaser *** reported that higher prices from U.S. suppliers reduced customer demand and contributed to uncertainty about future pricing, and purchaser *** stated that it had experienced reduced profitability and competitiveness. U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to report the impact of new or modified tariffs since January 1, 2025 on overall demand, supply, prices, or raw material costs (table 2.2). Three of six responding U.S. producers reported that the new or modified tariffs have had an impact on the FGP industry, while the remaining three did not know whether they 2.4 had an impact. Among responding importers, a majority (36 of 52) reported that new or modified tariffs have had an impact, while 15 reported they did not know and one reported that the tariffs have not had an impact. Among responding purchasers, a majority (17 of 32) reported they did not know what impact such tariffs have had, while 13 reported the tariffs have had an impact and 2 reported that the tariffs have not had an impact. Table 2.2 FGP: Count of firms' responses regarding the impact of new or modified tariffs since January 1, 2025 Count in number of firms Firm type No Yes Don’t know U.S. producers 0 3 3 Importers 1 36 15 Purchasers 2 13 17 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. producer *** reported that reciprocal tariffs announced in April 2025 placed inflationary pressure on raw material costs, and U.S. producer *** reported that prices increased and supply tightened. Several importers (***) reported higher costs and prices associated with new or modified tariffs since January 1, 2025. Importer *** reports that recent tariff announcements created uncertainty for pricing and supply planning and increased volatility in demand and delayed some purchasing decisions. Importer *** similarly reported that volatility in tariff policies made it challenging to forecast future orders. Importer *** reported a decline in orders through July 2025, and importer *** added that it had a decrease in revenue due to the new tariffs. Importer *** reported that new tariffs escalated market conditions and resulted in the cancellation of a long-standing partnership with a major China supplier. Some firms reported that the tariffs affected sourcing patterns. Importer *** reported increased imports from Mexico, which it attributes to the absence of reciprocal tariffs on Mexico, and reported reduced imports from China due to higher tariffs on China; it also reported that domestic manufacturers raised prices following tariff implementation. Purchaser *** reported that a combination of new tariffs and favorable domestic prices reduced purchases from China. Purchaser *** reported that the impact of these tariffs is unclear, and it stated that a surge in imports from Vietnam may reflect Chinese-origin float glass circumventing tariffs. Purchasers *** and importer *** reported that reciprocal tariffs announced or implemented in April 2025 contributed to inflationary 2.5 pressure on raw material costs. *** reported that the current IEEPA tariffs effectively apply to all foreign glass sources, increased the cost of glass products available domestically, and could hamper the ability to source quality products beyond current domestic capabilities. Among purchasers, many reported higher prices and costs. Purchaser *** cited tariffs on an input (cerium oxide), and purchaser *** reported a small impact from EU tariffs on laminated glass related to raw material. Purchaser *** reported that higher prices from U.S. suppliers reduced customer demand and contributed to uncertainty about future pricing. Channels of distribution As shown in table 2.3, U.S. producers’ channels of distribution were highly concentrated in shipments to processors/fabricators during 2022 through interim 2025, while shipments to automotive and transportation OEMs were small; shipments to distributors and other end users remained minimal. Imports from China were more dispersed across channels, with shipments mostly split among distributors and processors/fabricators with smaller shipments to contractors, builders, and glaziers, and other end users, while shipments to automotive and transportation OEMs were minimal through interim 2025. Imports from Malaysia were primarily shipped to processors/fabricators and contractors, builders, and glaziers, with smaller shares to distributors and other end users. Subject imports followed a similar pattern of diversified distribution, with a majority of shares to processors/fabricators and distributors representing the largest channels, followed by contractors, builders, and glaziers and other end users, while shipments to automotive and transportation OEMs remained minimal. 2.6 Table 2.3 FGP: Share of U.S. shipments by source, channel of distribution, and period Shares in percent; interim is January through June Source Channel 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 United States Distributors *** *** *** *** *** United States Processors/fabricators *** *** *** *** *** United States Automotive and transportation OEMs *** *** *** *** *** United States Contractors, builders, and glaziers *** *** *** *** *** United States Other end users *** *** *** *** *** China Distributors *** *** *** *** *** China Processors/fabricators *** *** *** *** *** China Automotive and transportation OEMs *** *** *** *** *** China Contractors, builders, and glaziers *** *** *** *** *** China Other end users *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia Processors/fabricators *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia Automotive and transportation OEMs *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia Contractors, builders, and glaziers *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia Other end users *** *** *** *** *** Subject Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Subject Processors/fabricators *** *** *** *** *** Subject Automotive and transportation OEMs *** *** *** *** *** Subject Contractors, builders, and glaziers *** *** *** *** *** Subject Other end users *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. 2.7 Table 2.3 (Continued) FGP: Share of U.S. shipments by source, channel of distribution, and period Shares in percent; interim is January through June Source Channel 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Mexico Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Processors/fabricators *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Automotive and transportation OEMs *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Contractors, builders, and glaziers *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Other end users *** *** *** *** *** All other Distributors *** *** *** *** *** All other Processors/fabricators *** *** *** *** *** All other Automotive and transportation OEMs *** *** *** *** *** All other Contractors, builders, and glaziers *** *** *** *** *** All other Other end users *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Processors/fabricators *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Automotive and transportation OEMs *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Contractors, builders, and glaziers *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Other end users *** *** *** *** *** All sources Distributors *** *** *** *** *** All sources Processors/fabricators *** *** *** *** *** All sources Automotive and transportation OEMs *** *** *** *** *** All sources Contractors, builders, and glaziers *** *** *** *** *** All sources Other end users *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. 2.8 Geographic distribution Table 2.4 presents a count of U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ geographic markets. U.S. producers and U.S. importers from the subject sources reported shipping FGP to customers located at varying distances within the United States. For U.S. producers, *** percent of shipments were within 0 to 100 miles of their production facility, *** percent were shipped 101 to 1,000 miles, and *** percent were shipped over 1,000 miles. Subject U.S. importers reported shipping *** percent of shipments within 0 to 100 miles of their U.S. point of shipment, *** percent 101 to 1,000 miles, and *** percent over 1,000 miles. Table 2.4 FGP: Count of U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ geographic markets Count in number of firms reporting Region U.S. producers China Malaysia Subject sources Northeast 4 32 5 32 Midwest 5 26 3 26 Southeast 5 30 5 31 Central Southwest 5 26 4 26 Mountains 3 26 2 26 Pacific Coast 4 29 4 29 Other 0 20 3 21 All regions (except Other) 3 20 1 20 Reporting firms 5 40 12 41 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Other U.S. markets include AK, HI, PR, and VI. Supply and demand considerations U.S. supply Table 2.5 provides a summary of the supply factors regarding FGP from U.S. producers, one responding producer from China that accounted for *** percent of production in China, and one producer in Malaysia that reported *** production in 2024.6 Reported capacity for U.S. producers declined slightly from 2022 to 2024, while the reported Chinese capacity of the one responding firm declined over the same period. U.S. producers’ capacity utilization also decreased, whereas the responding producer in China’s reported capacity utilization increased. Ratios of inventories to total shipments increased for both the United States and the responding producer in China. In 2024, both U.S. producers and 6 Malaysian foreign producer, ***, reported data for ***. It ***. 2.9 the producer in China reported that the majority of shipments were directed to their home markets, with smaller shares directed to non-U.S. export markets. Table 2.5 FGP: Supply factors that affect the ability to increase shipments to the U.S. market, by country Quantity in 1,000 pounds; Ratios and shares in percent; Count in number of firms reporting Factor Measure United States China Malaysia Subject suppliers Capacity 2022 Quantity 9,243,022 *** *** *** Capacity 2024 Quantity 9,176,216 *** *** *** Capacity utilization 2022 Ratio 92.9 *** *** *** Capacity utilization 2024 Ratio 84.4 *** *** *** Inventories to total shipments 2022 Ratio *** *** *** *** Inventories to total shipments 2024 Ratio *** *** *** *** Home market shipments 2024 Share *** *** *** *** Non-US export market shipments 2024 Share *** *** *** *** Ability to shift production Count *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Data are for U.S. producers of FGP and do not include data for fabricators. Responding U.S. producers accounted for an estimated *** of U.S. production of FGP in 2024. The responding foreign producer/exporter in China accounted for *** of U.S. imports of FGP from China during 2024. The responding foreign producer/exporter in Malaysia accounted for *** of U.S. imports of FGP from Malaysia during 2024, as they ***. For additional data on the number of responding firms and their share of U.S. production and of U.S. imports from each subject country, please refer to Parts 3 and 7. Domestic production Based on available information, U.S. producers of FGP have the ability to respond to changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced FGP to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are the presence of unused capacity and the availability of inventories. Factors mitigating responsiveness of supply include the limited ability to shift production and the limited ability to redirect shipments from alternate markets. As shown in table 2.5, U.S. producers’ capacity declined slightly from 9,243 million pounds in 2022 to 9,176 million pounds in 2024, while the industry’s capacity utilization declined from 92.9 percent to 84.4 percent, indicating increased availability of unused capacity. In addition, U.S. producers’ inventories relative to total shipments increased from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024, suggesting greater inventory availability over the period. U.S. producers reported that most shipments were directed to the home market in 2024 (*** percent), which may limit the ability to shift shipments from other markets. *** 2.10 *** responding U.S. producers reported an ability to shift production to or from alternate products, indicating limited flexibility in shifting production. Subject imports from China and Malaysia Based on available information, the responding Chinese producer of FGP appears to have a limited ability to expand shipments to the U.S. market in response to changes in demand, implying small to moderate changes in the quantity of shipments are feasible in the near term. The main factor mitigating responsiveness of supply is the reported high and increasing capacity utilization, suggesting limited unused capacity. Additional factors mitigating responsiveness include the reported lack of ability to shift production to or from alternate products and that most shipments are directed to the home market, limiting the scope for redirecting shipments to the United States. A factor that may support some responsiveness is the presence of inventories, although inventory levels relative to shipments also increased over the period. The production capacity of the one responding Chinese producer declined from *** pounds in 2022 to *** pounds in 2024, while reported capacity utilization increased from *** to *** percent, indicating tighter operating conditions in 2024. Chinese inventories relative to total shipments increased from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024. In 2024, the Chinese producer reported that the majority of shipments were to the home market (*** percent), with *** percent shipped to non-U.S. export markets. Finally, the *** reported *** to shift production, suggesting ***. One responding Malaysian producer reported production data of FPG ***. For information regarding the industry in China and Malaysia please see Part 7. Imports from nonsubject sources According to official import statistics, nonsubject imports accounted for 73.3 percent of total U.S. imports in 2024, by value.7 Mexico was the largest nonsubject source accounting for 34.2 percent of nonsubject imports by value, while all other nonsubject sources collectively accounted for the remaining 65.8 percent of nonsubject imports in 2024. 7 Official import statistics are for the primary HTS statistical reporting numbers, 7005.10.8000, 7005.21.1010, 7005.21.1030, 7005.21.2000, 7005.29.1810, 7005.29.1850, 7005.29.2500, 7007.29.0000, 7008.00.0000, 7009.91.5010, 7009.91.5095, and 7009.92.5010, which include out-of-scope merchandise and are therefore likely overstated. 2.11 Supply constraints Three of six U.S. producers and 29 of 52 importers reported that they had experienced supply constraints since January 1, 2022. Of those that reported they had experienced supply constraints, 2 U.S. producers and 10 importers reported supply constraints during 2022, 6 importers during 2023, 1 U.S. producer and 4 importers during 2024, and 9 importers during 2025. Constraints reported by domestic producers included operational disruptions. U.S. producer *** reported constraints from July to October 2022 related to ***. Constraints reported by importers included allocations or tight supply and supply chain disruptions, freight constraints, and, later in the period, tariff and price-related disruptions. In 2022, importers *** reported constraints due to allocations and limited availability. Importer *** reported that constraints related to the COVID-19 pandemic continued into 2022. Importers *** cited ocean freight constraints in 2022, and importer *** added that limited supply affected its ability to serve customers. In 2023, reported constraints were more frequently tied to higher prices and profitability impacts as reported by importers ***; importer *** reported that conditions eased as U.S. producers had more inventory. In 2024, importer *** reported increased supply but rising material costs, and importer *** cited limited domestic availability for certain processed glass products. In 2025, importers *** cited tariff- related cost increases and supply shortages. Additionally, importer *** cited petition-related constraints, and importer *** also reported limited availability of certain specialty products from U.S. producers and delays or reluctance to accept new customers. Eleven of 33 responding purchasers reported that they had experienced supply constraints since January 1, 2022 with purchasers reporting supply constraints from domestic producers in 2022 (11 firms), 2023 (7 firms), 2024 (7 firms), and 2025 (4 firms); one purchaser, ***, reported supply constraints from foreign producers or importers in each year from 2022 to 2025 (table 2.6). Purchasers reported constraints by domestic producers were most often cited due to capacity limits, allocations, and limited availability/inventory, frequently tied to pandemic-era disruptions and/or elevated demand. Purchasers *** cited year-round constraints at Guardian due to production capacity limitations from 2022 to 2024, while purchaser *** cited Guardian’s lack of clear float and Vitro allocations in 2022, and, in 2023, being placed on allocation with Cardinal and inventory shortages at Guardian. Purchaser *** reported being placed on allocation through 2022 due to COVID-19 supply constraints and stated it relied on other 2.12 domestic FGP sources (Vitro and Cardinal) to fill the gap. Purchaser *** reported that Vitro, Cardinal, Guardian, and Pilkington were all placing purchasers on allocation for about three months in 2022. Purchaser *** cited constraints in 2022 due to increased market demand. Table 2.6 FGP: Count of firms’ responses indicating supply constraints, by firm type and period Count in number of firms reporting Period of constraint U.S. producers Importers Purchasers: Domestic Purchasers: Foreign / imported 2022 2 10 11 1 2023 0 6 7 1 2024 1 4 7 1 2025 0 9 4 1 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: The 2025 period is January 1, 2025 to present, which reflects the point of questionnaire response submission. Several purchasers described supplier-specific availability limitations. Purchaser ***, which reported that Vitro did not offer products to its firm and that Guardian showed limited interest in competitive pricing from 2022 to 2024. Purchaser *** cited constraints tied to increased demand from other customers from 2022 to 2023 at Cardinal. Purchasers also cited operational or logistics constraints, with purchaser *** reporting that Vitro had supply issues attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2022, trucking issues for about three weeks in early 2023, and instances in 2024 where Vitro’s supply was dedicated elsewhere. Purchaser *** reported that Guardian’s Corsicana facility discontinued fabricated tempered glass and that few other volume producers were available in 2022, along with limited U.S. capacity in 2023 to 2024. Purchaser *** reported that Viracon was unable to produce glass due to manufacturing weight limitations in 2024. New suppliers Four of 33 purchasers indicated that new suppliers have entered the U.S. market since January 1, 2022. These purchasers cited Quality Glass Fabrications and Huahui as new suppliers of FGP. 2.13 U.S. demand Based on available information, the overall demand for FGP is likely to experience small to moderate changes in response to changes in price. The main contributing factors are the lack of substitute products for many applications and the wide range of cost shares for FGP in end- use products; in some applications, FGP has a relatively small input cost, while in others, it is a more significant component. Overall demand for FGP is largely tied to demand in downstream construction and automotive/transportation applications. Throughout a majority of the period during January 2022 to December 2024, total monthly construction spending in the United States has steadily increased, increasing from $1.6 trillion in January 2021 to $2.2 trillion in December 2024, an overall increase of 36.1 percent.8 End uses and cost share Responding U.S. producers and U.S. importers reported a wide range of downstream applications for FGP and, depending on the downstream product, a wide range in estimates of the share of cost accounted for by FGP. Reported cost shares for some end uses were as follows: • *** percent for automotive applications (windshields, sunroofs, automotive glass, and tints) • *** percent for construction or architectural applications (windows, doors, IGUs, facades, railings, and coated FGP) • *** percent for mirrors and other interior applications (bathroom/LED mirrors, shower doors/enclosures, closet-related glass, and glass mats) • *** percent for appliance-related applications (oven doors and refrigerator shelves) • *** percent for solar panel applications • *** percent for home or hospitality applications Business cycles Six of seven responding U.S. producers, 30 of 53 importers, and 26 of 33 purchasers indicated that the market was subject to business cycles. Specifically, firms reported that 8 U.S. Census Bureau, Total Construction Spending: Total Construction in the United States TTLCONS, retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TTLCONS, February 18, 2026. 2.14 demand is seasonally tied to construction activity, with stronger demand in warmer months and weaker demand in winter. U.S. producers *** generally cited seasonality tied to construction, and U.S. producers *** and importer *** specifically noted stronger demand during April through November with slower demand during winter months. Additionally, some firms cited broader macroeconomic conditions including economic uncertainty, inflation, and interest rates and cost of borrowing. Importers *** reported business cycles tied to consumer or retail seasonality such as fourth quarter holiday-related demand. U.S. producer and importer *** reported business cycles related to automotive replacement. Demand trends Half of reporting U.S. producers (3 of 6) reported a decrease in U.S. demand for FGP since January 1, 2022 while about half reported a steady or fluctuating but increasing trend. A majority of importers reported an increased or no change in U.S. demand for domestic FGP; while most purchasers (25 of 30) reported no change or decrease in U.S. demand for domestic FGP since January 1, 2022. Table 2.7 FGP: Count of firms’ responses regarding overall domestic and foreign demand, by firm type Count in number of firms reporting Market Firm type Steadily Increase Fluctuate upward No change Fluctuate downward Steadily decrease Domestic demand U.S. producers 1 2 0 3 0 Domestic demand Importers 16 7 6 18 4 Domestic demand Purchasers 4 1 5 18 2 Foreign demand U.S. producers 1 1 1 1 0 Foreign demand Importers 3 2 8 2 2 Foreign demand Purchasers 1 2 5 1 0 Demand for end use products Purchasers 0 3 5 17 4 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Substitute products Substitutes for FGP may include formed glass, acrylic, and tempered glass. However, all six responding U.S. producers, and almost all responding U.S. importers (43 of 46) and purchasers (30 of 31) reported there were no substitute products for FGP. 2.15 Substitutability issues This section assesses the degree to which U.S.-produced FGP and imports of FGP from subject countries can be substituted for one another by examining the importance of certain purchasing factors and the comparability of FGP from domestic and imported sources based on those factors. Based on available data, staff believes that there is a high degree of substitutability between domestically produced FGP and FGP imported from subject sources.9 Factors contributing to this level of substitutability include the high degree of interchangeability reported by firms between U.S.-produced FGP and subject imports, limited significant factors other than price, and generally minor differences in lead times particularly for product sold from inventory. Factors reducing substitutability include that some firms reported quality or capability differences for certain specialty or processed products, occasional availability constraints or allocation practices that may limit access to certain products or suppliers, and that purchasing decisions may be influenced by non-price factors such as reliability of supply and customer specifications in particular end uses. Factors affecting purchasing decisions Purchaser decisions based on source As shown in table 2.8, most purchasers and their customers sometimes or never make purchasing decisions based on the producer or country of origin. Of the five purchasers that reported that they always make decisions based on the manufacturer, two firms cited a preference to source domestically wherever possible. Other reasons cited include sourcing decisions based on quality, cost, delivery, and supplier ability to support overall business needs, as well as logistical lead times and product availability. 9 The degree of substitution between domestic and imported FGP depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the domestic and imported products and reflects how easily purchasers can switch from domestically produced FGP to the FGP imported from subject countries (or vice versa) when prices change. The degree of substitution may include such factors as quality differences (e.g., grade standards, defect rates, etc.), and differences in sales conditions (e.g., lead times between order and delivery dates, reliability of supply, product services, etc.). 2.16 Table 2.8 FGP: Count of purchasers’ responses regarding frequency of purchasing decisions based on producer and country of origin Count in number of firms reporting Firm making decision Decision based on Always Usually Sometimes Never Purchaser Producer 6 4 11 12 Customer Producer 0 3 13 14 Purchaser Country 6 4 4 18 Customer Country 0 2 6 21 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Importance of purchasing domestic product Thirty of 32 purchasers reported that most or all of their purchases did not require purchasing U.S.-produced product. Five reported that domestic product was required by law (for 1 to 10 percent of their purchases), seven reported it was required by their customers (for 3 to 20 percent of their purchases), and three reported other preferences for domestic product. Reasons cited for preferring domestic product included proprietary products only produced in the United States and visual requirements related to coating or color. Most important purchase factors The most often cited top three factors firms consider in their purchasing decisions for FGP were quality (28 purchasers), price/cost (27 purchasers), and availability/supply (26 purchasers), as shown in table 2.9. Price/cost was the most frequently cited first-most important factor (cited by 15 purchasers), followed by quality (11 purchasers); quality was the most frequently reported second-most important factor (15 purchasers); and availability/supply was the most frequently reported third-most important factor (15 purchasers). Table 2.9 FGP: Count of ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions as reported by purchasers, by factor Count in number of firms reporting Factor First Second Third Total Quality 11 15 2 28 Price / Cost 15 7 5 27 Availability / Supply 3 8 15 26 Delivery / Lead time 1 0 6 7 All other factors 3 4 6 NA Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Other factors include innovation, responsiveness, communications, service, packaging, product consistency, product range, reliability of supply, geographic alignment with manufacturing facilities, financial stability, warranty servicing and reputation, and service levels. 2.17 The majority of purchasers (22 of 33) reported that they only always or usually purchase the lowest-priced product. Importance of specified purchase factors Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 17 factors in their purchasing decisions (table 2.10). The factors rated as very important by more than half of responding purchasers were availability and reliability of supply (33 purchasers each), quality meets industry standards (32 purchasers), delivery time (29 purchasers), price (29 purchasers), and product consistency (20 purchasers). Table 2.10 FGP: Count of purchasers’ responses regarding importance of purchase factors, by factor Factor Very important Somewhat important Not important Availability 33 0 0 Reliability of supply 33 0 0 Quality meets industry standards 32 1 0 Delivery time 29 3 1 Price 29 3 1 Product consistency 20 13 0 Glass transparency/clarity 16 16 1 Discounts offered 15 16 2 U.S. transportation costs 13 9 11 Product range 11 21 1 Packaging 10 20 3 Quality exceeds industry standards 10 11 12 Technical support/service 8 23 2 Delivery terms 8 13 12 Payment terms 6 24 3 Minimum quantity requirements 6 21 5 Custom fabrication options 5 11 17 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Lead times FGP is primarily sold from inventory for U.S. producers and primarily produced-to-order for subject U.S. importers. U.S. producers reported that *** percent of their commercial shipments were produced-to-order, with lead times averaging *** days. The remaining *** percent of their commercial shipments came from U.S. inventories, with lead times averaging *** days. Subject U.S. importers reported that *** percent of their commercial shipments were produced-to-order, with lead times averaging *** days; *** percent came from U.S. inventories with lead times averaging *** days, and *** percent came from foreign inventories with lead times averaging *** days. 2.18 Supplier certification Eight of 33 responding purchasers require their suppliers to become certified or qualified to sell FGP to their firm. Purchasers reported that the time to qualify a new supplier ranged from 30 to 180 days. No purchasers reported that domestic or foreign suppliers had failed in their attempt to qualify FGP or had lost approved status since 2022. Minimum quality specifications As can be seen from table 2.11, 20 responding purchasers reported that domestically produced products always met minimum quality specifications. Eighteen responding purchasers reported that the FGP imported from China and 12 responding purchasers reported that FGP imported from Malaysia always met minimum quality specifications. Table 2.11 FGP: Count of purchasers’ responses regarding suppliers’ ability to meet minimum quality specifications, by source Count in number of firms reporting Source of purchases Always Usually Sometimes Rarely or never Don't Know United States 20 8 1 3 1 China 18 4 2 2 7 Malaysia 12 1 2 1 13 All other sources 14 3 0 0 8 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Purchasers were asked how often domestically produced or imported FGP meets minimum quality specifications for their own or their customers’ uses. Thirty-one of 33 responding purchasers reported factors that determined quality. Reported quality factors most frequently included optical or visual characteristics, conformance to technical standards and specifications including ASTM and other guidelines, dimensional or fabrication accuracy, and product consistency. Changes in purchasing patterns Eleven purchasers reported that they had changed suppliers since January 1, 2022, while 22 reported that they had not. Specifically, firms dropped or reduced purchases from U.S. suppliers because of supply or capacity constraints and price or savings opportunities, including reductions in purchases because their prices were not as competitive. Firms added or increased purchases from U.S. suppliers to maintain supply continuity or expand supplier options. Firms also reported changes because of the loss of a supplier, adding new foreign suppliers, shifting 2.19 sourcing toward Chinese or Malaysian suppliers due to lower pricing, and dropping several Chinese suppliers due to lower domestic prices. Purchasers were also asked about changes in their purchasing patterns from different countries since January 1, 2022 (table 2.12). A majority of purchasers reported a decrease in purchases from U.S. produced products. Purchases were split between increases and decreases in purchasing FGP from China, and a majority of purchasers reported that they did not purchase products from nonsubject sources. Purchasers reported increased purchases of U.S.-produced product due to steady procurement and construction industry needs and trends. Purchasers reported increased purchases from China due to lower, limited volume or exploratory purchases (small sample or test orders), gathering pricing intelligence and to gain leverage in negotiations with domestic suppliers. Purchasers that increased purchases from Malaysia cited qualifying an additional source and, similarly, limited-volume procurement for distribution and market intelligence purposes. Purchasers reporting increased purchases from nonsubject sources due to supply- chain and capability considerations, product availability and selection limits in the U.S. market, and adding a new supplier. Overall, purchasers reporting decreases in purchases attributed the declines to a combination of weaker downstream demand, competitive pressure from low-priced subject imports, and specification- and market-driven sourcing decisions. For decreases in U.S. products, purchasers cited reduced sales opportunities and end-market headwinds (including post-COVID softness and construction/market fluctuations). Purchasers also reported domestic supply constraints (inconsistent availability, minimum volume requirements, and logistics issues) and domestic producers being unwilling to sell. Purchasers reported decreased purchases from China due to specification requirements, lower overall sales, and trade war or market conditions. Regarding nonsubject sources, purchasers generally reported fluctuating down purchasing patterns due to specification-driven requirements and lower overall demand. Table 2.12 FGP: Count of purchasers’ responses regarding changes in purchase patterns from U.S., subject, and nonsubject countries Count in number of firms reporting Source of purchases Steadily Increase Fluctuate Up No change Fluctuate Down Steadily Decrease Did not purchase United States 1 5 6 17 5 0 China 2 6 3 5 4 5 Malaysia 1 2 2 0 1 11 Mexico 0 1 4 2 0 12 All other sources 0 5 5 2 0 9 Sources unknown 0 1 3 0 0 12 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 2.20 Purchase factor comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports Purchasers were asked a number of questions comparing FGP produced in the United States, subject countries, and nonsubject countries (table 2.13). First, purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison on the same 17 factors (table 2.10) for which they were asked to rate the importance. Most purchasers reported that U.S.-produced FGP and FGP imported from China were comparable on glass transparency/clarity (23), packaging (22), payment terms (21), quality meets industry standards (21), product range (19), product consistency (19), quality exceeds industry standards (19), custom fabrication options (18), technical support/service (18), and U.S. transportation costs (18). Purchasers most frequently reported U.S.-produced FGP was inferior on price (23) and discounts offered (18), while U.S. product was more often rated superior on delivery time (24), delivery terms (22), and availability (18) compared with FGP imported from China. For FGP from Malaysia, a majority of purchasers most frequently reported that it was comparable with U.S.-produced FGP on glass transparency/clarity (16), minimum quantity requirements (15), quality meets industry standards (14), product consistency (15), packaging (14), payment terms (14), U.S. transportation costs (13), and quality exceeds industry standards (13). Purchasers most frequently reported U.S. product was inferior on price (15) and discounts offered (13), and superior on availability (15) as well as delivery time and terms (14 each) when compared to Malaysian products. Regarding U.S.-produced FGP compared to nonsubject sources FGP, purchasers most frequently reported products were comparable across most factors, including packaging (18), glass transparency/clarity (17), payment terms (17), minimum quantity requirements (17), quality exceeds industry standards (17), product consistency (16), and reliability of supply (13); price comparisons were more mixed versus nonsubject sources, with most purchasers reporting comparable prices (15). The factors listed as superior aligns with the factors listed as very important as described in table 2.10. Factors rated as very important by a majority of purchasers (availability, reliability of supply, quality meets industry standards, delivery time, and price) were generally reported as comparable on quality (and often with U.S. rated superior on availability and delivery time), while price was most often reported as inferior for U.S.-produced FGP relative to subject imports. 2.21 Table 2.13 FGP: Count of purchasers’ responses comparing U.S.-produced and imported product, by factor and country pair Count in number of firms reporting Factor Country pair Superior Comparable Inferior Delivery time U.S. vs China 24 2 3 Delivery terms U.S. vs China 22 4 3 Availability U.S. vs China 18 5 6 U.S. transportation costs U.S. vs China 9 18 2 Technical support/service U.S. vs China 8 18 3 Reliability of supply U.S. vs China 7 15 7 Payment terms U.S. vs China 6 21 2 Product range U.S. vs China 6 19 3 Custom fabrication options U.S. vs China 6 18 4 Quality meets industry standards U.S. vs China 5 21 3 Quality exceeds industry standards U.S. vs China 5 19 5 Discounts offered U.S. vs China 5 5 18 Packaging U.S. vs China 4 22 3 Product consistency U.S. vs China 4 19 6 Price U.S. vs China 4 2 23 Glass transparency/clarity U.S. vs China 3 23 3 Minimum quantity requirements U.S. vs China 3 21 5 Table continued. Table 2.13 (Continued) FGP: Count of purchasers’ responses comparing U.S.-produced and imported product, by factor and country pair Count in number of firms reporting Factor Country pair Superior Comparable Inferior Availability U.S. vs Malaysia 15 0 1 Delivery terms U.S. vs Malaysia 14 1 1 Delivery time U.S. vs Malaysia 14 1 1 Reliability of supply U.S. vs Malaysia 4 11 1 Product range U.S. vs Malaysia 3 13 0 U.S. transportation costs U.S. vs Malaysia 3 13 0 Custom fabrication options U.S. vs Malaysia 3 12 1 Technical support/service U.S. vs Malaysia 3 12 1 Packaging U.S. vs Malaysia 2 14 0 Payment terms U.S. vs Malaysia 2 14 0 Quality meets industry standards U.S. vs Malaysia 2 14 0 Quality exceeds industry standards U.S. vs Malaysia 2 13 1 Product consistency U.S. vs Malaysia 1 15 0 Discounts offered U.S. vs Malaysia 1 1 13 Price U.S. vs Malaysia 1 0 15 Glass transparency/clarity U.S. vs Malaysia 0 16 0 Minimum quantity requirements U.S. vs Malaysia 0 15 1 Table continued. 2.22 Table 2.13 (Continued) FGP: Count of purchasers’ responses comparing U.S.-produced and imported product, by factor and country pair Count in number of firms reporting Factor Country pair Superior Comparable Inferior Delivery time U.S. vs Nonsubject sources 19 1 2 Delivery terms U.S. vs Nonsubject sources 17 1 3 Availability U.S. vs Nonsubject sources 15 3 4 Reliability of supply U.S. vs Nonsubject sources 6 13 3 U.S. transportation costs U.S. vs Nonsubject sources 5 13 3 Technical support/service U.S. vs Nonsubject sources 4 15 3 Quality meets industry standards U.S. vs Nonsubject sources 4 15 2 Custom fabrication options U.S. vs Nonsubject sources 4 13 4 Payment terms U.S. vs Nonsubject sources 3 17 2 Product consistency U.S. vs Nonsubject sources 3 16 3 Discounts offered U.S. vs Nonsubject sources 3 15 4 Packaging U.S. vs Nonsubject sources 2 18 2 Glass transparency/clarity U.S. vs Nonsubject sources 2 17 3 Quality exceeds industry standards U.S. vs Nonsubject sources 2 17 3 Price U.S. vs Nonsubject sources 2 15 5 Product range U.S. vs Nonsubject sources 2 15 4 Minimum quantity requirements U.S. vs Nonsubject sources 1 17 4 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: With respect to cost/price factors, a rating of superior means that the cost/price for the first source in the country pair is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported “U.S. superior,” it meant that the U.S. product was generally priced lower than the imported product. Comparison of U.S.-produced and imported FGP In order to determine whether U.S.-produced FGP can generally be used in the same applications as imports from subject sources, U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked whether the products can always, frequently, sometimes, or never be used interchangeably. As shown in tables 2.14 to 2.16, a majority of U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers reported that FGP from the various country pairs are either always or frequently interchangeable. Firms indicated that interchangeability may be limited by specification and appearance-driven requirements. U.S. producer *** cited that automotive green glass color and the availability of privacy glass can limit interchangeability, while purchasers *** and *** cited differences in Low-E coating colors across manufacturers and a need for consistency, especially for coated products. Purchaser *** reported that the ability to produce a true low iron “white glass” as a factor limiting interchangeability. U.S. producer and purchaser *** reported that when FGP is produced to a given specification it is interchangeable for the intended application regardless of country source. 2.23 Other firms cited commercial or customer-specific constraints on switching sources. Importer *** reported that long-term supplier partnerships limit the ability to change sources during production, and importer *** cited packaging concerns and limitations of the U.S. producer as limiting interchangeability with product imported from China. Importer *** reported that customer requirements for glass type and design can affect interchangeability. Table 2.14 FGP: Count of U.S. producers reporting the interchangeability between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Count in number of firms reporting Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never United States vs. China 3 2 1 0 United States vs. Malaysia 3 2 1 0 China vs. Malaysia 3 1 0 0 United States vs. Other 3 2 1 0 China vs. Other 3 1 0 0 Malaysia vs. Other 3 1 0 0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 2.15 FGP: Count of importers reporting the interchangeability between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Count in number of firms reporting Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never United States vs. China 14 11 14 3 United States vs. Malaysia 11 5 6 0 China vs. Malaysia 11 4 4 0 United States vs. Other 11 7 14 1 China vs. Other 11 7 6 0 Malaysia vs. Other 10 2 4 0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 2.16 FGP: Count of purchasers reporting the interchangeability between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Count in number of firms reporting Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never United States vs. China 13 11 2 1 United States vs. Malaysia 12 3 2 0 China vs. Malaysia 12 3 1 0 United States vs. Other 12 3 3 1 China vs. Other 11 3 3 0 Malaysia vs. Other 11 1 2 0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 2.24 In addition, U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to assess how often differences other than price were significant in sales of FGP from the United States, subject, or nonsubject countries. As seen in tables 2.17 to 2.19, U.S. producers most frequently reported that non-price differences were only sometimes significant across country pairs, while importers and purchasers reported non-price differences were sometimes or always significant. The most commonly cited non-price factors were quality and consistency, availability and lead times, and product range or capabilities (including whether certain products are available domestically). U.S. *** reported that in addition to price, quality, availability, and lead times are relevant non-price factors. Importers *** and purchaser *** reported that certain products are not offered by U.S. manufacturers, requiring purchases from China or other countries, while importer *** emphasizes differences in packaging, service, and technical support. Importer *** and *** highlight supplier relationships and reputation as important non-price considerations. Table 2.17 FGP: Count of U.S. producers reporting the significance of differences other than price between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Count in number of firms reporting Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never United States vs. China 0 0 3 2 United States vs. Malaysia 0 0 3 2 China vs. Malaysia 0 0 1 2 United States vs. Other 0 0 3 2 China vs. Other 0 0 2 2 Malaysia vs. Other 0 0 2 2 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 2.18 FGP: Count of importers reporting the significance of differences between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Count in number of firms reporting Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never United States vs. China 16 7 17 3 United States vs. Malaysia 5 3 10 4 China vs. Malaysia 3 2 9 3 United States vs. Other 8 3 18 4 China vs. Other 2 3 15 4 Malaysia vs. Other 2 1 10 4 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 2.25 Table 2.19 FGP: Count of purchasers reporting the significance of differences between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Count in number of firms reporting Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never United States vs. China 8 4 14 1 United States vs. Malaysia 3 2 12 1 China vs. Malaysia 1 1 13 1 United States vs. Other 5 2 11 2 China vs. Other 1 2 13 1 Malaysia vs. Other 1 0 12 1 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Elasticity estimates This section discusses elasticity estimates; parties were encouraged to comment on these estimates. No comments were received. U.S. supply elasticity The domestic supply elasticity for FGP measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of FGP. 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 FGP. Analysis of these factors above indicates that the U.S. industry has the ability to somewhat increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market as reflecting in some unused capacity and inventories, but limited ability to shift production and limited alternative markets. An estimate in the range of 1 to 3 is suggested. U.S. demand elasticity The U.S. demand elasticity for FGP measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of FGP. This estimate depends on factors discussed above such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as well as the component share of the FGP in the production of any downstream products. Based on the available information, the aggregate demand for FGP is likely to be inelastic to moderately inelastic given the lack of close substitutes for many applications and the wide range of cost shares across downstream products; a range of -0.3 to -0.8 is suggested. 2.26 Substitution elasticity The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the domestic and imported products.10 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality (e.g., chemistry, appearance, etc.) and conditions of sale (e.g., availability, sales terms/discounts/promotions, etc.). Based on available information, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.-produced FGP and imported FGP is likely to be relatively high, reflecting generally high reported interchangeability and broad comparability on many non-price factors, while price or discounts and certain specification-driven requirements (coatings/color, availability, and lead times) can be important in particular applications; an estimate in the range of 3 to 6 is suggested. 10 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. 3.1 Part 3: U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ 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 subsidies and dumping margins was presented in Part 1 of this report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Part 4 and Part 5. Information on the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or Part 6 and (except as noted) is based on the questionnaire responses of 6 U.S. producers and 24 U.S. processors. The six U.S. producers accounted for an estimated *** percent of U.S. production of FGP during 2024.1 2 1 One U.S. producer, ***, did not provide a final phase questionnaire response. To estimate U.S. producer coverage, staff assumed *** 2024 production was equal to its 2023 production, as reported in its preliminary phase questionnaire response. 2 The petitioner estimates there are more than 100 processors across the United States, but it did not provide an estimate of the quantity of FGP processed by U.S. processors. Conference transcript, p. 11 (Bush). One approach to estimating U.S. processor coverage is to divide U.S. processors’ reported production of processed FGP by the number of U.S. shipments that U.S. producers and U.S. importers classified as “to fabricators/processors” in their questionnaire responses, which is *** percent. However, this method understates coverage because (1) a substantial portion of FGP that U.S. processors purchase to be processed ends up being scrapped during the fabrication process (yield loss can range from 25 to 40 percent, depending on the product), and thus is not captured in the resulting processed FGP, and (2) some of the U.S. shipments reported by U.S. producers and U.S. importers as going “to fabricators/processors” may have been further processed into an out-of-scope product. ***. Staff call on *** and emails on ***. 3.2 U.S. producers and U.S. processors The Commission issued a U.S. producer questionnaire to seven firms identified as potential FGP producers and 83 firms identified as potential U.S. processors based on information contained in the petitions and in the petitioner’s comments on draft questionnaires.3 Six U.S. producers and 24 U.S. processors provided usable data on their operations.4 Table 3.1 lists U.S. producers and U.S. processors of FGP, their production locations, positions on the petitions, and shares of total production. Of the six U.S. producers, *** take no position and *** support the petitions. Of the 24 U.S. processors, *** support, *** take no position, and *** oppose the petitions. 3 For the purposes of this staff report, “U.S. producers” are defined as firms that manufacture soda- lime-silica glass by floating a continuous strip of molten glass over a smooth bath of tin and cooling the glass in an annealing lehr. U.S. producers may or may not also conduct further processing on the resulting float glass product. “U.S. processors” are defined as firms that purchase or otherwise procure in-scope FGP from another entity (i.e., either domestically manufactured or imported FGP products), and conduct further processing of those already in-scope FGP into another form of in-scope product in the United States, including coating (e.g., Low-E coating, mirror coating), heat strengthening or tempering, laminating, assembly of insulating glass units, and/or assembly of LED mirrors. 4 ***, which represented *** percent of U.S. producers’ aggregate FGP production in 2024, and ***, which represented *** percent of U.S. processors’ aggregate FGP production in 2024, did not provide financial results and are not included in part 6 of this report. 3.3 Table 3.1 FGP: U.S. producers and U.S. processors, their positions on the petitions, locations of production, and share of reported production/processing, 2024 Shares in percent Firm Position on petitions Production location(s) Share of production Share of processing Producer: AGC America *** Richmond, KY *** *** Processor: American Mirror *** Galax, VA *** *** Producer: Cardinal *** Menomonie, WI Portage, WI Mooresville, NC Durant, OK Winlock, WA Spring Hill, KS Church Hill, TN *** *** Producer: Carlex *** Nashville, TN *** *** Processor: Electric Mirror *** Everett, WA *** *** Processor: Fashion Glass *** Desoto, TX Lockhart, TX Katy, TX *** *** Processor: Finch Industries *** Thomasville, NC *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** Decatur, IL *** *** Processor: Gardner Glass *** North Wilkesboro, NC Indianapolis, IN Huntsville, TX *** *** Processor: General Glass *** Vancouver, WA *** *** Processor: Gilded Mirrors and Glass *** Maryville, TN *** *** Processor: Glass Enterprises *** Bensalem, PA Norwich, CT *** *** Processor: Glassfab *** Tracy, CA *** *** Producer: Guardian *** Kingsburg, CA DeWitt, IA Corsicana, TX Carleton, MI Geneva, NY Richburg, SC *** *** Processor: GWLA *** South Gate, CA Temecula, CA Yuma, AZ Carson, CA *** *** Table continued. 3.4 Table 3.1 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers and U.S. processors, their positions on the petitions, locations of production, and share of reported production/processing, 2024 Shares in percent Firm Position on petitions Production location(s) Share of production Share of processing Processor: Hartung *** Tukwila, WA Renton, WA Wilsonville, OR Salt Lake City, UT Pueblo, CO Farmers Branch, TX Phoenix, AZ *** *** Processor: Lenoir Mirror *** Lenoir, NC *** *** Processor: Mercer Glassfab *** Trenton, NJ *** *** Processor: Mr Glass *** Brooklyn, NY *** *** Processor: Oldcastle *** — *** *** Processor: Premier Glass Products *** Atlanta, GA *** *** Processor: Press Glass *** Ridgeway, VA *** *** Processor: PRL Glass *** Industry, CA *** *** Processor: SBG Hold *** East Butler, PA *** *** Processor: Tristar *** Catoosa, OK Grand Prairie, TX Houston, TX *** *** Processor: Trulite *** CA, NV, AZ, UT, CO, OK, TX, WI, MS, MI, IN, TN, AL, OH, GA, FL, NC, MD, and PA *** *** Processor: United Plate Glass *** Butler, PA Lincolnton, NC Frederick, MD *** *** Processor: Viracon *** Owatonna, MN *** *** Producer: Vitro Petitioner Wichita Falls, TX Carlisle, PA Fresno, CA Meadville, PA Salem, OR *** *** Processor: Wholesale Glass *** Memphis, TN *** *** All firms Various Various 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as "—". In 2024, reported U.S. producer production totaled *** pounds while total reported U.S. processor production was *** pounds. Note: Oldcastle did not report on the locations of its manufacturing facilities but, according to its website, it has manufacturing and distribution facilities in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. Oldcastle Building and Envelope webpage, https://www.obe.com/locations, retrieved February 10, 2026. 3.5 Table 3.2 presents information on U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ ownership, related and/or affiliated firms. As indicated in table 3.2, one U.S. producer, ***, is related to a foreign producer of the subject merchandise in ***. In addition, as discussed in greater detail below, *** FGP from ***. Table 3.2 FGP: U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ ownership, related and/or affiliated firms Reporting firm type and name Relationship type and related firm Details of relationship *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. 3.6 Table 3.2 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ ownership, related and/or affiliated firms Reporting firm type and name Relationship type and related firm Details of relationship *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 3.7 Table 3.3 presents events in the U.S. industry since January 1, 2022. Table 3.3 FGP: Important industry events since January 1, 2022 Item Firm Event Acquisition U.S. processor - Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope In April 2022, KPS Capital Parners acquired Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope from CRH Plc. Plant closure U.S. processor - Solar Seal In June 2022, Solar Seal announced the closure of its plant in South Easton, MA. In July, Solar Seal announced the auction of the South Easton, MA assets scheduled for September 2022. New plant U.S. processor - Naverra In the fourth quarter of 2022, Naverra opened a new 180,000 square-foot facility to fabricate commercial architectural glass in Norwich, CT. Plant investment and expansion U.S. producer - Cardinal In January 2023, the U.S. Economic Development Administration announced a $1.5 million federal infrastructure grant to upgrade a waterline in Church Hill, TN. The utility investment allowed Cardinal to further invest in its Church Hill, TN glass plant and create an expected 75 jobs over five years. Operation expansion U.S. processor - Tristar In March 2023, Tristar leased the old Coca-Cola bottling plant located in Grand Prairie, TX to expand its operations by increasing the production of architectural glass in North Texas. Plant investment and expansion U.S. producer - Cardinal In April 2023, Cardinal initiated a $40 million investment to expand its Abingdon, VA coating glass plant, set to complete in early 2025 and create upwards of 30 jobs. Plant investment and expansion U.S. producer - Pilkington In April 2023, Pilkington announced an investment of more than $86 million at its float glass facility in Laurinburg, NC. The investment targeted expansion of coating capabilities and reconstruction of one of its float glass lines, creating 20 jobs. Firm acquisition U.S. processor - Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope On June 20, 2023, Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope, Inc. announced that it completed the acquisition of Syracuse Glass Company (“SCG”) located in Syracuse, NY. SGC offers custom fabricated products, including tempered, laminated, and insulating glass, shower enclosures, glass entrances. Plant expansion U.S. producer - Pilkington In November 2023, NSG Group announced it would upgrade a float line to manufacture transparent conductive oxide (“TCO”) glass for out-of-scope solar panel manufacturing in its Pilkington North America Inc. Rossford, OH plant. Plant closure U.S. processor - Naverra Naverra Glass shuttered its operations in December 2023, after one year in business in Norwich, CT. Plant acquisition U.S. processor- Glass Enterprises In March 2024, Glass Enterprises purchased a 180,000 square foot facility in Norwich, CT to process jumbo glass, digitally printed glass, bird-friendly glass, and laminated glass. This facility was occupied by Naverra Glass (formerly Solar Seal) before the company closed late in 2023. Firm acquisition U.S. processor - Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope On February 5, 2024, Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope Inc. announced that it completed the acquisition of Midwest Glass Fabricators, Inc. located in Highland, MI. Midwest Glass is a leading glass fabricator in the Midwest which specializes in manufacturing commercial and consumer architectural glass products. 3.8 Item Firm Event Plant closure U.S. producer - Vitro Architectural Glass In April 2024, Vitro Architectural Glass announced its Salem, OR glass-coating facility ceased production on June 28, 2024, resulting in 37 layoffs. Emerging technology investment U.S. producer - Vitro Architectural Glass In June 2024, Vitro Architectural Glass was one of several companies selected to receive a federal government investment on sustainable technologies related to building performance and energy savings. Homeland Security investigation U.S. producer - Fuyao Glass America In July 2024, U.S. Department of Homeland Security agents raided several Fuyao Glass America locations investigating reports of financial crimes and labor exploitation. The investigation is ongoing with no further developments. Firm acquisition U.S. processor - Trulite Glass & Aluminum Solutions On July 9, 2024, Trulite Glass & Aluminum Solutions, an architectural glass and aluminum manufacturer, acquired American Insulated Glass (“AIG”). AIG has seven regional locations in Conley, GA; Pensacola, FL; Birmingham, AL; Detroit, MI; Ijamsville, MD; Knoxville, TN and Denver, NC. The acquisition of AIG will allow Trulite Glass & Aluminum Solutions to offer a wider range of products, especially for residential applications. Machinery acquisition U.S. processor - Tristar In September 2024, Tristar increased production capacity and operational efficiency at its Dallas, TX plant by acquiring smart machinery from the company Turomas. The three smart machines that were acquired are used for the storage, loading and cutting of glass. Plant closure U.S. producer - Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope In November 2024, a notice was issued that Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope was closing its facility in Commerce, CA. Plant expansion U.S. producer - Fuyao Glass America In May 2025, Fuyao Glass America announced plans to invest $400 million to build a new float glass production line at its Decatur, IL plant. Plant closure U.S. producer - Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope In May 2025, Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope announced the August 2025 closure of its glass facility in Hauppauge, NY. Plant closure U.S. producer - Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope In June 2025, Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope announced the August 2025 closures of its glass facilities in Highland, MI and Louisville, KY. Sources: KPS Capital Partners, “KPS Capital Partners completes acquisition of Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope, Inc. from CRH plc,” https://www.kpsfund.com/news/press-releases/2022/04/29/kps- capital-partners-completes-acquisition-of-oldcastle-buildingenvelope-inc.-from-crh-plc, April 29, 2022; US Glass Magazine, “Solar Seal to close Massachusetts facility,” https://www.usglassmag.com/solar-seal-to- close-massachusetts-facility/, June 9, 2022; Glass Magazine, “Auction announced for CGH subsidiary Solar Seal’s assets,” https://www.glassmagazine.com/news/2022/auction-announced-cgh-subsidiary- solar-seals-assets, July 20, 2022; Glass Magazine, “Naverra Glass opens glass fabrication facility in Connecticut,” https://www.glassmagazine.com/news/naverra-glass-opens-glass-fabrication-facility- connecticut, November 4, 2022; Keeling, Jeff, “$1.5 million grant to help Cardinal Glass add 75 jobs,” https://www.wjhl.com/news/local/1-5-million-grant-to-help-cardinal-glass-add-75-jobs/, January 17, 2023; CoreOne Industrial, “Tristar Glass leases 3405 Roy Orr Blvd in Grand Prairie, Texas from CoreOne Industrial,” https://coreoneind.com/tristar-glass-leases-3405-roy-orr-blvd-in-grand-prairie-texas-from- coreone-industrial/, March 8, 2023; Lee, Murry and Overbay, Ted, “Cardinal Glass to add 30+ jobs,” https://www.wjhl.com/news/local/cardinal-glass-to-add-30-jobs-with-abingdon-expansion/, April 28, 2023; Morris, Greg, “Pilkington to invest $86 million in US float glass facility,” https://www.glass- international.com/news/pilkington-to-invest-86-million-in-us-float-glass-facility, April 12, 2023; Glass 3.9 Magazine, “Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope acquires Syracuse Glass Company,” https://www.glassmagazine.com/news/2023/oldcastle-buildingenvelope-acquires-syracuse-glass-co, June 20, 2023; US Glass, “NSG Group to upgrade Rossford, Ohio, float line to increase TCO supply, https://www.usglassmag.com/nsg-group-to-upgrade-rossford-ohio-float-line-to-increase-tco-supply/, November 30, 2023; US Glass Magazine, “Connecticut glass fabricator Naverra ends operations,” https://www.usglassmag.com/connecticut-glass-fabricator-naverra-ends-operations/, December 14, 2023; US Glass Magazine, “180,000 square-foot Connecticut glass plant debuts,” https://www.usglassmag.com/180000-square-foot-connecticut-glass-plant-debuts/, March 19, 2024; Glass Magazine, “Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope acquires Midwest Glass Fabricators,” https://www.glassmagazine.com/news/oldcastle-buildingenvelope-inc-acquires-midwest-glass-fabricators; February 5, 2024; Alexander, Rachel, “Salem glass plant closes,” https://www.salemreporter.com/2024/05/30/salem-glass-plant-closes-laying-off-37-workers/, May 30, 2024; Bales, Evan, “Investigation into Fuyao Glass America,” https://www.yahoo.com/news/investigation- fuyao-glass-america-financial-220532623.html, July 29, 2024; Trulite, “Exciting news: Trulite acquires American Insulated Glass,” https://www.trulite.com/2024/07/09/exciting-news-trulite-acquires-american- insulated-glass, July 9, 2024; GlassonWeb, “Tristar Glass opts for Turomas to expand its production capacity at its plant in Dallas, Texas,” https://www.glassonweb.com/news/tristar-glass-opts-turomas- expand-its-production-capacity-its-plant-dallas-texas, September 25, 2024; Glass Magazine, “Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope, Inc. to close facility, lay off workers,” https://www.glassmagazine.com/news/2024/oldcastle-buildingenvelope-inc-close-facility-lay- workers#:~:text=This%20decision%20reflects%20the%20company's,jobs%20at%20other%20OBE%20lo cations, November 11, 2024; Gnau, Thomas, Dayton Daily News, “Fuyao Glass America plans $400M expansion in Illinois,” https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/fuyao-glass-america-plans-400m- expansion-in-illinois/DHWULKAVSZFHFMYZFOWB5NAXZY/, May 6, 2025; Glass Magazine, “Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope to close New York facility,” https://www.glassmagazine.com/news/2025/oldcastle- buildingenvelope-close-new-york- facility#:~:text=In%20an%20email%20letter%20to,to%20be%20fulfilled%20as%20usual, May 28, 2025; US Glass, “Oldcastle BuildingEnvelope to close two additional glass facilities in August,” https://www.usglassmag.com/oldcastle-buildingenvelope-to-close-two-additional-glass-facilities-in- august/, June 12, 2025. U.S. producers were asked to report any change in the character of their operations or organization relating to the production of FGP since 2022. *** of the *** producers indicated in their questionnaires that they had experienced such changes, as presented in table 3.4. Table 3.4 FGP: U.S. producers’ reported changes in operations, since January 1, 2022 Item Firm name and narrative response on changes in operations Plant closings *** Production curtailments *** Expansions *** Weather-related or force majeure events *** Other *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 3.10 Production related activities These investigations raise the issue of whether the activities of processors in the United States engage in sufficient production-related activities to qualify as domestic producers. The Commission generally considers six factors: (1) source and extent of the firm’s capital investment; (2) technical expertise involved in U.S. production activities; (3) value added to the product in the United States; (4) employment levels; (5) quantity and type of parts sourced in the United States; and (6) any other costs and activities in the United States directly leading to production of the like product. Table 3.5 presents U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ reported data on domestic FGP production operations, by factor.5 Table 3.5 FGP: U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ reported data on domestic production operations, by factor, 2022 through 2024 Value as noted in table; value added in percent; employment in average number of PRWs Item U.S. producers All responding U.S. processors Capital investments: Greenfield *** *** Capital investments: Assets *** *** Capital investments: Capital expenditures *** *** Technical expertise: R&D expenses *** *** Value added *** percent *** percent Employment *** PRWs *** PRWs Quantity, type, and source of parts Domestic: *** percent; Imported: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Value added is calculated as the share of conversion costs (direct labor, other factory costs, and energy costs for U.S. producers and raw materials other than float glass, direct labor, and other factory costs for U.S. processors) out of cost of goods sold (“COGS”). Ranges cover full calendar years. Quantity, type, and source of parts reflect 2024 data collected on raw materials, by source. For additional firm level data on responding U.S. processors, see appendix E. 5 Appendix E presents U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ firm-by-firm descriptions of their domestic FGP productions, description of their operations with regard to the six factors, rating on the complexity and importance of their operations, reported data on their domestic operations by factor, and U.S. processors’ processing of FGP by source of float glass input. 3.11 U.S. production and processing, capacity, and capacity utilization Table 3.6 presents U.S. producers’ installed and practical capacity and production on the same equipment. Installed and practical overall capacity fluctuated downward during the data collection period, while overall production on the same machinery decreased from 2022 to 2024 but was higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Both installed and practical overall capacity utilization decreased from 2022 to 2024 but were higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Table 3.6 FGP: U.S. producers’ installed and practical capacity and production on the same equipment as in-scope production, by period Capacity and production in 1,000 pounds; utilization in percent; interim is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Installed overall Capacity 9,699,693 9,853,844 9,592,257 4,772,367 4,719,826 Installed overall Production 8,624,648 7,668,247 7,771,955 3,750,161 3,835,664 Installed overall Utilization 88.9 77.8 81.0 78.6 81.3 Practical overall Capacity 9,298,454 9,444,331 9,231,800 4,593,241 4,538,344 Practical overall Production 8,624,648 7,668,247 7,771,955 3,750,161 3,835,664 Practical overall Utilization 92.8 81.2 84.2 81.6 84.5 Practical FGP Capacity 9,243,022 9,388,900 9,176,216 4,565,601 4,510,856 Practical FGP Production 8,587,343 7,641,878 7,743,780 3,737,460 3,820,168 Practical FGP Utilization 92.9 81.4 84.4 81.9 84.7 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 3.12 As noted in part 1, once a U.S. producer commences production with a new furnace by pulling the initial glass ribbon, the manufacturing process is continuous, lasting 24 hours a day, seven days a week for several years, at almost 100 percent capacity utilization. Table 3.7 presents U.S. producers’ responses to how long their furnace can continuously run without shutting down after the initial glass ribbon pull. Table 3.7 FGP: U.S. producers' reported continuous furnace operation length, by firm Firm Narrative response on furnace operations Producer: AGC America *** Producer: Cardinal *** Producer: Carlex *** Producer: Fuyao *** Producer: Guardian *** Producer: Vitro *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 3.8 presents U.S. producers’ responses to whether the furnace can be stopped and re-started, and whether the furnace can be repaired and maintained after the initial glass ribbon pull. Table 3.8 FGP: Count of U.S. producers’ abilities during furnace operations, by item Count in number of firms reporting Item No Yes Ability to shut down during operation *** *** Ability to do repairs/maintenance during operation *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 3.13 Table 3.9 presents U.S. producers’ reported narratives regarding practical capacity constraints. Table 3.9 FGP: U.S. producers’ reported capacity constraints since January 1, 2022 Item Firm name and narrative response on constraints to practical overall capacity Production bottlenecks *** Production bottlenecks *** Production bottlenecks *** Other constraints *** Other constraints *** Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 3.14 Table 3.10 and figure 3.1 present U.S. producers’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization. Practical FGP capacity decreased overall during the full year periods and was slightly lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.6 FGP production decreased irregularly by 9.8 percent from 2022 to 2024 but was 2.2 percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. As FGP production decreased by more than FGP capacity did from 2022 to 2024, FGP capacity utilization decreased by 8.5 percentage points but was 2.8 percentage points higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. *** was the largest U.S. producer throughout the data collection period. *** share of U.S. production all increased during the data collection period, while *** decreased. Table 3.10 FGP: U.S. producers’ output, by firm and period Practical capacity Capacity in 1,000 pounds; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: AGC America *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 9,243,022 9,388,900 9,176,216 4,565,601 4,510,856 Table continued. 6 The decrease in practical FGP capacity from 2022 to 2024 was largely driven by ***. 3.15 Table 3.10 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ output, by firm and period Production Production in 1,000 pounds; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: AGC America *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 8,587,343 7,641,878 7,743,780 3,737,460 3,820,168 Table continued. Table 3.10 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ output, by firm and period Capacity utilization Capacity utilization in percent; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: AGC America *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 92.9 81.4 84.4 81.9 84.7 Note: Capacity utilization ratio represents the ratio of the U.S. producer’s production to its production capacity. Table continued. 3.16 Table 3.10 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ output, by firm and period Share of production Share in percent; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: AGC America *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Figure 3.1 FGP: U.S. producers’ output, by period Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 Calendar year Interim Ratio (percent) Quantity (million pounds) Capacity (left-axis) Production (left-axis) Capacity utilization (right-axis) 3.17 Table 3.11 and figure 3.2 present U.S. processors’ processing, capacity, and capacity utilization. Practical FGP processing decreased by more than processing capacity decreased during 2022 to 2024, thus, U.S. processors’ capacity utilization decreased during this period. Practical FGP processing capacity was higher, and processing was lower, in interim 2025 than in interim 2024, therefore, U.S. processors’ capacity utilization was lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.7 *** accounted for the largest share of U.S. processing in 2024, followed by ***, each accounting for approximately *** of U.S. processing during the data collection period. 7 The decrease in practical FGP processing capacity was largely driven by *** decrease in practical FGP processing capacity. *** out of 24 U.S. processors reported a decrease in processing from 2022 to 2024 and *** out of 24 U.S. processors experienced a decrease in capacity utilization during that period. 3.18 Table 3.11 FGP: U.S. processors’ output, by firm and period Practical capacity Capacity in 1,000 pounds; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Processor: American Mirror *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Electric Mirror *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Fashion Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Finch Industries *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Gardner Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: General Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Gilded Mirrors and Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Glass Enterprises *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Glassfab *** *** *** *** *** Processor: GWLA *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Hartung *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Lenoir Mirror *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Mercer Glassfab *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Mr Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Oldcastle *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Premier Glass Products *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Press Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: PRL Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: SBG Hold *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Tristar *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Trulite *** *** *** *** *** Processor: United Plate Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Viracon *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Wholesale Glass *** *** *** *** *** All responding U.S. processors 1,365,189 1,317,406 1,225,507 618,374 624,684 Table continued. 3.19 Table 3.11 (Continued) FGP: U.S. processors’ output, by firm and period Processing Processing in 1,000 pounds; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Processor: American Mirror *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Electric Mirror *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Fashion Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Finch Industries *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Gardner Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: General Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Gilded Mirrors and Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Glass Enterprises *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Glassfab *** *** *** *** *** Processor: GWLA *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Hartung *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Lenoir Mirror *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Mercer Glassfab *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Mr Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Oldcastle *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Premier Glass Products *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Press Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: PRL Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: SBG Hold *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Tristar *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Trulite *** *** *** *** *** Processor: United Plate Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Viracon *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Wholesale Glass *** *** *** *** *** All responding U.S. processors 968,761 938,310 813,355 413,771 397,680 Table continued. 3.20 Table 3.11 (Continued) FGP: U.S. processors’ output, by firm and period Capacity utilization Capacity utilization in percent; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Processor: American Mirror *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Electric Mirror *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Fashion Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Finch Industries *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Gardner Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: General Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Gilded Mirrors and Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Glass Enterprises *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Glassfab *** *** *** *** *** Processor: GWLA *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Hartung *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Lenoir Mirror *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Mercer Glassfab *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Mr Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Oldcastle *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Premier Glass Products *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Press Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: PRL Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: SBG Hold *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Tristar *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Trulite *** *** *** *** *** Processor: United Plate Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Viracon *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Wholesale Glass *** *** *** *** *** All responding U.S. processors 71.0 71.2 66.4 66.9 63.7 Note: Capacity utilization ratio represents the ratio of the U.S. processors’ processing to its processing capacity. Table continued. 3.21 Table 3.11 (Continued) FGP: U.S. processors’ output, by firm and period Share of production Share in percent; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Processor: American Mirror *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Electric Mirror *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Fashion Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Finch Industries *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Gardner Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: General Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Gilded Mirrors and Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Glass Enterprises *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Glassfab *** *** *** *** *** Processor: GWLA *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Hartung *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Lenoir Mirror *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Mercer Glassfab *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Mr Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Oldcastle *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Premier Glass Products *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Press Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: PRL Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: SBG Hold *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Tristar *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Trulite *** *** *** *** *** Processor: United Plate Glass *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Viracon *** *** *** *** *** Processor: Wholesale Glass *** *** *** *** *** All responding U.S. processors 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. 3.22 Figure 3.2 FGP: U.S. processors’ capacity, processing and capacity utilization, by period Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 Calendar year Interim Ratio (percent) Quantity (million pounds) Capacity (left-axis) Production (left-axis) Capacity utilization (right-axis) 3.23 Table 3.12 presents U.S. processors’ processing of FGP by source and the share of each source. The vast majority (over 90 percent) of FGP processed by U.S. processors was sourced domestically, although this share decreased from 2022 to 2024 by 0.8 percentage points, while the share of FGP processed by U.S. processors that was sourced from nonsubject sources increased by 0.9 percentage points. *** U.S. processors reported processing FGP from domestic sources, *** reported processing FGP from subject sources, and *** reported processing FGP from nonsubject sources. Table 3.12 FGP: U.S. processors’ processing, by input type and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; share in percent; interim period is January through June Input type Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity 933,027 897,038 776,565 393,012 376,716 Subject Quantity 15,405 18,243 12,621 7,328 7,563 Nonsubject Quantity 20,329 23,029 24,169 13,431 13,401 All input types Quantity 968,761 938,310 813,355 413,771 397,680 Domestic Share 96.3 95.6 95.5 95.0 94.7 Subject Share 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.9 Nonsubject Share 2.1 2.5 3.0 3.2 3.4 All input types Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 3.24 Alternative products As shown in table 3.13, the vast majority (over 99 percent) of product produced during the data collection period by U.S. producers was FGP. ***, reported producing *** on the same machinery used to produce FGP. Table 3.13 FGP: U.S. producers’ overall production on the same equipment as in-scope production, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; share in percent; interim is January through June Product type Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 FGP Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Other products Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All products Quantity 8,624,648 7,668,247 7,771,955 3,750,161 3,835,664 FGP Share *** *** *** *** *** Other products Share *** *** *** *** *** All products Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 3.25 U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments and exports Table 3.14 presents U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, export shipments, and total shipments. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments accounted for over 95 percent of total shipments throughout the data collection period. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipment quantity and value decreased irregularly from 2022 to 2024 but were both higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. U.S. producers’ U.S. export shipments decreased in quantity and value from 2022 to 2024 and were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Export shipment unit values were higher than U.S shipment unit values throughout the data collection period.8 Table 3.14 FGP: U.S. producers’ shipments, by destination and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound; shares in percent; interim is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. shipments Quantity 7,985,371 7,114,743 7,269,477 3,603,754 3,706,751 Export shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Value 2,643,515 2,372,173 2,418,615 1,201,711 1,218,018 Export shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Unit value 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Export shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 U.S. shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 8 Over 90 percent of export shipments by U.S. producers were reported by ***, which exports FGP to ***. *** U.S. producers reported export shipments, which were sent to ***. 3.26 Table 3.15 presents U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments, export shipments, and total shipments. U.S. processors’ export shipments accounted for three percent or less of total shipments throughout the data collection period.9 U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments and export shipments each decreased from 2022 to 2024 and were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Export shipment unit values were higher than U.S shipment unit values throughout the data collection period. Table 3.15 FGP: U.S. processors’ shipments, by destination and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound; shares in percent; interim is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. shipments Quantity 915,556 907,393 812,790 409,008 384,832 Export shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Value 2,534,153 2,681,843 2,425,673 1,223,713 1,132,907 Export shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Unit value 2.77 2.96 2.98 2.99 2.94 Export shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 U.S. shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 9 *** U.S. processors reported export shipments, over 80 percent of which were reported by ***. U.S. processors reported exporting FGP to ***. 3.27 Table 3.16 presents U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments for use in apparent consumption, by period. Table 3.16 FGP: U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments for use in apparent consumption, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. producers Quantity 7,985,371 7,114,743 7,269,477 3,603,754 3,706,751 U.S. producers Value 2,643,515 2,372,173 2,418,615 1,201,711 1,218,018 U.S. processors: Value added to domestic Value 1,790,765 1,915,165 1,719,771 878,810 782,796 U.S. producers and processors: Fully domestic Value 4,434,280 4,287,338 4,138,386 2,080,521 2,000,814 U.S. processors: Value added to imports Value 88,571 89,785 80,721 47,034 45,575 U.S. producers and processors: Total Value 4,522,851 4,377,123 4,219,107 2,127,555 2,046,389 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Quantity for U.S. shipments reflects only producers’ U.S. shipment quantities. Value for U.S. shipments reflects FGP sold in the United States from domestically manufactured FGP (including the value added by U.S. processors to domestic FGP), as well as the incremental value added by U.S. processors to imported FGP. In measuring consumption and market share, this methodology avoids reclassifying and/or double counting merchandise already reported as an import. Table 3.17 presents U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments by type. The majority of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments were commercial shipments, which decreased in quantity and value from 2022 to 2024, but were higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Transfers to related firms were the second most common U.S. shipment type, accounting for almost one-third of U.S. shipments,10 which decreased in quantity and value from 2022 to 2024 and were lower in quantity but higher in value in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. U.S. producers’ internal consumption increased in quantity and value from 2022 to 2024 and were higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. The unit value of U.S. producers’ total U.S. shipments remained unchanged at $0.33 per pound in all periods examined, whereas the unit value of U.S. producers’ commercial U.S. shipments increased from $0.41 per pound in 2022 to $0.43 per pound in 2024 but was lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. 10 *** accounted for most of the reported transfers to related firms. As noted above, ***. Staff call with *** of ***, December 23, 2025. 3.28 Table 3.17 FGP: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, by type and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound; shares in percent; interim is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Commercial U.S. shipments Quantity 5,009,915 4,294,084 4,349,520 2,154,435 2,251,256 Internal consumption Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Quantity 7,985,371 7,114,743 7,269,477 3,603,754 3,706,751 Commercial U.S. shipments Value 2,076,147 1,805,159 1,855,381 922,426 927,008 Internal consumption Value *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Value 2,643,515 2,372,173 2,418,615 1,201,711 1,218,018 Commercial U.S. shipments Unit value 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.41 Internal consumption Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Unit value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Unit value 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Commercial U.S. shipments Share of quantity 62.7 60.4 59.8 59.8 60.7 Internal consumption Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Commercial U.S. shipments Share of value 78.5 76.1 76.7 76.8 76.1 Internal consumption Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Share of value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 3.29 Table 3.18 presents U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments by type. The vast majority of U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments were commercial shipments, which decreased in quantity and value from 2022 to 2024 and were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. U.S. processors also reported transfers to related firms, which decreased in quantity and value from 2022 to 2024, but were higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. The unit value of U.S. processors’ total U.S. shipments increased from 2022 to 2024 but was lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Table 3.18 FGP: U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments, by type and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound; shares in percent; interim is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Commercial U.S. shipments Quantity 910,482 903,054 809,385 407,266 383,017 Internal consumption Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Quantity 915,556 907,393 812,790 409,008 384,832 Commercial U.S. shipments Value 2,528,907 2,676,990 2,420,683 1,221,385 1,130,488 Internal consumption Value *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Value 2,534,153 2,681,843 2,425,673 1,223,713 1,132,907 Commercial U.S. shipments Unit value 2.78 2.96 2.99 3.00 2.95 Internal consumption Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Unit value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Unit value 2.77 2.96 2.98 2.99 2.94 Commercial U.S. shipments Share of quantity 99.4 99.5 99.6 99.6 99.5 Internal consumption Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Commercial U.S. shipments Share of value 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 Internal consumption Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Share of value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. 3.30 Captive consumption Section 771(7)(c)(ⅳ) of the Act states that–11 If domestic producers internally transfer significant production of the domestic like product for the production of a downstream article and sell significant production of the domestic like product in the merchant market, and the Commission finds that– (I) the domestic like product produced that is internally transferred for processing into that downstream article does not enter the merchant market for the domestic like product, (II) the domestic like product is the predominant material input in the production of that downstream article, and then the Commission, in determining market share and the factors affecting financial performance . . ., shall focus primarily on the merchant market for the domestic like product. Transfers and sales As reported in table 3.17, internal consumption accounted for between *** and *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of FGP. First statutory criterion in captive production The first requirement for application of the captive production provision is that the domestic like product that is internally transferred for processing into that downstream article not enter the merchant market for the domestic like product. Table 3.19 presents U.S. producers’ production used in downstream products by type of consumption. *** U.S. producers reported internal consumption of FGP for the production of downstream automotive glass and *** reported internal consumption of FGP for the production of downstream solar panel backlite, an out-of-scope product. No U.S. producer reported diverting FGP intended for internal consumption to the merchant market, however, ***, reported transfers to related firms of FGP to be processed into ***, which are still within the scope of these investigations and thus enter the merchant market. 11 Amended by PL 114–27 (as signed, June 29, 2015), Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. 3.31 Table 3.19 FGP: U.S. producers’ production used in downstream products, by type of consumption and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; shares in percent; interim is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Internal consumption: Sold as is Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption: Processed into downstream products Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption: Total Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption: Sold as is Share *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption: Processed into downstream products Share *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption: Total Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Transfers: Sold as is Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Transfers: Processed into downstream products Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Transfers: Total Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Transfers: Sold as is Share *** *** *** *** *** Transfers: Processed into downstream products Share *** *** *** *** *** Transfers: Total Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 IC + Transfers: Sold as is Quantity *** *** *** *** *** IC + Transfers: Processed into downstream products Quantity *** *** *** *** *** IC + Transfers: Total Quantity 2,975,456 2,820,659 2,919,957 1,449,319 1,455,495 IC + Transfers: Sold as is Share *** *** *** *** *** IC + Transfers: Processed into downstream products Share *** *** *** *** *** IC + Transfers: Total Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. 3.32 Second statutory criterion in captive production The second criterion of the captive production provision concerns whether the domestic like product is the predominant material input in the production of the downstream article that is captively produced. Table 3.20 presents U.S. producers’ FGP contribution to downstream products. With respect to the downstream articles resulting from captive production, FGP reportedly comprises *** percent of the finished cost of the downstream product. Table 3.20 FGP: U.S. producers’ FGP contribution to downstream product Shares in percent Material input Share of value Share of quantity Float glass products *** *** All other material inputs *** *** All material inputs 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 3.33 U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ inventories Table 3.21 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. End-of-period inventories increased by almost one-fifth from 2022 to 2024 and were higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.12 The inventory ratio to U.S. production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments all increased during the 2022 to 2024 period. The inventory ratio to U.S. production, and total shipments were also higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Table 3.21 FGP: U.S. producers’ inventories and their ratio to select items, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratio in percent; interim is January through June Item 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 End-of-period inventory quantity 1,013,272 1,148,947 1,205,072 1,076,774 1,107,591 Inventory ratio to U.S. production 11.8 15.0 15.6 14.4 14.5 Inventory ratio to U.S. shipments 12.7 16.1 16.6 14.9 14.9 Inventory ratio to total shipments *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 3.22 presents U.S. processors’ end-of-period inventories and the ratio of these inventories to U.S. processors’ production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments. U.S. processors’ end-of-period inventories decreased from 2022 to 2024 and were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Inventory ratios to U.S. production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments ranged between *** to 12.1 percent throughout the data collection period. All of these ratios decreased from 2022 to 2024 and were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Table 3.22 FGP: U.S. processors’ inventories and their ratio to select items, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratio in percent; interim is January to June Item 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 End-of-period inventory quantity 105,737 109,453 84,660 102,768 93,503 Inventory ratio to U.S. production 10.9 11.7 10.4 12.4 11.8 Inventory ratio to U.S. shipments 11.5 12.1 10.4 12.6 12.1 Inventory ratio to total shipments *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 12 The increase in U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories from 2022 to 2024 was largely driven by ***, as its end-of-period inventories increased by *** percent from 2022 to 2024. *** end-of-period inventories also increased (by *** percent), while the other *** U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories decreased during this time. 3.34 U.S. producers’ imports from subject sources13 One U.S. producer, ***, imported FGP from China during the data collection period and its imports are presented in table 3.23. *** reported its reason for importing was “***.” Table 3.23 FGP: ***'s U.S. production, U.S. imports from subject sources, and ratio of subject imports to production, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratio in percent; interim is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. U.S. producers' purchases of imports from subject sources No responding U.S. producer reported purchases of FGP during the data collection period. 13 Appendix E presents U.S. processors’ imports from subject sources. 3.35 U.S. employment, wages, and productivity Table 3.24 shows U.S. producers’ employment-related data. Production and related workers (“PRWs”), total hours worked, and productivity all decreased from 2022 to 2024, but PRWs and total hours worked both increased during the interim periods.14 Wages paid to PRWs hourly wages, and hours worked per PRW increased from 2022 to 2024 and were higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. U.S. producers’ productivity decreased irregularly from 2022 to 2024 and was lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Table 3.24 FGP: U.S. producers’ employment related information, by period Interim is January through June Item 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Production and related workers (PRWs) (number) 4,762 4,802 4,355 4,341 4,529 Total hours worked (1,000 hours) 10,808 10,583 10,453 5,171 5,462 Hours worked per PRW (hours) 2,270 2,204 2,400 1,191 1,206 Wages paid ($1,000) 288,750 292,349 312,836 145,607 154,121 Hourly wages (dollars per hour) $26.72 $27.62 $29.93 $28.16 $28.22 Productivity (pounds per hour) 794.5 722.1 740.8 722.8 699.4 Unit labor costs (dollars per pound) $0.03 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 14 The decrease in the number of PRWs during 2022 to 2024 was driven by ***. ***. 3.36 Table 3.25 shows U.S. producers’ employee hours worked producing FGP and processing FGP. As shown, production accounted for the vast majority (over 90 percent) of hours worked during the data collection period, whereas processing also performed by U.S. producers accounted for less than 10 percent. Table 3.25 FGP: U.S. producers’ employee hours worked, by type and period Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Production: Hours worked 1,000 hours *** *** *** *** *** Processing: Hours worked 1,000 hours *** *** *** *** *** Total hours worked 1,000 hours 10,808 10,583 10,453 5,171 5,462 Production: Hours worked Share *** *** *** *** *** Processing: Hours worked Share *** *** *** *** *** Total hours worked Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 3.26 shows U.S. processors’ employment-related data. The number of PRWs and total hours worked decreased from 2022 to 2024 and were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.15 Wages paid to PRWs increased from 2022 to 2024 but were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Hourly wages and hours worked per PRW increased from 2022 to 2024 and were higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. U.S. processors’ productivity declined from 2022 to 2024 but was higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Table 3.26 FGP: U.S. processors’ employment related information, by item and period Item 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Production and related workers (PRWs) (number) 9,585 9,420 9,055 9,092 8,092 Total hours worked (1,000 hours) 19,522 19,378 18,647 9,366 8,384 Hours worked per PRW (hours) 2,037 2,057 2,059 1,030 1,036 Wages paid ($1,000) 470,700 499,476 487,718 247,363 235,889 Hourly wages (dollars per hour) $24.11 $25.78 $26.16 $26.41 $28.14 Productivity (pounds per hour) 49.6 48.4 43.6 44.2 47.4 Unit labor costs (dollars per pound) $0.49 $0.53 $0.60 $0.60 $0.59 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 15 The decreases in the number of PRWs and total hours worked by PRWs at U.S. processor facilities during the data collection period were largely driven by ***. ***. 3.37 Table 3.27 shows U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ combined employment-related data. Table 3.27 FGP: U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ combined employment related information, by item and period Item 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Production and related workers (PRWs) (number) 14,347 14,222 13,410 13,433 12,621 Total hours worked (1,000 hours) 30,330 29,961 29,100 14,537 13,846 Hours worked per PRW (hours) 2,114 2,107 2,170 1,082 1,097 Wages paid ($1,000) 759,450 791,825 800,554 392,970 390,010 Hourly wages (dollars per hour) $25.04 $26.43 $27.51 $27.03 $28.17 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 4.1 Part 4: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares U.S. importers The Commission issued importer questionnaires to 162 firms believed to be importers of subject FGP, as well as to all U.S. producers of FGP.1 Usable questionnaire responses were received from 60 firms,2 which are estimated to represent *** percent of U.S. imports of FGP from China, *** percent of U.S. imports of FGP from Malaysia, *** percent of subject imports, and *** percent of nonsubject imports in 2024.3 These coverage estimates are both understated (as the primary HTS codes also contain out-of-scope merchandise) and overstated (as imports also enter under secondary HTS codes); see appendix J for additional details on coverage estimates by source and period as well as alternate questionnaire coverage calculations. 1 The Commission issued questionnaires to those firms identified in the petitions; staff research; and proprietary, Census-edited Customs’ import records. 2 Additionally, 18 firms certified that they had not imported FGP since January 1, 2022: ***. 3 Coverage estimates were calculated by dividing the value of U.S. imports from responding firms by the total adjusted value of official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using statistical reporting numbers 7005.10.8000, 7005.21.1010, 7005.21.1030, 7005.21.2000, 7005.29.1810, 7005.29.1850, 7005.29.2500, 7007.29.0000, 7008.00.0000, 7009.91.5010, 7009.91.5095, and 7009.92.5010, accessed on September 9, 2025, for each source. Official U.S. import statistics used in the denominator of the estimate calculations were adjusted to exclude the value of out-of-scope merchandise imported under the primary HTS codes as reported in questionnaire responses as well as the value of imports reported in proprietary, Census-edited Customs’ import records for firms that submitted responses during the preliminary and final phases of this proceeding certifying that their firms had not imported FGP. Official U.S. import statistics used in the denominator were also adjusted to include the value of imports reported in questionnaire responses as being imported under HTS codes other than the primary codes. 4.2 Table 4.1 lists all responding U.S. importers of FGP from China (“CN”), Malaysia (“MY”), subject sources (“SUB”), as well as Mexico (“MX”), all other sources (“AOS”), nonsubject sources (“NON”), and all sources (“ALL”), along with their locations, and their shares of U.S. imports, in 2024. Table 4.1 FGP: U.S. importers, their headquarters, and share of imports within each source, 2024 Share in percent Firm Headquarters CN MY SUB MX AOS NON ALL 310 Tempering Louisville, KY *** *** *** *** *** *** *** American Bath Group Irving, TX *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Bear Glass Tinton Falls, NJ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Carlex Nashville, TN *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Cristacurva Houston, TX *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Dios USA Arlington, VA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** E.S. Windows Miami, FL *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Eagle Valley Glass Gypsum, CO *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ecolookna Saint Paul, MN *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Electric Mirror Everett, WA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Elevation Glass Thronton, CO *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Enclos Bloomington, MN *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Fabbrica Windsor, CT *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Fashion Glass Desoto, TX *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Fortune Brands Deerfield, IL *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Fuyao Dayton, OH *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Gardner Glass North Wilkesboro, NC *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Gemtron Sweetwater, TN *** *** *** *** *** *** *** General Glass Vancouver, WA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** GGI Glass Distributors Secaucus, NJ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Gilded Mirrors and Glass Maryville, TN *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Glass Warehouse Oceanside, CA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Guardian Industries Auburn Hills, MI *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hartung Tukwila, WA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home Depot Atlanta, GA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ikea Pratteln, Switzerland *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Impressions Vanity Chino, CA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Interglass Miami, FL *** *** *** *** *** *** *** KBJ San Clemente, CA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Kohler Kohler, WI *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Krugg Marlboro, NJ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. 4.3 Table 4.1 (Continued) FGP: U.S. importers, their headquarters, and share of total imports within a given source, by firm, 2024 Share in percent Firm Headquarters CN MY SUB MX AOS NON ALL Lowes Mooresville, NC *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Mercer GlassFab Trenton, NJ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Mirror Image Commerce, CA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Mr Glass Brooklyn, NY *** *** *** *** *** *** *** National Glass Burlington, WA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** New Hudson Linwood, PA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Novatech Entry Doors Egg Harbor Township, NJ *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ODL Zeeland, MI *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Openplan Richmond, VA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Owens Corning Toledo, OH *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Paris Mirror Miami, FL *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Pella Pella, IA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Phoenix Architectural Miami, FL *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Rapid Shower and Mirror Medley, FL *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Renin Tupelo, MS *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Robern Bristol, PA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Schott Rye Brook, NY *** *** *** *** *** *** *** SGC Commerce, CA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Tacoma Tacoma, WA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Taiwan Glass Lake Oswego, OR *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TIG Entity Fenton, MI *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Trulite Atlanta, GA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Uttermost Rocky Mount, VA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Vitrazza Golden, CO *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Vitro Mexico San Pedro Garza Garcia, NL *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Wardrobe and Bath Modesto, CA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Washington Glass Manassas, VA *** *** *** *** *** *** *** WHTB Shirley, NY *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Xinyi Markham, ON *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms Various 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: ***. Note: Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” percent represent non-zero values less than “0.05” percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. 4.4 U.S. imports Table 4.2 and figure 4.1 present data for U.S. imports of FGP by source and period, while table 4.3 presents changes in U.S. import quantities, values, and unit values, by source and period.4 Total U.S. imports of FGP, by quantity, increased 7.8 percent irregularly from 2022 to 2024 and were 5.1 percent higher in interim 2025 than interim 2024. By value, total U.S. imports of FGP increased 8.7 percent from 2022 to 2024 but were 9.0 percent lower across the interim periods. Subject import volumes increased 8.6 percent irregularly from 2022 to 20245 but were 0.7 percent lower across the interim periods.6 Comparatively, the value of subject imports decreased 10.9 percent irregularly from 2022 to 20247 and was 10.2 percent lower across the interim periods.8 Nonsubject imports increased 7.1 percent from 2022 to 20249 10 and were 9.8 percent higher across the interim periods.11 The value of nonsubject imports increased 25.4 percent from 2022 to 202412 but was 8.3 percent lower across the interim periods.13 4 Table 4.11 also presents compares questionnaire-reported import values under primary versus secondary HTS codes. 5 Subject imports from China increased 12.3 percent over this period, while subject imports from Malaysia decreased 13.6 percent irregularly. 6 Subject imports from China were 2.5 percent lower across the interim periods, while subject imports from Malaysia were 13.7 percent higher. 7 The value of subject imports was lower in 2024 than in 2022 for both China and Malaysia. The value of subject imports from China decreased 10.5 percent irregularly with the value for Malaysia decreasing 16.9 percent irregularly in the other direction over the period. 8 The value of subject imports was 11.1 percent lower across the interim periods for China but 2.5 percent higher across the interim periods for Malaysia. 9 The Commission collected import data separately for Mexico as a nonsubject source of interest as well as all other nonsubject sources aside from Mexico (“all other sources”). Imports reported as being from all other sources were higher than imports from Mexico in all periods by both quantity and value. Nonsubject imports from all other sources comprised 38.8 percent or less of the volume of all imports of FGP and 49.7 percent or less of the value of all FGP imports across the investigation periods. Comparatively, nonsubject imports from Mexico accounted for 20.9 percent or less of imports by volume and 17.0 percent or less of imports by value. 10 Nonsubject imports from all other sources increased 19.0 percent across the period, while nonsubject imports from Mexico decreased 13.2 percent. 11 Nonsubject imports from all other sources and from Mexico were both higher across the interim periods: 7.9 percent higher for all other sources and 13.4 percent higher for Mexico. 12 The value of nonsubject imports from Mexico increased 0.2 percent irregularly, while the value of nonsubject imports from all other sources increased 36.6 percent. 13 The values of nonsubject imports from Mexico as well as from all other sources were both lower across the interim periods: 2.0 percent lower for Mexico and 10.3 percent lower for all other sources. 4.5 The majority of U.S. imports were from nonsubject sources in all periods of the investigations by both quantity and value. In all periods, nonsubject imports accounted for at least 53.7 percent of total import volumes and at least 53.9 percent of import values (conversely, subject sources accounted for 46.3 percent or less of imports by quantity and 46.1 percent or less of imports by value in all periods). China was the larger source of the two subject sources by both quantity and value in all periods. China accounted for between 37.0 and 39.9 percent of total import volumes and between 31.2 and 43.0 percent of total import values in all periods. Comparatively, Malaysia accounted for between 5.0 and 7.8 percent of total import volumes and between 2.2 and 3.6 percent of import total values in all periods. Average unit values (“AUVs”) of subject imports decreased irregularly from 2022 to 2024 (decreasing from $0.72 per pound in 2022 to $0.56 per pound in 2023 before increasing to $0.59 per pound in 2024).14 Subject AUVs were lower across the interim periods ($0.53 per pound compared to $0.58 per pound).15 AUVs of nonsubject imports increased from 2022 to 2024 (increasing from $0.67 per pound in 2022 to $0.75 per pound in 2023 and to $0.79 per pound in 2024)16 but were lower across the interim comparison periods ($0.76 per pound compared to $0.91 per pound).17 AUVs of imports from all sources were virtually unchanged between 2022 and 2024 (decreasing from $0.70 per pound in 2022 to $0.66 per pound in 2023 before returning to $0.70 per pound in 2024). AUVs of imports from all sources were lower across the interim comparison periods ($0.66 per pound compared to $0.77 per pound). 14 AUVs of imports from China and Malaysia both decreased irregularly from 2022 to 2024: decreasing from $0.78 per pound in 2022 to $0.61 per pound in 2023 before increasing to $0.62 per pound in 2024 for China and decreasing from $0.34 per pound in 2022 to $0.31 per pound in 2023 before increasing to $0.33 per pound in 2024 for Malaysia. As shown in the fungibility section, U.S. importers reported importing a higher proportion of their imports of unprocessed primary float glass from Malaysia than from China, with imports from China showing a higher proportion of imports of fabricated products (e.g., tempered, laminated, etc.). 15 AUVs of imports from China and Malaysia were both lower across the interim periods: $0.56 per pound compared to $0.61 per pound for China and $0.31 per pound compared to $0.34 per pound for Malaysia. 16 AUVs of imports from all other sources and from Mexico both increased from 2022 to 2024: from $0.74 per pound in 2022 to $0.84 per pound in 2023 and to $0.85 per pound in 2024 for all other sources and from $0.56 per pound in 2022 to $0.60 per pound in 2023 and to $0.65 per pound in 2024 for Mexico. 17 AUVs of imports from all other import sources and from Mexico were both lower across the interim periods: $0.89 per pound compared to $1.07 per pound for all other sources and $0.54 per pound compared to $0.62 per pound for Mexico. 4.6 Table 4.2 FGP: U.S. imports by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound; interim is January through June Source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 China Quantity 140,901 156,149 158,202 74,624 72,769 Malaysia Quantity 23,331 31,489 20,157 9,352 10,637 Subject sources Quantity 164,232 187,638 178,359 83,976 83,406 Mexico Quantity 75,549 75,395 65,546 36,185 41,019 All other sources Quantity 129,734 142,170 154,344 66,946 72,256 Nonsubject sources Quantity 205,283 217,565 219,890 103,131 113,275 All import sources Quantity 369,515 405,203 398,249 187,107 196,681 China Value 110,400 95,142 98,851 45,813 40,715 Malaysia Value 7,941 9,705 6,596 3,197 3,278 Subject sources Value 118,341 104,847 105,447 49,010 43,993 Mexico Value 42,522 44,951 42,606 22,563 22,122 All other sources Value 96,034 119,096 131,181 71,616 64,220 Nonsubject sources Value 138,556 164,047 173,787 94,179 86,342 All import sources Value 256,897 268,894 279,234 143,189 130,335 China Unit value 0.78 0.61 0.62 0.61 0.56 Malaysia Unit value 0.34 0.31 0.33 0.34 0.31 Subject sources Unit value 0.72 0.56 0.59 0.58 0.53 Mexico Unit value 0.56 0.60 0.65 0.62 0.54 All other sources Unit value 0.74 0.84 0.85 1.07 0.89 Nonsubject sources Unit value 0.67 0.75 0.79 0.91 0.76 All import sources Unit value 0.70 0.66 0.70 0.77 0.66 Table continued. 4.7 Table 4.2 (Continued) FGP: U.S. imports, by source and period Shares and ratio in percent; interim is January through June Source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 China Share of quantity 38.1 38.5 39.7 39.9 37.0 Malaysia Share of quantity 6.3 7.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 Subject sources Share of quantity 44.4 46.3 44.8 44.9 42.4 Mexico Share of quantity 20.4 18.6 16.5 19.3 20.9 All other sources Share of quantity 35.1 35.1 38.8 35.8 36.7 Nonsubject sources Share of quantity 55.6 53.7 55.2 55.1 57.6 All import sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 China Share of value 43.0 35.4 35.4 32.0 31.2 Malaysia Share of value 3.1 3.6 2.4 2.2 2.5 Subject sources Share of value 46.1 39.0 37.8 34.2 33.8 Mexico Share of value 16.6 16.7 15.3 15.8 17.0 All other sources Share of value 37.4 44.3 47.0 50.0 49.3 Nonsubject sources Share of value 53.9 61.0 62.2 65.8 66.2 All import sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 China Ratio 1.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 Malaysia Ratio 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 Subject sources Ratio 1.9 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.2 Mexico Ratio 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.1 All other sources Ratio 1.5 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.9 Nonsubject sources Ratio 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.0 All import sources Ratio 4.3 5.3 5.1 5.0 5.1 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Share of quantity is the share of U.S. imports by quantity; share of value is the share of U.S. imports by value; ratio is U.S. imports to production. Figure 4.1 FGP: U.S. import quantities and average unit values, by source and period Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 Calendar year Interim Average unit value (dollars per pound) Quantity (million pounds) Subject quantities (left-axis) Nonsubject quantities (left-axis) Subject AUVs (right-axis) Nonsubject AUVs (right-axis) 4.8 Table 4.3 FGP: Changes in U.S. imports, by source and period Changes (Δ) in percent (%); interim period is January through June Source Measure 2022 to 2024 2022 to 2023 2023 to 2024 Interim 2024 to 2025 China %Δ Quantity ▲12.3 ▲10.8 ▲1.3 ▼(2.5) Malaysia %Δ Quantity ▼(13.6) ▲35.0 ▼(36.0) ▲13.7 Subject sources %Δ Quantity ▲8.6 ▲14.3 ▼(4.9) ▼(0.7) Mexico %Δ Quantity ▼(13.2) ▼(0.2) ▼(13.1) ▲13.4 All other sources %Δ Quantity ▲19.0 ▲9.6 ▲8.6 ▲7.9 Nonsubject sources %Δ Quantity ▲7.1 ▲6.0 ▲1.1 ▲9.8 All import sources %Δ Quantity ▲7.8 ▲9.7 ▼(1.7) ▲5.1 China %Δ Value ▼(10.5) ▼(13.8) ▲3.9 ▼(11.1) Malaysia %Δ Value ▼(16.9) ▲22.2 ▼(32.0) ▲2.5 Subject sources %Δ Value ▼(10.9) ▼(11.4) ▲0.6 ▼(10.2) Mexico %Δ Value ▲0.2 ▲5.7 ▼(5.2) ▼(2.0) All other sources %Δ Value ▲36.6 ▲24.0 ▲10.1 ▼(10.3) Nonsubject sources %Δ Value ▲25.4 ▲18.4 ▲5.9 ▼(8.3) All import sources %Δ Value ▲8.7 ▲4.7 ▲3.8 ▼(9.0) China %Δ Unit value ▼(20.3) ▼(22.2) ▲2.6 ▼(8.9) Malaysia %Δ Unit value ▼(3.9) ▼(9.4) ▲6.2 ▼(9.9) Subject sources %Δ Unit value ▼(18.0) ▼(22.5) ▲5.8 ▼(9.6) Mexico %Δ Unit value ▲15.5 ▲5.9 ▲9.0 ▼(13.5) All other sources %Δ Unit value ▲14.8 ▲13.2 ▲1.5 ▼(16.9) Nonsubject sources %Δ Unit value ▲17.1 ▲11.7 ▲4.8 ▼(16.5) All import sources %Δ Unit value ▲0.9 ▼(4.5) ▲5.7 ▼(13.4) Table continued. 4.9 Table 4.3 (Continued) FGP: Changes in U.S. imports, by source and period Changes (Δ) in percentage point (ppt) Source Measure 2022 to 2024 2022 to 2023 2023 to 2024 Interim 2024 to 2025 China ppt Δ Quantity ▲1.6 ▲0.4 ▲1.2 ▼(2.9) Malaysia ppt Δ Quantity ▼(1.3) ▲1.5 ▼(2.7) ▲0.4 Subject sources ppt Δ Quantity ▲0.3 ▲1.9 ▼(1.5) ▼(2.5) Mexico ppt Δ Quantity ▼(4.0) ▼(1.8) ▼(2.1) ▲1.5 All other sources ppt Δ Quantity ▲3.6 ▼(0.0) ▲3.7 ▲1.0 Nonsubject sources ppt Δ Quantity ▼(0.3) ▼(1.9) ▲1.5 ▲2.5 All import sources ppt Δ Quantity — — — — China ppt Δ Value ▼(7.6) ▼(7.6) ▲0.0 ▼(0.8) Malaysia ppt Δ Value ▼(0.7) ▲0.5 ▼(1.2) ▲0.3 Subject sources ppt Δ Value ▼(8.3) ▼(7.1) ▼(1.2) ▼(0.5) Mexico ppt Δ Value ▼(1.3) ▲0.2 ▼(1.5) ▲1.2 All other sources ppt Δ Value ▲9.6 ▲6.9 ▲2.7 ▼(0.7) Nonsubject sources ppt Δ Value ▲8.3 ▲7.1 ▲1.2 ▲0.5 All import sources ppt Δ Value — — — — China ppt Δ Ratio ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Malaysia ppt Δ Ratio ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Subject sources ppt Δ Ratio ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Mexico ppt Δ Ratio ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** All other sources ppt Δ Ratio ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources ppt Δ Ratio ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** All import sources ppt Δ Ratio ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” percent represent non-zero values less than “0.05” percent (if positive) and greater than “(0.05)” percent (if negative). Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. Period changes preceded by a “▲” represent an increase, while period changes preceded by a “▼” represent a decrease. Table 4.4 presents U.S. producers’, U.S. processors’ and/or their affiliates’ U.S. imports by source and period.18 Subject imports by these firms decreased *** percent from 2022 to 2024 and were *** percent lower in interim 2025 than interim 2024.19 Subject imports by the 18 The U.S. producers, U.S. processors, and/or their affiliates that also reported U.S. imports were: ***. As noted in further company-specific detail in part 3 and app. E, one U.S. producer (***) and seven U.S. processors (***) imported subject FGP from the subject countries. 19 U.S. producers’ and processors’ imports from China decreased *** percent from 2022 to 2024 and were *** percent lower across the interim periods. Comparatively, U.S. producers’ and processors’ imports from Malaysia increased irregularly *** percent from 2022 to 2024 but were *** percent lower across the interim periods. 4.10 firms as a share of total subject imports decreased *** percentage points from 2022 to 2024 with this share being *** percentage point lower across the interim periods.20 The companies’ nonsubject imports decreased *** percent irregularly from 2022 to 2024 but were *** percent higher across the interim periods. Resultingly, the U.S. producer/processor/affiliate imports from all sources decreased *** percent from 2022 to 2024 but were *** percent higher in interim 2025 than interim 2024. Table 4.4 FGP: U.S. producers’, U.S. processors' and/or their affiliates’ U.S. imports Quantity in 1,000 pounds, share and ratio in percent; interim period is January through June Source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 China Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All other sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** China Share *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia Share *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Share *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Share *** *** *** *** *** All other sources Share *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Share *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 China Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Ratio *** *** *** *** *** All other sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Ratio is to the quantity of imports by source presented in table 4.2 above. 20 Imports from China by the firms as a share of total subject imports decreased *** percentage points from 2022 to 2024 and was *** percentage points lower across the interim periods. Imports from Malaysia as a share of U.S. production increased *** percentage points from 2022 to 2024 but was *** percentage points lower across the interim periods. 4.11 Negligibility The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.21 Negligible imports are generally defined in the Act, as amended, as imports from a country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic like product where such imports account for less than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States in the most recent 12-month period for which data are available that precedes the filing of the petition or the initiation of the investigation. However, if there are imports of such merchandise from a number of countries subject to investigations initiated on the same day that individually account for less than 3 percent of the total volume of the subject merchandise, and if the imports from those countries collectively account for more than 7 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States during the applicable 12-month period, then imports from such countries are deemed not to be negligible.22 As shown in table 4.5, U.S. imports of FGP from China accounted for 39.7 percent of total U.S. imports of FGP by quantity in the period covering November 2023 through October 2024. U.S. imports of FGP from Malaysia accounted for 4.9 percent of total U.S. imports during this period. Table 4.5 FGP: U.S. imports in the twelve-month period preceding the filing of the petitions, November 2023 through October 2024 Quantity in 1,000 pounds; share in percent Source of imports Quantity Share of quantity China 155,022 39.7 Malaysia 19,289 4.9 Mexico 67,703 17.4 All other sources 147,986 37.9 All import sources 390,000 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 21 Sections 703(a)(1), 705(b)(1), 733(a)(1), and 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1), 1671d(b)(1), 1673b(a)(1), and 1673d(b)(1)). 22 Section 771 (24) of the Act (19 U.S.C § 1677(24)). 4.12 Critical circumstances On February 9, 2026, Commerce issued its final determination that critical circumstances exist for NSG (Malaysian Sheet Glass) in the context of the Malaysia LTFV investigation.23 On July 24, 2025, Commerce issued its preliminary determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of float glass products in the context of its Malaysia CVD investigation.24 25 In these investigations, if both Commerce and the Commission make affirmative final critical circumstances determinations, certain subject imports may be subject to antidumping duties retroactive by 90 days from July 15, 2025, the effective date of Commerce’s preliminary affirmative LTFV determination and/or certain subject imports may be subject to countervailing duties retroactive by 90 days from May 19, 2025, the effective date of Commerce’s preliminary countervailing duty determination.26 No firms reported importing from NSG (Malaysian Sheet Glass) in the periods covering the six months prior to the filing of the petitions or in the six months after the filing of the petitions (June 2024 through November 2024 and December 2024 through May 2025). Additionally, no U.S. importers reported holding any end-of-period inventories of imported merchandise from NSG (Malaysian Sheet Glass) for the period covering November 2024 23 91 FR 5723, February 9, 2026, referenced in app. A. Commerce also found that critical circumstances do not exist for Jinjing Malaysia, Xinyi Energy Smart (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. (Xinyi Malaysia), and all other producers and exporters not individually examined. 24 90 FR 34844, July 24, 2025, referenced in app. A. On February 9, 2026, Commerce issued its final affirmative countervailing duty determination regarding Malaysia. However, the notice and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum did not address Commerce’s final critical circumstances determination in the Malaysia CVD investigation. 91 FR 5720, February 9, 2026. ***. 25 When petitioners file timely allegations of critical circumstances, Commerce examines whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that (1) either there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at LTFV and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and (2) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. 26 90 FR 31605, July 15, 2025, and 90 FR 21278, May 19, 2025, referenced in app. A. 4.13 through June 2025.27 28 As such, there is no data to present with respect to Commerce’s final affirmative critical circumstances determination in the context of the Malaysia LTFV investigation. Cumulation considerations In assessing whether imports should be cumulated, the Commission determines whether U.S. imports from the subject countries compete with each other and with the domestic like product and has generally considered four factors: (1) fungibility, (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographical markets, (3) common or similar channels of distribution, and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. Information regarding channels of distribution, market areas, and interchangeability appears in Part 2. Additional information concerning fungibility, geographical markets, and simultaneous presence in the market is presented as follows. 27 U.S. importer *** was the only firm to report any U.S. imports from NSG (Malaysian Sheet Glass) during the investigation period. The company reported ***. 28 Malaysian Sheet Glass Sdn Bhd/ NSG (Malaysian Sheet Glass) submitted a foreign producer/exporter response, and a company representative stated, “***.” See part 7 for additional details. 4.14 Fungibility Table 4.6 and figure 4.2 present U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and U.S. importers’ U.S. imports by product type: unprocessed primary float glass products,29 insulating glass units (IGUs), mirror products, tempered products, laminated products, and all other products.30 As shown in the table and figure, the vast majority of U.S. producers’ 2024 U.S. shipments were of unprocessed primary float glass (*** percent) followed by shipments of products classified as “all other” (*** percent).31 32 U.S. processors shipped the following product types in descending share order: IGUs (*** percent of U.S. processor shipments), tempered products (*** percent of U.S. processor shipments), mirrors (*** percent of U.S. processor shipments), and “all other” products (*** percent of U.S. processor shipments). Comparatively, the following product types were imported from subject sources in descending order of share: mirrors (*** percent of subject imports), unprocessed primary float glass (*** percent of subject imports), tempered products (*** percent of subject imports), IGUs (*** percent of subject imports), laminated products (*** percent of subject imports), and “all other” imports (*** percent of subject imports).33 The following product types were imported from nonsubject sources in descending order of share: unprocessed primary float glass (*** percent of nonsubject imports), “all other” (*** percent of nonsubject imports), laminated (*** percent of nonsubject 29 Unprocessed primary float glass products are float glass products that have not undergone further processing steps such as annealing, chemical strengthening, heat strengthening, tempering, and further working (e.g., sandblasting, etching, bending, curving, beveling, edging, notching, drilling, chipping, embossing, and engraving). 30 App. F includes more detailed information of U.S. shipments by product type including value and unit value information by product type and source. 31 U.S. producers provided the following descriptions for shipments classified as “all other” products: “vacuum coated products;” “green tinted float glass for automotive purposes;” and “low-iron, clear, and tinted float glass of varying thicknesses with coating and/or heat treatment.” 32 U.S. producers also reported small quantities of shipments of IGUs, mirrors, and tempered products (each product type was less than one percent of U.S. producers’ total 2024 shipments) but zero laminated products. 33 The following product types were imported from China in descending order of share: mirrors (*** percent of imports from China), unprocessed primary float glass (*** percent of imports from China), tempered products (*** percent of imports from China), IGUs (*** percent of imports from China), laminated products (*** percent of imports from China), and “other” products (*** percent of imports from China). The following product types were imported from Malaysia in descending order of share: unprocessed primary float glass (*** percent of imports from Malaysia), mirrors (*** percent of imports from Malaysia), tempered products (*** percent of imports from Malaysia), and IGUs (*** percent of imports from Malaysia). 4.15 imports), IGUs (*** percent of nonsubject imports), mirrors (*** percent of nonsubject imports), and tempered products (*** percent of nonsubject imports). Table 4.6 FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ U.S. shipments and U.S. importers’ U.S. imports, by source and product type, 2024 Quantity in 1,000 pounds Source Un- processed IGUs Mirrors Tempered Laminated All other products All product types U.S. producers *** *** *** *** *** *** 7,269,477 U.S. processors *** *** *** *** *** *** 812,790 China *** *** *** *** *** *** 158,149 Malaysia *** *** *** *** *** *** 20,157 Subject sources *** *** *** *** *** *** 178,306 Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** 65,546 All other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** 154,344 Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** *** 219,890 All import sources *** *** *** *** *** *** 398,196 All sources *** *** *** *** *** *** 8,480,463 Table continued. Table 4.6 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ U.S. shipments and U.S. importers’ U.S. imports, by source and product type, 2024 Share across in percent Source Un- processed IGUs Mirrors Tempered Laminated All other products All product types U.S. producers *** *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 U.S. processors *** *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 China *** *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 Malaysia *** *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 Subject sources *** *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 All other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 All import sources *** *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 All sources *** *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 Table continued. 4.16 Table 4.6 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ U.S. shipments and U.S. importers’ U.S. imports, by source and product type, 2024 Share down in percent Source Un- processed IGUs Mirrors Tempered Laminated All other products All product types U.S. producers *** *** *** *** *** *** 85.7 U.S. processors *** *** *** *** *** *** 9.6 China *** *** *** *** *** *** 1.9 Malaysia *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.2 Subject sources *** *** *** *** *** *** 2.1 Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.8 All other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** 1.8 Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** *** 2.6 All import sources *** *** *** *** *** *** 4.7 All sources 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. "Unprocessed" refers to unprocessed primary float glass, "IGUs" refers to insulating glass units, and "Tempered" and "Laminated" refer to tempered safety glass and laminated safety glass respectively. Figure 4.2 FGP: U.S. producers' and processors’ U.S. shipments and U.S. importers' U.S. imports, by source and product type, 2024 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 4.17 Geographical markets Table 4.7 presents data on U.S. imports of FGP and other glass,34 categories which include out-of-scope imports, by border of entry in 2024. In 2024, official import statistics show that imports of FGP and other glass from both China and Malaysia entered the United States through ports in all regions during 2024. The largest share of subject imports entered through customs entry districts in the West region of the United States,35 followed by the East region,36 the South region,37 and then the North region.38 Imports of FGP and other glass from China represented 25.4 percent of all such U.S. imports in 2024. The largest share of imports of FGP and other glass from China entered through the West region, followed by the East region, the South region, and the North region. Comparatively, imports of FGP and other glass from Malaysia represented 1.2 percent of all such U.S. imports in 2024. The largest share of imports of FGP and other glass from Malaysia entered through the South region, followed by the West region, the East region, and the North region. 34 “FGP and other glass” refers to merchandise imported under the primary HTS statistical reporting numbers of 7005.10.8000, 7005.21.1010, 7005.21.1030, 7005.21.2000, 7005.29.1810, 7005.29.1850, 7005.29.2500, 7007.29.0000, 7008.00.0000, 7009.91.5010, 7009.91.5095, and 7009.92.5010. 35 The western border encompasses the following customs entry districts: Anchorage, Alaska; Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco, California; Honolulu, Hawaii; Columbia-Snake, Oregon; and Seattle, Washington. 36 The eastern border of entry encompasses the following customs entry districts: Washington, DC; Savannah, Georgia; Portland, Maine; Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Charlotte, North Carolina; Buffalo and Ogdensburg, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; San Juan, Puerto Rico; Charleston, South Carolina; Norfolk, Virginia; and St. Albans, Vermont. 37 The southern border encompasses the following customs entry districts: Mobile, Alabama; New Orleans, Louisiana; Miami and Tampa, Florida; and Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, Houston-Galveston, and Laredo, Texas. 38 The northern border encompasses the following customs entry districts: Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; St. Louis, Missouri; Duluth and Minneapolis, Minnesota; Great Falls, Montana; Pembina, North Dakota; and Cleveland, Ohio. 4.18 Table 4.7 FGP and other glass: U.S. imports, by source and border of entry, 2024 Value in 1,000 dollars Source East North South West All borders China 57,726 44,364 47,556 72,076 221,722 Malaysia 2,574 1,720 3,876 2,690 10,860 Subject sources 60,300 46,085 51,432 74,766 232,582 Mexico 935 20 194,827 22,670 218,451 All other sources 217,396 91,337 61,126 50,987 420,847 Nonsubject sources 218,331 91,357 255,953 73,656 639,298 All import sources 278,631 137,442 307,385 148,422 871,880 Table continued. Table 4.7 (Continued) FGP and other glass: U.S. imports, by source and border of entry, 2024 Share across in percent Source East North South West All borders China 26.0 20.0 21.4 32.5 100.0 Malaysia 23.7 15.8 35.7 24.8 100.0 Subject sources 25.9 19.8 22.1 32.1 100.0 Mexico 0.4 0.0 89.2 10.4 100.0 All other sources 51.7 21.7 14.5 12.1 100.0 Nonsubject sources 34.2 14.3 40.0 11.5 100.0 All import sources 32.0 15.8 35.3 17.0 100.0 Table continued. Table 4.7 (Continued) FGP and other glass: U.S. imports, by source and border of entry, 2024 Share down in percent Source East North South West All borders China 20.7 32.3 15.5 48.6 25.4 Malaysia 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.8 1.2 Subject sources 21.6 33.5 16.7 50.4 26.7 Mexico 0.3 0.0 63.4 15.3 25.1 All other sources 78.0 66.5 19.9 34.4 48.3 Nonsubject sources 78.4 66.5 83.3 49.6 73.3 All import sources 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7005.10.8000, 7005.21.1010, 7005.21.1030, 7005.21.2000, 7005.29.1810, 7005.29.1850, 7005.29.2500, 7007.29.0000, 7008.00.0000, 7009.91.5010, 7009.91.5095 and 7009.92.5010, accessed December 6, 2024. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. Values are the landed-duty paid value. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. The primary HTS statistical reporting numbers include out-of-scope products and therefore data above are likely overstated. 4.19 Presence in the market Table 4.8 and figures 4.3 and 4.4 present monthly import data of FGP by source for the period covering the 20-month period from November 2023 through June 2025 as reported in questionnaire responses. Imports of FGP from China, Malaysia, Mexico, and other nonsubject sources each entered the United States in all 20 months. Table 4.8 FGP: Quantity of U.S. imports, by source and month Quantity in 1,000 pounds Year Month China Malaysia Subject sources 2023 November 10,445 1,648 12,093 2023 December 11,429 1,521 12,950 2024 January 11,813 1,672 13,485 2024 February 10,056 1,030 11,086 2024 March 12,413 2,202 14,615 2024 April 12,821 2,271 15,092 2024 May 13,261 936 14,197 2024 June 14,272 1,319 15,591 2024 July 13,396 2,016 15,412 2024 August 16,282 1,907 18,189 2024 September 14,646 1,253 15,899 2024 October 14,188 1,514 15,702 2024 November 11,958 2,102 14,060 2024 December 13,080 1,936 15,016 2025 January 13,958 3,154 17,112 2025 February 13,439 2,159 15,598 2025 March 14,412 1,519 15,931 2025 April 11,186 1,241 12,427 2025 May 10,054 1,579 11,633 2025 June 9,721 985 10,706 Table continued. 4.20 Table 4.8 (Continued) FGP: Quantity of U.S. imports, by source and month Quantity in 1,000 pounds Year Month Mexico All other sources Nonsubject sources All import sources 2023 November 6,143 11,475 17,618 29,711 2023 December 7,952 15,076 23,028 35,978 2024 January 6,354 11,476 17,830 31,315 2024 February 5,228 12,852 18,080 29,166 2024 March 6,589 12,680 19,269 33,884 2024 April 7,385 10,490 17,875 32,967 2024 May 5,745 8,797 14,542 28,739 2024 June 4,883 10,651 15,534 31,125 2024 July 3,605 14,106 17,711 33,123 2024 August 4,573 13,914 18,487 36,676 2024 September 4,335 11,369 15,704 31,603 2024 October 4,911 15,100 20,011 35,713 2024 November 5,400 16,370 21,770 35,830 2024 December 6,533 16,539 23,072 38,088 2025 January 6,297 10,787 17,084 34,196 2025 February 6,939 11,663 18,602 34,200 2025 March 9,106 10,171 19,277 35,208 2025 April 2,741 10,564 13,305 25,732 2025 May 8,226 15,998 24,224 35,857 2025 June 7,747 13,073 20,820 31,526 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 4.21 Figure 4.3 FGP: U.S. imports from individual subject sources, by source and month Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Figure 4.4 FGP: U.S. imports from aggregated subject and nonsubject sources, by source and month Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2023 2024 2025 Quantity (million pounds) China Malaysia 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2023 2024 2025 Quantity (million pounds) Subject Mexico All other sources 4.22 Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares Total market by quantity Table 4.9 and figure 4.5 present data on apparent U.S. total market consumption and U.S. market shares by quantity for FGP.39 Total apparent U.S. consumption of FGP decreased 8.2 percent irregularly from 2022 to 2024 but was 3.0 percent higher across the interim periods. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments accounted for 94.7 percent or more of total market apparent U.S. consumption across the investigation period. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments decreased 9.0 percent irregularly from 2022 to 2024. The market share represented by U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments decreased 0.8 percentage points irregularly over this period. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments were 2.9 percent higher across the interim periods, while the market share represented by this segment was 0.1 percentage points lower across the periods. U.S. shipments of subject imports increased 9.5 percent irregularly across the full year periods40 with subject imports’ share of total apparent U.S. consumption increasing 0.4 percentage points irregularly.41 U.S. shipments of subject imports were 2.1 percent higher across the interim periods,42 with this market segment’s share of apparent U.S. consumption across the periods remaining virtually unchanged.43 U.S. shipments of nonsubject imports increased 8.9 percent from 2022 to 2024.44 The market share represented by U.S. shipments of nonsubject imports increased 0.4 percentage points irregularly.45 U.S. shipments of nonsubject imports were 9.5 percent higher across the 39 App. G also presents apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares for the merchant market by quantity for FGP. 40 U.S. shipments of imports from China increased irregularly by 13.4 percent from 2022 to 2024, while U.S. shipments of imports from Malaysia decreased irregularly by 13.0 percent over this period. 41 The total market share represented by U.S. shipments of imports from China increased 0.4 percentage points, while the market share for Malaysia was virtually unchanged over this period. 42 U.S. shipments of subject imports from China were 0.7 percent higher across the interim periods, while U.S. shipments of subject imports from Malaysia were 13.2 percent higher. 43 The total market shares represented by U.S. shipments of subject imports from both China and Malaysia were both virtually unchanged across the interim periods. 44 U.S. shipments of imports from all other sources increased by 20.5 percent from 2022 to 2024, while U.S. shipments of imports from Mexico decreased irregularly by 11.7 percent over the period. 45 The total market share represented by U.S. shipments of imports from all other sources increased 0.5 percentage points, while the total market share represented by U.S. shipments of imports from Mexico was unchanged over the period. 4.23 interim periods,46 with nonsubject imports’ total market share being 0.2 percentage points higher across the interim periods. Table 4.9 FGP: Apparent U.S. total market consumption and market shares based on quantity, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; shares in percent; interim is January through June Source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. producers Quantity 7,985,371 7,114,743 7,269,477 3,603,754 3,706,751 China Quantity 135,426 155,463 153,596 73,920 74,430 Malaysia Quantity 23,229 32,541 20,202 9,241 10,465 Subject sources Quantity 158,655 188,004 173,798 83,161 84,895 Mexico Quantity 69,223 73,245 61,126 35,962 40,234 All other sources Quantity 123,284 134,683 148,597 64,289 69,532 Nonsubject sources Quantity 192,507 207,928 209,723 100,251 109,766 All import sources Quantity 351,162 395,932 383,521 183,412 194,661 All sources Quantity 8,336,533 7,510,675 7,652,998 3,787,166 3,901,412 U.S. producers Share 95.8 94.7 95.0 95.2 95.0 China Share 1.6 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 Malaysia Share 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 Subject sources Share 1.9 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.2 Mexico Share 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 All other sources Share 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.8 Nonsubject sources Share 2.3 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.8 All import sources Share 4.2 5.3 5.0 4.8 5.0 All sources Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Data for all sources are based on U.S. shipments. 46 U.S. shipments of imports from all other sources and from Mexico were higher across the interim periods: 8.2 percent higher for all other sources and 11.9 percent higher for Mexico. 4.24 Figure 4.5 FGP: Apparent U.S. total market consumption based on quantity, by source and period Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Data for all sources are based on U.S. shipments. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 Calendar year Interim Quantity (million pounds) U.S. producers Subject imports Nonsubject imports 4.25 Total market by value Table 4.10 presents data on apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares by value for FGP.47 The value of total apparent U.S. consumption of FGP decreased 5.6 percent from 2022 to 2024. The value of total apparent U.S. consumption was 3.8 percent lower across the interim periods. The total domestic value of U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments48 decreased 6.7 percent from 2022 to 2024.49 The market share represented by this segment decreased by 1.2 percentage points over this period.50 The total domestic value of U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments was 3.8 percent lower across the interim periods,51 and the total market share represented by this category was unchanged across the interim periods. 47 App. G also presents apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares for the merchant market by value for FGP. 48 Table 4.10 breaks out U.S. value data five ways: the value of U.S. producers’ (i.e., primary float glass producers) U.S. shipments, the value added to domestic production by U.S. processors, the sum of those first two totals, the value added by U.S. processors to imports, and the total domestic value of U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments. 49 The value of primary float glass producers’ U.S. shipments decreased 8.5 percent irregularly from 2022 to 2024. The value added to domestic production from U.S. processors decreased 4.0 percent irregularly in the other direction. Resultingly, the fully domestic value from U.S. producers and processors decreased 6.7 percent irregularly. The value added by U.S. processors to imports decreased 8.9 percent over this period. 50 U.S. primary float glass producer market share decreased 1.7 percentage points irregularly over this period, while the market share represented by the value added by U.S. processors increased 0.6 percentage points irregularly. Resultingly, the fully domestic market share for U.S. producers and processors decreased 1.1 percentage points over this period. The market share represented by the value added by U.S. processors to imports decreased 0.1 percentage points over the period. 51 The value of primary float glass producers’ U.S. shipments was 1.4 percent higher across the interim periods and this category’s market share was 2.8 percentage point higher across the periods. The value added to domestic production from U.S. processors was 10.9 percent lower across the interim periods with this category’s market share being 2.9 percentage points lower across the periods. Resultingly, the market share held by the fully domestic value from U.S. producers and processors was virtually unchanged across the interim periods. The value added by U.S. processors to imports was 3.1 percent lower across the interim periods with this segment’s market share being virtually unchanged across interim periods. 4.26 The value of U.S. shipments of subject imports decreased 3.7 percent irregularly from 2022 to 2024. Subject imports’ total market share increased 0.1 percentage points irregularly from 2022 to 2024.52 U.S. shipments of subject imports were 5.0 percent higher across the interim periods by value, and subject imports’ total market share was 0.2 percentage points higher across the interim periods.53 The value of U.S. shipments of nonsubject imports increased 32.8 percent from 2022 to 2024. Nonsubject imports’ total market share increased 1.1 percentage points from 2022 to 2024.54 The value of U.S. shipments of nonsubject imports was 9.1 percent lower across the interim periods, and nonsubject imports’ total market share was 0.2 percentage points lower across the interim periods.55 52 The value of U.S. shipments of imports from China decreased by 2.8 percent from 2022 to 2024, while the value for Malaysia decreased by 15.9 percent. The share of the value of apparent U.S. consumption represented by U.S. shipments of imports from China increased 0.1 percentage points from 2022 to 2024, while Malaysia’s share was unchanged at 0.2 percent in 2022, 2023, and 2024. 53 The value of U.S. shipments of imports from China was 5.3 percent higher across the interim periods, while the value for Malaysia was 0.5 percent higher. The total market share represented by U.S. shipments of imports from China was 0.2 percentage points higher across the interim periods while the share for Malaysia was virtually unchanged. 54 The value of U.S. shipments of imports from all other sources increased 46.1 percent from 2022 to 2024, while the value of U.S. shipments of imports from Mexico increased 4.6 percent irregularly over this period. The share of the value of apparent U.S. consumption represented by U.S. shipments of imports from all other sources increased by 1.0 percentage point from 2022 to 2024, while Mexico’s market share increased by 0.1 percentage points irregularly over this period. 55 The value of U.S. shipments of imports from all other sources and from Mexico were both lower across the interim periods: 8.8 percent lower for all other sources and 9.8 percent lower for Mexico. The total market share represented by U.S. shipments of imports from all other sources and Mexico were both lower across the interim periods: 0.2 percentage points lower for all other sources and 0.1 percentage points lower for Mexico. 4.27 Table 4.10 FGP: Apparent U.S. total market consumption and market shares based on value, by source and period Value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim is January through June Source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. producers Value 2,643,515 2,372,173 2,418,615 1,201,711 1,218,018 U.S. processors: Value added to domestic Value 1,790,765 1,915,165 1,719,771 878,810 782,796 U.S. producers and processors: Fully domestic value Value 4,434,280 4,287,338 4,138,386 2,080,521 2,000,814 U.S. processors: Value added to imports Value 88,571 89,785 80,721 47,034 45,575 U.S. producers and processors: Total value Value 4,522,851 4,377,123 4,219,107 2,127,555 2,046,389 China Value 113,770 115,760 110,549 52,774 55,567 Malaysia Value 8,062 9,314 6,784 3,255 3,272 Subject sources Value 121,832 125,074 117,333 56,029 58,839 Mexico Value 41,768 49,752 43,692 25,795 23,273 All other sources Value 88,269 110,947 128,950 68,012 62,007 Nonsubject sources Value 130,037 160,699 172,642 93,807 85,280 All import sources Value 251,869 285,773 289,975 149,836 144,119 All sources Value 4,774,720 4,662,896 4,509,082 2,277,391 2,190,508 U.S. producers Share 55.4 50.9 53.6 52.8 55.6 U.S. processors: Value added to domestic Share 37.5 41.1 38.1 38.6 35.7 U.S. producers and processors: Fully domestic value Share 92.9 91.9 91.8 91.4 91.3 U.S. processors: Value added to imports Share 1.9 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.1 U.S. producers and processors: Total value Share 94.7 93.9 93.6 93.4 93.4 China Share 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 Malaysia Share 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 Subject sources Share 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.7 Mexico Share 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 All other sources Share 1.8 2.4 2.9 3.0 2.8 Nonsubject sources Share 2.7 3.4 3.8 4.1 3.9 All import sources Share 5.3 6.1 6.4 6.6 6.6 All sources Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Value for U.S. producers' and U.S. processors' U.S. shipments reflects float glass products sold in the United States from domestically manufactured float glass (including the value added by U.S. processors to domestic float glass), as well as the incremental value added by U.S. processors to imported float glass. In measuring consumption and market share this methodology avoids reclassifying and/or double counting merchandise already reported as an import. 4.28 Figure 4.6 FGP: Apparent U.S. total market consumption based on value, by source and period Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Value for U.S. producers' and U.S. processors' U.S. shipments reflects float glass products sold in the United States from domestically manufactured float glass (including the value added by U.S. processors to domestic float glass), as well as the incremental value added by U.S. processors to imported float glass. In measuring consumption and market share this methodology avoids reclassifying and/or double counting merchandise already reported as an import. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 Calendar year Interim Value (million dollars) U.S. producers and processors: Total value Subject imports Nonsubject imports 4.29 U.S. imports by HTS classification Table 4.11 compares questionnaire-reported import values under primary versus secondary HTS codes.56 Questionnaire respondents indicated that at least *** percent of in- scope imports by value entered under primary HTS codes across all sources (subject and nonsubject) in each period, though shares were less for some source breakouts in certain periods. Table 4.11 FGP: U.S. importers' U.S. imports, by source, HTS classification and period Value in 1,000 dollars; Share of HTS classification within each source in percent; Interim period is January through June Source and HTS classification Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 China: Primary HTS Value *** *** *** *** *** China: Other HTS Value *** *** *** *** *** China: All HTS Value 110,400 95,142 98,851 45,813 40,715 China: Primary HTS Share *** *** *** *** *** China: Other HTS Share *** *** *** *** *** China: All HTS Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Malaysia: Primary HTS Value *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia: Other HTS Value *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia: All HTS Value 7,941 9,705 6,596 3,197 3,278 Malaysia: Primary HTS Share *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia: Other HTS Share *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia: All HTS Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Subject sources: Primary HTS Value *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources: Other HTS Value *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources: All HTS Value 118,341 104,847 105,447 49,010 43,993 Subject sources: Primary HTS Share *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources: Other HTS Share *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources: All HTS Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table continued. 56 The primary HTS statistical reporting numbers are 7005.10.8000, 7005.21.1010, 7005.21.1030, 7005.21.2000, 7005.29.1810, 7005.29.1850, 7005.29.2500, 7007.29.0000, 7008.00.0000, 7009.91.5010, 7009.91.5095, and 7009.92.5010. Firms also reported imports under these other HTS statistical reporting numbers: 7003.19.0000, 7005.29.0850, 7005.29.2500, 7006.00.1000, 7006.00.4050, 7007.19.0000, 7008.00.0000, 7008.00.1000, 7009.91.1010, 7009.91.5091, 7009.92.1010, 7009.92.1090, 7009.92.5095, 7009.99.9010, 7013.99.2000, 7013.99.8090, 7013.99.9090, 7019.90.5150, 7610.10.0030, and 9403.99.9045. 4.30 Table 4.11 (Continued) FGP: U.S. importers' U.S. imports, by source, HTS classification and period Value in 1,000 dollars; Share of HTS classification within each source in percent; Interim period is January through June Source and HTS classification Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Mexico: Primary HTS Value *** *** *** *** *** Mexico: Other HTS Value *** *** *** *** *** Mexico: All HTS Value 42,522 44,951 42,606 22,563 22,122 Mexico: Primary HTS Share *** *** *** *** *** Mexico: Other HTS Share *** *** *** *** *** Mexico: All HTS Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 All other sources: Primary HTS Value *** *** *** *** *** All other sources: Other HTS Value *** *** *** *** *** All other sources: All HTS Value 96,034 119,096 131,181 71,616 64,220 All other sources: Primary HTS Share *** *** *** *** *** All other sources: Other HTS Share *** *** *** *** *** All other sources: All HTS Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Nonsubject sources: Primary HTS Value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources: Other HTS Value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources: All HTS Value 138,556 164,047 173,787 94,179 86,342 Nonsubject sources: Primary HTS Share *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources: Other HTS Share *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources: All HTS Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 All import sources: Primary HTS Value *** *** *** *** *** All import sources: Other HTS Value *** *** *** *** *** All import sources: All HTS Value 256,897 268,894 279,234 143,189 130,335 All import sources: Primary HTS Share *** *** *** *** *** All import sources: Other HTS Share *** *** *** *** *** All import sources: All HTS Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: The primary HTS statistical reporting numbers are 7005.10.8000, 7005.21.1010, 7005.21.1030, 7005.21.2000, 7005.29.1810, 7005.29.1850, 7005.29.2500, 7007.29.0000, 7008.00.0000, 7009.91.5010, 7009.91.5095, and 7009.92.5010. Firms also reported imports under these other HTS statistical reporting numbers: 7003.19.0000, 7005.29.0850, 7005.29.2500, 7006.00.1000, 7006.00.4050, 7007.19.0000, 7008.00.0000, 7008.00.1000, 7009.91.1010, 7009.91.5091, 7009.92.1010, 7009.92.1090, 7009.92.5095, 7009.99.9010, 7013.99.2000, 7013.99.8090, 7013.99.9090, 7019.90.5150, 7610.10.0030, and 9403.99.9045. Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. 5.1 Part 5: Pricing data Factors affecting prices Raw material costs The major raw materials used in the production of FGP are silica (sand), soda ash (sodium carbonate), limestone, dolomite, salt cake (sodium sulfate), and cullet (recycled or waste glass).1 *** reported that raw materials as a share of cost of goods sold was *** percent in 2024.2 Raw materials, as a share of U.S. producers’ cost of goods sold (“COGS”), decreased from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024, and were *** percent in interim 2025. Transportation costs to the U.S. market Transportation costs for FGP shipped from subject countries to the United States averaged 12.2 percent for China and 25.3 percent for Malaysia, during 2024. These estimates were derived from official import data and represent the transportation and other charges on imports.3 U.S. inland transportation costs Four of six responding U.S. producers and 37 of 52 importers reported that they typically arrange transportation to their customers. Most U.S. producers reported that their U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from *** to *** percent while most importers reported costs of *** to *** percent. 1 Petitions, vol. 1, p. I-11. 2 *** producer questionnaire, section III-9a. 3 The estimated transportation costs were obtained by subtracting the customs value from the c.i.f. value of the imports for 2024 and then dividing by the customs value based on the HTS statistical reporting numbers 7005.10.8000, 7005.21.1010, 7005.21.1030, 7005.21.2000, 7005.29.1810, 7005.29.1850, 7005.29.2500, 7007.29.0000, 7008.00.0000, 7009.91.5010, 7009.91.5095, and 7009.92.5010, accessed December 3, 2025. 5.2 Pricing practices Pricing methods U.S. producers and importers reported setting prices using transaction-by-transaction negotiations, contracts, and price lists. U.S. importers reported other methods as using volume- based price setting for projects and pricing on a cost-plus (bid/assembly) basis with an allowable markup for overhead and profit (table 5.1). Table 5.1 FGP: Count of U.S. producers’ and importers’ reported price setting methods Method U.S. producers Importers Transaction-by-transaction 3 23 Contract 5 8 Set price list 2 29 Other 0 7 Responding firms 6 52 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: The sum of responses down may not add up to the total number of responding firms as each firm was instructed to check all applicable price setting methods employed. U.S. producers reported selling FGP primarily through long term contracts, spot sales, and annual contracts. U.S. importers reported selling primarily through spot sales but also had a moderate share via short-term contracts (table 5.2). Table 5.2 FGP: U.S. producers’ and importers’ shares of commercial U.S. shipments by type of sale, 2024 Share in percent Type of sale U.S. producers Subject importers Long-term contracts *** *** Annual contracts *** *** Short-term contracts *** *** Spot sales *** *** Total 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. The average duration reported by U.S. producers for a long-term contract was either two or five years. For both annual and long-term contracts, about half of responding U.S. producers reported the typical contract allowed for price renegotiation and fixed both price and quantity, while the remaining U.S. producers reported their contracts allowed for fixed prices only. All responding U.S. producers reported their contracts do not typically index to raw materials. 5.3 The average duration reported by importers for a short-term contract was 90 days. For short-term contracts, importers were evenly split on whether prices are typically renegotiated, and most importers reporting contract terms indicated that contracts were more likely to fix both price and quantity than to fix price only. For one-year contracts, a plurality of importers reported that prices are typically renegotiated, and most reported that one-year contracts fix price, while fewer reported that they fix both price and quantity. Only one importer reported that short-term contracts index to raw materials, while most importers reported that contracts are not indexed to raw materials. Nine purchasers reported that they purchase product daily, 19 purchase weekly, and four purchase monthly.4 Thirty of 33 responding purchasers reported that their purchasing frequency had not changed since 2022. Most (31 of 32) purchasers contact one to six suppliers before making a purchase. Sales terms and discounts Most U.S. producers typically quote prices on a delivered basis while U.S. importers were nearly evenly split in whether they quote their prices on a delivered or f.o.b. basis. Most responding U.S. producers (four of six) reported they offer no discount policy. Among the U.S. producers that do offer discounts, both reported offering quantity and annual total volume discounts. Most responding U.S. importers (28 of 50) reported offering no discount policies. Among the importers that do offer discount policies, 11 reported offering quantity discounts, 10 total volume discounts, and 13 reported offering other discounts such as customer-specific discounts and rebates, early payment discounts, marketing and advertising discounts, and multi-tiered discounts. Price leadership Eight purchasers reported that Vitro was a price leader while seven reported that Guardian was a price leader. In addition, eight purchasers identified Xinyi (China) and seven identified Jinjing (China) as a price leader and/or as a low-price leader. Two purchasers reported that there were no price leaders in the FGP market. Purchasers indicating the presence of price leaders reported that leaders led either by initiating price increase letters or market price adjustments that other domestic suppliers followed shortly thereafter, or by setting the low-price floor that pressures other suppliers to match lower pricing to retain sales. 4 Purchaser *** purchases are on a ***. 5.4 Price and purchase cost data The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers to provide quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of the following products shipped to unrelated U.S. customers during January 2022 to June 2025. Firms that imported these products from China and Malaysia for their own use were requested to provide import purchase cost data. Product 1.-- Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm (i.e., >0.01% iron content by weight); clear; uncoated. Product 2.-- Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper backing. Product 3.-- Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper-free backing. Product 4.-- Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating. Product 5.-- Tempered float glass with a nominal thickness of 10mm (or 3/8”) for use in bath/shower doors or enclosures; clear; uncoated. Price data Three U.S. producers and five importers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.5 6 7 5 Per-unit pricing data are calculated from total quantity and total value data provided by U.S. producers and importers. The precision and variation of these figures may be affected by rounding, limited quantities, and producer or importer estimates. 6 Pricing data reported by U.S. producer *** and U.S. importers *** were removed from the data set. *** reported that it provided value data based on total sales income, not f.o.b. point of shipment, and did not have sufficient time to remove transportation costs. *** reported it does not maintain quantities in square feet and prices could not be computed or validated. *** was not able to provide U.S. dollar value data, thereby providing no price/value basis for the pricing tables. *** could not provide LDP value/purchase cost data across multiple quarters along with other inconsistencies making the pricing series incomplete, unreliable, and inaccurate. 7 Domestic processors *** reported pricing data, which either reflect purchaser costs or value- added/out-of-scope products and/or does not meet the pricing product definitions. To preserve comparability in the quarterly pricing series presented in Part 5, staff did not include processors’ reported pricing data in the Part 5 pricing dataset. However, for transparency and to provide additional (continued...) 5.5 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for approximately 7.6 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of FGP, 10.1 percent of imports from China and 76.9 percent of imports from Malaysia in 2024.8 Price data for products 1 to 5 are presented in tables 5.3 to 5.7 and figures 5.1 to 5.5. Nonsubject country prices are presented in appendix H. Table 5.3 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by source and quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices in dollars per square foot; Margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China price China quantity China margin Malaysia price Malaysia quantity Malaysia margin 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 1: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm (i.e., >0.01% iron content by weight); clear; uncoated. context, staff presents a compilation of pricing data reported by both U.S. producers and processors in Appendix I. 8 Pricing coverage is based on imports reported in questionnaires which represent a small share of total imports. 5.6 Figure 5.1 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1, by source and quarter Price of product 1 * * * * * * * Volume of product 1 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 1: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm (i.e., >0.01% iron content by weight); clear; uncoated. 5.7 Table 5.4 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by source and quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices in dollars per square foot; Margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China price China quantity China margin Malaysia price Malaysia quantity Malaysia margin 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 2: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper backing. 5.8 Figure 5.2 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2, by source and quarter Price of product 2 * * * * * * * Volume of product 2 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 2: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper backing. 5.9 Table 5.5 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by source and quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices in dollars per square foot; Margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China price China quantity China margin Malaysia price Malaysia quantity Malaysia margin 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 3: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper-free backing. 5.10 Figure 5.3 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3, by source and quarter Price of product 3 * * * * * * * Volume of product 3 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 3: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper-free backing. 5.11 Table 5.6 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by source and quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices in dollars per square foot; Margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China price China quantity China margin Malaysia price Malaysia quantity Malaysia margin 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 4: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating. 5.12 Figure 5.4 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4, by source and quarter Price of product 4 * * * * * * * Volume of product 4 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 4: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating. 5.13 Table 5.7 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by source and quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices in dollars per square foot; Margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China price China quantity China margin Malaysia price Malaysia quantity Malaysia margin 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 5: Tempered float glass with a nominal thickness of 10mm (or 3/8”) for use in bath/shower doors or enclosures; clear; uncoated. 5.14 Figure 5.5 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5, by source and quarter Price of product 5 * * * * * * * Volume of product 5 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 5: Tempered float glass with a nominal thickness of 10mm (or 3/8”) for use in bath/shower doors or enclosures; clear; uncoated. 5.15 Import purchase cost data Six importers reported useable import purchase cost data for products 1, 3, 4, and 5.9 Purchase cost data reported by these firms accounted for 4.2 percent of imports from China and 65.8 percent of imports from Malaysia in 2024. Landed duty-paid purchase cost data for imports from China and Malaysia are presented in tables 5.8 to 5.11, along with U.S. producers’ sales prices.10 Importers reporting import purchase cost data were asked to provide additional information regarding the costs and benefits of importing FGP themselves. Six of 15 importers reported that they incurred additional costs beyond landed duty- paid costs by importing FGP themselves rather than purchasing from a U.S. producer or U.S. importer. Of these, five importers estimated the total additional cost incurred; estimates ranged from 5 to 20 percent compared to the landed duty-paid value. Firms were also asked to identify specific additional costs they incurred as a result of importing FGP. Reported costs include ocean/inland freight and drayage (including freight from FOB to the customer’s facility), shipping costs, demurrage or per diem charges, cargo insurance, and import-related logistics and inventory carrying costs, such as supply chain administration/management and warehousing costs to hold additional inventory. Importers also reported additional labor and overhead to handle imported products as well as yield loss related to differences in imported sheet sizes relative to domestic product. Firms were also asked to describe how these additional costs incurred by importing FGP themselves compare with additional costs incurred when purchasing from a U.S. producer or U.S. importer. Firms stated that importing generally entails higher transportation and logistics- related costs than purchasing domestically, including port-to-warehouse drayage and demurrage or per diem penalties that would not be incurred when buying from U.S. producers. Firms also reported that importing involves greater handling and administrative burdens, such as additional time managing shipments, higher unloading costs for containers compared with domestic flatbed deliveries, and costs to break down and dispose of packaging materials, as 9 Importers *** also provided purchase cost data. *** data were anomalous and were not confirmed as accurate. *** purchase cost data contained out of scope IGUs, and *** contained an internal inconsistency between trade and pricing data along with an inconsistency in the price level for their reported products. Purchase cost data was excluded from these firms. 10 LDP import value does not include any potential additional costs that a purchaser may incur by importing rather than purchasing from another importer or U.S. producer. Price-cost differences are based on LDP import values whereas margins of underselling/overselling are based on importer sales prices. 5.16 well as yield loss due to smaller imported sheet sizes. Importer *** reported that while transport costs are higher when sourcing from China, the overall delivered cost can still be lower than sourcing comparable product domestically, particularly where the product is not readily available from U.S. sources. Nine of 20 importers reported that they compare costs of importing to the cost of purchasing from a U.S. producer in determining whether to import FGP, six importers compare costs to purchasing from a U.S. importer, and five importers do not compare costs of purchasing from either U.S. producers or importers. Fifteen importers identified benefits from importing FGP themselves instead of purchasing from U.S. producers or importers, including cost or unit pricing advantages. Importers *** reported that imported products were substantially less expensive than domestic sources. Importer *** cited capacity and availability and the ability to meet supply needs. Additionally, importer *** reported U.S. producer Vitro declined to supply it due to capacity limitations.11 Importer *** reported limited domestic manufacturers could meet project schedule, capacity, and material needs. Importers *** reported that their volumes are too low for U.S. producers to open accounts, and *** added that U.S. producers declined new small-business customers. Importers also cited the ability to obtain products, specifications, and fabrication capabilities not readily available domestically (***). Firms were also asked whether the import costs (both excluding and including additional costs) of FGP they imported is lower than the price of purchasing FGP from a U.S. producer or importer. Five importers estimated that they saved between *** percent of the purchase price by importing FGP rather than purchasing from a U.S. importer and saving between *** percent compared to purchasing the product from a U.S. producer.12 11 ***, p. 4. 12 Seven firms reported that they based their estimates on previous company transactions, seven reported basing their estimates on market research, and five reported other bases for their estimates, including capability discussions, outreach to suppliers, and trade shows. 5.17 Table 5.8 FGP: Import landed duty-paid purchase costs and domestic prices, quantities of product 1, and price-cost differentials, by quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices and unit LDP values in dollars per square foot; Differentials in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China LDP unit cost China quantity China Price-cost differential Malaysia LDP unit cost Malaysia quantity Malaysia Price-cost differential 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 1: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm (i.e., >0.01% iron content by weight); clear; uncoated. Note: U.S. producer price data is the same as that presented in table 5.3. 5.18 Figure 5.6 FGP: U.S. producer prices and import purchase costs, and quantities, of product 1, by quarter U.S. price and import purchase cost of product 1 * * * * * * * Volume of product 1 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 1: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm (i.e., >0.01% iron content by weight); clear; uncoated. 5.19 Table 5.9 FGP: Import landed duty-paid purchase costs and domestic prices, quantities of product 3, and price-cost differentials, by quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices and unit LDP values in dollars per square foot; Differentials in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China LDP unit cost China quantity China Price-cost differential Malaysia LDP unit cost Malaysia quantity Malaysia Price-cost differential 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 3: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper-free backing. Note: U.S. producer price data is the same as that presented in table 5.5. 5.20 Figure 5.7 FGP: U.S. producer prices and import purchase costs, and quantities, of product 3, by quarter U.S. price and import purchase cost of product 3 * * * * * * * Volume of product 3 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 3: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper-free backing. 5.21 Table 5.10 FGP: Import landed duty-paid purchase costs and domestic prices, quantities of product 4, and price-cost differentials, by quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices and unit LDP values in dollars per square foot; Differentials in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China LDP unit cost China quantity China Price-cost differential Malaysia LDP unit cost Malaysia quantity Malaysia Price-cost differential 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 4: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating. Note: U.S. producer price data is the same as that presented in table 5.6. 5.22 Figure 5.8 FGP: U.S. producer prices and import purchase costs, and quantities, of product 4, by quarter U.S. price and import purchase cost of product 4 * * * * * * * Volume of product 4 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 4: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating. 5.23 Table 5.11 FGP: Import landed duty-paid purchase costs and domestic prices, quantities of product 5, and price-cost differentials, by quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices and unit LDP values in dollars per square foot; Differentials in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China LDP unit cost China quantity China Price-cost differential Malaysia LDP unit cost Malaysia quantity Malaysia Price-cost differential 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 5: Tempered float glass with a nominal thickness of 10mm (or 3/8”) for use in bath/shower doors or enclosures; clear; uncoated. Note: U.S. producer price data is the same as that presented in table 5.7. 5.24 Figure 5.9 FGP: U.S. producer prices and import purchase costs, and quantities, of product 5, by quarter U.S. price and import purchase cost of product 5 * * * * * * * Volume of product 5 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 5: Tempered float glass with a nominal thickness of 10mm (or 3/8”) for use in bath/shower doors or enclosures; clear; uncoated. 5.25 Price and purchase cost trends In general, prices fluctuated during January 2022 through June 2025. Table 5.12 summarizes the price trends, by country and by product. As shown in the table, the domestic price increases for (***) ranged from *** to *** percent during January 2022 through June 2025. For China, import price decreased for (***) ranged from *** to *** percent, while import price increased for (***) by *** percent. For China, import landed duty-paid costs decreased for ***, ranging from *** to *** percent. For Malaysia, import price decreased for *** by *** percent, while import landed duty-paid costs decreased for *** by *** percent. 5.26 Table 5.12 FGP: Summary of price and cost data, by product and source, January 2022 through June 2025 Prices and unit LDP values in dollars per square foot; Quantity in square feet; Change in percent Product Source Number of quarters Volume of shipments Low price/ cost High price/ cost First quarter price/ cost Last quarter price/ cost Percent change in price/cost over period Product 1 United States 14 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 China price 14 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 China cost 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 Malaysia price 12 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 Malaysia cost 11 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 United States — *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 China price 14 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 China cost — *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 Malaysia price — *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 Malaysia cost — *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 United States — *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 China price 14 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 China cost 14 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 Malaysia price 14 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 Malaysia cost 14 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 United States 14 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 China price 10 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 China cost 14 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 Malaysia price — *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 Malaysia cost — *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 5 United States 14 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 5 China price 14 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 5 China cost 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 5 Malaysia price — *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 5 Malaysia cost — *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Percentage change from the first quarter in which data were available in 2022 to the last quarter in which data were available in 2025. Price and purchase cost comparisons Price comparisons As shown in tables 5.14 to 5.15, prices for products imported from China were below those for U.S.-produced product in 28 of 38 instances (*** sq ft); margins of underselling ranged from *** to *** percent. In the remaining 10 instances (*** sq 5.27 ft), prices for product from China were between *** and *** percent above prices for the domestic product. Prices for product imported from Malaysia were below those for U.S.- produced product in 2 of 12 instances (*** sq ft); margins of underselling ranged from *** to *** percent. In the remaining 10 instances (*** sq ft), prices for product from Malaysia were between *** and *** percent above prices for the domestic product. Table 5.13 FGP: Instances of underselling and overselling and the range and average of margins, by product Quantity in square feet; Margins in percent Product Type Number of quarters Quantity Average margin Min margin Max margin Product 1 Underselling 6 *** *** *** *** Product 2 Underselling — *** *** *** *** Product 3 Underselling — *** *** *** *** Product 4 Underselling 10 *** *** *** *** Product 5 Underselling 14 *** *** *** *** All products Underselling 30 *** *** *** *** Product 1 Overselling 20 *** *** *** *** Product 2 Overselling — *** *** *** *** Product 3 Overselling — *** *** *** *** Product 4 Overselling — *** *** *** *** Product 5 Overselling — *** *** *** *** All products Overselling 20 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. Table 5.14 FGP: Instances of underselling and overselling and the range and average of margins, by source Quantity in square feet; Margins in percent Source Type Number of quarters Quantity Average margin Min margin Max margin China Underselling 28 *** *** *** *** Malaysia Underselling 2 *** *** *** *** All subject sources Underselling 30 *** *** *** *** China Overselling 10 *** *** *** *** Malaysia Overselling 10 *** *** *** *** All subject sources Overselling 20 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. 5.28 Table 5.15 FGP: Instances of underselling and overselling and the range and average of margins, by period Quantity in square feet; Margins in percent Period Type Number of quarters Quantity Average margin Min margin Max margin 2022 Underselling 5 *** *** *** *** 2023 Underselling 13 *** *** *** *** 2024 Underselling 8 *** *** *** *** January through June 2025 Underselling 4 *** *** *** *** All periods Underselling 30 *** *** *** *** 2022 Overselling 5 *** *** *** *** 2023 Overselling 3 *** *** *** *** 2024 Overselling 8 *** *** *** *** January through June 2025 Overselling 4 *** *** *** *** All periods Overselling 20 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. Price-cost comparisons As shown in tables 5.17 to 5.18, landed duty-paid costs for FGP imported from China were below the sales price for U.S.-produced product in 25 of 33 instances (*** sq ft); price- cost differentials ranged from *** to *** percent. In the remaining 8 instances (*** sq ft), landed duty-paid costs for FGP from China were between *** and *** percent above sales prices for the domestic product. Landed duty-paid costs for FGP imported from Malaysia were below the sales price for U.S.-produced product in 9 of 11 instances (*** sq ft); price-cost differentials ranged from *** to *** percent. In the remaining 2 instances (*** sq ft), landed duty-paid costs for FGP from Malaysia were between *** and *** percent above sales prices for the domestic product. 5.29 Table 5.16 FGP: Instances of lower and higher import purchase costs and the range and average of price-cost differentials, by product Quantity in square feet; Price-cost differentials in percent Product Type Number of quarters Quantity Average price-cost differential Min price- cost differential Max price- cost differential Product 1 Lower than U.S. 14 *** *** *** *** Product 2 Lower than U.S. — *** *** *** *** Product 3 Lower than U.S. — *** *** *** *** Product 4 Lower than U.S. 14 *** *** *** *** Product 5 Lower than U.S. 6 *** *** *** *** All products Lower than U.S. 34 *** *** *** *** Product 1 Higher than U.S. 9 *** *** *** *** Product 2 Higher than U.S. — *** *** *** *** Product 3 Higher than U.S. — *** *** *** *** Product 4 Higher than U.S. — *** *** *** *** Product 5 Higher than U.S. 1 *** *** *** *** All products Higher than U.S. 10 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. Table 5.17 FGP: Instances of lower and higher import purchase costs and the range and average of price-cost differentials, by source Quantity in square feet; Price-cost differentials in percent Source Type Number of quarters Quantity Average price-cost differential Min price- cost differential Max price- cost differential China Lower than U.S. 25 *** *** *** *** Malaysia Lower than U.S. 9 *** *** *** *** All subject sources Lower than U.S. 34 *** *** *** *** China Higher than U.S. 8 *** *** *** *** Malaysia Higher than U.S. 2 *** *** *** *** All subject sources Higher than U.S. 10 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. 5.30 Table 5.18 FGP: Instances of lower and higher import purchase costs and the range and average of price-cost differentials, by period Quantity in square feet; Price-cost differentials in percent Period Type Number of quarters Quantity Average price-cost differential Min price- cost differen- tial Max price- cost differen- tial 2022 Lower than U.S. 7 *** *** *** *** 2023 Lower than U.S. 10 *** *** *** *** 2024 Lower than U.S. 11 *** *** *** *** January through June 2025 Lower than U.S. 6 *** *** *** *** All periods Lower than U.S. 34 *** *** *** *** 2022 Higher than U.S. 6 *** *** *** *** 2023 Higher than U.S. 2 *** *** *** *** 2024 Higher than U.S. 1 *** *** *** *** January through June 2025 Higher than U.S. 1 *** *** *** *** All periods Higher than U.S. 10 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. Lost sales and lost revenue In the preliminary phase of the investigations, the Commission requested that U.S. producers of FGP report purchasers with which they experienced instances of lost sales or revenue due to competition from imports of FGP from China during January 2021 to March 2024. In the final phase of the investigations, of the 6 responding U.S. producers, 3 reported that they had to reduce prices, 2 reported that they had to roll back announced price increases, and 3 firms reported that they had lost sales. Staff contacted 106 purchasers and received responses from 33 purchasers. Responding purchasers reported purchasing 6.7 billion pounds of FGP during January 2022 to June 2025 (table 5.19). Of the 33 responding purchasers, 16 reported that, since 2022, they had purchased imported FGP from China and Malaysia instead of U.S.-produced product. Fourteen of these purchasers reported that subject import prices were lower than U.S.-produced product, and 12 of these purchasers reported that price was a primary reason for the decision to purchase imported product rather than U.S.-produced product. Ten purchasers estimated the quantity of FGP from China and Malaysia purchased instead of domestic product; quantities ranged from 5.31 *** pounds to *** pounds (tables 5.20 and 5.21). Purchasers identified limited domestic availability and capacity, such as meeting supply needs and volume minimums, as well as quality considerations as non-price reasons for purchasing imported rather than U.S.-produced product. Of the 33 responding purchasers, 13 reported that U.S. producers had reduced prices in order to compete with lower-priced imports from China and Malaysia (table 5.22).13 The reported estimated price reduction ranged from *** percent with average price reduction due to imports from China by *** percent and Malaysia by *** percent (table 5.23). In describing the price reductions, purchasers indicated that U.S. producers reduced prices primarily in response to low priced imports from China and Malaysia and related competitive pressure, with several purchasers reporting that domestic suppliers were forced to cut intended or announced increases and reposition prices to remain competitive, particularly in 2024 and into the first half of 2025. 13 Seven purchasers reported that they did not know. 5.32 Table 5.19 FGP: Purchasers’ reported purchases and imports, by firm and source Quantity in 1,000 pounds; Change in shares in percentage points Purchaser Domestic quantity Subject quantity All other quantity Change in domestic share Change in subject country share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: All other includes all other sources and unknown sources. Change is the percentage point change in the share of the firm’s total purchases of domestic and/or subject country imports between first and last years. 5.33 Table 5.20 FGP: Purchasers’ responses to purchasing subject imports instead of domestic product, by firm Quantity in 1,000 pounds Purchaser Purchased subject imports instead of domestic Imports priced lower Choice based on price Quantity Explanation *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. 5.34 Table 5.20 (Continued) FGP: Purchasers’ responses to purchasing subject imports instead of domestic product, by firm Quantity in 1,000 pounds Purchaser Purchased subject imports instead of domestic Imports priced lower Choice based on price Quantity Explanation *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms Yes: 16; No: 17 Yes: 14; No: 2 Yes: 12; No: 4 *** NA Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 5.21 FGP: Purchasers’ responses to purchasing subject imports instead of domestic product, by source Count in number of firms reporting; Quantity in 1,000 pounds Source Count of purchasers reporting subject instead of domestic Count of purchasers reported that imports were priced lower Count of purchasers reporting that price was a primary reason for shift Quantity China 15 13 11 *** Malaysia 3 3 3 *** Subject sources 16 14 12 *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 5.35 Table 5.22 FGP: Purchasers’ responses to U.S. producer price reductions, by firm Count in number of firms reporting; Price reductions in percent Purchaser Reported producers lowered prices Estimated percent of U.S. price reduction Explanation *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. 5.36 Table 5.22 (Continued) FGP: Purchasers’ responses to U.S. producer price reductions, by firm Count in number of firms reporting; Price reductions in percent Purchaser Reported producers lowered prices Estimated percent of U.S. price reduction Explanation *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms Yes: 13; No: 13 *** NA Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 5.37 Table 5.23 FGP: Purchasers’ responses to U.S. producer price reductions, by source Source Count of purchasers reporting U.S. producers reduced prices Average percent of estimated U.S. price reduction Range of percent of estimated U.S. price reductions China 13 *** *** Malaysia 8 *** *** Subject sources 13 *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. In responding to the lost sales and lost revenue survey, some purchasers provided additional information on purchases and market dynamics. Purchaser *** reported purchasing pre-fabricated glass shower doors from China primarily for quality and reliability, noting disappointment with quality even when buying bulk quantities at reduced prices, and commented that Vitro is known to be based in Mexico. *** stated it has become uneconomic to buy mirror stock sheet from U.S. producers given lower-priced offerings from China and Malaysia and that relying on U.S.-origin inputs would threaten its business viability. Several U.S. processors submitted producer’s questionnaires (***) stating that, as independent domestic fabricators of mirrors and tempered shower door glass, they compete directly with subject imports and reported experiencing lost sales and/or lost revenues due to lower-priced imports from China and Malaysia, with some noting that low-priced imports constrained their pricing and required price reductions. Additionally, producer *** reports that it experienced extended lead times during 2022 as demand rebounded after the COVID-19 pandemic but did not decline orders and resolved those issues by the end of 2022.14 It added that it typically directs small less-than-truckload orders to third-party distributors. 14 *** producer questionnaire, question IV-26; American Bath Group Nonparty statement, p. 4 and pp. 26-27. 6.1 Part 6: Financial experience of U.S. producers Background1 Five U.S. producers and 23 processors provided usable financial results on their FGP operations.2 3 4 All U.S. producers and processors reported financial data on a calendar-year basis.5 Four of the U.S. producers provided their financial data on the basis of GAAP.6 Staff verified the results of Vitro with its corporate records, and all adjustments were incorporated into this report.7 Figure 6.1 presents the five responding U.S. producers’ shares of their aggregated total market net sales quantity in 2024. The figure shows that *** U.S. producers, ***, accounted for a large majority of the total net sales quantity that year. 1 The following abbreviations are used in the tables and/or text of this section: generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), fiscal year (“FY”), net sales (“NS”), cost of goods sold (“COGS”), selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A expenses”), average unit values (“AUVs”), research and development expenses (“R&D expenses”), and return on assets (“ROA”). 2 ***, which represented *** percent of U.S. producers’ aggregate FGP production in 2024, and ***, which represented *** percent of processors’ aggregate FGP production in 2024, did not provide financial results and are not included in this section of the report. 3 While the U.S. producers represent firms that produce primary float glass, *** of the responding U.S. producers reported that they also perform some further processing or fabrication. The types of fabrication that both U.S. producers and processors reported performing include: ***. *** were the most common processes to be reported by U.S. producers and processors. U.S. questionnaire responses, sections 3.9i and 6.10c. 4 While 23 processors provided usable financial results, only 22 processors are included within in any given period examined. Processor *** began operations in 2025 and, therefore, only provided financial data for interim 2025. Processor *** ceased its FGP processing operations in 2024 and provided financial data for all periods except interim 2025. 5 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, sections 3.2A.2 and 6.13. 6 ***. U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section 3.2B.4. Processors were not asked to specify the accounting basis used for their financial results. 7 Staff verification report, Vitro, February 5, 2026. The company’s U.S. producer questionnaire response included revisions to the following items in some or all periods: ***. 6.2 Figure 6.1 FGP: U.S. producers’ share of net sales quantity in 2024, by firm * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 6.3 Operations on FGP Table 6.1 presents aggregate data for U.S. producers’ total market FGP operations, while table 6.3 presents aggregate data for processors’ total market FGP operations. Tables 6.2 and 6.4 present the corresponding changes in AUVs for U.S. producers and U.S. processors, respectively. Table 6.5 presents U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ combined FGP financial results for the total market, while table 6.6 presents the corresponding changes in AUVs.8 9 Table 6.7 presents selected company-specific financial data for the total market.10 8 Combining the U.S. producers’ and processors’ financial data in table 6.5 results in some double counting of net sales quantity, net sales value, and raw material costs in cases where processors purchase float glass from U.S. producers. These double-counted items cancel out in the calculation of combined profitability. 9 Merchant market results are presented in appendix G. ***. 10 The results in table 6.7 are presented by firm for U.S. producers and in aggregate for processors. 6.4 Table 6.1 FGP: U.S. producers’ FGP results for total market operations, by item and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; ratios in percent; interim is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Commercial sales Quantity 5,210,588 4,467,295 4,473,200 2,217,458 2,306,149 Internal consumption Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Quantity 8,123,389 7,199,424 7,351,565 3,632,522 3,749,375 Commercial sales Value 2,192,567 1,909,678 1,927,177 958,391 959,401 Internal consumption Value *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Value *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Value 2,808,097 2,497,500 2,524,594 1,253,017 1,268,487 COGS: Raw materials Value 586,426 509,601 550,242 260,831 302,833 COGS: Direct labor Value 346,106 354,566 348,174 178,682 176,396 COGS: Other factory Value 740,182 660,831 767,269 381,378 397,096 COGS: Energy Value 252,374 190,089 167,330 80,139 96,374 COGS: Total Value 1,925,088 1,715,087 1,833,015 901,030 972,699 Gross profit or (loss) Value 883,009 782,413 691,579 351,987 295,788 SG&A expenses Value 516,876 435,023 418,407 206,561 214,758 Operating income or (loss) Value 366,133 347,390 273,172 145,426 81,030 Interest expense Value *** *** *** *** *** All other expenses Value *** *** *** *** *** All other income Value *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Value 186,143 250,874 158,974 88,340 27,473 Depreciation/amortization Value 207,748 195,273 184,703 94,308 90,652 Cash flow Value 393,891 446,147 343,677 182,648 118,125 COGS: Raw materials Ratio to NS 20.9 20.4 21.8 20.8 23.9 COGS: Direct labor Ratio to NS 12.3 14.2 13.8 14.3 13.9 COGS: Other factory Ratio to NS 26.4 26.5 30.4 30.4 31.3 COGS: Energy Ratio to NS 9.0 7.6 6.6 6.4 7.6 COGS: Total Ratio to NS 68.6 68.7 72.6 71.9 76.7 Gross profit Ratio to NS 31.4 31.3 27.4 28.1 23.3 SG&A expense Ratio to NS 18.4 17.4 16.6 16.5 16.9 Operating income or (loss) Ratio to NS 13.0 13.9 10.8 11.6 6.4 Net income or (loss) Ratio to NS 6.6 10.0 6.3 7.1 2.2 Table continued. 6.5 Table 6.1 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ FGP results for total market operations, by item and period Shares in percent; unit values in dollars per pound; count in number of firms reporting; interim is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 COGS: Raw materials Share 30.5 29.7 30.0 28.9 31.1 COGS: Direct labor Share 18.0 20.7 19.0 19.8 18.1 COGS: Other factory Share 38.4 38.5 41.9 42.3 40.8 COGS: Energy Share 13.1 11.1 9.1 8.9 9.9 COGS: Total Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Commercial sales Unit value 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.42 Internal consumption Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Unit value 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.34 COGS: Raw materials Unit value 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 COGS: Direct labor Unit value 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 COGS: Other factory Unit value 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 COGS: Energy Unit value 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 COGS: Total Unit value 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.26 Gross profit or (loss) Unit value 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.08 SG&A expenses Unit value 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 Operating income or (loss) Unit value 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 Net income or (loss) Unit value 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 Operating losses Count 1 1 1 1 2 Net losses Count 2 1 1 1 2 Data Count 5 5 5 5 5 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares represent the share of COGS. Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” represent values greater than zero, but less than “0.05” percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—”. 6.6 Table 6.2 FGP: Changes in AUVs between comparison periods for U.S. producers’ total market FGP operations Changes in percent; interim is January through June Item 2022–24 2022–23 2023–24 Interim 2024–25 Commercial sales ▲2.4 ▲1.6 ▲0.8 ▼(3.7) Internal consumption ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Transfers to related firms ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Total net sales ▼(0.7) ▲0.4 ▼(1.0) ▼(1.9) COGS: Raw materials ▲3.7 ▼(1.9) ▲5.7 ▲12.5 COGS: Direct labor ▲11.2 ▲15.6 ▼(3.8) ▼(4.4) COGS: Other factory ▲14.5 ▲0.7 ▲13.7 ▲0.9 COGS: Energy ▼(26.7) ▼(15.0) ▼(13.8) ▲16.5 COGS: Total ▲5.2 ▲0.5 ▲4.7 ▲4.6 Table continued. Table 6.2 (Continued) FGP: Changes in AUVs between comparison periods for U.S. producers’ total market FGP operations Changes in dollars per pound; interim is January through June Item 2022–24 2022–23 2023–24 Interim 2024–25 Commercial sales ▲0.010 ▲0.007 ▲0.003 ▼(0.016) Internal consumption ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Transfers to related firms ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Total net sales ▼(0.002) ▲0.001 ▼(0.003) ▼(0.007) COGS: Raw materials ▲0.003 ▼(0.001) ▲0.004 ▲0.009 COGS: Direct labor ▲0.005 ▲0.007 ▼(0.002) ▼(0.002) COGS: Other factory ▲0.013 ▲0.001 ▲0.013 ▲0.001 COGS: Energy ▼(0.008) ▼(0.005) ▼(0.004) ▲0.004 COGS: Total ▲0.012 ▲0.001 ▲0.011 ▲0.011 Gross profit or (loss) ▼(0.015) ▼(0.000) ▼(0.015) ▼(0.018) SG&A expense ▼(0.007) ▼(0.003) ▼(0.004) ▲0.000 Operating income or (loss) ▼(0.008) ▲0.003 ▼(0.011) ▼(0.018) Net income or (loss) ▼(0.001) ▲0.012 ▼(0.013) ▼(0.017) Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Percentages and unit values shown as “0.0” or “0.000” represent values greater than zero, but less than “0.05” or “0.0005,” respectively. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—”. Period changes preceded by a “▲” represent an increase, while period changes preceded by a “▼” represent a decrease. 6.7 Table 6.3 FGP: U.S. processors’ FGP results for total market operations, by item and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; ratios in percent; interim is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Total net sales Quantity 938,758 929,927 833,509 418,247 393,901 Total net sales Value 2,630,639 2,772,543 2,503,426 1,261,665 1,166,230 COGS: Domestic float glass Value 717,455 735,605 673,753 320,013 320,645 COGS: Subject float glass Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Nonsubject float glass Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Total, float glass Value 751,303 767,593 702,934 335,821 337,859 COGS: Other raw materials Value 160,255 171,335 157,048 78,614 74,017 COGS: Total raw materials Value 911,558 938,928 859,982 414,435 411,876 COGS: Direct labor Value 362,924 383,131 350,708 176,236 171,518 COGS: Other factory Value 588,136 614,316 575,430 287,586 290,829 COGS: Energy Value 66,017 67,913 64,435 31,502 32,084 COGS: Total Value 1,928,635 2,004,288 1,850,555 909,759 906,307 Gross profit or (loss) Value 702,004 768,255 652,871 351,906 259,923 SG&A expenses Value 355,162 378,121 373,372 187,006 190,444 Operating income or (loss) Value 346,842 390,134 279,499 164,900 69,479 Interest expense Value 13,965 17,031 15,655 7,908 7,166 All other expenses Value 8,074 12,307 8,769 5,567 2,651 All other income Value 11,223 7,469 4,988 2,391 3,547 Net income or (loss) Value 336,026 368,265 260,063 153,816 63,209 Depreciation/amortization Value 66,264 68,622 78,330 38,068 44,441 Cash flow Value 402,290 436,887 338,393 191,884 107,650 COGS: Total float glass Ratio to NS 28.6 27.7 28.1 26.6 29.0 COGS: Other raw materials Ratio to NS 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.2 6.3 COGS: Total raw materials Ratio to NS 34.7 33.9 34.4 32.8 35.3 COGS: Direct labor Ratio to NS 13.8 13.8 14.0 14.0 14.7 COGS: Other factory Ratio to NS 22.4 22.2 23.0 22.8 24.9 COGS: Energy Ratio to NS 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.8 COGS: Total Ratio to NS 73.3 72.3 73.9 72.1 77.7 Gross profit Ratio to NS 26.7 27.7 26.1 27.9 22.3 SG&A expense Ratio to NS 13.5 13.6 14.9 14.8 16.3 Operating income or (loss) Ratio to NS 13.2 14.1 11.2 13.1 6.0 Net income or (loss) Ratio to NS 12.8 13.3 10.4 12.2 5.4 Table continued. 6.8 Table 6.3 (Continued) FGP: U.S. processors’ FGP results for total market operations, by item and period Shares in percent; unit values in dollars per pound; count in number of firms reporting; interim is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 COGS: Total float glass Share 39.0 38.3 38.0 36.9 37.3 COGS: Other raw materials Share 8.3 8.5 8.5 8.6 8.2 COGS: Total raw materials Share 47.3 46.8 46.5 45.6 45.4 COGS: Direct labor Share 18.8 19.1 19.0 19.4 18.9 COGS: Other factory Share 30.5 30.7 31.1 31.6 32.1 COGS: Energy Share 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 COGS: Total Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total net sales Unit value 2.80 2.98 3.00 3.02 2.96 COGS: Total float glass Unit value 0.80 0.83 0.84 0.80 0.86 COGS: Other raw materials Unit value 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 COGS: Total raw materials Unit value 0.97 1.01 1.03 0.99 1.05 COGS: Direct labor Unit value 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.42 0.44 COGS: Other factory Unit value 0.63 0.66 0.69 0.69 0.74 COGS: Energy Unit value 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 COGS: Total Unit value 2.05 2.16 2.22 2.18 2.30 Gross profit or (loss) Unit value 0.75 0.83 0.78 0.84 0.66 SG&A expenses Unit value 0.38 0.41 0.45 0.45 0.48 Operating income or (loss) Unit value 0.37 0.42 0.34 0.39 0.18 Net income or (loss) Unit value 0.36 0.40 0.31 0.37 0.16 Operating losses Count 3 2 6 5 5 Net losses Count 3 2 6 5 6 Data Count 22 22 22 22 22 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Ratios and unit values are not shown for the specific float glass sources since the net sales associated with each source is not available. Calculating these items using a total net sales quantity or value would not be meaningful. Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” represent values greater than zero, but less than “0.05” percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—”. 6.9 Table 6.4 FGP: Changes in AUVs between comparison periods for U.S. processors’ total market FGP operations Changes in percent; interim is January through June Item 2022–24 2022–23 2023–24 Interim 2024–25 Total net sales ▲7.2 ▲6.4 ▲0.7 ▼(1.9) COGS: Total float glass ▲5.4 ▲3.1 ▲2.2 ▲6.8 COGS: Other raw materials ▲10.4 ▲7.9 ▲2.3 ▼(0.0) COGS: Total raw materials ▲6.3 ▲4.0 ▲2.2 ▲5.5 COGS: Direct labor ▲8.8 ▲6.6 ▲2.1 ▲3.3 COGS: Other factory ▲10.2 ▲5.4 ▲4.5 ▲7.4 COGS: Energy ▲9.9 ▲3.8 ▲5.9 ▲8.1 COGS: Total ▲8.1 ▲4.9 ▲3.0 ▲5.8 Table continued. Table 6.4 (Continued) FGP: Changes in AUVs between comparison periods for U.S. processors’ total market FGP operations Changes in dollars per pound; interim is January through June Item 2022–24 2022–23 2023–24 Interim 2024–25 Total net sales ▲0.201 ▲0.179 ▲0.022 ▼(0.056) COGS: Total float glass ▲0.043 ▲0.025 ▲0.018 ▲0.055 COGS: Other raw materials ▲0.018 ▲0.014 ▲0.004 ▼(0.000) COGS: Total raw materials ▲0.061 ▲0.039 ▲0.022 ▲0.055 COGS: Direct labor ▲0.034 ▲0.025 ▲0.009 ▲0.014 COGS: Other factory ▲0.064 ▲0.034 ▲0.030 ▲0.051 COGS: Energy ▲0.007 ▲0.003 ▲0.004 ▲0.006 COGS: Total ▲0.166 ▲0.101 ▲0.065 ▲0.126 Gross profit or (loss) ▲0.035 ▲0.078 ▼(0.043) ▼(0.182) SG&A expense ▲0.070 ▲0.028 ▲0.041 ▲0.036 Operating income or (loss) ▼(0.034) ▲0.050 ▼(0.084) ▼(0.218) Net income or (loss) ▼(0.046) ▲0.038 ▼(0.084) ▼(0.207) Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Percentages and unit values shown as “0.0” or “0.00” represent values greater than zero, but less than “0.05” or “0.005,” respectively. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—”. Period changes preceded by a “▲” represent an increase, while period changes preceded by a “▼” represent a decrease. 6.10 Table 6.5 FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ combined results for total market operations, by item and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; ratios in percent; interim is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Commercial sales Quantity 6,144,272 5,392,883 5,303,304 2,633,963 2,698,235 Internal consumption Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Quantity 9,062,147 8,129,351 8,185,074 4,050,769 4,143,276 Commercial sales Value 4,817,959 4,677,368 4,425,613 2,217,727 2,123,212 Internal consumption Value *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Value *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Value 5,438,736 5,270,043 5,028,020 2,514,682 2,434,717 COGS: Raw materials Value 1,497,984 1,448,529 1,410,224 675,266 714,709 COGS: Direct labor Value 709,030 737,697 698,882 354,918 347,914 COGS: Other factory Value 1,328,318 1,275,147 1,342,699 668,964 687,925 COGS: Energy Value 318,391 258,002 231,765 111,641 128,458 COGS: Total Value 3,853,723 3,719,375 3,683,570 1,810,789 1,879,006 Gross profit or (loss) Value 1,585,013 1,550,668 1,344,450 703,893 555,711 SG&A expenses Value 872,038 813,144 791,779 393,567 405,202 Operating income or (loss) Value 712,975 737,524 552,671 310,326 150,509 Interest expense Value *** *** *** *** *** All other expenses Value *** *** *** *** *** All other income Value *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Value 522,169 619,139 419,037 242,156 90,682 Depreciation/amortization Value 274,012 263,895 263,033 132,376 135,093 Cash flow Value 796,181 883,034 682,070 374,532 225,775 COGS: Raw materials Ratio to NS 27.5 27.5 28.0 26.9 29.4 COGS: Direct labor Ratio to NS 13.0 14.0 13.9 14.1 14.3 COGS: Other factory Ratio to NS 24.4 24.2 26.7 26.6 28.3 COGS: Energy Ratio to NS 5.9 4.9 4.6 4.4 5.3 COGS: Total Ratio to NS 70.9 70.6 73.3 72.0 77.2 Gross profit Ratio to NS 29.1 29.4 26.7 28.0 22.8 SG&A expense Ratio to NS 16.0 15.4 15.7 15.7 16.6 Operating income or (loss) Ratio to NS 13.1 14.0 11.0 12.3 6.2 Net income or (loss) Ratio to NS 9.6 11.7 8.3 9.6 3.7 Table continued. 6.11 Table 6.5 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ combined results for total market operations, by item and period Shares in percent; unit values in dollars per pound; count in number of firms reporting; interim is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 COGS: Raw materials Share 38.9 38.9 38.3 37.3 38.0 COGS: Direct labor Share 18.4 19.8 19.0 19.6 18.5 COGS: Other factory Share 34.5 34.3 36.5 36.9 36.6 COGS: Energy Share 8.3 6.9 6.3 6.2 6.8 COGS: Total Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Commercial sales Unit value 0.78 0.87 0.83 0.84 0.79 Internal consumption Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Unit value 0.60 0.65 0.61 0.62 0.59 COGS: Raw materials Unit value 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 COGS: Direct labor Unit value 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 COGS: Other factory Unit value 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 COGS: Energy Unit value 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 COGS: Total Unit value 0.43 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 Gross profit or (loss) Unit value 0.17 0.19 0.16 0.17 0.13 SG&A expenses Unit value 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Operating income or (loss) Unit value 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.04 Net income or (loss) Unit value 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.02 Operating losses Count 4 3 7 6 7 Net losses Count 5 3 7 6 8 Data Count 27 27 27 27 27 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares represent the share of COGS. Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” represent values greater than zero, but less than “0.05” percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—”. 6.12 Table 6.6 FGP: Changes in AUVs between comparison periods for U.S. producers’ and processors’ combined total market operations Changes in percent; interim is January through June Item 2022–24 2022–23 2023–24 Interim 2024–25 Commercial sales ▲6.4 ▲10.6 ▼(3.8) ▼(6.5) Internal consumption ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Transfers to related firms ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Total net sales ▲2.4 ▲8.0 ▼(5.2) ▼(5.3) COGS: Raw materials ▲4.2 ▲7.8 ▼(3.3) ▲3.5 COGS: Direct labor ▲9.1 ▲16.0 ▼(5.9) ▼(4.2) COGS: Other factory ▲11.9 ▲7.0 ▲4.6 ▲0.5 COGS: Energy ▼(19.4) ▼(9.7) ▼(10.8) ▲12.5 COGS: Total ▲5.8 ▲7.6 ▼(1.6) ▲1.5 Table continued. Table 6.6 (Continued) FGP: Changes in AUVs between comparison periods for U.S. producers’ and processors’ combined total market operations Changes in dollars per pound; interim is January through June Item 2022–24 2022–23 2023–24 Interim 2024–25 Commercial sales ▲0.050 ▲0.083 ▼(0.033) ▼(0.055) Internal consumption ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Transfers to related firms ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Total net sales ▲0.014 ▲0.048 ▼(0.034) ▼(0.033) COGS: Raw materials ▲0.007 ▲0.013 ▼(0.006) ▲0.006 COGS: Direct labor ▲0.007 ▲0.013 ▼(0.005) ▼(0.004) COGS: Other factory ▲0.017 ▲0.010 ▲0.007 ▲0.001 COGS: Energy ▼(0.007) ▼(0.003) ▼(0.003) ▲0.003 COGS: Total ▲0.025 ▲0.032 ▼(0.007) ▲0.006 Gross profit or (loss) ▼(0.011) ▲0.016 ▼(0.026) ▼(0.040) SG&A expense ▲0.001 ▲0.004 ▼(0.003) ▲0.001 Operating income or (loss) ▼(0.011) ▲0.012 ▼(0.023) ▼(0.040) Net income or (loss) ▼(0.006) ▲0.019 ▼(0.025) ▼(0.038) Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Percentages and unit values shown as “0.0” or “0.00” represent values greater than zero, but less than “0.05” or “0.005,” respectively. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—”. Period changes preceded by a “▲” represent an increase, while period changes preceded by a “▼” represent a decrease. 6.13 Table 6.7 FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Net sales quantity Quantity in 1,000 pounds; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 8,123,389 7,199,424 7,351,565 3,632,522 3,749,375 All U.S. processors 938,758 929,927 833,509 418,247 393,901 All U.S. producers and processors 9,062,147 8,129,351 8,185,074 4,050,769 4,143,276 Table continued. Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Net sales value Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 2,808,097 2,497,500 2,524,594 1,253,017 1,268,487 All U.S. processors 2,630,639 2,772,543 2,503,426 1,261,665 1,166,230 All U.S. producers and processors 5,438,736 5,270,043 5,028,020 2,514,682 2,434,717 Table continued. Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period COGS Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 1,925,088 1,715,087 1,833,015 901,030 972,699 All U.S. processors 1,928,635 2,004,288 1,850,555 909,759 906,307 All U.S. producers and processors 3,853,723 3,719,375 3,683,570 1,810,789 1,879,006 Table continued. 6.14 Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Gross profit or (loss) Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 883,009 782,413 691,579 351,987 295,788 All U.S. processors 702,004 768,255 652,871 351,906 259,923 All U.S. producers and processors 1,585,013 1,550,668 1,344,450 703,893 555,711 Table continued. Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period SG&A expenses Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 516,876 435,023 418,407 206,561 214,758 All U.S. processors 355,162 378,121 373,372 187,006 190,444 All U.S. producers and processors 872,038 813,144 791,779 393,567 405,202 Table continued. Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Operating income or (loss) Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 366,133 347,390 273,172 145,426 81,030 All U.S. processors 346,842 390,134 279,499 164,900 69,479 All U.S. producers and processors 712,975 737,524 552,671 310,326 150,509 Table continued. 6.15 Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Net income or (loss) Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 186,143 250,874 158,974 88,340 27,473 All U.S. processors 336,026 368,265 260,063 153,816 63,209 All U.S. producers and processors 522,169 619,139 419,037 242,156 90,682 Table continued. Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period COGS to net sales ratio Ratios in percent; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 68.6 68.7 72.6 71.9 76.7 All U.S. processors 73.3 72.3 73.9 72.1 77.7 All U.S. producers and processors 70.9 70.6 73.3 72.0 77.2 Table continued. Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Gross profit or (loss) to net sales ratio Ratios in percent; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 31.4 31.3 27.4 28.1 23.3 All U.S. processors 26.7 27.7 26.1 27.9 22.3 All U.S. producers and processors 29.1 29.4 26.7 28.0 22.8 Table continued. 6.16 Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period SG&A expenses to net sales ratio Ratios in percent; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 18.4 17.4 16.6 16.5 16.9 All U.S. processors 13.5 13.6 14.9 14.8 16.3 All U.S. producers and processors 16.0 15.4 15.7 15.7 16.6 Table continued. Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Operating income or (loss) to net sales ratio Ratios in percent; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 13.0 13.9 10.8 11.6 6.4 All U.S. processors 13.2 14.1 11.2 13.1 6.0 All U.S. producers and processors 13.1 14.0 11.0 12.3 6.2 Table continued. Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Net income or (loss) to net sales ratio Ratios in percent; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 6.6 10.0 6.3 7.1 2.2 All U.S. processors 12.8 13.3 10.4 12.2 5.4 All U.S. producers and processors 9.6 11.7 8.3 9.6 3.7 Table continued. 6.17 Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit net sales value Unit values in dollars per pound; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.34 All U.S. processors 2.80 2.98 3.00 3.02 2.96 All U.S. producers and processors 0.60 0.65 0.61 0.62 0.59 Table continued. Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit raw material costs Unit values in dollars per pound; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 All U.S. processors 0.97 1.01 1.03 0.99 1.05 All U.S. producers and processors 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 Table continued. Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit direct labor costs Unit values in dollars per pound; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 All U.S. processors 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.42 0.44 All U.S. producers and processors 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 Table continued. 6.18 Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit other factory costs Unit values in dollars per pound; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 All U.S. processors 0.63 0.66 0.69 0.69 0.74 All U.S. producers and processors 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 Table continued. Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit energy costs Unit values in dollars per pound; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 All U.S. processors 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 All U.S. producers and processors 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Table continued. Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit COGS Unit values in dollars per pound; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.26 All U.S. processors 2.05 2.16 2.22 2.18 2.30 All U.S. producers and processors 0.43 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 Table continued. 6.19 Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit gross profit or (loss) Unit values in dollars per pound; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.08 All U.S. processors 0.75 0.83 0.78 0.84 0.66 All U.S. producers and processors 0.17 0.19 0.16 0.17 0.13 Table continued. Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit SG&A expenses Unit values in dollars per pound; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 All U.S. processors 0.38 0.41 0.45 0.45 0.48 All U.S. producers and processors 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Table continued. Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit operating income or (loss) Unit values in dollars per pound; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 All U.S. processors 0.37 0.42 0.34 0.39 0.18 All U.S. producers and processors 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.04 Table continued. 6.20 Table 6.7 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit net income or (loss) Unit values in dollars per pound; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 All U.S. processors 0.36 0.40 0.31 0.37 0.16 All U.S. producers and processors 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.02 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” represent values greater than zero, but less than “0.05” percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—”. Net sales11 U.S. producers U.S. producers’ aggregate net sales quantity and value decreased irregularly from 2022 to 2024 but were higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. When rounded to the nearest cent, U.S. producers’ aggregate net sales AUV decreased slightly from $0.35 in 2022 and 2023 to $0.34 in 2024 and was $0.34 in both interim 2024 and interim 2025.12 13 11 The U.S. producers’ net sales included commercial sales, internal consumption, and transfers to related firms. In 2024, commercial sales were 60.8 percent of the U.S. producers’ total net sales quantity, internal consumption was *** percent, and transfers to related firms were *** percent. Internal consumption was reported by ***. ***. Transfers to related firms were reported by ***. ***. U.S. producers’ questionnaire responses, sections 2.12 and 2.13. 12 When rounded to the nearest tenth of a cent, the U.S. producers’ net sales AUV decreased by $0.002 per pound from 2022 to 2024 and was $0.007 per pound lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 (see table 6.2). 13 Commercial sales AUVs were higher than the AUVs for transfers to related firms and internal consumption. This is consistent with the difference in product mix between these levels of trade. Transfers to related firms and internal consumption almost exclusively consist of primary float glass, whereas commercial sales include a mix of primary float glass and further processed FGP. 6.21 On a firm-by-firm basis, directional trends were mixed, with three of five firms reporting an overall decrease in net sales quantity and value from 2022 to 2024. All firms reported a higher net sales quantity in interim 2025 than in interim 2024, while four of five firms reported a higher net sales value. Four of five firms reported an overall increase in net sales AUVs from 2022 to 2024, and four of five firms also reported net sales AUVs that were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Processors Processors’ net sales quantity decreased each year from 2022 to 2024, while net sales value decreased irregularly from 2022 to 2024. Net sales were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 by both quantity and value.14 Processors’ aggregate net sales AUV increased from $2.80 per pound in 2022 to $3.00 per pound in 2024; it was lower in interim 2025, at $2.96 per pound, than in interim 2024, at $3.02 per pound.15 16 Cost of goods sold and gross profit or loss U.S. producers As shown in table 6.1, raw material costs for U.S. producers accounted for a little less than one-third of their aggregate COGS during the period examined. The average per-pound raw material cost was $0.07 in all full-year periods and interim 2024, and $0.08 in interim 2025. Four of five U.S. producers reported an overall increase in their per-pound raw material costs from 2022 to 2024 and three of five reported higher per-pound raw material costs in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 (see table 6.7). Table 6.8 presents U.S. producers’ raw materials, by type, and table 6.9 presents the shares of U.S. producers’ raw materials that were sourced domestically or imported. Table 6.8 shows that sand and soda ash accounted for the majority of U.S. producers’ raw material costs, while table 6.9 shows that the vast majority of these raw material inputs were from domestic sources. 14 Between 2022 and 2024, 18 of 22 U.S. processors reported an overall decrease in net sales quantity and 13 of 22 reported an overall decrease in net sales value. When comparing the interim periods, 14 of 22 processors reported a net sales quantity in interim 2025 that was lower than in interim 2024, while 16 of 22 processors reported a lower net sales value. 15 A majority of processors (18 of 22) reported an overall increase in their net sales AUV between 2022 and 2024, while a smaller majority (13 of 22) reported a higher net sales AUV in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. 16 Processors’ net sales AUVs are noticeably higher than those for U.S. producers, which is consistent with processors selling a further-processed, downstream product. 6.22 Table 6.8 FGP: U.S. producers’ raw material costs in 2024, by type Value in 1,000 dollars; share of value in percent Item Value Share of value Sand 240,795 43.8 Soda ash 133,452 24.3 Sodium sulfate 4,096 0.7 Dolomite 67,948 12.3 Limestone 19,200 3.5 Cullet *** *** Other chemicals *** *** Other material inputs *** *** All raw materials 550,242 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 6.9 FGP: U.S. producers’ raw material costs in 2024, by source Value in 1,000 dollars; Share of value in percent Source Value Share of value Domestic *** *** Imported *** *** All raw materials 550,242 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Direct labor accounted for 19.0 percent of total COGS in 2024. On a per-pound basis, U.S. producers’ direct labor increased from $0.04 in 2022 to $0.05 in 2023, 2024, and both interim periods. Other factory costs, the largest component of COGS, accounted for 41.9 percent in 2024. The aggregate other factory cost AUV increased from $0.09 per pound in 2022 to $0.10 per pound in 2024 and was higher in interim 2025, at $0.11 per pound, than in interim 2024 at $0.10 per pound. All U.S. producers reported an increase in their other factory cost AUVs from 2022 to 2024, while three of five U.S. producers reported other factory cost AUVs that were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.17 U.S. producers’ energy costs accounted for 9.1 percent of total COGS in 2024. On a per- pound basis, these costs decreased from $0.03 in 2022 to $0.02 in 2024 but were higher in interim 2025, at $0.03, than in interim 2024, at $0.02. 17 *** was the only company to report any nonrecurring items within COGS. The company reported that it recorded a nonrecurring expense item of $*** in interim 2025 within other factory costs. The nonrecurring item was described as “***.” *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, section 3.10a. 6.23 The U.S. producers’ aggregate COGS as a ratio to net sales revenue increased from 68.6 percent in 2022 to 72.6 percent in 2024; it was higher in interim 2025 (at 76.7 percent) than in interim 2024 (at 71.9 percent). U.S. producers’ aggregate gross profit decreased from $883.0 million in 2022 to $691.6 million in 2024; it was lower in interim 2025, at $295.8 million, than in interim 2024, at $352.0 million.18 U.S. processors The primary raw material input for processors is purchased float glass.19 As shown in table 6.3, processors’ raw materials cost was the largest component of COGS, representing 46.5 percent of total COGS in 2024. The raw material cost AUV increased from $0.97 per pound in 2022 to $1.03 per pound in 2024 and was higher in interim 2025, at $1.05 per pound, than in interim 2024, at $0.99 per pound. Table 6.10 shows the shares of raw materials cost, by type and source. Table 6.10 FGP: Processors’ raw material costs, by type and period Share of total raw material costs in percent; interim is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Float glass: Domestic Share 78.7 78.3 78.3 77.2 77.8 Float glass: Subject sources Share *** *** *** *** *** Float glass: Nonsubject sources Share *** *** *** *** *** All float glass costs Share 82.4 81.8 81.7 81.0 82.0 Other material inputs Share 17.6 18.2 18.3 19.0 18.0 All raw materials Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Processors’ direct labor costs accounted for 19.0 percent of total COGS in 2024 (table 6.3). The direct labor AUV increased from $0.39 per pound in 2022 to $0.42 per pound in 2024 and was higher in interim 2025, at $0.44 per pound, than in interim 2024, at $0.42 per pound. As shown in table 6.3, other factory costs accounted for 31.1 percent of processors’ aggregate COGS in 2024. On a per-pound basis, other factory costs increased from $0.63 in 2022 to $0.69 in 2024 and were higher in interim 2025, at $0.74, than in interim 2024, at $0.69. Energy costs represented the smallest share of processors’ COGS, accounting for 3.5 percent in 2024. On a per-pound basis, processors’ energy costs were $0.07 in 2022 and 2023, and $0.08 in 2024 and both interim periods. 18 ***. 19 Purchased float glass accounted for 81.7 percent of the processors’ raw material costs in 2024. 6.24 Processors’ COGS to net sales value ratio increased irregularly from 73.3 percent in 2022 to 73.9 percent in 2024 but was higher in interim 2025, at 77.7 percent, than in interim 2024, at 72.1 percent. The processors’ gross profit decreased irregularly from $702.0 million in 2022 to $652.9 million in 2024 and was lower in interim 2025, at $259.9 million, than in interim 2024, at $351.9 million. Combined COGS and gross profit As shown in table 6.5, the U.S. producers’ and processors’ combined COGS to net sales ratio increased irregularly from 70.9 percent in 2022 to 73.3 percent in 2024. It was higher in interim 2025, at 77.2 percent, than in interim 2024, at 72.0 percent. Total gross profit decreased from $1.6 billion in 2022 to $1.3 billion in 2024; it was lower in interim 2025, at $555.7 million, than in interim 2024, at $703.9 million. SG&A expenses and operating income or loss As shown in table 6.1, U.S. producers’ aggregate SG&A expenses decreased from 2022 to 2024 but were slightly higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Processors’ aggregate SG&A expenses increased irregularly from 2022 to 2024 and were slightly higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 (see table 6.3). For combined operations (table 6.5), aggregate SG&A expenses decreased from 2022 to 2024 but were slightly higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. The SG&A expense ratio for combined operations (total SG&A expenses divided by total net sales) decreased irregularly from 16.0 percent in 2022 to 15.7 percent in 2024 but was higher in interim 2025 (16.6 percent) than in interim 2024 (15.7 percent). The industry’s combined operating income increased from $713.0 million in 2022 to $737.5 million in 2023 and then decreased to $552.7 million in 2024, for an overall decrease from 2022 to 2024. Combined operating income was lower in interim 2025, at $150.5 million, than in interim 2024, at $310.3 million.20 20 ***. 6.25 All other expenses and net income or loss Classified below the operating income level are interest expense, all other expenses, and all other income. For U.S. producers’ and processors’ combined operations (table 6.5), interest expense increased from 2022 to 2024 and was higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. All other expenses decreased from 2022 to 2024 and were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.21 All other income decreased from 2022 to 2024 but was slightly higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.22 Combined net income for U.S. producers and processors increased from $522.2 million in 2022 to $619.1 million in 2023 and then decreased to $419.0 million in 2024. It was lower in interim 2025 ($90.7 million) than in interim 2024 ($242.2 million).23 21 All other expenses were *** higher in 2022 than in any other period examined. This is primarily attributable to ***, which reported a $*** nonrecurring item within its 2022 other expenses that was ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, section 3.10. *** reported a nonrecurring expense classified within all other expenses of $*** in 2022. This nonrecurring item was related to ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, section 3.10. 22 *** reported a nonrecurring income item within all other income of $*** in 2023 that it described as ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, section 3.10. 23 ***. 6.26 Variance analysis A variance analysis for the operations of U.S. producers is presented in table 6.11.24 25 The analysis shows that the decrease in the U.S. producers’ operating income from 2022 to 2024 was the result of unfavorable price, cost, and volume variances, with the unfavorable cost variance responsible for the largest share of the decrease. It also shows that the lower operating income in interim 2025 compared to interim 2024 was the result of unfavorable price and cost variances despite a relatively small favorable volume variance. Table 6.11 FGP: Variance analysis on the operations of U.S. producers between comparison periods Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through June Item 2022-24 2022-23 2023-24 Interim 2024-25 Net sales price variance (16,699) 8,800 (25,684) (24,838) Net sales volume variance (266,804) (319,397) 52,778 40,308 Net sales total variance (283,503) (310,597) 27,094 15,470 COGS cost variance (90,835) (8,961) (81,684) (42,684) COGS volume variance 182,908 218,962 (36,244) (28,985) COGS total variance 92,073 210,001 (117,928) (71,669) Gross profit variance (191,430) (100,596) (90,834) (56,199) SG&A cost variance 49,359 23,063 25,809 (1,552) SG&A volume variance 49,110 58,790 (9,193) (6,645) SG&A total variance 98,469 81,853 16,616 (8,197) Operating income price variance (16,699) 8,800 (25,684) (24,838) Operating income cost variance (41,475) 14,102 (55,875) (44,236) Operating income volume variance (34,787) (41,644) 7,341 4,678 Operating income total variance (92,961) (18,743) (74,218) (64,396) Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data are derived from the data in table 6.1. Unfavorable variances (which are negative) are shown in parentheses, all others are favorable (positive). 24 Due to differences in product mix and cost structures for the various types of processors, a variance analysis for processors and a variance analysis for the combined results of U.S. producers and processors would not be meaningful and are not shown. 25 The Commission’s variance analysis is calculated in three parts: Net sales variance, COGS variance, and SG&A expense variance. Each part consists of a price variance (in the case of the net sales variance) or a cost or expense variance (in the case of the COGS and SG&A expense variance), and a volume variance. The sales or cost/expense variances are calculated as the change in unit price or per-unit cost/expense, respectively, times the new volume, while the volume variance is calculated as the change in volume times the old unit price or per-unit cost/expense. Summarized at the bottom of the table, the operating income price variance is from sales; the operating income cost/expense variance is the sum of the cost components in the COGS and SG&A expense variances, and the operating income volume variance is the sum of the volume components of the net sales, COGS, and SG&A expense variances. 6.27 Capital expenditures and research and development expenses Table 6.12 presents capital expenditures, by firm, and table 6.14 presents R&D expenses, by firm. Tables 6.13 and 6.15 present the firms’ narrative explanations of the nature, focus, and significance of their capital expenditures and R&D expenses, respectively. Total capital expenditures increased from 2022 to 2024 and were higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. ***. Total R&D expenses were reported by *** U.S. producers (***) and *** processors. They increased irregularly from 2022 to 2024 and were slightly higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Table 6.12 FGP: U.S. producers’ capital expenditures, by firm and period Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers 114,974 158,128 154,817 74,415 150,834 All U.S. processors 102,422 82,573 113,495 54,280 40,501 All producers and processors 217,396 240,701 268,312 128,695 191,335 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 6.28 Table 6.13 FGP: U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ narrative descriptions of their capital expenditures, by firm Firm Narrative on capital expenditures Producer: Cardinal *** Producer: Carlex *** Producer: Fuyao *** Producer: Guardian *** Producer: Vitro *** Processor: American Mirror *** Processor: Electric Mirror *** Processor: Fashion Glass *** Processor: Finch Industries *** Processor: Gardner Glass *** Processor: General Glass *** Processor: Gilded Mirrors and Glass *** Processor: Glass Enterprises *** Processor: Glassfab *** Processor: GWLA *** Processor: Hartung *** Processor: Lenoir Mirror *** Processor: Mercer Glassfab *** 6.29 Firm Narrative on capital expenditures Processor: Mr Glass *** Processor: Oldcastle *** Processor: Premier Glass Products *** Processor: Press Glass *** Processor: SBG Hold *** Processor: Tristar *** Processor: Trulite *** Processor: United Plate Glass *** Processor: Viracon *** Processor: Wholesale Glass *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 6.14 FGP: U.S. producers’ R&D expenses, by firm and period Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. processors *** *** *** *** *** All producers and processors 16,476 16,096 16,737 8,815 9,274 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 6.30 Table 6.15 FGP: U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ narrative descriptions of their R&D expenses, by firm Firm Narrative on R&D expenses Producer: Cardinal *** Producer: Carlex *** Producer: Fuyao *** Producer: Guardian *** Producer: Vitro *** Processor: American Mirror *** Processor: Electric Mirror *** Processor: Fashion Glass *** Processor: Finch Industries *** Processor: Gardner Glass *** Processor: General Glass *** Processor: Gilded Mirrors and Glass *** Processor: Glass Enterprises *** Processor: Glassfab *** Processor: GWLA *** Processor: Hartung *** Processor: Lenoir Mirror *** Processor: Mercer Glassfab *** Processor: Mr Glass *** Processor: Oldcastle *** Processor: Premier Glass Products *** Processor: Press Glass *** Processor: PRL Glass *** Processor: SBG Hold *** Processor: Tristar *** Processor: Trulite *** Processor: United Plate Glass *** 6.31 Firm Narrative on R&D expenses Processor: Viracon *** Processor: Wholesale Glass *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Assets and return on assets Table 6.16 presents data on the U.S. producers’ total assets while table 6.17 presents their operating ROA.26 Table 6.18 presents U.S. producers’ narrative responses explaining their major asset categories and any significant changes in asset levels over time. U.S. producers’ and processors’ combined FGP assets increased from 2022 to 2024, while the operating ROA decreased over the same period. Table 6.16 FGP: U.S. producers’ total net assets, by firm and period Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2022 2023 2024 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** All U.S. producers 3,154,925 3,537,946 3,634,536 All U.S. processors 2,357,377 2,421,795 2,425,836 All producers and processors 5,512,302 5,959,741 6,060,372 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 26 The operating ROA is calculated as operating income divided by total assets. With respect to a firm’s overall operations, the total asset value reflects an aggregation of a number of assets which are generally not product specific. Thus, high-level allocations are generally required in order to report a total asset value on a product-specific basis. 6.32 Table 6.17 FGP: U.S. producers’ ROA, by firm and period Ratio in percent Firm 2022 2023 2024 Producer: Cardinal *** *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** *** Producer: Guardian *** *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** *** All U.S. producers 11.6 9.8 7.5 All U.S. processors 14.7 16.1 11.5 All producers and processors 12.9 12.4 9.1 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 6.18 FGP: U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ narrative descriptions of their total net assets, by firm Firm Narrative on assets Producer: Cardinal *** Producer: Carlex *** Producer: Fuyao *** Producer: Guardian *** Producer: Vitro *** Processor: American Mirror *** Processor: Electric Mirror *** Processor: Fashion Glass *** Processor: Finch Industries *** Processor: Gardner Glass *** Processor: General Glass *** Processor: Gilded Mirrors and Glass *** 6.33 Firm Narrative on assets Processor: Glass Enterprises *** Processor: Glassfab *** Processor: GWLA *** Processor: Hartung *** Processor: Lenoir Mirror *** Processor: Mercer Glassfab *** Processor: Mr Glass *** Processor: Oldcastle *** Processor: Premier Glass Products *** Processor: Press Glass *** Processor: PRL Glass *** Processor: SBG Hold *** Processor: Tristar *** Processor: Trulite *** Processor: United Plate Glass *** Processor: Viracon *** Processor: Wholesale Glass *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 6.34 Capital and investment The Commission requested U.S. producers and U.S. processors of FGP to describe any actual or potential negative effects of imports of FGP from China and Malaysia on their firms’ growth, investment, ability to raise capital, development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments. Table 6.19 presents the number of firms reporting an impact in each category and table 6.20 provides the U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ narrative responses. Table 6.19 FGP: Count of firms indicating actual and anticipated negative effects of imports from subject sources on investment, growth, and development since January 1, 2022, by effect Number of firms reporting Effect Category Count Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects Investment 3 Denial or rejection of investment proposal Investment 0 Reduction in the size of capital investments Investment 1 Return on specific investments negatively impacted Investment 6 Other investment effects Investment 10 Any negative effects on investment Investment 18 Rejection of bank loans Growth 0 Lowering of credit rating Growth 1 Problem related to the issue of stocks or bonds Growth 0 Ability to service debt Growth 0 Other growth and development effects Growth 14 Any negative effects on growth and development Growth 15 Anticipated negative effects of imports Future 22 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, sections 6.14 and 6.15. 6.35 Table 6.20 FGP: U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ narratives relating to actual and anticipated negative effects of imports on investment, growth, and development, since January 1, 2022, by firm and effect Item Firm name and narrative on impact of imports Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects *** Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects *** Reduction in the size of capital investments *** Return on specific investments negatively impacted *** Return on specific investments negatively impacted *** Return on specific investments negatively impacted *** Return on specific investments negatively impacted *** Return on specific investments negatively impacted *** Other negative effects on investments *** Other negative effects on investments *** Other negative effects on investments *** Other negative effects on investments *** Other negative effects on investments *** Other negative effects on investments *** 6.36 Item Firm name and narrative on impact of imports Other negative effects on investments *** Other negative effects on investments *** Other negative effects on investments *** Other negative effects on investments *** Other negative effects on investments *** Other effects on growth and development *** Other effects on growth and development *** Other effects on growth and development *** Other effects on growth and development *** Other effects on growth and development *** Other effects on growth and development *** Other effects on growth and development *** Other effects on growth and development *** Other effects on growth and development *** Other effects on growth and development *** Other effects on growth and development *** 6.37 Item Firm name and narrative on impact of imports Other effects on growth and development *** Other effects on growth and development *** Other effects on growth and development *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** 6.38 Item Firm name and narrative on impact of imports Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 7.1 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, 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.” 7.2 (VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products, (VII) in any investigation under this title which involves imports of both a raw agricultural product (within the meaning of paragraph (4)(E)(ⅳ)) and any product processed from such raw agricultural product, the likelihood that there will be increased imports, by reason of product shifting, if there is an affirmative determination by the Commission 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 was presented earlier in this report; information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts 4 and 5; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing development and production efforts is presented in Part 6. Information on inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any other threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in third- country markets, follows. Also presented in this section of the report is information obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries. 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.” 7.3 Subject countries The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to 23 firms in China and 5 firms in Malaysia believed to produce and/or export FGP,3 and usable responses were received from two firms: Unitex Glass (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. (“Unitex”) of China and Malaysian Sheet Glass Sdn Bhd/ NSG (Malaysian Sheet Glass) (“NSG”).4 Table 7.1 presents the number of responding firms by country as well as estimated shares of total FGP production by country and exports to the United States as a share of U.S. imports in 2024. Table 7.1 FGP: Number of responding producers/exporters, approximate share of production, and exports to the United States as a share of U.S. imports, by subject foreign industry, 2024 Country Number of responding firms Approximate share of production (percent) Exports as a share of U.S. imports from subject country (percent) China 1 *** *** Malaysia 1 *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: “Approximate share of production” reflects the responding firm’s estimate of its production as a share of total country production of FGP in 2024. In its questionnaire response, Unitex estimated that it accounted for *** of production of FGP in China and *** of exports of FGP from China to the United States in 2024. NSG stated, “***.” Note: “Exports as a share of U.S. imports” reflects a comparison of export data reported by firms in response to the Commission’s foreign producer/exporter questionnaire with official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7005.10.8000, 7005.21.1010, 7005.21.1030, 7005.21.2000, 7005.29.1810, 7005.29.1850, 7005.29.2500, 7007.29.0000, 7008.00.0000, 7009.91.5010, 7009.91.5095, and 7009.92.5010, accessed on September 9, 2025, adjusted to remove merchandise certified as out-of-scope in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. 3 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petitions and presented in third-party sources. 4 Commerce determined that critical circumstances exist for NSG in the context of the Malaysia LTFV investigation based on adverse facts available (“AFA”) (91 FR 5723, February 9, 2026). For further information, see “Critical Circumstances” section in part 4 of this report. 7.4 Table 7.2 presents information on the FGP operations of Unitex and NSG (the firms did not report ***). Table 7.2 FGP: Summary data on responding subject foreign producers in 2024, by firm Subject foreign industry: Producer Production (1,000 pounds) Share of reported production (percent) Exports to the United States (1,000 pounds) Share of reported exports to the United States (percent) Total shipments (1,000 pounds) Share of firm's total shipments exported to the United States (percent) China: Unitex *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia: NSG *** *** *** *** *** *** All individual producers *** 100.0 *** 100.0 *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: NSG stated, “***.” Table 7.3 presents events in the subject countries’ industries since January 1, 2022. Table 7.3 FGP: Important industry events in the subject foreign industries since January 1, 2022 Item Firm: Event Acquisitions Shanghai Yaohua Pilkington Glass: On May 8, 2023, AGC Inc. completed ownership transfer of AGC Flat Glass Inc. (Dalian, China), to Shanghai Yaohua Pilkington Glass Group Co. Ltd. (Pudong, Zhejiang, China), in a purchase worth $43.8 million. Line conversion In November 2023, NSG converted an existing float line to produce transparent conductive oxide (“TCO”) glass at the Johor Bahru factory of Malaysian Sheet Glass (Johor, Malaysia). Source: Glass Magazine, “AGC Announces Transfer Completion,” https://www.glassmagazine.com/news/2023/agc-announces-transfer-completion-agc-flat-glass May 15, 2023; Photonics, “AGC Inc. Transfers Ownership of Group Company,” https://www.photonics.com/Articles/AGC_Inc_Transfers_Ownership_of_Group_Company/a68643, January 2, 2023; Mills, Jess, Glass International, “NSG starts solar glass production line in Malaysia,” https://www.glass-international.com/news/nsg-starts-solar-glass-production-line-in-malaysia, November 14, 2023. 7.5 Changes in operations Subject producers were asked to report any change in the character of their operations or organization relating to the production of FGP since 2022. Unitex and NSG reported operational changes during the investigation period as indicated in table 7.4. The companies also indicated that ***. Table 7.4 FGP: Reported changes in operations in the subject countries since January 1, 2022, by change, subject foreign industry, and firm Item Narrative response regarding changes in operations Prolonged shutdowns *** Plant closings *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Installed and practical overall capacity Table 7.5 presents the combined reported installed capacity, practical overall capacity, and practical FGP capacity and production on the same equipment for Unitex and NSG.5 Combined practical capacity for the two companies decreased *** percent from 2022 to 2024.6 Installed capacity *** was *** percent lower in the interim 2025 period than in interim 2024. Neither firm reported production of alternative products using the same equipment and/or labor as those used to produce FGP during the investigation period; resultingly, practical overall and practical FGP figures are identical. 5 Additionally, the petitioner estimates that China has *** production lines with the capacity to produce *** pounds of FGP and estimates that Malaysia has *** production lines with the capacity to produce *** pounds of FGP. Petitions, exh. 1.3 (converted from metric tons to billions of pounds). Subject country FGP producers identified in exhibit 1.3 of the petitions (a listing which may also include production lines for out-of-scope products) include *** from Malaysia, and *** from China. 6 As noted above, ***. 7.6 Unitex’s FGP production decreased *** percent from 2022 and 2023 and then dropped *** percent from 2023 and 2024 coinciding with the period in which it reported ***. The company’s production was *** percent lower in interim 2025 than interim 2024. The company’s practical capacity utilization was steady between 2022 and 2023 and increased *** percentage points between 2023 and 2024 to *** percent. Practical capacity utilization was *** percentage points higher in interim 2025 than interim 2024 (*** percent compared to *** percent). NSG’s FGP production decreased *** percent from 2022 and 2023 and then dropped to *** in 2024 and the interim periods coinciding with the period in which it reported that ***. The company’s practical capacity utilization was *** in 2022 and *** percent in 2023. Table 7.5 FGP: Subject producers’ installed and practical capacity and production on the same equipment as in-scope production, by period Capacity and production in 1,000 pounds; Utilization in percent; Interim period is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Installed overall Capacity *** *** *** *** *** Installed overall Production *** *** *** *** *** Installed overall Utilization *** *** *** *** *** Practical overall Capacity *** *** *** *** *** Practical overall Production *** *** *** *** *** Practical overall Utilization *** *** *** *** *** Practical float glass products Capacity *** *** *** *** *** Practical float glass products Production *** *** *** *** *** Practical float glass products Utilization *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Constraints on capacity With respect to capacity constraints, Unitex reported, “***.” NSG reported, “***.” 7.7 Operations on FGP Table 7.6 presents information on the combined FGP operations of Unitex and NSG. Production and capacity figures were previously discussed in the installed and practical overall capacity section; however, table 7.6 also shows that Unitex projected that its 2025 and 2026 total production would be *** percent lower than its 2024 production and that it projected its practical capacity levels in 2025 and 2026 ***. As ***. The vast majority of shipments made by the two firms collectively and individually were home market shipments (at least *** percent of collective shipments were home market shipments in all periods) with export shipments representing *** percent or fewer of shipments made by the two firms collectively in the reported periods. ***. Unitex’s exports to the United States decreased *** percent from 2022 to 2024 (as noted, the company reported that ***). The company’s exports to the United States were *** percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. The company projected that its full year 2025 exports to the United States would be *** percent lower than its exports to the United States in 2024 and then projected that it would have *** exports to the United States in 2026. The company’s exports to the United States as a share of its total shipments increased irregularly from *** percent of its total shipments in 2022 to *** percent of its total shipments in 2024. Its share of exports to the United States as a share of its total shipments was lower in interim 2025 at *** percent compared to *** percent in interim 2024. Exports to all other markets made by the two firms decreased *** percent from 2022 to 2024. All other market exports made by Unitex were *** percent higher across the interim periods. Unitex projected its exports to all other markets would increase by *** percent in 2025 compared to 2024 at *** pounds and would increase further to *** pounds in 2026. End-of-period inventories decreased *** percent from 2022 to 2024 and were *** percent lower across the interim comparison periods. Unitex projected its inventory levels would be lower at the end of 2025 and 2026 than at year-end 2024. 7.8 Table 7.6 FGP: Data on subject foreign industries, by item and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; Interim period is January through June Item 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Projection 2025 Projection 2026 Capacity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** End-of-period inventories *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Commercial home market shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to the United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to all other markets *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 7.6 (Continued) FGP: Data on subject foreign industries, by item and period Shares and ratios in percent; Interim period is January through June Item 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Projection 2025 Projection 2026 Capacity utilization ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to total shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Commercial home market shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to the United States share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to all other markets share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. 7.9 Table 7.7 presents information on practical capacity, production, capacity utilization, and share of production broken out by foreign industry/firm. Table 7.7 FGP: Subject foreign industries' output: Practical capacity, by subject foreign industry and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; Interim period is January through June Subject foreign industry 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Projection 2025 Projection 2026 China (Unitex) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia (NSG) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All subject foreign industries *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 7.7 (Continued) FGP: Subject foreign industries' output: Production, by subject foreign industry and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; Interim period is January through June Subject foreign industry 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Projection 2025 Projection 2026 China (Unitex) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia (NSG) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All subject foreign industries *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 7.7 (Continued) FGP: Subject foreign industries' output: Capacity utilization ratio, by subject foreign industry and period Ratio in percent; Interim period is January through June Subject foreign industry 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Projection 2025 Projection 2026 China (Unitex) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia (NSG) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All subject foreign industries *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 7.7 (Continued) FGP: Subject foreign industries' output: Share of production, by subject foreign industry and period Share in percent; Interim period is January through June Subject foreign industry 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Projection 2025 Projection 2026 China (Unitex) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia (NSG) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All subject foreign industries 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. 7.10 Table 7.8 presents information on exports to the United States, shares of total shipments exported to the United States, total exports, and shares of total shipments exported by foreign industry/firm. Table 7.8 FGP: Subject foreign industries' exports: Exports to the United States, by subject foreign industry and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; Interim period is January through June Subject foreign industry 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Projection 2025 Projection 2026 China (Unitex) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia (NSG) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All subject foreign industries *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 7.8 (Continued) FGP: Subject foreign industries' exports: Share of total shipments exported to the United States, by subject foreign industry and period Share in percent; Interim period is January through June Subject foreign industry 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Projection 2025 Projection 2026 China (Unitex) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia (NSG) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All subject foreign industries *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 7.8 (Continued) FGP: Subject foreign industries' exports: Total exports, by subject foreign industry and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; Interim period is January through June Subject foreign industry 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Projection 2025 Projection 2026 China (Unitex) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia (NSG) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All subject foreign industries *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table 7.8 (Continued) FGP: Subject foreign industries' exports: Share of total shipments exported, by subject foreign industry and period Share in percent; Interim period is January through June Subject foreign industry 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Projection 2025 Projection 2026 China (Unitex) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia (NSG) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All subject foreign industries *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. 7.11 Table 7.9 presents information on end of period inventories and ratios of inventories to total shipments broken out by foreign industry/firm. Table 7.9 FGP: Subject foreign industries' inventories: End of period inventories, by subject foreign industry and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; Interim period is January through June Subject foreign industry 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Projection 2025 Projection 2026 China (Unitex) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia (NSG) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All subject foreign industries *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 7.9 (Continued) FGP: Subject foreign industries' inventories: Ratio of inventories to total shipments, by subject foreign industry and period Ratio in percent; Interim period is January through June Subject foreign industry 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Projection 2025 Projection 2026 China (Unitex) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia (NSG) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All subject foreign industries *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. Alternative products Unitex and NSG ***. 7.12 Exports Table 7.10 presents Global Trade Atlas (“GTA”) data for exports under HS subheadings 7005.10, 7005.21, 7005.29, 7007.29, 7008.00, 7009.91, and 7009.92, categories which contain float glass and out-of-scope products, from subject countries to the United States and to all destination markets. The value of exports to the United States collectively reported for the two subject foreign industries under these categories decreased 5.4 percent irregularly from 2022 to 2024 (increasing from $1.0 billion in 2022 to $1.1 billion in 2023 before decreasing to $988.8 million in 2024).7 The value of exports to all destination markets reported for the two subject foreign industries under these categories decreased 26.8 percent from 2022 to 2024 (decreasing from $6.1 billion in 2022 to $4.9 billion in 2023 and to $4.5 billion in 2024).8 Resultingly, the share of exports exported to the United States from the subject exporting industries increased from 17.2 percent of all exports in 2022 to 22.2 percent of exports in 2024. 7 The value of exports to the United States from China under these categories decreased 6.0 percent irregularly from 2022 to 2024 (increasing from $1.0 billion in 2022 to $1.1 billion in 2023 before decreasing to $976.9 million 2024). Comparatively, the value of exports to the United States from Malaysia under these categories increased 86.4 percent from 2022 to 2024 (increasing from $6.4 million in 2022 to $9.4 million in 2023 and to $11.9 million 2024). 8 The value of exports to all destination markets from China decreased 27.4 percent from 2022 to 2024 (decreasing from $5.5 billion in 2022 to $4.5 billion in 2023 and to $4.0 billion in 2024), while the value of exports to all destination markets from Malaysia decreased 20.3 percent from 2022 to 2024 (decreasing from $561.9 million in 2022 to $480.7 million in 2023 and to $447.9 million in 2024). 7.13 Table 7.10 FGP and other glass: Global exports from subject exporters: Exports to the United States, by exporter and period Value in 1,000 dollars Exporter Measure 2022 2023 2024 China Value 1,038,951 1,088,130 976,889 Malaysia Value 6,398 9,395 11,927 Subject exporters Value 1,045,349 1,097,526 988,815 Table continued. Table 7.10 (Continued) FGP and other glass: Global exports from subject exporters: Exports to all destination markets, by exporter and period Value in 1,000 dollars Exporter Measure 2022 2023 2024 China Value 5,524,053 4,459,700 4,009,444 Malaysia Value 561,924 480,749 447,880 Subject exporters Value 6,085,977 4,940,448 4,457,324 Table continued. Table 7.10 (Continued) FGP and other glass: Global exports from subject exporters: Share of exports exported to the United States, by exporter and period Shares in percent Exporter Measure 2022 2023 2024 China Share 18.8 24.4 24.4 Malaysia Share 1.1 2.0 2.7 Subject exporters Share 17.2 22.2 22.2 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheadings 7005.10, 7005.21, 7005.29, 7007.29, 7008.00, 7009.91 and 7009.92 as reported by various national statistical authorities in the Global Trade Atlas Suite database, accessed November 18, 2025. Note: Shares represent the shares of value exported to the United States out of all destination markets. 7.14 U.S. inventories of imported merchandise Table 7.11 presents data on U.S. importers’ reported inventories of FGP. U.S. importers’ reported subject import inventories increased 10.5 percent irregularly from 2022 to 2024.9 Subject inventories were 8.3 percent higher across the interim periods.10 The ratio of inventories of subject imports to subject imports increased irregularly 0.3 percentage points from 2022 to 202411 and was 1.5 percentage points higher across the interim periods.12 The ratio of subject end-of-period inventories to U.S. shipments of subject imports also increased irregularly from 2022 to 202413 and was also higher across the interim periods.14 U.S. importers’ nonsubject import inventories increased *** percent from 2022 to 2024.15 The ratio of nonsubject import inventories to nonsubject imports increased from 2022 to 2024. The ratio of nonsubject inventories to U.S. shipments of nonsubject imports also increased from 2022 to 2024. U.S. importers’ nonsubject inventories were *** percent higher across the interim periods.16 In interim 2025, the ratios of nonsubject import inventories to nonsubject imports, U.S. shipments of nonsubject imports, and total shipments of nonsubject imports were ***, ***, and *** percent, respectively. 9 U.S. importers’ inventories of imports from China increased 16.2 percent from 2022 to 2024, while U.S. importers’ inventories of imports from Malaysia decreased 32.6 percent from 2022 to 2024. 10 U.S. importers’ inventories of imports from China and Malaysia were both higher across the interim periods: 9.0 percent higher for inventories from China and 0.7 percent higher for Malaysia. 11 The ratio of inventories of U.S. imports from China to U.S. imports from China increased irregularly from 2022 to 2024. Comparatively, the ratio of inventories of U.S. imports from Malaysia to U.S. imports from Malaysia decreased irregularly over the period. 12 The inventory to import ratios was 2.0 percentage points higher for China across the interim periods but 1.5 percentage points lower for Malaysia. 13 The ratio of inventories of U.S. imports from China to U.S. shipments of imports from China increased irregularly, while the ratio of inventories of U.S. imports from Malaysia to U.S. shipments of imports from Malaysia decreased irregularly. 14 The inventory to U.S. shipments of import ratio was 1.4 percentage points higher for China but 1.5 percentage points lower for Malaysia across the interim periods. 15 U.S. importers’ inventories of imports from Mexico decreased irregularly from 2022 to 2024, while U.S. importers’ inventories of imports from all other sources increased *** percent from 2022 to 2024. 16 U.S. importers’ inventories of imports from Mexico and from all other sources were both higher across the interim periods: *** percent higher for inventories from Mexico and *** percent higher for all other sources. 7.15 Table 7.11 FGP: U.S. importers’ inventories and their ratio to select items, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; Ratio in percent; Interim period is January through June Measure Source 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Inventories quantity China 25,230 25,294 29,323 25,758 28,087 Ratio to imports China 17.9 16.2 18.5 17.3 19.3 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports China 18.6 16.3 19.1 17.4 18.9 Ratio to total shipments of imports China 18.6 16.2 19.0 17.4 18.8 Inventories quantity Malaysia 3,360 2,308 2,263 2,419 2,435 Ratio to imports Malaysia 14.4 7.3 11.2 12.9 11.4 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Malaysia 14.5 7.1 11.2 13.1 11.6 Ratio to total shipments of imports Malaysia 14.5 7.1 11.2 13.1 11.6 Inventories quantity Subject sources 28,590 27,602 31,586 28,177 30,522 Ratio to imports Subject sources 17.4 14.7 17.7 16.8 18.3 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Subject sources 18.0 14.7 18.2 16.9 18.0 Ratio to total shipments of imports Subject sources 18.0 14.6 18.1 16.9 17.9 Inventories quantity Mexico *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports Mexico *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Mexico *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Mexico *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity All other sources *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports All other sources *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports All other sources *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports All other sources *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity All import sources *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports All import sources *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports All import sources *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports All import sources *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 7.16 U.S. importers’ outstanding orders The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they had imported or arranged for the importation of FGP from China, Malaysia, and/or other sources after June 30, 2025. Of the 60 responding U.S. importers, 41 U.S. importers reported such arranged imports. Their reported data are presented in table 7.12. As shown, responding importers collectively reported 176.7 million pounds in arranged imports for the period covering July 2025 through June 2026, 20.6 percent of which were reported to be from subject sources. Of the 36.5 million pounds in reported arranged imports from subject sources, *** percent were reported as being arranged from China and *** percent were reported as being arranged from Malaysia. Table 7.12 FGP: U.S. importers’ arranged imports, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds Source Q3 2025 Q4 2025 Q1 2026 Q2 2026 Total China *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** *** 36,452 Mexico *** *** *** *** 32,067 All other sources *** *** *** *** 108,173 Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** 140,240 All import sources *** *** *** *** 176,692 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Third-country trade actions In May 1999, South Africa issued an antidumping duty order on float glass from China. This order was most recently extended in April 2021. These duties apply to the countries of the Southern African Customs Union which includes Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Eswatini.17 In April 2008, South Korea issued an antidumping duty order on float glass from China.18 This order was most recently renewed in April 2022 with an antidumping duty margin of 36.01 percent.19 17 World Trade Organization, Semi-Annual Report under Article 16.4 of the Agreement: South Africa, G/ADP/N/364/ZAF, May 9, 2021, p. 6, https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/ADP/N364ZAF.pdf&Open=True. 18 World Trade Organization, Semi-Annual Report under Article 16.4 of the Agreement: Republic of Korea, G/ADP/N/173/KOR, October 9, 2008, p. 2. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/G/ADP/N173KOR.pdf&Open=True. 19 World Trade Organization, Semi-Annual Report under Article 16.4 of the Agreement: Republic of Korea, G/ADP/N/370/KOR, October 14, 2022, p. 4. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/ADP/N370KOR.pdf&Open=True. 7.17 In October 2011, Australia issued an antidumping duty order on float glass from China, with an antidumping duty margin of 11.4 to 26.4 percent.20 These duties were terminated on October 17, 2021.21 In 2014, Brazil issued an antidumping duty order on float glass from China.22 This order was most recently renewed in February 2021 with an antidumping duty ranging from $179.46/t to $392.55/t.23 In 2017, the Philippines issued an antidumping duty order on float glass from China with an antidumping margin of 21.11 to 87.44 percent for clear float glass and 8.71 to 53.98 percent for bronze float glass.24 These duties were terminated on October 26, 2022.25 In November 2020, India issued an antidumping duty order on clear float glass from Malaysia, with an antidumping duty margin equivalent to the difference between the landed value and a value ranging from $272.18 to $326.00.26 In September 2022, South Africa issued an antidumping duty order on float glass from Malaysia, with an antidumping duty margin of 25.31 percent. These duties apply to the countries of the Southern African Customs Union which includes Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Eswatini.27 20 World Trade Organization, Semi-Annual Report under Article 16.4 of the Agreement: Australia, G/ADP/N/223/AUS/Rev.1, August 10, 2012, p. 3, https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/G/ADP/N223AUSR1.pdf&Open=True 21 World Trade Organization, Semi-Annual Report under Article 16.4 of the Agreement: Australia, G/ADP/N/364/AUS, March 14, 2022, p. 10, https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/ADP/N364AUS.pdf&Open=True. 22 World Trade Organization, Semi-Annual Report under Article 16.4 of the Agreement: Brazil, G/ADP/N/259/BRA, September 23, 2014, p. 3. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/ADP/N259BRA.pdf&Open=True. 23 World Trade Organization, Semi-Annual Report under Article 16.4 of the Agreement: Brazil, G/ADP/N/357/BRA, October 19, 2021, p.5, https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/ADP/N357BRA.pdf&Open=True. 24 World Trade Organization, Semi-Annual Report under Article 16.4 of the Agreement: Philippines, G/ADP/N/300/PHL, July 20, 2017, p. 2, https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/ADP/N300PHL.pdf&Open=True. 25 World Trade Organization, Semi-Annual Report under Article 16.4 of the Agreement: Philippines, G/ADP/N/377/PHL, March 21, 2023, p. 3, https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/ADP/N377PHL.pdf&Open=True. 26 World Trade Organization, Semi-Annual Report under Article 16.4 of the Agreement: India, G/ADP/N/350/IND, April 19, 2021, p. 10. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/ADP/N350IND.pdf&Open=True. 27 World Trade Organization, Semi-Annual Report under Article 16.4 of the Agreement: South Africa, G/ADP/N/377/ZAF, April 14, 2023, p. 5, 8. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/ADP/N377ZAF.pdf&Open=True. 7.18 In May 2023, Taiwan issued an antidumping duty order on float glass, in sheets, including both clear float glass and tinted float glass from Malaysia, with an antidumping duty margin of 20.89 percent to 129.32 percent.28 Information on nonsubject countries Table 7.13 presents global export data for float glass, a category that includes subject float glass products and out-of-scope products. In 2024, the six largest global exporters were China (30.0 percent), Germany (11.3 percent), Poland (6.5 percent), United States (5.4 percent), Belgium (4.3 percent) and Malaysia (3.3 percent). Collectively, they represent over half (60.8 percent) of global exports. 28 World Trade Organization, Semi-Annual Report under Article 16.4 of the Agreement: The separate customs territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, G/ADP/N/384/TPKM, August 22, 2023, p. 3. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/ADP/N384TPKM.pdf&Open=True. 7.19 Table 7.13 FGP and other glass: Global exports by exporter and period Value in 1,000 dollars; share in percent Exporting country Measure 2022 2023 2024 United States Value 827,766 789,086 717,100 China Value 5,524,053 4,459,700 4,009,444 Malaysia Value 561,924 480,749 447,880 Subject exporters Value 6,085,977 4,940,448 4,457,324 Germany Value 1,715,969 1,755,201 1,513,125 Poland Value 952,930 942,251 875,028 Belgium Value 572,907 642,632 578,077 France Value 454,271 429,550 382,405 Turkey Value 366,106 359,996 360,383 Italy Value 405,301 413,322 358,569 Czech Republic Value 408,737 366,361 314,053 Spain Value 316,595 325,476 311,303 Japan Value 262,701 231,318 248,211 Mexico Value 210,488 232,206 230,096 All other exporters Value 3,682,839 3,357,969 3,033,880 All reporting exporters Value 16,262,588 14,785,816 13,379,556 United States Share 5.1 5.3 5.4 China Share 34.0 30.2 30.0 Malaysia Share 3.5 3.3 3.3 Subject exporters Share 37.4 33.4 33.3 Germany Share 10.6 11.9 11.3 Poland Share 5.9 6.4 6.5 Belgium Share 3.5 4.3 4.3 France Share 2.8 2.9 2.9 Turkey Share 2.3 2.4 2.7 Italy Share 2.5 2.8 2.7 Czech Republic Share 2.5 2.5 2.3 Spain Share 1.9 2.2 2.3 Japan Share 1.6 1.6 1.9 Mexico Share 1.3 1.6 1.7 All other exporters Share 22.6 22.7 22.7 All reporting exporters Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheadings 7005.10, 7005.21, 7005.29, 7007.29, 7008.00, 7009.91 and 7009.92 as reported by various national statistical authorities in the Global Trade Atlas Suite database, accessed November 18, 2025. Note: United States is shown at the top followed by the countries under investigation, all remaining top exporting countries in descending order of 2024 data. A.1 APPENDIX A FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES A.3 The Commission makes available notices relevant to its investigations and reviews on its website, www.usitc.gov. In addition, the following tabulation presents, in chronological order, Federal Register notices issued by the Commission and Commerce during the current proceeding. Citation Title Link 89 FR 93651, November 27, 2024 Float Glass Products From China and Malaysia; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2024-11-27/pdf/2024-27739.pdf 89 FR 102113, December 17, 2024 Notice of Extension of the Deadline for Determining the Adequacy of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions: Float Glass Products From the People’s Republic of China and Malaysia https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2024-12-17/pdf/2024-29680.pdf 90 FR 1443, January 8, 2025 Float Glass Products From the People’s Republic of China and Malaysia: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2025-01-08/pdf/2025-00187.pdf 90 FR 1435, January 8, 2025 Float Glass Products From the People’s Republic of China and Malaysia: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2025-01-08/pdf/2025-00190.pdf 90 FR 8533, January 30, 2025 Float Glass Products From China and Malaysia: Determinations https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2025-01-30/pdf/2025-01969.pdf 90 FR 9963, February 20, 2025 Float Glass Products From the People's Republic of China and Malaysia: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Countervailing Duty Investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2025-02-20/pdf/2025-02840.pdf 90 FR 16107, April 17, 2025 Float Glass Products From the People’s Republic of China and Malaysia: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair- Value Investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2025-04-17/pdf/2025-06585.pdf 90 FR 21281, May 19, 2025 Float Glass Products From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2025-05-19/pdf/2025-08821.pdf 90 FR 21278, May 19, 2025 Float Glass Products From Malaysia: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2025-05-19/pdf/2025-08822.pdf A.4 Citation Title Link 90 FR 31602, July 15, 2025 Float Glass Products From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2025-07-15/pdf/2025-13206.pdf 90 FR 31605, July 15, 2025 Float Glass Products From Malaysia: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2025-07-15/pdf/2025-13208.pdf 90 FR 34844, July 24, 2025 Float Glass Products From Malaysia: Preliminary Negative Critical Circumstances Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2025-07-24/pdf/2025-13947.pdf 90 FR 38991, August 13, 2025 Float Glass Products From China and Malaysia; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2025-08-13/pdf/2025-15343.pdf 90 FR 52999, November 24, 2025 Float Glass Products From China and Malaysia; Revised Schedule for the Subject Proceeding https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2025-11-24/pdf/2025-20766.pdf 90 FR 57483, December 11, 2025 Float Glass Products From China and Malaysia; Revised Schedule for the Subject Proceeding https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2025-12-11/pdf/2025-22500.pdf 91 FR 5510, February 6, 2026 Float Glass Products from China and Malaysia; Cancellation of hearing for antidumping and countervailing duty investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2026-02-06/pdf/2026-02404.pdf 91 FR 5713, February 9, 2026 Float Glass Products From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2026-02-09/pdf/2026-02492.pdf 91 FR 5723, February 9, 2026 Float Glass Products From Malaysia: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2026-02-09/pdf/2026-02490.pdf 91 FR 5708, February 9, 2026 Float Glass Products From the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2026-02-09/pdf/2026-02493.pdf 91 FR 5720, February 9, 2026 Float Glass Products From Malaysia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ FR-2026-02-09/pdf/2026-02491.pdf B.1 APPENDIX B FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE: CANCELLATION OF HEARING 5510 Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2026 / Notices Week of September 8, 2025—Tentative Tuesday, September 9, 2025 10:00 a.m. All Employees Meeting (Public Meeting) (Contact: Wesley Held: 301–287– 3591) Additional Information: The meeting will be held in the TWFN Auditorium, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The public is invited to attend the Commission’s meeting in person or watch live via webcast at the Web address—https://video.nrc.gov/. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301–287–3591 or via email at Wesley.Held@nrc.gov. The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b. Dated: July 30, 2025. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Monika Coflin, Technical Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 2026–02421 Filed 7–30–25; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–748–749 and 731–TA–1726–1727 (Final)] Float Glass Products From China and Malaysia; Cancellation of Hearing for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. DATES : February 3, 2026. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristina Lara (202–205–3386), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Effective July 15, 2025, the Commission established a schedule for the final phase of the subject antidumping and countervailing duty investigations (90 FR 38991, August 13, 2025). Due to the lapse in appropriations and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, the Commission issued a revised schedule (90 FR 52999, November 24, 2025). Due to the Department of Commerce’s tolling of case deadlines by an additional 21 calendar days, the Commission issued a second revised schedule (90 FR 57483, December 11, 2025). On January 30, 2026, counsel for Vitro Flat Glass, LLC and Vitro Meadville Flat Glass, LLC (‘‘Vitro’’) filed a request that the Commission cancel the scheduled hearing for this proceeding, as well as a request to participate in the hearing, if held. It indicated a willingness to respond to any Commission questions in lieu of an actual hearing given that no other parties had submitted a request to appear at the hearing. Consequently, the public hearing in connection with this proceeding, scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on February 5, 2026, is cancelled. Parties to this proceeding should respond to any written questions posed by the Commission in their posthearing briefs, which are due to be filed on February 12, 2026. For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission’s notice cited above and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). Authority: This proceeding is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: February 3, 2026. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2026–02404 Filed 2–5–26; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–758 and 731– TA–1739 (Final)] Fiberglass Door Panels From China; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–758 and 731–TA–1739 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 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 imports of fiberglass door panels from China, provided for in subheading 3925.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) to be subsidized and sold at less-than-fair-value. DATES : January 22, 2026. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyler Berard (202–205–3354), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope.—For purposes of these investigations, Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as ‘‘fiberglass door panels, including fiberglass sidelites, whether finished or unfinished, whether assembled or unassembled, whether pre-hung or included in an entry door system. The subject fiberglass door panels consist of at least one fiberglass skin, and may contain (1) frames typically made of wood or composite stiles, bottom rails, and top rails, (2) binding materials, including adhesives or fasteners, and (3) insulation foam or other insulating material, and may be assembled with glass lites (glass that is ultimately installed in the fiberglass door panel). Fiberglass sidelites (or ‘‘sidelights’’) are typically smaller in width than fiberglass door panels, and consist of at least one fiberglass skin, and may contain (1) frames typically made of wood or composite stiles, bottom rails, and top rails, (2) binding materials, including adhesives or fasteners, and (3) insulation foam or other insulating VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:02 Feb 05, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06FEN1.SGM 06FEN1 khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES C.1 APPENDIX C SUMMARY DATA C.2 Table C.1: FGP: Summary data concerning the total U.S. market .............................................. C.3 Table C.2: FGP: Summary data concerning the merchant U.S. market ...................................... C.6 Table C.1 FGP: Summary data concerning the U.S. total market, by item and period Interim Item 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 2022–24 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 U.S. total market consumption quantity: Amount................................................... 8,336,533 7,510,675 7,652,998 3,787,166 3,901,412 ▼(8.2) ▼(9.9) ▲1.9 ▲3.0 Producers' share (fn1)............................. 95.8 94.7 95.0 95.2 95.0 ▼(0.8) ▼(1.1) ▲0.3 ▼(0.1) Importers' share (fn1): China.................................................. 1.6 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 ▲0.4 ▲0.4 ▼(0.1) ▼(0.0) Malaysia............................................. 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 ▼(0.0) ▲0.2 ▼(0.2) ▲0.0 Subject sources.............................. 1.9 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.2 ▲0.4 ▲0.6 ▼(0.2) ▼(0.0) Mexico................................................ 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 ▼(0.0) ▲0.1 ▼(0.2) ▲0.1 All other sources................................. 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.8 ▲0.5 ▲0.3 ▲0.1 ▲0.1 Nonsubject sources........................ 2.3 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.8 ▲0.4 ▲0.5 ▼(0.0) ▲0.2 All import sources....................... 4.2 5.3 5.0 4.8 5.0 ▲0.8 ▲1.1 ▼(0.3) ▲0.1 U.S. total market consumption value: Amount................................................... 4,774,720 4,662,896 4,509,082 2,277,391 2,190,508 ▼(5.6) ▼(2.3) ▼(3.3) ▼(3.8) Producers' share (fn1): Fully domestic value:........................... 92.9 91.9 91.8 91.4 91.3 ▼(1.1) ▼(0.9) ▼(0.2) ▼(0.0) Incremental value added to imports.... 1.9 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.1 ▼(0.1) ▲0.1 ▼(0.1) ▲0.0 Total value...................................... 94.7 93.9 93.6 93.4 93.4 ▼(1.2) ▼(0.9) ▼(0.3) ▲0.0 Importers' share (fn1): China.................................................. 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 ▲0.1 ▲0.1 ▼(0.0) ▲0.2 Malaysia............................................. 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 ▼(0.0) ▲0.0 ▼(0.0) ▲0.0 Subject sources.............................. 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.7 ▲0.1 ▲0.1 ▼(0.1) ▲0.2 Mexico................................................ 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 ▲0.1 ▲0.2 ▼(0.1) ▼(0.1) All other sources................................. 1.8 2.4 2.9 3.0 2.8 ▲1.0 ▲0.5 ▲0.5 ▼(0.2) Nonsubject sources........................ 2.7 3.4 3.8 4.1 3.9 ▲1.1 ▲0.7 ▲0.4 ▼(0.2) All import sources....................... 5.3 6.1 6.4 6.6 6.6 ▲1.2 ▲0.9 ▲0.3 ▼(0.0) U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of imports from: China: Quantity.............................................. 135,426 155,463 153,596 73,920 74,430 ▲13.4 ▲14.8 ▼(1.2) ▲0.7 Value.................................................. 113,770 115,760 110,549 52,774 55,567 ▼(2.8) ▲1.7 ▼(4.5) ▲5.3 Unit value........................................... $0.84 $0.74 $0.72 $0.71 $0.75 ▼(14.3) ▼(11.4) ▼(3.3) ▲4.6 Ending inventory quantity.................... 25,230 25,294 29,323 25,758 28,087 ▲16.2 ▲0.3 ▲15.9 ▲9.0 Malaysia Quantity.............................................. 23,229 32,541 20,202 9,241 10,465 ▼(13.0) ▲40.1 ▼(37.9) ▲13.2 Value.................................................. 8,062 9,314 6,784 3,255 3,272 ▼(15.9) ▲15.5 ▼(27.2) ▲0.5 Unit value........................................... $0.35 $0.29 $0.34 $0.35 $0.31 ▼(3.2) ▼(17.5) ▲17.3 ▼(11.2) Ending inventory quantity.................... 3,360 2,308 2,263 2,419 2,435 ▼(32.6) ▼(31.3) ▼(1.9) ▲0.7 Subject sources: Quantity.............................................. 158,655 188,004 173,798 83,161 84,895 ▲9.5 ▲18.5 ▼(7.6) ▲2.1 Value.................................................. 121,832 125,074 117,333 56,029 58,839 ▼(3.7) ▲2.7 ▼(6.2) ▲5.0 Unit value........................................... $0.77 $0.67 $0.68 $0.67 $0.69 ▼(12.1) ▼(13.4) ▲1.5 ▲2.9 Ending inventory quantity.................... 28,590 27,602 31,586 28,177 30,522 ▲10.5 ▼(3.5) ▲14.4 ▲8.3 Mexico: Quantity.............................................. 69,223 73,245 61,126 35,962 40,234 ▼(11.7) ▲5.8 ▼(16.5) ▲11.9 Value.................................................. 41,768 49,752 43,692 25,795 23,273 ▲4.6 ▲19.1 ▼(12.2) ▼(9.8) Unit value........................................... $0.60 $0.68 $0.71 $0.72 $0.58 ▲18.5 ▲12.6 ▲5.2 ▼(19.4) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** All other sources: Quantity.............................................. 123,284 134,683 148,597 64,289 69,532 ▲20.5 ▲9.2 ▲10.3 ▲8.2 Value.................................................. 88,269 110,947 128,950 68,012 62,007 ▲46.1 ▲25.7 ▲16.2 ▼(8.8) Unit value........................................... $0.72 $0.82 $0.87 $1.06 $0.89 ▲21.2 ▲15.1 ▲5.3 ▼(15.7) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources: Quantity.............................................. 192,507 207,928 209,723 100,251 109,766 ▲8.9 ▲8.0 ▲0.9 ▲9.5 Value.................................................. 130,037 160,699 172,642 93,807 85,280 ▲32.8 ▲23.6 ▲7.4 ▼(9.1) Unit value........................................... $0.68 $0.77 $0.82 $0.94 $0.78 ▲21.9 ▲14.4 ▲6.5 ▼(17.0) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** All import sources: Quantity.............................................. 351,162 395,932 383,521 183,412 194,661 ▲9.2 ▲12.7 ▼(3.1) ▲6.1 Value.................................................. 251,869 285,773 289,975 149,836 144,119 ▲15.1 ▲13.5 ▲1.5 ▼(3.8) Unit value........................................... $0.72 $0.72 $0.76 $0.82 $0.74 ▲5.4 ▲0.6 ▲4.8 ▼(9.4) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Table continued. C.3 Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted; Interim period is January through June Reported data Period change comparisons Calendar year Interim Calendar year Total market Table C.1 Continued FGP: Summary data concerning the U.S. total market, by item and period Interim Item 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 2022–24 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 U.S. producers' and processors': Producers: Practical capacity quantity..... 9,243,022 9,388,900 9,176,216 4,565,601 4,510,856 ▼(0.7) ▲1.6 ▼(2.3) ▼(1.2) Producers: Production quantity............... 8,587,343 7,641,878 7,743,780 3,737,460 3,820,168 ▼(9.8) ▼(11.0) ▲1.3 ▲2.2 Producers: Capacity utilization (fn1)........ 92.9 81.4 84.4 81.9 84.7 ▼(8.5) ▼(11.5) ▲3.0 ▲2.8 Processors: Practical capacity quantity... 1,365,189 1,317,406 1,225,507 618,374 624,684 ▼(10.2) ▼(3.5) ▼(7.0) ▲1.0 Processors: Production quantity.............. 968,761 938,310 813,355 413,771 397,680 ▼(16.0) ▼(3.1) ▼(13.3) ▼(3.9) Processors: Capacity utilization (fn1)...... 71.0 71.2 66.4 66.9 63.7 ▼(4.6) ▲0.3 ▼(4.9) ▼(3.3) U.S. shipments (fn2): Quantity.............................................. 7,985,371 7,114,743 7,269,477 3,603,754 3,706,751 ▼(9.0) ▼(10.9) ▲2.2 ▲2.9 Value: Fully domestic value:...................... 4,434,280 4,287,338 4,138,386 2,080,521 2,000,814 ▼(6.7) ▼(3.3) ▼(3.5) ▼(3.8) Incremental value added to imports 88,571 89,785 80,721 47,034 45,575 ▼(8.9) ▲1.4 ▼(10.1) ▼(3.1) Total value................................. 4,522,851 4,377,123 4,219,107 2,127,555 2,046,389 ▼(6.7) ▼(3.2) ▼(3.6) ▼(3.8) Unit value........................................... $0.56 $0.60 $0.57 $0.58 $0.54 ▲2.5 ▲8.5 ▼(5.5) ▼(6.5) Export shipments: Quantity.............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** Value.................................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit value........................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Producers: Ending inventory quantity...... 1,013,272 1,148,947 1,205,072 1,076,774 1,107,591 ▲18.9 ▲13.4 ▲4.9 ▲2.9 Producers: Inv./total shipments (fn1)....... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Processors: Ending inventory quantity.... 105,737 109,453 84,660 102,768 93,503 ▼(19.9) ▲3.5 ▼(22.7) ▼(9.0) Processors: Inv./total shipments (fn1)..... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Production workers................................. 14,347 14,222 13,410 13,433 12,621 ▼(6.5) ▼(0.9) ▼(5.7) ▼(6.0) Hours worked (1,000s)............................ 30,330 29,961 29,100 14,537 13,846 ▼(4.1) ▼(1.2) ▼(2.9) ▼(4.8) Wages paid ($1,000)............................... 759,450 791,825 800,554 392,970 390,010 ▲5.4 ▲4.3 ▲1.1 ▼(0.8) Hourly wages (dollars per hour)............... $25.04 $26.43 $27.51 $27.03 $28.17 ▲9.9 ▲5.5 ▲4.1 ▲4.2 Producers: Productivity........................... 794.5 722.1 740.8 722.8 699.4 ▼(6.8) ▼(9.1) ▲2.6 ▼(3.2) Producers: Unit labor costs..................... $0.03 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 ▲20.1 ▲13.8 ▲5.6 ▲3.6 Processors: Productivity.......................... 49.6 48.4 43.6 44.2 47.4 ▼(12.1) ▼(2.4) ▼(9.9) ▲7.4 Processors: Unit labor costs.................... $0.49 $0.53 $0.60 $0.60 $0.59 ▲23.4 ▲9.6 ▲12.6 ▼(0.8) U.S. producers': Net sales: Quantity.............................................. 8,123,389 7,199,424 7,351,565 3,632,522 3,749,375 ▼(9.5) ▼(11.4) ▲2.1 ▲3.2 Value.................................................. 2,808,097 2,497,500 2,524,594 1,253,017 1,268,487 ▼(10.1) ▼(11.1) ▲1.1 ▲1.2 Unit value........................................... $0.35 $0.35 $0.34 $0.34 $0.34 ▼(0.7) ▲0.4 ▼(1.0) ▼(1.9) Cost of goods sold (COGS)..................... 1,925,088 1,715,087 1,833,015 901,030 972,699 ▼(4.8) ▼(10.9) ▲6.9 ▲8.0 Gross profit or (loss) (fn3)....................... 883,009 782,413 691,579 351,987 295,788 ▼(21.7) ▼(11.4) ▼(11.6) ▼(16.0) SG&A expenses...................................... 516,876 435,023 418,407 206,561 214,758 ▼(19.1) ▼(15.8) ▼(3.8) ▲4.0 Operating income or (loss) (fn3).............. 366,133 347,390 273,172 145,426 81,030 ▼(25.4) ▼(5.1) ▼(21.4) ▼(44.3) Net income or (loss) (fn3)........................ 186,143 250,874 158,974 88,340 27,473 ▼(14.6) ▲34.8 ▼(36.6) ▼(68.9) Unit COGS.............................................. $0.24 $0.24 $0.25 $0.25 $0.26 ▲5.2 ▲0.5 ▲4.7 ▲4.6 Unit SG&A expenses.............................. $0.06 $0.06 $0.06 $0.06 $0.06 ▼(10.6) ▼(5.0) ▼(5.8) ▲0.7 Unit operating income or (loss) (fn3)....... $0.05 $0.05 $0.04 $0.04 $0.02 ▼(17.6) ▲7.1 ▼(23.0) ▼(46.0) Unit net income or (loss) (fn3)................. $0.02 $0.03 $0.02 $0.02 $0.01 ▼(5.6) ▲52.1 ▼(37.9) ▼(69.9) COGS/sales (fn1).................................... 68.6 68.7 72.6 71.9 76.7 ▲4.1 ▲0.1 ▲3.9 ▲4.8 Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1)..... 13.0 13.9 10.8 11.6 6.4 ▼(2.2) ▲0.9 ▼(3.1) ▼(5.2) Net income or (loss)/sales (fn1)............... 6.6 10.0 6.3 7.1 2.2 ▼(0.3) ▲3.4 ▼(3.7) ▼(4.9) Capital expenditures............................... 114,974 158,128 154,817 74,415 150,834 ▲34.7 ▲37.5 ▼(2.1) ▲102.7 Research and development expenses..... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Total assets............................................ 3,154,925 3,537,946 3,634,536 NA NA ▲15.2 ▲12.1 ▲2.7 NA Table continued. C.4 Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Productivity=pounds per hour; Period changes=percent- -exceptions noted; Interim period is January through June Reported data Period change comparisons Calendar year Interim Calendar year Table C.1 Continued FGP: Summary data concerning the U.S. total market, by item and period Interim Item 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 2022–24 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 U.S. processors': Net sales: Quantity.............................................. 938,758 929,927 833,509 418,247 393,901 ▼(11.2) ▼(0.9) ▼(10.4) ▼(5.8) Value.................................................. 2,630,639 2,772,543 2,503,426 1,261,665 1,166,230 ▼(4.8) ▲5.4 ▼(9.7) ▼(7.6) Unit value........................................... $2.80 $2.98 $3.00 $3.02 $2.96 ▲7.2 ▲6.4 ▲0.7 ▼(1.9) Cost of goods sold (COGS)..................... 1,928,635 2,004,288 1,850,555 909,759 906,307 ▼(4.0) ▲3.9 ▼(7.7) ▼(0.4) Gross profit or (loss) (fn3)....................... 702,004 768,255 652,871 351,906 259,923 ▼(7.0) ▲9.4 ▼(15.0) ▼(26.1) SG&A expenses...................................... 355,162 378,121 373,372 187,006 190,444 ▲5.1 ▲6.5 ▼(1.3) ▲1.8 Operating income or (loss) (fn3).............. 346,842 390,134 279,499 164,900 69,479 ▼(19.4) ▲12.5 ▼(28.4) ▼(57.9) Net income or (loss) (fn3)........................ 336,026 368,265 260,063 153,816 63,209 ▼(22.6) ▲9.6 ▼(29.4) ▼(58.9) Unit COGS.............................................. $2.05 $2.16 $2.22 $2.18 $2.30 ▲8.1 ▲4.9 ▲3.0 ▲5.8 Unit SG&A expenses.............................. $0.38 $0.41 $0.45 $0.45 $0.48 ▲18.4 ▲7.5 ▲10.2 ▲8.1 Unit operating income or (loss) (fn3)....... $0.37 $0.42 $0.34 $0.39 $0.18 ▼(9.2) ▲13.5 ▼(20.1) ▼(55.3) Unit net income or (loss) (fn3)................. $0.36 $0.40 $0.31 $0.37 $0.16 ▼(12.8) ▲10.6 ▼(21.2) ▼(56.4) COGS/sales (fn1).................................... 73.3 72.3 73.9 72.1 77.7 ▲0.6 ▼(1.0) ▲1.6 ▲5.6 Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1)..... 13.2 14.1 11.2 13.1 6.0 ▼(2.0) ▲0.9 ▼(2.9) ▼(7.1) Net income or (loss)/sales (fn1)............... 12.8 13.3 10.4 12.2 5.4 ▼(2.4) ▲0.5 ▼(2.9) ▼(6.8) Capital expenditures............................... 102,422 82,573 113,495 54,280 40,501 ▲10.8 ▼(19.4) ▲37.4 ▼(25.4) Research and development expenses..... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Total assets............................................ 2,357,377 2,421,795 2,425,836 NA NA ▲2.9 ▲2.7 ▲0.2 NA U.S. producers' and processors': Net sales: Quantity.............................................. 9,062,147 8,129,351 8,185,074 4,050,769 4,143,276 ▼(9.7) ▼(10.3) ▲0.7 ▲2.3 Value.................................................. 5,438,736 5,270,043 5,028,020 2,514,682 2,434,717 ▼(7.6) ▼(3.1) ▼(4.6) ▼(3.2) Unit value........................................... $0.60 $0.65 $0.61 $0.62 $0.59 ▲2.4 ▲8.0 ▼(5.2) ▼(5.3) Cost of goods sold (COGS)..................... 3,853,723 3,719,375 3,683,570 1,810,789 1,879,006 ▼(4.4) ▼(3.5) ▼(1.0) ▲3.8 Gross profit or (loss) (fn3)....................... 1,585,013 1,550,668 1,344,450 703,893 555,711 ▼(15.2) ▼(2.2) ▼(13.3) ▼(21.1) SG&A expenses...................................... 872,038 813,144 791,779 393,567 405,202 ▼(9.2) ▼(6.8) ▼(2.6) ▲3.0 Operating income or (loss) (fn3).............. 712,975 737,524 552,671 310,326 150,509 ▼(22.5) ▲3.4 ▼(25.1) ▼(51.5) Net income or (loss) (fn3)........................ 522,169 619,139 419,037 242,156 90,682 ▼(19.8) ▲18.6 ▼(32.3) ▼(62.6) Unit COGS.............................................. $0.43 $0.46 $0.45 $0.45 $0.45 ▲5.8 ▲7.6 ▼(1.6) ▲1.5 Unit SG&A expenses.............................. $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 $0.10 ▲0.5 ▲3.9 ▼(3.3) ▲0.7 Unit operating income or (loss) (fn3)....... $0.08 $0.09 $0.07 $0.08 $0.04 ▼(14.2) ▲15.3 ▼(25.6) ▼(52.6) Unit net income or (loss) (fn3)................. $0.06 $0.08 $0.05 $0.06 $0.02 ▼(11.2) ▲32.2 ▼(32.8) ▼(63.4) COGS/sales (fn1).................................... 70.9 70.6 73.3 72.0 77.2 ▲2.4 ▼(0.3) ▲2.7 ▲5.2 Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1)..... 13.1 14.0 11.0 12.3 6.2 ▼(2.1) ▲0.9 ▼(3.0) ▼(6.2) Net income or (loss)/sales (fn1)............... 9.6 11.7 8.3 9.6 3.7 ▼(1.3) ▲2.1 ▼(3.4) ▼(5.9) Capital expenditures............................... 217,396 240,701 268,312 128,695 191,335 ▲23.4 ▲10.7 ▲11.5 ▲48.7 Research and development expenses..... 16,476 16,096 16,737 8,815 9,274 ▲1.6 ▼(2.3) ▲4.0 ▲5.2 Total assets............................................ 5,512,302 5,959,741 6,060,372 NA NA ▲9.9 ▲8.1 ▲1.7 NA fn1.--Reported data are in percent and period changes are in percentage points. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 508-compliant tables for these data are contained in parts 3, 4, 6, and 7 of this Note.--Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” percent represent non-zero values less than “0.05” percent (if positive) and greater than “(0.05)” percent (if negative). Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. Period changes preceded by a “▲” represent an increase, while period changes preceded by a “▼” represent a decrease. fn2.--Quantity for U.S. shipments reflects only producers’ U.S. shipment quantities. Value for U.S. shipments reflects float glass products sold in the United States from domestically manufactured float glass (including the value added by U.S. processors to domestic float glass), as well as the incremental value added by U.S. processors to imported float glass. In measuring consumption and market share this methodology avoids reclassifying and/or double counting merchandise already reported as an import. Unit value reflects the fully domestic value. fn3.--Percent changes only calculated when both comparison values represent profits; the directional change in profitability provided when one or both comparison values represent a loss. C.5 Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Productivity=pounds per hour; Period changes=percent- -exceptions noted; Interim period is January through June Reported data Period change comparisons Calendar year Interim Calendar year Table C.2 FGP: Summary data concerning the U.S. merchant market, by item and period Interim Item 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 2022–24 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 U.S. merchant market consumption quantity: Amount................................................... 5,361,077 4,690,016 4,733,041 2,337,847 2,445,917 ▼(11.7) ▼(12.5) ▲0.9 ▲4.6 Producers' share (fn1)............................. 93.4 91.6 91.9 92.2 92.0 ▼(1.6) ▼(1.9) ▲0.3 ▼(0.1) Importers' share (fn1): China.................................................. 2.5 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.0 ▲0.7 ▲0.8 ▼(0.1) ▼(0.1) Malaysia............................................. 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 ▼(0.0) ▲0.3 ▼(0.3) ▲0.0 Subject sources.............................. 3.0 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.5 ▲0.7 ▲1.0 ▼(0.3) ▼(0.1) Mexico................................................ 1.3 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.6 ▲0.0 ▲0.3 ▼(0.3) ▲0.1 All other sources................................. 2.3 2.9 3.1 2.7 2.8 ▲0.8 ▲0.6 ▲0.3 ▲0.1 Nonsubject sources........................ 3.6 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.5 ▲0.8 ▲0.8 ▼(0.0) ▲0.2 All import sources....................... 6.6 8.4 8.1 7.8 8.0 ▲1.6 ▲1.9 ▼(0.3) ▲0.1 U.S. merchant market consumption value: Amount................................................... 4,207,352 4,095,882 3,945,848 1,998,106 1,899,498 ▼(6.2) ▼(2.6) ▼(3.7) ▼(4.9) Producers' share (fn1): Fully domestic value:........................... 91.9 90.8 90.6 90.1 90.0 ▼(1.3) ▼(1.1) ▼(0.2) ▼(0.1) Incremental value added to imports.... 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.4 2.4 ▼(0.1) ▲0.1 ▼(0.1) ▲0.0 Total value...................................... 94.0 93.0 92.7 92.5 92.4 ▼(1.4) ▼(1.0) ▼(0.4) ▼(0.1) Importers' share (fn1): China.................................................. 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.9 ▲0.1 ▲0.1 ▼(0.0) ▲0.3 Malaysia............................................. 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ▼(0.0) ▲0.0 ▼(0.1) ▲0.0 Subject sources.............................. 2.9 3.1 3.0 2.8 3.1 ▲0.1 ▲0.2 ▼(0.1) ▲0.3 Mexico................................................ 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.2 ▲0.1 ▲0.2 ▼(0.1) ▼(0.1) All other sources................................. 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.4 3.3 ▲1.2 ▲0.6 ▲0.6 ▼(0.1) Nonsubject sources........................ 3.1 3.9 4.4 4.7 4.5 ▲1.3 ▲0.8 ▲0.5 ▼(0.2) All import sources....................... 6.0 7.0 7.3 7.5 7.6 ▲1.4 ▲1.0 ▲0.4 ▲0.1 U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of imports from: China: Quantity.............................................. 135,426 155,463 153,596 73,920 74,430 ▲13.4 ▲14.8 ▼(1.2) ▲0.7 Value.................................................. 113,770 115,760 110,549 52,774 55,567 ▼(2.8) ▲1.7 ▼(4.5) ▲5.3 Unit value........................................... $0.84 $0.74 $0.72 $0.71 $0.75 ▼(14.3) ▼(11.4) ▼(3.3) ▲4.6 Ending inventory quantity.................... 25,230 25,294 29,323 25,758 28,087 ▲16.2 ▲0.3 ▲15.9 ▲9.0 Malaysia Quantity.............................................. 23,229 32,541 20,202 9,241 10,465 ▼(13.0) ▲40.1 ▼(37.9) ▲13.2 Value.................................................. 8,062 9,314 6,784 3,255 3,272 ▼(15.9) ▲15.5 ▼(27.2) ▲0.5 Unit value........................................... $0.35 $0.29 $0.34 $0.35 $0.31 ▼(3.2) ▼(17.5) ▲17.3 ▼(11.2) Ending inventory quantity.................... 3,360 2,308 2,263 2,419 2,435 ▼(32.6) ▼(31.3) ▼(1.9) ▲0.7 Subject sources: Quantity.............................................. 158,655 188,004 173,798 83,161 84,895 ▲9.5 ▲18.5 ▼(7.6) ▲2.1 Value.................................................. 121,832 125,074 117,333 56,029 58,839 ▼(3.7) ▲2.7 ▼(6.2) ▲5.0 Unit value........................................... $0.77 $0.67 $0.68 $0.67 $0.69 ▼(12.1) ▼(13.4) ▲1.5 ▲2.9 Ending inventory quantity.................... 28,590 27,602 31,586 28,177 30,522 ▲10.5 ▼(3.5) ▲14.4 ▲8.3 Mexico: Quantity.............................................. 69,223 73,245 61,126 35,962 40,234 ▼(11.7) ▲5.8 ▼(16.5) ▲11.9 Value.................................................. 41,768 49,752 43,692 25,795 23,273 ▲4.6 ▲19.1 ▼(12.2) ▼(9.8) Unit value........................................... $0.60 $0.68 $0.71 $0.72 $0.58 ▲18.5 ▲12.6 ▲5.2 ▼(19.4) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** All other sources: Quantity.............................................. 123,284 134,683 148,597 64,289 69,532 ▲20.5 ▲9.2 ▲10.3 ▲8.2 Value.................................................. 88,269 110,947 128,950 68,012 62,007 ▲46.1 ▲25.7 ▲16.2 ▼(8.8) Unit value........................................... $0.72 $0.82 $0.87 $1.06 $0.89 ▲21.2 ▲15.1 ▲5.3 ▼(15.7) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources: Quantity.............................................. 192,507 207,928 209,723 100,251 109,766 ▲8.9 ▲8.0 ▲0.9 ▲9.5 Value.................................................. 130,037 160,699 172,642 93,807 85,280 ▲32.8 ▲23.6 ▲7.4 ▼(9.1) Unit value........................................... $0.68 $0.77 $0.82 $0.94 $0.78 ▲21.9 ▲14.4 ▲6.5 ▼(17.0) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** All import sources: Quantity.............................................. 351,162 395,932 383,521 183,412 194,661 ▲9.2 ▲12.7 ▼(3.1) ▲6.1 Value.................................................. 251,869 285,773 289,975 149,836 144,119 ▲15.1 ▲13.5 ▲1.5 ▼(3.8) Unit value........................................... $0.72 $0.72 $0.76 $0.82 $0.74 ▲5.4 ▲0.6 ▲4.8 ▼(9.4) Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Table continued. C.6 Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted; Interim period is January through June Reported data Period change comparisons Calendar year Interim Calendar year Merchant market Table C.2 Continued FGP: Summary data concerning the U.S. merchant market, by item and period Interim Item 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 2022–24 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 U.S. producers' and processors': Commercial U.S. shipments (fn2): Quantity.............................................. 5,009,915 4,294,084 4,349,520 2,154,435 2,251,256 ▼(13.2) ▼(14.3) ▲1.3 ▲4.5 Value: Fully domestic value:...................... 3,866,912 3,720,324 3,575,152 1,801,236 1,709,804 ▼(7.5) ▼(3.8) ▼(3.9) ▼(5.1) Incremental value added to imports 88,571 89,785 80,721 47,034 45,575 ▼(8.9) ▲1.4 ▼(10.1) ▼(3.1) Total value................................. 3,955,483 3,810,109 3,655,873 1,848,270 1,755,379 ▼(7.6) ▼(3.7) ▼(4.0) ▼(5.0) Unit value........................................... $0.77 $0.87 $0.82 $0.84 $0.76 ▲6.5 ▲12.2 ▼(5.1) ▼(9.2) U.S. producers': Commercial sales: Quantity.............................................. 5,210,588 4,467,295 4,473,200 2,217,458 2,306,149 ▼(14.2) ▼(14.3) ▲0.1 ▲4.0 Value.................................................. 2,192,567 1,909,678 1,927,177 958,391 959,401 ▼(12.1) ▼(12.9) ▲0.9 ▲0.1 Unit value........................................... $0.42 $0.43 $0.43 $0.43 $0.42 ▲2.4 ▲1.6 ▲0.8 ▼(3.7) Cost of goods sold (COGS)..................... 1,475,563 1,293,660 1,388,697 681,352 712,628 ▼(5.9) ▼(12.3) ▲7.3 ▲4.6 Gross profit or (loss) (fn4)....................... 717,004 616,018 538,480 277,039 246,773 ▼(24.9) ▼(14.1) ▼(12.6) ▼(10.9) SG&A expenses...................................... 367,187 304,551 296,459 147,537 152,389 ▼(19.3) ▼(17.1) ▼(2.7) ▲3.3 Operating income or (loss) (fn4).............. 349,817 311,467 242,021 129,502 94,384 ▼(30.8) ▼(11.0) ▼(22.3) ▼(27.1) Net income or (loss) (fn4)........................ 262,107 221,435 141,568 79,328 46,783 ▼(46.0) ▼(15.5) ▼(36.1) ▼(41.0) Unit COGS.............................................. $0.28 $0.29 $0.31 $0.31 $0.31 ▲9.6 ▲2.3 ▲7.2 ▲0.6 Unit SG&A expenses.............................. $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 ▼(6.0) ▼(3.3) ▼(2.8) ▼(0.7) Unit operating income or (loss) (fn4)....... $0.07 $0.07 $0.05 $0.06 $0.04 ▼(19.4) ▲3.9 ▼(22.4) ▼(29.9) Unit net income or (loss) (fn4)................. $0.05 $0.05 $0.03 $0.04 $0.02 ▼(37.1) ▼(1.5) ▼(36.2) ▼(43.3) COGS/sales (fn1).................................... 67.3 67.7 72.1 71.1 74.3 ▲4.8 ▲0.4 ▲4.3 ▲3.2 Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1)..... 16.0 16.3 12.6 13.5 9.8 ▼(3.4) ▲0.4 ▼(3.8) ▼(3.7) Net income or (loss)/sales (fn1)............... 12.0 11.6 7.3 8.3 4.9 ▼(4.6) ▼(0.4) ▼(4.2) ▼(3.4) U.S. processors' (fn3): Net sales: Quantity.............................................. 938,758 929,927 833,509 418,247 393,901 ▼(11.2) ▼(0.9) ▼(10.4) ▼(5.8) Value.................................................. 2,630,639 2,772,543 2,503,426 1,261,665 1,166,230 ▼(4.8) ▲5.4 ▼(9.7) ▼(7.6) Unit value........................................... $2.80 $2.98 $3.00 $3.02 $2.96 ▲7.2 ▲6.4 ▲0.7 ▼(1.9) Cost of goods sold (COGS)..................... 1,928,635 2,004,288 1,850,555 909,759 906,307 ▼(4.0) ▲3.9 ▼(7.7) ▼(0.4) Gross profit or (loss) (fn4)....................... 702,004 768,255 652,871 351,906 259,923 ▼(7.0) ▲9.4 ▼(15.0) ▼(26.1) SG&A expenses...................................... 355,162 378,121 373,372 187,006 190,444 ▲5.1 ▲6.5 ▼(1.3) ▲1.8 Operating income or (loss) (fn4).............. 346,842 390,134 279,499 164,900 69,479 ▼(19.4) ▲12.5 ▼(28.4) ▼(57.9) Net income or (loss) (fn4)........................ 336,026 368,265 260,063 153,816 63,209 ▼(22.6) ▲9.6 ▼(29.4) ▼(58.9) Unit COGS.............................................. $2.05 $2.16 $2.22 $2.18 $2.30 ▲8.1 ▲4.9 ▲3.0 ▲5.8 Unit SG&A expenses.............................. $0.38 $0.41 $0.45 $0.45 $0.48 ▲18.4 ▲7.5 ▲10.2 ▲8.1 Unit operating income or (loss) (fn4)....... $0.37 $0.42 $0.34 $0.39 $0.18 ▼(9.2) ▲13.5 ▼(20.1) ▼(55.3) Unit net income or (loss) (fn4)................. $0.36 $0.40 $0.31 $0.37 $0.16 ▼(12.8) ▲10.6 ▼(21.2) ▼(56.4) COGS/sales (fn1).................................... 73.3 72.3 73.9 72.1 77.7 ▲0.6 ▼(1.0) ▲1.6 ▲5.6 Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1)..... 13.2 14.1 11.2 13.1 6.0 ▼(2.0) ▲0.9 ▼(2.9) ▼(7.1) Net income or (loss)/sales (fn1)............... 12.8 13.3 10.4 12.2 5.4 ▼(2.4) ▲0.5 ▼(2.9) ▼(6.8) Table continued. C.7 Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Productivity=pounds per hour; Period changes=percent- -exceptions noted; Interim period is January through June Reported data Period change comparisons Calendar year Interim Calendar year Table C.2 Continued FGP: Summary data concerning the U.S. merchant market, by item and period Interim Item 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 2022–24 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 U.S. producers' and processors' (fn3): Commercial sales: Quantity.............................................. 6,149,346 5,397,222 5,306,709 2,635,705 2,700,050 ▼(13.7) ▼(12.2) ▼(1.7) ▲2.4 Value.................................................. 4,823,206 4,682,221 4,430,603 2,220,056 2,125,631 ▼(8.1) ▼(2.9) ▼(5.4) ▼(4.3) Unit value........................................... $0.78 $0.87 $0.83 $0.84 $0.79 ▲6.4 ▲10.6 ▼(3.8) ▼(6.5) Cost of goods sold (COGS)..................... 3,404,198 3,297,948 3,239,252 1,591,111 1,618,935 ▼(4.8) ▼(3.1) ▼(1.8) ▲1.7 Gross profit or (loss) (fn4)....................... 1,419,008 1,384,273 1,191,351 628,945 506,696 ▼(16.0) ▼(2.4) ▼(13.9) ▼(19.4) SG&A expenses...................................... 722,349 682,672 669,831 334,543 342,833 ▼(7.3) ▼(5.5) ▼(1.9) ▲2.5 Operating income or (loss) (fn4).............. 696,659 701,601 521,520 294,402 163,863 ▼(25.1) ▲0.7 ▼(25.7) ▼(44.3) Net income or (loss) (fn4)........................ 598,133 589,700 401,631 233,144 109,992 ▼(32.9) ▼(1.4) ▼(31.9) ▼(52.8) Unit COGS.............................................. $0.55 $0.61 $0.61 $0.60 $0.60 ▲10.3 ▲10.4 ▼(0.1) ▼(0.7) Unit SG&A expenses.............................. $0.12 $0.13 $0.13 $0.13 $0.13 ▲7.5 ▲7.7 ▼(0.2) ▲0.0 Unit operating income or (loss) (fn4)....... $0.11 $0.13 $0.10 $0.11 $0.06 ▼(13.3) ▲14.7 ▼(24.4) ▼(45.7) Unit net income or (loss) (fn4)................. $0.10 $0.11 $0.08 $0.09 $0.04 ▼(22.2) ▲12.3 ▼(30.7) ▼(53.9) COGS/sales (fn1).................................... 70.6 70.4 73.1 71.7 76.2 ▲2.5 ▼(0.1) ▲2.7 ▲4.5 Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1)..... 14.4 15.0 11.8 13.3 7.7 ▼(2.7) ▲0.5 ▼(3.2) ▼(5.6) Net income or (loss)/sales (fn1)............... 12.4 12.6 9.1 10.5 5.2 ▼(3.3) ▲0.2 ▼(3.5) ▼(5.3) fn1.--Reported data are in percent and period changes are in percentage points. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 508-compliant tables for these data are contained in parts 3, 4, 6, and 7 and appendix G of this report. Note.--Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” percent represent non-zero values less than “0.05” percent (if positive) and greater than “(0.05)” percent (if negative). Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. Period changes preceded by a “▲” represent an increase, while period changes preceded by a “▼” represent a decrease. fn2.--Quantity for commercial U.S. shipments reflects only producers’ commercial U.S. shipment quantities. Value for commercial U.S. shipments reflects float glass products sold in the United States from domestically manufactured float glass (including the value added by U.S. processors to domestic float glass), as well as the incremental value added by U.S. processors to imported float glass. In measuring consumption and market share this methodology avoids reclassifying and/or double counting merchandise already reported as an import. Unit value reflects the fully domestic value. ***. fn3.--Processors' ***. For more detailed data and a discussion of methodology, see appendix G of this report. fn4.--Percent changes only calculated when both comparison values represent profits; The directional change in profitability provided when one or both comparison values represent a loss. C.8 Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Productivity=pounds per hour; Period changes=percent- -exceptions noted; Interim period is January through June Reported data Period change comparisons Calendar year Interim Calendar year D.1 APPENDIX D SEMI-FINISHED PRODUCT ANALYSIS D.3 Table D.1 FGP: U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors' narrative responses regarding the semi- finished product analysis comparing unprocessed primary float glass to processed float glass products Factor Firm name and narrative regarding semi-finished product analysis Other uses *** Other uses *** Other uses *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** D.4 Factor Firm name and narrative regarding semi-finished product analysis Separate market *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** D.5 Factor Firm name and narrative regarding semi-finished product analysis Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** D.6 Factor Firm name and narrative regarding semi-finished product analysis Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** D.7 Factor Firm name and narrative regarding semi-finished product analysis Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. D.8 Table D.2 FGP: U.S. importers’ narrative responses regarding the semi-finished product analysis comparing unprocessed primary float glass to processed float glass products Factor Firm name and narrative regarding semi-finished product analysis Other uses *** Other uses *** Other uses *** Other uses *** Other uses *** Other uses *** Other uses *** Other uses *** Other uses *** Other uses *** Other uses *** Other uses *** Other uses *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** D.9 Factor Firm name and narrative regarding semi-finished product analysis Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** D.10 Factor Firm name and narrative regarding semi-finished product analysis Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** D.11 Factor Firm name and narrative regarding semi-finished product analysis Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** D.12 Factor Firm name and narrative regarding semi-finished product analysis Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** D.13 Factor Firm name and narrative regarding semi-finished product analysis Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** D.14 Factor Firm name and narrative regarding semi-finished product analysis Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** D.15 Factor Firm name and narrative regarding semi-finished product analysis Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** D.16 Factor Firm name and narrative regarding semi-finished product analysis Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. D.17 Table D.3 FGP: Purchasers’ narrative responses regarding the semi-finished product analysis comparing unprocessed primary float glass to processed float glass products Factor Firm name and narrative regarding semi-finished product analysis Other uses *** Other uses *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Separate market *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** D.18 Factor Firm name and narrative regarding semi-finished product analysis Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in characteristics *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** D.19 Factor Firm name and narrative regarding semi-finished product analysis Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Differences in cost *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** D.20 Factor Firm name and narrative regarding semi-finished product analysis Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Transformation intensive *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table D.4 FGP: U.S. producers' and U.S. processors' U.S. shipments, by firm type and product type, 2024 Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit values in dollars per pound Measure Producers: Unprocessed FGPs Producers: Processed FGPs Processors: Processed FGPs Quantity *** *** *** Value *** *** *** Unit value *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. E.1 APPENDIX E U.S. PROCESSING OF FGP, BY SOURCE E.3 Table E.1 FGP: U.S. producers' and U.S. processors' reported domestic production operations Firm Narrative response on domestic production operations Producer: AGC America *** Processor: American Mirror *** Producer: Cardinal *** Producer: Carlex *** Processor: Electric Mirror *** Processor: Fashion Glass *** Processor: Finch Industries *** Producer: Fuyao *** Processor: Gardner Glass *** Processor: General Glass *** Processor: Gilded Mirrors and Glass *** Processor: Glass Enterprises *** Processor: Glassfab *** Producer: Guardian *** Processor: GWLA *** E.4 Firm Narrative response on domestic production operations Processor: Hartung *** Processor: Lenoir Mirror *** Processor: Mercer Glassfab *** Processor: Mr Glass *** Processor: Oldcastle *** Processor: Premier Glass Products *** Processor: Press Glass *** Processor: PRL Glass *** Processor: SBG Hold *** Processor: Tristar *** Processor: Trulite *** Processor: United Plate Glass *** Processor: Viracon *** Producer: Vitro *** Processor: Wholesale Glass *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. E.5 Table E.2 FGP: U.S. producers' and U.S. processors' reported domestic production operations, by factor Factor Firm name and narrative response on domestic production operations Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** E.6 Factor Firm name and narrative response on domestic production operations Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Capital investments *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** E.7 Factor Firm name and narrative response on domestic production operations Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Technical expertise *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** E.8 Factor Firm name and narrative response on domestic production operations Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Value added *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** E.9 Factor Firm name and narrative response on domestic production operations Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Employment *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** E.10 Factor Firm name and narrative response on domestic production operations Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Quantity, type, source of parts *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** E.11 Factor Firm name and narrative response on domestic production operations Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Costs and activities *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. E.12 Table E.3 FGP: U.S. producers' and U.S. processors' reported data on domestic production operations, by factor, 2022 through 2024 Value as noted in table; value added in percent; employment in average number of PRWs Item U.S. producers Processor: American Mirror Processor: Electric Mirror Processor: Fashion Glass Processor: Finch Industries Processor: Gardner Glass Capital investments: Greenfield *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital investments: Assets *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital investments: Capital expenditures *** *** *** *** *** *** Technical expertise: R&D expenses *** *** *** *** *** *** Value added *** percent *** percent *** percent *** percent *** percent *** percent Employment *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs Quantity, type, and source of parts Domestic: *** percent; Imported: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Table continued. E.13 Table E.3 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers' and U.S. processors' reported data on domestic production operations, by factor, 2022 through 2024 Value as noted in table; value added in percent; employment in average number of PRWs Item U.S. producers Processor: General Glass Processor: Gilded Mirrors and Glass Processor: Glass Enterprises Processor: Glassfab Processor: Hartung Capital investments: Greenfield *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital investments: Assets *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital investments: Capital expenditures *** *** *** *** *** *** Technical expertise: R&D expenses *** *** *** *** *** *** Value added *** percent *** percent *** percent *** percent *** percent *** percent Employment *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs Quantity, type, and source of parts Domestic: *** percent; Imported: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Table continued. E.14 Table E.3 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers' and U.S. processors' reported data on domestic production operations, by factor, 2022 through 2024 Value as noted in table; value added in percent; employment in average number of PRWs Item U.S. producers Processor: Lenoir Mirror Processor: Mercer Glassfab Processor: Mr. Glass Processor: Oldcastle Processor: Premier Glass Products Capital investments: Greenfield *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital investments: Assets *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital investments: Capital expenditures *** *** *** *** *** *** Technical expertise: R&D expenses *** *** *** *** *** *** Value added *** percent *** percent *** percent *** percent *** percent *** percent Employment *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs Quantity, type, and source of parts Domestic: *** percent; Imported: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Table continued. E.15 Table E.3 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers' and U.S. processors' reported data on domestic production operations, by factor, 2022 through 2024 Value as noted in table; value added in percent; employment in average number of PRWs Item U.S. producers Processor: Press Glass Processor: PRL Glass Processor: SBG Hold Processor: Tristar Processor: Trulite Capital investments: Greenfield *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital investments: Assets *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital investments: Capital expenditures *** *** *** *** *** *** Technical expertise: R&D expenses *** *** *** *** *** *** Value added *** percent *** percent *** percent *** percent *** percent *** percent Employment *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs Quantity, type, and source of parts Domestic: *** percent; Imported: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Table continued. E.16 Table E.3 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers' and U.S. processors' reported data on domestic production operations, by factor, 2022 through 2024 Value as noted in table; value added in percent; employment in average number of PRWs Item U.S. producers Processor: United Plate Glass Processor: Viracon Processor: Wholesale Glass All responding U.S. processors Capital investments: Greenfield *** *** *** *** *** Capital investments: Assets *** *** *** *** *** Capital investments: Capital expenditures *** *** *** *** *** Technical expertise: R&D expenses *** *** *** *** *** Value added *** percent *** percent *** percent *** percent *** percent Employment *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs *** PRWs Quantity, type, and source of parts Domestic: *** percent; Imported: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Domestic FGP: *** percent; Subject FGP: *** percent; Nonsubject FGP: *** percent; Other raw materials: *** percent Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Value added is calculated as the share conversion costs (direct labor, other factory costs, and energy costs for U.S. producers and raw materials other than float glass, direct labor and other factory costs for U.S. processors) out of cost of goods sold (COGS). Ranges cover full calendar years. Quantity, type and source of parts reflects 2024 data collected on raw materials by source. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.17 Table E.4 FGP: U.S. producers’ and U.S. processors’ reported complexity and importance of operations Ratings of 1 are minimally complex, intense, or important; ratings of 5 are extremely complex, intense, or important Firm Rating Narrative response on complexity and importance rating Producer: AGC America *** *** Processor: American Mirror *** *** Producer: Cardinal *** *** Producer: Carlex *** *** Processor: Electric Mirror *** *** Processor: Fashion Glass *** *** Processor: Finch Industries *** *** Producer: Fuyao *** *** Processor: Gardner Glass *** *** Processor: General Glass *** *** Processor: Gilded Mirrors and Glass *** *** Processor: Glass Enterprises *** *** Processor: Glassfab *** *** E.18 Firm Rating Narrative response on complexity and importance rating Producer: Guardian *** *** Processor: GWLA *** *** Processor: Hartung *** *** Processor: Lenoir Mirror *** *** Processor: Mercer Glassfab *** *** Processor: Mr Glass *** *** Processor: Oldcastle *** *** Processor: Premier Glass Products *** *** Processor: Press Glass *** *** Processor: PRL Glass *** *** Processor: SBG Hold *** *** Processor: Tristar *** *** Processor: Trulite *** *** Processor: United Plate Glass *** *** Processor: Viracon *** *** Producer: Vitro *** *** E.19 Firm Rating Narrative response on complexity and importance rating Processor: Wholesale Glass *** *** All U.S. producers *** NA All responding U.S. processors *** NA All firms *** NA Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table E.5 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.20 Table E.6 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table E.7 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing, U.S. imports from subject sources, and ratio of subject imports to processing, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratios in percent; interim period is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. processing Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from Malaysia Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from subject sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China to U.S. processing Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from Malaysia to U.S. processing Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from subject sources to U.S. processing Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.21 Table E.8 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table E.9 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing, U.S. imports from subject sources, and ratio of subject imports to processing, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratios in percent; interim period is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. processing Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from Malaysia Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from subject sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China to U.S. processing Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from Malaysia to U.S. processing Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from subject sources to U.S. processing Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.22 Table E.10 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.23 Table E.11 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. Table E.12 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing, U.S. imports from subject sources, and ratio of subject imports to processing, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratios in percent; interim period is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. processing Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China to U.S. processing Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.24 Table E.13 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table E.14 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing, U.S. imports from subject sources, and ratio of subject imports to processing, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratios in percent; interim period is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. processing Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China to U.S. processing Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. E.25 Table E.15 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity *** *** *** *** 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value *** *** *** *** 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. Table E.16 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing, U.S. imports from subject sources, and ratio of subject imports to processing, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratios in percent; interim period is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. processing Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China to U.S. processing Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.26 Table E.17 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.27 Table E.18 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.28 Table E.19 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.29 Table E.20 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table E.21 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing, U.S. imports from subject sources, and ratio of subject imports to processing, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratios in percent; interim period is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. processing Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China to U.S. processing Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.30 Table E.22 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.31 Table E.23 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.32 Table E.24 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 *** Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. Table E.25 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing, U.S. imports from subject sources, and ratio of subject imports to processing, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratios in percent; interim period is January through June Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. processing Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from Malaysia Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from subject sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China to U.S. processing Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from Malaysia to U.S. processing Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from subject sources to U.S. processing Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.33 Table E.26 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table E.27 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. E.34 Table E.28 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. ***. E.35 Table E.29 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.36 Table E.30 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.37 Table E.31 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.38 Table E.32 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.39 Table E.33 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.40 Table E.34 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.41 Table E.35 FGP: ***'s U.S. processing of float glass products, by source of float glass input into production and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; raw material (RM) value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Float glass input source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Domestic Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Domestic RM value *** *** *** *** *** Subject RM value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject RM value *** *** *** *** *** All sources RM value *** *** *** *** *** Domestic Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. E.42 Table E.36 FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ profitability, capital expenditures, R&D expenses, and total net assets Gross profit or (loss) Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other U.S. processors *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. processors 702,004 768,255 652,871 351,906 259,923 All U.S. producers 883,009 782,413 691,579 351,987 295,788 U.S. producers and processors 1,585,013 1,550,668 1,344,450 703,893 555,711 Table continued. Table E.36 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ profitability, capital expenditures, R&D expenses, and total net assets Operating income or (loss) Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other U.S. processors *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. processors 346,842 390,134 279,499 164,900 69,479 All U.S. producers 366,133 347,390 273,172 145,426 81,030 U.S. producers and processors 712,975 737,524 552,671 310,326 150,509 Table continued. E.43 Table E.36 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ profitability, capital expenditures, R&D expenses, and total net assets Net income or (loss) Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other U.S. processors *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. processors 336,026 368,265 260,063 153,816 63,209 All U.S. producers 186,143 250,874 158,974 88,340 27,473 U.S. producers and processors 522,169 619,139 419,037 242,156 90,682 Table continued. Table E.36 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ profitability, capital expenditures, R&D expenses, and total net assets Gross profit or (loss) to net sales ratio Ratio in percent; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other U.S. processors *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. processors 26.7 27.7 26.1 27.9 22.3 All U.S. producers 31.4 31.3 27.4 28.1 23.3 U.S. producers and processors 29.1 29.4 26.7 28.0 22.8 Table continued. E.44 Table E.36 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ profitability, capital expenditures, R&D expenses, and total net assets Operating income or (loss) to net sales ratio Ratio in percent; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other U.S. processors *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. processors 13.2 14.1 11.2 13.1 6.0 All U.S. producers 13.0 13.9 10.8 11.6 6.4 U.S. producers and processors 13.1 14.0 11.0 12.3 6.2 Table continued. Table E.36 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ profitability, capital expenditures, R&D expenses, and total net assets Net income or (loss) to net sales ratio Ratio in percent; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other U.S. processors *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. processors 12.8 13.3 10.4 12.2 5.4 All U.S. producers 6.6 10.0 6.3 7.1 2.2 U.S. producers and processors 9.6 11.7 8.3 9.6 3.7 Table continued. E.45 Table E.36 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ profitability, capital expenditures, R&D expenses, and total net assets Unit gross profit or (loss) Unit values in dollars per pound; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other U.S. processors *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. processors 0.75 0.83 0.78 0.84 0.66 All U.S. producers 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.08 U.S. producers and processors 0.17 0.19 0.16 0.17 0.13 Table continued. Table E.36 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ profitability, capital expenditures, R&D expenses, and total net assets Unit operating income or (loss) Unit values in dollars per pound; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other U.S. processors *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. processors 0.37 0.42 0.34 0.39 0.18 All U.S. producers 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 U.S. producers and processors 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.04 Table continued. E.46 Table E.36 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ profitability, capital expenditures, R&D expenses, and total net assets Unit net income or (loss) Unit values in dollars per pound; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other U.S. processors *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. processors 0.36 0.40 0.31 0.37 0.16 All U.S. producers 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 U.S. producers and processors 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.02 Table continued. Table E.36 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ profitability, capital expenditures, R&D expenses, and total net assets Capital expenditures Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other U.S. processors *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. processors 102,422 82,573 113,495 54,280 40,501 All U.S. producers 114,974 158,128 154,817 74,415 150,834 U.S. producers and processors 217,396 240,701 268,312 128,695 191,335 Table continued. E.47 Table E.36 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ profitability, capital expenditures, R&D expenses, and total net assets R&D expenses Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through June Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other U.S. processors *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. processors *** *** *** *** *** All U.S. producers *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers and processors 16,476 16,096 16,737 8,815 9,274 Table continued. Table E.36 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ profitability, capital expenditures, R&D expenses, and total net assets Total net assets Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2022 2023 2024 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other U.S. processors *** *** *** All U.S. processors 2,357,377 2,421,795 2,425,836 All U.S. producers 3,154,925 3,537,946 3,634,536 U.S. producers and processors 5,512,302 5,959,741 6,060,372 Table continued. E.48 Table E.36 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ profitability, capital expenditures, R&D expenses, and total net assets Operating ROA Ratio in percent Firm 2022 2023 2024 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other U.S. processors *** *** *** All U.S. processors 14.7 16.1 11.5 All U.S. producers 11.6 9.8 7.5 U.S. producers and processors 12.9 12.4 9.1 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” represent values greater than zero, but less than “0.05” percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—”. F.1 APPENDIX F U.S. PRODUCERS’, U.S. PROCESSORS’, AND U.S. IMPORTERS’ U.S. SHIPMENTS BY TYPE F.3 Table F.1 FGP: U.S. producers', U.S. processors', and U.S. importers' U.S. shipments, by source and product type, 2024 Quantity in 1,000 pounds; Value in 1,000 dollars; Unit values in dollars per pound Source Measure Un- processed IGUs Mirrors Tempered Laminated All other products All product types U.S. producers Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** 7,269,477 U.S. processors Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** 812,790 China Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** 158,149 Malaysia Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** 20,157 Subject sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** 178,306 Mexico Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** 65,546 All other sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** 154,344 Nonsubject sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** 219,890 All import sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** 398,196 All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** 8,480,463 U.S. producers Value *** *** *** *** *** *** 2,418,615 U.S. processors Value *** *** *** *** *** *** 2,425,674 China Value *** *** *** *** *** *** 98,807 Malaysia Value *** *** *** *** *** *** 6,596 Subject sources Value *** *** *** *** *** *** 105,403 Mexico Value *** *** *** *** *** *** 42,605 All other sources Value *** *** *** *** *** *** 131,181 Nonsubject sources Value *** *** *** *** *** *** 173,786 All import sources Value *** *** *** *** *** *** 279,189 All sources Value *** *** *** *** *** *** 5,123,478 U.S. producers Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.33 U.S. processors Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** China Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.62 Malaysia Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.33 Subject sources Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.59 Mexico Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.65 All other sources Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.85 Nonsubject sources Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.79 All import sources Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.70 All sources Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** 0.60 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. "Unprocessed" refers to unprocessed primary float glass, "IGUs" refer to insulating glass units, and "Tempered" and "Laminated" refer to tempered safety glass and laminated safety glass respectively. F.4 Figure F.1 FGP: U.S. producers', U.S. processors', and U.S. importers' U.S. shipments average unit value, by source and product type, 2024 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: "Unprocessed" refers to unprocessed primary float glass, "IGUs" refer to insulating glass units, and "Tempered" and "Laminated" refer to tempered safety glass and laminated safety glass respectively. F.5 Figure F.2 FGP: U.S. producers', U.S. processors', and U.S. importers' U.S. shipments quantities, by source and product type, 2024 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: "Unprocessed" refers to unprocessed primary float glass, "IGUs" refer to insulating glass units, and "Tempered" and "Laminated" refer to tempered safety glass and laminated safety glass respectively. G.1 APPENDIX G MERCHANT MARKET DATA G.3 Table G.1 FGP: Apparent U.S. merchant market consumption and market shares based on quantity data, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. producers Quantity 5,009,915 4,294,084 4,349,520 2,154,435 2,251,256 China Quantity 135,426 155,463 153,596 73,920 74,430 Malaysia Quantity 23,229 32,541 20,202 9,241 10,465 Subject sources Quantity 158,655 188,004 173,798 83,161 84,895 Mexico Quantity 69,223 73,245 61,126 35,962 40,234 All other sources Quantity 123,284 134,683 148,597 64,289 69,532 Nonsubject sources Quantity 192,507 207,928 209,723 100,251 109,766 All import sources Quantity 351,162 395,932 383,521 183,412 194,661 All sources Quantity 5,361,077 4,690,016 4,733,041 2,337,847 2,445,917 U.S. producers Share 93.4 91.6 91.9 92.2 92.0 China Share 2.5 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.0 Malaysia Share 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 Subject sources Share 3.0 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.5 Mexico Share 1.3 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.6 All other sources Share 2.3 2.9 3.1 2.7 2.8 Nonsubject sources Share 3.6 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.5 All import sources Share 6.6 8.4 8.1 7.8 8.0 All sources Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Data for U.S. producers are based on commercial U.S. shipments while data for importers are based on U.S. shipments. G.4 Figure G.1 FGP: Apparent U.S. merchant market consumption based on quantity data, by source and period Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 Calendar year Interim Quantity (million pounds) U.S. producers Subject imports Nonsubject imports G.5 Table G.2 FGP: Apparent U.S. merchant market consumption and market shares based on value data, by source and period Value in 1,000 dollars; shares in percent; interim period is January through June Source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. producers Value 2,076,147 1,805,159 1,855,381 922,426 927,008 U.S. processors: Value added to domestic Value 1,790,765 1,915,165 1,719,771 878,810 782,796 U.S. producers and processors: Fully domestic value Value 3,866,912 3,720,324 3,575,152 1,801,236 1,709,804 U.S. processors: Value added to imports Value 88,571 89,785 80,721 47,034 45,575 U.S. producers and processors: Total value Value 3,955,483 3,810,109 3,655,873 1,848,270 1,755,379 China Value 113,770 115,760 110,549 52,774 55,567 Malaysia Value 8,062 9,314 6,784 3,255 3,272 Subject sources Value 121,832 125,074 117,333 56,029 58,839 Mexico Value 41,768 49,752 43,692 25,795 23,273 All other sources Value 88,269 110,947 128,950 68,012 62,007 Nonsubject sources Value 130,037 160,699 172,642 93,807 85,280 All import sources Value 251,869 285,773 289,975 149,836 144,119 All sources Value 4,207,352 4,095,882 3,945,848 1,998,106 1,899,498 U.S. producers Share 49.3 44.1 47.0 46.2 48.8 U.S. processors: Value added to domestic Share 42.6 46.8 43.6 44.0 41.2 U.S. producers and processors: Fully domestic value Share 91.9 90.8 90.6 90.1 90.0 U.S. processors: Value added to imports Share 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.4 2.4 U.S. producers and processors: Total value Share 94.0 93.0 92.7 92.5 92.4 China Share 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.9 Malaysia Share 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Subject sources Share 2.9 3.1 3.0 2.8 3.1 Mexico Share 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.2 All other sources Share 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.4 3.3 Nonsubject sources Share 3.1 3.9 4.4 4.7 4.5 All import sources Share 6.0 7.0 7.3 7.5 7.6 All sources Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Value for U.S. producers' and U.S. processors' commercial U.S. shipments reflects float glass products sold in the United States from domestically manufactured float glass (including the value added by U.S. processors to domestic float glass), as well as the incremental value added by U.S. processors to imported float glass. In measuring consumption and market share this methodology avoids reclassifying and/or double counting merchandise already reported as an import. G.6 Figure G.2 FGP: Apparent U.S. merchant market consumption based on value data, by source and period Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Value for U.S. producers' and U.S. processors' U.S. shipments reflects float glass products sold in the United States from domestically manufactured float glass (including the value added by U.S. processors to domestic float glass), as well as the incremental value added by U.S. processors to imported float glass. In measuring consumption and market share this methodology avoids reclassifying and/or double counting merchandise already reported as an import. 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 Calendar year Interim Value (million dollars) U.S. producers and processors: Total value Subject imports Nonsubject imports G.7 Merchant market results for U.S. producers are provided in table G.3. Combined merchant market results for U.S. producers and processors are provided in table G.4. As previously discussed in Part 6, processors’ total market results are used as a proxy for their merchant market results. Processors’ ***.1 Table G.3 FGP: U.S. producers’ results for merchant market operations, by item and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; ratios in percent; interim is January to September Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Commercial sales ("CS") Quantity 5,210,588 4,467,295 4,473,200 2,217,458 2,306,149 Commercial sales Value 2,192,567 1,909,678 1,927,177 958,391 959,401 COGS: Raw materials Value 423,621 369,522 398,989 187,650 221,719 COGS: Direct labor Value 266,253 266,692 258,128 132,909 129,947 COGS: Other factory Value 604,801 528,540 619,807 307,370 295,925 COGS: Energy Value 180,888 128,906 111,773 53,423 65,037 COGS: Total Value 1,475,563 1,293,660 1,388,697 681,352 712,628 Gross profit or (loss) Value 717,004 616,018 538,480 277,039 246,773 SG&A expenses Value 367,187 304,551 296,459 147,537 152,389 Operating income or (loss) Value 349,817 311,467 242,021 129,502 94,384 Interest expense Value *** *** *** *** *** All other expenses Value *** *** *** *** *** All other income Value *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Value 262,107 221,435 141,568 79,328 46,783 Depreciation/amortization Value 193,310 183,363 170,301 86,706 84,716 Cash flow Value 455,417 404,798 311,869 166,034 131,499 COGS: Raw materials Ratio to CS 19.3 19.3 20.7 19.6 23.1 COGS: Direct labor Ratio to CS 12.1 14.0 13.4 13.9 13.5 COGS: Other factory Ratio to CS 27.6 27.7 32.2 32.1 30.8 COGS: Energy Ratio to CS 8.3 6.8 5.8 5.6 6.8 COGS: Total Ratio to CS 67.3 67.7 72.1 71.1 74.3 Gross profit Ratio to CS 32.7 32.3 27.9 28.9 25.7 SG&A expense Ratio to CS 16.7 15.9 15.4 15.4 15.9 Operating income or (loss) Ratio to CS 16.0 16.3 12.6 13.5 9.8 Net income or (loss) Ratio to CS 12.0 11.6 7.3 8.3 4.9 Table continued. 1 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section 6.7. G.8 Table G.3 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ results for merchant market operations, by item and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; ratios in percent; interim is January to September Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 COGS: Raw materials Share 28.7 28.6 28.7 27.5 31.1 COGS: Direct labor Share 18.0 20.6 18.6 19.5 18.2 COGS: Other factory Share 41.0 40.9 44.6 45.1 41.5 COGS: Energy Share 12.3 10.0 8.0 7.8 9.1 COGS: Total Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Commercial sales Unit value 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.42 COGS: Raw materials Unit value 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.10 COGS: Direct labor Unit value 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 COGS: Other factory Unit value 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.13 COGS: Energy Unit value 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 COGS: Total Unit value 0.28 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.31 Gross profit or (loss) Unit value 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.11 SG&A expenses Unit value 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 Operating income or (loss) Unit value 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.04 Net income or (loss) Unit value 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.02 Operating losses Count 1 1 1 1 2 Net losses Count 1 1 1 1 2 Data Count 5 5 5 5 5 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares represent the share of COGS. G.9 Table G.4 FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ results for merchant market operations, by item and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; ratios in percent; interim is January to September Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Commercial sales ("CS") Quantity 6,149,346 5,397,222 5,306,709 2,635,705 2,700,050 Commercial sales Value 4,823,206 4,682,221 4,430,603 2,220,056 2,125,631 COGS: Raw materials Value 1,335,179 1,308,450 1,258,971 602,085 633,595 COGS: Direct labor Value 629,177 649,823 608,836 309,145 301,465 COGS: Other factory Value 1,192,937 1,142,856 1,195,237 594,956 586,754 COGS: Energy Value 246,905 196,819 176,208 84,925 97,121 COGS: Total Value 3,404,198 3,297,948 3,239,252 1,591,111 1,618,935 Gross profit or (loss) Value 1,419,008 1,384,273 1,191,351 628,945 506,696 SG&A expenses Value 722,349 682,672 669,831 334,543 342,833 Operating income or (loss) Value 696,659 701,601 521,520 294,402 163,863 Interest expense Value *** *** *** *** *** All other expenses Value *** *** *** *** *** All other income Value *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Value 598,133 589,700 401,631 233,144 109,992 Depreciation/amortization Value 259,574 251,985 248,631 124,774 129,157 Cash flow Value 857,707 841,685 650,262 357,918 239,149 COGS: Raw materials Ratio to CS 27.7 27.9 28.4 27.1 29.8 COGS: Direct labor Ratio to CS 13.0 13.9 13.7 13.9 14.2 COGS: Other factory Ratio to CS 24.7 24.4 27.0 26.8 27.6 COGS: Energy Ratio to CS 5.1 4.2 4.0 3.8 4.6 COGS: Total Ratio to CS 70.6 70.4 73.1 71.7 76.2 Gross profit Ratio to CS 29.4 29.6 26.9 28.3 23.8 SG&A expense Ratio to CS 15.0 14.6 15.1 15.1 16.1 Operating income or (loss) Ratio to CS 14.4 15.0 11.8 13.3 7.7 Net income or (loss) Ratio to CS 12.4 12.6 9.1 10.5 5.2 Table continued. G.10 Table G.4 (Continued) FGP: U.S. producers’ and processors’ results for merchant market operations, by item and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; ratios in percent; interim is January to September Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 COGS: Raw materials Share 39.2 39.7 38.9 37.8 39.1 COGS: Direct labor Share 18.5 19.7 18.8 19.4 18.6 COGS: Other factory Share 35.0 34.7 36.9 37.4 36.2 COGS: Energy Share 7.3 6.0 5.4 5.3 6.0 COGS: Total Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Commercial sales Unit value 0.78 0.87 0.83 0.84 0.79 COGS: Raw materials Unit value 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23 COGS: Direct labor Unit value 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.11 COGS: Other factory Unit value 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.22 COGS: Energy Unit value 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 COGS: Total Unit value 0.55 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 Gross profit or (loss) Unit value 0.23 0.26 0.22 0.24 0.19 SG&A expenses Unit value 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Operating income or (loss) Unit value 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.06 Net income or (loss) Unit value 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.04 Operating losses Count 4 3 7 6 7 Net losses Count 4 3 7 6 8 Data Count 27 27 27 27 27 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares represent the share of COGS. H.1 APPENDIX H NONSUBJECT COUNTRY PRICE DATA H.3 *** reported price data for Mexico for product 4 and *** reported purchase cost data for Mexico for product 3. Price data reported by these firms accounted for 9.3 percent of U.S. shipments from Mexico in 2024.12 These price items and accompanying data are comparable to those presented in tables 5.3 to 5.11. Price and quantity data for Mexico are shown in tables H.1 and H.2 and in figures H.1 and H.2 (with domestic and subject sources). Comparing nonsubject country price and purchase cost data with U.S. producer price data, prices for product imported from Mexico were lower than prices for U.S.-produced product in *** instances and higher in *** instances. In comparing nonsubject country price data with subject country price data, costs for product imported from Mexico were lower than prices for product imported from subject countries in *** instances and higher in *** instances. In comparing nonsubject country purchase cost data with subject country purchase cost data, cost for products imported from Mexico were lower than cost for products imported from subject countries in *** instances and higher in *** instances (table H.3). 1 *** report price data for Mexico. Importer *** reported purchase cost data for *** for Mexico. Importer *** reported purchase cost data for ***; however, its data included IGU and out-of-scope products and were excluded from the pricing calculations. 2 U.S. shipments from Mexico are calculated based off of U.S. shipment values. H.4 Table H.1 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4 from nonsubject sources, by quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices in dollars per square foot Period U.S. price U.S. quantity Mexico price Mexico quantity 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 4: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating. H.5 Figure H.1 FGP: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4, by quarter Price of product 4 * * * * * * * Volume of product 4 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 4: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating. H.6 Table H.2 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices, unit LDP values, and quantities of domestic and imported product 3, by source and quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices in dollars per square foot Period U.S. price U.S. quantity Mexico price Mexico quantity 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 3: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper-free backing. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. H.7 Figure H.2 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices, unit LDP values, and quantities of domestic and imported product 3, by source and quarter Price of product 3 * * * * * * * Volume of product 3 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 3: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper-free backing. H.8 Table H.3 FGP: Summary of higher/(lower) unit values for nonsubject price and cost data, by source, January 2022 through June 2025 Quantity in square feet Comparison Benchmark source Number of quarters lower Quantity lower Number of quarters higher Quantity higher Mexico price United States price *** *** *** *** Mexico price China price *** *** *** *** Mexico price Malaysia price *** *** *** *** Mexico cost United States price *** *** *** *** Mexico cost China cost *** *** *** *** Mexico cost Malaysia cost *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. I.1 APPENDIX I PRICE DATA OF COMBINED U.S. PRODUCERS AND PROCESSORS VS. IMPORTS I.3 The U.S. price data in this appendix reflects pricing data reported by both U.S. producers and U.S. processors for sales of the requested products. Import pricing data presented in this appendix are the same as those reported in Part 5 and are not revised for this appendix. Price data Three U.S. producers, 10 U.S. processors, and 5 importers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.1 2 Price data for products 1 to 5 are presented in tables I.1 to I.5 and figures I.1 to I.5. 1 Per-unit pricing data are calculated from total quantity and total value data provided by U.S. producers and importers. The precision and variation of these figures may be affected by rounding, limited quantities, and producer or importer estimates. 2 Pricing data reported by U.S. producer *** and U.S. importers *** were removed from the data set. *** reported that it provided value data based on total sales income, not f.o.b. point of shipment, and did not have sufficient time to remove transportation costs. *** reported it does not maintain quantities in square feet and prices could not be computed or validated. *** was not able to provide U.S. dollar value data, thereby providing no price/value basis for the pricing tables. *** could not provide LDP value/purchase cost data across multiple quarters along with other inconsistencies making the pricing series incomplete, unreliable, and inaccurate. I.4 Table I.1 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by source and quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices in dollars per square foot; Margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China price China quantity China margin Malaysia price Malaysia quantity Malaysia margin 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 1: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm (i.e., >0.01% iron content by weight); clear; uncoated. I.5 Figure I.1 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1, by source and quarter Price of product 1 * * * * * * * Volume of product 1 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 1: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm (i.e., >0.01% iron content by weight); clear; uncoated. I.6 Table I.2 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by source and quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices in dollars per square foot; Margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China price China quantity China margin Malaysia price Malaysia quantity Malaysia margin 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 2: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper backing. I.7 Figure I.2 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2, by source and quarter Price of product 2 * * * * * * * Volume of product 2 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 2: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper backing. I.8 Table I.3 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by source and quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices in dollars per square foot; Margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China price China quantity China margin Malaysia price Malaysia quantity Malaysia margin 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 3: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper-free backing. I.9 Figure I.3 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3, by source and quarter Price of product 3 * * * * * * * Volume of product 3 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 3: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper-free backing. I.10 Table I.4 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by source and quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices in dollars per square foot; Margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China price China quantity China margin Malaysia price Malaysia quantity Malaysia margin 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 4: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating. I.11 Figure I.4 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4, by source and quarter Price of product 4 * * * * * * * Volume of product 4 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 4: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating. I.12 Table I.5 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by source and quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices in dollars per square foot; Margins in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China price China quantity China margin Malaysia price Malaysia quantity Malaysia margin 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 5: Tempered float glass with a nominal thickness of 10mm (or 3/8”) for use in bath/shower doors or enclosures; clear; uncoated. I.13 Figure I.5 FGP: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5, by source and quarter Price of product 5 * * * * * * * Volume of product 5 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 5: Tempered float glass with a nominal thickness of 10mm (or 3/8”) for use in bath/shower doors or enclosures; clear; uncoated. I.14 Import purchase cost data As noted above, the U.S. price data in this appendix reflects pricing data reported by both U.S. producers and U.S. processors for sales of the requested products. Tables I.6 to I.10 and figures I.6 to I.10 present import purchase costs alongside the corresponding U.S. prices (producer and processor data combined) for each product and quarter in which usable data was reported. Import purchase cost data and importer reported data shown in these comparisons are the same as those reported in Part 5. Table I.6 FGP: Import landed duty-paid purchase costs and domestic prices, quantities of product 1, and price-cost differentials, by quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices and unit LDP values in dollars per square foot; Differentials in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China LDP unit cost China quantity China Price-cost differential Malaysia LDP unit cost Malaysia quantity Malaysia Price-cost differential 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 1: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm (i.e., >0.01% iron content by weight); clear; uncoated. Note: U.S. producer price data is the same as that presented in table I.1. I.15 Figure I.6 FGP: U.S. producer prices and import purchase costs, and quantities, of product 1, by quarter U.S. price and import purchase cost of product 1 * * * * * * * Volume of product 1 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 1: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm (i.e., >0.01% iron content by weight); clear; uncoated. I.16 Table I.7 FGP: Import landed duty-paid purchase costs and domestic prices, quantities of product 2, and price-cost differentials, by quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices and unit LDP values in dollars per square foot; Differentials in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China LDP unit cost China quantity China Price-cost differential Malaysia LDP unit cost Malaysia quantity Malaysia Price-cost differential 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 2: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper backing. I.17 Figure I.7 FGP: U.S. producer prices and import purchase costs, and quantities, of product 2, by quarter U.S. price and import purchase cost of product 2 * * * * * * * Volume of product 2 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 2: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper backing. I.18 Table I.8 FGP: Import landed duty-paid purchase costs and domestic prices, quantities of product 3, and price-cost differentials, by quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices and unit LDP values in dollars per square foot; Differentials in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China LDP unit cost China quantity China Price-cost differential Malaysia LDP unit cost Malaysia quantity Malaysia Price-cost differential 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 3: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper-free backing. Note: U.S. producer price data is the same as that presented in table I.3. I.19 Figure I.8 FGP: U.S. producer prices and import purchase costs, and quantities, of product 3, by quarter U.S. price and import purchase cost of product 3 * * * * * * * Volume of product 3 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 3: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating; copper-free backing. I.20 Table I.9 FGP: Import landed duty-paid purchase costs and domestic prices, quantities of product 4, and price-cost differentials, by quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices and unit LDP values in dollars per square foot; Differentials in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China LDP unit cost China quantity China Price-cost differential Malaysia LDP unit cost Malaysia quantity Malaysia Price-cost differential 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 4: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating. Note: U.S. producer price data is the same as that presented in table I.4. I.21 Figure I.9 FGP: U.S. producer prices and import purchase costs, and quantities, of product 4, by quarter U.S. price and import purchase cost of product 4 * * * * * * * Volume of product 4 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 4: Annealed float glass with a nominal thickness of 6.0 mm; mirror stock sheet with a silver reflective coating. I.22 Table I.10 FGP: Import landed duty-paid purchase costs and domestic prices, quantities of product 5, and price-cost differentials, by quarter Quantity in square feet; Prices and unit LDP values in dollars per square foot; Differentials in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China LDP unit cost China quantity China Price-cost differential Malaysia LDP unit cost Malaysia quantity Malaysia Price-cost differential 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 5: Tempered float glass with a nominal thickness of 10mm (or 3/8”) for use in bath/shower doors or enclosures; clear; uncoated. Note: U.S. producer price data is the same as that presented in table I.5. I.23 Figure I.10 FGP: U.S. producer prices and import purchase costs, and quantities, of product 5, by quarter U.S. price and import purchase cost of product 5 * * * * * * * Volume of product 5 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 5: Tempered float glass with a nominal thickness of 10mm (or 3/8”) for use in bath/shower doors or enclosures; clear; uncoated. I.24 Price and purchase cost comparisons Price comparisons As shown in tables I.11 to I.13, when U.S. prices include both processors and producers pricing data, prices for products imported from China were below those for U.S.-produced product in 54 of 64 instances (*** sq ft); margins of underselling ranged from *** to *** percent. In the remaining 10 instances (*** sq ft), prices for product from China were between *** and *** percent above prices for the domestic product. Prices for product imported from Malaysia were below those for U.S.-produced product in 14 of 24 instances (*** sq ft); margins of underselling ranged from *** to *** percent. In the remaining 10 instances (*** sq ft), prices for product from Malaysia were between *** and *** percent above prices for the domestic product. Table I.11 FGP: Instances of underselling and overselling and the range and average of margins, by product Quantity in square feet; Margins in percent Product Type Number of quarters Quantity Average margin Min margin Max margin Product 1 Underselling 6 *** *** *** *** Product 2 Underselling 14 *** *** *** *** Product 3 Underselling 24 *** *** *** *** Product 4 Underselling 10 *** *** *** *** Product 5 Underselling 14 *** *** *** *** All products Underselling 68 *** *** *** *** Product 1 Overselling 20 *** *** *** *** Product 2 Overselling — *** *** *** *** Product 3 Overselling — *** *** *** *** Product 4 Overselling — *** *** *** *** Product 5 Overselling — *** *** *** *** All products Overselling 20 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. I.25 Table I.12 FGP: Instances of underselling and overselling and the range and average of margins, by source Quantity in square feet; Margins in percent Source Type Number of quarters Quantity Average margin Min margin Max margin China Underselling 54 *** *** *** *** Malaysia Underselling 14 *** *** *** *** All subject sources Underselling 68 *** *** *** *** China Overselling 10 *** *** *** *** Malaysia Overselling 10 *** *** *** *** All subject sources Overselling 20 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. Table I.13 FGP: Instances of underselling and overselling and the range and average of margins, by period Quantity in square feet; Margins in percent Period Type Number of quarters Quantity Average margin Min margin Max margin 2022 Underselling 17 *** *** *** *** 2023 Underselling 23 *** *** *** *** 2024 Underselling 18 *** *** *** *** January through June 2025 Underselling 10 *** *** *** *** All periods Underselling 68 *** *** *** *** 2022 Overselling 5 *** *** *** *** 2023 Overselling 3 *** *** *** *** 2024 Overselling 8 *** *** *** *** January through June 2025 Overselling 4 *** *** *** *** All periods Overselling 20 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. Price-cost comparisons As shown in tables I.14 to I.16, landed duty-paid costs for FGP imported from China were below the sales price for U.S.-produced product in 38 of 45 instances (*** sq ft); price-cost differentials ranged from *** to *** percent. In the remaining 7 instances (*** sq ft), landed duty-paid costs for FGP from China were between *** and *** percent above sales prices for the domestic product. Landed duty-paid costs for FGP imported from Malaysia were below the sales price for U.S.-produced product in 21 of 23 instances (*** I.26 *** sq ft); price-cost differentials ranged from *** to *** percent. In the remaining 2 instances (*** sq ft), landed duty-paid costs for FGP from Malaysia were between *** and *** percent above sales prices for the domestic product. Table I.14 FGP: Instances of lower and higher import purchase costs and the range and average of price-cost differentials, by product Quantity in square feet; Price-cost differentials in percent Product Type Number of quarters Quantity Average price-cost differential Min price- cost differential Max price- cost differential Product 1 Lower than U.S. 14 *** *** *** *** Product 2 Lower than U.S. — *** *** *** *** Product 3 Lower than U.S. 24 *** *** *** *** Product 4 Lower than U.S. 14 *** *** *** *** Product 5 Lower than U.S. 7 *** *** *** *** All products Lower than U.S. 59 *** *** *** *** Product 1 Higher than U.S. 9 *** *** *** *** Product 2 Higher than U.S. — *** *** *** *** Product 3 Higher than U.S. — *** *** *** *** Product 4 Higher than U.S. — *** *** *** *** Product 5 Higher than U.S. — *** *** *** *** All products Higher than U.S. 9 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. Table I.15 FGP: Instances of lower and higher import purchase costs and the range and average of price-cost differentials, by source Quantity in square feet; Price-cost differentials in percent Source Type Number of quarters Quantity Average price-cost differential Min price- cost differential Max price- cost differential China Lower than U.S. 38 *** *** *** *** Malaysia Lower than U.S. 21 *** *** *** *** All subject sources Lower than U.S. 59 *** *** *** *** China Higher than U.S. 7 *** *** *** *** Malaysia Higher than U.S. 2 *** *** *** *** All subject sources Higher than U.S. 9 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. I.27 Table I.16 FGP: Instances of lower and higher import purchase costs and the range and average of price-cost differentials, by period Quantity in square feet; Price-cost differentials in percent Period Type Number of quarter s Quantity Average price-cost differential Min price- cost differential Max price- cost differential 2022 Lower than U.S. 16 *** *** *** *** 2023 Lower than U.S. 16 *** *** *** *** 2024 Lower than U.S. 17 *** *** *** *** January through June 2025 Lower than U.S. 10 *** *** *** *** All periods Lower than U.S. 59 *** *** *** *** 2022 Higher than U.S. 5 *** *** *** *** 2023 Higher than U.S. 2 *** *** *** *** 2024 Higher than U.S. 1 *** *** *** *** January through June 2025 Higher than U.S. 1 *** *** *** *** All periods Higher than U.S. 9 *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. J.1 APPENDIX J U.S. IMPORTER QUESTIONNAIRE COVERAGE CALCULATIONS J.3 Table J.1 compares questionnaire-reported in-scope import values (Value 1) with adjusted official U.S. import statistics (Value 2)1 and reports the resulting ratios by period. These ratios provide rough questionnaire coverage estimates, though they are both understated (because primary HTS codes include out-of-scope merchandise) and overstated (because some in-scope merchandise enters under secondary HTS codes).2 Table J.2 attempts to further adjust for the first bias. Table J.2 presents alternative U.S. import coverage estimates by applying the table J.1 methodology but further adjusting the denominator.3 Staff has compared questionnaire- reported in-scope import values with proprietary Customs data for the same firms under primary HTS codes, by period and by source (China, Malaysia, subject, Mexico, all other, nonsubject, and all sources). Differences between the two datasets for each source and period provide estimates of out-of-scope merchandise imported under primary HTS codes. For example, using this methodology implies out-of-scope shares ranging from *** and *** percent for subject sources.4 These implied percentages of out-of-scope merchandise imported under primary HTS codes for each period and sources are then multiplied by the difference in adjusted official U.S. import statistics and questionnaire data and those values are then removed from the denominator for each source and period. 1 Value 2 is derived from Census Bureau data for the 12 primary HTS codes (7005.10.8000, 7005.21.1010, 7005.21.1030, 7005.21.2000, 7005.29.1810, 7005.29.1850, 7005.29.2500, 7007.29.0000, 7008.00.0000, 7009.91.5010, 7009.91.5095, and 7009.92.5010), adjusted by: • Adding questionnaire-reported import values under secondary HTS codes. • Subtracting out-of-scope questionnaire-reported import values reported under primary HTS codes. • Subtracting the values for firms that certified they did not import FGP using proprietary Customs records. 2 The questionnaire coverage estimates in part 4 use the same methodology as presented in table J.1. 3 Coverage ratios in table J.2 are calculated using the following methodology: • Numerator: questionnaire‑reported in‑scope import values. • Denominator: adjusted official import statistics from table J.1 further adjusted by subtracting estimated percentages of out-of-scope merchandise. Estimated percentages of out-of-scope merchandise have been obtained for each source and period by comparing questionnaire- reported in-scope import values with proprietary Customs data for the same firms under primary HTS codes, by period and by source (China, Malaysia, subject, Mexico, all other, nonsubject, and all sources). 4 Questionnaire data reported a greater value of imports classified under primary HTS codes than the total value reported for those same firms classified under primary HTS codes in proprietary, Census-edited Customs records in certain periods for certain sources leading to negative implied out-of- scope import shares. In those instances, no further adjustments were made to the denominator of the calculated coverage estimates. J.4 Table J.1 FGP: U.S. imports coverage, by source and period Value in 1,000 dollars; Ratio in percent; Interim period is January through June Source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 China Value 1 110,400 95,142 98,851 45,813 40,715 Malaysia Value 1 7,941 9,705 6,596 3,197 3,278 Subject sources Value 1 118,341 104,847 105,447 49,010 43,993 Mexico Value 1 42,522 44,951 42,606 22,563 22,122 All other sources Value 1 96,034 119,096 131,181 71,616 64,220 Nonsubject sources Value 1 138,556 164,047 173,787 94,179 86,342 All import sources Value 1 256,897 268,894 279,234 143,189 130,335 China Value 2 *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia Value 2 *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Value 2 *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Value 2 *** *** *** *** *** All other sources Value 2 *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Value 2 *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Value 2 *** *** *** *** *** China Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Ratio *** *** *** *** *** All other sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from adjusted official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7005.10.8000, 7005.21.1010, 7005.21.1030, 7005.21.2000, 7005.29.1810, 7005.29.1850, 7005.29.2500, 7007.29.0000, 7008.00.0000, 7009.91.5010, 7009.91.5095, and 7009.92.5010, accessed on September 9, 2025. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. Value data reflect landed duty-paid values. Note: Value 1 represents questionnaire data, and Value 2 represents adjusted official U.S. import statistics. Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. J.5 Table J.2 FGP: U.S. imports coverage assuming everything not measured had the same experience as what was measured in terms of being in-scope versus out-of-scope, by source and period Value in 1,000 dollars; Ratio in percent; Interim period is January through June Source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 China Value 1 110,400 95,142 98,851 45,813 40,715 Malaysia Value 1 7,941 9,705 6,596 3,197 3,278 Subject sources Value 1 118,341 104,847 105,447 49,010 43,993 Mexico Value 1 42,522 44,951 42,606 22,563 22,122 All other sources Value 1 96,034 119,096 131,181 71,616 64,220 Nonsubject sources Value 1 138,556 164,047 173,787 94,179 86,342 All import sources Value 1 256,897 268,894 279,234 143,189 130,335 China Value 2 *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia Value 2 *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Value 2 *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Value 2 *** *** *** *** *** All other sources Value 2 *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Value 2 *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Value 2 *** *** *** *** *** China Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Malaysia Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Mexico Ratio *** *** *** *** *** All other sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau and proprietary, Census-edited Customs records using HTS statistical reporting numbers 7005.10.8000, 7005.21.1010, 7005.21.1030, 7005.21.2000, 7005.29.1810, 7005.29.1850, 7005.29.2500, 7007.29.0000, 7008.00.0000, 7009.91.5010, 7009.91.5095, and 7009.92.5010, accessed on September 9, 2025, adjusted to (1) add in reported in- scope imports under other HTS statistical reporting numbers using responses to Commission questionnaires, (2) to remove reported out-of-scope imports under the primary HTS statistical reporting numbers using responses to Commission questionnaires, and (3) to remove imports under the primary HTS statistical reporting numbers by importers that sent in a certified "No" response using proprietary, Census-edited Customs records. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. Value data reflect landed duty-paid values. Note: Value 1 represents questionnaire data, and Value 2 represents adjusted official U.S. import statistics. Relative to the coverage ratios calculated in table J.1, these calculations further refine the adjusted official statistics denominator to apply the experience reported by responding U.S. importers as to the composition of in-scope versus out-of-scope products included in the primary HTS numbers. ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === C–570–189 - China CVD === Federal Register :: Request Access { "imports": { "application": "/assets/application-cc464116.js", "@hotwired/turbo-rails": "/assets/turbo.min-86bf8853.js", "@hotwired/stimulus": "/assets/stimulus.min-7ea3d58b.js", "@hotwired/stimulus-loading": "/assets/stimulus-loading-25917588.js", "controllers/application": "/assets/controllers/application-e5a449db.js", "controllers/site_feedback_controller": "/assets/controllers/site_feedback_controller-a99fc93f.js", "controllers/unblock_controller": "/assets/controllers/unblock_controller-9520f896.js" } } import "application" Request Access Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs. Please visit FederalRegister.gov API documentation or eCFR.gov API documentation to learn more about how to access the API. Your request has been flagged as potentially automated. If you are human user receiving this message, please complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". You may occassionally be asked to complete the CAPTCHA again, this is normal and part of our security measures. unblock#handleSubmit"> Request Access An official website of the United States government. If you experiencing issues with the CAPTCHA or want to request a wider IP range, you can use the "Site Help" button found in the lower, right of this page to make a request. × IP Access Help This contact form is only for IP Access help. Please do not provide confidential information or personal data. * Your Name * Email * How can we help you? Upload Attachment * I am requesting technical help. site-feedback#openModal" aria-label="Open site help form"> Site Help ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === C–557–833 - Malaysia CVD === Federal Register :: Request Access { "imports": { "application": "/assets/application-cc464116.js", "@hotwired/turbo-rails": "/assets/turbo.min-86bf8853.js", "@hotwired/stimulus": "/assets/stimulus.min-7ea3d58b.js", "@hotwired/stimulus-loading": "/assets/stimulus-loading-25917588.js", "controllers/application": "/assets/controllers/application-e5a449db.js", "controllers/site_feedback_controller": "/assets/controllers/site_feedback_controller-a99fc93f.js", "controllers/unblock_controller": "/assets/controllers/unblock_controller-9520f896.js" } } import "application" Request Access Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs. Please visit FederalRegister.gov API documentation or eCFR.gov API documentation to learn more about how to access the API. Your request has been flagged as potentially automated. If you are human user receiving this message, please complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". You may occassionally be asked to complete the CAPTCHA again, this is normal and part of our security measures. unblock#handleSubmit"> Request Access An official website of the United States government. If you experiencing issues with the CAPTCHA or want to request a wider IP range, you can use the "Site Help" button found in the lower, right of this page to make a request. × IP Access Help This contact form is only for IP Access help. Please do not provide confidential information or personal data. * Your Name * Email * How can we help you? Upload Attachment * I am requesting technical help. site-feedback#openModal" aria-label="Open site help form"> Site Help ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === A–570–188 - China AD === Federal Register :: Request Access { "imports": { "application": "/assets/application-cc464116.js", "@hotwired/turbo-rails": "/assets/turbo.min-86bf8853.js", "@hotwired/stimulus": "/assets/stimulus.min-7ea3d58b.js", "@hotwired/stimulus-loading": "/assets/stimulus-loading-25917588.js", "controllers/application": "/assets/controllers/application-e5a449db.js", "controllers/site_feedback_controller": "/assets/controllers/site_feedback_controller-a99fc93f.js", "controllers/unblock_controller": "/assets/controllers/unblock_controller-9520f896.js" } } import "application" Request Access Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs. Please visit FederalRegister.gov API documentation or eCFR.gov API documentation to learn more about how to access the API. Your request has been flagged as potentially automated. If you are human user receiving this message, please complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". You may occassionally be asked to complete the CAPTCHA again, this is normal and part of our security measures. unblock#handleSubmit"> Request Access An official website of the United States government. If you experiencing issues with the CAPTCHA or want to request a wider IP range, you can use the "Site Help" button found in the lower, right of this page to make a request. × IP Access Help This contact form is only for IP Access help. Please do not provide confidential information or personal data. * Your Name * Email * How can we help you? Upload Attachment * I am requesting technical help. site-feedback#openModal" aria-label="Open site help form"> Site Help ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === A–557–832 - Malaysia AD === Federal Register :: Request Access { "imports": { "application": "/assets/application-cc464116.js", "@hotwired/turbo-rails": "/assets/turbo.min-86bf8853.js", "@hotwired/stimulus": "/assets/stimulus.min-7ea3d58b.js", "@hotwired/stimulus-loading": "/assets/stimulus-loading-25917588.js", "controllers/application": "/assets/controllers/application-e5a449db.js", "controllers/site_feedback_controller": "/assets/controllers/site_feedback_controller-a99fc93f.js", "controllers/unblock_controller": "/assets/controllers/unblock_controller-9520f896.js" } } import "application" Request Access Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs. Please visit FederalRegister.gov API documentation or eCFR.gov API documentation to learn more about how to access the API. Your request has been flagged as potentially automated. If you are human user receiving this message, please complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". You may occassionally be asked to complete the CAPTCHA again, this is normal and part of our security measures. unblock#handleSubmit"> Request Access An official website of the United States government. If you experiencing issues with the CAPTCHA or want to request a wider IP range, you can use the "Site Help" button found in the lower, right of this page to make a request. × IP Access Help This contact form is only for IP Access help. Please do not provide confidential information or personal data. * Your Name * Email * How can we help you? Upload Attachment * I am requesting technical help. site-feedback#openModal" aria-label="Open site help form"> Site Help ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Scheduling === 38991Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 13, 2025 / Notices INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–748–749 and 731–TA–1726–1727 (Final)] Float Glass Products From China and Malaysia; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–748–749 and 731–TA–1726– 1727 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 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 imports of float glass products from China and Malaysia, provided for in subheadings 7005.10.80, 7005.21.10, 7005.21.20, 7005.29.18, 7005.29.25, 7006.00.40, 7007.19.00, 7007.29.00, 7008.00.00, 7009.91.50, and 7009.92.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) to be subsidized and sold at less-than-fair- value. DATES : July 15, 2025. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Kristina Lara (202–205–3386), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope.—For purposes of these investigations, Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as ‘‘articles of soda-lime-silica glass that are manufactured by floating a continuous strip of molten glass over a smooth bath of tin (or another liquid metal with a density greater than molten glass), cooling the glass in an annealing lehr, and cutting it to appropriate dimensions. For purposes of the investigation, float glass products have an actual thickness of at least 2.0 mm (0.0787 inches) and an actual surface area of at least 0.37 square meters (4.0 square feet). The country of origin of each float glass product is determined by the location where the soda-lime-silica glass is first manufactured by floating a continuous strip of molten glass over a smooth bath of tin and cooling the glass in an annealing lehr, regardless of the location of any downstream finishing or fabrication operations. Prior to being subjected to further treatment, finishing, or fabrication, float glass products meet the requirements of Type I under ASTM–C1036 of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Float glass products may be clear, stained, tinted, or coated with one or more materials. Examples of coated float glass products include Low- E architectural glass (i.e., glass with a low emissivity coating to limit the penetration of radiant heat energy) and frameless mirrors (i.e., flat glass with a silver, aluminum, or other reflective layer) such as mirror stock sheet. Float glass products may be annealed, chemically strengthened, heat strengthened, or tempered to achieve a desired surface compression, pursuant to ASTM–C1048, ASTM–C1422/ C1422M, or other similar specifications. Float glass products include tub and shower enclosures (i.e., doors and panels) made of tempered glass, which may be sold with attached or unattached hardware. In such cases, the scope covers only the tempered glass, to the exclusion of any non-glass hardware. The only float glass product assemblies included within the scope are: (1) articles consisting of two of more sheets of float glass that are bonded together using a polymer interlayer (i.e., laminated glass); (2) insulating glass units (IGUs), which consist of two or more sheets of float glass separated by a spacer material and hermetically sealed together at the edge in order to create a thermal barrier using air or one or more gases but excluding any non- float glass components (other than the spacer and insulating materials) that may be mounted within the space between sheets of float glass (e.g., blinds, wrought iron cores, and camed patterned glass), as such non-float glass components are deemed outside the scope and not subject to duties; and (3) LED mirrors (i.e., float glass mirrors with one or more light-emitting diodes attached to or integrated with the mirror, as well as framed float glass mirrors with one or more light emitting diodes attached to or integrated with the mirror or the mirror frame, but without other electronic functionality such as digital or video displays or audio circuitry). Float glass products covered by the scope may meet one or more of the ASTM–C162, ASTM–C1036, ASTM– C1048, ASTM–C1172, ASTM–C1349, ASTM–C1376, ASTM–C1422/C1422M, ASTM–C1464, ASTM–C1503, ASTM– C1651, ASTM–E1300, and ASTM– E2190 specifications, definitions, and/or standards. Float glass products may be further worked, including, but not limited to, operations such as: cutting; beveling; edging; notching; drilling; etching; bending; curving; chipping; embossing; engraving; surface grinding; or polishing; and sandblasting (i.e., using high velocity air to stream abrasive particles and thereby impart a frosted aesthetic to the glass surface). A float glass product which undergoes further work remains within the scope so long as the soda-lime-silica glass originally satisfied the requirements of ASTM– C1036 Type I and was first manufactured in a subject country, regardless of where it is further worked. Excluded from the scope are: (1) wired glass (i.e., glass with a layer of wire mesh embedded within); (2) patterned flat glass (i.e., rolled glass with a pattern impressed on one or both sides) meeting the requirements of Type II under ASTM–C1036, including greenhouse glass and patterned solar glass (i.e., photovoltaic glass with a textured surface); (3) safety glazing materials for vehicles certified to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard Z26.1; (4) vacuum insulating glass (VIG) units, which consist of two or more sheets of float glass separated by a spacer material, with at least one hermetically sealed compartment that uses a gas-free vacuum as a thermal barrier; (5) framed mirrors without any LEDs integrated with the mirror or the mirror frame; (6) unframed ‘‘over-the-door’’ mirrors that are ready for use as imported without undergoing after importation any processing, finishing, or fabrication; and (7) heat-strengthened washing machine lid glass with an actual surface area less than 6.0 square feet (0.56 square meters). Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are: (1) soda-lime-silica glass containing less than 0.01 percent iron oxide by weight, annealed with a surface compression less than 3,500 pounds per square inch (PSI), having a transparent conductive oxide base coating (e.g., tin oxide), and with an VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:04 Aug 12, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1 khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES 38992 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 13, 2025 / Notices actual thickness less than or equal to 4.0 mm (0.1575 inches) (i.e., ‘‘coated solar glass’’); and (2) heat treated soda-lime- silica glass with a surface compression between 3,500 and 10,000 PSI, containing two or more drilled holes, and having an actual thickness less than 2.5 mm (0.0984 inches) (i.e., ‘‘clear back solar glass’’). Solar glass products (also known as photovoltaic glass) are designed to facilitate the conversion of solar energy into electricity. Also excluded are metal-camed glass products (i.e., panels of glass joined together with metal banding) where the constituent glass panels would otherwise be excluded by reason of their size (e.g., an actual surface area less than 0.37 square meters, or 4.0 square feet) and/or by reason of consisting of patterned flat glass (i.e., rolled glass with a pattern impressed on one or both sides) meeting the requirements of Type II under ASTM–C1036. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are any products already covered by the scope of any extant antidumping and/or countervailing duty orders, including Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011), and Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 FR 30653 (May 26, 2011).’’ Background.—The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled pursuant to sections 705(b) and 731(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)), as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by Commerce that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of § 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b) are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in China and Malaysia of float glass products, and that such products are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of § 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The investigations were requested in petitions filed on November 21, 2024, by Vitro Flat Glass, LLC, Cheswick, Pennsylvania, and Vitro Meadville Flat Glass, LLC, Cochranton, Pennsylvania (‘‘Vitro’’). 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 and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 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 § 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. Please note the Secretary’s Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS, https:// edis.usitc.gov). No in-person paper- based filings or paper copies of any electronic filings will be accepted until further notice. Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to § 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 November 10, 2025, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to § 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 November 25, 2025. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before November 19, 2025. Any requests to appear as a witness via videoconference must be included with your request to appear. Requests to appear via videoconference must include a statement explaining why the witness cannot appear in person; the Chairman, or other person designated to conduct the investigation, may in their discretion for good cause shown, grant such a request. Requests to appear as remote witness due to illness or a positive COVID–19 test result may be submitted by 3 p.m. the business day prior to the hearing. Further information about participation in the hearing will be posted on the Commission’s website at https://www.usitc.gov/calendarpad/ calendar.html. 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, if deemed necessary, to be held at 9:30 a.m. on November 21, 2025. Parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than noon on November 20, 2025. 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 § 207.23 of the Commission’s rules; the deadline for filing is November 18, 2025. Parties shall also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of § 207.25 of the Commission’s rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is December 2, 2025. 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 December 2, 2025. On December 15, 2025, 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 December 18, 2025, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with § 207.30 of the Commission’s rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of § 201.8 of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:04 Aug 12, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1 khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES 38993Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 13, 2025 / Notices Commission’s rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s Handbook on Filing Procedures, available on the Commission’s website at https:// www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_ on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates upon the Commission’s procedures with respect to filings. Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to § 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 §§ 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 § 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: August 11, 2025. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2025–15343 Filed 8–12–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–752 and 731– TA–1730 (Final)] Active Anode Material From China; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–752 and 731–TA–1730 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 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 imports of active anode material from China, provided for in subheadings 2504.10.10, 2504.10.50, 3801.10.50, and 3801.90.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) to be subsidized and sold at less-than-fair-value. DATES : July 22, 2025. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Calvin Chang ((202) 205–3062), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope.—For purposes of these investigations, Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as active anode material, which is an anode grade graphite material with a graphite minimum purity content of 90 percent carbon by weight, whether containing synthetic graphite, natural graphite, or a blend of synthetic and natural graphite; with or without coating. Subject merchandise may be in the form of powder, dry, liquid, or block form and is covered irrespective of the form in which it enters. Subject merchandise typically has a maximum size of 80 microns when in powder form. Subject merchandise has an energy density of 330 milliamp hours per gram or greater and a degree of graphitization of 80 percent or greater, where graphitization refers to the extent of the graphite crystal structure. Subject merchandise is covered regardless of whether it is mixed with silicon based active materials, e.g., silicon-oxide (SiOx), silicon-carbon (SiC), or silicon, or additives such as carbon black or carbon nanotubes. Subject merchandise is covered regardless of the combination of compounds that comprise the graphite material. Subject merchandise is covered regardless of whether it is imported independently, as part of a compound, in a battery, as a component of an anode slurry, or in a subassembly of a battery such as an electrode. Only the anode grade graphite material is covered when entered as part of a mixture with silicon based active materials, as part of a compound, in a battery, as a component of an anode slurry, or in a subassembly of a battery such as an electrode. Background.—The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled pursuant to sections 705(b) and 731(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)), as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by Commerce that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of § 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b) are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in China of active anode material, and that such products are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of § 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The investigations were requested in petitions filed on December 18, 2024, by the American Active Anode Material Producers, the members of which are Anovion Technologies, Sanborn, New York; Syrah Technologies LLC, Vidalia, Louisiana; NOVONIX Anode Materials LLC, Chattanooga, Tennessee; Epsilon Advanced Materials, Leland, North Carolina; and SKI US, Inc., Marietta, Georgia. 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 and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 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 § 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. Please note the Secretary’s Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS, https:// VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:04 Aug 12, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1 khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === D-Grids Spec Sheet === D-GRIDs references (i.e., for use with the D-GRIDs tool) for: Float glass products from China (CN) and Malaysia (MY) Inv. Nos. 701-TA-748-749 and 731-TA-1726-1727 Final D-GRIDs spec sheet, p. 1 Question D-GRID number Columns Rows PRO Question II-3a (Overall machinery capacity) 195 5 3 PRO Question II-8 (Production, shipment, and inventory data) 259 5 12 PRO Question II-9 (US shipments by channel) 322 5 5 PRO Question II-10a (US shipments by product type) 349 1 12 PRO Question II-10b (US shipments in 1,000 square feet) 362 5 1 PRO Question II-12 (Captive production use) 369 5 4 PRO Question II-14 (Employment) 397 5 4 PRO Question II-16 (Purchases) 422 5 5 PRO Question II-17 (Subject purchases by importer) see note 450 7 15 PRO Question III-9a (Profitability data total market) 635 5 14 PRO Question III-9b (Profitability data open market) 705 5 8 PRO Question III-9g (Depreciation expense) 791 5 2 PRO Question III-10a (Nonrecurring items total market) 813 5 7 PRO Question III-11a (Nonrecurring items open market) 863 5 7 PRO Question III-12a (Assets) 913 3 1 PRO Question III-13a (CapEx and R&D) 917 5 2 PRO Question IV-2b (Pricing products US 1-3) 971 6 14 PRO Question IV-2b (Pricing products US 4-5) 1058 4 14 PRO Question VI-2 (Processor: Trade data) 1346 5 14 PRO Question VI-3 (Processor: US shipments by channel) 1424 5 5 PRO Question VI-4 (Processor: US shipments by product type) 1451 1 10 PRO Question VI-5 (Processor: Employment) 1462 5 3 PRO Question VI-7 (Processor: Captive production use) 1480 5 4 PRO Question VI-9 (Processor: Profitability data total market) 1508 5 17 PRO Question VI-10a (Processor: Depreciation expense) 1596 5 1 PRO Question VI-11a (Processor: Assets) 1635 3 1 PRO Question VI-11a (Processor: CapEx and R&D) 1639 5 2 Note: In relation to the tables on purchases of imports from subject sources by importer in the U.S. producers’ questionnaire (PRO II-17), the data begins on the 3rd column of data entry fields and any text information from the first two columns (importer of record, subject source) within MS Word has to be included in the D-GRIDS interaction with that data table (thus 7 columns not just the 5 relating to the numeric data) but the text information in the first two columns will not be overwritten when data are pushed into Word using the D-GRIDs tool. Question D-GRID number Columns Rows IMP Question I-8b (FTZ) 81 1 4 D-GRIDs references (i.e., for use with the D-GRIDs tool) for: Float glass products from China (CN) and Malaysia (MY) Inv. Nos. 701-TA-748-749 and 731-TA-1726-1727 Final D-GRIDs spec sheet, p. 2 Question D-GRID number Columns Rows IMP Question I-8c (TIB) 89 1 2 IMP Question II-3 (Arranged imports) 103 4 4 IMP Question II-5a (Imports CN) 120 5 14 IMP Question II-5b (US shipments by channel CN) 194 5 5 IMP Question II-5c (US imports by type CN) 221 1 12 IMP Question II-5d (Monthly US imports CN) 233 1 20 IMP Question II-5e (US imports in 1,000 square feet CN) 253 5 1 IMP Question II-6a (Imports MY) 258 5 14 IMP Question II-6b (US shipments by channel MY) 332 5 5 IMP Question II-6c (US imports by type MY) 359 1 12 IMP Question II-6d (Monthly US imports MY) 371 2 20 IMP Question II-6e (US imports in 1,000 square feet MY) 411 5 1 IMP Question II-6f (Monthly inventories of imports MY) 416 2 8 IMP Question II-7a (Imports MX) 432 5 14 IMP Question II-7b (US shipments by channel MX) 506 5 5 IMP Question II-7c (US imports by type MX) 533 1 12 IMP Question II-7d (Monthly US imports MX) 545 1 20 IMP Question II-7e (US imports in 1,000 square feet MX) 565 5 1 IMP Question II-8a (Imports AOS) 571 5 14 IMP Question II-8b (US shipments by channel AOS) 645 5 5 IMP Question II-8c (US imports by type AOS) 672 1 12 IMP Question II-8d (Monthly US imports AOS) 684 1 20 IMP Question II-8e (US imports in 1,000 square feet AOS) 704 5 1 IMP Question II-10a (Out-of-scope imports for full period) 716 5 8 IMP Question II-10b (Out-of-scope imports for negligibility period) 758 4 20 IMP Question III-2b (Pricing products CN 1-3) 848 6 14 IMP Question III-2b (Pricing products CN 4-5) 935 4 14 IMP Question III-2c (Pricing products MY 1-3) 993 6 14 IMP Question III-2c (Pricing products MY 4-5) 1080 4 14 IMP Question III-2d (Pricing products MX 1-3) 1138 6 14 IMP Question III-2d (Pricing products MX 4-5) 1224 4 14 IMP Question III-3b (Purchase cost data CN 1-3) 1293 6 14 IMP Question III-3b (Purchase cost data CN 4-5) 1380 4 14 IMP Question III-3c (Purchase cost data MY 1-3) 1438 6 14 IMP Question III-3c (Purchase cost data MY 4-5) 1525 4 14 IMP Question III-3d (Purchase cost data MX 1-3) 1583 6 14 D-GRIDs references (i.e., for use with the D-GRIDs tool) for: Float glass products from China (CN) and Malaysia (MY) Inv. Nos. 701-TA-748-749 and 731-TA-1726-1727 Final D-GRIDs spec sheet, p. 3 Question D-GRID number Columns Rows IMP Question III-3d (Purchase cost data MX 4-5) 1670 4 14 PUR Question 1 (purchases and imports) 42 4 10 FOR Question II-3a (Overall capacity) 102 5 3 FOR Question II-9 (Trade data) 159 7 8 FOR Question II-10 (Resales exported to the US) 218 7 1 General note: Columns and Rows numbers relate to data entry fields only. D-GRIDs does not work with rows containing calculated fields. Legend PRO = U.S. producers' questionnaire IMP = U.S. importers' questionnaire PUR = U.S. purchasers' questionnaire FOR = Foreign producers' /exporters' questionnaire The D-GRIDs tool is a custom MS Excel application that allows USITC questionnaire respondents (and/or their APO counsel) to extract numeric data from the standard USITC questionnaire forms in MS Word as well as populate numeric data into the standard USITC questionnaire in MS Word. This document provides the inputs needed for the D-GRIDs tool in relation to the above referenced antidumping and/or countervailing duty investigation(s). ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Scheduling (Revised) === 52999Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 224 / Monday, November 24, 2025 / Notices Including 21 of the 27 planning areas in this 1st Proposal allows for flexibility in the future stages of the National OCS Program development process, as well as the opportunity to seek additional input and further coordinate with key stakeholders on those areas. The Secretary is committed to enhancing coordination and collaboration with other governmental entities—including Tribal governments, governors, and other Federal agencies—and key stakeholders, to discover solutions to multiple use challenges so oil and gas resources can be discovered and extracted, critical military and other ocean uses can continue, and our sensitive physical and biological resources are protected. Authority: This NOA for the DPP for the 11th Program is published in accordance with Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act and its implementing regulations (30 CFR part 556). Matthew Giacona, Acting Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. [FR Doc. 2025–20760 Filed 11–21–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4340–98–C INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–748–749 and 731–TA–1726–1727 (Final)] Float Glass Products From China and Malaysia; Revised Schedule for the Subject Proceeding AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. DATES : November 20, 2025. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Kristina Lara (202–205–3386), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this proceeding may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Effective July 15, 2025, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject proceeding (90 FR 38991, August 13, 2025). Due to the lapse in appropriations and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, the Commission is revising its schedule as follows: the prehearing staff report will be placed in the nonpublic record on December 23, 2025; the deadline for filing prehearing briefs is December 31, 2025; requests to appear at the hearing must be filed with the Secretary to the Commission on or before January 2, 2026; a prehearing conference will be held on January 6, 2026, if deemed necessary; parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than noon on January 7, 2026; the hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on January 8, 2026; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs and for written statements from any person who has not entered an appearance as a party is January 15, 2026; the Commission will make its final release of information on January 28, 2026; and final party comments are due on February 2, 2026. Authority: This proceeding is 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: November 20, 2025. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2025–20766 Filed 11–21–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–742–745 and 731–TA–1720–1723 (Final)] Hard Empty Capsules From Brazil, China, India, and Vietnam; Revised Schedule for the Subject Proceeding AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. DATES : November 20, 2025. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Julie Duffy ((202) 708–2579), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this proceeding may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Effective May 29, 2025, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject proceeding (90 FR 27052, June 25, 2025). Due to the lapse in appropriations and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, the Commission is revising its schedule as follows: the deadline for filing prehearing briefs is November 24, 2025; requests to appear at the hearing must be filed with the Secretary to the Commission on November 25, 2025; a prehearing conference will be held on November 28, 2025, if deemed necessary; parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than noon on December 1, 2025; the hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on December 2, 2025; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs and for written statements from any person who has not entered an appearance as a party is December 9, 2025; the Commission will make its final release of information on December 19, 2025; and final party comments are due on December 23, 2025. For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission’s notice cited above and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). Authority: This proceeding is 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: November 20, 2025. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2025–20757 Filed 11–21–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:50 Nov 21, 2025 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM 24NON1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Scheduling (Revised II) === 57483Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 236 / Thursday, December 11, 2025 / Notices likely to affect HUD or any of its components. (12) To match system users for security purposes. User-provided PII may be shared with HUD departmental enforcement offices and other Federal, state, local or tribal law enforcement agencies if there is reason to believe that a user provided false information to obtain access to the system, and that providing such information would help enforce civil or criminal laws. (13) To the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), to pre-screen applicants to determine if they are presently delinquent on any Federal debt reported by a participating agency, and to determine if they are eligible for a new federally backed loan or grant. (14) To the United States Small Business Administration (SBA) to pre- screen applicants to determine if they are presently delinquent on any Federal debt reported by a participating agency, and to determine if they are eligible for a new federally backed loan or grant. (15) To the United States Department of Education to pre-screen applicants to determine if they are presently delinquent on any Federal debt reported by a participating agency, and to determine if they are eligible for a new federally backed loan or grant. (16) To the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to pre-screen applicants to determine if they are presently delinquent on any Federal debt reported by a participating agency, and to determine if they are eligible for a new federally backed loan or grant. (17) To the United States DOJ to pre- screen applicants to determine if they are presently delinquent on any Federal debt reported by a participating agency, and to determine if they are eligible for a new federally backed loan or grant. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS: Electronic only. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF RECORDS: Social Security Numbers, Taxpayer ID Numbers, and Employer Identification Numbers. POLICIES AND PRACTICIES FOR RENTENTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECORDS : All records related to Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Mortgage Credit Alert report will be destroyed according to HUD Schedule Appendix 20 Single Family Home Mortgage Records, item 13B6 which states the following, destroyed when superseded or obsolete. All records related to FHA Mortgage Credit Verification will be destroyed according to HUD Schedule Appendix 5 Technical Support Records, item 7 which states the following, destroy when superseded or obsolete. ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS : CAIVRS and its data are located on centralized servers within Federal facilities with access control in place. Physical controls include cypher and combination locks, key card-controlled access, security guards, closed circuit TV, identification badges, and safes. Administrative controls include encryption of back-up data, back-ups secured off-site, methods to ensure only authorized users have access to PII, periodic security audits, and regular monitoring of system users’ behavior. Technical controls include encryption of Data at Rest and in Transit, firewalls at HUD and each reporting agency, role- based access controls, user IDs and passwords, Least Privileged access, elevated and/or administrative privileged access, PIV cards, intrusion detection systems. Additional measures to safeguard the system include role- based Privacy Act training required for HUD personnel responsible for CAIVRS system program management, IT security monitoring by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Homeland Security. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: Individuals requesting records of themselves should address written inquiries to the Department of Housing Urban and Development 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410–0001. For verification, individuals should provide their full name, current address, and telephone number. In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement, or an unsworn declaration made under 24 CFR 16.4. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: The HUD rule for contesting the content of any record pertaining to the individual by the individual concerned is published in 24 CFR 16.8 or may be obtained from the system manager. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES : Individuals requesting notification of records of themselves should address written inquiries to the Department of Housing Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410–0001. For verification purposes, individuals should provide their full name, office or organization where assigned, if applicable, and current address and telephone number. In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement, or an unsworn declaration made under 24 CFR 16.4. EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM: N/A. HISTORY: Docket No. FR–7077–N–16, 88 FR 58595, August 28, 2023. Shalanda Capehart, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Administration. [FR Doc. 2025–22505 Filed 12–10–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210–67–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–748–749 and 731–TA–1726–1727 (Final)] Float Glass Products From China and Malaysia; Revised Schedule for the Subject Proceeding AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. DATES : December 8, 2025. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Kristina Lara (202–205–3386), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this proceeding may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Effective July 15, 2025, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject proceeding (90 FR 38991, August 13, 2025). Due to the lapse in appropriations and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, the Commission issued a revised schedule (90 FR 52999, November 24, 2025). Due to the Department of Commerce’s tolling of case deadlines by an additional 21 calendar days, the Commission is revising its schedule as follows: the prehearing staff report will be placed in the nonpublic record on January 22, 2026; the deadline for filing prehearing briefs is January 29, 2026; requests to appear at the hearing must be filed with the Secretary to the Commission on or before January 30, 2026; a prehearing VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:58 Dec 10, 2025 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM 11DEN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 57484 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 236 / Thursday, December 11, 2025 / Notices conference will be held on February 3, 2026, if deemed necessary; parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than noon on February 4, 2026; the hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on February 5, 2026; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs and for written statements from any person who has not entered an appearance as a party is February 12, 2026; the Commission will make its final release of information on February 26, 2026; and final party comments are due on March 2, 2026. Authority: This proceeding is 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: December 8, 2025. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2025–22500 Filed 12–10–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–752 and 731– TA–1730 (Final)] Active Anode Material From China; Revised Schedule for the Subject Proceeding AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. DATES : December 9, 2025. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Calvin Chang (202–205–3062), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this proceeding may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Effective July 22, 2025, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject proceeding (90 FR 38993, August 13, 2025). Due to the lapse in appropriations, ensuing cessation of Commission operations, and the additional tolling of 21 days by the Department of Commerce, the Commission is revising its schedule as follows: the prehearing staff report will be placed in the nonpublic record on January 21, 2026; the deadline for filing prehearing briefs is February 2, 2026; requests to appear at the hearing must be filed with the Secretary to the Commission on February 3, 2026; a prehearing conference will be held on February 11, 2026, if deemed necessary; parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than noon on February 11, 2026; the hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on February 12, 2026; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs and for written statements from any person who has not entered an appearance as a party is February 19, 2026; the Commission will make its final release of information on March 5, 2026; and final party comments are due on March 9, 2026. For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission’s notice cited above and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). Authority: This proceeding is 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: December 9, 2025. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2025–22574 Filed 12–10–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 332–607] Nonfat Milk Solids: Competitive Conditions for the United States and Major Foreign Suppliers AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Change in filing deadline for written submissions. SUMMARY : Due to the lapse in appropriation and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, the Commission has extended the deadline for all other written submissions from October 14, 2025, to fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of publication of this notice. ADDRESSES : All Commission offices, including the Commission’s hearing rooms, are located in the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https:// edis.usitc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Project Leader Rudy Telles Jr. (202–205– 2597 or Rodolfo.Telles@usitc.gov) or Deputy Project Leaders Kim Ha (202– 205–3343 or Kim.Ha@usitc.gov) and Ivan Lee (202–205–2163 or Ivan.Lee@ usitc.gov) for information specific to this investigation. For information on the legal aspects of this investigation, contact Brian Allen (202–205–3034 or Brian.Allen@usitc.gov) of the Commission’s Office of the General Counsel. The media should contact Claire Huber, Office of External Relations (202–205–1819 or Claire.Huber@usitc.gov). Hearing- impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. General information concerning the Commission may be obtained by accessing its internet address (https://www.usitc.gov). 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The Commission published notice of institution of the above referenced investigation in the Federal Register on May 23, 2025 (90 FR 22113, May 23, 2025). Due to the lapse in appropriation and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, the Commission has changed a date announced in that notice. It has extended the deadline for filing all other written submissions from October 14, 2025, to the close of business fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All other dates pertaining to this investigation remain the same as in the notice published in the Federal Register on May 23, 2025. By order of the Commission. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:58 Dec 10, 2025 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM 11DEN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Hearing Cancellation === 5510 Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2026 / Notices Week of September 8, 2025—Tentative Tuesday, September 9, 2025 10:00 a.m. All Employees Meeting (Public Meeting) (Contact: Wesley Held: 301–287– 3591) Additional Information: The meeting will be held in the TWFN Auditorium, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The public is invited to attend the Commission’s meeting in person or watch live via webcast at the Web address—https://video.nrc.gov/. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION : For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301–287–3591 or via email at Wesley.Held@nrc.gov. The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b. Dated: July 30, 2025. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Monika Coflin, Technical Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 2026–02421 Filed 7–30–25; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–748–749 and 731–TA–1726–1727 (Final)] Float Glass Products From China and Malaysia; Cancellation of Hearing for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. DATES : February 3, 2026. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Kristina Lara (202–205–3386), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Effective July 15, 2025, the Commission established a schedule for the final phase of the subject antidumping and countervailing duty investigations (90 FR 38991, August 13, 2025). Due to the lapse in appropriations and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, the Commission issued a revised schedule (90 FR 52999, November 24, 2025). Due to the Department of Commerce’s tolling of case deadlines by an additional 21 calendar days, the Commission issued a second revised schedule (90 FR 57483, December 11, 2025). On January 30, 2026, counsel for Vitro Flat Glass, LLC and Vitro Meadville Flat Glass, LLC (‘‘Vitro’’) filed a request that the Commission cancel the scheduled hearing for this proceeding, as well as a request to participate in the hearing, if held. It indicated a willingness to respond to any Commission questions in lieu of an actual hearing given that no other parties had submitted a request to appear at the hearing. Consequently, the public hearing in connection with this proceeding, scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on February 5, 2026, is cancelled. Parties to this proceeding should respond to any written questions posed by the Commission in their posthearing briefs, which are due to be filed on February 12, 2026. For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission’s notice cited above and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). Authority: This proceeding is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: February 3, 2026. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2026–02404 Filed 2–5–26; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–758 and 731– TA–1739 (Final)] Fiberglass Door Panels From China; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–758 and 731–TA–1739 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 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 imports of fiberglass door panels from China, provided for in subheading 3925.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) to be subsidized and sold at less-than-fair-value. DATES : January 22, 2026. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Tyler Berard (202–205–3354), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope.—For purposes of these investigations, Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as ‘‘fiberglass door panels, including fiberglass sidelites, whether finished or unfinished, whether assembled or unassembled, whether pre-hung or included in an entry door system. The subject fiberglass door panels consist of at least one fiberglass skin, and may contain (1) frames typically made of wood or composite stiles, bottom rails, and top rails, (2) binding materials, including adhesives or fasteners, and (3) insulation foam or other insulating material, and may be assembled with glass lites (glass that is ultimately installed in the fiberglass door panel). Fiberglass sidelites (or ‘‘sidelights’’) are typically smaller in width than fiberglass door panels, and consist of at least one fiberglass skin, and may contain (1) frames typically made of wood or composite stiles, bottom rails, and top rails, (2) binding materials, including adhesives or fasteners, and (3) insulation foam or other insulating VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:02 Feb 05, 2026 Jkt 268001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06FEN1.SGM 06FEN1 khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Active order issued from this investigation
Investigation 701-TA-748 is a U.S. International Trade Commission countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding on Float Glass Products from China and Malaysia; Inv. No. 701-TA-748-749 and 731-TA-1726-1727 (Final) from China, Malaysia. The ITC determines whether U.S. industry is materially injured (or threatened) by imports under investigation; Commerce determines whether dumping or subsidization is occurring. Both findings are required for an AD/CVD order to be issued.
701-TA-748 is in the final phase, with status completed. Final phase — the ITC's final determination on injury, after Commerce issues its final dumping/subsidy determination. An affirmative final determination from both agencies triggers issuance of an AD/CVD order.
Yes — investigation 701-TA-748 resulted in AD/CVD case C-570-189. The linked order page on this catalog has the active deposit rate, scope text, and Federal Register citation.
Tandom guides relevant to AD/CVD investigations
Where trade compliance APIs fit in a broker's filing pipeline: HTS classification, duty calculation, AD/CVD scope match, and post-summary corrections.
Open resource
Cash deposit cascade, separate rates, all-others, and PRC-wide rates. Worked example on case A-570-910 (galvanized welded steel pipe from China) with three exporter-specific rates.
Open resource
The USITC publishes investigation determinations and milestones on its Investigations Data Service (IDS) at ids.usitc.gov. Tandom's catalog re-syncs from IDS daily; new phases, votes, and determinations appear here within 24 hours of USITC publication.
Scope text is authoritative; the HTS list is illustrative. Read scope, find past rulings, and file a 19 CFR 351.225 inquiry. Worked example on case A-570-106 (wooden cabinets from China).
Open resource