Steel Nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey; Inv. No. 701-TA-673-677 and 731-TA-1580-1583 (Preliminary)

=== AD Initiation === 3965Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 1 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey,’’ dated December 30, 2021 (Petitions). 2 Id. 3 See Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey and Countervailing Duties on Imports from the Sultanate of Oman: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 4, 2022 (General Issues Questionnaire); see also Country-Specific Supplemental Questionnaires: India Supplemental, Sri Lanka Supplemental, Thailand Supplemental, and Turkey Supplemental, dated January 4, 2022; Memorandum, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey and Countervailing Duties on Imports from the Sultanate of Oman: Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,’’ dated January 7, 2022 (First Scope Call Memorandum); and Memorandum, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey and Countervailing Duties on Imports from the Sultanate of Oman: Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,’’ dated January 13, 2022 (Second Scope Call Memorandum). DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY : Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION : Notice and opportunity for public comment. SUMMARY : The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms’ workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : LIST OF PETITIONS RECEIVED BY EDA FOR CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT A SSISTANCE [12/1/2021 through 1/19/2022] Firm name Firm address Date accepted for investigation Product(s) Kerber Sheetmetal Works, Inc. d/b/a KSM Metal Fabrication. 104 Foss Way, Troy, OH 45373. 1/13/2022 The firm manufactures miscellaneous metal parts and as- semblies. Precise Tool & Die, Inc ........... 1711 Piper Road, Leechburg, PA 15656. 1/13/2022 The firm manufactures tools for pressing, stamping, or punching metal. Chicago Boiler Company ........ 1300 Northwestern Avenue, Gurnee, IL 60031. 1/18/2022 The firm manufactures steel tanks. RamRod Industries, LLC ......... 800 South Monroe Street, Spencer, WI 54479. 1/18/2022 The firm manufactures miscellaneous metal parts. Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA’s regulations at 13 CFR 315.8 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms. Bryan Borlik, Director. [FR Doc. 2022–01505 Filed 1–25–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–WH–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–904, A–542–804, A–549–844, A–489– 846] Certain Steel Nails From India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair- Value Investigations AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES : Applicable January 19, 2022. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : David Lindgren at (202) 482–1671 (India); Allison Hollander at (202) 482– 2805 (Sri Lanka); Laurel LaCivita at (202) 482–4243 (Thailand); Tara Moran at (202) 482–3619 (Turkey); AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Petitions On December 30, 2021, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain steel nails (steel nails) from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) filed in proper form on behalf of Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (the petitioner), a domestic producer of steel nails. 1 The Petitions were accompanied by countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of steel nails from India, the Sultanate of Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey. 2 Between January 4 and 13, 2022, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in separate supplemental questionnaires and phone calls.3 The petitioner filed responses to VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Jan 25, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 3966 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 4 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Response to Supplemental Questions for the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey,’’ dated January 10, 2022 (General Issues Supplement); see also Petitioner’s Country-Specific Supplemental Responses, dated January 10, 2022; and Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Response to Scope Questions for the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey,’’ dated January 14, 2022 (Scope Supplement). 5 See infra, section titled ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions.’’ 6 See General Issues Questionnaire; see also First Scope Call Memorandum; and Second Scope Call Memorandum. 7 See General Issues Supplement at Exhibit GEN– 21; see also Second General Issues Supplement at Exhibit GEN–24. 8 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble). 9 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual information’’). 10 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details of Commerce’s electronic filing requirements, effective August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/ help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https:// access.trade.gov/help/Handbook_on_Electronic_ Filing_Procedures.pdf. the supplemental questionnaires on January 10 and 14, 2022.4 In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the steel nail industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations. Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested LTFV investigations. 5 Periods of Investigation Because the Petitions were filed on December 30, 2021, the period of investigation (POI) for these LTFV investigations is October 1, 2020, through September 30, 2021, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Scope of the Investigations The products covered by these investigations are steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the appendix to this notice. Comments on the Scope of the Investigations On January 4, 7, and 13, 2022, Commerce requested further information from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope, to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.6 On January 10 and 14, 2022, the petitioner revised the scope.7 The description of the merchandise covered by these investigations, as described in the appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications. As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce’s regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).8 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information, 9 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on February 8, 2022, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on February 18, 2022, which is ten calendar days from the initial comment deadline. Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of these investigations be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of these investigations may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations. Filing Requirements All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies.10 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date on which it is due. Comments on Product Characteristics Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of steel nails to be reported in response to Commerce’s AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant costs of production accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria. Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics; and (2) product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe steel nails, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last. In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on February 8, 2022, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on February 18, 2021, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of each of the LTFV investigations. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Jan 25, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 3967Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 11 See section 771(10) of the Act. 12 See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). 13 See Petitions at Volume I at 13–15 and Exhibit GEN–3; see also General Issues Supplement at 7– 10. 14 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as applied to these cases and information regarding industry support, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklists: Certain Steel Nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey (Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists) at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Steel Nails from India, the Sultanate of Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey (Attachment II). These checklists are dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. 15 See Petitions at Volume I at 3–4 and Exhibit GEN–1. 16 See Petitions at Volume I at 3–4 and Exhibit GEN–1; see also General Issues Supplement at 6. 17 See Petitions at Volume I at 3–4 and Exhibit GEN–1. 18 See Petitions at Volume I at 3–4 and Exhibit GEN–1; see also General Issues Supplement at 6. For further discussion, see Attachment II of the Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists. 19 See Attachment II of the Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists. 20 See Attachment II of the Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists; see also section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. 21 See Attachment II of the Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 See Petitions at Volume I at 17–19 and Exhibit GEN–9. 25 See Petitions at Volume I at 19–21, 25–40 and Exhibits GEN–1, GEN–3, GEN–8, and GEN–11 through GEN–20. Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the ‘‘industry.’’ Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether ‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, 11 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce’s determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.12 Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ‘‘a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is ‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition). With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. 13 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that steel nails, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.14 In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided the 2020 production of the domestic like product for the U.S. producers that support the Petitions. 15 The petitioner estimated the production of the domestic like product for the remaining U.S. producers of steel nails based on its knowledge of the industry and production capabilities and market shares of U.S. producers. 16 The petitioner then compared the total production of the supporters of the Petitions to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.17 We relied on data provided by the petitioner for purposes of measuring industry support. 18 Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petitions.19 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).20 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 21 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.22 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.23 Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.24 The petitioner contends that the industry’s injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; reduced market share; decline in U.S. shipments and production and low level capacity utilization; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; adverse impact on employment variables; lost sales and revenues; and declining profitability. 25 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, as well as negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Jan 25, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 3968 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 26 See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Steel Nails from India, the Sultanate of Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey (Attachment III). 27 See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists. 28 In accordance with section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for these investigations, Commerce will request information necessary to calculate the CV and cost of production (COP) to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product have been made at prices that represent less than the COP of the product. 29 See Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists. 30 Id. 31 Id. 32 Id. 33 Id. 34 Id. 35 See Petitions at Volume I at Exhibit GEN–6. 36 See Memoranda, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Petition on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from India: Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data’’; ‘‘Antidumping Duty Petition on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Sri Lanka: Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data’’; ‘‘Antidumping Duty Petition on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Thailand: Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data’’; and ‘‘Antidumping Duty Petition on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Turkey: Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data,’’ dated January 14, 2022. supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 26 Allegations of Sales at LTFV The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate these LTFV investigations of imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific AD Initiation Checklists. U.S. Price For India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey, the petitioner established export prices (EPs) based on the average unit value of publicly available import data. To calculate an ex-factory, net EP, the petitioner then deducted expenses associated with inland freight and brokerage and handling costs incurred within each respective country.27 Normal Value Based on Constructed Value 28 For India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey, the petitioner stated it was unable to obtain home-market or third- country prices for steel nails to use as a basis for NV. Therefore, for each country, the petitioner calculated NV based on constructed value (CV). 29 Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner calculated CV as the sum of the cost of manufacturing, selling, general, and administrative expenses, financial expenses, and profit. 30 For India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey, in calculating the cost of manufacturing, the petitioner relied on its own production experience and input consumption rates as a U.S. steel nail producer, valued using publicly available information applicable to each respective subject country.31 With respect to India and Sri Lanka, in calculating selling, general, and administrative expenses, financial expenses, and profit ratios (where applicable), the petitioner relied on the 2020 financial statements of an Indian steel nails producer.32 For Thailand and Turkey, in calculating selling, general, and administrative expenses, financial expenses, and profit ratios (where applicable), the petitioner relied upon the 2020 financial statements of producer of comparable merchandise domiciled in each respective subject country. 33 Fair Value Comparisons Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to CV in accordance with section 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for steel nails concerning each of the countries covered by this initiation are as follows: (1) India— 66.53 to 99.43 percent; (2) Sri Lanka— 35.50 to 104.13 percent; (3) Thailand— 64.44 to 65.87 percent; and (4) Turkey— 28.94 to 33.03 percent.34 Initiation of LTFV Investigations Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating these LTFV investigations to determine whether imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation. Respondent Selection In the Petitions, the petitioner identified 11 companies in India, five companies in Sri Lanka, five companies in Thailand, and six companies in Turkey, as producers and/or exporters of steel nails. 35 Following standard practice in LTFV investigations involving market economy countries, in the event that Commerce determines that the number of exporters or producers in any individual case is large such that Commerce cannot individually examine each company based upon its resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents in that case based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheadings listed in the ‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the appendix. On January 14, 2022, Commerce released CBP data on imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on the CBP data must do so within three business days after the publication date of the notice of initiation of these investigations.36 Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce’s website at https://enforcement.trade.gov/apo. Comments on CBP data and respondent selection must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. ET on the specified deadline. Distribution of Copies of the AD Petitions In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the AD Petitions have been provided to the governments of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the AD Petitions to each exporter named in the AD Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). ITC Notification We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determinations by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the AD Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Jan 25, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 3969Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 37 See section 733(a) of the Act. 38 Id. 39 See 19 CFR 351.301(b). 40 See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). 41 See 19 CFR 351.301; see also Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm. 42 See section 782(b) of the Act. 43 See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule are available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_ info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. 44 See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to COVID–19; Extension of Effective Period, 85 FR 41363 (July 10, 2020). imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and/or Turkey are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.37 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country.38 Otherwise, these LTFV investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. Submission of Factual Information Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)–(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce’s regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 39 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. 40 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations. Particular Market Situation Allegation Section 773(e) of the Act addresses the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of CV, stating that ‘‘if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.’’ When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce will respond to such a submission consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v). If Commerce finds that a PMS exists under section 773(e) of the Act, then it will modify its dumping calculations appropriately. Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent’s initial section D questionnaire response. Extensions of Time Limits Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review Commerce’s regulations concerning factual information prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.41 Certification Requirements Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.42 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). 43 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements. Notification to Interested Parties Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (e.g., by the filing a letter of appearance as discussed). Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information, until further notice. 44 This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c). Dated: January 19, 2022. Lisa W. Wang, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Scope of the Investigations The merchandise covered by these investigations is certain steel nails having a nominal shaft or shank length not exceeding 12 inches. Certain steel nails include, but are not limited to, nails made from round wire and nails that are cut from flat-rolled steel or long-rolled flat steel bars. Certain steel nails may be of one piece construction or constructed of two or more pieces. Examples of nails constructed of two or more pieces include, but are not limited to, anchors comprised of an anchor body made of zinc or nylon and a steel pin or a steel nail; crimp drive anchors; split-drive anchors, and strike pin anchors. Also included in the scope are anchors of one piece construction. Certain steel nails may be produced from any type of steel, and may have any type of surface finish, head type, shank, point type and shaft diameter. Finishes include, but are not limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, including but not limited to electroplating or hot dipping one or more times), phosphate, cement, and paint. Certain steel nails may have one or more surface finishes. Head styles include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank or shaft styles include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, ring shank and fluted. Screw-threaded nails subject to this proceeding are driven using direct force and not by turning the nail using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles include, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Jan 25, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 3970 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 1 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Pursuant to Sections 701 and 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended, on Behalf of Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc.,’’ dated December 30, 2021 (Petitions). 2 Id. 3 See Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 4, 2022 (General Issues Questionnaire); ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from India: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 4, 2022; ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Sri Lanka: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 4, 2022; ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 4, 2022; ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Oman: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 5, 2022; ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Thailand: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 5, 2022; ‘‘Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,’’ dated January 7, 2022 (First Scope Call Memorandum); ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Thailand: Second Supplemental Questionnaire,’’ dated January 7, 2022; ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 10, 2022; ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Sri Lanka: Additional Supplemental Questions,’’ January 12, 2022; ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Thailand: Third Supplemental Questionnaire,’’ dated January 12, 2022; ‘‘Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,’’ dated January 13, 2022 (Second Scope Call Memorandum); and ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 18, 2022. 4 See Petitioner’s Letters, ‘‘Response to Supplemental Questions for the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey,’’ dated January 10, 2022 (First General Issues Supplement); ‘‘Response to Supplemental Questions—the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from India,’’ dated January 10, 2022; ‘‘Response to Supplemental Questions—the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Turkey,’’ dated January 10, 2022; ‘‘Response to Supplemental Questions—the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Thailand,’’ dated January 10, 2022; ‘‘Response to Second Supplemental Questions—the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Thailand,’’ dated January 11, 2022; ‘‘Response to Third Supplemental Questionnaire—the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Thailand,’’ dated January 13, 2022; ‘‘Response to Second Supplemental Questionnaire—the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Turkey,’’ dated January 13, 2022; ‘‘Response to Scope Questions for the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing but are not limited to, diamond, needle, chisel and blunt or no point. Certain steel nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated in any manner using any material. Excluded from the scope are certain steel nails packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is less than 25. If packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, certain steel nails remain subject merchandise if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is equal to or greater than 25, unless otherwise excluded based on the other exclusions below. Also excluded from the scope are certain steel nails with a nominal shaft or shank length of one inch or less that are a component of an unassembled article, where the total number of nails is sixty (60) or less, and the imported unassembled article falls into one of the following eight groupings: (1) Builders’ joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as windows, French-windows and their frames; (2) builders’ joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as doors and their frames and thresholds; (3) swivel seats with variable height adjustment; (4) seats that are convertible into beds (with the exception of those classifiable as garden seats or camping equipment); (5) seats of cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials; (6) other seats with wooden frames (with the exception of seats of a kind used for aircraft or motor vehicles); (7) furniture (other than seats) of wood (with the exception of (i) medical, surgical, dental or veterinary furniture; and (ii) barbers’ chairs and similar chairs, having rotating as well as both reclining and elevating movements); or (8) furniture (other than seats) of materials other than wood, metal, or plastics (e.g., furniture of cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials). The aforementioned imported unassembled articles are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4418.10, 4418.20, 9401.30, 9401.40, 9401.51, 9401.59, 9401.61, 9401.69, 9403.30, 9403.40, 9403.50, 9403.60, 9403.81 or 9403.89. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are nails suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, whether or not threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.2000 and 7317.00.3000. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are nails suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools. These nails have a case hardness greater than or equal to 50 on the Rockwell Hardness C scale (HRC), a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced- diameter raised head section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made up of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheading 7317.00.1000. Also excluded from the scope are decorative or upholstery tacks. Certain steel nails subject to these investigations are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560 and 7317.00.7500. Certain steel nails subject to these investigations also may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 7318.15.5060, 7318.15.5090, 7907.00.6000, 8206.00.0000 or other HTSUS subheadings. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2022–01494 Filed 1–25–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–533–905, C–523–817, C–542–805, C–549– 845, C–489–847] Certain Steel Nails From India, the Sultanate of Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES : Applicable January 19, 2022. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Genevieve Coen (India); Thomas Martin (the Sultanate of Oman); Nathan James (Sri Lanka); Charles Doss (Thailand); or Benjamin Luberda (the Republic of Turkey), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3251; (202) 482–3936; (202) 482–5305; (202) 482–4474; or (202) 482–2185, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Petitions On December 30, 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of certain steel nails (steel nails) from India, the Sultanate of Oman (Oman), Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey (Turkey), filed in proper form on behalf of Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (the petitioner), a domestic producer of steel nails. 1 The Petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey.2 Between January 4 and 18, 2022, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions.3 The petitioner filed responses to these requests between January 10 and 19, 2022.4 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Jan 25, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === CVD Initiation Notice === 3970 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 1 See Petitioner’s Letter, ‘‘Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Pursuant to Sections 701 and 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended, on Behalf of Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc.,’’ dated December 30, 2021 (Petitions). 2 Id. 3 See Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 4, 2022 (General Issues Questionnaire); ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from India: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 4, 2022; ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Sri Lanka: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 4, 2022; ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 4, 2022; ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Oman: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 5, 2022; ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Thailand: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 5, 2022; ‘‘Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,’’ dated January 7, 2022 (First Scope Call Memorandum); ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Thailand: Second Supplemental Questionnaire,’’ dated January 7, 2022; ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 10, 2022; ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Sri Lanka: Additional Supplemental Questions,’’ January 12, 2022; ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Thailand: Third Supplemental Questionnaire,’’ dated January 12, 2022; ‘‘Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,’’ dated January 13, 2022 (Second Scope Call Memorandum); and ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from the Republic of Turkey: Supplemental Questions,’’ dated January 18, 2022. 4 See Petitioner’s Letters, ‘‘Response to Supplemental Questions for the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey,’’ dated January 10, 2022 (First General Issues Supplement); ‘‘Response to Supplemental Questions—the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from India,’’ dated January 10, 2022; ‘‘Response to Supplemental Questions—the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Turkey,’’ dated January 10, 2022; ‘‘Response to Supplemental Questions—the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Thailand,’’ dated January 10, 2022; ‘‘Response to Second Supplemental Questions—the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Thailand,’’ dated January 11, 2022; ‘‘Response to Third Supplemental Questionnaire—the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Thailand,’’ dated January 13, 2022; ‘‘Response to Second Supplemental Questionnaire—the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Turkey,’’ dated January 13, 2022; ‘‘Response to Scope Questions for the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing but are not limited to, diamond, needle, chisel and blunt or no point. Certain steel nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated in any manner using any material. Excluded from the scope are certain steel nails packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is less than 25. If packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, certain steel nails remain subject merchandise if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is equal to or greater than 25, unless otherwise excluded based on the other exclusions below. Also excluded from the scope are certain steel nails with a nominal shaft or shank length of one inch or less that are a component of an unassembled article, where the total number of nails is sixty (60) or less, and the imported unassembled article falls into one of the following eight groupings: (1) Builders’ joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as windows, French-windows and their frames; (2) builders’ joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as doors and their frames and thresholds; (3) swivel seats with variable height adjustment; (4) seats that are convertible into beds (with the exception of those classifiable as garden seats or camping equipment); (5) seats of cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials; (6) other seats with wooden frames (with the exception of seats of a kind used for aircraft or motor vehicles); (7) furniture (other than seats) of wood (with the exception of (i) medical, surgical, dental or veterinary furniture; and (ii) barbers’ chairs and similar chairs, having rotating as well as both reclining and elevating movements); or (8) furniture (other than seats) of materials other than wood, metal, or plastics (e.g., furniture of cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials). The aforementioned imported unassembled articles are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4418.10, 4418.20, 9401.30, 9401.40, 9401.51, 9401.59, 9401.61, 9401.69, 9403.30, 9403.40, 9403.50, 9403.60, 9403.81 or 9403.89. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are nails suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, whether or not threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.2000 and 7317.00.3000. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are nails suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools. These nails have a case hardness greater than or equal to 50 on the Rockwell Hardness C scale (HRC), a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced- diameter raised head section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made up of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheading 7317.00.1000. Also excluded from the scope are decorative or upholstery tacks. Certain steel nails subject to these investigations are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560 and 7317.00.7500. Certain steel nails subject to these investigations also may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 7318.15.5060, 7318.15.5090, 7907.00.6000, 8206.00.0000 or other HTSUS subheadings. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2022–01494 Filed 1–25–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–533–905, C–523–817, C–542–805, C–549– 845, C–489–847] Certain Steel Nails From India, the Sultanate of Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations AGENCY : Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES : Applicable January 19, 2022. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Genevieve Coen (India); Thomas Martin (the Sultanate of Oman); Nathan James (Sri Lanka); Charles Doss (Thailand); or Benjamin Luberda (the Republic of Turkey), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3251; (202) 482–3936; (202) 482–5305; (202) 482–4474; or (202) 482–2185, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Petitions On December 30, 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of certain steel nails (steel nails) from India, the Sultanate of Oman (Oman), Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey (Turkey), filed in proper form on behalf of Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (the petitioner), a domestic producer of steel nails. 1 The Petitions were accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey.2 Between January 4 and 18, 2022, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions.3 The petitioner filed responses to these requests between January 10 and 19, 2022.4 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Jan 25, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 3971Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey,’’ dated January 14, 2022 (Scope Supplement); ‘‘Response to Second Supplemental Questionnaire—the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Sri Lanka,’’ dated January 14, 2022; and ‘‘Response to Third Supplemental Questions—the Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Turkey,’’ dated January 19, 2022. 5 See ‘‘Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions’’ section, infra. 6 See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 7 See General Issues Questionnaire; see also First Scope Call Memorandum; and Second Scope Call Memorandum. 8 See General Issues Supplement at Exhibit GEN– 21; see also Scope Supplement at Exhibit GEN–24. 9 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27323 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble). 10 See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining ‘‘factual information’’). 11 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details of Commerce’s electronic filing requirements, effective August 5, 2011. Information on using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/ help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https:// access.trade.gov/help/Handbook_on_Electronic_ Filing_Procedures.pdf. 12 See Commerce’s Letters, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Steel Nails from Sri Lanka; Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,’’ dated January 4, 2022; ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Steel Nails from the Republic of Turkey; Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,’’ dated January 4, 2022; ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Steel Nails from India; Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,’’ dated January 5, 2022; ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Steel Nails from Thailand,’’ dated January 5, 2022; and ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Steel Nails from the Sultanate of Oman: Invitation for Consultations to Discuss the Countervailing Duty Petition,’’ dated January 10, 2022. 13 See Memoranda, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Thailand: Teleconference Consultations with the Royal Thai Government,’’ dated January 12, 2022; ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Steel Nails from the Sultanate of Oman: Consultations with Officials from the Government of the Sultanate of Oman,’’ dated January 14, 2022; ‘‘Certain Steel Nails from Turkey: Government of Turkey Consultations,’’ dated January 14, 2022; ‘‘Consultations with the Government of Sri Lanka on the Countervailing Duty Petition Regarding Certain Steel Nails from Sri Lanka,’’ dated January 14, 2022; and ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from India: Consultations with Officials from the Government of India,’’ dated January 18, 2022. In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of India (GOI), the Government of Oman (GSO), the Government of Sri Lanka (GSL), the Royal Thai Government (RTG), and the Government of Turkey (GOT) (collectively, Governments) are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of steel nails in India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing steel nails in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating CVD investigations, the Petitions were accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations. Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the requested CVD investigations. 5 Period of Investigation Because the Petitions were filed on December 30, 2021, the period of investigation (POI) for these CVD investigations is January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020.6 Scope of the Investigations The merchandise covered by these investigations is steel nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the appendix to this notice. Comments on Scope of the Investigations On January 4, 7, and 13, 2022, Commerce requested further information from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope, to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.7 On January 10 and 14, 2022, the petitioner revised the scope.8 The description of the merchandise covered by these investigations, as described in the appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications. As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce’s regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).9 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information, 10 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that all interested parties submit scope comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on February 8, 2022, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on February 18, 2022, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline. Commerce requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations. Filing Requirements All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies. 11 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Consultations Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified the Governments of the receipt of the Petitions and provided an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions. 12 Commerce held consultations with the RTG on January 11, 2022, the GOT, GSL, and GSO on January 14, 2022, and the GOI on January 18, 2022. 13 Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Jan 25, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 3972 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 14 See section 771(10) of the Act. 15 See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). 16 See Petitions at Volume I at 13–15 and Exhibit GEN–3; see also General Issues Supplement at 7– 10. 17 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as applied to these cases and information regarding industry support, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklists: Certain Steel Nails from India, the Sultanate of Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey (Country- Specific CVD Initiation Checklists) at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Steel Nails from India, the Sultanate of Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey (Attachment II). These checklists are dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. 18 See Petitions at Volume I at 3–4 and Exhibit GEN–1. 19 Id.; see also General Issues Supplement at 6. 20 See Petitions at Volume I at 3–4 and Exhibit GEN–1. 21 Id.; see also General Issues Supplement at 6. For further discussion, see Attachment II of the Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists. 22 See Attachment II of the Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists. 23 Id.; see also section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act. 24 See Attachment II of the Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists. 25 Id. 26 Id. 27 See Petitions at 17–19 and Exhibit GEN–9. 28 See Designations of Developing and Least- Developed Countries under the Countervailing Duty Law, 85 FR 7613, 7615–7616 (February 10, 2020). 29 When calculated to the hundredth decimal point, imports from Sri Lanka account for 3.96 percent of the volume of total imports during the most recent 12-month period for which data are available. See Petitions at Volume I at 17–18 and Exhibit GEN–9. more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the ‘‘industry.’’ Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether ‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product, 14 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce’s determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.15 Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ‘‘a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is ‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition). With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. 16 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that steel nails, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.17 In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided the 2020 production of the domestic like product for the U.S. producers that support the Petitions. 18 The petitioner estimated the production of the domestic like product for the remaining U.S. producers of steel nails based on its knowledge of the industry and production capabilities and market shares of U.S. producers. 19 The petitioner then compared the total production of the supporters of the Petitions to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.20 We relied on data provided by the petitioner for purposes of measuring industry support. 21 Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petitions.22 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as a result, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).23 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product. 24 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.25 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.26 Injury Test Because India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey are ‘‘Subsidies Agreement Countries’’ within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and/or Turkey materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.27 In CVD petitions, section 771(24)(B) of the Act provides that imports of subject merchandise from developing countries must exceed the negligibility threshold of four percent. Because Sri Lanka has been designated as a developing country under section 771(36)(A) of the Act,28 the four percent negligibility threshold applies to imports from Sri Lanka. While the allegedly subsidized imports from Sri Lanka may not meet the statutory negligibility threshold of four percent,29 the petitioner alleges and provides supporting evidence that: (1) There is a reasonable indication that data obtained in the ITC’s investigation will establish that imports exceed the negligibility VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Jan 25, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 3973Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 30 See Petitions at Volume I at 17–18 and Exhibit GEN–9; see also Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103–316, vol. 1 (1994) (SAA) at 857. 31 See Petitions at Volume I at 19 and Exhibit GEN–8; see also section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act. 32 See Petitions at Volume I at 19–21, 25–41 and Exhibits GEN–1, GEN–3, GEN–8 and GEN–11 through GEN–20. 33 See Country-Specific CVD Initiation Checklists at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Steel Nails from India, the Sultanate of Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey (Attachment III). 34 See Petitions at Volume I at Exhibit GEN–6. 35 See Memoranda, ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Steel Nails from the Republic of Turkey: Release of Customs Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection,’’ dated January 11, 2022; ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Steel Nails from India: Release of Customs Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection,’’ dated January 13, 2022; ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Steel Nails from the Sultanate of Oman: Release of Customs Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection,’’ dated January 13, 2022; ‘‘Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Steel Nails from Sri Lanka: Release of Customs Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection,’’ dated January 13, 2022; and ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Certain Steel Nails from Thailand: Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data,’’ dated January 13, 2022. threshold; 30 and (2) there is the potential that imports from Sri Lanka will imminently exceed the negligibility threshold and, therefore, they are not negligible for purposes of a threat determination.31 The petitioner’s arguments regarding the reasonable indication that information obtained in the ITC’s investigation will exceed the negligibility threshold are consistent with the SAA. Furthermore, the petitioner’s arguments regarding the potential for imports to imminently exceed the negligibility threshold are consistent with the statutory criteria for ‘‘negligibility in threat analysis’’ under section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act, which provides that imports shall not be treated as negligible if there is a potential that subject imports from a country will imminently exceed the statutory requirements for negligibility. The petitioner contends that the industry’s injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; reduced market share; decline in U.S. shipments and production and low level of capacity utilization; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; adverse impact on employment variables; lost sales and revenues; and declining profitability.32 We assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, causation, and negligibility, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.33 Initiation of CVD Investigations Based upon our examination of the Petitions on steel nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey, including supplemental information provided by the petitioner, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether imports of steel nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the Governments. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the publication date of these initiations. India Based on our review of the Petition on Indian steel nails, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 32 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see India CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS. Oman Based on our review of the Petition on Omani steel nails, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 11 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see Oman CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS. Sri Lanka Based on our review of the Petition on Sri Lankan steel nails, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 11 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see Sri Lanka CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS. Thailand Based on our review of the Petition on Thai steel nails, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 13 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see Thailand CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS. Turkey Based on our review of the Petition on Turkish steel nails, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 26 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program, see Turkey CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS. Respondent Selection The petitioner named 11 companies in India; four in Oman; five in Sri Lanka; five in Thailand; and six in Turkey as producers/exporters of steel nails.34 Commerce intends to follow its standard practice in CVD investigations and calculate company-specific subsidy rates in these investigations. In the event that Commerce determines that the number of companies in India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, or Turkey is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon Commerce’s resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports of steel nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey during the POI under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheadings listed in the ‘‘Scope of the Investigations,’’ in the appendix. From January 11 through 13, 2022, Commerce released CBP data for U.S. imports of steel nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and Thailand under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of these CVD investigations. 35 Commerce will not accept rebuttal comments regarding the CBP data or respondent selection. Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Commerce’s website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/ apo. Comments on CBP data and respondent selection must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Jan 25, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 3974 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices 36 See section 733(a) of the Act. 37 Id. 38 See 19 CFR 351.301(b). 39 See 19 CFR 351.301; see also Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm. 40 See section 782(b) of the Act. 41 See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_ info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf. 42 See Temporary Rule Modifying AD/CVD Service Requirements Due to COVID–19; Extension of Effective Period, 85 FR 41363 (July 10, 2020). ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the specified deadline. Distribution of Copies of the Petitions In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions has been provided to the Governments via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, Commerce will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). ITC Notification Commerce will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determination by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of steel nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and/or Turkey are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.36 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country.37 Otherwise, the investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. Submission of Factual Information Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)–(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.38 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations. Extensions of Time Limits Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, Commerce may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, Commerce will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances Commerce will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review Commerce’s regulations concerning the extension of time limits prior to submitting extension requests in these investigations.39 Certification Requirements Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.40 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g). 41 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements. Notification to Interested Parties Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Commerce website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (e.g., by filing a letter of appearance). Note that Commerce has temporarily modified certain of its requirements for serving documents containing business proprietary information until further notice. 42 This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c). Dated: January 19, 2022. Lisa W. Wang, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Scope of the Investigations The merchandise covered by these investigations is certain steel nails having a nominal shaft or shank length not exceeding 12 inches. Certain steel nails include, but are not limited to, nails made from round wire and nails that are cut from flat-rolled steel or long-rolled flat steel bars. Certain steel nails may be of one piece construction or constructed of two or more pieces. Examples of nails constructed of two or more pieces include, but are not limited to, anchors comprised of an anchor body made of zinc or nylon and a steel pin or a steel nail; crimp drive anchors; split-drive anchors, and strike pin anchors. Also included in the scope are anchors of one piece construction. Certain steel nails may be produced from any type of steel, and may have any type of surface finish, head type, shank, point type and shaft diameter. Finishes include, but are not limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, including but not limited to electroplating or hot dipping one or more times), phosphate, cement, and paint. Certain steel nails may have one or more surface finishes. Head styles include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank or shaft styles include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, ring shank and fluted. Screw-threaded nails subject to this proceeding are driven using direct force and not by turning the nail using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles include, but are not limited to, diamond, needle, chisel and blunt or no point. Certain steel nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated in any manner using any material. Excluded from the scope are certain steel nails packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is less than 25. If packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, certain steel nails remain subject merchandise if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is equal to or greater than 25, unless otherwise excluded based on the other exclusions below. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Jan 25, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES 3975Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2022 / Notices Also excluded from the scope are certain steel nails with a nominal shaft or shank length of one inch or less that are a component of an unassembled article, where the total number of nails is sixty (60) or less, and the imported unassembled article falls into one of the following eight groupings: (1) Builders’ joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as windows, French-windows and their frames; (2) builders’ joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as doors and their frames and thresholds; (3) swivel seats with variable height adjustment; (4) seats that are convertible into beds (with the exception of those classifiable as garden seats or camping equipment); (5) seats of cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials; (6) other seats with wooden frames (with the exception of seats of a kind used for aircraft or motor vehicles); (7) furniture (other than seats) of wood (with the exception of (i) medical, surgical, dental or veterinary furniture; and (ii) barbers’ chairs and similar chairs, having rotating as well as both reclining and elevating movements); or (8) furniture (other than seats) of materials other than wood, metal, or plastics (e.g., furniture of cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials). The aforementioned imported unassembled articles are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4418.10, 4418.20, 9401.30, 9401.40, 9401.51, 9401.59, 9401.61, 9401.69, 9403.30, 9403.40, 9403.50, 9403.60, 9403.81 or 9403.89. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are nails suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, whether or not threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.2000 and 7317.00.3000. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are nails suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools. These nails have a case hardness greater than or equal to 50 on the Rockwell Hardness C scale (HRC), a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced- diameter raised head section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made up of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheading 7317.00.1000. Also excluded from the scope are decorative or upholstery tacks. Certain steel nails subject to these investigations are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560 and 7317.00.7500. Certain steel nails subject to these investigations also may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 7318.15.5060, 7318.15.5090, 7907.00.6000, 8206.00.0000 or other HTSUS subheadings. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive. [FR Doc. 2022–01509 Filed 1–25–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; SURF Fellow Housing Application AGENCY : National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce. ACTION : Notice of Information Collection, request for comment. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public’s reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB. DATES : To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 28, 2022. ADDRESSES : Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by mail to Maureen O’Reilly, Management Analyst, NIST, by email to PRAcomments@doc.gov. Please reference OMB Control Number 0693– 0084 in the subject line of your comments. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Dr. Brandi Toliver, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1090, Gaithersburg, MD 20899– 1090, tel. (301)972–2371, or brandi.toliver@nist.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : I. Abstract The purpose of this collection is to gather information requested on behalf of the NIST Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) Program for both Gaithersburg and Boulder locations. Students participating in the program receive a fellowship which includes lodging arranged by the agency. To coordinate the lodging, information is submitted by accepted students which require lodging during the program dates. The student information is utilized for roommate matching based on gender and common interests. The information includes: Identification of accepted laboratory, housing requirement (yes or no), first name, last name, dates requesting housing, gender, roommate identification, name of academic institution of enrollment, preferences (night owl, early bird, neatness, smoking,), and special requests. II. Method of Collection The information will be collected electronically. Accepted students will receive a link to the Housing Application administered on Google Documents (NIST approved platform). The application must be completed by a required deadline. The provided link will be inactive after the deadline. III. Data OMB Control Number: 0693–0084. Form Number(s): None. Type of Review: Regular submission, extension of a current information collection. Affected Public: Individuals or households. Estimated Number of Respondents: 220. Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 110 hours. Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0. Respondent’s Obligation: Required to obtain benefits. Legal Authority: IV. Request for Comments We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Jan 25, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Institution and Scheduling === 993Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2022 / Notices certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Certification.—Pursuant to § 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with these investigations must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will acknowledge that any information that it submits to the Commission during these investigations may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of these or related investigations or reviews, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.12 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: January 4, 2022. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2022–00084 Filed 1–6–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–673–677 and 731–TA–1580–1583 (Preliminary)] Steel Nails From India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations AGENCY : International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–673– 677 and 731–TA–1580–1583 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that 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 steel nails, provided for in subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65, and 7317.00.75 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey and alleged to be subsidized by the Governments of India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey. Unless the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by February 14, 2022. The Commission’s views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by February 22, 2022. DATES : December 30, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Nitin Joshi (202–708–1669), 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 : Background.—These investigations are being instituted, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), in response to a petition filed on December 30, 2021, by Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc., Poplar Bluff, Missouri. For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations 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 B (19 CFR part 207). Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in §§ 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission’s rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to these investigations upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance. 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 these investigations available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigations under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. Conference.— In light of the restrictions on access to the Commission building due to the COVID–19 pandemic, the Commission is conducting the staff conference through video conferencing on January 20, 2022. Requests to appear at the conference should be emailed to preliminaryconferences@usitc.gov (DO NOT FILE ON EDIS) on or before January 18, 2022. Please provide an email address for each conference participant in the email. Information on conference procedures will be provided separately and guidance on joining the video conference will be available on the Commission’s Daily Calendar. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission’s deliberations may request permission to participate by submitting a short statement. 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. Written submissions.—As provided in §§ 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission’s rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before January 25, 2022, a written brief VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Jan 06, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JAN1.SGM 07JAN1 tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE 994 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2022 / Notices containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigations. Parties shall file written testimony and supplementary material in connection with their presentation at the conference no later than noon on January 19, 2022. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of § 201.8 of the 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. In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Certification.—Pursuant to § 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with these investigations must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will acknowledge that any information that it submits to the Commission during these investigations may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of these or related investigations or reviews, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.12 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: January 4, 2022. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2022–00085 Filed 1–6–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; National Agricultural Workers Survey ACTION : Notice of availability; request for comments. SUMMARY : The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Employment and Training Administration (ETA)- sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited. DATES : The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before February 7, 2022. ADDRESSES : Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or by using the search function. Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) if the information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the agency’s estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (4) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Mara Blumenthal by telephone at 202– 693–8538, or by email at DOL_PRA_ PUBLIC@dol.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 49f(d) and 49l–2(a)), authorizes DOL to collect this information. The National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) is an employment-based, annual survey of the demographic, employment, and health characteristics of hired crop workers, including those who employers hire indirectly through labor contractors. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on September 3, 2021 (86 FR 49569). This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. Agency: DOL–ETA. Title of Collection: National Agricultural Workers Survey. OMB Control Number: 1205–0453. Affected Public: Individuals or Households; Private Sector—Farms. Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,476. Total Estimated Number of Responses: 4,476. Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 1,484 hours. Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0. Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D). Dated: January 3, 2022. Mara Blumenthal, Senior PRA Analyst. [FR Doc. 2022–00060 Filed 1–6–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FM–P POSTAL SERVICE Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement for Purchase of Next Generation Delivery Vehicles AGENCY : Postal Service. ACTION : Notice of availability of final environmental impact statement. Pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), its implementing procedures at 39 CFR 775, and the President’s Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500– 1508), the U.S. Postal Service announces availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 Jan 06, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JAN1.SGM 07JAN1 tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with NOTICE ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Determination – Preliminary === 9378 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 34 / Friday, February 18, 2022 / 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 87 FR 3768 (January 25, 2022). 1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 2 87 FR 3965 and 87 FR 3970 (January 26, 2022). INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1578–1579 (Preliminary)] Lemon Juice From Brazil and South Africa; 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 there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of lemon juice from Brazil and South Africa, provided for in subheadings 2009.31.40, 2009.31.60, and 2009.39.60 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’). 2 Commencement of Final Phase Investigations Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission’s rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in section 207.21 of the Commission’s rules, upon notice from the U.S. Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) of affirmative preliminary determinations in the investigations under § 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in those investigations under § 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigations. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations. Background On December 30, 2021, Ventura Coastal LLC, Ventura, California filed petitions with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of lemon juice from Brazil and South Africa. Accordingly, effective December 30, 2021, the Commission instituted antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731–TA–1578–1579 (Preliminary). Notice of the institution of the Commission’s investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of January 7, 2022 (87 FR 992). The Commission conducted its conference on January 20, 2022. All persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to participate. The Commission made these determinations pursuant to § 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on February 14, 2022. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5284 (February 2022), entitled Lemon Juice from Brazil and South Africa: Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1578–1579 (Preliminary). By order of the Commission. Issued: February 15, 2022. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2022–03559 Filed 2–17–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–673–677 and 731–TA–1580–1583 (Preliminary)] Steel Nails From India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey 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 there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey, provided for in subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65, and 7317.00.75 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), and imports of the subject merchandise from India, Oman, Thailand, and Turkey that are alleged to be subsidized by the governments of India, Oman, Thailand, and Turkey. The Commission further determines that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of steel nails from Sri Lanka that are alleged to be subsidized by the government of Sri Lanka. 2 Commencement of Final Phase Investigations Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission’s rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in § 207.21 of the Commission’s rules, upon notice from the U.S. Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) of affirmative preliminary determinations in the investigations under §§ 703(b) or 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in those investigations under §§ 705(a) or 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigations. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations. Background On December 30, 2021, Mid Continent Nail Corporation, Popular Bluff, Missouri filed petitions with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of steel nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey and LTFV imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey. Accordingly, effective December 30, 2021, the Commission instituted countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–673–677 and antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731–TA–1580– 1583 (Preliminary). Notice of the institution of the Commission’s investigations and of a public conference to be held in VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Feb 17, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18FEN1.SGM 18FEN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 9379Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 34 / Friday, February 18, 2022 / Notices connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of January 7, 2022 (87 FR 993). The Commission conducted its conference on January 20, 2022. All persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to participate. The Commission made these determinations pursuant to §§ 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on February 14, 2022. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5283 (February 20), entitled Steel Nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey: Investigation Nos. 701–TA–673– 677 and 731–TA–1580–1583 (Preliminary). By order of the Commission. Issued: February 15, 2022. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2022–03558 Filed 2–17–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337–TA–1260] Certain Toner Supply Containers and Components Thereof (II); Notice of Request for Submissions on the Public Interest AGENCY : U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : Notice is hereby given that, on February 11, 2022, the presiding acting chief administrative law judge (‘‘ACALJ’’) issued an initial determination granting complainants’ motion for summary determination of violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, which includes a recommended determination on remedy and bonding should a violation be found in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation. This notice is soliciting comments from the public only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Richard P. Hadorn, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3179. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal, telephone (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that, if the Commission finds a violation, it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States: unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry. 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1). A similar provision applies to cease and desist orders. 19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1). The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation, specifically: A general exclusion order directed to certain toner supply containers and components thereof that are imported, sold for importation, and/ or sold after importation that infringe one or more of claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 25, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,565,649; claims 1, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,354,551; and claims 1, 15–18, 32, 36, and 37 of U.S. Patent No. 9,753,402; and cease and desist orders directed to the same. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in this investigation. Accordingly, members of the public are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the ACALJ’s recommended relief set forth in the initial determination issued in this investigation on February 11, 2022. Comments should address whether issuance of the recommended remedial orders in this investigation, should the Commission find a violation, would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers. In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that: (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended remedial orders are used in the United States; (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders; (iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainants, their licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded; (iv) indicate whether complainants, complainants’ licensees, and/or third- party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended orders within a commercially reasonable time; and (v) explain how the recommended orders would impact consumers in the United States. Written submissions from the public must be filed no later than by close of business on March 11, 2022. Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. The Commission’s paper filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (Mar. 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 337–TA–1260’’) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/ documents/handbook_on_filing_ procedures.pdf.). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202–205–2000). Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted non- confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:54 Feb 17, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18FEN1.SGM 18FEN1 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC PUB 5283 === Steel Nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey Investigation Nos. 701-673-677 and 731-TA-1580-1583 (Preliminary) Publication 5283 February 2022 U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 U.S. International Trade Commission COMMISSIONERS Jason E. Kearns, Chair Randolph J. Stayin, Vice Chair David S. Johanson Rhonda K. Schmidtlein Amy A. Karpel Catherine DeFilippo Director of Operations Staff assigned Nitin Joshi, Investigator Keysha Martinez, Investigator Alexander Melton, Industry Analyst Karl Tsuji, Industry Analyst Craig Thomsen, Economist Zahra Bekkal, Accountant Charles Yost, Accountant Onslow Hall, Statistician Ravi Soopramenien, Attorney Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator Address all communications to Secretary to the Commission United States International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 www.usitc.gov Steel Nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey Investigation Nos. 701-673-677 and 731-TA-1580-1583 (Preliminary) Publication 5283 February 2022 CONTENTS Page i Determinations ............................................................................................................................... 1 Views of the Commission ............................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .............................................................................................................. I-1 Background................................................................................................................................ I-1 Statutory criteria ....................................................................................................................... I-2 Organization of report............................................................................................................... I-3 Market summary ....................................................................................................................... I-3 Summary data and data sources ............................................................................................... I-4 Previous and related countervailing and antidumping duty investigations ............................. I-4 Safeguard investigations ....................................................................................................... I-6 Nature and extent of alleged subsidies and sales at LTFV ........................................................ I-7 The subject merchandise....................................................................................................... I-7 Commerce’s scope ................................................................................................................ I-7 Tariff treatment ..................................................................................................................... I-9 Section 232 tariff treatment .................................................................................................. I-9 Section 301 tariff treatment ................................................................................................ I-11 The product ............................................................................................................................. I-12 Description and applications ............................................................................................... I-12 Manufacturing processes .................................................................................................... I-13 Domestic like product issues................................................................................................... I-16 Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market........................................................... II-1 U.S. market characteristics....................................................................................................... II-1 Channels of distribution ........................................................................................................... II-2 Geographic distribution ........................................................................................................... II-4 Supply and demand considerations ......................................................................................... II-5 U.S. supply ............................................................................................................................ II-5 U.S. demand ....................................................................................................................... II-12 Substitutability issues............................................................................................................. II-15 CONTENTS Page ii Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market................................................ Continued Factors affecting purchasing decisions............................................................................... II-15 Comparison of U.S.-produced and imported steel nails .................................................... II-17 Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment ...................................... III-1 U.S. producers ......................................................................................................................... III-1 U.S. production, capacity, and capacity utilization ................................................................. III-3 U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and exports ........................................................................... III-7 U.S. producers’ inventories ..................................................................................................... III-8 U.S. producers’ imports and purchases .................................................................................. III-9 U.S. employment, wages, and productivity .......................................................................... III-13 Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares ............................... IV-1 U.S. importers.......................................................................................................................... IV-1 U.S. imports ............................................................................................................................. IV-4 Negligibility ............................................................................................................................ IV-10 Cumulation considerations ................................................................................................... IV-13 Fungibility .......................................................................................................................... IV-14 Geographical markets ....................................................................................................... IV-18 Presence in the market ..................................................................................................... IV-20 Apparent U.S. consumption .................................................................................................. IV-26 U.S. market shares ................................................................................................................ IV-28 Part V: Pricing data ............................................................................................................. V-1 Factors affecting prices ............................................................................................................ V-1 Raw material costs ............................................................................................................... V-1 Impact of section 232 tariffs on prices ................................................................................. V-2 Transportation costs to the U.S. market .............................................................................. V-4 U.S. inland transportation costs ........................................................................................... V-4 Pricing practices ....................................................................................................................... V-4 CONTENTS Page iii Part V: Pricing data .................................................................................................. Continued Pricing methods .................................................................................................................... V-4 Sales terms and discounts .................................................................................................... V-6 Price data.................................................................................................................................. V-6 Price trends......................................................................................................................... V-16 Price comparisons .............................................................................................................. V-18 Lost sales and lost revenue .................................................................................................... V-20 Part VI: Financial experience of U.S. producers .................................................................. VI-1 Background.............................................................................................................................. VI-1 Operations on steel nails......................................................................................................... VI-2 Net sales ............................................................................................................................ VI-14 Cost of goods sold and gross profit or loss........................................................................ VI-15 SG&A expenses and operating income or loss.................................................................. VI-18 All other expenses and net income or loss ....................................................................... VI-19 Capital expenditures and research and development expenses .......................................... VI-19 Assets and return on assets .................................................................................................. VI-21 Capital and investment ......................................................................................................... VI-23 Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries .......................... VII-1 The industry in India ............................................................................................................... VII-3 Changes in operations ........................................................................................................ VII-4 Operations on steel nails .................................................................................................... VII-4 Alternative products ........................................................................................................... VII-6 Exports ................................................................................................................................ VII-7 The industry in Oman ........................................................................................................... VII-10 Changes in operations ...................................................................................................... VII-11 Operations on steel nails .................................................................................................. VII-11 Alternative products ......................................................................................................... VII-13 CONTENTS Page iv Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries ................. Continued Exports .............................................................................................................................. VII-14 The industry in Sri Lanka ...................................................................................................... VII-17 Changes in operations ...................................................................................................... VII-17 Operations on steel nails .................................................................................................. VII-18 Alternative products ......................................................................................................... VII-20 Exports .............................................................................................................................. VII-20 The industry in Thailand ....................................................................................................... VII-23 Changes in operations ...................................................................................................... VII-24 Operations on steel nails .................................................................................................. VII-25 Alternative products ......................................................................................................... VII-27 Exports .............................................................................................................................. VII-28 The industry in Turkey.......................................................................................................... VII-31 Changes in operations ...................................................................................................... VII-31 Operations on steel nails .................................................................................................. VII-32 Alternative products ......................................................................................................... VII-34 Exports .............................................................................................................................. VII-34 Subject countries combined................................................................................................. VII-37 U.S. inventories of imported merchandise .......................................................................... VII-39 U.S. importers’ outstanding orders...................................................................................... VII-41 Third-country trade actions ................................................................................................. VII-42 Information on nonsubject countries .................................................................................. VII-42 CONTENTS Page v Appendixes A. Federal Register notices .................................................................................................. A-1 B. List of staff conference witnesses .................................................................................. B-1 C. Summary data ................................................................................................................. C-1 D. 232 actions ...................................................................................................................... D-1 E. U.S shipments by type and finish .................................................................................... E-1 Note.—Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published. Such information is identified by brackets in confidential reports and is deleted and replaced with asterisks (***) in public reports. UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Investigation Nos. 701-TA-673-677 and 731-TA-1580-1583 (Preliminary) Steel Nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey 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 there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey, provided for in subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65, and 7317.00.75 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), and imports of the subject merchandise from India, Oman, Thailand, and Turkey that are alleged to be subsidized by the governments of India, Oman, Thailand, and Turkey. The Commission further determines that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of steel nails from Sri Lanka that are alleged to be subsidized by the government of Sri Lanka.2 COMMENCEMENT OF FINAL PHASE INVESTIGATIONS Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission’s rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in § 207.21 of the Commission’s rules, upon notice from the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of affirmative preliminary determinations in the investigations under §§ 703(b) or 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in those investigations under §§ 705(a) or 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigations. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer 1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 2 87 FR 3965 and 87 FR 3970 (January 26, 2022). organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations. BACKGROUND On December 30, 2021, Mid Continent Nail Corporation, Popular Bluff, Missouri filed petitions with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of steel nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey and LTFV imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey. Accordingly, effective December 30, 2021, the Commission instituted countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-673-677 and antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731-TA-1580-1583 (Preliminary). Notice of the institution of the Commission’s investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of January 7, 2022 (87 FR 993). The Commission conducted its conference on January 20, 2022. All persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to participate. 3 Views of the Commission Based on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we determine that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value and imports of the subject merchandise from India, Oman, Thailand, and Turkey that are allegedly subsidized by the governments of India, Oman, Thailand, and Turkey. We also determine that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of steel nails from Sri Lanka that are allegedly subsidized by the government of Sri Lanka. The Legal Standard for Preliminary Determinations The legal standard for preliminary antidumping and countervailing duty determinations requires the Commission to determine, based upon the information available at the time of the preliminary determinations, whether there is a reasonable indication that a domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or that the establishment of an industry is materially retarded, by reason of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.1 In applying this standard, the Commission weighs the evidence before it and determines whether “(1) the record as a whole contains clear and convincing evidence that there is no material injury or threat of such injury; and (2) no likelihood exists that contrary evidence will arise in a final investigation.”2 Background Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. (“Mid Continent” or “Petitioner”), a domestic producer of steel nails, filed the petitions in these investigations on December 30, 2021. Petitioner appeared at the staff conference and submitted a postconference brief.3 1 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a) (2000); see also American Lamb Co. v. United States, 785 F.2d 994, 1001-04 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Aristech Chem. Corp. v. United States, 20 CIT 353, 354-55 (1996). No party argues that the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded by the allegedly unfairly traded imports. 2 American Lamb Co., 785 F.2d at 1001; see also Texas Crushed Stone Co. v. United States, 35 F.3d 1535, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 3 In light of the restrictions on access to the Commission building due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission conducted its staff conference by videoconference and written witness testimony as set forth in procedures provided to the parties. 4 Several respondent entities participated in these investigations, including: Astrotech Steels Pvt. Ltd. (“Astrotech”) and Geekay Wires Ltd. (“Geekay”), producers of subject merchandise in India; Oman Fasteners, LLC (“Oman Fasteners”), a producer of subject merchandise in Oman; Trinity Steel Pvt. Ltd. (“Trinity”), a producer of subject merchandise in Sri Lanka; Jinhai Hardware Co., Ltd. (“Jinhai”), a producer of subject merchandise in Thailand; Aslanbas Nail Wire Mesh Co. (“Aslanbas”), Guney Celik, and Sertel Vida Metal A.S. (“Sertel”), producers of subject merchandise in Turkey; Building Material Distributors, Inc. (“BMD”), Building Products of America, LLC (“BPA”), Continental Materials, Inc. (“CM”), DC International, Inc. (“DCI”), Fanaco Fasteners, LLC (“Fanaco”), the Hillman Group Inc. (“Hillman”), Kratos Building Products, Inc. (“Kratos”), Metropolitan Staple Corp. (“MSC”), PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. (“PrimeSource”), SouthernCarlson, Inc. (“SouthernCarlson”), Steel Products Company, Inc. (“SPC”), and Steel & Wire Northeast NP, (“SWNP”), U.S. importers of subject merchandise; and Viper Industrial Products, LLC (“Viper”) an industrial user of subject merchandise. Aslanbas, BMD, BPA, CM, DCI, Fanaco, Guney Celik, Jinhai, Kratos, Sertel, and SouthernCarlson (“Coalition of Importers”); PrimeSource, MSC, SPC, and SWNP (“PrimeSource Coalition”); Astrotech and Trinity (“Astrotech Coalition”); Hillman; and Oman Fasteners appeared at the staff conference and submitted postconference briefs.4 Geekay also filed a postconference brief. Finally, the government of Thailand, and H2 Brands Group (“H2B”), a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, submitted written statements. Data Coverage. The period of investigation is January 2018 through September 2021 (“POI”). Except as noted, U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire responses of seven firms that accounted for the vast majority of U.S. production of steel nails during 2020.5 U.S. import data are based on official Commerce import statistics and questionnaire responses from 30 U.S. importers, representing *** of U.S. imports from India, *** of U.S. imports from Oman, *** of U.S. imports from Sri Lanka, *** of U.S. imports from Thailand, and *** of U.S. imports from Turkey.6 The Commission received responses to its questionnaires from four producers of subject merchandise in India, believed to account for more than *** of production of subject 4 While Astrotech, Trinity, and Hillman were jointly represented by counsel at the staff conference, Astrotech and Trinity filed a joint postconference brief. Hillman filed a separate postconference brief that addressed the domestic like product and also joined the Astrotech Coalition brief. 5 Confidential Report Memorandum INV-UU-009 (Feb. 7, 2022), as amended by Memorandum INV-UU-013 (Feb. 11, 2022) (“CR”); Steel Nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Turkey, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-673-677 and 731-TA-1580-1583 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 5283 (Feb. 2022) (“PR”) at I-4. 6 CR/PR at IV-1. 5 merchandise in India during 2020.7 The Commission received a response from one producer of subject merchandise in Oman, believed to account for approximately *** percent of production of subject merchandise in Oman during 2020.8 The Commission received a response from one producer of subject merchandise in Sri Lanka, believed to account for approximately *** percent of production of subject merchandise in Sri Lanka during 2020.9 The Commission received a response from five producers of subject merchandise in Thailand, believed to account for approximately *** percent of production of subject merchandise in Thailand during 2020.10 Lastly, the Commission received a response from three producers of subject merchandise in Turkey, believed to account for approximately *** percent of production of subject merchandise in Turkey during 2020.11 Domestic Like Product In determining whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”12 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.”13 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.”14 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.15 Therefore, Commerce’s determination as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is 7 CR/PR at VII-3. 8 CR/PR at VII-10. 9 CR/PR at VII-17. 10 CR/PR at VII-23. 11 CR/PR at VII-31. 12 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 13 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 14 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). 15 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). 6 subsidized and/or sold at less than fair value is “necessarily the starting point of the Commission’s like product analysis.”16 The Commission then defines the domestic like product in light of the imported articles Commerce has identified.17 The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product(s) in an investigation is a factual determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.18 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.19 The Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.20 The Commission may, where appropriate, include domestic articles in the domestic like product in addition to those described in the scope.21 16 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. Cir. Feb. 7, 2020) (the statute requires the Commission to start with Commerce’s subject merchandise in reaching its own like product determination). 17 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). 18 See, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of factors including the following: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). 19 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979). 20 See, e.g., 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.”). 21 See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from China and Israel, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-403 and 731-TA-895-96 (Final), USITC Pub. 3467 at 8 n.34 (Nov. 2001); Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49 (holding that the Commission is not legally required to limit the domestic like product to the product advocated by the petitioner, co-extensive with the scope). 7 In its notice of initiation, Commerce defined the imported merchandise within the scope of these investigations as follows: {C}ertain steel nails having a nominal shaft or shank length not exceeding 12 inches. Certain steel nails include, but are not limited to, nails made from round wire and nails that are cut from flat-rolled steel or long-rolled flat steel bars. Certain steel nails may be of one piece construction or constructed of two or more pieces. Examples of nails constructed of two or more pieces include, but are not limited to, anchors comprised of an anchor body made of zinc or nylon and a steel pin or a steel nail; crimp drive anchors; split-drive anchors, and strike pin anchors. Also included in the scope are anchors of one piece construction. Certain steel nails may be produced from any type of steel, and may have any type of surface finish, head type, shank, point type and shaft diameter. Finishes include, but are not limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, including but not limited to electroplating or hot dipping one or more times), phosphate, cement, and paint. Certain steel nails may have one or more surface finishes. Head styles include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank or shaft styles include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, ring shank and fluted. Screw-threaded nails subject to this proceeding are driven using direct force and not by turning the nail using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles include, but are not limited to, diamond, needle, chisel and blunt or no point. Certain steel nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated in any manner using any material. Excluded from the scope are certain steel nails packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is less than 25. If packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, certain steel nails remain subject merchandise if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is equal to or greater than 25, unless otherwise excluded based on the other exclusions below. Also excluded from the scope are certain steel nails with a nominal shaft or shank length of one inch or less that are a component of an unassembled article, where the total number of nails is sixty (60) or less, and the imported 8 unassembled article falls into one of the following eight groupings: (1) Builders' joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as windows, French-windows and their frames; (2) builders' joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as doors and their frames and thresholds; (3) swivel seats with variable height adjustment; (4) seats that are convertible into beds (with the exception of those classifiable as garden seats or camping equipment); (5) seats of cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials; (6) other seats with wooden frames (with the exception of seats of a kind used for aircraft or motor vehicles); (7) furniture (other than seats) of wood (with the exception of (i) medical, surgical, dental or veterinary furniture; and (ii) barbers' chairs and similar chairs, having rotating as well as both reclining and elevating movements); or (8) furniture (other than seats) of materials other than wood, metal, or plastics ( e.g., furniture of cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials). The aforementioned imported unassembled articles are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4418.10, 4418.20, 9401.30, 9401.40, 9401.51, 9401.59, 9401.61, 9401.69, 9403.30, 9403.40, 9403.50, 9403.60, 9403.81 or 9403.89. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are nails suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, whether or not threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.2000 and 7317.00.3000. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are nails suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools. These nails have a case hardness greater than or equal to 50 on the Rockwell Hardness C scale (HRC), a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised head section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made up of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheading 7317.00.1000. Also excluded from the scope are decorative or upholstery tacks. 9 Certain steel nails subject to these investigations are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560 and 7317.00.7500. Certain steel nails subject to these investigations also may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 7318.15.5060, 7318.15.5090, 7907.00.6000, 8206.00.0000 or other HTSUS subheadings. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.22 The steel nails covered by the scope are typically produced from low-carbon, stainless, or medium- to high-carbon steel. They are packaged for shipment in bulk (loose in a container) or collated (joined into strips for use in pneumatic nailing tools, i.e., nail guns). Although most nails are produced from a single piece of steel, some are produced from two or more pieces (such as nails with decorative heads). To produce nails from a single piece of steel, the steel wire is fed from a large coil into a nail machine that automatically straightens the wire, forms the head of the nail, and cuts the nail from the wire, simultaneously forming the point and ejecting the finished nail. Nails are produced with a number of finishes, depending upon the intended use. For example, nails with galvanized coatings are intended for uses where corrosion and staining resistance are important. Resin coatings are used to aid in driving the nail. Cement coatings are used to increase the resistance of the nail to withdrawal by increasing the friction between the nail and the wood into which it has been driven.23 A. Arguments of the Parties Petitioner’s Argument. Petitioner argues that the Commission should define a single domestic like product coextensive with the scope, as it has done in each prior investigation of steel nails. Petitioner contends that all steel nails, including the anchors and roofing nails included within the scope of these investigations, are part of a continuum of products that share the same physical characteristics and uses, are sold in overlapping channels of 22 Certain Steel Nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 87 Fed. Reg. 3965, 3969-3970 (Jan. 26, 2022); and Certain Steel Nails from India, the Sultanate of Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 87 Fed. Reg. 3970, 3974-3975 (Jan. 26, 2022). The scope is identical in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. 23 CR/PR at I-12-I-15. 10 distribution, and possess some degree of interchangeability. Petitioner also argues that all nails are perceived by customers and producers as part of the same category of fastening products, and are produced in similar manufacturing facilities, using the same production processes and production employees. While acknowledging that steel nails are sold at different price points, Petitioner claims that there is no clear dividing line between particular types of steel nails in terms of price.24 Respondents’ Argument. Hillman argues that anchors represent a separate like product, based upon certain alleged distinctions in physical characteristics and uses between anchors and steel nails. As support, it claims that there are differences in components and fastening methods between steel nails, which are manufactured from steel and designed for impact insertion with tools such as a nail gun, and anchors, which can be manufactured from nylon and designed for use on brick, drywall, concrete, or masonry walls with a pre-drilled hole.25 It cites a Federal Circuit decision involving a challenge to Commerce’s determination that masonry anchors were “nails… constructed of two or more pieces” within the scope of the 2015 orders on Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, and Vietnam where the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade (“USCIT”) that masonry anchors were unambiguously outside the scope of those orders as they were not “designed for impact insertion.”26 Hillman also argues that there is a lack of interchangeability between anchors and steel nails, that firms use distinct promotional materials to sell anchors and steel nails, that a U.S. producer produces anchors and steel nails on different machinery, and that anchors possess relatively higher prices than steel nails.27 28 B. Analysis Based on the current record, we define a single domestic like product consisting of steel nails, including anchors, coextensive with the scope. As discussed below, the limited record in the preliminary phase of these investigations does not indicate that there is a clear dividing line 24 Petition at 13-15; Petitioner’s Postconf. Br., Exh. 1, Responses to Staff Questions, at 3-7. 25 Hillman’s Postconf. Br. at 4-6, Exhs. 1-3. 26 Hillman’s Postconf. Br. at 5-6 (citing OMG, Inc. v. United States, 972 F.3d 1358, 1364-65 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). 27 Hillman’s Postconf. Br. at 3-9. 28 The PrimeSource Coalition, the only other responding entity to address the domestic like product in its brief, does not contest Petitioner’s definition of the domestic like product in the preliminary phase of these investigations, but reserves the right to do so in any final phase. PrimeSource Coalition’s Postconf. Br. at 4-5. 11 separating anchors from other steel nail products corresponding to the scope that would warrant defining separate domestic like products. Physical Characteristics and Uses. The record indicates that all steel nail products, including anchors, share the same basic characteristics, consisting of a head, shaft, and point, and are produced to the same industry-wide standards.29 They also share the same general use, which is to be driven into wood or other materials to fasten or join them together.30 Masonry anchor components can be made of nylon, carbon steel, or stainless steel, and are primarily used to fasten wood or metal to concrete, brick, or block where predrilling is required.31 Like other steel nail products, including roofing nails, anchors can be made of one or two pieces.32 In the 2014 preliminary phase investigations of steel nails from India, Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, Turkey, and Vietnam, the Commission found that anchors constituted a two-piece nail product, the primary component of which was a steel wire nail, and defined a single domestic like product including anchors and other nail products.33 Hillman argues that there are significant differences between anchors and other nail products in terms of physical characteristics and uses.34 Contrary to Hillman’s argument, however, ASTM standard F1667-21 on Nails, Spikes, and Staples (2021), which Petitioner and Hillman both reference, lists a number of nail products that may be used on concrete, brick, or block surfaces, as can anchors.35 The record thus indicates some overlap in uses between 29 See CR/PR at I-12-15 and ASTM Standard F1667, appended as Exhs. GEN-3 and 17 of Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. See also the statement, at Conf. Tr. at 55 (Skarich), that an anchor consists of “two pieces and without the nail it doesn’t work.” 30 CR/PR at I-12. 31 CR/PR at I-13. Hillman submits that anchors are comprised of anchor bodies made of zinc or nylon and a steel pin or nail. Hillman’s Postconf. Br. at 1. 32 CR/PR at I-13. 33 Certain Steel Nails from India, Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, Turkey, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-515-521 and 731-TA-1251-1257 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4480 (July 2014) at 7, 10. As discussed below, the Commission’s determination, including its definition of the domestic like product, was not appealed and still stands. 34 As noted above, Hillman argues that steel nails and anchors are made of different components and serve distinct uses, with anchors intended for use on surfaces such as concrete, brick, or block, that are unsuitable for steel nails. Hillman’s Postconf. Br. at 4-6. It also cites the Federal Circuit decision in OMG, Inc. v United States affirming the U.S. Court of International Trade’s holding that anchors fell outside the scope of the 2015 orders on steel nails from Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, and Vietnam due in part to their inability to be used without a pre-drilled hole. Hillman’s Postconf. Br. at 4-6 (citing OMG, Inc. v. United States, 972 F.3d at 1364–65). 35 Petition Exh. GEN-4 at Table 1. Hillman contends that these standards, which fail to address anchors, support its contention that steel nails and anchors are separate products. Hillman’s Postconf. Br. at 6. 12 anchors and other types of steel nails for use in fastening materials to concrete, brick, or block surfaces.36 Further, the Federal Circuit’s holding regarding the scope of the 2015 orders sheds no light on whether anchors within the scope of the current investigations belong in a single domestic like product with other steel nail products in these investigations. The Federal Circuit decision concerned a Commerce scope determination, not the Commission’s like product determination which was not appealed.37 Moreover, the scope in these investigations differs from the scope in the 2015 investigations. Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes and Employees. The record evidence concerning this factor is mixed. In responding to the Commission’s questionnaires, one of the nine U.S. producers that provided a questionnaire response to whether their firm is able to switch production between steel nails and other products using the same equipment and/or labor indicated that “***” as “***.”38 However, according to Petitioner, “{a}ll steel nails are produced predominantly using steel wire, through the same production process. Anchors require only a minor assembly of the affixing the attachment {sic.} to the steel nail part.”39 Channels of Distribution. The record in the preliminary phase of these investigations indicates that steel nails and anchors are sold to distributors, retailers, and end users.40 Interchangeability. The record in the preliminary phase of these investigations indicates a moderate-to-high degree of interchangeability among steel nail products of the same type.41 As discussed above, ASTM standard F1667-21 indicates that various steel nail products may be used to fasten materials to concrete, brick, or block surfaces, as can anchors.42 Producer and Customer Perceptions. The record evidence concerning this factor is mixed. Petitioner argues that customers perceive all steel nails, including anchors, to be within the same category of fastening products used in construction, industrial, and home applications.43 However, Hillman provided evidence that certain firms, including itself and retailers The Home Depot and Lowes, separately market steel nails and anchors.44 36 See Conf. Tr. at 54-55 (Jeong; Skarich) 37 972 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). 38 ***’s U.S. Producer Questionnaire Response at 20. We note that this firm’s questionnaire data is not included in the report due to unresolved data inconsistencies. CR/PR at III-1 n.1. 39 Petitioner’s Postconf. Br., Exh. 1 at 6. See also Conf. Tr. at 54-55 (Jeong; Skarich); CR/PR at I- 13-14. 40 Petitioner’s Postconf. Br., Exh. 1 at 6; Hillman’s Postconf. Br. at 7-8. 41 Petitioner’s Postconf. Br., Exh. 1 at 5-6; Hillman’s Postconf. Br. at 7. See also CR/PR II-15 and Conf. Tr. at 63-64 (Skarich, Lutz, Stachowiak), 218-219 (Rogowski). 42 Petition Exh. GEN-3. 43 Petitioner’s Postconf. Br., Exh. 1 at 6. 44 Hillman’s Postconf. Br. at 7-8, Exhs. 1-2, 4-5. 13 Price. According to Petitioner, steel nails comprise a continuum of products, and pricing differences between different types of nails are not informative.45 The limited information on the record indicates that anchors are generally more expensive than other steel nail products.46 Conclusion. Based on the limited record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that there is no clear dividing line between anchors and other steel nail products. The record shows that anchors and other types of nail products are similar in terms of physical characteristics and uses, and channels of distribution. Although the record indicates that there are some differences between anchors and other types of nail products in terms of production processes, interchangeability, customer and producer perceptions, and price, such differences may also be found between other types of nail products, given the wide variety of nail products included within the scope of the investigation.47 Based on the current record, we view these differences as consistent with a continuum of nail products. Given this, and the similarities between anchors and other types of steel nail products discussed above, we define a single domestic like product, consisting of all steel nails within the scope, for purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations.48 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.”49 In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market. 45 Petitioner’s Postconf. Br., Exh. 1 at 7. 46 Hillman’s Postconf. Br. at 9. 47 See, e.g., CR/PR at I-14 (“Nails that have helical twist, serrations, and other configurations on the shanks require an additional forming process . . . Nails for use in hand-held pneumatic nailing tools are processed through automatic equipment to collate the nails using paper strips, plastic strips, fine steel wire, or adhesive.”), Table V-8 (showing widely disparate price ranges for different pricing products). 48 To the extent that any party wishes to propose different definitions of the domestic like product in any final phase of these investigations, we invite them to comment with specificity as to proposed definition and data collection on the draft questionnaires, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 207.20(b). 49 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 14 A. 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 or which are themselves importers.50 Exclusion of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each investigation.51 Domestic producers *** and *** are subject to possible exclusion from the domestic industry under the related parties provision.52 *** is *** owned by ***, which has a *** percent ownership stake in ***, a U.S. importer of subject merchandise.53 *** is *** percent owned by ***, which has a *** percent ownership stake in ***, a U.S. importer of subject merchandise.54 Additionally, *** qualifies for possible exclusion under the related parties provision because it reported imports of subject merchandise.55 B. Arguments of the Parties Petitioner’s Arguments. Petitioner argues that the Commission should define the domestic industry to include all domestic producers of steel nails.56 It contends that while *** 50 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). 51 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. 52 CR/PR at Table III-2. 53 CR/PR at Table III-2. 54 CR/PR at Table III-2. 55 CR/PR at Table III-8. 56 Petition at 16; Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 3, Exh. 1 at 7-8. 15 is subject to possible exclusion as a related party, appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude it from the domestic industry.57 Respondents’ Arguments. The PrimeSource Coalition does not contest Petitioner’s definitions of the domestic like product and domestic industry in the preliminary phase of these investigations, but reserves the right to do so in any final phase of the investigations.58 C. Analysis ***. *** was responsible for *** percent of U.S. production of steel nails in 2020, and was the *** of the seven reporting U.S. producers that year in terms of quantity of U.S. production.59 It ***.60 The ratio of *** imports of subject merchandise to *** domestic production was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, *** percent in 2020, and *** percent in January through September ("interim”) 2021.61 In view of the fact that imports of subject merchandise by *** were small in relation to *** domestic production, *** principal interest appears to be in domestic production. We therefore find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry under the related parties provision. ***. *** was responsible for *** percent of U.S. production of steel nails in 2020, and was the *** largest of the seven reporting U.S. producers that year in terms of quantity of U.S. production.62 It *** the petitions.63 *** imports of subject merchandise were *** short tons in 2018, *** short tons in 2019, *** short tons in 2020, and *** short tons in interim 2021.64 The ratio of these imports to ***’s domestic production was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, *** percent in 2020, and *** percent in interim 2021.65 *** stated that it imported subject imports from *** to ***.66 *** operating income to net sales ratios were *** the domestic industry average during 2018-20, but not during January-September 2021.67 57 Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 3, Exh. 1 at 8. Petitioner does not directly address whether *** should be excluded from the domestic industry. 58 PrimeSource Coalition’s Postconf. Br. at 4-5. No other respondent addressed domestic industry issues in their briefs. 59 CR/PR at Table III-1. 60 CR/PR at Table III-1. 61 CR/PR at Table III-9. 62 CR/PR at Table III-1. 63 CR/PR at Table III-1. 64 CR/PR at Table III-8. 65 CR/PR at Table III-8. 66 CR/PR at Table III-11. ***. See CR/PR at Table III-4. 67 CR/PR at Table VI-3. 16 Although imports of subject merchandise by *** increased from 2018 to 2020, they were relatively small in relation to *** domestic production during the period indicating that ***’s principal interest appears to be in domestic production. There is also no indication that *** relationship with *** has the effect of shielding it from the effects of subject imports. Accordingly, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry under the related parties provision. In sum, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude either *** or *** from the domestic industry under the related parties provision. Accordingly, based on our definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry to include all domestic producers of steel nails. 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.68 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.69 In the case of countervailing duty investigations involving developing countries (as designated by the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”)), the statute indicates that the negligibility limits are 4 percent and 9 percent, rather than 3 percent and 7 percent. 70 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 three percent (or four percent in the case of countervailing duty investigations involving developing countries) of all such merchandise imported into the United States.71 To assess the potential for imports imminently to surpass 68 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a), 1677(24)(A)(i), 1677(24)(B); see also 15 C.F.R. § 2013.1 (developing countries for purposes of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(36)). 69 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(ii). 70 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(B). 71 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(iv). 17 the negligibility threshold for purposes of a threat analysis, the Commission typically has examined the share of total imports, especially toward the latter portion of the negligibility period, production capacity, capacity utilization, and inventories.72 A. Arguments of the Parties Petitioner’s Arguments. Petitioner argues that imports from each of the subject countries are above the negligibility thresholds, including those from Sri Lanka.73 Petitioner argues in the alternative that there is a reasonable indication that imports from Sri Lanka will imminently exceed the four percent threshold and are not negligible for purposes of a threat of material injury determination.74 Respondents’ Arguments. The Astrotech Coalition argues that subject imports from Sri Lanka are negligible for purposes of both material injury and threat, and there is no reasonable indication that data obtained in any final phase investigations would establish otherwise.75 B. Analysis During the most recent 12-month period preceding the filing of the petitions in these investigations (December 2020 through November 2021), imports from India accounted for 4.7 percent of total imports, imports from Oman accounted for 10.2 percent of total imports, imports from Thailand accounted for 6.5 percent of total imports, and imports from Turkey accounted for 6.6 percent of total imports.76 Because imports from each subject country are 72 See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Belarus, China, Korea, Latvia, and Moldova, Inv. Nos. 731-873-874 and 877-879 (Final), USITC Pub. 3440 (July 2001); Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Germany, Inv. No. 731-TA-864 (Final), USITC Pub. 3372 (November 2000); Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil, India, Korea, Russia, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-540 and 542-544 and 731-TA-1283, 1285, 1287, 1289-1290 (Final), USITC Pub. 4637 (Sept. 2016). 73 Petition at 16; Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 3, Exh. 1 at 7-8. 74 Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 6-8. 75 Astrotech Coalition’s Postconf. Br. at 27-29, Exh. 5 (Joseph Decl.). 76 CR/PR at Table IV-4. Imports from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey are subject to both antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. Although the volume of subject imports from each country is the same with respect to both investigations, the Commission is required by statute to make separate negligibility findings for antidumping and countervailing duty investigations involving imports from the same subject country. Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil, India, Korea, Russia, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-540, 542-544 and 731-TA-1283, 1285, 1287, and 1289-1290 (Final), USITC Pub. 4637 at 10-11 (Sept. 2016); Nucor Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 18-13 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Feb. 28, 2018), aff’g Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-545-547 and 731-TA-1291-1297 (Final), USITC Pub. 4638 at 13 (Sept. 2016). 18 not less than the 3.0 percent negligibility threshold applicable to antidumping duty investigations and countervailing duty investigations, we find that subject imports from India, Oman, Thailand, and Turkey are not negligible. Subject imports from Sri Lanka accounted for 3.9 percent of total imports during the twelve-month period preceding the filing of the petitions.77 Therefore, imports from Sri Lanka subject to the antidumping duty investigation are not negligible. Imports from Sri Lanka subject to the countervailing duty investigation, however, are below the threshold applicable to countervailing duty investigations involving developing countries.78 Therefore, we find that imports from Sri Lanka subject to the countervailing duty investigation are negligible for purposes of our present material injury analysis. We next consider whether subject imports from Sri Lanka have the potential imminently to exceed the four percent negligibility threshold for purposes of determining threat of material injury. Information collected by the Commission indicates that Trinity accounted for *** Sri Lankan steel nail exports to the United States in 2020.79 The available information indicates that these exports to the United States increased by *** percent from 2018 to 2020, from *** short tons in 2018 to *** short tons in 2019 and *** short tons in 2020; they were *** short tons in interim 2021, up from *** short tons in interim 2020.80 From January 2020 to November 2021, Sri Lanka’s subject imports exceeded four percent of total imports for 14 of 23 months, though they did not do so from February through November 2021.81 The information available also shows that exports of steel nails from Sri Lanka to the United States increased as a share of Trinity’s total shipments from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020, with even higher levels of exports to the United States projected in 2021 (*** short tons) and 2022 (*** short tons).82 The available information suggests that Trinity expects to have *** available excess capacity in the imminent future, albeit less than in 2020.83 Lastly, imports of steel nails 77 As noted above, this period covered December 2020 through November 2021. CR/PR at Table IV-4. 78 The USTR has deemed Sri Lanka a developing country. Designations of Developing and Least Developed Countries Under the Countervailing Duty Law, 85 Fed. Reg. 7613 (Feb. 10, 2020). CR/PR at Table IV-4. The 3.9 percent figure was calculated by rounding to the hundredth decimal place. Id. at Note. 79 CR/PR at Table VII-11. 80 CR/PR at Table VII-13. 81 CR/PR at Table IV-5. 82 CR/PR at Table VII-13. See also the Global Trade Atlas data reported at Table VII-14. 83 Trinity projected that its capacity utilization ratio of *** percent in 2020 would increase to *** percent in 2021 but diminish to *** percent in 2022. 19 from Sri Lanka to the United States grew as a share of total subject imports from 2.4 percent in 2018 to 4.2 percent in 2019 and 4.1 percent in 2020.84 Based on the limited record of the preliminary phase of the investigations showing that the volume of subject imports from Sri Lanka increased during the POI, both absolutely and as a share of total imports, and is projected to increase in absolute terms, we find that there is the potential for imports from Sri Lanka subject to the countervailing duty investigation imminently to exceed the four percent negligibility threshold.85 Accordingly, we find that imports of steel nails from Sri Lanka subject to the countervailing duty investigation are not negligible for purposes of our analysis of threat of material injury. Cumulation For purposes of evaluating the volume and effects for a determination of reasonable indication 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 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.86 While no single factor is necessarily determinative, and the list of factors is not exclusive, these factors are intended to provide the Commission with a framework for 84 CR/PR at Table IV-2. 85 We observe, in this regard, that subject imports form Sri Lanka exceeded four percent of total imports in some years of the POI. CR/PR at Table IV-2. 86 See Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-278-80 (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). 20 determining whether the subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.87 Only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is required.88 A. Arguments of the Parties Petitioner’s Arguments. Petitioner argues that the Commission should cumulate subject imports because the petitions were filed on the same day and there is a reasonable overlap of competition among the domestic like product and subject imports. Specifically, Petitioner contends that domestic like product and subject imports are fungible, sold in the same geographic regions, simultaneously present in the U.S. market, and sold through the same channels of distribution.89 Respondents’ Arguments. Respondents do not address cumulation for present material injury in their briefs. B. Analysis90 Petitioner filed the antidumping and countervailing duty petitions with respect to all investigations on the same day, December 30, 2021.91 Fungibility. Most U.S. producers and importers reported that subject imports from each subject country were always interchangeable with each other as well as with domestically produced steel nails.92 Furthermore, U.S. producers and importers reported pricing data for domestic shipments and shipments of imports from each subject country for each of the four pricing products.93 In 2020, domestically produced steel nails and imports from each subject 87 See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989). 88 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, 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.”). 89 Petition at 19-21; Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 8-10. 90 While the imports of steel nails from Sri Lanka subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations are the same, as noted above, the Commission makes separate negligibility findings for each investigation. Because imports from Sri Lanka subject to the countervailing duty investigation are negligible for purposes of present material injury, our cumulation analysis involves only imports from Sri Lanka subject to the antidumping duty investigation. 91 None of the statutory exceptions to cumulation applies. 92 CR/PR at Tables II-7-II-8. 93 CR/PR at Tables V-4-V-7. 21 country were sold in overlapping forms and finishes, with the largest volume of steel nail shipments from all sources consisting of bright steel nails.94 Channels of Distribution. Domestically produced steel nails and imports from each subject country were sold in overlapping channels of distribution, to distributors, retailers, and end users.95 Geographic Overlap. Domestically produced steel nails and imports from each subject country were sold in all geographic regions of the United States.96 In addition, imports from each subject country entered the United States through all borders of entry in substantial volumes in 2020.97 Simultaneous Presence in Market. Domestically produced steel nails and imports from each subject country were present in the U.S. market in every month of the POI.98 Conclusion. Because the record of the preliminary phase of the investigations indicates there is a reasonable overlap of competition between and among imports from each subject country and the domestic like product, we cumulate subject imports from India, Oman, Sri Lanka (with respect to the antidumping duty investigation), Thailand, and Turkey for our analysis of material injury by reason of subject imports. Reasonable Indication of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports A. Legal Standard In the preliminary phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the Commission determines whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the imports under investigation.99 In making this determination, the Commission must consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices for the domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in the context of U.S. production 94 CR/PR at Tables IV-7, E-1. 95 CR/PR at Tables II-1-II-2. Domestic producers sold primarily to the distributor and end-user channels, but also in the retailer channel, whereas each subject source sold primarily to the retailer and distributor channels but, with the exception of Oman, also in the end user channel. Id. 96 CR/PR at Table II-3. 97 CR/PR at Table IV-8. 98 CR/PR at Table IV-9 (monthly imports) and Tables V-4-7 (quarterly sales of specified price items). 99 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a). 22 operations.100 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”101 In assessing whether there is a reasonable indication that 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.102 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.”103 Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that the domestic industry is “materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of” unfairly traded imports,104 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.105 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.106 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 100 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). 101 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A). 102 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 103 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 104 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a). 105 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). 106 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). 23 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.107 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.108 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.109 It is clear that the existence of injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.110 107 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. 108 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.”). 109 S. Rep. 96-249 at 74-75; H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47. 110 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.”). 24 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.”111 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.” 112 The Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid adherence to a specific formula.”113 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.114 Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.115 B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is a reasonable indication of material injury by reason of subject imports. 111 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. 112 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. 113 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.”). 114 We provide in our discussion below a full analysis of other factors alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry. 115 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.”). 25 1. Demand Conditions Steel nails are primarily used in residential construction, carpentry applications, and to produce wooden fencing, furniture, and pallets.116 U.S. demand for steel nails is driven by construction activity, particularly in residential housing.117 Demand for steel nails exhibits some seasonality, with demand for steel nails declining during winter months.118 Demand for steel nails is also influenced by overall economic activity.119 Most responding U.S. producers and importers reported that demand for steel nails increased during the POI.120 The parties generally agree that the COVID-19 pandemic increased demand for steel nails because demand for steel nails for construction and home improvement increased as lockdowns and stay-at-home orders were issued, and demand for steel nails for retail and end-use applications increased at the end of the POI as these restrictions eased.121 The record indicates that apparent U.S. consumption of steel nails declined irregularly by *** percent between 2018 and 2020, declining from *** short tons in 2018 to *** short tons in 2019 before increasing to *** short tons in 2020.122 Apparent U.S. consumption for steel nails was *** percent higher in interim 2021, at *** short tons, than in interim 2020, at *** short tons.123 2. Supply Conditions The domestic industry, subject imports, and nonsubject imports supplied steel nails to the U.S. market during the POI. The domestic industry was the third largest source of steel nails in the U.S. market, by quantity. The industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption increased irregularly from *** 116 CR/PR at II-13. Most responding U.S. producers and importers reported that there are no substitutes for steel nails. CR/PR at II-15. Screws and adhesives were noted as possible substitutes in certain applications. Id. 117 CR/PR at II-12. In September 2021, seasonally adjusted housing under construction was 29.6 percent higher than in January 2018. Id. 118 CR/PR at II-14. 119 CR/PR at II-13. Nominal GDP increased by 13.5 percent between the third quarter of 2020 and the fourth quarter of 2021. Id. at n.26. 120 CR/PR at Table II-5. 121 See Conf. Tr. at 16 (Kanna), 57 (Skarich), 59 (Jeong), 164-166 (Buedel), 172 (Rogowsky), 203 (Smith), 222-223 (Kastner), 224 (Mazur); Oman Fasteners’ Postconf. Br. at 3-5; PrimeSource Coalition Postconf. Br. at 6-8, Exhs. 1-4. 122 CR/PR at Table IV-10. Apparent U.S. consumption data are based on official import statistics and responding U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments. Id., at Source. 123 CR/PR at Table IV-10. 26 percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020, and was *** percent in interim 2021, down from *** percent in interim 2020.124 Petitioner is the largest U.S. producer, accounting for *** percent of domestic production in 2020.125 The domestic industry’s capacity increased irregularly from *** short tons in 2018 to *** short tons in 2020, and was *** short tons in interim 2021, up from *** short tons in interim 2020.126 Its capacity utilization declined irregularly from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020, and was *** percent in interim 2021, down from *** percent in interim 2020.127 Notwithstanding the domestic industry’s low capacity utilization rates, five of seven responding domestic producers reported experiencing supply constraints during the period of investigation, and Mid Continent reported placing customers on allocation at the beginning of 2021 as a labor shortage limited its ability to satisfy increasing customer orders.128 129 Subject imports were the second largest source of steel nails in the U.S. market, by quantity. Cumulated subject imports as a share of apparent U.S. consumption, by quantity, increased irregularly from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020, and were *** percent in interim 2021, up from *** percent in interim 2020.130 Nonsubject imports were the largest source of steel nails in the U.S. market, by quantity. Nonsubject imports as a share of apparent U.S. consumption, by quantity, declined irregularly from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020, and were *** percent in interim 2021, up 124 CR/PR at Table IV-11. 125 CR/PR at Table III-1. 126 CR/PR at Table III-4. Domestic industry data do not include capacity, production, and shipments of Wire Mesh Corp., which exited the market in 2018 and did not submit a questionnaire response. Petitioner’s Postconf. Br., Exh. 1 at 1; CR/PR at Table III-1. 127 CR/PR at Table III-4. 128 CR/PR at II-5-II-6, II-10-II-11, II-17; Conf. Tr. at 87 (Skarich). Mid Continent and Kyocera-Senco allege that subject import competition caused layoffs early in the POI that exacerbated supply constraints later in the period. CR/PR at III-13 n.3; Petitioner’s Postconf. Br., Exh. 1 at 12-13; Conf. Tr. at 27-29 (Faron); Kyocera-Senco’s U.S. Producer Questionnaire Response at II-11. There is other evidence on the record that Mid Continent placed customers on allocation even before the pandemic. See Coalition of Importers’ Postconf. Br., Exh. 7 (Daniels Decl.); Conf. Tr. at 164-165 (Buedel). Further, other U.S. producers reported experiencing supply constraints during the POI. See U.S. producer’s responses to question IV-17, filed by ***. 129 We intend to further investigate U.S. producers’ reported capacity, including the extent to which it reflects the levels of production their establishments could reasonably have expected to attain, in any final phase of these investigations. 130 CR/PR at Table IV-11. 27 from *** percent in interim 2020.131 The largest sources of nonsubject imported steel nails were China, Malaysia, Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, and Canada.132 Most responding U.S. producers and importers reported experiencing supply constraints during the POI, which responding firms attributed to labor shortages, production shutdowns, and domestic and international supply chain disruptions that were either induced or exacerbated by the pandemic.133 The record also indicates that purchasers were placed on allocation, or refused supply of steel nails during the period.134 We intend to further investigate the effects of these supply constraints on the U.S. market in any final phase of the investigations. 3. Substitutability and Other Conditions Based on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that there is a moderate-to-high degree of substitutability between domestically produced steel nails and subject imported nails of the same type.135 As discussed above, most responding U.S. producers and importers reported that domestic and subject nails are always interchangeable.136 131 CR/PR at Table IV-11. 132 CR/PR at IV-4. U.S. producers Mid Continent and Tree Island are subsidiaries of parent companies located in Mexico and Canada, respectively. CR/PR at Table III-2. Steel nails imported from China, the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, and Vietnam are subject to antidumping duty orders. Steel nails imported from Vietnam are also subject to a countervailing duty order. CR/PR at Table I-2. Imports of steel nails from China are subject to additional tariffs of 25 percent ad valorem under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. 19 U.S.C. § 2411. CR/PR at I-11-I-12. These tariffs issued on May 10, 2019. Id. 133 CR/PR at II-10-II-11. The parties generally agree that there were supply chain disruptions during the POI caused by pandemic-related lockdowns and stay-at-home orders, factory curtailments or shutdowns, infections to line workers, freight cost increases, and congestion at U.S. ports. Astrotech Coalition’s Postconf. Br. at 9-12; Coalition of Importers’ Postconf. Br. at 6-8; Geekay’s Postconf. Br. at 3- 4; Oman Fasteners’ Postconf. Br. at 17-18; PrimeSource Coalition’s Postconf Br. at 11-13; Petitioner’s Postconf. Br., Exh. 1 at 9-10. However, they disagree about the likely duration of these disruptions. Petitioner characterizes the various disruptions as “temporary.” Respondents submitted presentations from two global carriers projecting that global shipping delays and elevated freight costs may last until at least 2023. Petitioner’s Postconf. Br., Exh. 1 at 9; Astrotech Coalition’s Postconf. Br., Exh. 2 (DHL and DahNay Logistics presentations). 134 See Oman Fasteners’ Postconf. Br., Exh. 2; Coalition of Importers’ Postconf. Br., Exh. 7 (Daniels Decl.); Conf. Tr. at 136-137 (Smith); 140-141 (Ippoliti); 162-163 (Kastner); 164-165 (Buedel). 135 CR/PR at II-15. 136 See Section VI.B. above. 28 We also find that price is an important factor in purchasing decisions, among other important factors. Responding purchasers ranked price as the third-most important factor influencing their purchasing decisions, behind availability/lead times and quality.137 Steel nails are primarily produced to order, although responding U.S. producers and importers also reported significant U.S. shipments from inventory. Responding U.S. producers reported lead times averaging 50 days for steel nails produced to order and 7 days for steel nails shipped from inventory. Responding importers reported lead times of 130 days for steel nails produced to order and 19 days for steel nails shipped from inventory.138 Steel nails are sold primarily on a *** basis, though a majority of U.S. producers and some importers also reported using ***.139 Steel nails are typically sold on the spot market and on an order-to- order basis.140 The main raw material used to produce steel nails is steel wire drawn primarily from wire rod or steel plate and strips.141 Imports of wire rod from Belarus, Brazil, China, Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Moldova, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, the UAE, and the United Kingdom are subject to antidumping duty orders. Wire rod from Brazil, China, Italy, and Turkey are also subject to countervailing duty orders.142 Imports of wire rod from sources other than Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Korea, and Mexico are 137 CR/PR at Table II-7. Petitioner argues that price remains the most important purchasing factor in the U.S. market. Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 13-14. We note, however, that a witness for Petitioner testified that the relative importance of price “has fallen significantly because of all the disruptions” experienced by market participants towards the end of the POI. Conf. Tr. at 66 (Skarich). We intend to further investigate the factors influencing purchases throughout the POI in any final phase of the investigations. 138 CR/PR at II-16. 139 CR/PR at Table V-2. 140 CR/PR at II-17. 141 CR/PR at V-1 and Table VI-4. 142 CR/PR at V-1 n.3. These orders were issued following investigations in 2015 (China) and 2018 (Belarus, Brazil, Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Moldova, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, the UAE, and the United Kingdom). See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, and Trinidad and Tobago, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-417 and 731- TA-953, 957-959, and 961 (Third Review), USITC Pub. 5100 (Aug. 2020); Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-512 and 731-TA-1248 (Review), USITC Pub. 5064 (June 2020); 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 (Jan. 2018); Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from South Africa and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1353 and 1356 (Final), USITC Pub. 4766 (March 2018); Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-573–574 and 731-TA-1350–1351,1354–1355, and 1358 (Final), USITC Pub. 4782 (May 2018); Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-512 and 731-TA-1248 (Final), USITC Pub. 4509 (Jan. 2015). 29 subject to additional tariffs of 25 percent ad valorem or quotas under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1972 (“section 232”).143 Imports of wire rod from China are also subject to additional tariffs of 7.5 percent ad valorem under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“section 301”).144 Raw materials as a share of the domestic industry’s cost of goods sold (“COGS”) increased irregularly from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019, and *** percent in 2020, and were *** percent in interim 2021, up from *** in interim 2020.145 Wire rod prices increased in the first half of 2018, declined through 2019, fluctuated within a narrow band in 2020, and then increased sharply during 2021 to a period high.146 Imports of steel nails from sources other than Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Korea, and Mexico, including each of the countries subject to these investigations became subject to additional tariffs of 25 percent ad valorem or quotas under section 232 after these measures were extended to certain derivative steel articles.147 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.”148 Cumulated subject imports increased by 20.1 percent from 2018 to 2020, from 193,158 short tons in 2018 to 223,822 short tons in 2019 and to 231,927 short tons in 2020.149 They were 21.2 percent higher in interim 2021, at 208,013 short tons, than in interim 2020, at 171,563 short tons.150 143 19 U.S.C. § 1862. CR/PR V-1-V-2. These tariffs were issued on March 23, 2018. CR/PR at I- 10. Most U.S. producers and importers reported that section 232 tariffs on wire rod increased raw material costs during the POI. CR/PR at Table V-1. Only two U.S. producers reported being able to pass these costs onto customers. Id. Section 232 tariffs on steel nails and wire rod from Canada and Mexico, where Tree Island and Mid Continent have related operations, were rescinded on May 20, 2019. CR/PR at I-10 and Table III-2. 144 19 U.S.C. § 2411. CR/PR at I-11 n.21. These tariffs were issued on February 14, 2021. Id. 145 CR/PR at Table VI-1. 146 CR/PR at V-1 and Figure V-1. 147 CR/PR at I-9-I-11. These tariffs were issued on February 8, 2020. Id. None of the subject countries are subject to section 232 quotas. Id. In February 2020, three importers initiated litigation seeking suspension of collection of these tariffs. In April 2021, the USCIT issued a summary judgment that the section 232 tariffs on steel nails were invalid and contrary to law. In June 2021, the United States appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit, and obtained a partial stay of the USCIT judgment. Proceedings before the Federal Circuit are ongoing. Id. 148 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i). 149 CR/PR at Tables IV-2, IV-10, C-1. 150 CR/PR at Tables IV-2, C-1. 30 Cumulated subject imports also increased as a share of apparent U.S. consumption during the period of investigation. Cumulated subject import market share increased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 before declining to *** percent in 2020, a level *** percentage points higher than in 2018. Subject import market share was *** percent in interim 2021, up from *** percent in interim 2020.151 Cumulated subject imports also increased as a ratio to domestic industry production during the period of investigation. The ratio of cumulated subject imports to domestic industry production increased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 before declining to *** percent in 2020, a level *** percentage points higher than in 2018. The ratio was *** percent in interim 2021, up from *** percent in interim 2020.152 In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the volume of subject imports and the increase in that volume are significant both in absolute terms and relative to U.S. consumption and production. D. Price Effects of the Subject Imports Section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of subject imports, the Commission shall consider whether – (I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.153 As discussed above, the record indicates that there is a moderate-to-high degree of substitutability between domestically produced steel nails and subject imported steel nails of the same type, and that price is an important consideration in purchasing decisions, among other important considerations.154 The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers to provide quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of four pricing products that were sold at arm’s length to 151 CR/PR at Table IV-11. 152 CR/PR at Table IV-2. 153 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii). 154 See Section VII.B.3 above. 31 unrelated U.S. customers during the first quarter of 2018 through the third quarter of 2021.155 Four U.S. producers and 18 importers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing data for all products for all quarters.156 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for approximately 20.5 percent of the value of U.S. producers’ U.S. commercial shipments of steel nails during the POI, 27.9 percent of the value of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from India, 19.4 percent of the value of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from Oman, 24.8 percent of the value of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from Sri Lanka, 9.2 percent of the value of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from Thailand, and 23.4 percent of the value of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from Turkey.157 According to these pricing data, cumulated subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 154 of 271 quarterly comparisons (56.8 percent) involving 30.0 billion nails and 1,602 short tons, at margins ranging from 0.1 to 43.7 percent and averaging 13.8 percent.158 Subject imports oversold the domestic like product in the remaining 117 quarterly comparisons (43.2 percent) involving 8.1 billion nails and 496 short tons, at margins ranging from 0.1 to 54.1 percent and averaging 13.8 percent.159 Quarters in which there was underselling accounted for 155 CR/PR at V-6. Consistent with how nails are sold in the market, the Commission collected data on some of the products in units of 1,000 nails and data on other products in units of short tons. See id. at Tables V-4-V-7. The four pricing products were as follows: Product 1.— Nominal 3” x 0.131” (10.25 gauge), bright smooth shank, 20-22 degree plastic-strip collated nails; Product 2.— Nominal 3” x 0.120” (11 gauge), bright smooth shank, 20-22 degree plastic-strip collated nails; Product 3.— Nominal 2” x 0.113” (11.5 gauge), bright drive screw (threaded) shank, machine grade bulk nails; and Product 4.— Nominal 2” x 0.099” (12. 5 gauge), bright screw (threaded), 15-degree wire coil collated nails. Id. at V-6. 156 CR/PR at V-7. 157 CR/PR at V-7. We are unpersuaded by respondents’ argument that the pricing data reported by importers ***, which act as importers of record for related foreign producers, should be excluded because these importers allegedly sell steel nails at a different level of trade than importers unaffiliated with foreign producers. See Astrotech Coalition’s Postconf. Br. at 4; Oman Fasteners’ Postconf. Br. at 30-41; PrimeSource Coalition’s Postconf. Br. at 26-30. Consistent with our practice, we collected pricing data from domestic producers and U.S. importers on their first arms-length sales to unrelated customers. CR/PR at V-6. This was the approach taken by the Commission in all previous investigations of steel nails. See Certain Steel Nails from Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701- TA-521 and 731-TA-1252-1255 and 1257 (Final), USITC Pub. 4541 (July 2015) at 24-25, V-4; Certain Steel Nails from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1114 (Final), USITC Pub. 4022 (July 2008) at V-4-V-5. 158 CR/PR at Table V-9. 159 CR/PR at Table V-9. 32 78.7 percent of reported subject import sales volume with respect to nails and 76.4 percent of reported subject import sales volume with respect to short tons.160 We have also considered purchasers’ responses to the lost sales/lost revenue survey.161 Five of the six responding purchasers reported that, since 2018, they purchased subject imports instead of U.S.-produced product. Four of these purchasers reported that subject import prices were lower than prices for domestically produced steel nails. Two of these purchasers reported that price was a primary reason for their decision to purchase *** short tons of subject imports instead of domestically produced steel nails.162 Based on the moderate-to-high degree of substitutability between domestically produced steel nails and subject imported nails of the same type and the importance of price in purchasing decisions, we find that subject import underselling was significant during the period of investigation. Given the extent of subject import underselling, we cannot conclude that such underselling did not contribute to subject imports gaining *** percentage points of market share at the expense of the domestic industry from 2018 to 2019 and *** percentage point of market share in interim 2021, compared to interim 2020, as discussed further below.163 164 We have also considered price trends during the period of investigation. While U.S. prices for steel nails generally fluctuated within a narrow range between 2018 and 2020, they increased for all pricing products from all sources in interim 2021.165 Domestic producer prices for pricing products 1, 2, 3, and 4 increased by ***, ***, ***, and *** percent, respectively, 160 CR/PR at Table V-9. 161 The Commission requested U.S. producers to report purchasers with which they experienced instances of lost sales or revenue during the POI. U.S. producers identified *** firms with which they alleged lost sales and *** with which they alleged both lost sales and lost revenue between 2019 and 2020. Staff provided lost sales/lost revenue surveys to these ten firms, but received responses from only two of them. Accordingly, of those purchasers that U.S. producers allege accounted for sales or revenues lost to subject imports, only two of ten have responded to these assertions in the preliminary phase of these investigations. Four additional firms (which were ***) provided responses to the survey. CR/PR at V-20. 162 CR/PR at Table V-12. 163 CR/PR at Table IV-11. 164 The market share shift of *** percentage point between 2018 and 2019 was equivalent to *** percent of the domestic industry’s production in 2019, and the market share shift of *** percentage point in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020 was equivalent to *** percent of the domestic industry’s production in interim 2021. CR/PR at Tables III-3-4, IV-11. We intend to explore further in any final phase of these investigations the significance of this shift in market share from the domestic industry to subject imports, as well as the *** percentage point of market share that subject imports gained at the domestic industry’s expense between 2018 and 2019, relative to the domestic industry’s production in the relevant periods. 165 CR/PR at Tables V-4-V-8. 33 between the first quarter of 2018 and third quarter of 2021.166 Depending on the subject country, subject import price increases ranged from *** to *** percent for pricing product 1, from *** to *** percent for pricing product 2, from *** to *** percent for pricing product 3, and from *** to *** percent for pricing product 4.167 The parties agree that supply chain disruptions and increased freight costs late in the POI led to increases in the prices for steel nails in interim 2021.168 We have also considered whether subject imports prevented price increases for the domestic like product that otherwise would have occurred. The domestic industry’s COGS to net sales ratio increased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 before declining to *** percent in 2020, a level *** percentage points lower than in 2018.169 The industry’s COGS to net sales ratio was *** percent in interim 2021, down from *** percent in interim 2020.170 In 2018-2019, the domestic industry faced rising raw material costs as section 232 tariffs were imposed on wire rod in March 2018.171 As a result, the industry experienced a cost-price squeeze in 2019.172 As its unit raw material costs increased to a greater degree than did unit net sales value, the domestic industry’s COGS to net sales ratio increased by *** percentage points between 2018 and 2019, leading to operating and net *** in 2019.173 Subsequently, the industry’s COGS to net sales improved in 2020 as section 232 tariffs on steel nails and wire rod from Canada and Mexico were rescinded in May 2019 and the industry’s unit raw material costs 166 CR/PR at Table V-8. 167 CR/PR at Table V-8. 168 See, e.g., Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 37; PrimeSource Coalition’s Postconf. Br. at 12-13; Conf. Tr. at 16, 137, 149, 152, 239. 169 CR/PR at Table VI-3. 170 CR/PR at Table VI-3. 171 CR/PR at I-10, V-2. Most U.S. producers and importers reported that section 232 tariffs on wire rod increased raw material costs during the POI. CR/PR at Table V-1. 172 Two producers reported that they were able to increase the price of steel nails, two reported no change in their prices, and two reported prices fluctuating due to these tariffs. CR/PR at V-2. Mid Continent claimed that it increased prices after the tariffs went into effect, which it ultimately was forced to roll back after losing sales volume to subject imports. Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. Exh. 1 at 11; Conf. Tr. at 34 (Lutz). *** similarly reported that *** *** U.S. Producer Questionnaire Responses at IV- 18. Between 2018 and 2019, the domestic industry lost *** percentage points in market share to subject imports. CR/PR at Table C-1. Apparent U.S. consumption, however, also declined during this time. 173 CR/PR at Table C-1. In turn, Mid Continent claims that U.S. producers were forced to reduce its workforce. Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. Exh. 1 at 16-17. The industry’s employment declined by *** percent between 2018 and 2019. CR/PR at Table C-1. 34 declined.174 Given the significant increase of low-priced subject imports in 2019, we cannot conclude that subject imports did not prevent price increases that otherwise would have occurred during that time. In any final phase of these investigations, we intend to investigate further any price suppressing effects of subject imports in 2019 as well as petitioner’s claim that this effect of the injury from subject imports affected their ability to compete during the pandemic and the remainder of the POI. In sum, based on the record of the preliminary phase of these investigations, we cannot conclude that cumulated subject imports did not have significant price effects. E. Impact of the Subject Imports175 Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that the Commission, in examining the impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a 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 debt, 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.”176 The domestic industry’s output indicators generally declined irregularly between 2018 and 2020. While the domestic industry’s output indicators improved in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020, they did so at a slower rate than the increase in apparent U.S. consumption.177 As discussed above, the domestic industry’s production capacity was *** short tons in 2018, *** short tons in 2019, and *** short tons in 2020; it was *** short tons in interim 2021, which was higher than in interim 2020, at *** short tons.178 The domestic industry’s production was 174 CR/PR at I-10, Table VI-3. We note that all of the domestic industry’s lost sales and revenue allegations occurred in 2019 and 2020. CR/PR at V-20. As discussed above, two purchasers reported that price was a primary reason for their decision to purchase *** short tons of lower-priced subject imports instead of domestically produced steel nails. CR/PR at Table V-12. 175 In its notice initiating the antidumping duty investigation on steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey, Commerce reported estimated dumping margins ranging from 66.53 to 99.43 percent for imports from India, 35.50 to 104.13 percent for imports from Sri Lanka, 64.44 to 65.87 for imports from Thailand, and 28.94 to 33.03 percent for imports from Turkey. 87 Fed. Reg. 3965, 3968 (Jan. 26, 2022). 176 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). This provision was amended by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-27. 177 U.S. shipments increased by *** percent by quantity while apparent consumption increased by *** percent by quantity. CR/PR at Table C-1. 178 CR/PR at Tables III-4 and C-1. 35 *** short tons in 2018, *** short tons in 2019, and *** short tons in 2020; it was *** short tons in interim 2021, which was higher than in interim 2020, at *** short tons.179 The domestic industry’s capacity utilization was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, and *** percent in 2020; it was *** percent in interim 2021, which was lower than in interim 2020, at *** percent.180 The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments were *** short tons in 2018, *** short tons in 2019, and *** short tons in 2020; they were *** short tons in interim 2021, which was higher than in interim 2020, at *** short tons.181 The domestic industry’s end-of-period inventories were *** short tons in 2018, *** short tons in 2019, and *** short tons in 2020; they were *** short tons in interim 2021, which was lower than in interim 2020, at *** short tons.182 As discussed above, the domestic industry’s share of the U.S. market was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, and *** percent in 2020; it was *** percent in interim 2021, which was lower than in interim 2020, at *** percent.183 The domestic industry’s employment-related performance indicia generally declined during the POI, including with respect to the number of production and related workers (“PRWs”),184 productivity,185 wages paid,186 hourly wages,187 and unit labor costs.188 Hours worked, however, increased throughout the period.189 The domestic industry’s financial performance indicia generally declined between 2018 and 2019 before improving through the end of the period of investigation. The domestic industry’s net sales revenue totaled $*** in 2018, $*** in 2019, and $*** in 2020; it was $*** 179 CR/PR at Tables III-4 and C-1. 180 CR/PR at Tables III-4 and C-1. 181 CR/PR at Tables III-6 and C-1. 182 Tables III-7 and C-1. 183 CR/PR at Table IV-11. 184 The number of PRWs were *** in 2018, *** in 2019, and *** in 2020; it was *** in interim 2021, which was lower than in interim 2020, at ***. CR/PR at Tables III-12 and C-1. 185 Productivity was *** short tons per 1,000 hours in 2018, *** short tons per 1,000 hours in 2019, and *** short tons per 1,000 hours in 2020; it was *** short tons per 1,000 hours in interim 2021, which was lower than in interim 2020, at *** short tons per 1,000 hours. CR/PR at Tables III-12 and C-1. 186 Wages paid totaled $*** in 2018, $*** in 2019, and $*** in 2020; they were $*** in interim 2021, which was higher than in interim 2020, at $***. CR/PR at Tables III-12 and C-1. 187 Hourly wages were $*** per hour in 2018, $*** per hour in 2019, and $*** per hour in 2020; they were $*** per hour in interim 2021, which was higher than in interim 2020, at $*** per hour. CR/PR at Tables III-12 and C-1. 188 Unit labor costs were $*** per short ton in 2018, $*** per short ton in 2019, and $*** per short ton in 2020; they were $*** per short ton in interim 2021, which was higher than in interim 2020, at $*** per short ton. CR/PR at Tables III-12 and C-1. 189 Total hours worked totaled *** in 2018, *** in 2019, and *** in 2020; it was *** in interim 2021, which was higher than in interim 2020, at ***. CR/PR at Tables III-12 and C-1. 36 in interim 2021, which was higher than in interim 2020, at $***.190 The domestic industry’s gross profits totaled $*** in 2018, $*** in 2019, and $*** in 2020; they were $*** in interim 2021, which was *** percent higher than in interim 2020, at $***.191 The domestic industry’s operating income totaled $*** in 2018, *** in 2019, and $*** in 2020; it was $*** in interim 2021, which was *** percent higher than in interim 2020, at $***.192 As a ratio to net sales, the domestic industry’s operating income margin was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, and *** percent in 2020; it was *** percent in interim 2021, which was higher than in interim 2020, at *** percent.193 The domestic industry’s net income totaled $*** in 2018, *** in 2019, and $*** in 2020; it was $*** in interim 2021, which was *** percent higher than in interim 2020, at $***.194 The domestic industry’s net income margin was *** percent in 2018, *** percent in 2019, and *** percent in 2020; it was *** percent in interim 2021, which was higher than in interim 2020, at *** percent.195 Net assets increased from 2018 to 2020, from $*** to $*** in 2019 and $*** in 2020.196 Return on assets fluctuated during this period, declining from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019, and increasing to *** percent in 2020.197 Capital expenditures increased irregularly during the POI, from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2019, and $*** in 2020; they were $*** in interim 2021, which was higher than in interim 2020, at $***.198 Research and development (“R&D”) declined irregularly, from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2019, and $*** in 2020; they were $*** in interim 2021, which was higher than in interim 2020, at $***.199 Lastly, six of seven responding U.S. producers reported that the subject imports had negative effects on investment and negative effects on growth and development.200 We cannot conclude that the significant increase in low-priced subject imports during the period of investigation did not prevent price increases in 2019 that would have otherwise occurred and thereafter affected the domestic industry’s ability to compete during the pandemic and benefit fully from the significant increase in apparent U.S. consumption to a 190 CR/PR Tables VI-1, VI-3 and C-1. 191 CR/PR Tables VI, VI-3, and C-1. 192 CR/PR Tables VI, VI-3, and C-1. 193 CR/PR Tables VI, VI-3, and C-1. 194 CR/PR Tables VI, VI-3, and C-1. 195 CR/PR Tables VI, VI-3, and C-1. 196 CR/PR at Tables VI-9 and C-1. 197 CR/PR at Tables VI-10 and C-1. 198 CR/PR Tables VI-5 and C-1. 199 CR/PR at Tables VI-6 and C-1. 200 CR/PR at Tables VI-12-VI-13. 37 greater degree in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020.201 In addition, based on the moderate-to-high degree of substitutability between domestic and subject nails of the same type and the importance of price to purchasers, we cannot conclude that significant subject import underselling did not contribute to a market share shift from the domestic industry to subject imports.202 We therefore cannot conclude the industry did not experience weaker performance than it would have otherwise. We have also considered the role of factors other than subject imports. Nonsubject imports accounted for the largest but declining share of the U.S. market during the POI, losing market share to subject imports from 2018 to 2020. As discussed above, nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption declined irregularly between 2018 and 2020, from *** percent in 2018, to *** percent in 2019, and *** percent in 2020, but was higher in interim 2021, at *** percent, than in interim 2020, at *** percent.203 While we recognize that nonsubject imports gained some market share in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020, this does not, however, negate the effect of the gain in market share of subject imports or the potential price suppressing effects of subject imports in 2019 and the subsequent continuing 201 Petitioner argues that the decline in PRWs in the domestic industry over the POI left the domestic industry less able to respond to increased demand for its product in interim 2021. Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 35-36. We observe that the number of PRWs in the domestic industry declined in every year of the POI and was lower in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. CR/PR at Table III-12. 202 Respondents argue that the domestic industry was unable to supply more of the market in interim 2021. See, e.g., Coalition of Importers’ Postconf. Br. and Exhibit 6, 9; PrimeSource Coalition’s Postconf. Br. at Exhibits 5-6; Viper’s Postconf. Statement and Exhibits. We recognize that supply constraints experienced by domestic producers may have also contributed to or caused the shift in market share from the domestic industry to subject imports in interim 2021. Five of seven producers reported that they had experienced supply constraints since January 1, 2018. CR/PR at II-10. As previously discussed, two of those producers – Mid Continent and Kyocera-Senco – allege that market share losses and price suppressing effects of subject imports caused layoffs early in the POI that exacerbated supply constraints later in the period. CR/PR at III-13 n.3; Petitioner’s Postconf. Br., Exh. 1 at 12-13; Conf. Tr. at 27-29 (Faron), 33-35 (Lutz); Kyocera-Senco’s U.S. Producer Questionnaire Response at II-11. In 2021, domestic producers raised wages in efforts to increase the number of workers as demand increased. CR/PR at II-6. Mid Continent and Kyocera-Senco claim that their ability to increase wages were hampered by competition with subject imports, which continued to increase and exert pricing pressure in the U.S. market in 2021. Petitioner’s Postconf. Br., Exh. 1 at 16-17; Kyocera-Senco’s U.S. Producer Questionnaire Response at II-11. The record indicates that despite elevated freight rates and supply constraints reported by U.S. importers, subject imports undersold the domestic like product in *** of *** quarterly comparisons in interim 2021. CR/PR at Tables V-4-V-7. In any final phase of the investigations, we intend to further investigate the extent to which the domestic industry’s supply constraints contributed to the shift in market share from the industry to subject imports, as well as the impact of any injury to the domestic industry due to subject imports earlier in the POI on the domestic industry’s performance and ability to supply the market in 2021. 203 CR/PR at Table IV-11. 38 injury.204 We intend to further investigate the role of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market in any final phase of the investigations. We also considered demand trends. As discussed above, the record indicates that apparent U.S. consumption declined from 2018 to 2019 and increased from 2019 to 2020 and was higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. While the decline in apparent U.S. consumption from 2018 to 2019 may have affected the domestic industry’s output and financial indictors in 2019, this decline occurred as the volume of lower-priced subject imports significantly increased and potentially suppressed domestic prices. Further, the decline in demand would not negate the effect of the domestic industry’s loss of market share to subject imports. We also observe that the domestic producers’ output indicators between interim 2020 and 2021 did not keep pace with the increase in apparent consumption. In sum, based on the record of the preliminary phase of these investigations, we cannot conclude that the record as a whole contains clear and convincing evidence that there is no material injury by reason of subject imports.205 Consequently, we determine that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of cumulated subject imports. Reasonable Indication of Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports A. Legal Standard Section 771(7)(F) of the Tariff Act directs the Commission to determine whether the U.S. industry is threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing whether “further dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is 204 CR/PR at Table C-1. Moreover, the information available indicates that the average unit values (“AUVs”) of nonsubject imports were higher than the AUVs of cumulated subject imports throughout the period of investigation, with the largest differential between nonsubject and subject AUVs occurring in interim 2021. CR/PR at Table C-1. The AUVs of nonsubject imports were $1,282 in 2018, $1,350 in 2019, and $1,245 in 2020; they were $1,456 in interim 2021, which was higher than in interim 2020, at $1,248. Id. The AUVs of subject imports were $1,259 in 2018, $1,196 in 2019, and $1,134 in 2020; they were $1,288 in interim 2021, which was higher than in interim 2020, at $1,129. Id. Thus, the AUVs of nonsubject imports declined by 2.8 percent from 2018 to 2020, while the AUVs of subject imports declined by 9.9 percent over the same period. Id. We recognize that AUV comparisons may be influenced by differences in product mix and changes in product mix over time. 205 See American Lamb Co., 785 F.2d at 1001. 39 accepted.”206 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.207 In making our determination, we consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to these investigations.208 B. Cumulation for Threat 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 206 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii). 207 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii). 208 These factors are as follows: (I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement) and whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase, (II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports, (III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports, (IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices and are likely to increase demand for further imports, (V) inventories of the subject merchandise, (VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products, … (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 our analysis, we discuss the applicable statutory threat factors using the same volume/price/impact framework that applies to our material injury analysis. Statutory threat factors (I), (II), (III), (V), and (VI) are discussed in the analysis of subject import volume. Statutory threat factor (IV) is discussed in the analysis of subject import price effects. Statutory factors (VIII) and (IX) are discussed in the analysis of impact. Statutory factor (VII) concerning agricultural products is inapplicable to this investigation. 40 countries as to which petitions were filed on the same day if the requirements for cumulation in the material injury context are satisfied.209 1. Parties’ Arguments Petitioner’s Arguments. Petitioner argues that the Commission should exercise its discretion to cumulate subject imports for purposes of any threat analysis for the same reasons that it should cumulate subject imports for purposes of its material injury analysis.210 Respondents’ Arguments. Respondents do not address cumulation for threat of material injury in their briefs. 2. Analysis As discussed above in Section VI.B., the petitions for these investigations were filed on the same day, and there is a reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey, and between imports from each subject country and the domestic like product. There is no information on the record to suggest that the reasonable overlap of competition between and among subject imports and the domestic like product will not continue into the imminent future. The current record also indicates that subject imports from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey are likely to compete in the U.S. market under similar conditions of competition in the imminent future, and no party has argued otherwise.211 Given these considerations, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey for our analysis of whether there is a reasonable indication of a threat of material injury to the domestic industry by reason of imports from Sri Lanka subject to the countervailing duty investigation. 209 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(H). 210 Petitioner’s Postconf. Br. at 42, Exh. 1 at 15. See also Petition at 32-33. 211 We acknowledge that the volume of subject imports from India declined from 2018 to 2020. CR/PR at Table IV-2. We note, however, that the volume of subject imports from all subject countries, including India, were higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. Id. We also note that the data reported in questionnaire responses by subject producers/exporters in each subject country indicates that their capacity to produce steel nails increased during the POI, while their export orientation either increased or remained high. CR/PR at Tables VII-3, VII-8, VII-13, VII-18, V-23. Responding foreign producers in each subject country also reported exporting a majority of their total shipments to the United States throughout the POI. CR/PR at Table VII-25. 41 C. Analysis of Threat of Material Injury Factors 1. Likely Volume As discussed above in Section VII.C., the volume of cumulated subject imports and the increase in the volume of these imports over the POI was significant in absolute terms and relative to U.S. consumption and production. We find that cumulated subject imports are likely to maintain a significant presence in the U.S. market, and that the significant increase in cumulated subject import volume observed during the POI is likely to continue in the imminent future. The record of the preliminary phase of the investigations indicates that cumulated subject producers have the ability and the incentive to increase their exports to the United States in the imminent future. Cumulated subject producers increased their capacity during the period of investigation, from *** short tons in 2018 to *** short tons in 2019 and *** short tons in 2020, a level *** percent higher than in 2018. Their capacity was *** short tons in interim 2021, up from *** short tons in interim 2020.212 Cumulated subject producers project additional increases in their capacity to *** short tons in full year 2021 and to *** short tons in 2022.213 As their rate of capacity utilization declined from *** percent in 2018 to *** in 2019 and *** percent in 2020 cumulated subject producers possessed substantial and increasing excess capacity.214 In 2020, the cumulated subject producers possessed excess capacity of *** short tons, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption that year. 215 Although cumulated subject producers reported higher capacity utilization in interim 2021, at *** percent, than in interim 2020, at *** percent, they project that their capacity utilization will decline to *** percent in 2022, as increases in capacity are projected to outpace increases in production.216 Cumulated subject producer end-of-period inventories also increased during the POI, which would enable subject producers to increase further their exports to the United States.217 212 CR/PR at Table VII-25. 213 CR/PR at Table VII-25. 214 CR/PR at Table VII-25. 215 Derived from CR/PR at Tables IV-10, VII-25. 216 CR/PR at Table VII-25. 217 CR/PR at Table VII-25. Additionally, reporting producers in India and Oman manufacture products other than steel nails on the same equipment that they use to produce subject merchandise, indicating some potential to switch from the production of out-of-scope products to steel nails. CR/PR at VII-6, VII-13. 42 Cumulated subject producer end-of-period inventories increased from *** short tons in 2018 to *** short tons in 2019, and *** short tons in 2020; they were *** short tons in interim 2021, up from *** short tons in interim 2020. Although U.S. importer inventories of subject imports declined during the POI,218 they remained significant and U.S. importers reported arranged subject import orders of *** short tons through September 2022.219 Cumulated subject producers also have the incentive to increase exports to the United States in the imminent future, given their export orientation and increasing reliance on the U.S. market during the period of investigation. Cumulated subject producers increased their exports of steel nails throughout the POI, from *** short tons in 2018 to *** short tons in 2019 and *** short tons in 2020, a level *** percent higher than in 2016.220 Their exports were *** short tons in interim 2021, up from *** short tons in interim 2020.221 At the same time, cumulated subject producers’ exports as a share of their total shipments increased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 and 2020, and were *** percent in interim 2021, compared to *** percent in interim 2020.222 Their exports to the United States as a share of total shipments increased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 before declining to *** percent in 2020, a level *** percentage points higher than in 2018. Their exports to the United States as a share of total shipments were *** percent in interim 2021, up from *** percent in interim 2020.223 By contrast, their shipments to home market customers as a share of total shipments declined from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 and 2020; they were *** percent in interim 2021, compared to *** percent in interim 2020. Further, cumulated subject producer exports to third country markets accounted for less than *** percent of total shipments throughout most of the period, even in the absence of third country trade measures.224 These data indicate that cumulated subject producers were highly export oriented and increasingly dependent on the U.S. market during the POI.225 218 U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories were *** short tons in 2018, *** short tons in 2019, and *** short tons in 2020; they were *** short tons in interim 2021, down from *** short tons in interim 2020. CR/PR at Table VII-26. 219 CR/PR at Table VII-27. 220 CR/PR at Table VII-25. 221 CR/PR at Table VII-25. 222 CR/PR at Table VII-25. 223 CR/PR at Table VII-25. 224 CR/PR at VII-42 and Table VII-25. 225 We acknowledge the record information indicating that international supply chain disruptions may last until at least 2023. See, e.g., Astrotech Coalition’s Postconf. Br., Exh. 2. However, as we discuss above in Sections VII.C.-D., these disruptions did not prevent cumulated subject import volume from increasing in interim 2021 relative to interim 2020, as subject import underselling remained significant. 43 In light of the significant increase in cumulated subject import volume during the POI; the large and increasing capacity of the cumulated subject producers, including substantial excess capacity; and the cumulated subject producers’ export orientation and increasing dependance on the U.S. market, we find that there is the likelihood of substantially increased subject import volume in the imminent future in the absence of relief.226 2. Likely Price Effects As discussed above in Section VII.D., we have found that cumulated subject imports significantly undersold the domestic like product during the period of investigation, and were unable to conclude that such underselling did not contribute to the shift in market share from the domestic industry to subject imports and did not prevent prices increases that would have otherwise occurred in 2019. In the absence of any evidence that the pattern of subject import underselling is likely to change, we find that subject imports are likely to continue to undersell the domestic like product in the imminent future. Indeed, despite elevated freight rates and supply constraints reported by U.S. importers, subject imports undersold the domestic like product in *** of *** quarterly comparisons in interim 2021.227 Given the moderate-to-high degree of substitutability between domestic and subject steel nails of the same type and the importance of price to purchasers, we cannot find that the significant subject import underselling that is likely would not likely contribute to an additional shift in market share from the domestic industry to subject imports or result in subject imports entering at prices that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices and increase demand for further imports in the imminent future. 3. Likely Impact As discussed above in Section VII.E., we cannot conclude that increased volumes of low- priced cumulated subject imports did not have a significant impact on the domestic industry by causing the domestic industry to lose market share to subject imports. The record indicates 226 We have also considered the nature of the countervailable subsidies in conjunction with the other statutory criteria as part of our analysis of the likely volume of the subject imports. Commerce initiated countervailing duty investigations on 16 alleged subsidy programs in India, 11 alleged subsidy programs in Oman, 11 alleged subsidy programs in Sri Lanka, 13 alleged subsidy programs in Thailand, and 26 alleged subsidy programs in Turkey. Commerce initiation checklists C-533-908, at 7-28; C-523- 817, at 7-17; C-542-805, at 6-13; C-549-845, at 7-19; C-489-847, at 6-29. Several of these alleged subsidy programs appear to be directed specifically towards exports. Id. 227 CR/PR at Tables V-4-V-7. 44 that strong demand growth is likely to continue in the imminent future.228 Given our findings that cumulated subject import volume is likely to substantially increase, and that significant subject import underselling is likely to continue, we cannot conclude that cumulated subject imports will likely not have a significant impact on the domestic industry in the imminent future, in the absence of relief. Specifically, we cannot conclude that the likely substantially increased volumes of low-priced subject imports will not depress and/or suppress domestic prices as well as displace sales of the domestic like product and cause the domestic industry to lose market share, adversely affecting the domestic industry’s production, employment, revenues, and financial performance. All seven responding U.S. producers reported anticipating negative effects from subject imports in the absence of relief.229 We have also considered whether factors other than subject imports threaten to injure the domestic industry. As discussed in Section VII.E. above, nonsubject imports generally declined as a share of apparent U.S. consumption during the period of investigation and their market share gains between the interim periods did not prevent subject imports from gaining market share at the expense of the domestic industry between those two periods. There is no information on the record that nonsubject imports would change the impact subject imports are likely to have on the domestic industry in the imminent future.230 Similarly, the information available indicates that demand for steel nails is expected to remain strong.231 As indicated above, we intend to further investigate the extent to which supply constraints have limited the domestic industry’s ability to benefit fully from increased demand in any final phase of these investigations. In sum, based on the record of the preliminary phase of the investigations, we cannot conclude that the record as a whole contains clear and convincing evidence that cumulated subject imports are not likely to have a significant impact on the domestic industry in the imminent future.232 Consequently, we determine that there is a reasonable indication that an 228 CR/PR at II-12-II-14; Astrotech Coalition’s Postconf. Br., Exh. 2 (projecting GDP growth to settle as of 2023, when pent-up demand is satisfied); Conf. Tr. at 11, 14 (House), 57 (Skarich), 172 (Rogowsky), 202-203 (Smith), 223 (Mazur). We also note that housing demand did not decrease in the last quarter of 2021. CR/PR at II-12. 229 CR/PR at Tables VI-12-VI-13. 230 As we discuss in Section VII.B.2 above, steel nails from a number of nonsubject import sources are subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders. See also Petitioner’s Postconf. Br., Exh. 1 at 13-14 (arguing that nonsubject imports from China, Malaysia, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the UAE, which accounted for 72.9 to 78.7 percent of total nonsubject import volume during the POI, were under the discipline of existing orders). 231 Conf. Tr. at 11, 14 (House), 57 (Skarich), 172 (Rogowsky), 202-203 (Smith), 223 (Mazur). 232 See American Lamb Co., 785 F.2d at 1001. 45 industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of steel nails from Sri Lanka subject to the countervailing duty investigation. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we determine that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value and imports of the subject merchandise from India, Oman, Thailand, and Turkey that are allegedly subsidized by the governments of India, Oman, Thailand, and Turkey. We also determine that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of steel nails from Sri Lanka that are allegedly subsidized by the government of Sri Lanka. I-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 Mid Continent Nail Corporation (“Mid Continent”), Poplar Bluff, Missouri on December 30, 2021, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of certain steel nails (“steel nails”)1 from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Turkey and less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey. Table I-1 presents information relating to the background of these investigations.2 3 Table I-1 Steel nails: Information relating to the background and schedule of this proceeding Effective date Action December 30, 2021 Petitions filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission investigations (87 FR 993, January 7, 2022) January 19, 2022 Commerce’s notice of initiation (87 FR 3970 and 87 FR 3965, January 26, 2022) January 20, 2022 Commission’s conference February 11, 2022 Commission’s vote February 14, 2022 Commission’s determinations February 22, 2022 Commission’s views 1 See the section entitled “The subject merchandise” in Part I 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 A list of witnesses appearing at the conference is presented in appendix B of this report. I-2 Statutory criteria Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission-- shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II) the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only in the context of production operations within the United States; and. . . may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of imports. Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that--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. 4 Amended by PL 114-27 (as signed, June 29, 2015), Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. I-3 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. Organization of report Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, subsidy and dumping allegations, and domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of competition and other relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the U.S. industry, including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Parts IV and V present the volume of subject imports and pricing of domestic and imported products, respectively. Part VI presents information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. Part VII presents the statutory requirements and information obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat of material injury as well as information regarding nonsubject countries. Market summary Steel nails are generally used to fasten two pieces of material, typically wood or other solid building materials.6 The leading U.S. producers of steel nails are Mid Continent, ***. The leading producers of steel nails in subject countries include *** of India, *** of Oman, *** of Sri Lanka, *** of Thailand and *** of Turkey. The leading U.S. importer of steel nails from India is ***. The leading importer of steel nails from Oman is ***. The leading importers of steel nails from Sri Lanka are ***. The leading importers of steel nails from Thailand are ***. The leading importers of steel nails from Turkey are ***. Leading importers of steel nails from nonsubject countries (primarily China, South Korea, and Malaysia) include ***. U.S. purchasers of steel nails responding to the Lost Sales/Lost Revenue survey were all distributors, although a substantial share of shipments by domestic producers were to end users and a substantial share of shipments were to retailers. 5 Amended by PL 114-27 (as signed, June 29, 2015), Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. 6 Petition, p. 5. I-4 Apparent U.S. consumption of steel nails totaled approximately *** short tons (***) in 2020. Currently, nine firms are known to produce steel nails in the United States (seven of which provided usable questionnaire responses). U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of steel nails totaled *** short tons (***) in 2020, and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. imports from subject sources totaled 231,297 short tons ($263.0 million) in 2020 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. imports from nonsubject sources totaled 513,297 short tons ($639.3 million) in 2020 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. Summary data and data sources A summary of data collected in these investigations is presented in appendix C, table C- 1. Except as noted, U.S. industry data are based on useable questionnaire responses of seven firms that accounted for the vast majority of U.S. production of steel nails during 2020.7 U.S. imports are based on official import statistics. Previous and related countervailing and antidumping duty investigations Steel nails has been the subject of several prior countervailing and antidumping duty investigations in the United States. Table I-2 presents data on those proceedings. 7 U.S. producer and importer *** submitted questionnaires on January 17, 2022, while U.S. producer and importer *** submitted questionnaires on January 28, 2022. Neither firm was able to address reporting inconsistencies prior to review of this report; accordingly, these questionnaire responses are not included in the questionnaire data presented in this report. ***. ***. I-5 Table I-2 Steel nails: Previous and related Commission proceedings and status of orders Date Number Country Determination Current status of order 1977 AA19210-189 Canada Affirmative preliminary ITC negative final 1979 731-TA-26 Korea Affirmative preliminary ITC negative final 1981 731-TA-45 Japan ITC terminated investigation --- 1981 731-TA-46 Korea AD order issued Revoked in October 1984 1981 731-TA-47 Yugoslavia ITC negative preliminary --- 1982 701-TA-145 Korea Investigation terminated --- 1985 731-TA-226 China AD order issued Revoked September 1987, retroactive to January 1986 1985 A-455-502 Poland Terminated investigations --- 1985 A-479-501 Yugoslavia Terminated investigations --- 1987 C-614-701 Thailand Affirmative final CVD revoked for Thailand in August 1995 1989 C-557-804 Malaysia CVD investigation terminated by Commerce --- 1996 731-TA-757 China AD orders issued AD orders were revoked November 2002 1996 731-TA-758 Korea Terminated investigation AD orders were revoked November 2002 1996 731-TA-759 Taiwan AD orders issued AD orders were revoked November 2002 2007 731-TA-1114 China AD order for China Currently in effect 2007 731-TA-1115 United Arab Emirates Terminated investigation --- 2011 731-TA-1185 United Arab Emirates Affirmative final Currently in effect 2014 701-TA-515 and 731-TA- 1251 India ITC terminated preliminary AD and CVD investigations --- 2014 701-TA-516 and 731-TA- 1252 South Korea Commerce negative final CVD determination; AD order issued Currently in effect 2014 701-TA-517 and 731-TA- 1253 Malaysia Commerce negative final CVD determination; AD order issued Currently in effect 2014 701-TA-518 and 731-TA- 1254 Oman Commerce negative final CVD determination; AD order issued Currently in effect I-6 Date Number Country Determination Current status of order 2014 701-TA-519 and 731-TA- 1255 Taiwan Commerce negative final CVD determination; AD order issued Currently in effect 2014 701-TA-520 and 731-TA- 1256 Turkey ITC terminated preliminary AD and CVD investigations --- 2014 701-TA-521 and 731-TA- 1257 Vietnam CVD and AD orders issued Currently in effect Source: U.S. International Trade Commission publications and Federal Register notices. Note: Collated roofing nails have been subject to the following previous and related investigations: Collated Roofing Nails from China, Korea, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-757-759 (Preliminary) January 1997: Collated Roofing Nails from China and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-757 and 759 (Final) Nov 1997 went affirmative. Note: “Date” refers to the year in which the investigation was instituted by the Commission. Safeguard investigations On January 24, 1984, the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, and Bethlehem Steel Corp. filed a petition under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 alleging that carbon and certain alloy steel products, including steel wire nails, were being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported articles.8 Following the Commission’s affirmative determinations in July 1984 for several of the products, including steel wire nails, the United States negotiated various agreements to limit the importation of steel products into the United States, such as the VRAs.9 On July 3, 2001, following a request from the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) and subsequently a request from the Senate Finance Committee, a section 201 investigation was initiated by the Commission to determine whether certain steel products were being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry. The Commission, however, made a negative determination with respect to carbon and alloy steel nails.10 8 Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, Investigation No. TA-201-51, USITC Publication 1553, July 1984, p. 7. 9 Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, Investigation No. TA-201-51, USITC Publication 1553, July 1984, p. 7. 10 Steel, Investigation No. TA-201-73, USITC Publication 3479, December 2001. I-7 Nature and extent of alleged subsidies and sales at LTFV On January 26, 2022, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its countervailing duty investigations on steel nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka Thailand, and Turkey.11 On January 26, 2022, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of the initiation of its antidumping duty investigations on steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Tukey.12 Commerce has initiated antidumping duty investigations based on estimated dumping margins of 66.53 to 99.43 percent for steel nails from India, 35.50 to 104.13 percent for Sri Lanka, 64.44 to 65.87 percent from Thailand, and 28.94 to 33.04 percent for steel nails from Turkey. The subject merchandise Commerce’s scope In the current proceeding, Commerce has defined the scope as follows:13 The merchandise covered by these investigations is certain steel nails having a nominal shaft or shank length not exceeding 12 inches. Certain steel nails include, but are not limited to, nails made from round wire and nails that are cut from flat-rolled steel or long-rolled flat steel bars. Certain steel nails may be of one piece construction or constructed of two or more pieces. Examples of nails constructed of two or more pieces include, but are not limited to, anchors comprised of an anchor body made of zinc or nylon and a steel pin or a steel nail; crimp drive anchors; split-drive anchors, and strike pin anchors. Also included in the scope are anchors of one piece construction. Certain steel nails may be produced from any type of steel, and may have any type of surface finish, head type, shank, point type and shaft diameter. Finishes include, but are not limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, including but not limited to electroplating or hot dipping one or more times), phosphate, cement, and paint. Certain steel nails may have one or more surface finishes. Head styles include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, countersunk, and 11 For further information on the alleged subsidy programs see Commerce’s notice of initiation and related CVD Initiation Checklist. 87 FR 3970, January 26, 2022. 12 87 FR 3965, January 26, 2022. 13 87 FR 3965 and 87 FR 3970, January 26, 2022. I-8 sinker. Shank or shaft styles include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, ring shank and fluted. Screw-threaded nails subject to this proceeding are driven using direct force and not by turning the nail using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles include, but are not limited to, diamond, needle, chisel and blunt or no point. Certain steel nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated in any manner using any material. Excluded from the scope are certain steel nails packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is less than 25. If packaged in combination with one or more non-subject articles, certain steel nails remain subject merchandise if the total number of nails of all types, in aggregate regardless of size, is equal to or greater than 25, unless otherwise excluded based on the other exclusions below. Also excluded from the scope are certain steel nails with a nominal shaft or shank length of one inch or less that are a component of an unassembled article, where the total number of nails is sixty (60) or less, and the imported unassembled article falls into one of the following eight groupings: (1) Builders' joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as windows, French-windows and their frames; (2) builders' joinery and carpentry of wood that are classifiable as doors and their frames and thresholds; (3) swivel seats with variable height adjustment; (4) seats that are convertible into beds (with the exception of those classifiable as garden seats or camping equipment); (5) seats of cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials; (6) other seats with wooden frames (with the exception of seats of a kind used for aircraft or motor vehicles); (7) furniture (other than seats) of wood (with the exception of (i) medical, surgical, dental or veterinary furniture; and (ii) barbers' chairs and similar chairs, having rotating as well as both reclining and elevating movements); or (8) furniture (other than seats) of materials other than wood, metal, or plastics ( e.g., furniture of cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials). The aforementioned imported unassembled articles are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4418.10, 4418.20, 9401.30, 9401.40, 9401.51, 9401.59, 9401.61, 9401.69, 9403.30, 9403.40, 9403.50, 9403.60, 9403.81 or 9403.89. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are nails suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, whether or not threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheadings 7317.00.2000 and 7317.00.3000. I-9 Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are nails suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools. These nails have a case hardness greater than or equal to 50 on the Rockwell Hardness C scale (HRC), a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised head section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are corrugated nails. A corrugated nail is made up of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp points on one side. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS subheading 7317.00.1000. Also excluded from the scope are decorative or upholstery tacks. Tariff treatment Steel nails are currently provided for in HTS subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65, and 7317.00.75 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS” or “HTS”), in the following statistical reporting numbers: 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560, and 7317.00.7500. Steel nails imported from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey enter the U.S. market at a column 1-general duty rate of “Free.”14 Decisions on the tariff classification and treatment of imported goods are within the authority of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Section 232 tariff treatment15 Steel nails classifiable under HTS subheading 7317.00 were not originally included in the enumeration of steel mill products that were subject to the additional 25 percent ad 14 HTSUS (2022) Preliminary, USITC publication 5272, January 2022, p. 73-30. 15 Imports of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (an input for steel wire and nails) are subject to additional 25 percent ad valorem section 232 duties or, in certain cases, quotas, effective March 23, 2018 (FR 11625). For a detailed description, please see Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, and Trinidad and Tobago, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-417 and 731- TA-953, 957-959, and 961 (Third Review), USITC Publication 5100, August 2020, pp. I-28 and I-29 and app. F. I-10 valorem section 232 national-security duties under HTS chapter 99 as of March 23, 2018.16 However, steel nails classifiable under HTS statistical reporting numbers 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5580, and 7317.00.6560 were included in the enumeration of derivative iron and steel articles that became subject to additional 25 percent ad valorem section 232 duties, as of February 8, 2020.17 At this time, imports of steel nails described by these six HTS statistical reporting numbers originating in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Korea, and Mexico are exempted from any duties or quota limits; but imports originating in all other countries are subject to these 25 percent additional duties.18 See also U.S. note 16(a)(ii) to subchapter III of HTS chapter 99. In its postconference 16 Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862) authorizes the President, on advice of the Secretary of Commerce, to adjust the imports of an article and its derivatives that are being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security. Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 9705, March 8, 2018; 83 FR 11625, March 15, 2018. 17 Adjusting Imports of Derivative Aluminum Articles and Derivative Steel Articles Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 9980, January 24, 2020; 85 FR 5281, January 29, 2020. 18 The President also issued subsequent Proclamations to exempt or adjust these duties for selected U.S. trade partners: • Presidential Proclamation 9711, March 22, 2018 (83 FR 13361, March 28, 2018) exempted iron and steel mill products originating in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, the EU member countries (including the United Kingdom), Korea, and Mexico, as of March 23, 2018. • Presidential Proclamation 9740, April 30, 2018 (83 FR 20683, May 7, 2018) continued the duty exemptions for Argentina, Australia, Brazil, but with annual import quota limits on iron and steel mill products originating in Korea, as of May 1, 2018; and did not continue the duty exemptions on iron and steel mill products originating in Canada, Mexico, and the EU member countries (including the United Kingdom), as of June 1, 2018. • Presidential Proclamation 9759, May 31, 2018 (83 FR 25857, June 5, 2018) continued the duty exemptions but with annual import quota limits on iron and steel mill products originating in Argentina, Brazil, and Korea, as of June 1, 2018. • Presidential Proclamation 9772, August 10, 2018 (83 FR 40429, August 15, 2018) continued the duty exemptions on iron and steel mill products originating in Australia; continued the duty exemptions with annual import quota limits on iron and steel mill products originating in Argentina, Brazil, and Korea, as of June 1, 2018; but doubled the duty rate to 50 percent on such imported products originating in Turkey, as of August 13, 2018. • Presidential Proclamation 9886, May 16, 2019 (84 FR 23421, May 21, 2019) restored the original additional duty rate of 25 percent on steel mill products originating in Turkey, as of May 21, 2019. • Presidential Proclamation 9894, May 19, 2019 (84 FR 23987, May 23, 2019) restored the duty exemptions on steel mill products originating in Canada and Mexico, as of May 20, 2019. (continued...) I-11 brief, petitioners estimated that 27 percent of all nail imports from all sources over the period of February 2020 to September 2021 fall under the HTS codes that would be subject to 232 duties.19 While imports from all subject countries are subject to these 25 percent ad valorem duties under HTS statistical reporting numbers 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5580, and 7317.00.6560, three large importers sought the suspension of collection of these duties through litigation. On February 4, 2020, PrimeSource Building filed a suit against the United States before the Court of International Trade (“CIT”), arguing that the imposition of the tariffs on steel derivative products failed to follow required statutory procedures. Huttig and Oman Fasteners filed similar suits. Plaintiffs subsequently obtained injunctions against the collection of Section 232 duties. In April 2021, the CIT issued a summary judgment determining that the presidential proclamation was “invalid as contrary to law. The United States appealed this decision in June 2021 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) and requested a partial stay of judgement with the CIT pending the appeal. The motion for a stay was granted in August 2021 and CIT ordered suspension of liquidation of the entries affected by the appeal. The case is currently pending decision by the CAFC and the status of the duties are uncertain.20 Section 301 tariff treatment21 Steel nails originating in China that enter the United States under HTS subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65, and 7317.00.75 are currently subject to additional 25 percent • Presidential Proclamation 10328, December 27, 2021 (87 FR 11, January 3, 2022) provided duty exemptions with annual import quota limits on iron and steel mill products originating in EU member countries, including Belgium, as of January 1, 2022. See also HTS heading 9903.80.01 and U.S. notes 16(a), 16(b), 16(e), and 16(f) to subchapter III of chapter 99 and related tariff provisions for this duty treatment. USITC, HTSUS (2022) Preliminary, USITC Publication 5272, January 2022, pp. 99-III-5 – 99-III-7, 99-III-237, 99-III-241 – 99-III-242, 99-III-249 – 99- III-250. 19 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 20, Exh. 1. 20 Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 21-23; Exh 1. 21 Imports from China of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (an input for steel wire and nails) are subject to additional 7.5 percent ad valorem section 301 duties, effective February 14, 2021 (84 FR 3741, January 22, 2020). I-12 section 301 ad valorem duties,22 effective May 10, 2019.23 See also U.S. notes 20(e) and 20(f), subchapter III of chapter 99. The product Description and applications24 Steel nails are small steel bars that are pointed on one end and have some type of head at the other end. (Flat heads are the most common).25 Steel nails are driven into wood or other materials to fasten or join them together. The pointed end is driven into the surface of the material it is fastening, while the head serves as a point from which to drive the nail in without damaging the material the nail is fastening. The head also serves as a point from which to grasp and remove the nail if the object it is fastening needs to be disassembled. Steel nails can also be used as hooks or pegs from which to hang things. Although most steel nails are produced from low-carbon steel, steel nails are also produced from stainless steel (to resist corrosion) and from medium- to high-carbon steel 22 Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 2411) authorizes the Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”), at the direction of the President, to take appropriate action to respond to a foreign country’s unfair trade practices. On August 18, 2017, USTR initiated an investigation into certain acts, policies, and practices of the Government of China related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation (82 FR 40213, August 24, 2017). On April 6, 2018, USTR published its determination that the acts, policies, and practices of China under investigation are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce, and are thus actionable under section 301(b) of the Trade Act (83 FR 14906, April 6, 2018). 23 HTS subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65, and 7317.00.75 were included in the USTR’s third enumeration (“Tranche 3”) of products originating in China that became subject to an additional 10 percent ad valorem section 301 duties (Annexes A and C of 83 FR 47974), on or after September 24, 2018. Tranche 3 covered 6,031 tariff subheadings, with an approximate annual trade value of $200 billion (83 FR 47974, September 21, 2018). Escalation of this duty to 25 percent ad valorem was rescheduled from January 1, 2019 (annex B of 83 FR 14906, April 6, 2018) to March 2, 2019 (83 FR 65198, December 19, 2018), but was subsequently postponed until further notice (84 FR 7966, March 5, 2019), and then was implemented as of May 10, 2019 (84 FR 20459, May 9, 2019). A subsequent modification was provided for subject goods exported from China prior to May 10, 2019, not to be subject to the escalated 25 percent duty, as long as such goods entered the United States prior to June 1, 2019 (84 FR 21892, May 15, 2019). USTR proposed raising this additional duty from 25 percent to 30 percent on such products imported from China, on or after October 1, 2019 (Annex C – (List 3 - $200 Billion Action), Part 1, of 84 FR 46212, September 3, 2019). 24 Unless otherwise noted, this information is based on Certain Steel Nails from Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-521 and 731-TA-1252-1255 and 1257 (Final), USITC Publication 4541, July 2015. p. I-12. 25 Home Depot, “Types of Nails”, Types of Nails (homedepot.com) , retrieved January 26, 2022. I-13 which can be hardened. Nails are packaged for shipment in bulk (loose in a carton or other container) or collated (joined with wire, paper strips, plastic strips, or glue into coils or straight strips for use in pneumatic nailing tools). Although most nails are produced from a single piece of steel, some nails are produced from two or more pieces. Examples of nails produced from two or more pieces include a nail with a decorative head such as an upholstery nail; a nail with a large thin attached head (for nailing roofing felt, for example); and a nail with a rubber or neoprene washer assembled over its shaft (to seal the nail-hole in metal or fiberglass roofing, or siding). Particular varieties of nails that were included in the scope of these investigations include, but are not limited to, masonry anchors26 and roofing nails. Masonry anchors can be made of nylon, carbon steel, or stainless steel. They are primarily used to fasten wood or metal to concrete, brick, or block where predrilling is required.27 Anchors can be made of one piece or in two pieces with a body and a steel pin.28 Roofing nails are used in construction or maintenance of roofs. They can be made of carbon or stainless steel and often have a larger head than common nails. Like anchors, they can be made of one piece or two. Examples of two-piece roofing nails include hand driven and power-driven cap nails, which have a plastic or metal cap.29 Manufacturing processes30 Most steel nails are produced from wire rod or steel wire, although a small proportion of steel nails are produced from steel sheet or plate and are referred to as “cut nails.” Non- integrated producers of wire nails use purchased steel wire as a starting raw material, whereas integrated producers utilize their own facilities to produce wire for nails, using steel wire rod as their starting material. Some producers are further integrated through the steelmaking process and produce steel wire rod from raw materials such as scrap, pig iron, and ferroalloys. Figure I-1 shows the general process for producing steel wire nails. 26 In its postconference brief, the Hillman Group argues that masonry anchors are a separate domestic like product. 27 Hillman Group’s postconference brief, pp. 4-6. 28 For more information on types of masonry anchors, see Hillman Group’s postconference brief, Exh. 1, pp. 21-25. 29 For more information on types of roofing nails as well as other types of nails, see Standard Specification for Driven Fasteners: Nails, Spikes, and Staples (ASTM F1667), petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 17, pp. 334-382. 30 Unless otherwise noted, this information is based on Certain Steel Nails from Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-521 and 731-TA-1252-1255 and 1257 (Final), USITC Publication 4541, July 2015. pp. I-12-I-15. I-14 Figure I-1 Steel nails: General process of producing nails Note: All collated nails are vinyl coated in-line on the collating machine. All bulk nails are coated in-line at the cleaning station if required. Source: Certain Steel Nails from Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-521 and 731-TA-1252-1255 and 1257 (Final), USITC Publication 4541 (July 2015) p. I-14. To produce nails from wire, the wire is fed from a large coil into a nail machine that automatically straightens the wire, forms the head of the nail, and cuts the nail from the wire, simultaneously forming the point and ejecting the finished nail. Nail machines are of two general types: the first, known as a “cold-heading machine,” holds the wire near its end in gripper dies and forms the head by striking the leading end of the wire, forcing the end of the wire to fill a die cavity of the desired shape. The wire is fed through the grippers, and shape cutters form the point and cut the nail free from the wire coming off the coil. The process is repeated for each individual nail produced by the cold-heading process. In the second type of nail machine, known as a “rotary heading machine,” the wire is fed continuously and cutting rollers cut individual nail blanks, simultaneously forming the point. The nail blanks are then inserted into a die ring and the heads are formed by compression of the end of the nail between the rotating ring and a heading roller. The completed nails are then ejected from the machine. Both types of nail machines are used to produce all styles of nails, and some I-15 manufacturers have both types in their facilities. These automatic machines are capable of producing a range of nail sizes and head and point styles by changing tooling and adjustment. Nails that have helical twist, serrations, and other configurations on the shanks require an additional forming process. These nails are fed into other machines that roll, twist, stamp, or cut to required forms. These operations may also require heating of the nails before forming. After forming, nails are tumbled on themselves in rotating drums to remove particles of head flash and the whiskers, which often remain on the cut and pointed ends. The drum may contain a medium (such as sawdust) which effects cleaning and polishing of the nails during tumbling, otherwise the tumbled nails can be transferred to units that clean the nails with solvents or vapor degreasers. Nails are produced with a number of finishes, depending upon the intended use: uncoated,31 zinc-coated (galvanized), vinyl resin, and cement coated are the most common finishes. Nails with galvanized coatings are intended for uses where corrosion and staining resistance are important.32 Resin coatings are used to aid in driving the nail. Cement coating is used to increase the resistance of the nail to withdrawal by increasing the friction between the nail and the wood into which it has been driven. Zinc-coated, or galvanized, nails are produced by several methods: (1) produced using zinc-coated (galvanized) wire; (2) produced by a process of dipping formed nails into molten zinc and then spinning them in a centrifuge-like apparatus to throw off excess molten zinc; or (3) electroplated with zinc after forming. Nails for driving into concrete or other hard substances may be hardened by heat treatment. Nails for use in hand-held pneumatic nailing tools are processed through automatic equipment to collate the nails using paper strips, plastic strips, fine steel wire, or adhesive. Nails for use in nailing tools in some industrial applications–for the production of wooden pallets in particular–are packaged in bulk and fed to the nailing tools via automatic hopper-feeding systems. Nails for hand-driving are packaged in bulk (loose) in cartons or in smaller count boxes including one- pound and five-pound boxes for mass merchandise retail repair and modeling customers. Cut nails are produced from steel sheet or plate rather than from wire and are rectangular rather than round. Cut nails are used primarily for joining to masonry or concrete. Although cut nails may be made for any carpentry use, the main use other than masonry is for flooring in applications where an antique appearance is required. Cut nails are made from high- carbon steel plate that is sheared into strips. The strips are fed into specially designed nail 31 Uncoated nails are also called “bright,” a term that refers to nails that have not undergone treatments affecting finish, such as hardening, bluing, coating, plating, etching, painting, etc. ASTM F547: Standard Terminology of Nails for Use with Wood and Wood-Base Materials. 32 Forest Products Society, Wood Handbook 2010 Edition, p. 8-3. I-16 machines which shape the nails and form the heads. The cut nails are then-case hardened in a furnace and packed in fifty-pound cartons (also known as large-count industry standard boxes) on pallets for the construction trades or either one-pound or five-pound boxes for mass merchandise retail repair and modeling customers. Domestic like product issues The petitioner proposes a single domestic like products coextensive with the scope of the investigations.33 Respondents PrimeSource, Metropolitan Staple, Steel Products Company and Steel & Wire Northeast stated that for the purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, they were not going to contest that there is a single domestic like product.34 Respondent Hillman Group argues that anchors are a separate domestic like product.35 33 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 3. 34 Husch Blackwell postconference brief, p. 4. 35 Hillman Group’s postconference brief, p. 9. II-1 Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market U.S. market characteristics Steel nails are predominantly manufactured from steel wire drawn from wire rod, but may also be produced from steel plate or strip. Different types of steel nails are sold for housing construction, constructing pallets and shipping crates, and making furniture, cabinets, or flooring. Steel nails are packaged in different sizes of boxes and containers with smaller packages normally being purchased by big box retailers and larger containers being sold to lumberyards and wholesale distributors. They are sold in bulk or in paper- or plastic-collated strips to end users and distributors.1 The construction industry is the single largest end user of steel nails. Therefore, demand for steel nails is primarily driven by the U.S. construction industry, and is strongly influenced by residential housing construction.2 Prices for steel nails are determined by a number of factors, including type of nail, physical dimensions of the nails, whether the nail is galvanized or coated, whether it is sold as a bulk or collated product, and shank style.3 Apparent U.S. consumption of steel nails decreased by *** percent during 2018-20, but was *** percent higher in January-September (“interim”) 2021 than in interim 2020. In particular, apparent U.S. consumption of steel nails decreased by *** percent between 2018 and 2019, but increased by *** percent between 2019 and 2020. Domestic producers described that the steel nails market has been characterized by two periods of distinct market dynamics: before the COVID-19 pandemic, and during it.4 At the staff conference, counsel for Petitioner attributed the increase in apparent consumption during 2021 to effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has caused supply chain issues and “unusual” ocean freight costs. These issues, they noted, allowed them to increase prices. However, labor constraints have inhibited their ability to increase production and sales.5 1 Certain Steel Nails from Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Investigation Nos. 701-TA- 521 and 731-TA-1252-1255 and 1257 (Final), USITC Publication 4541, 2015, p. II-1. 2 Conference transcript, p. 76 (Lutz). 3 Certain Steel Nails from Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Investigation Nos. 701-TA- 521 and 731-TA-1252-1255 and 1257 (Final), USITC Publication 4541, 2015, p. II-1. 4 Conference transcript, p. 98 (Kanna). 5 Conference transcript, p. 16 (Kanna). II-2 Channels of distribution U.S. producers sold primarily to end users and secondarily to distributors as shown in table II-1. Importers of subject product from India, Oman, and Sri Lanka sold primarily to distributors and secondarily to retailers, while importers of product from Thailand and nonsubject sources sold primarily to retailers and secondarily to distributors. Shipments of steel nails imported from Turkey were somewhat more evenly distributed among the three channels; the channel with the largest share in each period was to retailers. The share of sales of steel nail imports from India sold to retailers has decreased substantially over the period, while share of sales to retailers of product imported from Sri Lanka increased. Table II-1 Steel nails: Share of U.S. shipments by source, channel of distribution, and period Shares in percent Source Channel 2019 2020 2021 Jan-Sept 2020 Jan-Sept 2021 United States Distributors *** *** *** *** *** United States Retailers *** *** *** *** *** United States End users *** *** *** *** *** India Distributors *** *** *** *** *** India Retailers *** *** *** *** *** India End users *** *** *** *** *** Oman Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Oman Retailers *** *** *** *** *** Oman End users *** *** *** *** *** Sri Lanka Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Sri Lanka Retailers *** *** *** *** *** Sri Lanka End users *** *** *** *** *** Thailand Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Thailand Retailers *** *** *** *** *** Thailand End users *** *** *** *** *** Turkey Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Turkey Retailers *** *** *** *** *** Turkey End users *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Retailers *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources End users *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Retailers *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources End users *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Distributors *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Retailers *** *** *** *** *** All import sources End users *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II-3 Table II-2 presents the unit value of domestic shipments of steel nails from the United States, subject countries, and nonsubject countries. Domestic unit values were higher for shipments to retailers than distributors, but unit values for shipments to end users were lower than both.6 Other sources, however, unit values for end-user shipments were mostly higher. Table II-2 Steel nails: Unit value of U.S. shipments by source, channel of distribution, and period Unit values in dollars per short ton Source Channel 2019 2020 2021 Jan-Sept 2020 Jan- Sept 2021 United States Distributors *** *** *** *** *** United States Retailers *** *** *** *** *** United States End users *** *** *** *** *** India Distributors *** *** *** *** *** India Retailers *** *** *** *** *** India End users *** *** *** *** *** Oman Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Oman Retailers *** *** *** *** *** Oman End users *** *** *** *** *** Sri Lanka Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Sri Lanka Retailers *** *** *** *** *** Sri Lanka End users *** *** *** *** *** Thailand Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Thailand Retailers *** *** *** *** *** Thailand End users *** *** *** *** *** Turkey Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Turkey Retailers *** *** *** *** *** Turkey End users *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Retailers *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources End users *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Retailers *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources End users *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Distributors *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Retailers *** *** *** *** *** All import sources End users *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 6 Average unit values (“AUVs” for ***). II-4 Geographic distribution U.S. producers and importers reported selling steel nails to all regions in the United States (table II-3). For U.S. producers, *** percent of sales were within 100 miles of their production facility, *** percent were between 101 and 1,000 miles, and *** percent were over 1,000 miles. Importers sold *** percent within 100 miles of their U.S. point of shipment, *** percent between 101 and 1,000 miles, and *** percent over 1,000 miles. Table II-3 Steel nails: Count of U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ presence in geographic markets, by source and by region Region U.S. producers India Oman Sri Lanka Thailand Turkey Subject sources Northeast 6 11 6 4 9 11 18 Midwest 7 13 6 4 8 12 19 Southeast 7 14 8 5 8 14 22 Central Southwest 6 13 7 4 6 11 18 Mountains 6 10 6 5 10 9 17 Pacific Coast 6 13 8 4 11 10 19 Other 3 3 3 2 3 3 6 All regions (except Other) 5 8 5 4 4 5 11 Reporting firms 7 19 9 6 14 18 27 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Other U.S. markets include AK, HI, PR, and VI. II-5 Supply and demand considerations U.S. supply Table II-4 provides a summary of the supply factors regarding steel nails from U.S. producers and from subject countries. Table II-4 Steel nails: Supply factors that affect the ability to increase shipments to the U.S. market, by factor and by country Quantity in short tons; ratio and share in percent Factor Measure United States India Oman Sri Lanka Thailand Turkey Subject sources Capacity 2018 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity 2020 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization 2018 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization 2020 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventories 2018 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventories 2020 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market 2020 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Non-US export markets 2020 Ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ability to shift production Count *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Responding U.S. producers accounted for the vast majority of U.S. production of steel nails in 2020. Responding foreign producer/exporter firms accounted for 90 percent U.S. imports of steel nails from India during 2020, virtually all U.S. imports of steel nails from Oman, Sri Lanka, and Thailand, and more than 75 percent of U.S. imports of steel nails from Turkey. 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 Part I, “Summary Data and Data Sources.” Domestic production Based on available information, U.S. producers of steel nails have the ability to respond to changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced steel nails to the U.S. market if they were able to secure enough labor to increase production. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused capacity and inventories. Factors that may mitigate responsiveness of supply include a labor shortage, limited ability to shift shipments from alternate markets and limited ability to shift production to or from alternate products. Domestic producers noted the lack of a readily II-6 available, skilled labor force, reportedly due to COVID-19 and reductions in employees due to subject imports, that would be needed to produce more steel nails.7 U.S. producers’ production capacity increased by approximately *** percent during 2018-20 and capacity utilization declined by *** percentage points to *** percent capacity utilization in 2020. Despite reported increased demand in the market, capacity utilization in interim 2021 was *** percent, slightly lower than it was in interim 2020 (*** percent). Petitioner’s counsel noted that early in the relevant period, even without labor constraints, Mid Continent’s capacity utilization was “very low.”8 Despite the increase in demand for steel nails that continued through the third quarter of 2021, a representative for Mid Continent reported that “due to labor constraints and things of that nature, we are only able to operate at about 40 percent of the {450 tons a day capacity at its Poplar Bluff location that it reached in 2017}.”9 10 Producers Mid Continent, Tree Island, and Kyocera have each raised wages in 2021 in order to increase the number of workers.11 Producers stated, however, that one factor they have had to try to overcome in trying to increase production is the “availability of skilled, experience people,” which “takes time” and is “not something money pays for,” particularly when those skilled employees were lost due to prior layoffs.12 13 7 Conference transcript, pp. 16 and 17 (Kanna). Domestic producers reported that these labor constraints are “significant” p. 44 (Stachowiak). 8 Conference transcript, p. 49 (Jeong). 9 Conference transcript, p. 48 (Pratt). He further noted that “if we had more profit on our nails, we would be able to raise our wages and possibly be able to increase our labor force.” Ibid. A representative of Tree Island added that, “Obviously, the availability of labor and the wages would require a significantly higher wage category, which would compress margins unless we could raise the prices substantially. But, absolutely, there is a significant amount of excess machine capacity that can support the market.” Ibid., p. 50 (Stachowiak). 10 Mid Continent is owned by Mexican firm Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V., which produces and imports steel nails and transfers those nails to related firms in the United States. ***. 11 Conference transcript, p. 89 (Faron, Pratt, and Stachowiak) and Petitioner’s postconference brief, Answers to Commission Staff questions, p. 16. 12 Ibid., p. 90 (Stachowiak) and p. 61 (Pratt). 13 In 2017, Legacy Fasteners LLC, which is owned by the former owners of Mid Continent, began production in the same city (Poplar Bluff, Missouri) as Mid Continent, having purchased the assets of Fuzion Fasteners from Hahn Industries, and competes with Mid Continent for skilled workers and customers. “Pallet People: Liblas Acquire Fuzion Fasteners, Launch Legacy Fasteners, LLC,” PalletEnterprise.com, submitted as part of Respondent Astrotech’s postconference brief, exhibit 3, and Ibid., pp. 17-18. II-7 U.S. producers’ inventories/total shipment ratio increased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 before declining to *** in 2020. Inventory ratios at the end of the third quarter of 2021 were *** percent, compared with *** percent at the same point in 2020. *** of U.S. production is shipped domestically, and U.S. producers reported that they are not able to shift production to other products. Subject imports from subject countries Based on available information, producers of steel nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey generally have the ability to respond to changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of steel nails to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply is the availability of a moderate amount of unused capacity, and higher quantities of foreign-held inventories in the most recent period than in earlier periods. Factors mitigating responsiveness of supply include, in general, a limited ability to shift shipments from alternate markets and no ability to shift production to or from alternate products for any subject country, along with relatively low inventory-to- production ratios. The source with the greatest ability to respond to changes in demand is Turkey, which likely has a moderate-to-large ability to respond to changes in the U.S. steel nail market due to being the subject country with the largest production capacity, a moderate capacity utilization rate, the largest percentage of sales to non-U.S. export markets, and the second-highest available inventory quantities in September 2021, although it maintains the largest percentage of home-market shipments among subject countries. Oman and Sri Lanka, on the other hand, have somewhat less ability to increase exports to the U.S. market in response to price changes due to their high capacity utilization ratios, very low shipments to their home markets and third-country markets, and low or substantially decreased inventory ratios in interim 2021. II-8 Production capacity in India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey increased during 2018-20, with increases ranging from *** percent (***) to *** percent (***). At the end of 2020, *** held the largest amounts of unused capacity among subject countries.14 Across all subject countries combined, capacity increased from less than *** percent higher than domestic capacity in 2018 to *** percent higher than domestic capacity. Increases in production generally matched increases in production capacity in ***, with capacity utilization increasing by less than *** percentage point between 2018 and 2020. Capacity utilization decreased by approximately *** percentage points in ***, as increases in production were smaller than increases in capacity. *** capacity utilization fell approximately *** percentage points, ***.15 In the interim 2021 period, however, capacity utilization rates were higher than during any other period for all subject countries except for Turkey.16 14 The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on production in different countries was diverse during 2020 and 2021, due to both the effects of the virus itself as well as any interventions undertaken to combat the virus. With respect to imports, respondents noted that, “there have been shutdowns, there have been lockdowns that have inhibited sourcing and supply…” Conference transcript, p. 202 (Nagaranjan). At least one foreign producer in each country but Oman reported being affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. 15 India’s decrease in capacity utilization is reportedly “***.” Respondent Geekay Wires’ postconference brief, p. 10. 16 Respondent Geekay Wires stated that it “that the normal maximum capacity utilization of steel nail plants is around 90 percent and that utilizations above this rate are not sustainable. Further, Geekay Wires’ experience is that if a steel nail producer has a market for steel nails that exceeds 90 percent of its capacity, that the producer then will consider whether it needs to add additional production capacity.” Respondent Geekay Wires’ postconference brief, pp. 9-10. Capacity utilization in India, Oman, and Sri Lanka was greater than 90 percent in interim 2021. II-9 The ratios of ending inventories held in subject countries by foreign producers’ to their total shipments of steel nails were substantially smaller than the inventory ratios of domestic producers,17 although total ending inventory quantities increased each period. Ending inventory ratios in *** were never above 2 percent. *** inventory ratios rose from *** to *** percent and *** inventory ratios increased from *** to *** percent. *** inventory ratios decreased from ***to *** percent, however. Inventories held by subject countries increased from *** short tons in 2018 to *** short tons in 2019 and *** short tons in 2020, and were *** short tons in interim 2021 compared with *** short tons in interim 2020. At the end of September 2021, inventories held by subject foreign producers was *** percent of their total shipments (annualized) in 2021. The subject country with the highest inventory-to-total shipments ratio was Thailand, with a ratio of *** percent in interim 2021. Home market shipments for the steel nails industry in Turkey were *** percent in 2020, but were *** percent or less for each of the other countries. Non-U.S. exports were less than 10 percent for all countries. They were smallest for the steel nails industries in Sri Lanka (*** percent) and Oman (*** percent) and largest for the steel nails industries in India and Turkey (*** percent). Like domestic producers, no foreign producer reported being able to produce any other products on the same machinery and equipment used to make steel nails.18 Imports from nonsubject sources Imports of steel nails from nonsubject sources accounted for approximately 70 percent of total U.S. imports in 2020, according to official statistics. The largest source of nonsubject imports, and the largest source of all imports of steel nails during January 2018-September 2021 was China, followed by Malaysia, South Korea, and Taiwan, as well as Canada and Mexico. Each was the source of a more imports than Sri Lanka or India in value terms. Combined, these countries accounted for slightly less than two-thirds of total imports of steel nails in 2020. 17 As noted above, domestic inventory ratios were above *** percent in each relevant period. 18 Two Indian foreign producers did note, however, producing of small amounts (less than *** percent of yearly capacity each and less than *** percent of total Indian production) of other products using the same equipment. ***. II-10 Supply constraints The U.S. steel nails market has been characterized by a number of supply constraints since January 1, 2018. A majority of producers (5 of 7) and importers (15 of 27) reported that they had experienced supply constraints. Firms cited labor shortages, production shutdowns, extended lead times, and shipping delays related to the COVID-19 pandemic for both U.S.- produced and imported steel nails. U.S. producer *** reported that its labor constraints were worsened because it had already reduced its workforce to compete with imports. It also noted that after the implementation of section 232 tariffs and an unsuccessful attempt to increase prices by approximately 19 percent in the spring of 2018, it lost 30 percent of its sales within the first 60 days, and by December of 2018, its shipments were down 60 percent from where they were in the first and second quarter of 2018.19 As a result of decreased shipments in 2018, it reduced its workforce and has had difficulty attracting skilled labor back in order to satisfy demand in 2021.20 U.S. producer *** reported that it allocated its volumes to avoid customers stockpiling nails to avoid price increases and to ensure availability to all customers. Every purchaser responding to the Lost Sales/Lost Revenue Survey noted that the inability of domestic producers, in particular Mid Continent, to supply them with needed steel nails was a major factor affecting the steel nails market.  Purchaser *** stated that many of the items it imports/purchases are not manufactured in the United States.  Purchaser *** reported that since the January 2020 imposition of section 232 tariffs, it has seen much higher import prices because “the manufacturers pass that 25 percent on like a tax. We have continued trying to buy everything domestically, but Mid Continent cannot handle the business. Production delays is a much bigger problem for them than their pricing.”  Purchaser *** stated “In normal times the domestic mills have minimal excess capacity. In the past 2 years and for the foreseeable future they have NO excess capacity!!!!”  Purchaser *** noted that it “explored the possibility of purchasing nails from Mid Continent in early 2020, but {it was} told by them that they had no availability. They quoted prices to us, but then told us they had no availability. We purchased small quantities of nails from *** in 2018, but we received many customer complaints concerning quality. We looked again at buying from them in 2020, but they declined to offer to us any product.” 19 Conference transcript, p. 46 (Skarich). 20 Conference transcript, p. 61 (Pratt). II-11  Purchaser *** reported that its primary reason for purchasing less domestic nails is due to the lack of supply or an inability to source: “There is no U.S. Manufacturer that can produce enough to meet our total company's demand.”  Purchaser *** stated that its “primary U.S. manufacturer cancelled orders beginning {in} 2020 due to {COVID-19} related issues, mainly lack of raw material and labor problems. And would not accept truckload orders which their policy is still in place as of Jan 10, 2022. We had no other options to purchase U.S.-manufactured products.”  Purchaser *** submitted that “Mid Continent Nail has been on a terrible backorder situation. We just received our *** order from them and are still awaiting a *** order. Their inability to produce nails has damaged our business. If not for imported nails, construction, transportation (because everything rides on pallets which are made with nails) and wooden packaging business would have ground to a halt. How can a company allocating their product to steady purchasers ‘cry foul’ when product is being imported to keep our economy flowing?” Also, it noted that it was “told that Mid Continent will not produce .086 nails for a year as they move that equipment to Mexico. We cannot order .099 shank nails for the first 3 months of 2022, as they try to catch up with demand.” Importers have noted difficulties not only sourcing from domestic firms when trying to buy domestically, but also issues sourcing steel nails overseas. Importer Hillman noted that supply chain issues have lengthened lead times, increased freight costs and extended delays at U.S. ports.21 Importer Metropolitan Staple Corp. described that “it has been remarkably arduous to get container space, {and} factories in many parts of the world have had their production schedule severely impacted by workers being out or not being able to get to work from COVID-related issues.”22 As a result, it noted, many of its customers have been contacting many suppliers in an effort to increase their purchases, because they fear running out of nails and needing to halt production.23 Importer *** reported that Mid Continent has declined to quote the firm since late 2020, and that it is struggling to source steel nails due to existing AD/CVD orders in place. 21 Conference transcript, p. 155 (Adinolfi). 22 Conference transcript, p. 161 (Kastner). 23 Ibid. II-12 U.S. demand Based on available information, the overall demand for steel nails is likely to experience small changes in response to changes in price. The main contributing factors are the lack of substitute products and the small cost share of steel nails in most of its end-use products. Demand for steel nails is derived primarily from construction activity and is strongly influenced by construction in residential housing. As shown in figure II-1, residential construction activity in the United States has increased since January 2018, especially since Spring 2020. A representative for Mid Continent reported that “residential construction has gone from normal single-digit growth to on average 22 to 23 percent over a 16-month period of time, which blew all of us away, and that created all kinds of problems for everybody here. So, it has been constant growth since 2018,” and called this growth “unprecedented.”24 In September 2021, seasonally adjusted housing under construction was 29.6 percent higher than in January 2018 (37.3 percent higher in December 2021). Figure II-1 Housing under construction: New privately owned housing units under construction, monthly, seasonally adjusted annual rate, January 2018- September 2021 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, found at https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/index.html, retrieved January 29, 2022. Source includes data through December 2021. 24 Conference transcript, pp. 20 and 57 (Skarich). 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 J F MAM J J A S O N D J F MAM J J A S O N D J F MAM J J A S O N D J F MAM J J A S 2018 2019 2020 2021 Thousands of units II-13 Demand for steel nails is also influenced by the general level of economic activity in the United States (figure II-2). For example, pallet demand growth generally follows trends in domestic GDP growth. One domestic industry representative noted that pallet demand normally runs at 2 to 3 percent growth per year.25 A representative for respondents noted that in the past pallet demand growth may have been 1 to 2 percent, but in the last 18 months, pallet growth has been much larger since GDP is up 15 to 20 percent.26 Figure II-2 Real U.S. GDP growth: Percentage change, quarterly, first quarter 2018 to third quarter 2021 and fourth quarter 2021 (advance estimate) Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, found at https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product#gdp, retrieved January 30, 2022. End uses and cost share U.S. demand for steel nails depends on the demand for U.S.-produced downstream products including various carpentry and construction applications, housing, wooden fencing, furniture, and pallets. Steel nails accounts for a very small share of the cost of the end-use products in which they are used. Reported cost shares for some end uses typically ranged from 1 to 5 percent, depending on how specific the reported end use was. 25 Conference transcript, p. 77 (Skarich). 26 Current-price, or nominal, GDP has increased 13.5 percent between the third quarter of 2020 and the fourth quarter of 2021 according to official U.S. statistics. FRED, St. Louis Federal Reserve, found at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?rid=53&eid=12998&od=2021-04-01#, retrieved January 30, 2021. (Due to the two middle quarters of 2020 being impacted substantially by the start of the COVID-19 epidemic, 18-month comparison data would be overshadowed by these economic effects.) -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 2018 2019 2020 2021 Percent change from previous quarter II-14 Business cycles Six of 7 U.S. producers and 12 of 28 responding importers indicated that the market was subject to business cycles, but only 2 of 7 producers and 5 of 28 responding importers indicated that the market is subject to distinct conditions of competition. Specifically, since the main use for steel nails is construction, demand is somewhat tied to construction cycles, with demand declining during winter months, in part due to decreased construction activity in colder regions of the United States in the winter and the desire of purchasers in Southern states to decrease their inventories in December for year-end tax reasons.27 Six of 7 producers and 6 of 16 importers also noted that since 2018 there have been changes to the distinct conditions of competition and business cycles in the steel nail industry. Changes in raw material pricing whether due to section 232 tariffs or steel prices in general, effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, increased focus of purchasers on delivery times and availability of product from suppliers, supply shortages, the cessation of recycled pallets supplying large agricultural markets, and unreliable ocean container transport were all noted as changes that have occurred since January 1, 2018. Demand trends Most firms reported increasing U.S. and foreign demand for steel nails since January 1, 2018 (table II-5). Nearly all firms that did not report increasing demand indicated instead that demand has been fluctuating. At the staff conference, representatives of Mid Continent and Kyocera, along with respondents’ counsel and economist characterized demand for steel nails as “strong,” “soaring,” “increasing,” and “skyrocketing.”28 Table II-5 Steel nails: Count of firms’ responses regarding overall domestic and foreign demand, by firm type Market Firm type Increase No change Decrease Fluctuate Domestic demand U.S. producers 5 0 0 1 Domestic demand Importers 19 0 1 6 Foreign demand U.S. producers 1 1 0 0 Foreign demand Importers 8 1 0 4 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 27 Conference transcript, pp. 78-80 (Faron, Frantzen, Skarich, and Stachowiak). 28 Conference transcript, pp. 11, 13 (House), 20 (Skarich), 27 (Faron), and 172 (Rogowsky). II-15 Substitute products Substitutes for steel nails are limited. Six of 7 U.S. producers, and 23 of 25 responding importers reported there are no substitutes for steel nails. Screws and adhesives were noted as possible substitutes in certain applications. Substitutability issues This section assesses the degree to which U.S.-produced steel nails and imports of steel nails from subject countries can be substituted for one another by examining the importance of certain purchasing factors and the comparability of steel nails from domestic and imported sources based on those factors. Based on available data, staff believes that there is a moderate- to-high degree of substitutability between domestically produced steel nails and steel nails imported from subject sources of the same type.29 Factors contributing to this level of substitutability include general interchangeability among steel nails of similar quality. The largest factors limiting substitutability were availability/available capacity to produce domestic steel nails, and certain types of steel nails only being available only from certain sources. Factors affecting purchasing decisions Most important purchase factors Purchasers responding to lost sales lost revenue survey30 were asked to identify the main purchasing factors their firm considered in their purchasing decisions for steel nails. The major purchasing factors identified by firms include quality and availability (including available capacity). The most often cited top-three factors that firms consider in their purchasing decisions for steel nails were availability/lead times (all six firms), quality (five firms), and price/cost (three firms) as shown in table II-6. Quality was the most frequently cited first-most important factor (cited by four firms), followed by availability/lead times (two firms); 29 The degree of substitution between domestic and imported steel nails depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the domestic and imported products and reflects how easily purchasers can switch from domestically produced steel nails to the steel nails imported from subject countries (or vice versa) when prices change. The degree of substitution may include such factors as relative prices (discounts/rebates), 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.). 30 This information is compiled from responses by purchasers identified by Petitioners or other U.S. producers to the lost sales/lost revenue allegations. In these investigations, however, only two of the ten purchasers sent a survey submitted a lost sales/lost revenue survey, but three submitted responses to the importer questionnaire. Four purchasers that were not initially sent a lost sale/lost revenue survey submitted complete responses, while See Part V for additional information. II-16 availability/lead times was the most frequently reported second-most important factor (three firms); and availability/lead times and price were the most frequently reported third-most important factors (two firms). Table II-6 Steel nails: Count of ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions as reported by purchasers, by factor Factor First Second Third Total Availability/Lead times 2 3 2 6 Quality 4 1 0 5 Price 0 1 2 3 Freight costs 0 1 0 1 Service 0 0 1 1 Long-term relationship 0 0 1 1 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: One firm rated availability as the most important factor and “reliable shipping time” as the third-most important factor. Other factors reported by purchasers but not among the top three factors include compatibility with pneumatic tools and wooden pallet-making machinery, freight costs, “lead times including shipping delays,” tariffs, and terms of sale. One purchaser not noting price as a top-three factor noted that it is a factor, but “during this period especially, price has taken a back seat to the factors {availability, consistency of quality, and long-term relationship}.” Lead times Steel nails are produced both on a produced-to-order basis and sold from inventory. U.S. producers reported that 52.6 percent of their commercial shipments were produced-to- order, with lead times averaging approximately 50 days. The remaining 47.4 percent of their commercial shipments came from inventories, with lead times averaging 7 days. Importer reported a slightly higher proportion of their steel nails being sold on a produced-to-order basis. Importers reported that 62.9 percent of their commercial shipments were produced-to- order, with lead times averaging approximately 130 days.31 The remaining 37.0 percent of their commercial shipments came from domestically held inventories, with lead times averaging 19 days. 31 Less than 0.1 percent of shipments were sold from foreign inventories. II-17 Steel nails are typically sold on the spot market. A representative noted that it typically takes orders for nails to be produced within four to six weeks from when the order is taken since the product mix does not change greatly.32 Another representative of the domestic industry agreed, adding that “This is not a long-term booking business… It is very much an order-to-order approach.”33 A representative of Kyocera stated that its longest lead times, in normal times, would be 30 days, but it is more of a “week-to-week ordering process and delivery process going out the door.” 34 One reason for this is that firms may not want to book orders too far out for the current market price for steel nails if the price of its main input, wire rod, is rapidly increasing.35 The way some firms have taken and responded to orders may have changed somewhat in the past year. According to a representative of Mid Continent, instead of taking orders and letting the production side of its business know what to make, it had to put customers on allocation 12 months ago because it “had too many people wanting too many nails that we couldn't produce because of the lack of labor…In these times, it was backwards because I had to stop, basically, taking orders, realign the capacity we did have available to us, say this is all we've got, so we have to disburse this out to the community.” As a result, it will take orders on a month-by-month basis on a rolling basis to try to allocate its production among its customers.36 Comparison of U.S.-produced and imported steel nails In order to determine whether U.S.-produced steel nails can generally be used in the same applications as imports from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey, U.S. producers and importers were asked whether the products can always, frequently, sometimes, or never be used interchangeably. As shown in tables II-7 and II-8, a majority of producers and importers reported that steel nails from all countries are always interchangeable. Responses from importers noting that steel nails are not always interchangeable reported that issues that may limit interchangeability include: particular or patented designs that are not available from all sources (e.g., one importer noted that it does not believe that there is a domestic manufacturer of proprietary coil pallet nails, stainless steel nails, roofing coil nails, 28˚ wire welded stick nails, 28˚ paper tape stick nails, and hot dipped galvanized collated nails that are galvanized after the nail is produced from wire), steel nails that do not meet certain certifications are not 32 Conference transcript, p. 84 (Skarich). 33 Ibid., pp. 84-85 (Stachowiak). 34 Ibid., p. 85 (Faron). 35 Ibid., pp. 87-88 (Stachowiak). 36 Ibid., p. 87 (Skarich). II-18 interchangeable with those that do or simply bad quality nails, specialization in custom branding or private labelling37 or the inability of domestic manufacturers to produce enough. Table II-7 Steel nails: Count of U.S. producers reporting the interchangeability between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never U.S. vs. India 4 2 1 0 U.S. vs. Oman 4 2 1 0 U.S. vs. Sri Lanka 4 2 1 0 U.S. vs. Thailand 4 2 1 0 U.S. vs. Turkey 4 2 1 0 India vs. Oman 4 1 1 0 India vs. Sri Lanka 4 1 1 0 India vs. Thailand 4 1 1 0 India vs. Turkey 4 1 1 0 Oman vs. Sri Lanka 4 1 1 0 Oman vs. Thailand 4 1 1 0 Oman vs. Turkey 4 1 1 0 Sri Lanka vs. Thailand 4 1 1 0 Sri Lanka vs. Turkey 4 1 1 0 Thailand vs. Turkey 4 1 1 0 U.S. vs. other 4 2 1 0 India vs. other 4 1 1 0 Oman vs. other 4 1 1 0 Sri Lanka vs. other 4 1 1 0 Thailand vs. other 4 1 1 0 Turkey vs. other 4 1 1 0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 37 Mid Continent stated that it manufactures a small amount of branded/private label steel nails, though it used to produce more. Conference transcript, p. 67 (Skarich). Customers are reported to be more likely to purchase steel nails of the same brand as the steel nail gun they use. Conference transcript, p. 183 (Katanga). II-19 Table II-8 Steel nails: Count of importers reporting the interchangeability between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never U.S. vs. India 12 5 4 0 U.S. vs. Oman 9 4 1 0 U.S. vs. Sri Lanka 8 1 1 0 U.S. vs. Thailand 11 5 1 0 U.S. vs. Turkey 13 6 0 1 India vs. Oman 9 5 0 0 India vs. Sri Lanka 10 1 0 0 India vs. Thailand 11 5 0 0 India vs. Turkey 11 5 2 0 Oman vs. Sri Lanka 9 2 0 0 Oman vs. Thailand 9 3 1 0 Oman vs. Turkey 9 4 1 0 Sri Lanka vs. Thailand 9 3 1 0 Sri Lanka vs. Turkey 9 4 1 0 Thailand vs. Turkey 10 5 1 0 U.S. vs. other 11 6 1 1 India vs. other 10 5 1 1 Oman vs. other 9 5 0 0 Sri Lanka vs. other 9 5 0 0 Thailand vs. other 9 4 1 1 Turkey vs. other 9 5 1 1 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. In addition, U.S. producers and importers were asked to assess how often differences other than price were significant in sales of steel nails from the United States, subject, or nonsubject countries. As seen in tables II-9 and II-10, a majority of U.S. producers reported that there are sometimes factors other than price that are significant. Importer responses were more varied. When comparing market factors for U.S. steel nails to those for product from subject and nonsubject countries, similar numbers of importers reported that there were either sometimes or always differences between the two. Among subject countries and comparing subject with nonsubject countries, a majority of importers reported that there are sometimes significant factors other than price, with the exception of Thailand compared with India and Oman, for which exactly half indicated that there are sometimes other factors. Factors noted by importers as important included availability, consistency, delivery reliability, delivery terms, engineering and logistical support, packaging design, product development, product range, quality, and transportation network. II-20 Table II-9 Steel nails: 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 Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never U.S. vs. India 0 1 4 0 U.S. vs. Oman 0 1 4 0 U.S. vs. Sri Lanka 0 1 4 0 U.S. vs. Thailand 0 1 4 0 U.S. vs. Turkey 0 1 4 0 India vs. Oman 0 0 4 0 India vs. Sri Lanka 0 0 4 0 India vs. Thailand 0 0 4 0 India vs. Turkey 0 0 4 0 Oman vs. Sri Lanka 0 0 4 0 Oman vs. Thailand 0 0 4 0 Oman vs. Turkey 0 0 4 0 Sri Lanka vs. Thailand 0 0 4 0 Sri Lanka vs. Turkey 0 0 4 0 Thailand vs. Turkey 0 0 4 0 U.S. vs. other 0 1 4 0 India vs. other 0 0 4 0 Oman vs. other 0 0 4 0 Sri Lanka vs. other 0 0 4 0 Thailand vs. other 0 0 4 0 Turkey vs. other 0 0 4 0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. II-21 Table II-10 Steel nails: Count of importers reporting the significance of differences between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never U.S. vs. India 6 3 7 2 U.S. vs. Oman 4 0 6 1 U.S. vs. Sri Lanka 3 0 4 1 U.S. vs. Thailand 6 2 5 2 U.S. vs. Turkey 7 2 8 1 India vs. Oman 3 0 6 2 India vs. Sri Lanka 2 0 5 2 India vs. Thailand 3 2 6 1 India vs. Turkey 3 1 10 0 Oman vs. Sri Lanka 2 0 5 2 Oman vs. Thailand 3 1 5 1 Oman vs. Turkey 3 0 8 0 Sri Lanka vs. Thailand 3 1 5 2 Sri Lanka vs. Turkey 3 0 8 1 Thailand vs. Turkey 2 2 9 1 U.S. vs. other 7 1 8 2 India vs. other 3 1 9 1 Oman vs. other 2 1 7 1 Sri Lanka vs. other 2 1 7 2 Thailand vs. other 2 1 9 2 Turkey vs. other 0 0 1 0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. III-1 Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the alleged subsidy and dumping margins was presented in Part I of this report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Part IV and Part V. Information on the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or Part VI and (except as noted) is based on the questionnaire responses of seven firms that accounted for the vast majority of U.S. production of steel nails during 2020. U.S. producers The Commission issued a U.S. producer questionnaire to 13 firms based on information contained in the petitions. Nine firms confirmed production of steel nails in the United States. Seven firms provided usable data on their steel nails operations.1 Staff believes that these responses represent the vast majority of U.S. production of steel nails during 2020. Table III-1 lists U.S. producers of steel nails, their production locations, positions on the petitions, and shares of total production. 1 U.S. producer and importer *** submitted questionnaires on January 17, 2022, while U.S. producer and importer *** submitted questionnaires on January 28, 2022. Neither firm was able to address reporting inconsistencies prior to review of this report; accordingly, these questionnaire responses are not included in the questionnaire data presented in this report. ***. ***. III-2 Table III-1 Steel nails: U.S. producers, their positions on the petitions, production locations, and shares of reported production, 2020 Firm Position on petitions Production location(s) Share of production Illinois Tool Works *** Pocahontas, AR *** Kyocera *** Cincinnati, OH *** Legacy *** Poplar Bluff, Missouri *** Mar-Mac *** McBee, SC Timmonsville, SC *** Maze *** Peru IL *** Mid Continent Petitioner Poplar Bluff, MO Ontario, CA *** Pneu-fast *** Evanston IL *** Simpson Strong Tie *** Gallatin, TN *** Tree Island *** San Bernardino, CA *** All firms Various Various *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table III-2 presents information on U.S. producers’ ownership, related and/or affiliated firms. Table III-2 Steel nails: U.S. producers’ ownership, related and/or affiliated firms Reporting firm Relationship type and related firm Details of relationship *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. As indicated in table III-2, no U.S. producers are related to foreign producers of steel nails from subject sources and two U.S. producers, ***, are related to U.S. importers of steel nails from subject sources. In addition, as discussed in greater detail below, one U.S. producer *** directly imports steel nails from subject sources. Table III-3 presents U.S. producers’ reported changes in operations since January 1, 2018. III-3 Table III-3 Steel nails: U.S. producers’ reported changes in operations, since January 1, 2018 Item Firm name and narrative response on changes in operations Plant closings *** Expansions *** Revised labor agreements *** Revised labor agreements *** Other *** Other *** Other *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. production, capacity, and capacity utilization Table III-4 and figure III-1 present U.S. producers’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization. U.S. producers’ capacity increased by *** percent during 2018-20 and was *** higher in January-September 2021 than in January-September 2020. U.S. producers’ production decreased by *** percent from 2018 to 2019 and then increased by *** percent from 2019 to 2020, decreasing overall by *** percent between 2018 and 2020. U.S. production was *** percent higher in January-September 2021 compared with January-September 2020. Capacity utilization decreased by *** percentage points from 2018 to 2019 then increased by *** percentage points from 2019 to 2020. Capacity utilization was *** percentage points lower in January-September 2021 compared with January-September 2020. III-4 Table III-4 Steel nails: Firm-by-firm U.S. producers’ average capacity, by period Capacity in short tons Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table III-4 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm U.S. producers’ production, by period Production in short tons Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table III-4 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm U.S. producers capacity utilization, by period Ratio in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. III-5 Table III-4 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm share of production, by period Share in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Capacity utilization ratio represents the ratio of the U.S. producers’ production to its production capacity. 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 “---“. Figure III-1 Steel nails: U.S. producers’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization, by period * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. III-6 Alternative products As shown in table III‐5, no U.S. producers produce alternative products on the same machinery and/or employees. That vast majority steel (***) of steel nails produced during 2018-20 by U.S. producers were steel nails other than collated roofing nails. ***. Table III-5 Steel nails: U.S. producers’ overall capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production, by period Quantity in short tons; ratio and share in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Overall capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: Collated roofing nails Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: All other steel nails Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: All in-scope steel nails Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: Other products Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: Total Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Overall capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Production: Collated roofing nails Share *** *** *** *** *** Production: All other steel nails Share *** *** *** *** *** Production: All in-scope steel nails Share *** *** *** *** *** Production: Other products Share *** *** *** *** *** Production: Total Share *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. III-7 U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and exports Table III-6 presents U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, export shipments, and total shipments. In general, nearly all shipments by the U.S. producers were within the United States; exports shipments consistently accounted for less than one percent of total shipments.2 The quantity of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments decreased by *** percent from 2018 to 2019 then increased by *** percent from 2019 to 2020, decreasing overall by *** percent between 2018 and 2020. The quantity of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments was *** percent higher in January-September 2021 compared with January-September 2020. The value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments decreased by *** percent from 2018 to 2019 then increased by *** percent from 2019 to 2020, decreasing overall by *** percent between 2018 and 2020. The value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments was *** percent higher in January-September 2021 compared with January-September 2020. The unit value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments increased by *** percent from 2018 to 2019 then decreased by *** percent from 2019 to 2020, decreasing overall by *** percent between 2018 and 2020. The unit value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments was *** percent higher in January-September 2021 compared with January-September 2020. There were no transfers to related firms during 2019-20 and January to September 2021 and small amounts of internal consumption in only two periods. 2 ***. III-8 Table III-6 Steel nails: U.S. producers’ total shipments, by destination and period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per dollars per short tons; shares in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 U.S. shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. U.S. producers’ inventories Table III-7 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. U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories increased by *** percent from 2018 to 2019 and decreased by *** percent from 2019 to 2020. U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories were *** percent lower during January-September 2021 compared to January-September 2020. U.S. producers’ inventories were at their highest levels, absolutely and relative to production and shipments, in 2019, and at their lowest absolute and relative levels in January-September 2021. III-9 Table III-7 Steel nails: U.S. producers’ inventories and their ratio to select items, by period Quantity in short tons; ratio in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 End-of-period inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to U.S. production *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to total shipments *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. U.S. producers’ imports and purchases U.S. producers’ imports of steel nails are presented in tables III-8 to III-10. One firm (***) reported importing steel nails from subject sources. Two firms (***) are affiliated with U.S. importers of steel nails from subject sources. *** is affiliated with U.S. importer *** while *** is affiliated with U.S. importer ***. *** is also a U.S. importer of steel nails from nonsubject sources. U.S. producer *** reported importing steel nails from nonsubject sources. Four U.S. producers reported purchases of steel nails during 2018-20. *** reported purchases from nonsubject sources. ***. *** reported purchases from domestic or other sources. III-10 Table III-8 Steel nails: ***’s U.S. production, ***’s U.S. imports, and ratio of imports to production, by source and period Quantity in short tons; ratio in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 U.S. production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from all subject sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from nonsubject sources *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from all import sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from *** to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from *** to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from *** to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from *** to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from all subject sources to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from nonsubject sources to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from all import sources to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. Note: ***. III-11 Table III-9 Steel nails: ***’s U.S. production, ***’s U.S. imports, and ratio of imports to production, by source and period Quantity in short tons; ratio in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 U.S. production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from *** (by related U.S. importer ***) Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from *** (by related U.S. importer ***) Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from *** (by related U.S. importer ***) Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from subject sources (by related U.S. importer ***) Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from nonsubject sources *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from all import sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from *** to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from *** to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from *** to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from subject sources to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from nonsubject sources to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from all import sources to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. Note: ***. III-12 Table III-10 Steel nails: ***’s U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratio of imports to production, by source and period Quantity in short tons; ratio in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 U.S. production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from nonsubject sources *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from nonsubject sources to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. Table III-11 Steel nails: U.S. producers’ reasons for importing Item Narrative response on reasons for importing ***'s reason for importing *** ***'s reason for importing *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. III-13 U.S. employment, wages, and productivity Table III-12 shows U.S. producers’ employment-related data. The number of production and related workers (“PRWs”) for U.S. producers decreased by *** percent from 2018 to 2020, to reach *** PRWs.3 PRWs were *** percent lower in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020.4 Hourly wages decreased by *** percent between 2018 to 2020. Hourly wages were *** percent lower in January-September 2021 compared with January-September 2020. Productivity decreased by *** percent from 2018 to 2020. Productivity was *** percent lower in January-September 2021 compared with January-September 2020. Unit labor costs increased from 2018 to 2019 by *** percent, then decreased from 2019 to 2020 by *** percent. Unit labor costs were *** percent higher in January-September 2021 compared with January- September 2020. 3 *** both indicated ***. ***, producer questionnaires response, section II-11. 4 The *** producers, ***, reported lower PRWs in each period. These firms, along with ***, were the *** producers to report lower PRWs in 2020 than in 2018. ***. III-14 Table III-12 Steel nails: U.S. producers’ employment related information, by period Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Production and related workers (PRWs) (number) *** *** *** *** *** Total hours worked (1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** Hours worked per PRW (hours) *** *** *** *** *** Wages paid ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** Hourly wages (dollars per hour) *** *** *** *** *** Productivity (short tons per 1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** Unit labor costs (dollars per short ton) *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. IV-1 Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares U.S. importers The Commission issued importer questionnaires to 82 firms believed to be importers of subject steel nails, as well as to all U.S. producers of steel nails.1 Usable questionnaire responses were received from 30 companies, representing *** percent of U.S. imports from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey in 2020 under HTS subheadings 7317.00.55, 7317.00.65, and 7317.00.75. The Commission also received two unusable questionnaires.2 Firms responding to the Commission’s questionnaire accounted for the following shares of imports of steel nails by source during 2020, based on official Commerce statistics—India, *** percent; Oman, ***; Sri Lanka, ***; Thailand, ***; Turkey, *** percent, and all other, *** percent. In light of the questionnaire coverage, import data presented in this report are based on official Commerce statistics. Table IV-1 lists all responding U.S. importers of steel nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Turkey, and other sources, their locations, and their shares of U.S. imports, in 2020. 1 The Commission issued questionnaires to those firms identified in the petitions, along with firms that, based on a review of data from third-party sources, may have accounted for more than one percent of total imports under HTS subheadings 7317.00.65, 7317.00.65, and 7317.00.75 since 2018. 2 U.S. producer and importer *** submitted questionnaires on January 17, 2022, while U.S. producer and importer *** submitted questionnaires on January 28, 2022. Neither firm was able to address reporting inconsistencies prior to review of this report; accordingly, these questionnaire responses are not included in the questionnaire data presented in this report. IV-2 Table IV-1 Steel nails: U.S. importers, their headquarters, and share of imports within each source, 2020 Share in percent Firm Headquarters India Oman Sri Lanka Thailand Turkey Accent Tomball, TX *** *** *** *** *** Astrotech Chittoor District, AP *** *** *** *** *** Bisset Coquitlam, BC *** *** *** *** *** BlueLinx Marietta, GA *** *** *** *** *** Cascade Boise, ID *** *** *** *** *** Continental Abington, PA *** *** *** *** *** Crane Point Forest Gove, OR *** *** *** *** *** Deacero Houston, TX *** *** *** *** *** EBN Fredericksburg, VA *** *** *** *** *** Fanaco Redmond, WA *** *** *** *** *** Fasteners Baltimore, MD *** *** *** *** *** Geekay Plano, TE *** *** *** *** *** Hillman Group Cincinnati, OH *** *** *** *** *** Huttig Saint Louis, MO *** *** *** *** *** JZW Omaha, NE *** *** *** *** *** Kratos Farmers Branch, TX *** *** *** *** *** Kyocera Cincinnati, Ohio, OH *** *** *** *** *** Metalhouse Orlando, FL *** *** *** *** *** Metropolitan Springfield, NJ *** *** *** *** *** Mipad Guaynabo, PR *** *** *** *** *** Fastening Care Buena Park, CA *** *** *** *** *** Oman Fasteners Suhar, Oman *** *** *** *** *** Peace Rolling Meadows, IL *** *** *** *** *** PrimeSource Irving, TX *** *** *** *** *** Shandex Fort Lee, NJ *** *** *** *** *** SouthernCarlson Omaha, NE *** *** *** *** *** Southwestern Tampa, FL *** *** *** *** *** TC Whittier, CA *** *** *** *** *** Tree Island San Bernardino, CA *** *** *** *** *** Trinity Katunayake, WP *** *** *** *** *** All firms Various *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. IV-3 Table IV-1 Continued Steel nails: U.S. importers, their headquarters, and share of imports within each source, 2020 Share in percent Firm Headquarters Subject sources Nonsubject sources All import sources Accent Tomball, TX *** *** *** Astrotech Chittoor District, AP *** *** *** Bisset Coquitlam, BC *** *** *** BlueLinx Marietta, GA *** *** *** Cascade Boise, ID *** *** *** Continental Abington, PA *** *** *** Crane Point Forest Gove, OR *** *** *** Deacero Houston, TX *** *** *** EBN Fredericksburg, VA *** *** *** Fanaco Redmond, WA *** *** *** Fasteners Baltimore, MD *** *** *** Geekay Plano, TE *** *** *** Hillman Group Cincinnati, OH *** *** *** Huttig Saint Louis, MO *** *** *** JZW Omaha, NE *** *** *** Kratos Farmers Branch, TX *** *** *** Kyocera Cincinnati, Ohio, OH *** *** *** Metalhouse Orlando, FL *** *** *** Metropolitan Springfield, NJ *** *** *** Mipad Guaynabo, PR *** *** *** Fastening Care Buena Park, CA *** *** *** Oman Fasteners Suhar, Oman *** *** *** Peace Rolling Meadows, IL *** *** *** PrimeSource Irving, TX *** *** *** Shandex Fort Lee, NJ *** *** *** SouthernCarlson Omaha, NE *** *** *** Southwestern Tampa, FL *** *** *** TC Whittier, CA *** *** *** Tree Island San Bernardino, CA *** *** *** Trinity Katunayake, WP *** *** *** All firms Various *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. IV-4 U.S. imports Table IV-2 and figure IV-1 present data for U.S. imports of steel nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Turkey, and all other sources. The quantity of steel nail imports from the subject countries increased by 15.9 percent from 2018 to 2019, and increased by 3.6 percent from 2019 to 2020. The quantity of steel nail imports from the subject countries increased overall by 20.1 percent during 2018-20 and was 21.2 percent higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. The value of steel nails imports from the subject countries increased by 10.0 percent from 2018 to 2019, and decreased by 1.7 percent from 2019 to 2020. The value of steel nail imports from the subject countries increased overall by 8.2 percent during 2018-20 and was 38.3 percent higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020.3 The quantity of steel nail imports from the nonsubject countries decreased by 21.5 percent from 2018 to 2019 and increased by 10.9 percent from 2019 to 2020. The quantity of steel nail imports from the nonsubject countries decreased overall by 13.0 percent during 2018- 20 but was 19.1 percent higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. The value of steel nails imports from the nonsubject countries decreased by 17.3 percent from 2018 to 2019, but increased by 2.3 percent from 2019 to 2020. The value of steel nail imports from the nonsubject countries decreased overall by 15.4 percent during 2018-20 and was 39.0 percent higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. Leading nonsubject sources of imports include China, Malaysia, South Korea, and Taiwan,4 as well as Mexico and Canada. Average unit values (“AUVs”) from subject and nonsubject sources decreased between 2018 and 2020, by 9.9 percent and 2.8 percent respectively. Subject AUVs were 14.1 percent higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020 while nonsubject AUVs were 16.7 percent higher. The collective AUVs of imports from subject sources were lower than those for nonsubject sources in each full and partial year. Subject imports as a share of total imports increased by *** percentage points between 2018 and 2020, from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020 and were *** percentage points higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. The ratio of subject imports to U.S. production increased by *** percentage points during 2018-20 and was *** percentage points higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. 3 All imports from subject countries except India were higher in 2020 than in 2018, while each subject country was higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. Imports increased from Oman from 2018 to 2019 and decreased slightly from 2019 to 2020. 4 Imports of steel nails from China are subject to antidumping dumping duty order, effective August 4, 2008. Imports of steel nails from Malaysia, South Korea, and Taiwan are subject to antidumping dumping duty orders, effective July 13, 2015. IV-5 Table IV-2 Steel nails: U.S. imports by source and period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per short tons Source Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 India Quantity 38,975 33,690 28,443 20,290 27,807 Oman Quantity 64,670 73,189 72,119 52,501 68,473 Sri Lanka Quantity 18,806 28,746 30,891 22,122 24,832 Thailand Quantity 34,646 40,035 48,716 37,112 43,650 Turkey Quantity 36,061 48,164 51,758 39,539 43,252 Subject sources Quantity 193,158 223,822 231,927 171,563 208,013 Nonsubject sources Quantity 589,818 462,866 513,297 376,647 448,582 All import sources Quantity 782,976 686,688 745,224 548,209 656,595 India Value 46,751 39,613 29,313 20,741 32,891 Oman Value 91,766 98,308 93,133 67,116 96,535 Sri Lanka Value 23,016 32,507 29,671 21,381 26,979 Thailand Value 41,909 47,869 59,161 45,108 58,503 Turkey Value 39,776 49,338 51,768 39,382 53,006 Subject sources Value 243,218 267,634 263,046 193,728 267,914 Nonsubject sources Value 756,016 624,883 639,253 470,001 653,257 All import sources Value 999,234 892,517 902,298 663,729 921,171 India Unit value 1,200 1,176 1,031 1,022 1,183 Oman Unit value 1,419 1,343 1,291 1,278 1,410 Sri Lanka Unit value 1,224 1,131 960 967 1,086 Thailand Unit value 1,210 1,196 1,214 1,215 1,340 Turkey Unit value 1,103 1,024 1,000 996 1,226 Subject sources Unit value 1,259 1,196 1,134 1,129 1,288 Nonsubject sources Unit value 1,282 1,350 1,245 1,248 1,456 All import sources Unit value 1,276 1,300 1,211 1,211 1,403 Table continued. IV-6 Table IV-2 Continued Steel nails: Share of U.S. imports by source and period Share and ratio in percent Source Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 India Share of quantity 5.0 4.9 3.8 3.7 4.2 Oman Share of quantity 8.3 10.7 9.7 9.6 10.4 Sri Lanka Share of quantity 2.4 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.8 Thailand Share of quantity 4.4 5.8 6.5 6.8 6.6 Turkey Share of quantity 4.6 7.0 6.9 7.2 6.6 Subject sources Share of quantity 24.7 32.6 31.1 31.3 31.7 Nonsubject sources Share of quantity 75.3 67.4 68.9 68.7 68.3 All import sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 India Share of value 4.7 4.4 3.2 3.1 3.6 Oman Share of value 9.2 11.0 10.3 10.1 10.5 Sri Lanka Share of value 2.3 3.6 3.3 3.2 2.9 Thailand Share of value 4.2 5.4 6.6 6.8 6.4 Turkey Share of value 4.0 5.5 5.7 5.9 5.8 Subject sources Share of value 24.3 30.0 29.2 29.2 29.1 Nonsubject sources Share of value 75.7 70.0 70.8 70.8 70.9 All import sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 India Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Oman Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Sri Lanka Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Thailand Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Turkey Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using statistical reporting numbers 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560, and 7317.00.7500, accessed January 26, 2022. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. Value data reflect landed duty-paid values. 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 are U.S. imports to production. 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 “---“. IV-7 Figure IV-1 Steel nails: U.S. import quantities and average unit values, by source and period Source: Compiled from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using statistical reporting numbers 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560, and 7317.00.7500, accessed January 26, 2022. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Calendar year Jan-Sep Average unit value (dollars per short ton) Quantity (1,000 short tons) Subject quantities (left-axis) Nonsubject quantities (left-axis) Subject AUVs (right-axis) Nonsubject AUVs (right-axis) IV-8 Table IV-3 Steel nails: U.S. imports from nonsubject sources, by source and period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per short tons Source Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 China Quantity 277,318 197,842 230,740 165,992 201,914 Malaysia Quantity 48,421 46,281 48,025 36,504 31,362 South Korea Quantity 59,334 43,813 44,250 33,604 35,848 Taiwan Quantity 73,372 57,505 42,709 31,662 40,568 Mexico Quantity 33,567 30,502 39,770 29,224 38,002 Canada Quantity 42,980 26,760 39,444 28,448 32,955 All other nonsubject sources Quantity 54,825 60,162 68,359 51,211 67,933 All nonsubject sources Quantity 589,818 462,866 513,297 376,647 448,582 China Value 346,829 257,552 268,705 195,871 284,222 Malaysia Value 45,856 44,712 42,811 32,373 33,645 South Korea Value 71,447 55,375 53,525 39,824 56,623 Taiwan Value 100,606 90,952 66,882 49,898 69,263 Mexico Value 32,956 33,275 38,042 28,644 40,247 Canada Value 66,199 42,771 55,257 39,510 56,011 All other nonsubject sources Value 92,123 100,246 114,030 83,880 113,246 All nonsubject sources Value 756,016 624,883 639,253 470,001 653,257 China Unit value 1,251 1,302 1,165 1,180 1,408 Malaysia Unit value 947 966 891 887 1,073 South Korea Unit value 1,204 1,264 1,210 1,185 1,580 Taiwan Unit value 1,371 1,582 1,566 1,576 1,707 Mexico Unit value 982 1,091 957 980 1,059 Canada Unit value 1,540 1,598 1,401 1,389 1,700 All other nonsubject sources Unit value 1,680 1,666 1,668 1,638 1,667 All nonsubject sources Unit value 1,282 1,350 1,245 1,248 1,456 Table continued. IV-9 Table IV-3 Continued Steel nails: U.S. imports from nonsubject sources, by source and period Shares and ratios in percent; Rations represented the ratio to U.S. production Source Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 China Share of quantity 47.0 42.7 45.0 44.1 45.0 Malaysia Share of quantity 8.2 10.0 9.4 9.7 7.0 South Korea Share of quantity 10.1 9.5 8.6 8.9 8.0 Taiwan Share of quantity 12.4 12.4 8.3 8.4 9.0 Mexico Share of quantity 5.7 6.6 7.7 7.8 8.5 Canada Share of quantity 7.3 5.8 7.7 7.6 7.3 All other nonsubject sources Share of quantity 9.3 13.0 13.3 13.6 15.1 All nonsubject sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 China Share of value 45.9 41.2 42.0 41.7 43.5 South Korea Share of value 6.1 7.2 6.7 6.9 5.2 Malaysia Share of value 9.5 8.9 8.4 8.5 8.7 Taiwan Share of value 13.3 14.6 10.5 10.6 10.6 Mexico Share of value 4.4 5.3 6.0 6.1 6.2 Canada Share of value 8.8 6.8 8.6 8.4 8.6 All other nonsubject sources Share of value 12.2 16.0 17.8 17.8 17.3 All nonsubject sources Share of value 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 statistical reporting numbers 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560, and 7317.00.7500, accessed January 26, 2022. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. Value data reflect landed duty-paid values. Top exporting nonsubject shown in descending order of 2020 data. 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 “---“. IV-10 Negligibility The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.5 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.6 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.7 During December 2020 through November 2021, imports from India accounted *** percent of total imports of steel nails by quantity, imports from Oman *** percent, Sri Lanka *** percent, Thailand *** percent, and Turkey *** percent. Table IV-4 presents the individual shares of total imports by source, during December 2020 through November 2021. Table IV-5 presents, and figure IV-2 presents U.S. imports on the basis of 12-month rolling average for January 2020 through November 2021. 5 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)). 6 Section 771 (24) of the Act (19 U.S.C § 1677(24)). 7 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(B). IV-11 Table IV-4 Steel nails: U.S. imports in the twelve-month period preceding the filing of the petition, December 2020 through November 2021 Quantity in short tons; share in percent Source of imports Quantity Share of quantity India (AD and CVD) 41,031 4.7 Oman (CVD) 89,741 10.2 Sri Lanka (AD and CVD) 34,675 3.9 Thailand (AD and CVD) 56,909 6.5 Turkey (AD and CVD) 57,569 6.6 Subject sources 279,926 31.9 All other sources 597,976 68.1 All import sources 877,902 100.0 Source: Compiled from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using statistical reporting numbers 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560, and 7317.00.7500, accessed January 10, 2021. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. 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 “---“. Note: Sri Lanka is a developing country as designated by the United States Trade Representative. IV-12 Table IV-5 Steel nails: U.S. imports from Sri Lanka and all sources, 12 month rolling averages for the periods ending January 2020 through November 2021 Quantity in short tons; share in percent Twelve month period ending Quantity for Sri Lanka Quantity for All import sources Share for Sri Lanka Share for All import sources January 2020 29,542 674,803 4.4 100.0 February 2020 30,382 668,640 4.5 100.0 March 2020 30,457 659,970 4.6 100.0 April 2020 30,168 655,827 4.6 100.0 May 2020 29,162 654,580 4.5 100.0 June 2020 28,844 664,182 4.3 100.0 July 2020 29,821 674,064 4.4 100.0 August 2020 29,750 685,190 4.3 100.0 September 2020 30,639 694,637 4.4 100.0 October 2020 30,804 713,543 4.3 100.0 November 2020 30,619 731,071 4.2 100.0 December 2020 30,891 745,224 4.1 100.0 January 2021 31,197 758,602 4.1 100.0 February 2021 31,018 766,720 4.0 100.0 March 2021 31,053 793,583 3.9 100.0 April 2021 31,199 806,997 3.9 100.0 May 2021 31,465 821,773 3.8 100.0 June 2021 32,235 831,742 3.9 100.0 July 2021 32,196 839,905 3.8 100.0 August 2021 33,711 849,761 4.0 100.0 September 2021 33,601 853,609 3.9 100.0 October 2021 34,140 861,981 4.0 100.0 November 2021 34,675 877,902 3.9 100.0 Source: Compiled from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using statistical reporting numbers 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560, and 7317.00.7500, accessed January 26, 2022. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. IV-13 Figure IV-2 Steel nails: Share of U.S. imports from Sri Lanka, 12 month rolling averages for the periods ending January 2020 through November 2021 Source: Compiled from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using statistical reporting numbers 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560, and 7317.00.7500, accessed January 26, 2022. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. 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 appear in Part II. Additional information concerning fungibility, geographical markets, and simultaneous presence in the market is presented below. 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 2020 2021 Share of quantity (percent) Twelve month period ending threshold Sri Lanka IV-14 Fungibility Table IV-6 and figure IV-4 present U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of steel nails by type. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments from each subject source were predominantly collated steel nails; in contrast U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments from nonsubject sources were largely bulk nails. The majority of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and U.S. importers U.S. shipments’ of subject sources consisted of collated nails, accounting for *** and *** percent respectively in 2020. The majority of U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of nonsubject sources consisted of bulk steel nails, accounting for *** percent of nonsubject imports. Table IV-7 and figure IV-4 present U.S. producers’ and U.S. importer’s U.S. shipments, by source and finish in 2020. The majority of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and U.S. importers U.S. shipments of subject sources consisted of bright steel nails, accounting for *** and *** percent respectively in 2020.8 The majority of U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of nonsubject sources also of bright steel nails, accounting for *** percent of nonsubject imports. Table IV-6 Steel nails: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers' U.S. shipments, by source and product type, 2020 Quantity in short tons Source Collated Bulk All types U.S. producers *** *** *** India *** *** *** Oman *** *** *** Sri Lanka *** *** *** Thailand *** *** *** Turkey *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** All sources *** *** *** Table continued. 8 Thailand ***. IV-15 Table IV-6 Continued Steel nails: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by source and product type, 2020 Share across in percent Source Collated Bulk All types U.S. producers *** *** *** India *** *** *** Oman *** *** *** Sri Lanka *** *** *** Thailand *** *** *** Turkey *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** All sources *** *** *** Table continued. Table IV-6 Continued Steel nails: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers' U.S. shipments, by source and product type, 2020 Share down in percent Source Collated Bulk All types U.S. producers *** *** *** India *** *** *** Oman *** *** *** Sri Lanka *** *** *** Thailand *** *** *** Turkey *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** All sources *** *** *** 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 “---“. IV-16 Figure IV-3 Steel nails: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers' U.S. shipments, by source and product type, 2020 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table IV-7 Steel nails: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importer’s U.S. shipments, by source and finish, 2020 Quantity in short tons Source Bright Galvanized Other All finishes U.S. producers *** *** *** *** India *** *** *** *** Oman *** *** *** *** Sri Lanka *** *** *** *** Thailand *** *** *** *** Turkey *** *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** *** All sources *** *** *** *** Table Continued. IV-17 Table IV-7 Continued Steel nails: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importer’s U.S. shipments, by source and finish, 2020 Shares across in percent Source Bright Galvanized Other All finishes U.S. producers *** *** *** *** India *** *** *** *** Oman *** *** *** *** Sri Lanka *** *** *** *** Thailand *** *** *** *** Turkey *** *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** *** All sources *** *** *** *** Table Continued. Table IV-7 Continued Steel nails: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importer’s U.S. shipments, by source and finish, 2020 Shares down in percent Source Bright Galvanized Other All finishes U.S. producers *** *** *** *** India *** *** *** *** Oman *** *** *** *** Sri Lanka *** *** *** *** Thailand *** *** *** *** Turkey *** *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** *** All sources *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. IV-18 Figure IV-4 Steel nails: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importer’s U.S. shipments, by source and by item, 2020 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Geographical markets Table IV-8 presents U.S. imports of steel nails, by source and border of entry in 2020, based on official Commerce statistics. U.S. imports of subject steel nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey entered multiple U.S. ports of entry across the nation. The largest shares of steel nails from India, Sri Lanka, and Thailand, entered through Western borders of entry. The majority of steel nails from Turkey and Oman entered through Eastern borders of entry IV-19 Table IV-8 Steel nails: U.S. imports by source and border of entry, 2020 Quantity in short tons Source East North South West All borders India 6,779 3,133 8,117 10,413 28,443 Oman 41,589 8,253 15,222 7,055 72,119 Sri Lanka 8,675 4,280 4,846 13,090 30,891 Thailand 11,611 9,964 7,012 20,130 48,716 Turkey 26,127 7,587 16,185 1,859 51,758 Subject sources 94,781 33,216 51,382 52,548 231,927 Nonsubject sources 139,749 119,393 156,389 97,766 513,297 All import sources 234,530 152,610 207,771 150,313 745,224 Table continued. Table IV-8 Continued Steel nails: U.S. imports by source and border of entry, 2020 Share in percent Source East North South West All borders India 23.8 11.0 28.5 36.6 100.0 Oman 57.7 11.4 21.1 9.8 100.0 Sri Lanka 28.1 13.9 15.7 42.4 100.0 Thailand 23.8 20.5 14.4 41.3 100.0 Turkey 50.5 14.7 31.3 3.6 100.0 Subject sources 40.9 14.3 22.2 22.7 100.0 Nonsubject sources 27.2 23.3 30.5 19.0 100.0 All import sources 31.5 20.5 27.9 20.2 100.0 Table continued. IV-20 Table IV-8 Continued Steel nails: U.S. imports by source and border of entry, 2020 Share down in percent Source East North South West All borders India 2.9 2.1 3.9 6.9 3.8 Oman 17.7 5.4 7.3 4.7 9.7 Sri Lanka 3.7 2.8 2.3 8.7 4.1 Thailand 5.0 6.5 3.4 13.4 6.5 Turkey 11.1 5.0 7.8 1.2 6.9 Subject sources 40.4 21.8 24.7 35.0 31.1 Nonsubject sources 59.6 78.2 75.3 65.0 68.9 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 statistical reporting numbers 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560, and 7317.00.7500, accessed January 26, 2022. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. 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 “---“. Presence in the market Table IV-9 and figures IV-5 and IV-6 present monthly data for U.S. imports of steel nails from subject and nonsubject sources between January 2018 and November 2021. Subject imports of steel nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey were present in each month during this period. IV-21 Table IV-9 Steel nails: Quantity of U.S. imports, by month and source Quantity in short tons Year Month India Oman Sri Lanka Thailand Turkey 2018 January 3,249 3,303 1,068 2,114 2,444 2018 February 2,465 3,251 967 2,131 2,493 2018 March 3,376 3,899 1,491 2,482 4,087 2018 April 3,010 3,758 1,422 2,328 3,354 2018 May 3,104 4,978 1,097 1,934 3,232 2018 June 3,627 5,540 1,179 2,126 3,226 2018 July 3,937 5,973 1,363 3,485 2,865 2018 August 3,067 6,388 1,626 3,766 2,898 2018 September 3,226 6,360 1,736 3,283 2,302 2018 October 3,746 6,607 2,493 3,548 3,523 2018 November 3,157 8,104 1,954 3,807 2,753 2018 December 3,011 6,508 2,410 3,641 2,885 2019 January 3,074 9,307 1,993 3,276 3,556 2019 February 2,574 6,210 1,664 3,341 3,294 2019 March 3,565 6,311 2,658 4,787 4,685 2019 April 2,163 7,648 2,803 3,525 4,086 2019 May 2,949 7,640 2,064 3,178 4,147 2019 June 2,840 6,496 1,746 2,631 3,766 2019 July 3,436 6,213 2,503 3,351 4,383 2019 August 2,995 6,765 2,470 3,835 4,810 2019 September 2,507 5,936 2,327 3,154 3,749 2019 October 2,845 3,107 3,052 3,106 4,359 2019 November 3,118 4,866 2,903 2,538 3,501 2019 December 1,624 2,692 2,563 3,313 3,827 Table continued. IV-22 Table IV-9 Continued Steel nails: Quantity of U.S. imports, by month and source Quantity in short tons Year Month Subject sources Nonsubject sources All import sources 2018 January 12,178 56,347 68,525 2018 February 11,307 51,671 62,978 2018 March 15,335 48,560 63,895 2018 April 13,872 51,827 65,698 2018 May 14,345 57,923 72,269 2018 June 15,698 55,245 70,944 2018 July 17,623 49,780 67,403 2018 August 17,746 47,918 65,663 2018 September 16,907 41,880 58,788 2018 October 19,916 41,216 61,133 2018 November 19,775 42,476 62,251 2018 December 18,455 44,973 63,429 2019 January 21,206 46,362 67,568 2019 February 17,082 39,755 56,837 2019 March 22,006 37,256 59,262 2019 April 20,225 39,627 59,852 2019 May 19,978 42,384 62,361 2019 June 17,479 39,542 57,021 2019 July 19,886 40,914 60,800 2019 August 20,875 39,462 60,336 2019 September 17,673 38,549 56,222 2019 October 16,469 34,644 51,112 2019 November 16,926 29,705 46,631 2019 December 14,019 34,666 48,685 Table continued. IV-23 Table IV-9 Continued Steel nails: Quantity of U.S. imports, by year, by month, and source Quantity in short tons Year Month India Oman Sri Lanka Thailand Turkey 2020 January 2,849 3,813 2,789 3,911 3,834 2020 February 2,917 5,240 2,503 3,314 5,032 2020 March 2,540 5,565 2,733 4,428 4,317 2020 April 3,325 5,242 2,515 3,742 4,226 2020 May 1,940 4,913 1,058 3,677 5,115 2020 June 618 6,992 1,427 4,471 4,568 2020 July 1,172 8,036 3,480 3,888 4,129 2020 August 2,369 6,226 2,399 5,312 3,541 2020 September 2,562 6,473 3,216 4,368 4,776 2020 October 2,551 6,873 3,216 3,735 3,901 2020 November 2,572 6,127 2,718 3,751 3,924 2020 December 3,029 6,618 2,835 4,119 4,394 2021 January 3,369 8,177 3,096 4,141 4,332 2021 February 2,105 7,016 2,324 2,412 4,778 2021 March 2,899 8,220 2,768 4,375 5,005 2021 April 3,030 7,129 2,662 5,520 4,754 2021 May 3,616 9,317 1,324 6,129 6,695 2021 June 4,270 7,973 2,197 4,406 5,142 2021 July 3,883 7,042 3,441 5,014 4,522 2021 August 2,537 7,610 3,915 5,995 4,461 2021 September 2,097 5,988 3,106 5,659 3,563 2021 October 6,059 7,094 3,755 4,019 5,000 2021 November 4,137 7,556 3,253 5,122 4,923 Table continued. IV-24 Table IV-9 Continued Steel nails: Quantity of U.S. imports, by year, by month, and source Quantity in short tons Year Month Subject sources Nonsubject sources All import sources 2020 January 17,196 38,488 55,683 2020 February 19,007 31,667 50,674 2020 March 19,582 31,011 50,592 2020 April 19,050 36,659 55,709 2020 May 16,704 44,411 61,114 2020 June 18,076 48,547 66,623 2020 July 20,705 49,976 70,682 2020 August 19,848 51,614 71,462 2020 September 21,395 44,274 65,669 2020 October 20,277 49,741 70,018 2020 November 19,093 45,067 64,159 2020 December 20,995 41,842 62,837 2021 January 23,115 45,947 69,061 2021 February 18,634 40,158 58,792 2021 March 23,267 54,189 77,455 2021 April 23,095 46,028 69,123 2021 May 27,080 48,811 75,891 2021 June 23,989 52,602 76,591 2021 July 23,903 54,943 78,845 2021 August 24,518 56,801 81,318 2021 September 20,414 49,104 69,518 2021 October 25,927 52,462 78,389 2021 November 24,992 55,089 80,081 Source: Compiled from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using statistical reporting numbers 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560, and 7317.00.7500, accessed January 26, 2022. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “---“. IV-25 Figure IV-5 Steel nails: U.S imports from individual subject sources, by source and by month Source: Compiled from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using statistical reporting numbers 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560, and 7317.00.7500, accessed January 26, 2022. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 2018 2019 2020 2020 Quantity (1,000 short tons) India Oman Sri Lanka Thailand Turkey IV-26 Figure IV-6 Steel nails: U.S imports from aggregated subject sources, by source and by month Source: Compiled from official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using statistical reporting numbers 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560, and 7317.00.7500, accessed January 26, 2022. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. Apparent U.S. consumption Table IV-10 and figure IV-7 present data on apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares for steel nails. The quantity of apparent U.S. consumption decreased by *** percent during 2018-19 and then increased by *** percent during 2019-20, decreasing overall by *** percent. Apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent lower in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 2018 2019 2020 2020 Quantity (1,000 short tons) Subject Nonsubject IV-27 Table IV-10 Steel nails: Apparent U.S. consumption, by source and period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars Source Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 U.S. producers Quantity *** *** *** *** *** India Quantity 38,975 33,690 28,443 20,290 27,807 Oman Quantity 64,670 73,189 72,119 52,501 68,473 Sri Lanka Quantity 18,806 28,746 30,891 22,122 24,832 Thailand Quantity 34,646 40,035 48,716 37,112 43,650 Turkey Quantity 36,061 48,164 51,758 39,539 43,252 Subject sources Quantity 193,158 223,822 231,927 171,563 208,013 Nonsubject sources Quantity 589,818 462,866 513,297 376,647 448,582 All import sources Quantity 782,976 686,688 745,224 548,209 656,595 All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers Value *** *** *** *** *** India Value 46,751 39,613 29,313 20,741 32,891 Oman Value 91,766 98,308 93,133 67,116 96,535 Sri Lanka Value 23,016 32,507 29,671 21,381 26,979 Thailand Value 41,909 47,869 59,161 45,108 58,503 Turkey Value 39,776 49,338 51,768 39,382 53,006 Subject sources Value 243,218 267,634 263,046 193,728 267,914 Nonsubject sources Value 756,016 624,883 639,253 470,001 653,257 All import sources Value 999,234 892,517 902,298 663,729 921,171 All sources Value *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using statistical reporting numbers 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560, and 7317.00.7500, accessed January 26, 2022. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. IV-28 Figure IV-7 Steel nails: Apparent U.S. consumption, by source and period * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using statistical reporting numbers 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560, and 7317.00.7500, accessed January 26, 2022. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. U.S. market shares U.S. market share data are presented in table IV-11. U.S. producers’ market share increased by *** percentage points by quantity and *** percentage points by value between 2018 and 2020. Subject import market share increased by *** percentage points by quantity and *** percentage points by value during the same period. U.S. producers’ market share by quantity was *** percentage points and by value was *** percentage points lower in January- June 2021 than in January-June 2020, while subject import market by share was *** percentage points by quantity and was *** percentage points higher. Nonsubject import market share decreased by *** percentage points by quantity and *** percentage points by value between 2018 and 2020. Nonsubject import market share by quantity was *** percentage points and by value was *** percentage points higher in January-June 2021 than in January-June 2020. IV-29 Table IV-11 Steel nails: Market shares, by source and period Shares in percent Source Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 U.S. producers Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** India Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Oman Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Sri Lanka Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Thailand Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Turkey Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers Share of value *** *** *** *** *** India Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Oman Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Sri Lanka Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Thailand Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Turkey Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using statistical reporting numbers 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560, and 7317.00.7500, accessed January 26, 2022. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. 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 “---“. V‐1 Part V: Pricing data Factors affecting prices Raw material costs Steel nails are made predominantly of steel wire drawn from wire rod, although they may be made from steel plate or strip. 1 U.S. producers’ raw material costs as a share of cost of goods sold increased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020, and were higher in January‐September (“interim”) 2021 (***) than in the same period in 2020 (***).2 As shown in figure V‐1, prices for steel wire rod, increased in the first half of 2018, 3 decreased through most of 2019, remained relatively steady in 2020, and increased in almost every month in 2021. Domestic wire rod prices were *** percent higher in September 2021 than in January 2018. Figure V-1 Wire rod: Domestic prices for wire rod, January 2018-December 2021 * * * * * * * Source: ***, various monthly issues. 1 Certain Steel Nails from Korea, Malaysia, Oman, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Investigation Nos. 701‐TA‐ 521 and 731‐TA‐1252‐1255 and 1257 (Final), USITC Publication 4541, 2015, p. II‐1. 2 See Part VI for more information on raw material and other costs. 3 Wire rod became subject to duties under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (U.S.C. 1862) in March 2018 and, to antidumping and countervailing duty orders in the United States on various countries (which went into place between January and May 2018). V‐2 All seven U.S. producers providing usable data and 20 of 26 importers providing questionnaires reported that raw material costs have increased since January 2018, with the remaining importers indicating that steel nail raw material prices have fluctuated. Six of seven producers and 19 of 25 responding importers indicated that the imposition of section 232 tariffs increased the raw material prices for steel nails. Importers also noted that antidumping duties, changes in demand, ocean freight, supply chain issues, and tariffs have increased the price of wire rod. Petitioner Mid Continent stated that it attempted to raise prices by approximately 19 percent after the imposition of the tariffs, but was ultimately unsuccessful.4 Impact of section 232 tariffs on prices U.S. producers and importers were asked to provide information relating to the effect on the steel nails market of the section 232 tariffs on steel that went into effect in March 2018 on wire rod and in January 2020 on a subset of steel nails, both with respect to the price of raw material inputs and the selling price of steel nails.5 They also were asked about their perceptions of the impact of the tariffs on the domestic and import supply of steel nails, as well as demand for steel nails, in the United States. As noted above, 6 of the 7 producers and 19 importers indicated that the section 232 tariffs increased the price of the raw materials used to make steel nails (mainly wire rod). Five of 7 producers and 21 of 23 responding importers also indicated that the section 232 tariffs increased the price of steel nails in the U.S. market (table V‐1). However, only two producers reported that they were able to increase the price of their own steel nails because of the tariffs; two reported no change in their prices, and two reported prices fluctuating due to these tariffs. At the staff conference, a witness for petitioner Mid Continent noted that its attempted increase in prices after the tariffs went into effect were ultimately rolled back.6 In contrast, 24 of 27 importers noted that they increased their own prices due to the section 232 tariffs. 4 Conference transcript, pp. 15‐16 (Pratt). As noted in Part I of this report, Mid Continent is the largest U.S. producer of steel nails. Imported steel nails, however, account for a larger portion of the U.S. market than domestically produced nails. 5 Another factor in the steel nails market related to section 232 duties is that “In early 2020, Section 232 tariffs were applied to certain downstream steel products, including a subset of steel nails. However, the largest importers of steel nails were able to obtain a court injunction against the collection of the Section 232 tariffs, and the imposition of these duties on downstream steel products is under appeal.” Conference transcript, p. 31 (Lutz). For more information on section 232 duties, see Part I. 6 Conference transcript, p. 34 (Lutz). V‐3 A representative of importer SouthernCarlson stated that it has calculated that it is now “required to pay approximately 12 percent more per case of nails when importing from overseas,” although imports from Mexico, which is the country from which Mid Continent imports steel nails, are no longer subject to the section 232 duties, so Mid Continent would not be affected by those import cost increases.7 Table V-1 Steel nails: U.S. producers' and importers' perceptions regarding impact of 232 tariffs on prices Number of firms reporting Item Firm type Increase No change Decrease Fluctuate Raw material cost U.S. producers 6 1 0 0 Raw material cost Importers 19 4 0 2 Market price for steel nails U.S. producers 5 1 0 1 Market price for steel nails Importers 21 1 0 1 Own sales price for steel nails U.S. producers 2 2 0 2 Own sales price for steel nails Importers 24 2 0 1 Domestic supply in market U.S. producers 1 2 3 1 Domestic supply in market Importers 5 8 4 4 Imported supply in market U.S. producers 5 2 0 0 Imported supply in market Importers 3 9 5 4 Overall demand in market U.S. producers 4 2 1 0 Overall demand in market Importers 6 10 1 5 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. producers’ and importers’ responses differed with respect to their perceptions of the impact of section 232 duties on supply and demand. A majority of U.S. producers indicated that section 232 duties on imports from some countries increased the supply of imports and increased overall demand for steel nails, and a plurality of producers noted that the duties decreased domestic supply.8 Pluralities of importers, however, indicated that there was no change with respect to domestic supply, imported supply, and demand due section 232 duties. 7 Conference transcript, p. 142 (Ippoliti). 8 Some domestic producers may have been referring to the general trend in supply and demand in the steel nails market rather than solely the effect of section 232 duties. Elsewhere in their responses to the Commission questionnaires, and repeatedly at the staff conference, domestic producers noted that subject imports had been increasing since 2018, that they had lost sales to those imports, and that they were unable to increase prices during a time when demand has generally been increasing for steel nails. V‐4 Transportation costs to the U.S. market Transportation costs for steel nails shipped from subject countries to the United States averaged 5.7 percent for shipments from India during 2020, 10.5 percent for shipments from Oman, 3.6 percent for shipments from Sri Lanka, 8.7 percent for shipments from Thailand, and 13.7 for shipments from Turkey. These estimates were derived from official import data and represent the transportation and other charges on imports. 9 U.S. inland transportation costs All 7 U.S. producers and 26 of 28 responding importers reported that they typically arrange transportation to their customers. Most U.S. producers reported that their U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from 2.0 to 9.2 percent, averaging 5.1 percent, while most importers reported costs of 0.5 to 10.0 percent, averaging 6.2 percent. Pricing practices Pricing methods Most U.S. producers (6 of 7) and importers (25 of 28) reported setting prices using transaction‐by‐transaction negotiations, with a majority of producers (5) and some importers (7) also reporting using price lists (table V‐2). 9 The estimated transportation costs were obtained by subtracting the customs value from the c.i.f. value of the imports for 2020 and then dividing by the customs value based on the HTS statistical reporting numbers 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560, and 7317.00.7500, accessed January 13, 2022. V‐5 Table V-2 Steel nails: Count of U.S. producers’ and importers’ reported price setting methods Method U.S. producers Importers Transaction-by-transaction 6 25 Contract 1 3 Set price list 5 7 Other 1 0 Responding firms 7 28 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 and importers reported selling a large majority of their steel nails in the spot market although some contract sales were reported. Subject importers had a larger share sold via shorter contracts than U.S. producers, although both sold approximately *** percent via long‐term contract (table V‐3). Table V-3 Steel nails: U.S. producers’ and importers’ shares of commercial U.S. shipments by type of sale, 2020 Share in percent Type of sale U.S. producers Subject importers Long-term contracts *** *** Annual contracts *** *** Short-term contracts *** *** Spot sales 87.4 78.2 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 ***. Three of the four responding importers selling via short‐term contracts (30‐120 days), both selling via annual contracts, and the one selling via long‐term contract (2 years) reported that contracts typically only fix prices and that the prices were non‐renegotiable in either short‐term, annual, or long‐term contracts. Half of the importers using short‐term (2 of 4) and annual contracts (1 of 2) index their prices to raw material costs, ***. V‐6 Sales terms and discounts A majority of U.S. producers (5 of 7) and importers (19 of 26) typically quote prices on a delivered basis. Two producers and 11 importers offer quantity discounts, 2 producers offer total volume discounts (in the form of rebates at the end of the year),10 1 producer offers discounts on a case‐by‐case basis, and no discounts are offered by 3 producers and 18 importers. Price 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 steel nails products shipped to unrelated U.S. customers during January 2018‐September 2021. Product 1.— Nominal 3” x 0.131” (10.25 gauge), bright smooth shank, 20‐22 degree plastic‐strip collated nails Product 2.— Nominal 3” x 0.120” (11 gauge), bright smooth shank, 20‐22 degree plastic‐strip collated nails Product 3.— Nominal 2” x 0.113” (11.5 gauge), bright drive screw (threaded) shank, machine grade bulk nails Product 4.— Nominal 2” x 0.099” (12. 5 gauge), bright screw (threaded), 15‐degree wire coil collated nails 10 Five importers also reported offering total volume discounts, although all five reported that they already offer quantity discounts as well. V‐7 Four U.S. producers and 18 importers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.11 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for approximately 20.5 percent of the value U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of steel nails, 27.9 percent of the value of U.S. shipments of subject imports from India, 19.4 percent of the value of U.S. shipments of subject imports from Oman, 24.8 percent of the value of U.S. shipments of subject imports from Sri Lanka, 9.2 percent of the value of U.S. shipments of subject imports from Thailand, and 23.4 percent of the value of U.S. shipments of subject imports from Turkey in 2020. 12 Price data for products 1‐ 4 are presented in tables V‐4 to V‐7 and figures V‐2 to V‐5. 11 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. 12 Pricing coverage is based on U.S. shipments reported in questionnaires. V‐8 Table V-4 Steel nails: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by source and quarter Price in dollars per 1,000 nails, quantity in 1,000 nails, margin in percent. Period US price US quantity India price India quantity India margin Oman price Oman quantity Oman margin 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Period Sri Lanka price Sri Lanka quantity Sri Lanka margin Thailand price Thailand quantity Thailand margin Turkey price Turkey quantity Turkey margin 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 1: Nominal 3” x 0.131” (10.25 gauge), bright smooth shank, 20-22 degree plastic-strip collated nails. V‐9 Table V-5 Steel nails: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by source and quarter Price in dollars per 1,000 nails, quantity in 1,000 nails, margin in percent. Period US price US quantity India price India quantity India margin Oman price Oman quantity Oman margin 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Period Sri Lanka price Sri Lanka quantity Sri Lanka margin Thailand price Thailand quantity Thailand margin Turkey price Turkey quantity Turkey margin 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 2: Nominal 3” x 0.120” (11 gauge), bright smooth shank, 20-22 degree plastic-strip collated nails. V‐10 Table V-6 Steel nails: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by source and quarter Price in dollars per short ton, quantity in short tons, margin in percent. Period US price US quantity India price India quantity India margin Oman price Oman quantity Oman margin 2018 Q1 *** *** -- 0 -- -- 0 -- 2018 Q2 *** *** -- 0 -- -- 0 -- 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** -- 0 -- 2018 Q4 *** *** -- 0 -- -- 0 -- 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** -- 0 -- 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** -- 0 -- 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** -- 0 -- 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** -- 0 -- 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** -- 0 -- 2021 Q2 *** *** -- 0 -- -- 0 -- 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** -- 0 -- Period Sri Lanka price Sri Lanka quantity Sri Lanka margin Thailand price Thailand quantity Thailand margin Turkey price Turkey quantity Turkey margin 2018 Q1 -- 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- 2018 Q2 -- 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 0 -- 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 -- 0 -- -- 0 -- *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 -- 0 -- -- 0 -- *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 -- 0 -- -- 0 -- *** *** *** 2021 Q2 -- 0 -- -- 0 -- *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 3: Nominal 2” x 0.113” (11.5 gauge), bright drive screw (threaded) shank, machine grade bulk nails. V‐11 Table V-7 Steel nails: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by source and quarter Price in dollars per 1,000 nails, quantity in 1,000 nails, margin in percent. Period US price US quantity India price India quantity India margin Oman price Oman quantity Oman margin 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Period Sri Lanka price Sri Lanka quantity Sri Lanka margin Thailand price Thailand quantity Thailand margin Turkey price Turkey Quantity Turkey margin 2018 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2018 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2019 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2020 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2021 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 4: Nominal 2” x 0.099” (12. 5 gauge), bright screw (threaded), 15-degree wire coil collated nails. V‐12 Figure V-2 Steel nails: 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: Nominal 3” x 0.131” (10.25 gauge), bright smooth shank, 20-22 degree plastic-strip collated nails. V‐13 Figure V-3 Steel nails: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1, 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: Nominal 3” x 0.120” (11 gauge), bright smooth shank, 20-22 degree plastic-strip collated nails. V‐14 Figure V-4 Steel nails: 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: Nominal 2” x 0.113” (11.5 gauge), bright drive screw (threaded) shank, machine grade bulk nails. V‐15 Figure V-5 steel nails: 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: Nominal 2” x 0.099” (12. 5 gauge), bright screw (threaded), 15-degree wire coil collated nails. V‐16 Price trends In general, prices fluctuated but remained relatively constant between 2018 and 2020, except for Turkish product 3 which decreased by *** percent between the third quarter of 2018 and the second quarter of 2020. In 2021, however, prices increased for all products from all countries for which data are available. Table V‐8 summarizes the price trends over the entire period, by country and by product. As shown in the table, domestic price increases ranged from *** to *** percent during while import price increases ranged from *** to *** percent for product 1, *** to *** percent for product 2, *** to *** percent for product 3, and *** to *** percent for product 4. V‐17 Table V-8 Steel nails: Summary of price data, by product and source, January 2018-September 2021 Quantity in 1,000 nails (products 1, 2, and 4) or short tons (product 3), price in dollars per 1,000 nails or short tons Product Source Number of quarters Low price High price First quarter price Last quarter price Percent change in price over period Product 1 U.S. 15 *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 India 15 *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 Oman 15 *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 Sri Lanka 15 *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 Thailand 15 *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 Turkey 15 *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 U.S. 15 *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 India 15 *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 Oman 15 *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 Sri Lanka 15 *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 Thailand 15 *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 Turkey 15 *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 U.S. 15 *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 India 11 *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 Oman 4 *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 Sri Lanka 9 *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 Thailand 9 *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 Turkey 13 *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 U.S. 15 *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 India 15 *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 Oman 15 *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 Sri Lanka 15 *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 Thailand 15 *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 Turkey 15 *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Percent change column is percentage change from the first quarter for which data are available in 2018 to the last quarter for which data are available in 2021. V‐18 Price comparisons As shown in tables V‐9 and V‐10, prices for product imported from subject countries were below those for U.S.‐produced product in 154 of 271 instances (30.0 billion nails and 1,602 short tons); margins of underselling ranged from 0.1 to 43.7 percent and averaged 13.8 percent. In the remaining 117 instances (8.1 billion nails and 496 short tons), prices for product subject countries were between 0.1 and 54.1 percent above prices for the domestic product, and averaged 13.8 percent. Underselling was more frequent in products 1, 3, and 4, whereas imports of product 2 oversold domestic product in a majority of instances, although there was more underselling of imports by volume for all products. The number of quarters of underselling was greater than the number of quarters of overselling for India (42 quarters of underselling vs. 14 quarter of overselling), Oman (45 vs. 4), and Sri Lanka (32 vs. 22). Imports from India, Oman, and Sri Lanka accounted for more than three‐fourths of the quarters of underselling and more than 95 percent of the volume of underselling. Overselling was more frequent for Thailand (36 quarters of overselling vs. 18 quarters of underselling) and Turkey (41 vs. 17). Quantities of overselling in terms of products 1, 2, and 4 from these countries showed the same trend, but there was more underselling than overselling in quantity terms for all countries for product 3 (the bulk steel nail product). V‐19 Table V-9 Steel nails: Instances of underselling and overselling and the range and average of margins, by product Quantity 1,000 nails or short tons; margin in percent Product Type Number of quarters Quantity (1,000 nails) Quantity (short tons) Average margin Min margin Max margin Product 1 Underselling 40 *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 Underselling 32 *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 Underselling 29 *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 Underselling 53 *** *** *** *** *** Total, all products Underselling 154 29,971,612 1,602 13.8 0.1 43.7 Product 1 Overselling 35 *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 Overselling 43 *** *** *** *** *** Product 3 Overselling 17 *** *** *** *** *** Product 4 Overselling 22 *** *** *** *** *** Total, all products Overselling 117 8,143,761 496 (13.8) (0.1) (54.1) Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: The highest margin of overselling was set during a quarter with *** of product 3. The next highest quarter of overselling for *** this product was *** percent. Note: Data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. Table V-10 Steel nails: Instances of underselling and overselling and the range and average of margins, by source Quantity 1,000 nails or short tons; margin in percent Product Type Number of quarters Quantity (1,000 nails) Quantity (short tons) Average margin Min margin Max margin India Underselling 42 *** *** *** *** *** Oman Underselling 45 *** *** *** *** *** Sri Lanka Underselling 32 *** *** *** *** *** Thailand Underselling 18 *** *** *** *** *** Turkey Underselling 17 *** *** *** *** *** Total, all sources Underselling 154 29,971,612 1,602 13.8 0.1 43.7 India Overselling 14 *** *** *** *** *** Oman Overselling 4 *** *** *** *** *** Sri Lanka Overselling 22 *** *** *** *** *** Thailand Overselling 36 *** *** *** *** *** Turkey Overselling 41 *** *** *** *** *** Total, all sources Overselling 117 8,143,761 496 (13.8) (0.1) (54.1) 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. V‐20 Lost sales and lost revenue The Commission requested that U.S. producers of steel nails report purchasers with which they experienced instances of lost sales or revenue due to competition from imports of steel nails from subject sources during January 2018‐September 2021. Of the six responding U.S. producers, three of six reported that they had to either reduce prices or roll back announced price increases, and five of six firms reported that they had lost sales. One U.S. producer submitted lost sales and lost revenue allegations. That U.S. producer identified 10 firms with which they lost sales or revenue (9 consisting lost sales allegations, 1 consisting of both lost sales and lost revenue allegations). All of the allegations occurred in 2019 and 2020. Staff contacted ten purchasers and received responses from six purchasers, which included purchasers that were not originally sent Lost Sale/Lost Revenue Surveys.13 Responding purchasers reported purchasing 15 thousand short tons of steel nails during January 2018‐ September 2021 from domestic producers, *** short tons from subject sources, and *** short tons from all other sources (table V‐11). Table V-11 Steel nails: Purchasers’ reported purchases and imports, by firm and source Quantity in short tons, share in percent Purchaser Domestic quantity Subject quantity All other quantity Change in domestic share Change in subject country share *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** Total 15,166 *** *** ▼*** ▲*** 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. 13 Only two of the original recipients submitted questionnaires (***). In addition, one purchaser noted that it would not fill out the survey, but it sent an email discussing the steel nails market. The other purchasers responding to the survey ***. V‐21 During 2020, responding purchasers purchased 0.9 percent from U.S. producers, 33.3 percent from subject sources (2.9 percent from India, 7.2 percent from Oman, 0.8 percent from Sri Lanka, 17.0 percent from Thailand, and 5.4 percent from Turkey), 64.7 percent from nonsubject countries, and 1.1 percent from “unknown source” countries. Purchasers were asked about changes in their purchasing patterns from different sources since 2018. Of the responding purchasers, four reported fluctuating purchases from domestic producers, one reported decreasing their purchases from domestic producers, and one reported no change. Four of the five responding purchasers stating that purchases of domestic steel nails decreased or fluctuated noted availability of domestic supply as the reason for the changes. With respect to imports, purchasers also reported fluctuating purchases most often for most countries (3 each for Turkey and nonsubject sources, 2 for India, 1 for Sri Lanka and Thailand, and 0 for Oman) or increasing purchases (2 for Thailand and Turkey, and 1 for Oman and nonsubject sources). Three purchasers reported constant purchases from subject sources (India, Oman, and Turkey) and one reported decreasing its purchases from India. Reasons reported by purchasers for fluctuating or increasing purchases included availability of product, lead times, pricing of steel and nails, and quality. Purchaser *** reported that it increased purchases of special items such as stainless steel and hot dip nails from nonsubject sources ***, but shutdowns due to the COVID‐19 pandemic and supply chain difficulties necessitated adding Thailand as a source. Since 2018, five of six responding purchasers had bought imported steel nails from subject countries instead of U.S.‐produced product. Four of these five purchasers reported that subject import prices were lower than U.S.‐produced product; two of these four purchasers (***) reported that price was a primary reason for the decision to purchase imported product rather than U.S.‐produced product. ***. These purchasers estimated the quantity of steel nails purchased from subject countries instead of domestic product to be *** (table V‐12). Purchasers identified consistency of supply, domestic capacity, labor, packaging, shipping and delivery times, and the unwillingness of domestic producers to supply a private label product as non‐price reasons for purchasing imported rather than U.S.‐produced product. No responding purchaser reported that U.S. producers had reduced prices in order to compete with lower‐priced imports from any subject country. V‐22 Table V-12 Steel nails: Purchasers’ responses to purchasing subject imports instead of domestic product, by firm Quantity in short tons Purchaser Purchased subject imports instead of domestic Imports priced lower Choice based on price Quantity Explanation *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total Yes--5; No--1 Yes--4; No--1 Yes--2; No--3 *** NA Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Two firms reported that Turkey was a country for which price was a primary reason for buying subject imports instead of domestic product, and one firm reported India as a country. VI-1 Part VI: Financial experience of U.S. producers Background1 Seven U.S. producers *** provided usable financial results on their steel nails operations. *** responding U.S. producers reported financial data on the basis of GAAP and *** responding U.S. producers provided their financial data on a calendar year basis. 2 3 Figure VI-1 presents each responding firm’s share of the total reported net sales quantity in 2020. ***. 1 The following abbreviations may be 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 ***. U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, section III-2. 3 U.S. producer and importer *** submitted questionnaires on January 17, 2022, while U.S. producer and importer *** submitted questionnaires on January 28, 2022. Neither firm was able to address reporting inconsistencies prior to review of this report; accordingly, these questionnaire responses are not included in the questionnaire data presented in this report. ***. ***. VI-2 Figure VI-1 Steel nails: Share of net sales quantity in 2020, by firm * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Operations on steel nails Table VI-1 presents aggregated data on U.S. producers’ operations in relation to steel nails, while table VI-2 presents corresponding changes in AUVs. Table VI-3 presents selected company-specific financial data. VI-3 Table VI-1 Steel nails: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by item and period Quantity in short ton; value in 1,000 dollars; ratios in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Total net sales Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Raw materials Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Direct labor Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other factory Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Less steel scrap revenue Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Total Value *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses Value *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** Other expense / (income), net Value *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** Depreciation/amortization Value *** *** *** *** *** Cash flow Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Raw materials Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Direct labor Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other factory Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Less steel scrap revenue Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Total Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expense Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. VI-4 Table VI-1 Continued Steel nails: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by item and period Shares in percent; unit values in dollars per short ton; count in number of firms reporting Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 COGS: Raw materials Share *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Direct labor Share *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other factory Share *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Total Share *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Unit value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Raw materials Unit value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Direct labor Unit value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other factory Unit value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Less steel scrap revenue Unit value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Total Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) Unit value *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Operating losses Count *** *** *** *** *** Net losses Count *** *** *** *** *** Data Count *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares represent the share of COGS before the steel scrap revenue offset. ***. VI-5 Table VI-2 Steel nails: Changes in AUVs between comparison periods Changes in percent Item 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 Jan-Sep 2020-21 Total net sales ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** COGS: Raw materials ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** COGS: Direct labor ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** COGS: Other factory ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** COGS: Less steel scrap revenue ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** COGS: Total ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Table continued. Table VI-2 Continued Steel nails: Changes in AUVs between comparison periods Changes in dollars per short ton Item 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 Jan-Sep 2020-21 Total net sales ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** COGS: Raw materials ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** COGS: Direct labor ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** COGS: Other factory ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** COGS: Less steel scrap revenue ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** COGS: Total ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Gross profit or (loss) ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** SG&A expense ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Operating income or (loss) ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Net income or (loss) ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-6 Table VI-3 Steel nails: Firm-by-firm total net sales quantity, by period Net sales quantity Quantity in short tons Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm total net sales value, by period Net sales value Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm COGS, by period COGS Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. VI-7 Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm gross profit or (loss), by period Gross profit or (loss) Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm SG&A expenses, by period SG&A expenses Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm operating income or (loss), by period Operating income or (loss) Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. VI-8 Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm net income or (loss), by period Net income or (loss) Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm ratio of COGS to net sales value, by period COGS to net sales ratio Ratios in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm ratio of gross profit or (loss) to net sales value, by period Gross profit or (loss) to net sales ratio Ratios in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. VI-9 Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm ratio of SG&A expenses to net sales value, by period SG&A expenses to net sales ratio Ratios in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm ratio of operating income or (loss) to net sales value, by period Operating income or (loss) to net sales ratio Ratios in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm ratio of net income or (loss) to net sales value, by period Net income or (loss) to net sales ratio Ratios in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. VI-10 Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm unit net sales value, by period Unit net sales value Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm unit raw material cost, by period Unit raw material costs Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm unit direct labor cost, by period Unit direct labor costs Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. VI-11 Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm unit other factory costs, by period Unit other factory costs Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm steel scrap revenue, by period Unit steel scrap revenue Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm unit COGS, by period Unit COGS Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. VI-12 Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm unit gross profit or (loss), by period Unit gross profit or (loss) Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm unit SG&A expenses, by period Unit SG&A expenses Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm unit operating income or (loss), by period Unit operating income or (loss) Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. VI-13 Table VI-3 Continued Steel nails: Firm-by-firm unit net income or (loss), by period Unit net income or (loss) Unit values in dollars per short ton Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: ***. VI-14 Net sales Total revenue primarily reflects commercials sales, but also includes a small amount of transfers to related firms. In 2020, transfers to related firms accounted for *** percent of total revenue.4 5 Transfers to related firms are included in the financial data, but not shown separately in this section of the report. As shown in table VI-1, total net sales quantity decreased by *** percent in from 2018 to 2019 before increasing by *** percent in 2020, and overall declined by *** percent from 2018 to 2020. Net sales quantity was higher in interim 2021 compared with interim 2020. Total net sales value also decreased by *** percent from 2018 to 2019 before increasing by *** percent in 2020 and overall declined by *** percent from 2018 to 2020. Total net sales value was also higher in interim 2021 compared with interim 2020.6 As shown in table VI-3, *** U.S. producers *** reported a decline in sales value in 2019 followed by an increase in 2020. In interim 2021 *** firms reported higher sales in value compared with interim 2020. ***.7 On an average per short ton basis, net sales values increased from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2019 before declining to $*** in 2020 and were higher in interim 2021 at $*** compared with $*** in interim 2020. As shown in table VI-3, *** reported a continuous decline in their average per short ton sales values while the other *** U.S. producers varied in trends from 4 *** was the *** U.S. producer to report transfers to related firms. ***’s transfers are ***. Email from ***, January 19, 2022 5 ***. Email from ***, January 27, 2022. And U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, section III-14. 6 ***. Email from ***, January 19, 2022. 7 ***. Email from ***, January 19, 2022. VI-15 2018 to 2020, and *** reported higher average per short ton values in interim 2021 compared with interim 2020.8 Cost of goods sold and gross profit or loss Raw material costs, direct labor and other factory costs accounted for *** percent of total COGS, respectively, in 2020. Raw material costs, the *** component of COGS, declined by *** percent from 2018 to 2019 before increasing by *** percent in 2020 and overall declined by *** percent from 2018 to 2020. Raw material costs were higher in interim 2021 compared with interim 2020. On an average per short ton basis, raw material costs increased from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2019 then declined to $*** in 2020 and were higher in interim 2021 at $*** compared with interim 2020 at $***. As shown in table VI-3, data reported by *** shows an increase in their average unit values in 2019 followed by a decline in 2020, data reported by *** shows a continuous decline between 2018 and 2020, while data reported by *** shows an overall increase between 2018 and 2020.9 *** firms reported higher per short ton values in interim 2021 compared with interim 2020. As a ratio to net sales, raw material costs increased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 then decreased to *** percent in 2020, in interim 2021 they were lower at *** percent compared with *** percent in interim 2020. Table VI-4 presents details on specific raw material inputs as a share of total raw material costs in 2020. Wire and wire rod accounted for the largest share of raw material costs 8 ***. Email from ***, January 31, 2022. 9 The average per short ton value of raw material costs for *** declined from $*** in 2019 to $*** in 2020. The firm indicated that ***. Email from ***, January 18, 2022. VI-16 at a combined *** percent, other material inputs accounted for *** percent and included steel wire, nail coating, product packaging and shipping pallets.10 11 12 Table VI-4 Steel nails: Raw material costs in 2020 Value in 1,000 dollars; share of value in percent Item Value Share of value Wire/ wire rod *** *** Other material inputs *** *** All raw materials *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: *** Direct labor costs, the *** share of COGS, decreased by *** percent from 2018 to 2019 and *** percent from 2019 to 2020, and overall declined by *** percent from 2018 to 2020. Direct labor costs were higher in interim 2021 compared with interim 2020. On an average per short ton basis, direct labor costs increased from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2019 then declined to $*** in 2020, and were higher at $*** in interim 2021 compared with $*** in interim 2020. As a ratio to net sales, direct labor costs continuously declined from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020 and was lower in interim 2021 compared with interim 2020. Other factory costs, the *** share of COGS, declined during 2018-20 by *** percent and were higher in interim 2021 compared with interim 2020.13 On an average per short ton basis, other factory costs increased from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2019 then declined to $*** in 2020 and were higher in interim 2021 at $*** compared with interim 10 ***. U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, section III-7a. 11 ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p.18. 12 Petitioner asserted that tariffs on imports of steel products, including wire rod and wire, under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, 19 U.S.C. § 1862 caused domestic nail producers’ costs to increase, given that wire and wire rod are the primary raw materials consumed in the production of nails. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p.9. 13 ***. Email from ***, January 19, 2022. VI-17 2020 at $***. As a ratio to net sales, other factory costs increased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 then declined to *** percent in 2020 and were lower in interim 2021 compared to interim 2020. Total COGS reflected the overall trends of its components and sales, declining between 2018 and 2019 before an increase in 2020 with an overall *** percent decline from 2018 to 2020. Total COGS were higher in interim 2021 compared with interim 2020. On an average per short ton basis, COGS increased from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2019 then decreased to $*** in 2020 and were higher in interim 2021 at $*** compared with interim 2020 at $***.14 As a ratio to net sales, COGS increased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 then declined to *** percent in 2020, and was lower in interim 2021 at *** percent compared with interim 2020 at *** percent. As seen in table VI-1 gross profit decreased from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2019 then increased to $*** in 2020, and was higher in interim 2021 at $*** than in interim 2020 at $***. As a ratio to net sales, gross profit also declined between 2018 and 2019 before an increase in 2020 and was higher in interim 2021 compared with interim 2020. Results varied on a firm-by- firm basis: *** reported a decline in gross profits in 2019 followed by an increase in 2020; gross profits reported by *** continuously increased from 2018 to 2020; and ***. *** firms *** reported higher gross profits in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. ***. 14 As previously mentioned, ***. See footnote 8 in this section of the report. VI-18 SG&A expenses and operating income or loss U.S. producers’ SG&A expenses declined during 2018-20 and were higher in interim 2021 compared with interim 2020. As shown in table VI-3, *** reported a decline in their SG&A expenses in 2018-20, trends between firms varied during the interim periods. 15 16 The corresponding SG&A expense ratio increase from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2019 then declined to *** percent in 2020 and was lower in interim 2021 at *** percent compared with interim 2020 at *** percent. Operating income irregularly declined from $*** in 2018 to an operating loss of $*** then increased to a positive operating income of $*** in 2020 and was higher in interim 2021 at $*** compared with interim 2020 at $***. As a ratio to net sales, operating income followed the trends of the underlying data: the ratio declined from *** percent in 2018 to a negative *** percent in 2019 before increasing to a positive *** percent in 2020 and was higher at *** percent in interim 2021 than in interim 2020 when it was *** percent. Results varied on a firm- by-firm basis: *** reported a decline in operating income in 2019 followed by an increase in 2020; operating income reported by *** continuously increased from 2018 to 2020; and ***. *** firms *** reported higher operating profits in interim 2021 compared with interim 2020. ***. 15 ***. Email from ***, January 19, 2022. 16 ***. U.S. producers’ questionnaire response, section III-10. VI-19 All other expenses and net income or loss Classified below the operating income level are interest expenses, other expenses, and other income. In table VI-1, these items are aggregated with only the net amount shown. The majority of the amount shown was other income ***. Other income decreased overall in 2018- 20 and was higher in interim 2021 than in interim 2020.17 Net income declined from $*** in 2018 to a net loss of $*** in 2019 before increasing to a positive net income of $*** in 2020 and was higher in interim 2021 at $*** compared with interim 2020 at $***. As a ratio to net sales, net income declined from *** percent in 2018 to a negative *** percent in 2019 before increasing to a positive *** percent in 2020 and was higher in interim 2021 compared with interim 2020.18 Capital expenditures and research and development expenses Table VI-5 presents capital expenditures, by firm, and table VI-6 presents R&D expenses, by firm. Tables VI-7 and VI-8 present the firms’ narrative explanations of the nature, focus, and significance of their capital expenditures and R&D expenses, respectively. Capital expenditures declined from 2018 to 2019 before increasing in 2020, and increased overall from 2018 to 2020. Capital expenditures were higher in interim 2021 than compared with interim 2020.19 Data for R&D expenses, reported by ***, declined overall from 2018 to 2020 but were higher in interim 2021 compared with interim 2020. 17 Email from ***, January 19, 2022. 18 A variance analysis is not being presented due to the inconsistency of data for product mix and costs. In these investigations, ***. 19 ***. Email from ***, January 20, 2022. VI-20 Table VI-5 Steel nails: U.S. producers’ capital expenditures, by firm and period Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table VI-6 Steel nails: U.S. producers’ R&D expenses, by firm and period Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table VI-7 Steel nails: Narrative descriptions of U.S. producers’ capital expenditures, by firm Firm Narrative on capital expenditures *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-21 Table VI-8 Steel nails: Narrative descriptions of U.S. producers’ R&D expenses, by firm Firm Narrative on R&D expenses *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Assets and return on assets Table VI-9 presents data on the U.S. producers’ total assets while table VI-10 presents their operating ROA.20 Table VI-11 presents U.S. producers’ narrative responses explaining their major asset categories and any significant changes in asset levels over time. Total assets increased from $*** in 2018 to $*** in 2020. Return on assets declined from a positive *** percent in 2018 to a negative *** percent in 2019 before increasing to a positive *** percent in 2020. Table VI-9 Steel nails: U.S. producers’ total net assets, by firm and period Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2018 2019 2020 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 20 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 for steel nails. VI-22 Table VI-10 Steel nails: U.S. producers’ ROA, by firm and period Ratio in percent Firm 2018 2019 2020 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table VI-11 Steel nails: Narrative descriptions of U.S. producers’ total net assets, by firm Firm Narrative on assets *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-23 Capital and investment The Commission requested U.S. producers of steel nails to describe any actual or potential negative effects of imports of steel nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey on their firms’ growth, investment, ability to raise capital, development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments. Table VI-12 presents the number of firms reporting an impact in each category and table VI-13 provides the U.S. producers’ narrative responses. Table VI-12 Steel nails: Count of firms indicating actual and anticipated negative effects of imports from subject sources on investment, growth, and development since January 1, 2018, by effect Number of firms reporting Effect Category Count Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects Investment 2 Denial or rejection of investment proposal Investment 0 Reduction in the size of capital investments Investment 5 Return on specific investments negatively impacted Investment 1 Other investment effects Investment 1 Any negative effects on investment Investment 6 Rejection of bank loans Growth 0 Lowering of credit rating Growth 0 Problem related to the issue of stocks or bonds Growth 0 Ability to service debt Growth 0 Other growth and development effects Growth 4 Any negative effects on growth and development Growth 4 Anticipated negative effects of imports Future 7 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VI-24 Table VI-13 Steel nails: Narratives relating to actual and anticipated negative effects of imports on investment, growth, and development, since January 1, 2018 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 *** Reduction in the size of capital investments *** Reduction in the size of capital investments *** Reduction in the size of capital investments *** Reduction in the size of capital investments *** Return on specific investments negatively impacted *** 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 *** VI-25 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 *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VII-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.” VII-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 subsidy allegations was presented earlier in this report; information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV and V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for “product- shifting;” 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.” VII-3 The industry in India The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to 11 firms believed to produce and/or export steel nails from India.3 Usable responses to the Commission’s questionnaire were received from four firms: Alsons Manufacturing India LLP (“Alsons”), Astrotech Steels Private Limited (“Astrotech”), Geekay Wires Limited (“Geekay”),4 and Pan Chem Corporation (“Pan Chem”). These firms’ exports to the United States were equivalent to *** percent of U.S. imports of steel nails from India in 2020. According to estimates requested of the responding producers in India, the production of steel nails in India reported in questionnaires accounts for more than *** of overall production of steel nails in India.5 Table VII-1 presents information on the steel nails operations of the responding producers and exporters in India. 3 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petition and presented in third-party sources. 4 According to its website, Geekay Wires has an overall production capacity of approximately 22,000 short tons, annually. https://www.geekaywires.com/profile.php. 5 ***. *** foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-6a. VII-4 Table VII-1 Steel nails: Summary data for producers in India, 2020 Quantity in short tons; share in percent Firm Production (short tons) Share of reported production (percent) Exports to the United States (short tons) Share of reported exports to the United States (percent) Total shipments (short tons) Share of firm's total shipments exported to the United States (percent) Alsons *** *** *** *** *** *** Astrotech *** *** *** *** *** *** Geekay *** *** *** *** *** *** Pan Chem *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. Changes in operations As presented in table VII-2 producers in India reported several operational and organizational changes since January 1, 2018. Table VII-2 Steel nails: Reported changes in operations in India since January 1, 2018, by firm Item Firm name and accompanying narrative response Relocations *** Expansions *** Prolonged shutdowns or curtailments *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Operations on steel nails Table VII-3 presents information on the steel nails operations of the responding producers and exporters in India. During 2018-20, the Indian producers’ capacity increased by *** percent, and was higher during the interim period of January-September 2021 (“interim 2021”) compared to the interim period of January -September 2020 (“interim 2020”) by *** percent. During 2018-20, the Indian producers’ production decreased by *** percent overall, but was *** percent higher during interim 2021 than in interim 2020. During 2018-20, the Indian producers’ end-of-period inventories decreased by *** percent, but were higher during January-September 2021 than in January-September 2020 by *** percent. The Indian producers reported ***, while home market shipments were *** during 2018-20 and the VII-5 interim periods. During 2018-20, exports to the United States decreased by *** percent, but were higher by *** percent during interim 2021 than during interim 2020. The Indian producers’ capacity utilization decreased by *** percentage points during 2018-20, but it was higher during interim 2021 than during interim 2020 by *** percentage points. *** during 2018-20. Home market shipments accounted for *** of total shipments, as a share during 2018-20 and during the interim periods. The Indian producers’ adjusted share of total shipments exported to the United States decreased by *** percentage points during 2018- 20, and were higher by *** percentage points during interim 2021 than during interim 2020. Indian producers’ 2021 and 2022’s capacity and production ***. The Indian producers’ exports to all other markets and exports to the United States are projected to both increase, respectively, compared to 2020. Table VII-3 Steel nails: Data on the industry in India, by period Quantity in short tons; ratio and share in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 2022 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. VII-6 Table VII-3 Continued Steel nails: Data on the industry in India, by period Shares and ratios in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 2022 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 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. Alternative products As shown in table VII-4, responding firms in India produced other products on the same equipment and machinery used to produce steel nails. Two firms ***, reported production of other products on the same equipment that they used to produce steel nails. ***. VII-7 Table VII-4 Steel nails: Indian producers’ overall capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production, by period Quantity in short tons; ratio and share in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Overall capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: Collated roofing nails Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: All other steel nails Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: All in-scope steel nails Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: Other products Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: Total Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Overall capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Production: Collated roofing nails Share *** *** *** *** *** Production: All other steel nails Share *** *** *** *** *** Production: All in-scope steel nails Share *** *** *** *** *** Production: Other products Share *** *** *** *** *** Production: Total Share *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. Exports According to GTA, the leading export markets for steel nails from India are the United States and the United Arab Emirates (table VII-5). During 2020, the United States was the largest export market for steel nails from India, accounting for 80.1 percent, followed by the United Arab Emirates, accounting for 4.3 percent. VII-8 Table VII-5 Steel nails: Exports from India, by destination market and period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Quantity 21,246 20,368 17,406 United Arab Emirates Quantity 1,156 843 940 Nepal Quantity 435 645 546 United Kingdom Quantity 232 708 511 Canada Quantity 675 435 297 Finland Quantity 25 102 215 Liberia Quantity 270 138 202 Qatar Quantity 31 7 141 Egypt Quantity 110 108 115 All other destination markets Quantity 1,879 2,086 1,356 All destination markets Quantity 26,060 25,442 21,728 United States Value 42,808 35,993 26,314 United Arab Emirates Value 1,167 935 1,793 Nepal Value 550 667 504 United Kingdom Value 828 2,233 1,840 Canada Value 1,044 869 854 Finland Value 114 483 700 Liberia Value 205 104 138 Qatar Value 25 45 152 Egypt Value 219 194 163 All other destination markets Value 4,085 3,929 2,693 All destination markets Value 51,044 45,453 35,152 Table continued. VII-9 Table VII-5-Continued Steel nails: Exports from India, by destination market and period Unit values in dollars per short ton; shares in percent Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Unit value 2,015 1,767 1,512 United Arab Emirates Unit value 1,010 1,108 1,907 Nepal Unit value 1,263 1,035 924 United Kingdom Unit value 3,563 3,152 3,603 Canada Unit value 1,548 1,997 2,874 Finland Unit value 4,510 4,719 3,263 Liberia Unit value 759 755 685 Qatar Unit value 789 6,524 1,081 Egypt Unit value 1,987 1,797 1,420 All other destination markets Unit value 2,174 1,883 1,986 All destination markets Unit value 1,959 1,787 1,618 United States Share of quantity 81.5 80.1 80.1 United Arab Emirates Share of quantity 4.4 3.3 4.3 Nepal Share of quantity 1.7 2.5 2.5 United Kingdom Share of quantity 0.9 2.8 2.4 Canada Share of quantity 2.6 1.7 1.4 Finland Share of quantity 0.1 0.4 1.0 Liberia Share of quantity 1.0 0.5 0.9 Qatar Share of quantity 0.1 0.0 0.6 Egypt Share of quantity 0.4 0.4 0.5 All other destination markets Share of quantity 7.2 8.2 6.2 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheading 7317.00 as reported by the Indian Ministry of Commerce in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed January 10, 2022. 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 “---“. United States is shown at the top, all remaining top export destinations shown in descending order of 2020 data. These data are believed to be overstated as HS subheading 7317.00 contains products outside the scope of these investigations (e.g., thumb tacks). VII-10 The industry in Oman The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to four firms believed to produce and/or export steel nails from Oman.6 One firm responded to the Commission’s questionnaire: Oman Fasteners Company LLC (“Oman Fasteners”). This firm’s exports to the United States were equivalent to *** of U.S. imports of steel nails from Oman in 2020. According to estimates requested of the responding producer in Oman, the production of steel nails in Oman reported in its questionnaire accounts for approximately *** percent of overall production of steel nails in Oman during 2020.7 Table VII-6 presents information on the steel nails operations of the responding producer in Oman. Table VII-6 Steel nails: Summary data for Oman Fasteners, 2020 Quantity in short tons; share in percent Firm Production (short tons) Share of reported production (percent) Exports to the United States (short tons) Share of reported exports to the United States (percent) Total shipments (short tons) Share of firm's total shipments exported to the United States (percent) Oman Fasteners *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. 6 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petition and presented in third-party sources. 7 Oman Fasteners indicated that ***. Oman Fasteners, foreign producer questionnaire response, II- 10. VII-11 Changes in operations As presented in table VII-7, Oman Fasteners reported *** since January 1, 2018. Table VII-7 Steel nails: Reported changes in operations by Oman Fasteners since January 1, 2018 Item Firm name and accompanying narrative response Expansions *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Operations on steel nails Table VII-8 presents information on the steel nails operations of Oman Fasteners. During 2018-20, Oman Fasteners’ capacity increased by *** percent, and was higher interim 2021 than during interim 2020 by *** percent. During 2018-20, Oman Fasteners’ production fluctuated but increased by *** percent, and was higher by *** percent during interim 2021 than during interim 2020. During 2018-20, Oman Fasteners’ end-of-period inventories increased by *** percent, and were higher during January-September 2021 than in January-September 2020 by *** percent. Oman Fasteners reported ***, while home market shipments were *** during 2018-20 and the interim periods. During 2018-20, exports to the United States increased by *** percent, and were higher during *** percent during interim 2021 than during interim 2020. Oman Fastener’s capacity utilization fluctuated but increased by *** percentage points during 2018-20, and it was higher during interim 2021 than during interim 2020 by *** percentage points. The vast majority of Oman Fasteners’ shipments were exported to the United States, accounting for at least *** percent of total shipments in each period Projections for Oman Fasteners’ 2021 and 2022’s capacity ***, while its production ***. ***. VII-12 Table VII-8 Steel nails: Data on industry for Oman Fasteners, by period Quantity in short tons Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 2022 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. VII-13 Table VII-8-Continued Steel nails: Data for Oman Fasteners, by period Shares and ratios in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 2022 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 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. Alternative products As shown in table VII-9, Oman Fasteners ***. VII-14 Table VII-9 Steel nails: Oman Fasteners’ overall capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production, by period Quantity in short tons; ratio and share in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Overall capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: Collated roofing nails Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: All other steel nails Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: All in-scope steel nails Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: Other products Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: Total Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Overall capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Production: Collated roofing nails Share *** *** *** *** *** Production: All other steel nails Share *** *** *** *** *** Production: All in-scope steel nails Share *** *** *** *** *** Production: Other products Share *** *** *** *** *** Production: Total Share *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Exports According to GTA, the leading export markets for steel nails from Oman are the United States, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom (table VII-10). During 2020, the United States was the largest export market for steel nails from Oman, accounting for 96.3 percent, followed by UAE and the United Kingdom, accounting for 1.2 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively. VII-15 Table VII-10 Steel nails: Exports from Oman, by period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars Exporting country Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Quantity 64,670 73,189 72,119 United Arab Emirates Quantity 1,464 1,281 867 United Kingdom Quantity 1,286 1,994 830 Canada Quantity 19 1,148 660 Netherlands Quantity 130 161 131 Qatar Quantity 418 35 78 Germany Quantity --- --- 77 Ireland Quantity 14 --- 48 Finland Quantity 117 193 27 All other exporters Quantity 334 190 44 All reporting exporters Quantity 68,452 78,189 74,881 United States Value 82,733 88,493 82,900 United Arab Emirates Value 1,492 1,217 774 United Kingdom Value 1,935 2,764 1,271 Canada Value 92 1,918 1,440 Netherlands Value 174 218 167 Qatar Value 431 40 79 Germany Value --- --- 87 Ireland Value 33 --- 95 Finland Value 220 342 41 All other exporters Value 430 251 79 All reporting exporters Value 87,540 95,244 86,933 Table continued. VII-16 Table VII-10--Continued Steel nails: Exports from Oman, by period Unit value in dollars per short ton; share in percent Exporting country Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Unit value 1,279 1,209 1,149 United Arab Emirates Unit value 1,019 951 892 United Kingdom Unit value 1,505 1,386 1,531 Canada Unit value 4,852 1,671 2,181 Netherlands Unit value 1,342 1,353 1,276 Qatar Unit value 1,029 1,148 1,012 Germany Unit value --- --- 1,136 Ireland Unit value 2,317 --- 1,999 Finland Unit value 1,885 1,776 1,508 All other exporters Unit value 1,288 1,325 1,778 All reporting exporters Unit value 1,279 1,218 1,161 United States Share of quantity 94.5 93.6 96.3 United Arab Emirates Share of quantity 2.1 1.6 1.2 United Kingdom Share of quantity 1.9 2.6 1.1 Canada Share of quantity 0.0 1.5 0.9 Netherlands Share of quantity 0.2 0.2 0.2 Qatar Share of quantity 0.6 0.0 0.1 Germany Share of quantity --- --- 0.1 Ireland Share of quantity 0.0 --- 0.1 Finland Share of quantity 0.2 0.2 0.0 All other exporters Share of quantity 0.5 0.2 0.1 All reporting exporters Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official imports statistics of imports from Oman (constructed export statistics for Oman) under HS subheading 7317.00 as reported by various statistical reporting authorities in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed January 10, 2021. 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 “---“. United States is shown at the top, all remaining top export destinations shown in descending order of 2020 data. These data are believed to be overstated as HS subheading 7317.00 contains products outside the scope of these investigations (e.g., thumb tacks). VII-17 The industry in Sri Lanka The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to five firms believed to produce and/or export steel nails in Sri Lanka.8 One firm responded to the Commission’s questionnaire: Trinity Steel (Pvt) Ltd. (“Trinity”). This firms’ exports to the United States were equivalent to *** of U.S. imports of steel nails from Sri Lanka in 2020. According to estimates requested of the responding producer in Sri Lanka, the production of steel nails in Sri Lanka reported in its questionnaire accounts for approximately *** percent of overall production of steel nails in Sri Lanka during 2020. Table VII-11 presents information on the steel nails operations of the responding producer in Sri Lanka. Table VII-11 Steel nails: Summary data for Trinity, 2020 Quantity in short tons; share in percent Firm Production (short tons) Share of reported production (percent) Exports to the United States (short tons) Share of reported exports to the United States (percent) Total shipments (short tons) Share of firm's total shipments exported to the United States (percent) Trinity *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. Changes in operations As presented in table VII-12, Trinity reported *** since January 1, 2018. 8 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petition and presented in third-party sources. VII-18 Table VII-12 Steel nails: Reported changes in operations by Trinity since January 1, 2018 Item Firm name and accompanying narrative response Expansions *** Prolonged shutdowns or curtailments *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Operations on steel nails Table VII-13 presents information on the steel nails operations of Trinity. During 2018- 20, Trinity’s capacity increased by *** percent, and remained the same in interim 2021 than during interim 2020. During 2018-20, Trinity’s production increased by *** percent, and was higher by *** percent during interim 2021 than during interim 2020. During 2018-20, Trinity’s end-of-period inventories increased by *** percent, but were lower during January-September 2021 than in January-September 2020 by *** percent. Trinity’s reported ***, while home market shipments were *** during 2018-20 and the interim periods. During 2018-20, exports to the United States increased by *** percent, and were *** percent higher during interim 2021 than in interim 2020. Trinity’s capacity utilization fluctuated but increased by *** percentage points during 2018-20, and it was higher during interim 2021 than during interim 2020 by *** percentage points. *** during 2018-20. Home market shipments accounted for *** of total shipments during each period. Trinity’s exports to the United States, as a share of total shipments, *** in each period, although the share was higher in 2020 than in 2018. Projections for Trinity’s 2021 and 2022’s capacity ***, while its production ***. In addition, ***. VII-19 Table VII-13 Steel nails: Data for Trinity, by period Quantity in short tons Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 2022 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. VII-20 Table VII-13--Continued Steel nails: Data for Trinity, by period Shares and ratios in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 2022 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 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. Alternative products Trinity *** on the same equipment and machinery used to produce steel nails. Exports According to GTA, the leading export markets for steel nails from Sri Lanka are the United States, Bangladesh, and India (table VII-14). During 2020, the United States was the largest export market for steel nails from Sri Lanka, accounting for 99.0 percent, followed by Bangladesh and India, accounting for 0.9 percent and 0.1 percent, respectively. VII-21 Table VII-14 Steel nails: Exports from Sri Lanka, by period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Quantity 19,926 29,398 30,197 Bangladesh Quantity 56 379 274 India Quantity 4 37 18 Singapore Quantity 0 0 12 New Zealand Quantity --- --- 2 Pakistan Quantity 5 23 1 South Korea Quantity --- --- 0 Maldives Quantity 46 11 0 East Timor Quantity --- --- 0 All other destination markets Quantity 23 2 0 All destination markets Quantity 20,060 29,850 30,504 United States Value 24,077 31,526 26,756 Bangladesh Value 829 7,155 5,603 India Value 64 642 336 Singapore Value 0 0 1,252 New Zealand Value --- --- 2 Pakistan Value 70 379 21 South Korea Value --- --- 0 Maldives Value 67 15 2 East Timor Value --- --- 1 All other destination markets Value 34 7 1 All destination markets Value 25,142 39,725 33,973 Table continued. VII-22 Table VII-14--Continued Steel nails: Exports from Sri Lanka, by period Unit values in dollars per short ton; shares in percent Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Unit value 1,208 1,072 886 Bangladesh Unit value 14,807 18,875 20,449 India Unit value 14,739 17,343 19,158 Singapore Unit value 841 32,380 105,649 New Zealand Unit value --- --- 795 Pakistan Unit value 14,327 16,475 21,007 South Korea Unit value --- --- 93 Maldives Unit value 1,458 1,432 8,362 East Timor Unit value --- --- 3,838 All other destination markets Unit value 1,478 3,095 9,253 All destination markets Unit value 1,253 1,331 1,114 United States Share of quantity 99.3 98.5 99.0 Bangladesh Share of quantity 0.3 1.3 0.9 India Share of quantity 0.0 0.1 0.1 Singapore Share of quantity 0.0 0.0 0.0 New Zealand Share of quantity --- --- 0.0 Pakistan Share of quantity 0.0 0.1 0.0 South Korea Share of quantity --- --- 0.0 Maldives Share of quantity 0.2 0.0 0.0 East Timor Share of quantity --- --- 0.0 All other destination markets Share of quantity 0.1 0.0 0.0 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheading 7317.00 as reported by Sri Lanka Customs in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed January 10, 2022. 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 “---“. United States is shown at the top, all remaining top export destinations shown in descending order of 2020 data. These data are believed to be overstated as HS subheading 7317.00 contains products outside the scope of these investigations (e.g., thumb tacks). VII-23 The industry in Thailand The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to five firms believed to produce and/or export steel nails from Thailand.9 Usable responses to the Commission’s questionnaire were received from five firms: Chia Pao Metal Co., Ltd. (“Chia Pao”), 10 Comebest (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (“Comebest”), Jinhai Hardware Co. Ltd. (“Jinhai”), Siam Fastener Industry Co., Ltd. (“Siam Fastener”),11 and Win Fasteners Manufactory (Thailand) Co., Ltd (“Win Fasteners”).12 These firms’ exports to the United States were equivalent to *** percent of U.S. imports of steel nails from Thailand in 2020. Responding firms estimate that they accounted for approximately *** percent of overall production of steel nails in Thailand 2020. Table VII-15 presents information on the steel nails operations of the responding producers in Thailand. Table VII-16 presents summary data for resellers in Thailand during 2020. 9 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petition and presented in third-party sources. 10 According to its website, Chia Pao is the largest nails and staples manufacturer in Thailand. http://www.chiapao.co.th/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=75. 11 According to its website, Siam Fastener has an annual steel nails production capacity of 5,000 tons. http://thai-hardware.com/. 12 Win Fasteners ***. Win indicated that “***.” *** foreign producer questionnaire response, section II-10. VII-24 Table VII-15 Steel nails: Summary data for producers in Thailand, 2020 Firm Production (short tons) Share of reported production (percent) Exports to the United States (short tons) Share of reported exports to the United States (percent) Total shipments (short tons) Share of firm's total shipments exported to the United States (percent) Chia Pao *** *** *** *** *** *** Comebest *** *** *** *** *** *** Jinhai *** *** *** *** *** *** Siam Fastener *** *** *** *** *** *** Win *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. Table VII-16 Steel nails: Summary data for resellers in Thailand, 2020 Firm Resales exported to United States (short tons) Share of reported resales exported to United States (percent) Win *** *** All firms *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Changes in operations As presented in table VII-17 producers in Thailand reported several operational and organizational changes since January 1, 2018. Table VII-17 Steel nails: Reported changes in operations in Thailand since January 1, 2018, by firm Item Firm name and accompanying narrative response Plant openings *** Expansions *** Expansions *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. VII-25 Operations on steel nails Table VII-18 presents information on the steel nails operations of the responding producers and exporters in Thailand. During 2018-20, the Thai producers’ capacity increased by *** percent, and was higher during interim 2021 than during interim 2020 by *** percent. During 2018-20, the Thai producers’ production increased by *** percent overall, and was higher by *** percent during interim 2021 than during interim 2020. The Thai producers’ capacity utilization decreased by *** percentage points during 2018-20, but was higher during interim 2021 than in interim 2020 by *** percentage points. During 2018-20, the Thai producers’ end-of-period inventories increased by *** percent, and were higher during interim 2021 than in interim 2020 by *** percent. The Thai producers home market shipments were *** during 2018-20 and the interim periods. *** during 2018-20. During 2018-20, exports to the United States increased by *** percent, but were higher by *** percent in interim 2021 than during interim 2020. Thai producers’ 2021 and 2022’s capacity ***, while its production ***. ***. VII-26 Table VII-18 Steel nails: Data on the industry in Thailand, by period Quantity in short tons Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 2022 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 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Resales exported to the United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total exports to the United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. VII-27 Table VII-18--Continued Steel nails: Data on the industry in Thailand, by period Shares and ratios in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 2022 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 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports by producers share of total exports to U.S. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports by resellers share of total exports to U.S. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Adjusted share of total shipments exported to U.S. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. Alternative products As shown in table VII-19, no responding firms in Thailand produced other products on the same equipment and machinery used to produce steel nails. VII-28 Table VII-19 Steel nails: Thai producers’ overall capacity and production on the same equipment as subject production, by period Quantity in short tons; ratio and share in percent Item Measure 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Overall capacity Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: Collated roofing nails Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: All other steel nails Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: All in-scope steel nails Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: Other products Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Production: Total Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Overall capacity utilization Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Production: Collated roofing nails Share *** *** *** *** *** Production: All other steel nails Share *** *** *** *** *** Production: All in-scope steel nails Share *** *** *** *** *** Production: Other products Share *** *** *** *** *** Production: Total Share *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. Exports According to GTA, the leading export markets for steel nails from Thailand are the United States, Myanmar, and Laos (table VII-20). During 2020, the United States was the leading export market for steel nails from Thailand, accounting for 82.2 percent, followed by Myanmar and Laos, accounting for 6.2 percent and 5.3 percent, respectively. VII-29 Table VII-20 Steel nails: Exports from Thailand, by period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Quantity 36,866 40,812 49,332 Myanmar Quantity 3,513 3,752 3,699 Laos Quantity 3,938 3,924 3,196 New Zealand Quantity --- 2,127 2,328 Japan Quantity 1,474 1,089 1,175 Cambodia Quantity 43 36 60 Canada Quantity 126 21 56 Indonesia Quantity 204 108 49 Saudi Arabia Quantity --- 21 42 All other destination markets Quantity 291 103 73 All destination markets Quantity 46,455 51,993 60,009 United States Value 39,911 44,223 51,900 Myanmar Value 2,950 3,236 2,979 Laos Value 2,924 2,985 2,292 New Zealand Value --- 2,101 2,207 Japan Value 4,282 3,816 3,492 Cambodia Value 272 282 265 Canada Value 159 17 47 Indonesia Value 226 118 50 Saudi Arabia Value --- 16 30 All other destination markets Value 1,252 712 238 All destination markets Value 51,976 57,506 63,500 Table continued. VII-30 Table VII-20--Continued Steel nails: Exports from Thailand, by period Unit values in dollars per short ton; shares in percent Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Unit value 1,083 1,084 1,052 Myanmar Unit value 840 863 805 Laos Unit value 743 761 717 New Zealand Unit value --- 988 948 Japan Unit value 2,905 3,505 2,972 Cambodia Unit value 6,317 7,788 4,397 Canada Unit value 1,264 816 844 Indonesia Unit value 1,107 1,092 1,029 Saudi Arabia Unit value --- 757 715 All other destination markets Unit value 4,302 6,899 3,260 All destination markets Unit value 1,119 1,106 1,058 United States Share of quantity 79.4 78.5 82.2 Myanmar Share of quantity 7.6 7.2 6.2 Laos Share of quantity 8.5 7.5 5.3 New Zealand Share of quantity --- 4.1 3.9 Japan Share of quantity 3.2 2.1 2.0 Cambodia Share of quantity 0.1 0.1 0.1 Canada Share of quantity 0.3 0.0 0.1 Indonesia Share of quantity 0.4 0.2 0.1 Saudi Arabia Share of quantity --- 0.0 0.1 All other destination markets Share of quantity 0.6 0.2 0.1 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheading 7317.00 as reported by Thai Customs Department in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed January 10, 2022. 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 “---“. United States is shown at the top, all remaining top export destinations shown in descending order of 2020 data. These data are believed to be overstated as HS subheading 7317.00 contains products outside the scope of these investigations (e.g., thumb tacks). VII-31 The industry in Turkey The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to six firms believed to produce and/or export steel nails from Turkey.13 Usable responses to the Commission’s questionnaire were received from three firms: Aslanbas Civi Tel Celik Hasir A.S. (“Aslanbas Civi”),14 Guney Celik Hasir Ve Demir Mam. San. Tic. A.S (“Guney Celik”), and Sertel Vida Metas A.S. (“Sertel Vida”). These firms’ exports to the United States were equivalent to *** percent of U.S. imports of steel nails from Turkey in 2020. According to estimates requested of the responding producers in Turkey, the production of steel nails in Turkey reported in questionnaires accounts for approximately *** percent of overall production of steel nails in Turkey.15 Table VII-21 presents information on the steel nails operations of the responding producers and exporters in Turkey. Table VII-21 Steel nails: Summary data for producers in Turkey, 2020 Firm Production (short tons) Share of reported production (percent) Exports to the United States (short tons) Share of reported exports to the United States (percent) Total shipments (short tons) Share of firm's total shipments exported to the United States (percent) Aslanbas *** *** *** *** *** *** Guney *** *** *** *** *** *** Steel Vida *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. Changes in operations As presented in table VII-22, producers in Turkey reported several operational and organizational changes since January 1, 2018. 13 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petition and presented in third-party sources. 14 According to its website, Aslanbas Civi has an overall production capacity of 5,000 tons. https://www.aslanbas.com.tr/kurumsal. 15 *** did not provide an estimate of its steel nails production in Turkey during 2020. VII-32 Table VII-22 Steel nails: Reported changes in operations in Turkey since January 1, 2018, by firm Item Firm name and accompanying narrative response Plant openings *** Expansions *** Prolonged shutdowns or curtailments *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Operations on steel nails Table VII-23 presents information on the steel nails operations of the responding producers and exporters in Turkey. During 2018-20, the Turkish producers’ capacity increased by *** percent, and was higher during interim 2021 than during interim 2020 by *** percent. During 2018-20, the Turkish producer’s production increased by *** percent overall, but was higher by *** percent during interim 2021 than during interim 2020. During 2018-20, the Turkish producer’s end-of-period inventories decreased by *** percent, but were higher during January-September 2021 than in January-September 2020 by *** percent. The Turkish producer’s reported internal consumption that decreased by *** percent during 2018-20, but were higher during interim 2021 than during interim 2020. Home market shipments also decreased during 2018-20 by *** percent, but were higher during interim 2021 than during interim 2020. During 2018-20, exports to the United States increased by *** percent, and were higher by *** percent in interim 2021 than during interim 2020. The Turkish producer’s capacity utilization decreased by *** percentage points during 2018-20, but it was higher during interim 2021 than during interim 2020 by *** percentage points. Exports to the United States as a share of total shipments increased by *** percentage points during 2018-20, and were higher by *** percentage points during interim 2021 than during interim 2020. The Turkish producers’ home market shipments share decreased by *** percentage points during 2018-20, but were higher during interim 2021 than during interim 2020 by *** percentage points. Inventories as a ratio to production and to total shipments both decreased during 2018-20, but were higher during interim 2021 than during interim 2020. Projections for the Turkish producer’s 2021 and 2022’s capacity and production ***. The Turkish producer’s exports to all other markets and exports to the United States are projected to both increase, respectively, compared to 2020. VII-33 Table VII-23 Steel nails: Data on industry in Turkey, by period Quantity in short tons Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Projection 2021 Projectio n 2022 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. VII-34 Table VII-23--Continued Steel nails: Data on industry in Turkey, by period Shares and ratios in percent Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 2022 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 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. Alternative products The Turkish producers *** on the same equipment and machinery used to produce steel nails. Exports According to GTA, the leading export markets for steel nails from Turkey are the United States, Israel, and Italy (table VII-24). During 2020, the United States was the top export market for steel nails from Turkey, accounting for 61.8 percent, followed by Israel and Italy, accounting for 9.6 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively. VII-35 Table VII-24 Steel nails: Exports from Turkey, by period Quantity in short tons; value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Quantity 38,920 50,662 52,870 Israel Quantity 5,869 6,616 8,201 Italy Quantity 153 1,469 3,182 Spain Quantity 2,903 3,738 3,176 Canada Quantity 673 1,660 2,555 Georgia Quantity 2,265 2,101 2,291 United Kingdom Quantity 2,675 1,900 1,868 Portugal Quantity 1,635 1,502 1,119 Syria Quantity 913 863 924 All other destination markets Quantity 6,637 7,928 9,329 All destination markets Quantity 62,643 78,439 85,515 United States Value 36,892 43,356 41,245 Israel Value 4,551 4,477 5,265 Italy Value 277 1,006 1,888 Spain Value 2,240 2,576 2,200 Canada Value 516 1,195 1,689 Georgia Value 1,599 1,249 1,352 United Kingdom Value 2,206 1,457 1,403 Portugal Value 1,222 1,017 745 Syria Value 694 554 595 All other destination markets Value 7,716 7,604 8,148 All destination markets Value 57,913 64,490 64,530 Table continued. VII-36 Table VII-24--Continued Steel nails: Exports from Turkey, by period Unit values in dollars per short ton; shares in percent Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Unit value 948 856 780 Israel Unit value 775 677 642 Italy Unit value 1,812 685 593 Spain Unit value 771 689 693 Canada Unit value 768 720 661 Georgia Unit value 706 594 590 United Kingdom Unit value 825 767 751 Portugal Unit value 747 677 665 Syria Unit value 759 642 645 All other destination markets Unit value 1,163 959 873 All destination markets Unit value 924 822 755 United States Share of quantity 62.1 64.6 61.8 Israel Share of quantity 9.4 8.4 9.6 Italy Share of quantity 0.2 1.9 3.7 Spain Share of quantity 4.6 4.8 3.7 Canada Share of quantity 1.1 2.1 3.0 Georgia Share of quantity 3.6 2.7 2.7 United Kingdom Share of quantity 4.3 2.4 2.2 Portugal Share of quantity 2.6 1.9 1.3 Syria Share of quantity 1.5 1.1 1.1 All other destination markets Share of quantity 10.6 10.1 10.9 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheading 7317.00 as reported by the Turkish State Institute of Statistics in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed January 10, 2022. 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 “---“. United States is shown at the top, all remaining top export destinations shown in descending order of 2020 data. These data are believed to be overstated as HS subheading 7317.00 contains products outside the scope of these investigations (e.g., thumb tacks). VII-37 Subject countries combined Table VII-25 presents summary data on steel nails operations of the reporting subject producers in the subject countries. During 2018-20, the combined subject countries’ overall capacity increased by *** percent, and was higher by *** percent during interim 2021 than during interim 2020. During 2018-20, the combined subject countries overall production of steel nails increased by *** percent, and was higher by *** percent during interim 2021 than during interim 2020. Combined subject countries’ capacity utilization decreased by *** percentage points during 2018-20, and was higher during interim 2021 than during interim 2020 by *** percentage points. *** percentage points during 2018-20 and were lower during interim 2021 than during interim 2020 by *** percentage points. Home market shipments decreased by *** during 2018-20 and was higher during the interim 2021 than during interim 2020 by *** percentage points. Exports to the United States increased by *** percent between 2018 and 2020, and were higher during interim 2021 than during interim 2020 by *** percent. Combined subject countries’ adjusted share of total shipments exported to the United States decreased by *** percentage points during 2018-20, but were higher by *** percentage points during interim 2021 than during interim 2020. The combined subject countries’ 2021 and 2022’s capacity ***, while production ***. ***. VII-38 Table VII-25 Steel nails: Data on the industry in combined subject countries, by period Quantity in short tons Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 2022 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 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Resales exported to the United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total exports to the United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. VII-39 Table VII-25--Continued Steel nails: Data on the industry in combined subject countries, by period Item 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Projection 2021 Projection 2022 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 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports by producers share of total exports to U.S. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports by resellers share of total exports to U.S. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Adjusted share of total shipments exported to U.S. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 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 “---“. U.S. inventories of imported merchandise Table VII-26 presents data on U.S. importers’ reported inventories of steel nails. Inventories of subject imports decreased by *** percent between 2018 and 2020 and were *** percent lower in interim 2021 than in interim 2020. The ratio of subject importers’ inventories to imports decreased from *** percent in 2018 to *** percent in 2020 and was lower in interim 2021 (*** percent) than in interim 2020 (*** percent). VII-40 Table VII-26 Steel nails: U.S. importers’ inventories and their ratio to select items, by source and period Quantity in short tons; ratio in percent Measure Source 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Inventories quantity India *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports India *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports India *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports India *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity Oman *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports Oman *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Oman *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Oman *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity Sri Lanka *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports Sri Lanka *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Sri Lanka *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Sri Lanka *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity Thailand *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports Thailand *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Thailand *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Thailand *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity Turkey *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports Turkey *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Turkey *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Turkey *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity Subject *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports Subject *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Subject *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Subject *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. VII-41 Table VII-26 Continued Steel nails: U.S. importers’ inventories and their ratio to select items, by source and period Quantity in short tons; ratio in percent Measure Source 2018 2019 2020 Jan-Sep 2020 Jan-Sep 2021 Inventories quantity Nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports Nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity All imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports All imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports All imports *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports All imports *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. importers’ outstanding orders The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the importation of steel nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Turkey, and all other sources after September 30, 2021. Their reported data is presented in table VII-27. Twenty-one of 30 responding firms indicated that they had arranged such imports. All 21 firms reported arranged imports from subject sources, while two firms also reported arranged imports from nonsubject sources.16 16 ***. VII-42 Table VII-27 Steel nails: U.S. importers’ arranged imports, by source and period Quantity in short tons Source Oct-Dec 2021 Jan-Mar 2022 Apr-Jun 2022 Jul-Sept 2022 Total India *** *** *** *** *** Oman *** *** *** *** *** Sri Lanka *** *** *** *** *** Thailand *** *** *** *** *** Turkey *** *** *** *** *** Subject sources *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** All import sources *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Third-country trade actions Based on available information,17 steel nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey have not been subject to antidumping or countervailing duty investigations outside the United States.18 Information on nonsubject countries In its postconference brief petitioners reported that no data on global or country-level production or prices of steel nails currently exists.19 Industry research also found no sources for this information. Table VII-28 presents global export data for HS 7317.00, a category that includes steel nails and out-of-scope products (by subject countries alphabetically and followed by non- subject sources in descending order of quantity for 2020). The largest global exporter of steel nails is China, which represented 51.4 percent of global exports, by quantity, in 2020. Exports by the five subject countries represented 12.8 percent of all exports in 2020. Other large non- subject exporters include the United Arab Emirates and Poland, which were the second and fourth largest global exporters in 2020, respectively. 17 World Trade Organization (“WTO”), “Anti-dumping,” https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/adp_e.htm, retrieved January 25, 2022; and WTO, “Subsidies and Countervailing Measures,” https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/scm_e/scm_e.htm, retrieved January 25, 2022. 18 Conference transcript, p. 123. 19 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 21; Exh. 1. VII-43 Table VII-28 Steel nails: Global exports, by reporting country and by period Quantity in short tons; Value in 1,000 dollars Exporting country Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Quantity 28,706 26,596 21,823 India Quantity 26,060 25,442 21,728 Oman Quantity 68,452 78,189 74,881 Sri Lanka Quantity 20,060 29,850 30,504 Thailand Quantity 46,455 51,993 60,009 Turkey Quantity 62,643 78,439 85,515 Subject countries Quantity 223,671 263,912 272,638 China Quantity 1,201,500 1,078,487 1,095,740 Poland Quantity 76,301 67,709 76,719 Taiwan Quantity 85,816 66,948 56,630 Belarus Quantity 49,515 49,171 53,031 South Korea Quantity 67,542 49,642 51,624 Lithuania Quantity 42,129 41,182 42,647 All other exporters Quantity 473,363 404,329 378,823 All reporting exporters Quantity 2,248,542 2,047,977 2,049,674 United States Value 59,560 69,398 59,869 India Value 51,044 45,453 35,152 Oman Value 87,540 95,244 86,933 Sri Lanka Value 25,142 39,725 33,973 Thailand Value 51,976 57,506 63,500 Turkey Value 57,913 64,490 64,530 Subject countries Value 273,616 302,417 284,088 China Value 1,545,700 1,517,736 1,621,792 Poland Value 89,993 82,120 93,460 Taiwan Value 118,347 100,196 85,234 Belarus Value 34,179 31,748 30,867 South Korea Value 77,759 60,455 59,599 Lithuania Value 38,925 36,518 35,545 All other exporters Value 731,065 602,351 602,832 All reporting exporters Value 3,242,760 3,105,356 3,157,376 Table continued. VII-44 Table VII-28 continued Steel nails: Global exports, by reporting country and by period Unit values in dollars per short ton; Shares in percent Exporting country Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Unit value 2,075 2,609 2,743 India Unit value 1,959 1,787 1,618 Oman Unit value 1,279 1,218 1,161 Sri Lanka Unit value 1,253 1,331 1,114 Thailand Unit value 1,119 1,106 1,058 Turkey Unit value 924 822 755 Subject countries Unit value 1,223 1,146 1,042 China Unit value 1,286 1,407 1,480 Poland Unit value 1,179 1,213 1,218 Taiwan Unit value 1,379 1,497 1,505 Belarus Unit value 690 646 582 South Korea Unit value 1,151 1,218 1,154 Lithuania Unit value 924 887 833 All other exporters Unit value 1,544 1,490 1,591 All reporting exporters Unit value 1,442 1,516 1,540 United States Share of quantity 1.3 1.3 1.1 India Share of quantity 1.2 1.2 1.1 Oman Share of quantity 3.0 3.8 3.7 Sri Lanka Share of quantity 0.9 1.5 1.5 Thailand Share of quantity 2.1 2.5 2.9 Turkey Share of quantity 2.8 3.8 4.2 Subject countries Share of quantity 9.9 12.9 13.3 China Share of quantity 53.4 52.7 53.5 Poland Share of quantity 3.4 3.3 3.7 Taiwan Share of quantity 3.8 3.3 2.8 Belarus Share of quantity 2.2 2.4 2.6 South Korea Share of quantity 3.0 2.4 2.5 Lithuania Share of quantity 1.9 2.0 2.1 All other exporters Share of quantity 21.1 19.7 18.5 All reporting exporters Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official export statistics under HS subheading 7317.00 reported by various national statistical authorities in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed January 10, 2022 and official global import statistics from Oman (constructed exports) under HS subheading 7317.00 as reported by various national statistical authorities in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed January 10, 2022. 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 “---“. United States is shown at the top followed by the countries under investigation, all remaining top exporting countries shown in descending order of 2020 data. These data are believed to be overstated as HS subheading 7317.00 contains products outside the scope of these investigations (e.g., thumb tacks). VII-45 China Table VII-29 presents Chinese export data for HS 7317.00, a category that includes steel nails and some out-of-scope products. China is the largest global exporter of steel nails. China exported just under 1.1 million short tons of steel nails in 2020. The largest market for Chinese steel nails exports is the United States. Exports to the United States totaled 241 thousand short tons in 2020, representing 22 percent of all of China’s steel nails exports that year. Table VII-29 Steel nails: Exports from China, by destination market and by period Quantity in short tons; Value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Quantity 309,767 217,904 241,221 Japan Quantity 86,557 87,216 79,889 Canada Quantity 78,326 60,489 74,231 South Korea Quantity 47,430 44,044 42,276 Philippines Quantity 23,658 18,121 38,630 Nigeria Quantity 34,917 35,794 37,094 Indonesia Quantity 36,997 27,185 26,669 United Kingdom Quantity 25,406 26,935 24,103 India Quantity 25,894 26,017 22,644 All other destination markets Quantity 532,548 534,782 508,983 All destination markets Quantity 1,201,500 1,078,487 1,095,740 United States Value 362,227 243,270 235,973 Japan Value 99,534 95,802 85,179 Canada Value 83,158 58,330 66,254 South Korea Value 47,478 41,409 49,008 Philippines Value 25,799 26,957 67,522 Nigeria Value 32,367 39,278 43,020 Indonesia Value 42,015 57,724 93,392 United Kingdom Value 35,683 33,448 30,599 India Value 41,135 44,648 37,144 All other destination markets Value 776,305 876,871 913,701 All destination markets Value 1,545,700 1,517,736 1,621,792 Table continued. VII-46 Table VII-29 Steel nails: Exports from China, by destination market and by period Unit values in dollars per short ton; Shares in percent Destination market Measure 2018 2019 2020 United States Unit value 1,169 1,116 978 Japan Unit value 1,150 1,098 1,066 Canada Unit value 1,062 964 893 South Korea Unit value 1,001 940 1,159 Philippines Unit value 1,090 1,488 1,748 Nigeria Unit value 927 1,097 1,160 Indonesia Unit value 1,136 2,123 3,502 United Kingdom Unit value 1,405 1,242 1,270 India Unit value 1,589 1,716 1,640 All other destination markets Unit value 1,458 1,640 1,795 All destination markets Unit value 1,286 1,407 1,480 United States Share of quantity 25.8 20.2 22.0 Japan Share of quantity 7.2 8.1 7.3 Canada Share of quantity 6.5 5.6 6.8 South Korea Share of quantity 3.9 4.1 3.9 Philippines Share of quantity 2.0 1.7 3.5 Nigeria Share of quantity 2.9 3.3 3.4 Indonesia Share of quantity 3.1 2.5 2.4 United Kingdom Share of quantity 2.1 2.5 2.2 India Share of quantity 2.2 2.4 2.1 All other destination markets Share of quantity 44.3 49.6 46.5 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheading 7317.00 as reported by China Customs in the Global Trade Atlas database, accessed January 25, 2022. 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 “---“. United States is shown at the top, all remaining top export destinations shown in descending order of 2020 data. These data are believed to be overstated as HS subheading 7317.00 contains products outside the scope of these investigations (e.g., thumb tacks). 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 87 FR 997, January 7, 2022 Steel Nails From India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations https://www.govinfo.g ov/content/pkg/FR- 2022-01-07/pdf/2022- 00085.pdf 87 FR 3965, January 22, 2022 Certain Steel Nails From India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations https://www.govinfo.g ov/content/pkg/FR- 2022-01-26/pdf/2022- 01494.pdf 87 FR 3970, January 22, 2022 Certain Steel Nails From India, the Sultanate of Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations https://www.govinfo.g ov/content/pkg/FR- 2022-01-26/pdf/2022- 01509.pdf B-1 APPENDIX B LIST OF STAFF CONFERENCE WITNESSES B-3 CALENDAR OF PUBLIC PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE Those listed below appeared in the United States International Trade Commission’s preliminary conference via videoconference: Subject: Steel Nails from India, Oman, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-673-677 and 731-TA-1580-1583 (Preliminary) Date and Time: January 20, 2022 - 9:30 a.m. OPENING REMARKS: In Support of Imposition (Matthew L. Kanna, Greenberg Traurig, LLP) In Opposition to Imposition (Michael P. House, Perkins Coie LLP) In Support of the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Greenberg Traurig, LLP Washington, DC on behalf of Mid Continent Steel & Wire Inc. (“Mid Continent”) Chris Pratt, U.S. Operations General Manager, Mid Continent George Skarich, Vice President of Sales, Mid Continent Remy Stachowiak, President and Chief Operation Officer, Tree Island Steel Chris Frantzen, Sales Manager, U.S. Residential Market, Tree Island Steel Joe Faron, Vice President of North American Field Sales, KYOCERA SENCO Industrial Tools, Inc. Jennifer Lutz, Partner, ION Economics, LLC Rosa S. Jeong ) ) – OF COUNSEL Matthew L. Kanna ) B-4 In Opposition to the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders: Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP Washington, DC on behalf of Astrotech Steels Pvt. Ltd. Trinity Steel Pvt. Ltd. The Hillman Group Jon Michael Adinolfi, President, The Hillman Group Aaron Gula, General Manager, The Hillman Group Doug Rhodus, Sr. Director of Sourcing, The Hillman Group Meagan Jump, Customs and Trade Manager, The Hillman Group Tony Kovac, Director of Product Management, The Hillman Group Ned H. Marshak ) Andrew T. Schutz ) – OF COUNSEL Eve Q. Wang ) Husch Blackwell, LLP Washington, DC on behalf of PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. Metropolitan Staple Corp. Steel Products Company, Inc. Steel & Wire Northeast, LP Scott Smith, Chief Commercial Officer, PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. Mark Buedel, President of Steel Products Company, Inc. and Steel & Wire Northeast, LP Howard Kastner, President, Metropolitan Staple Corp. Nithya Nagarajan ) ) – OF COUNSEL Jeffrey S. Neeley ) B-5 In Opposition to the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders (continued): Fox Rothschild LLP Washington, DC on behalf of Building Material Distributors, Inc., Building Products of America, LLC Continental Materials, Inc., DC International, Inc., Fanaco Fasteners, LLC Kratos Building Products, Inc., SouthernCarlson, Inc. Aslanbas Nail Wire Mesh Co. (Aslanbas Civi Tel Celik Hasir A.S.) Jinhai Hardware Co., Ltd. Ken Ippoliti, Vice President – Sourcing, SouthernCarlson, Inc. Lizbeth R. Levinson ) ) – OF COUNSEL Ronald M. Wisla ) Perkins Coie LLP Washington, DC on behalf of Oman Fasteners, LLC Steve Karaga, President, Oman Fasteners Company, LLC Joe Leffler, President and Chief Executive Officer, Metabo HPT, a brand of Koki Holdings America Dr. Robert Rogowsky, Ph.D., Professor, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey Jeffrey Klenk, Director, Berkeley Research Group Michael P. House ) Andrew Caridas ) – OF COUNSEL Caroline Bisk ) B-6 In Opposition to the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders (continued): Appleton Luff Washington, DC on behalf of Viper Industrial Products Inc. Todd Mazur, President, Viper Industrial Products Inc. Edmund Sim ) – OF COUNSEL REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS: In Support of Imposition (Rosa S. Jeong, Greenberg Traurig, LLP) In Opposition to Imposition (Jeffrey S. Neeley, Husch Blackwell, LLP) -END- C-1 APPENDIX C SUMMARY DATA Table C-1 Steel nails: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, by period Jan-Sep 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Producers' share (fn1)............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** Importers' share (fn1): India..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Oman................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Sri Lanka............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Thailand............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Turkey.................................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Subject sources.............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** All import sources....................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** U.S. consumption value: Amount..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Producers' share (fn1)............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** Importers' share (fn1): India..................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Oman................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Sri Lanka............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Thailand............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Turkey.................................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Subject sources.............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** All import sources....................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** U.S. imports from: India: Quantity............................................... 38,975 33,690 28,443 20,290 27,807 ▼(27.0) ▼(13.6) ▼(15.6) ▲37.0 Value.................................................... 46,751 39,613 29,313 20,741 32,891 ▼(37.3) ▼(15.3) ▼(26.0) ▲58.6 Unit value............................................. $1,200 $1,176 $1,031 $1,022 $1,183 ▼(14.1) ▼(2.0) ▼(12.4) ▲15.7 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Oman: Quantity............................................... 64,670 73,189 72,119 52,501 68,473 ▲11.5 ▲13.2 ▼(1.5) ▲30.4 Value.................................................... 91,766 98,308 93,133 67,116 96,535 ▲1.5 ▲7.1 ▼(5.3) ▲43.8 Unit value............................................. $1,419 $1,343 $1,291 $1,278 $1,410 ▼(9.0) ▼(5.3) ▼(3.9) ▲10.3 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Sri Lanka: Quantity............................................... 18,806 28,746 30,891 22,122 24,832 ▲64.3 ▲52.9 ▲7.5 ▲12.3 Value.................................................... 23,016 32,507 29,671 21,381 26,979 ▲28.9 ▲41.2 ▼(8.7) ▲26.2 Unit value............................................. $1,224 $1,131 $960 $967 $1,086 ▼(21.5) ▼(7.6) ▼(15.1) ▲12.4 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** Thailand: Quantity............................................... 34,646 40,035 48,716 37,112 43,650 ▲40.6 ▲15.6 ▲21.7 ▲17.6 Value.................................................... 41,909 47,869 59,161 45,108 58,503 ▲41.2 ▲14.2 ▲23.6 ▲29.7 Unit value............................................. $1,210 $1,196 $1,214 $1,215 $1,340 ▲0.4 ▼(1.2) ▲1.6 ▲10.3 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Turkey: Quantity............................................... 36,061 48,164 51,758 39,539 43,252 ▲43.5 ▲33.6 ▲7.5 ▲9.4 Value.................................................... 39,776 49,338 51,768 39,382 53,006 ▲30.1 ▲24.0 ▲4.9 ▲34.6 Unit value............................................. $1,103 $1,024 $1,000 $996 $1,226 ▼(9.3) ▼(7.1) ▼(2.4) ▲23.0 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Subject sources: Quantity............................................... 193,158 223,822 231,927 171,563 208,013 ▲20.1 ▲15.9 ▲3.6 ▲21.2 Value.................................................... 243,218 267,634 263,046 193,728 267,914 ▲8.2 ▲10.0 ▼(1.7) ▲38.3 Unit value............................................. $1,259 $1,196 $1,134 $1,129 $1,288 ▼(9.9) ▼(5.0) ▼(5.1) ▲14.1 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Nonsubject sources: Quantity............................................... 589,818 462,866 513,297 376,647 448,582 ▼(13.0) ▼(21.5) ▲10.9 ▲19.1 Value.................................................... 756,016 624,883 639,253 470,001 653,257 ▼(15.4) ▼(17.3) ▲2.3 ▲39.0 Unit value............................................. $1,282 $1,350 $1,245 $1,248 $1,456 ▼(2.8) ▲5.3 ▼(7.8) ▲16.7 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** All import sources: Quantity............................................... 782,976 686,688 745,224 548,209 656,595 ▼(4.8) ▼(12.3) ▲8.5 ▲19.8 Value.................................................... 999,234 892,517 902,298 663,729 921,171 ▼(9.7) ▼(10.7) ▲1.1 ▲38.8 Unit value............................................. $1,276 $1,300 $1,211 $1,211 $1,403 ▼(5.1) ▲1.8 ▼(6.8) ▲15.9 Ending inventory quantity.................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Table continued. C-3 Quantity=short tons; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per short ton; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted Reported data Period changes Calendar year Jan-Sep Comparison years Table C-1 Continued Steel nails: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, by period Jan-Sep 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 2018-20 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity....................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Production quantity.................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Capacity utilization (fn1)........................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** U.S. shipments: Quantity............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Value.................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Unit value............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Export shipments: Quantity............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** *** Value.................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Unit value............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Ending inventory quantity........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Inventories/total shipments (fn1)............. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Production workers.................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Hours worked (1,000s)............................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Wages paid ($1,000)............................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Hourly wages (dollars per hour).............. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Productivity (short tons per 1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** Unit labor costs........................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Net sales: Quantity............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Value.................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Unit value............................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Cost of goods sold (COGS)..................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Gross profit or (loss) (fn2)........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** SG&A expenses...................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Operating income or (loss) (fn2).............. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Net income or (loss) (fn2)........................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Unit COGS............................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit SG&A expenses............................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit operating income or (loss) (fn2)....... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Unit net income or (loss) (fn2)................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** COGS/sales (fn1)..................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1).... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Net income or (loss)/sales (fn1)............... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Capital expenditures................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Research and development expenses... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Net assets................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** *** fn1.--Reported data are in percent and period changes are in percentage points. 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.--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. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and official U.S. import statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau using statistical reporting numbers 7317.00.5501, 7317.00.5502, 7317.00.5503, 7317.00.5505, 7317.00.5507, 7317.00.5508, 7317.00.5511, 7317.00.5518, 7317.00.5519, 7317.00.5520, 7317.00.5530, 7317.00.5540, 7317.00.5550, 7317.00.5560, 7317.00.5570, 7317.00.5580, 7317.00.5590, 7317.00.6530, 7317.00.6560, and 7317.00.7500, accessed January 26, 2022. Imports are based on the imports for consumption data series. Import alue data reflect landed duty-paid values. C-4 Quantity=short tons; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per short ton; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted Reported data Period changes Calendar year Jan-Sep Comparison years D-1 APPENDIX D SECTION 232 ACTIONS D-3 Table D-1 Section 232 actions: Presidential proclamations affecting imports of steel articles, since 2018 Item Action and duration (effective dates) Federal Register Notice General action The President implemented 25 percent ad valorem national-security duties on U.S. steel imports— March 23, 2018 to present. 83 FR 116251 Argentina Exempted from duties— March 23, 2018 to April 30, 2018. 83 FR 133612 Exemption from duties continued— May 1, 2018 to May 31, 2018. 83 FR 206833 Exemption from duties continued, but subject to annual quota limits— June 1, 2018 to present. 83 FR 258574 Australia Exempted from duties— March 23, 2018 to April 30, 2018. 83 FR 133612 Exemption from duties continued— May 1, 2018 to May 31, 2018. 83 FR 206833 Exemption from duties continued— June 1, 2018 to present. 83 FR 404295 Brazil Exempted from duties— March 23, 2018 to April 30, 2018 83 FR 133612 Exemption from duties continued— May 1, 2018 to May 31, 2018 83 FR 206833 Exemption from duties continued, but subject to annual quota limits— June 1, 2018 to present. 83 FR 258574 Canada Exempted from duties— March 23, 2018 to May 31, 2018. 83 FR 116251 Exemption from duties not continued— June 1, 2018 to May 19, 2019. 83 FR 206833 Exemption from duties reinstated— May 20, 2019 to present. 84 FR 239876 European Union (“EU”) member countries Exempted from duties— March 23, 2018 to April 30, 2018. 83 FR 133612 Exemption from duties continued— May 1, 2018 to May 31, 2018. 83 FR 206833 Exemption from duties not continued— June 1, 2018 to present. 83 FR 206833 Duty rate of 25 percent not continued, but each member country is subject to individual annual quota limits— January 1, 2022 to present 87 FR 117 Korea Exempted from duties— March 23, 2018 to April 30, 2018. 83 FR 133612 Exemption from duties continued, but subject to annual quota limits— May 1, 2018 to present. 83 FR 206833 Mexico Exempted from duties— March 23, 2018 to May 31, 2018. 83 FR 116251 Exemption from duties not continued— June 1, 2018 to May 19, 2019. 83 FR 206833 Exemption from duties reinstated— May 20, 2019 to present. 84 FR 239876 Turkey Duty rate doubled to 50 percent ad valorem— August 13, 2018 to May 20, 2019. 83 FR 404295 Duty rate reduced from 50 percent to 25 percent ad valorem— May 21, 2019 to present. 84 FR 234218 D-4 1 Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 9705, March 8, 2018, 83 FR 11625, March 15, 2018. 2 Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 9711, March 22, 2018, 83 FR 13361, March 28, 2018. 3 Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 9740, April 30, 2018, 83 FR 20683, May 7, 2018. 4 Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 9759, May 31, 2018, 83 FR 25857, June 5, 2018. 5 Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 9772, August 10, 2018, 83 FR 40429, August 15, 2018. 6 Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 9894, May 19, 2019, 84 FR 23987, May 23, 2019. 7 Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 10328, December 27, 2021, 87 FR 11, January 3, 2022. 8 Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, Presidential Proclamation 9886, May 16, 2019, 84 FR 23421, May 21, 2019. Note.--Presidential Proclamation 9705 (clause (1)) defined ”steel articles” at the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) 6-digit level as: 7206.10 through 7216.50, 7216.99 through 7301.10, 7302.10, 7302.40 through 7302.90, and 7304.10 through 7306.90, including any subsequent revisions to these HTS classifications. Note.--The United Kingdom officially completed its withdrawal from EU membership on January 31, 2021. EU, “Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community,” Official Journal of the European Union, L 29/7, January 31, 2020, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12020W/TXT. E-1 APPENDIX E U.S. SHIPMENTS BY TYPE AND FINISH E-3 Table E-1 Steel nails: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments AUVs, by type and finish, and source, 2020 Unit values in dollars per short ton Item U.S. producers India Oman Sri Lanka Thailand Turkey Collated: bright finish *** *** *** *** *** *** Collated: galvanized finish *** *** *** *** *** *** Collated: other finishes *** *** *** *** *** *** Collated: All finishes *** *** *** *** *** *** Bulk: bright finish *** *** *** *** *** *** Bulk: galvanized finish *** *** *** *** *** *** Bulk: other finishes *** *** *** *** *** *** Bulk: All finishes *** *** *** *** *** *** All types: bright finish *** *** *** *** *** *** All types: galvanized finish *** *** *** *** *** *** All types: other finishes *** *** *** *** *** *** All types and finishes *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. E-4 Table E-1 Continued Steel nails: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments AUVs, by type and finish, and source, 2020 Unit values in dollars per short ton Item Subject sources Nonsubject sources All import sources Collated: bright finish *** *** *** Collated: galvanized finish *** *** *** Collated: other finishes *** *** *** Collated: All finishes *** *** *** Bulk: bright finish *** *** *** Bulk: galvanized finish *** *** *** Bulk: other finishes *** *** *** Bulk: All finishes *** *** *** All types: bright finish *** *** *** All types: galvanized finish *** *** *** All types: other finishes *** *** *** All types and finishes *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.