ITC Investigation 1921-TA-197 is a U.S. International Trade Commission antidumping (AD) proceeding on Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-319-320, 325-328, 348-350; and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612 and 614-618 (Second Review) from Sweden, Belgium, United Kingdom, Poland, Brazil, Canada, Taiwan, Mexico, Finland, Germany, Romania, Australia, Spain, South Korea, Japan, and France. It's in the review phase and currently in completed status. It links to AD/CVD case A-122-822 — see the linked order for the active deposit rate, scope text, and Federal Register citation.
Phase, parties, documents, and full text from USITC IDS
Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-319-320, 325-328, 348-350; and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612 and 614-618 (Second Review)
ITC sunset review completed — order continued.
Documents
Full text (2,074,350 chars)
=== USITC PUB 3899 === Certain Carbon Steel Products From Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom Investigation Nos. AA1921-197 (Second Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review) VOLUME I: Determination and Views of the Commission Publication 3899 January 2007 U.S. International Trade Commission Robert A. Rogowsky Director of Operations COMMISSIONERS Address all communications to Secretary to the Commission United States International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 Jennifer A. Hillman Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, Chairman Stephen Koplan Deanna Tanner Okun Charlotte R. Lane Staff assigned Elizabeth Haines, Investigator Michael Szustakowski, Investigator Kelly Clark, Economist Gerald Houck, Industry Analyst Heather Sykes, Industry Analyst Mary Klir, Accountant June Brown, Attorney David Fishberg, Attorney Mary Jane Alves, Attorney Gabriel Ellenberger, Research Assistant Steven Hudgens, Statistician Douglas E. Corkran, Supervisory Investigator U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 January 2007 www.usitc.gov Publication 3899 Certain Carbon Steel Products From Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom Investigation Nos. AA1921-197 (Second Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review) VOLUME I: Determination and Views of the Commission i CONTENTS Page Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Views of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Separate and Dissenting Views of Commissioner Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane with Respect to Certain Carbon Corrosion-Resistant Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Introduction and Overview Introduction and overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-1 The original investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-2 The Commission’s investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-2 Subsequent proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-4 The first reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-4 The Commission’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-4 Subsequent proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-5 Previous and related title VII investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-5 Previous and related safeguard investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-10 Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-12 Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-12 Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-14 Cut-To-Length (CTL) Plate Part I: Introduction and Overview General information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-1 Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-6 Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-6 Results of expedited and full five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-12 Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-16 The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-17 Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-17 Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-18 The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-19 Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-19 Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-19 Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-21 Domestic like product issues concerning wide flat bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-22 Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-22 Interchangeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-23 Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-23 Common manufacturing facilities, employees, and processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-23 Producer and consumer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-24 Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-24 ii CONTENTS – Continued Page Part I: Introduction and overview – Continued Domestic like product issues concerning micro-alloy CTL plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-25 Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-25 Interchangeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-26 Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-27 Common manufacturing facilities, employees, and processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-27 Producer and consumer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-27 Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-28 U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-28 U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-28 U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-30 U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-32 Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-34 Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-1 U.S. channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-1 Supply and demand considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-3 U.S. supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-3 U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-9 Substitutability issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-13 Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-15 Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports . . . CTL-II-21 Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-28 U.S. supply elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-28 U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-28 Substitution elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-28 Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-3 Anticipated changes in existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-5 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-6 U.S. producers’ domestic shipments, company transfers, and export shipments . . . CTL-III-7 U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-9 U.S. producers’ imports and purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-10 U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-11 Financial experience of the\ U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-12 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-12 Operations on CTL plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-12 Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-15 Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-16 iii CONTENTS – Continued Page Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-1 Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-7 Fungibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-7 Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-8 Presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-10 U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-11 The industry in Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-11 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-11 CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-12 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-13 The industry in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-13 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-13 CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-14 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-15 The industry in Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-15 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-15 CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-16 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-17 The industry in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-17 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-17 CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-18 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-23 The industry in Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-24 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-24 CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-25 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-26 The industry in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-26 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-26 CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-27 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-29 The industry in Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-29 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-29 CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-30 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-31 The industry in Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-31 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-31 The industry in Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-32 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-32 The industry in Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-34 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-34 CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-35 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-36 The industry in the United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-36 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-36 CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-37 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-39 iv CONTENTS – Continued Page Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries – Continued Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-39 Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-39 Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-40 Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-40 Additional global supply and demand factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-42 Consolidation among global producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-45 Global raw material availability and prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-45 Regional developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-46 Part V: Pricing and related information Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-1 Raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-1 Transportation costs to the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-2 U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-3 Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-3 Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-9 Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-9 Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-10 Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-11 Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-15 Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-16 v CONTENTS – Continued Page Corrosion-Resistant (CORE) Steel Part I: Introduction and overview General information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-1 Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-5 Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-5 Results of expedited and full five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-10 Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-12 The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-14 Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-14 Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-15 The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-15 Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-15 Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-16 Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-16 Domestic like product issues concerning micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel . . . . CORE-I-17 Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-17 Interchangeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-18 Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-18 Common manufacturing facilities, employees, and processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-18 Producer and consumer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-19 Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-19 U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-19 U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-19 U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-21 U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-23 Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-25 Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-1 U.S. channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-1 Supply and demand considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-3 U.S. supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-3 U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-9 Substitutability issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-13 Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-15 Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports . . . CORE-II-21 Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-25 U.S. supply elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-25 U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-25 Substitution elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-25 vi CONTENTS – Continued Page Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-2 Anticipated changes in existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-4 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-5 U.S. producers’ domestic shipments, company transfers, and export shipments . . . CORE-III-6 U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-9 U.S. producers’ imports and purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-10 U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-10 Financial experience of the U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-11 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-11 Operations on corrosion-resistant steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-12 Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-15 Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-16 Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-1 Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-4 Fungibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-5 Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-6 Presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-7 U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-8 The industry in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-9 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-9 Corrosion-resistant steel operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-9 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-11 The industry in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-11 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-11 Corrosion-resistant steel operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-12 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-14 The industry in France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-15 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-15 Corrosion-resistant steel operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-16 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-17 The industry in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-18 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-18 Corrosion-resistant steel operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-19 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-21 The industry in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-21 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-21 Corrosion-resistant steel operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-23 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-25 The industry in Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-25 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-25 Corrosion-resistant steel operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-26 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-30 vii CONTENTS – Continued Page Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries – Continued Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-32 Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-32 Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-31 Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-33 Additional global supply and demand factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-35 Consolidation among global producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-38 Global raw material availability and prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-38 Regional developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-39 Part V: Pricing and related information Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-1 Raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-1 Transportation costs to the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-3 U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-4 Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-4 Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-8 Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-8 Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-8 Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-9 Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-16 Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-17 Appendixes Appendixes A. Federal Register notices and statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 B. Hearing witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 C. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 D. Treatment of CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel in the HTSUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1 E. Excluded forms of carbon steel products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1 F. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers regarding flat bar and other forms of CTL plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1 G. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers regarding carbon and micro-alloy steel CTL plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1 H. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers regarding carbon and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1 I. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers regarding the effects of the orders on CTL plate and the likely effects of revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 J. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers regarding the effects of the orders on corrosion-resistant steel and the likely effects of revocation . . . J-1 K. Additional purchasing factor comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K-1 Note.–Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks. 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)). 2 Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Stephen Koplan dissenting with respect to corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Canada, France, and Japan. UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Investigation Nos. AA1921-197 (Second Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348 and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review) Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom DETERMINATION On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and the antidumping finding on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Taiwan, as well as revocation of countervailing duty orders on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Belgium, Brazil, Mexico, Spain, and Sweden, would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission further determines that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on corrosion- resistant steel from Germany and Korea and the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel from Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Finally, the Commission determines that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Canada, France, and Japan, as well as the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel from France, would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.2 BACKGROUND The Commission instituted these reviews on November 1, 2005 (70 F.R. 62324, October 31, 2005), and determined on February 6, 2006, that it would conduct full reviews (70 F.R. 8874, February 21, 2006). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission’s reviews and of public hearings to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on March 30, 2006 (71 F.R. 16178). The hearings were held in Washington, DC, on October 17 and 19, 2006, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. 1 Commissioners Koplan and Lane dissenting with respect to certain corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Canada, France and Japan. See Separate and Dissenting Views of Commissioner Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane with respect to Certain Carbon Corrosion-Resistant Steel. They join the Commission’s views in Sections I, II, III, IV, and V, and, with respect to corrosion-resistant steel, Sections VI.A and VI.B on domestic like product and domestic industry, respectively. 2 See Carbon Steel Plate from Taiwan, Inv. No. AA1921-197, USITC Pub. 970 at 5-7 (May 1979). The Commission defined the domestic industry as a regional one encompassing the states of California, Oregon, and Washington. See USITC Pub. 970 at 4-5. 3 See Certain Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-319-332, 334, 336-342, 344, and 347-353 (Final), and Invs. Nos. 731-TA-573-579, 581-592, 594-597, 599-609, and 612-619 (Final), USITC Pub. 2664 at 217, 237, and 242 (Aug. 1993). 4 See USITC Pub. 2664 at 237-38, 241-44. 3 VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION Based on the record in these second five-year reviews, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the countervailing duty orders on certain imports of flat-rolled carbon steel cut-to-length steel plate (“CTL plate”) from Belgium, Brazil, Mexico, Spain, and Sweden, of the antidumping duty orders on CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, as well as of the antidumping finding on CTL plate from Taiwan would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. With respect to certain corrosion-resistant steel, we determine under section 751(c) of the Act that revocation of the countervailing duty order on certain corrosion-resistant steel from Korea and of the antidumping duty orders on certain corrosion-resistant steel from Germany and Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. We also determine that revocation of the countervailing duty order on certain corrosion-resistant steel from France and of the antidumping duty orders on certain corrosion- resistant steel from Australia, Canada, France, and Japan would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.1 I. SUMMARY A. Cut-To-Length Plate 1. Background and Market Conditions These five-year reviews concern an antidumping finding issued in 1979 as well as antidumping and countervailing duty orders issued in 1993. In its 1979 finding, the Commission concluded that subject CTL plate imports from Taiwan increased sharply in volume, substantially undersold and suppressed prices for the domestic like product, and resulted in lost sales and lower profitability for the domestic industry.2 The more numerous determinations made in 1993 occurred in the context of a national economic recession, a shrinking U.S. market for CTL plate, and falling CTL plate prices.3 The focus of those determinations was that the domestic industry had lost market share to subject imports, subject imports depressed and suppressed prices for domestic CTL plate, and domestic industry profits turned to losses as unit production costs climbed and prices for CTL plate fell. 4 In 2000, the Commission conducted five-year reviews of the finding and orders, and determined that revocation would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury. At the time of 5 See Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Invs. Nos. AA1921-197 (Review), 701-TA-231, 319-20, 322, 325-28, 340, 342, and 348-350 (Review), and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, and 614-618 (Review), USITC Pub. 3364 at 29, 32 (Nov. 2000). 6 See USITC Pub. 3364 at 28. 7 Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane exercise their discretion to cumulate subject imports from all eleven subject countries. In doing so, they determine that (1) subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, assessed individually, are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation; (2) subject imports from these countries are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product in the event of revocation; and (3) many of the likely conditions of competition faced by subject imports from each of these subject countries are similar. See their separate views with respect to cumulation below in Section V. Separate Views of Commissioners Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane on Cumulation with Respect to Cut-To- Length Plate Products. 4 the reviews, successive waves of unfairly traded CTL plate had left the domestic industry in a weakened condition and prices for CTL plate were deteriorating or, at best, had stabilized at low levels.5 Under these adverse conditions of competition, the Commission found that even relatively modest volumes of subject imports would be likely to have a significant adverse effect on prices for domestic CTL plate as well as on the domestic industry.6 The adverse conditions that figured in both the original determinations and first five-year reviews are no longer in evidence. The domestic industry is now stronger and fundamentally changed after a difficult period marked by bankruptcies, mergers, and asset acquisitions. New and efficient capacity was brought into production, less efficient capacity was shuttered, labor productivity increased, and existing capacity was reorganized to enhance producers’ ability to manage production volumes in response to changes in demand. Some integrated mills shed legacy costs through bankruptcy, and producers generally will accrue fewer such costs in the future as a result of new labor agreements. Moreover, prices for CTL plate in the U.S. market have doubled or nearly doubled since 2000 as demand has expanded both in the United States and worldwide. The strong demand that drove the price increases is projected to increase during the reasonably foreseeable future. 2. Cumulation7 In the current reviews, the Commission has exercised its discretion to consider the likely effects of subject imports on a cumulated basis, except for subject imports from Mexico and Romania. Subject imports from Mexico are ineligible for cumulation because revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on those imports would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. The CTL plate industry in Mexico is smaller than any other subject industry, it exports only very small volumes, and even operating at very high rates of capacity utilization, it is unable to meet home market demand. In addition, Mexico is a net importer of CTL plate, and prices for CTL plate in Mexico are comparable to those in the United States. As to subject imports from Romania, the Commission declines to exercise its discretion to cumulate those imports because they would likely compete under different conditions of competition than would those from the remaining nine subject countries. The sole CTL plate producer in Romania is related to a major U.S. producer, Romania has more excess capacity than any other subject country, and it is the only subject country that is subject to tariff barriers in third-country markets. 8 Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane have exercised their discretion to cumulate subject imports from all eleven subject countries. Thus, they examine the likely cumulated volume of CTL imports from eleven subject countries (Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom) in the event of revocation and because they concur with Vice Chairman Aranoff’s definition of the domestic like product, they also refer to data for the non-alloy CTL plate industry such as that summarized in Table C-1. 5 3. Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom: Likely Volume, Likely Price Effects, and Likely Impact8 In evaluating the likely effects of revocation of the finding and orders on subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, we do not find it likely that the cumulated volume of subject imports will be significant. We note first that the combined production capacity for the nine subject countries has declined substantially since 1993. In addition, the CTL plate industry in each subject country is currently operating at a higher rate of capacity utilization than in 1993, except for a small decline in the still high capacity utilization rate for the industry in Brazil. Demand for CTL plate is projected to grow in the markets served by the subject producers, and, in turn, these subject producers which project no substantial increases in production capacity within the reasonably foreseeable future. For these reasons, the nine subject countries would have considerably less ability to increase shipments to the United States upon revocation than they did prior to the orders. For some of the same reasons, these foreign producers would lack a volume-based incentive to increase shipments to the United States upon revocation. The subject CTL plate producers were generally operating at high levels of capacity utilization in 2005, over 90 percent in most cases. Demand in the markets served by those producers is projected to remain strong and grow during the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, the foreign producers already have non-U.S. markets into which they sell a large percentage of their production. Nor is there a strong price motivation to increase shipments to the United States. In general, prices for CTL plate in the markets served by the subject foreign producers are high and comparable to U.S. prices, even prior to allowing for higher shipping costs to the United States. Although there may be such a price incentive vis-a-vis sales currently made into some Asian markets, most of the subject producers export mainly to countries within the European Union, where prices are high and comparable to U.S. prices. Although the European Union is not the primary export market for the CTL plate industries in Taiwan and Brazil, Taiwan ships over *** percent of its production to the home market, and Brazil similarly ships over *** percent of production to the home market, with most of the rest of Brazilian production exported to neighboring markets in Latin America. Moreover, supply shortages continue in the U.S. market for certain types of CTL plate, U.S. demand is projected to grow, and there are no projected additions to production capacity in the United States for the reasonably foreseeable future. For the reasons summarized here, we do not find it likely that the volume of the cumulated subject imports will be significant in the event of revocation. Moreover, we do not find that the cumulated subject imports would likely significantly undersell the domestic like product or would likely have significant price depressing or price suppressing effects on prices for domestically produced CTL plate upon revocation. Most of the very large price increases for CTL plate in the U.S. market occurred during 2004, despite a concurrent increase in the volume of total imports. While prices for raw materials also increased, the spread between the price of CTL plate and raw materials enlarged. Growing demand for CTL plate caused the price increases, and that demand is projected to remain strong and grow in the reasonably foreseeable future. Finally, in considering the likely impact of the cumulated subject imports, we find the domestic industry is no longer in a vulnerable state. As noted, the industry has emerged stronger and transformed after passing through a difficult period. Two of what are now the three leading domestic producers invested in new, efficient facilities, while the third rationalized and consolidated much of the integrated 9 Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane have exercised their discretion to cumulate subject imports from all eleven countries and do not join in the discussion in this section. 10 Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane have exercised their discretion to cumulate subject imports from all eleven countries and do not join in the discussion in this section. 6 segment of the industry. Most industry performance indicators improved dramatically during the period of review, including production, U.S. shipments, net sales, capacity, and capacity utilization. Operating losses experienced until 2003 turned to very strong profits in 2004 and thereafter. Consistent with these very favorable financial indicators, there was no evidence that the domestic industry was experiencing a cost/price squeeze. Moreover, the conditions that have enabled these strong improvements in industry performance are not likely to change in the reasonably foreseeable future, as efficiency gains are not likely to be lost and demand is projected to remain strong and grow. In this environment, and considering that the cumulated subject imports are not likely to be significant in volume or to have significant adverse price effects, we find that revocation of the finding and orders on CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom is not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. 4. Mexico: Likely Volume, Likely Price Effects, and Likely Impact9 In evaluating the likely effects of revocation of the orders on subject imports from Mexico, we do not find it likely that the volume of subject imports from Mexico will be significant. Prior to the orders, the volume of subject imports from Mexico never exceeded 1.2 percent of apparent U.S. consumption and such imports were non-existent or very small during the period of review. Despite producing at very high rates of capacity utilization, the Mexican CTL plate industry is unable to meet home market demand, with the result that Mexico has become a significant net importer of CTL plate. Exports by the Mexican CTL plate industry to all markets have been small or non-existent over the period of review. For the reasons summarized here, we do not find it likely that the volume of CTL plate imports from Mexico would be significant in the event of revocation. With *** available excess capacity, the CTL plate industry in Mexico has no incentive to price aggressively in order to ship large volumes of subject product into the U.S. market. Given the likely small volume of subject imports from Mexico in the event of revocation, and the sustained rise in CTL plate prices in the U.S. market, we do not find it likely that subject imports from Mexico will have significant price depressing or price suppressing effects on the price of domestic CTL plate within a reasonably foreseeable time. In evaluating the likely impact of subject imports from Mexico, we consider that the domestic industry is not vulnerable and has reported large profits since 2004. Accordingly, and given that it is not likely that subject imports from Mexico will be significant in volume or have significant adverse price effects, we find that revocation of the orders on CTL plate from Mexico would not be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. 5. Romania: Likely Volume, Likely Price Effects, and Likely Impact10 In evaluating the likely effects of revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Romania, we do not find it likely that the volume of subject imports will be significant. Although the CTL plate industry in Romania likely has the ability to increase shipments to the United States substantially, we find that it lacks the incentive to do so because (1) the sole CTL plate producer in Romania recently became affiliated with a major U.S. producer and (2) Romanian CTL plate exports are increasingly directed to the European Union, a market likely to become more attractive after Romania’s likely accession to the European Union in early 2007. 7 Previously a state-owned enterprise, the sole Romanian producer became affiliated with the multinational Mittal Steel companies in 2001. The Mittal companies gained their first presence in the United States upon acquiring the assets of domestic producer ISG in April 2005, naming the new enterprise Mittal Steel U.S.A. Consistent with these events, exports of CTL plate to the United States increased irregularly from 2001 through 2004, but fell in 2005 by more than half compared to 2004, and there were only *** short tons exported during interim 2006 compared to *** short tons during interim 2005. The corporate affiliation between Mittal Steel Galati and Mittal Steel U.S.A. makes it unlikely that the Romanian producer would move aggressively to capture U.S. market share or sell CTL plate in such a manner that would have a negative effect on prices received by the domestic industry. The European Union is a more likely destination than the United States for any additional CTL plate exports from Romania. CTL plate exports from Romania to the European Union have grown irregularly since 2000, and were sharply higher during the first half of 2006, when they accounted for nearly *** of total shipments by the Romanian CTL plate industry. Moreover, as of the closing of our record, Romania’s membership to the European Union was scheduled to be ratified by early 2007. Accession to the European Union will facilitate Mittal Steel Galati’s access to that very large market, making it an even more attractive export destination. Recent EU market prices for CTL plate have been comparable to U.S. prices, even before factoring in additional transportation costs, providing another reason that any shift in exports by Mittal Steel Galati will more likely be to the European Union than more distant markets such as the United States. For the reasons summarized here, we do not find it likely that the volume of subject CTL plate from Romania will be significant in the reasonably foreseeable future in the event of revocation. As to likely price effects, the record evidence shows that CTL plate prices rose sharply during 2004, and have remained at or near historic highs through late 2006. In particular, all five pricing products examined by the Commission registered their greatest price increases in 2004, the same year that subject imports from Romania reached their highest levels during the period of review. As noted, demand for CTL plate in the U.S. market is projected to remain strong and grow in the reasonably foreseeable future. For these reasons, and given that CTL plate imports from Romania are not likely to be significant in volume, we conclude that subject imports from Romania are not likely to have significant adverse price effects. As to the likely impact of subject imports from Romania, we also note that the domestic industry is not vulnerable, that the industry has reported very large operating margins beginning in 2004, and that demand for CTL plate in U.S. is projected to grow during the reasonably foreseeable future. Given that subject imports from Romania are not likely to be significant in volume or have significant adverse price effects, and considering the very strong financial results of the domestic industry, we do not find it likely that the subject imports would have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation. B. Corrosion-Resistant Steel 1. Majority Views a. Background and Market Conditions The Commission’s determination in the original investigations in 1993 found the domestic industry had been materially injured by reason of the significant and increasing volume of corrosion- resistant steel from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea, the high import penetration throughout the period of investigation, the significant loss of market share for the domestic industry 11 USITC Pub. 2664 at 188-192. 12 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 8 during a time of increasing apparent domestic consumption, the inability of the domestic industry to capture market share even with price discounting, and the lower profitability of the domestic industry.11 Substantial changes in the U.S. market and industry have taken place since the issuance of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders in August 1993, particularly since 2000. The domestic industry producing corrosion-resistant steel experienced several bankruptcies, and shed billions of dollars of pension obligations to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Following these actions, significant parts of the industry underwent consolidation and rationalization, a process that was facilitated in part by the United States placing global safeguards on a variety of steel products, including corrosion-resistant steel, from March 2002 through December 2003. Domestic producers renegotiated labor contracts, reduced their fixed costs, and increased their productivity. As a result of these consolidations, the top four domestic mills, AK Steel, Mittal Steel USA, Nucor and U.S. Steel, now account for *** percent of U.S. corrosion-resistant steel production in 2005, as compared to *** percent in 1999. Furthermore, several producers have expanded their facilities, invested in greenfield facilities, or announced expansion plans (e.g., CSN, Winner Steel, SeverCorr, Steelscape, Mittal, and Nucor). While corrosion-resistant steel production remains capital intensive, these changes have lowered the industry’s fixed costs. As a result, it now is better able to control output and maintain price levels in response to changing business cycles than it was during the original investigations and first reviews. Consolidations and mergers among corrosion-resistant steel producers worldwide as well as in the United States since the original investigations have supported a regionalization of production strategies by multinational companies. For example, Mittal Steel N.V. acquired the assets of several U.S. producers, including LTV, Bethlehem Steel, and Weirton Steel. In June 2006, Mittal announced a merger with Arcelor. Once this merger closes in the first half of 2007, it will form the world’s largest steel producer with steelmaking facilities located in regions throughout the world. The stated strategy of both Arcelor and Mittal, even before their merger, was to acquire or build plants to serve clients within a region, rather than having to export product from one region to another region. Apparent U.S. consumption has grown substantially since the original investigations, when it was 13.6 million short tons in 1992, to 22.7 million short tons in 2005.12 In 2004 and 2005, the U.S. market experienced tight supplies, which affected contract terms between domestic producers and purchasers in the U.S. auto industry. U.S. demand has been robust through the first half of 2006, and demand growth is expected to continue for the reasonably foreseeable future, but at a slower rate. While North American auto production appears to be declining somewhat in 2006, it is expected to recover in 2007 and grow at a slow rate through 2008. Demand in the non-residential construction sector, however, is expected to remain strong into 2007. Demand for corrosion-resistant steel outside the United States increased during the review period, particularly in China and other industrializing countries in Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. Global vehicle production is expected to increase in the foreseeable future, driven by developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil. b. Cumulation In the current reviews, we consider the likely effects of subject imports based on three groupings of subject countries. As to subject imports from Canada, we decline to exercise our discretion to cumulate those imports because they likely would compete under different conditions than would imports from the remaining subject countries. The Canadian industry is unique in that auto producers and auto parts suppliers treat the United States and Canada as a unified market for production and sourcing decisions. These producers require just-in-time delivery of supplies; thus, North American corrosion- resistant steel producers possess an economic advantage over other mills. 9 As to subject imports from Germany and Korea, we exercise our discretion to cumulate those imports because they likely would compete under different conditions than would those from Australia, France, and Japan. Unlike subject producers in Australia, France, and Japan, producers in Germany and Korea have evidenced a strong interest in exporting to the North American market generally, confirming the attractiveness of the North American region to these producers; yet they have limited production facilities in North America from which to service their interests. Finally, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan because subject producers in those countries have demonstrated a lack of interest in supplying the U.S. market to any significant degree. Instead, the industries in all three countries are focused to a significant extent on markets in their respective regions (namely, Asia for Australia and Japan, and the European Union for France), including their home markets. To the extent that Japan and France have any interest in sales in the U.S. market, they are likely to sell corrosion-resistant steel from their U.S.-based affiliates or subsidiaries. c. Australia, France, and Japan: Likely Volume, Likely Price Effects, and Likely Impact In the absence of the orders, we do not find it likely that the volume of subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan would be significant. Producers in the three cumulated countries currently supply the least amount of corrosion-resistant steel to the U.S. market out of the subject countries. They have operated at relatively high capacity utilization rates during the review period. Their focus has been predominantly on their home and regional markets. In 2005, only *** percent of Australia’s exports were to destinations outside Asia; less than *** percent of French shipments were exported outside the European Union; and less than *** percent of Japan’s total shipments were exported outside the Asian region. Producers in the three cumulated countries have not shown a strong interest in the United States or the broader North American market, and the record evidence does not indicate that there are volume- based incentives for this to change in the reasonably foreseeable future. In Australia, the sole producer is focused on its home and nearby Asian markets. Its production is for non-automotive applications as it manufactures primarily pre-fabricated construction components. It has set up local corrosion-resistant production facilities in multiple Asian countries to serve regional construction markets. The corrosion-resistant steel it sells in China and other Asian markets is of higher quality than what these Asian producers currently produce or likely will be able to produce in the reasonably foreseeable future. Thus, growing Asian production of other types of corrosion-resistant steel is unlikely to displace Australia’s exports to that region. In France, the Arcelor-Mittal merger, which is scheduled to close in the first half of 2007, will establish an affiliation between two large multinational producers, Mittal Steel and Arcelor, which have large production operations in both the United States and France. The French industry, which has essentially been absent from the U.S. market at least since the first review period, will have even less incentive to resume shipments to the United States, given the merger. After the orders were imposed, Japanese producers began to supply transplant Japanese automakers in the United States with corrosion-resistant steel made by the Japanese producers’ U.S. affiliates. Most Japanese producers now are related to U.S. producers of corrosion-resistant steel accounting for more than *** percent of U.S. production. Some of these relationships have led to technology transfers to the U.S. joint ventures or *** in the United States. Furthermore, demand in Japan and Asia generally grew throughout the period of review and is expected to continue to grow in the reasonably foreseeable future. Japanese exports to China are concentrated in electro-galvanized corrosion-resistant steel, which is not made in China and would thus not be displaced by any increase in Chinese capacity to produce other corrosion-resistant steel. 10 For the reasons summarized here, we do not find it likely that the volume of these cumulated subject imports would be significant in the event of revocation of the orders. Nor do we find that the cumulated subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan would likely have significant price depressing or price suppressing effects on U.S. prices. U.S. prices have been strong and rose during the period of review for the following reasons: (1) rapidly growing demand, both in the United States and globally; (2) substantial increases in raw material and energy costs; and (3) the restructuring of the domestic industry during the review period, which lowered the domestic industry’s fixed costs somewhat and gave it more flexibility than in the past to manage output in order to maintain prices in the face of rising costs. While prices for some products had fallen from their period highs by mid-2006, a number of U.S. producers announced additional price increases in the middle of 2006 and the record shows that a number of contracts recently negotiated for shipments in the second half of 2006 and 2007 are at higher prices for domestic producers than in previous periods. We recognize that auto producers testified that, although they prefer to buy corrosion-resistant steel from North American suppliers in order to satisfy their just-in-time inventory requirements, the availability of subject imports in the event of revocation of the orders would give them leverage to negotiate more favorable prices. The record does not support the likelihood that subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan will result in significant price depressing or price suppressing effects on prices for domestically produced corrosion-resistant steel. Producers in these cumulated subject countries have neither the capacity nor the incentive to ship significant quantities of the subject product to the United States in the event of revocation. Thus, producers in these subject countries are unlikely to price aggressively for such limited sales or to ship significant enough volumes to create leverage for auto producers to negotiate significantly lower prices. Finally, in considering the likely impact of the cumulated subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan, we find the domestic industry is no longer in a vulnerable state. The consolidations and restructuring that occurred during the review period have resulted in an industry that is stronger and healthier than in previous periods considered. Domestic producers have renegotiated labor contracts, shed more than $7.5 billion in legacy costs, reduced their fixed costs, and increased their productivity. Following these significant structural changes, the industry returned to operating profitability and both current producers and new entrants have invested in new facilities or plan to add 1.9 million net tons of corrosion-resistant capacity by 2008. Moreover, the conditions that have enabled these strong improvements in industry performance are not likely to change in the reasonably foreseeable future, as efficiency gains are not likely to be lost and demand is projected to remain strong and grow, albeit at a slower rate. In this environment, and considering that these cumulated subject imports are not likely to be significant in volume or to have significant adverse price effects, we find that revocation of the orders on corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, France, and Japan is not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. d. Canada: Likely Volume, Likely Price Effects, and Likely Impact In the absence of the order, we do not find it likely that the volume of subject imports from Canada would be significant because Canadian producers lack a volume-based incentive to increase shipments to the United States. During the review period, the Canadian industry shipped the majority of its total shipments of corrosion-resistant steel to its home market. Canada is a net importer of corrosion- resistant steel, not only from the United States, but globally. Moreover, production and demand in the Canadian automotive and non-residential construction sectors are forecast to remain strong through 2008. Most of Canada’s exports to the United States are directed toward the automotive sector, which dominates the U.S. corrosion-resistant steel market. While imports from Canada have remained in the U.S. market despite the order, their volume has been relatively consistent and they primarily supplied the North American auto market pursuant to long-term contracts. Any increases in imports from Canada 11 during the period for the most part did not displace U.S. production, or represent sales lost to Canadian product on the basis of price, but rather reflected increased U.S. demand or ***. Nor do Canadian producers have a strong price motivation to increase shipments to the United States. Canadian prices have been comparable to U.S. prices, as would be expected in these markets showing significant connections in the automotive sector. These conditions are likely to remain for the reasonably foreseeable future. Thus, for the reasons summarized here, we do not find it likely that the volume of subject imports from Canada would be significant in the event of revocation of the order. As to likely price effects, the record evidence shows that U.S. prices have been strong and rose during the period of review because of growing demand, rising raw material and energy costs, and the increased flexibility of the domestic industry to manage output in order to maintain prices in the face of rising costs. U.S. producers recently negotiated contracts for shipments in the second half of 2006 and 2007 to auto producers that contain higher prices for domestic producers than in previous periods. Finally, the record also does not support the likelihood that subject imports from Canada will result in significant price depressing or price suppressing effects on prices for domestically produced corrosion- resistant steel. As to the likely impact of subject imports from Canada, we note that the domestic industry is not vulnerable, that the consolidations and restructuring that occurred during the review period have created a stronger and healthier industry, that the industry continues to invest and expand, and that demand for corrosion-resistant steel in the United States is projected to remain strong and grow in the reasonably foreseeable future. Given that subject imports from Canada are not likely to be significant in volume or have significant adverse price effects, and considering the healthy condition of the domestic industry, we do not find it likely that the subject imports would have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation. e. Germany and Korea: Likely Volume, Likely Price Effects, and Likely Impact In contrast, we determine that the likely volume of cumulated subject imports from Germany and Korea would be significant if those antidumping and countervailing duty orders are revoked. German and Korean producers have substantially increased both their combined production capacity and their production of corrosion-resistant steel since the original investigations. They have a combined excess capacity of *** short tons in 2005, equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2005. German and Korean producers have a volume-based incentive to increase shipments to the United States upon revocation. Subject producers have exhibited a strong interest in exporting to the United States and the rest of North America during the period of review and generally lack a significant North American production base from which to supply their customers. Several subject producers have strong relationships with U.S. distributors and/or customers that would facilitate their increased exports to the United States from their production operations in their home countries. Another indication of their strong interest in the North American market is the possibility that German producer ThyssenKrupp will establish a production facility in North America by purchasing the assets of Dofasco in Canada, or constructing or acquiring a production facility in the United States. The record, however, does not indicate that it is more likely than not that this will happen in the reasonably foreseeable future as all of these options are tied up in regulatory uncertainty or will take years to bring to fruition. Similarly, while POSCO has indicated plans to construct a production facility in Mexico, such a facility would not be completed in the reasonably foreseeable future. Thus, both producers will have to supply the U.S. market with exports. Subject producers from Korea also have a price motivation to increase shipments to the U.S. market. The majority of imports from Korea have gone into the non-automotive sector during the review period. A significant portion of Korea’s exports to its Asian markets is to the construction sector, which 13 Except, as noted in the Commission’s opinion, we join its determination regarding legal standards, cut-to- length plate, and CORE steel with respect to background, domestic like product, and domestic industry. 12 is typically project-based and not supplied under long-term contracts. U.S. prices for corrosion-resistant steel have typically been higher than prices in several Asian markets. As to likely price effects, we find that the cumulated subject imports from Germany and Korea would likely have significant price depressing or price suppressing effects on U.S. prices. While U.S. prices increased over the period of review and the U.S. industry has lowered its fixed costs, subject imports from Germany and Korea likely would have a significant effect on U.S. prices in the event of revocation of the orders. The substantially increased volume of subject imports from Korea likely would be priced aggressively to compete in non-automotive sectors. These imports would put pressure on spot prices, which would, in turn, negatively affect contract prices. In contrast to our finding that subject producers from Australia, Canada, France, and Japan either lack incentive or the ability to export significant volumes to the United States, the substantially increased volume of subject imports from both Germany and Korea likely would be used by U.S. automakers to leverage down U.S. prices, likely leading to significant price depression or suppression. To the extent that producers from both countries plan to establish North American production platforms, they will have to increase their volumes to this sector. Therefore, they are likely to build their automotive customer base with discounted prices. Finally, in considering the likely impact of the cumulated subject imports from Germany and Korea, we find that subject imports would have a significant adverse impact on the U.S. industry. While we do not find the domestic industry to be vulnerable, we do find that if the orders were revoked, the likely significant increase in the volume of subject imports from Germany and Korea, coupled with their likely adverse price effects, likely would have a significant negative impact on the domestic industry’s ability to cover its high raw material and energy costs. Even though the domestic industry is stronger and better able to weather changes in the corrosion-resistant steel market, aggressive pricing in the construction sector and the spot market, by subject imports from Korea, and the ability of the automakers to use the increased volumes of Korean and German product to leverage down prices in long-term contracts likely would injure the U.S. industry. 2. Separate and Dissenting Views of Commissioner Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane with respect to Corrosion-Resistant Steel Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we determine that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain carbon corrosion-resistant (“CORE”) steel from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Since we dissent from the Commission’s determination with respect to CORE steel imports from Australia, Canada, France, and Japan, we write separately to explain our findings.13 Cumulation. We have exercised our discretion to cumulatively assess the likely volume and effect of subject imports of CORE steel from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea. Based on the record regarding, inter alia, the capacity, excess capacity, and exports of the industries in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea, as well as their trade and pricing patterns during the original investigations and the first and second reviews, we find that subject imports from all six countries would be likely to have a discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the orders were revoked. We also find that a reasonable overlap of competition between the subject imports and the domestic like product would be likely to exist if the orders were revoked. While there are some variations in the volume and price trends for subject imports from all six countries during the current review period, we find that none of them are distinct from all others or that there are any significant differences in the conditions of competition among the subject countries. 14 Many of the conditions of competition are similar to those in the first reviews, including – demand for CORE steel is dependent on demand in the automotive and construction industries; demand for hot-dipped galvanized CORE steel grew while demand for electrogalvanized CORE steel declined; the CORE steel industry still is technologically complex, involves high fixed costs, is capital intensive in nature, and requires high capacity utilization rates to remain profitable; price continues to be an important factor in purchasing decisions, given the broad interchangeability of CORE steel; and domestic CORE steel is sold both by contract and on the spot market with little protection from contracts since price concessions are requested by purchasers if spot prices decline. 13 Conditions of Competition. While many of the conditions of competition in the first reviews are the same in the current reviews, 14 there are some differences which we also find relevant to our determinations: 1) apparent U.S. consumption for CORE steel increased substantially during the first reviews, but it only increased by 3.4 percent from 2000 to 2005 and is expected to remain flat or increase at a slower rate in the reasonably foreseeable future than over the current review period; 2) in spite of the consolidation and restructuring of the domestic CORE steel industry since the first reviews, the number of domestic CORE steel producers has remained about the same, the industry’s production capacity remained relatively steady, and its capacity utilization hovered around 80 percent during the current review period, down from 87.3 percent in 1999; 3) while plans for a number of investments were announced in 2005 and 2006, which will add 1.9 million short tons of CORE steel capacity by 2008, these investments will provide for substantially less additional capacity than the 6.7 million short tons that the industry’s positive performance warranted undertaking in the first review period; and 4) the U.S. CORE steel industry’s raw material costs and energy costs increased substantially over the second review period, which had a dramatic effect on CORE steel prices. Likely Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury. Given the subject producers’ reliance on export markets, their substantial and increasing excess capacity, taken together with the incentive to maximize production, and their continued and increasing presence in the U.S. market, we find that they likely will export significant and increasing volumes of CORE steel to the U.S. market upon revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. Thus, we find that the volume of cumulated subject imports likely would be significant if the orders were revoked. Because price is important to purchasing decisions, the presence of significant quantities of CORE steel imports that are likely to enter the U.S. market after revocation will force domestic CORE steel producers to either lower prices or lose sales. Thus, we also find that the likely volume of subject imports is likely to significantly both undersell and result in price depressing or suppressing effects on the prices of the domestic product, if the orders are revoked. The domestic CORE steel industry’s performance has been mixed during the current reviews. At the beginning of the current period, the domestic industry’s financial performance was lower than that in the first reviews and similar to its performance during the original investigations. While the domestic industry’s performance improved substantially in 2004, as apparent U.S. consumption and domestic production increased and capacity utilization reached a period high of 85 percent, this level of performance was not sustained as evidenced by the fact that the domestic industry’s operating income declined in 2005. Based on the record evidence in these reviews, we find that the domestic industry is currently vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked. We find that there are a number of important factors underlying the financial performance of the CORE steel industry. First, the swings in the domestic industry’s financial performance correlate to the increases in cost of goods sold, particularly rising raw material and energy costs. The evidence indicates that the automotive producers, which account for 47.6 percent of CORE steel shipments, have generally not agreed to contracts with adjustments for increases in raw material and energy costs. Thus, the domestic industry has been caught in a cost/price squeeze. Moreover, the automotive producers explicitly indicated that if the orders were revoked they would use the threat of competition from subject imports to ensure that the domestic CORE steel producers priced “competitively” and thus that this cost/price squeeze would continue. Second, the CORE steel producers with substantial shares of their shipments 15 See, e.g., Carbon Steel Plate from Taiwan, Inv. No. AA1921-197, USITC Pub. 970 (May 1979). The antidumping finding issued by Treasury on imports from Taiwan has been in place since June 13, 1979. See, e.g., Confidential Staff Report, Mem. INV-DD-159 (Nov. 22, 2006), as amended by Mem. INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006) and Mem. INV-DD-164 (Dec. 13, 2006) (“CR”) at OVERVIEW-2; Public Staff Report (“PR”) at OVERVIEW-2. 16 See, e.g., CR at OVERVIEW-3; PR at OVERVIEW-2. They also alleged that an industry in the United States was materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized hot-rolled products from seven countries and dumped imports of hot-rolled products from nine countries, and that an industry in the United States was materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized cold-rolled products from eleven countries and dumped cold-rolled products from fifteen countries. See, e.g., id. 17 In a joint opinion, four Commissioners cumulated subject CTL plate imports from at least eight countries, namely Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Mexico, Spain, and Sweden, as well as South Africa (which was the subject of a separate preliminary investigation by Commerce at the time). Commissioners Rohr and Watson cumulated subject imports from these eight countries with subject imports from Germany, Poland, Romania, and the United Kingdom. Commissioner Crawford cumulated subject imports only from these eight countries. (continued...) 14 devoted to the automotive sector generally are experiencing worse financial performance than those not serving the automotive sector. We consequently find that revocation of the orders under review will likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. We therefore determine that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CORE steel from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea will likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic CORE steel industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. II. BACKGROUND A. Original Investigations and Related Litigation There were two sets of original investigations that gave rise to the countervailing duty orders, antidumping duty orders, and antidumping finding at issue in these grouped reviews. First, in conjunction with its administration of the Trigger Price Mechanism, a program established to monitor prices at which certain steel mill products entered the United States, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) self-initiated on October 25, 1978, an antidumping duty investigation on CTL plate from Taiwan and published a corresponding dumping finding on February 14, 1979. In turn, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) instituted an investigation and on May 12, 1979, made its affirmative final determination that a U.S. regional industry consisting of domestic producers in California, Washington, and Oregon was injured or likely to be injured by subject imports from Taiwan.15 Second, on June 30, 1992, after expiration of the voluntary export agreements on steel that were concluded in 1984, domestic producers Armco, Bethlehem, Geneva, Gulf States, Ispat/Inland, Laclede Steel, LTV, Lukens, National, Sharon, USX, and WCI alleged in petitions filed simultaneously with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) and the Commission, inter alia, that an industry in the United States was materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of CTL plate from ten countries and dumped imports of CTL plate from fifteen countries and that an industry in the United States was materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized corrosion-resistant products from eight countries and dumped corrosion-resistant products from nine countries. 16 In its final determinations, the Commission concluded that the CTL plate industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of subsidized CTL plate imports from Belgium, Brazil, Germany, Mexico, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom as well as imports sold at less than fair value of CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.17 Based on pre-URAA negligibility criteria, at least four 17 (...continued) Commissioner Nuzum cumulated subject imports from these eight countries along with subject imports from France, Germany, Poland, Romania, and the United Kingdom. In his separate opinion, Commissioner Newquist cumulated subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Mexico, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden. In her separate opinion, Commissioner Brunsdale cumulated subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Mexico, Spain, and Sweden. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 2664 at 237 n.40, 276-77, and 330. 18 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 2664 at 219-36, 244-49, and 317. 19 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 2664 at 161-210. 20 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 2664. 21 See, e.g., 58 Fed. Reg. 43749 (Aug. 17, 1993) (Belgium CVD CTL plate); 58 Fed. Reg. 43751 (Aug. 17, 1993) (Brazil CVD CTL plate); 58 Fed. Reg. 43755 (Aug. 17, 1993) (Mexico CVD CTL plate); 58 Fed. Reg. 43761 (Aug. 17, 1993) (Spain CVD CTL plate); 58 Fed. Reg. 43758 (Aug. 17, 1993) (Sweden CTL plate); 58 Fed. Reg. 44164 (Aug. 19, 1993) (Belgium AD CTL plate); 58 Fed. Reg. 44164 (Aug. 19, 1993) (Brazil AD CTL plate); 58 Fed. Reg. 44165 (Aug. 19, 1993) (Finland AD CTL plate); 58 Fed. Reg. 44170 (Aug. 19, 1993) (Germany AD CTL plate); 58 Fed. Reg. 44165 (Aug. 19, 1993) (Mexico AD CTL plate); 58 Fed. Reg. 44166 (Aug. 19, 1993) (Poland AD CTL plate); 58 Fed. Reg. 44167 (Aug. 19, 1993) (Romania AD CTL plate); 58 Fed. Reg. 44167 (Aug. 19, 1993) (Spain AD CTL plate); 58 Fed. Reg. 44168 (Aug. 19, 1993) (Sweden AD CTL plate); 58 Fed. Reg. 44168 (Aug. 19, 1993) (United Kingdom AD CTL plate); 58 Fed. Reg. 43759 (Aug. 17, 1993) (France CVD corrosion-resistant steel); 58 Fed. Reg. 43752 (Aug. 17, 1993) (Korea CVD corrosion-resistant steel); 58 Fed. Reg. 44161 (Aug. 19, 1993) (Australia AD corrosion-resistant steel); 58 Fed. Reg. 44162 (Aug. 19, 1993) (Canada AD corrosion-resistant steel); 58 Fed. Reg. 44169 (Aug. 19, 1993) (France AD corrosion-resistant steel); 58 Fed. Reg. 44170 (Aug. 19, 1993) (Germany AD corrosion-resistant steel); 58 Fed. Reg. 44163 (Aug. 19, 1993) (Japan AD corrosion-resistant steel); and 58 Fed. Reg. 44159 (Aug. 19, 1993) (Korea AD corrosion-resistant steel). 22 See Czestochowa v. United States, 890 F. Supp. 1053 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1995). The CIT affirmed the Commission’s decision to include imports from South Africa in its cumulation analysis even though South Africa was not entitled to an injury determination because imports from that country were subject to a separate preliminary investigation by Commerce at the time of the Commission’s vote in these investigations. The CIT affirmed the Commission’s decision not to apply the negligible imports exception to cumulation to subject imports from Poland, Finland, and Romania. Finally, the CIT also affirmed the Commission’s decision to apply the negligible imports exception to cumulation to subject imports from France and Korea. 23 See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450 (1995). 15 Commissioners found subject CTL plate imports from France, Italy, and Korea to be negligible and, as a result of their negative final determinations, orders were not issued on subject CTL plate imports from these countries. 18 The Commission further found that the domestic corrosion-resistant steel industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from France, Germany, and Korea as well as imports sold at less than fair value of corrosion-resistant steel products from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea.19 The Commission reached negative determinations with respect to corrosion-resistant steel from Brazil, Mexico, New Zealand, and Sweden.20 Commerce published the countervailing duty orders on August 17, 1993 and the antidumping duty orders on August 19, 1993. 21 Several issues related to the Commission’s 1993 final determinations were appealed to the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”). With respect to CTL plate, the Court rejected all of the challenges and affirmed the Commission’s final determinations;22 this decision was not further appealed. With respect to corrosion-resistant-steel, the Court affirmed the Commission’s affirmative material injury determinations with respect to Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea, and its negative determinations with respect to Brazil, Mexico, New Zealand, and Sweden. 23 The Court remanded one Commissioner’s separate determination with respect to the application of the negligibility exception to 24 See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 827 (1995). 25 See Invs. Nos. AA1921-197 (Review), 701-TA-231, 319-20, 322, 325-28, 340, 342, and 348-50 (Review), and 731-TA-573-76, 578, 582-87, 604, 607-08, 612, and 614-18 (Review), USITC Pub. 3364 at 19-34 (Nov. 2000). Commissioners Koplan and Askey determined, however, that revocation of the order on CTL plate from the United Kingdom would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a foreseeable time. See id. at 59-61. 26 See USITC Pub. 3364 at 19-34. 27 See USITC Pub. 3364 at 47-58. 28 See, e.g., 65 Fed. Reg. 78469 (Dec. 15, 2000); 65 Fed. Reg. 78467 (Dec. 15, 2000). 29 See Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, 26 CIT 467 (2002). 30 See, e.g., Certain Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Invs. Nos. AA1921-197 (Review) (Remand), 701-TA-231, 319-20, 322, 325-28, 340, 342, and 348-50 (Review) (Remand), and 731-TA-573-76, 578, 582-87, 604, 607-08, 612, and 614-18 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3526 (Jul. 2002). 31 See Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, 26 CIT 1402 (2002). 32 See Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 16 cumulation to Mexican imports. Upon remand, the Court sustained the Commissioner’s clarified views. 24 These decisions were not further appealed. B. First Reviews and Related Litigation After conducting full five-year reviews of the grouped transition orders, on November 20, 2000, the Commission determined that revocation of the finding and orders on CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.25 It determined that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Canada would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.26 The Commission also reached an affirmative determination with respect to the orders on corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea.27 On December 15, 2000, Commerce published notices of the continuation of the countervailing and antidumping duty orders and finding as to which the Commission made affirmative determinations and of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Canada. 28 With respect to CTL plate, only the Commission’s review determinations concerning subject imports from Belgium and Germany were appealed to the CIT. Initially, the Court remanded the case for the Commission to apply the meaning of “likely” as “probable” in conducting both its cumulation analysis under 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7) and its likelihood of material injury analysis.29 On remand, the Commission provided further explanation for its views,30 and the CIT found that the Commission had adequately explained all the issues for which the determinations were remanded. 31 But, because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) had ruled in a separate proceeding that floor plate was not within the scope of the 1993 antidumping and countervailing duty orders that formed the basis for those reviews, the CIT again remanded the determinations so that the Commission could review the pertinent data without consideration of floor plate. 32 On the second remand, the Commission once again determined that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Belgium and Germany would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the 33 See, e.g., Certain Carbon Steel Products (Cut-to-Length Plate) from Belgium and Germany, Invs. Nos. 701-TA- 319 and 322 (Review) (Second Remand), and 731-TA-573 and 578 (Review) (Second Remand), USITC Pub. 3587 (Mar. 2003). 34 See Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 03-118, 2003 WL 22080731 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 8, 2003), aff’d, 112 Fed. Appx. 59 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2004). 35 The CIT remanded to the Commission to explain why the “no discernible adverse impact” standard did not preclude cumulation of imports from France and Germany, particularly in view of each country’s relatively high capacity utilization rates and their contention that their home markets and the European Union were and would remain the major focus of their exports. The NAFTA Panel likewise remanded the Commission’s decision to cumulate imports from Canada given, inter alia, its high capacity utilization rate. The NAFTA Panel also asked the Commission to address its finding that the domestic industry was vulnerable. In both remand opinions, the Commission provided a thorough analysis of the facts supporting its findings against no discernible adverse impact and explained that the threshold for a finding of a likely discernible adverse impact is lower than the threshold for finding likely volume and likely material injury, although some of the same facts may support both findings. See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From France and Germany, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-348-349, 731-TA- 615 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3539 (Sept. 2002); Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Canada, Inv. No. 731-TA-614 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3753 (Dec. 2004). 36 See Usinor v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004). 37 See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada, USA-CDA-2000-1904-11. 38 See 70 Fed. Reg. 62324 (Oct. 31, 2005) (notice of institution). 39 Commerce revoked the countervailing duty orders on CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel from Germany prior to the commencement of these second reviews. See 69 Fed. Reg. 17131 (Apr. 1, 2004). 17 domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.33 The CIT and, ultimately, the Federal Circuit, affirmed. 34 With respect to corrosion-resistant steel, the Commission’s first five-year review determinations regarding subject imports from France and Germany and subject imports from Canada were appealed to the CIT and a Chapter 19 North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) binational panel, respectively, and ultimately upheld after remand.35 The CIT held, in affirming the Commission on remand, that the statutory negligibility standard for original investigations does not apply to the Commission’s determination of “no discernible adverse impact” in five-year reviews.36 The NAFTA Panel likewise affirmed the Commission’s affirmative determination with respect to corrosion-resistant steel from Canada.37 C. Second Reviews The Commission instituted these second five-year reviews of the remaining finding and orders on CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel on November 1, 2005,38 and effective February 6, 2006, determined to conduct full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act.39 With respect to CTL plate, the Commission found the domestic interested party group response to the notice of institution to be adequate. It also found the respondent interested party group responses with respect to Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, and the United Kingdom to be adequate, but the respondent interested party group responses with respect to Romania, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan to be inadequate. The Commission decided, however, to conduct full reviews concerning CTL plate from all subject countries to promote administrative efficiency. With respect to corrosion-resistant steel, the Commission found the domestic interested party group response to the notice of institution for each set of reviews to be adequate, and the respondent interested party group responses to be adequate with respect to each of 40 See, e.g., 71 Fed. Reg. 8874 (Feb. 21, 2006) (notice of decision to conduct full reviews). 41 See 71 Fed. Reg. 11577 (Mar. 8, 2006) (Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom). 42 See 71 Fed. Reg. 32521 (June 6, 2006) (Mexico); 71 Fed. Reg. 32522 (June 6, 2006) (Brazil); 71 Fed. Reg. 32523 (June 6, 2006) (Spain). 43 See 71 Fed. Reg. 58587 (Oct. 4, 2006) (Sweden); 71 Fed. Reg. 58585 (Oct. 4, 2006) (Belgium). 44 See 71 Fed. Reg. 58585 (Oct. 4, 2006) (United Kingdom); 71 Fed. Reg. 62121 (Oct. 23, 2006) (terminating review); 71 Fed. Reg. 62121 (Oct. 23, 2006) (revoking countervailing duty order). 45 See 71 Fed. Reg. 32508 (Jun. 6, 2006) (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea ). 46 See 71 Fed. Reg. 32519 (Jun. 6, 2006) (Korea). 47 See 71 Fed. Reg. 58584 (Oct. 4, 2006) (France). 48 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 18 the subject countries. It, therefore, determined to conduct full reviews with respect to corrosion-resistant steel. 40 Commerce expedited its second reviews of the antidumping duty orders on CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom and the antidumping finding on CTL plate from Taiwan and published final affirmative review determinations on March 8, 2006.41 Commerce also expedited its second reviews of the countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Mexico, Brazil, and Spain and published final affirmative review determinations on June 6, 2006.42 Commerce conducted full second reviews of the other CTL plate countervailing duty orders and published affirmative determinations regarding subject imports from Belgium and Sweden on October 4, 2006.43 Commerce determined, however, that revocation of the countervailing duty order on CTL plate from the United Kingdom would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and terminated the order; the Commission terminated its related review accordingly.44 Commerce also expedited its second reviews of the antidumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea and published final affirmative review determinations on June 6, 2006. 45 Commerce expedited its second review of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel from Korea and published a final affirmative review determination on June 6, 2006.46 Commerce conducted a full second review of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel from France and published an affirmative determination on October 4, 2006.47 III. LEGAL STANDARDS The legal standards discussed below apply to all of our findings including our determinations related to subject imports of CTL plate that are found in section IV and our determinations related to corrosion-resistant steel that are found in section VI as well as the separate and dissenting opinions that follow. A. Domestic Like Product In making its determinations under section 751(c), the Commission defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”48 The Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or in 49 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979). 50 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 51 See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 682-83 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 52 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3831 at 10-14 (Dec. 2005). 53 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 19 the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.”49 B. Domestic Industry 1. In General Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant industry as the “domestic producers as a whole of a like product, or those producers whose collective output of the like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that product.”50 2. Sufficient Production-Related Activities In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include producers of all domestic production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market, provided that adequate production-related activity is conducted in the United States. 51 In assessing the nature and extent of production-related activities in the United States associated with a particular operation, the Commission generally considers six factors: (1) source and extent of the firm’s capital investment; (2) technical expertise involved in U.S. production activities; (3) value added to the product in the United States; (4) employment levels; (5) quantity and type of parts sourced in the United States; and (6) any other costs and activities in the United States directly leading to production of the like product. No single factor is determinative and the Commission may consider any other factors it deems relevant in light of the specific facts of any investigation or review.52 3. Related Parties The Commission must also determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from the domestic industry pursuant to section 771(4)(B) of the Act. That provision of the statute 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. 53 Exclusion of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts 54 See, e.g., 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). The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude the related parties include: (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, i.e. whether the firm benefits from the less than fair value sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue production and compete in the U.S. market; and (3) the position of the related producers vis-a-vis the rest of the industry, i.e. whether inclusion or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry. See, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161, 1168 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d mem., 991 F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Commission has also considered the ratio of import shipments to U.S. production for related producers and whether the primary interests of the related producers lie in domestic production or in importation. See, e.g., Melamine Institutional Dinnerware from China, Indonesia, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-741-743 (Final), USITC Pub. 3016 at 14 n.81 (Feb. 1997). 55 See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.2d 1, 12 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001). 56 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7). 57 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7). 58 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I (1994). 59 For a discussion of the analytical framework of Commissioner Koplan regarding the application of the “no discernible adverse impact” provision, see Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-278 to 280 (Review) and 731-TA-347 to 348 (Review), USITC Pub. 3274 (Feb. 2000); Iron Metal Construction Castings from India; Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil; and Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and China, Invs. Nos. 303-TA-13 (Review), 701-TA-249 (Review), and 731-TA-262, 263, and 265 (Review), USITC Pub. 3247 (Oct. 1999) (Views of Commissioner Stephen Koplan Regarding (continued...) 20 presented in each case.54 The purpose of the provision is to exclude domestic producers that substantially benefit from importation of subject merchandise or their relationships with foreign exporters.55 C. Cumulation Section 752(a) of the Act provides that: the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or (c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete with each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of the subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.56 Thus, cumulation is discretionary in five-year reviews. The Commission may exercise its discretion to cumulate, however, only if the reviews are initiated on the same day and the Commission determines that the subject imports are likely to compete with each other and the domestic like product in the U.S. market. The statute precludes cumulation if the Commission finds that subject imports from a country are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.57 We note that neither the statute nor the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) provides specific guidance on what factors the Commission is to consider in determining that imports “are likely to have no discernible adverse impact” on the domestic industry.58 With respect to this provision, the Commission generally considers the likely volume of the subject imports and the likely impact of those imports on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the orders are revoked.59 59 (...continued) Cumulation). 60 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product are: (1) the degree of fungibility between the imports from different countries and between 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 imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar channels of distribution for imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the imports are simultaneously present in the market. See Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-278 to 280 (Final), USITC Pub. 1845 (May 1986), aff’d, Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 915 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). 61 See Mukand, 937 F. Supp. at 916; Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50, 52 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989) (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”); United States Steel Group, 873 F. Supp. at 685. We note, however, that there have been investigations where the Commission has found an insufficient overlap in competition and has declined to cumulate subject imports. See, e.g., Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-386 (Prelim.) and 731-TA-812 to 813 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3155 at 15 (Feb. 1999), aff’d, Ranchers- Cattlemen Action Legal Foundation v. United States, 74 F. Supp.2d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999); Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-761-762 (Final), USITC Pub. 3098 at 13-15 (Apr. 1998). 62 See, e.g., Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 05-00488 at 17 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 22, 2006) (recognizing the wide latitude the Commission has in selecting the type of factors it considers relevant in undertaking its cumulation analysis). 63 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675(c)(1), 1675a(a). 21 The Commission generally has considered four factors intended to provide a framework for determining whether the imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.60 Only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is required.61 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether there likely would be competition even if none currently exists. Moreover, because of the prospective nature of five-year reviews, we have examined not only the Commission’s traditional competition factors, but also other significant conditions of competition that are likely to prevail if the orders under review are terminated. 62 D. Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury If the Antidumping Duty Orders, Antidumping Finding, and Countervailing Duty Orders Are Revoked: Legal Standards 1. In General In five-year reviews conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke an antidumping duty order or finding or a countervailing duty order unless: (1) it makes a determination that dumping or a countervailable subsidy, as the case may be, is likely to continue or recur, and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation of the order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”63 The SAA states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counter-factual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the status quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and prices of 64 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never completed.” SAA at 883. 65 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed shipment levels and current and likely continued [sic] prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” SAA at 884. 66 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., Slip Op. 05-1019 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-153 at 7-8 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 24, 2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-152 at 4 n.3 & 5-6 n.6 (Ct. Int’l Trade Dec. 20, 2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 19, 2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”). 67 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in these reviews and all subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addresses this issue. 68 For a complete statement of Commissioner Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see Additional Views of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review) and 731-TA-707-710 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005). 69 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). 70 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts), and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term, such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id. 71 In analyzing what constitutes a reasonably foreseeable time, Commissioner Koplan examines all the current and likely conditions of competition in the relevant industry. He defines “reasonably foreseeable time” as the length of time it is likely to take for the market to adjust to a revocation or termination. In making this assessment, he considers all factors that may accelerate or delay the market adjustment process including any lags in response by foreign producers, importers, consumers, domestic producers, or others due to: lead times; methods of contracting; the need to establish channels of distribution; product differentiation; and any other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term. In other words, this analysis seeks to define “reasonably foreseeable time” by reference to current and likely conditions of competition, but also seeks to avoid unwarranted speculation that may occur in predicting events into the more distant future. 22 imports.”64 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in nature. 65 The CIT has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.66 67 68 The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or termination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”69 According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will exceed the ‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”70 71 72 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). 73 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily dispositive. See SAA at 886. 74 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to use the “facts otherwise available” in reaching a determination when: (1) necessary information is not on the record or (2) an interested party or other person withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time, form, or manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to section 781(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). The verification requirements in section 781(i) are applicable only to Commerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). See Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp.2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“the ITC correctly responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the evidence before it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of Commission investigations.”) 75 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as a whole in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does not automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the level of participation and the interpretations urged by participating parties, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869. 76 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 23 Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an original antidumping or countervailing duty investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute provides that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”72 It also directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determinations, whether any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the orders, whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).73 Notwithstanding the large number of subject countries involved in these reviews, in only a very limited number of instances did specific subject producers or importers of subject merchandise not submit a questionnaire response. We have relied on information available when appropriate, which consists primarily of information from the original investigations and first five-year reviews, information submitted in these second reviews, and information collected in these second reviews.74 75 2. Conditions of Competition and Business Cycle In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statute directs the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”76 3. Likely Volume In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping finding, antidumping duty orders, and countervailing duty orders were to be revoked, the Commission is directed 77 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). 78 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675a(a)(2)(A) to 1675a(a)(2)(D). 79 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely on circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAA at 886. 80 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 81 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 24 to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.77 In doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories; (3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.78 4. Likely Price Effects In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the finding and orders were to be revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of the domestic like product. 79 5. Likely Impact In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the finding and orders were to be revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to: (1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product. 80 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry. 81 82 We applied the domestic like product legal standards discussed in section III above. 83 USITC Pub. 970 at A-1. 84 58 Fed. Reg. 37062 (Jul. 9, 1993). 85 Commerce issued a scope ruling confirming that profile slabs from Brazil were within the scope of the order; and, as a result of a changed circumstances review, Commerce revoked the order with respect to shipments of plate from the United Kingdom, Finland, and Germany with a maximum thickness of 80 mm in steel grades BS 7191, 355 EMZ, as amended by Sable Offshore Energy Project specification XB MOO Y 15 001, types 1 and 2. See 64 Fed. (continued...) 25 IV. CTL PLATE A. Domestic Like Product 1. In General82 a. Scope of These Reviews In the 1979 investigation, Treasury identified the subject plate from Taiwan as: Hot-rolled carbon steel plate, 0.1875 inch or more in thickness, over eight inches in width, not in coils, not pickled, not coated, or plated with metal, not clad, other than black plate, and not pressed or stamped to non-rectangular shape. Such merchandise is classifiable under Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated item number 607.6615. 83 In the 1993 investigations, Commerce identified CTL plate as a separate “class or kind” of merchandise subject to investigation and defined the scope as follows: These products include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, painted nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the HTS under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included in these investigations are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been worked after rolling”) – for example, products which have been bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from these investigations is grade X-70 plate. These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.84 As of 2000, the time of the first reviews of these orders, Commerce had made a few rulings that clarified the scope with respect to specific products or countries.85 During litigation of the Commission’s 85 (...continued) Reg. 46343 (Aug. 25, 1999). 86 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-20; PR at CTL-I-18. 87 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 970 at 3. 88 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 2664 at 214-16. 89 The Commission also noted that “[g]rade X-70 plate was specifically excluded from the scope of the 1993 plate investigations of all countries, and it does not appear that it was included in the 1979 investigation on Taiwan.” Therefore, the Commission did not include grade X-70 plate in the domestic like product in the first determinations. 90 See, e.g., HTSUS, Chapter 72 Note 1(f). 91 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-29; PR at CTL-I-25. 26 first review determinations, as a result of separate litigation, Commerce also excluded from the scope floor plate from Belgium imported by Duferco Steel, Inc. “with patterns in relief derived directly from the rolling process.”86 As noted above, the CIT remanded the Commission’s first review determinations for consideration of this fact. The scope of these second reviews parallels the scope applicable at the time of the Commission’s second remand determinations in the first reviews. b. Domestic Like Product Findings in the Original Investigations and in the First Reviews In the 1979 original investigation regarding subject imports from Taiwan, the Commission did not make a domestic like product determination insofar as none was required under the Antidumping Act of 1921 in effect at the time, although the Commission noted that injury was to the carbon steel plate industry. 87 In the 1993 original investigations, the Commission found a single domestic like product consisting of CTL plate, and it further determined that neither universal mill plate nor beveled plate (i.e., plate with nonrectangular cross-section) were separate domestic like products.88 In the first reviews and related remand determinations, the Commission defined a single domestic like product consisting of CTL plate (including floor plate), consistent with its 1993 original determinations and declined to expand the domestic like product to include micro-alloy products.89 Two domestic like product issues are presented in these second reviews: (1) whether to expand the domestic like product to include micro-alloy products and (2) whether wide flat bars rolled on a bar mill are a separate domestic like product. 2. Whether to Expand the Domestic Like Product to Include Micro-alloys a. Background and Prior Treatment of This Issue The HTSUS differentiates among three categories of steel: stainless steel, “other alloy steel” and “non-alloy steel.” Steel that is not stainless steel but that contains one or more alloying elements in an amount that exceeds a specified level is defined as “other alloy steel.” Steel that is not stainless steel or other alloy steel is referred to as “non-alloy steel.”90 The commonly used industry term “carbon steel” arguably includes some steel that must be classified under the HTSUS as alloy steel.91 In particular, the use of small amounts of such alloying elements as columbium, vanadium, and titanium to produce a class of steels known as high-strength, low-alloy steels is common, and these steel compositions (“micro-alloy steel”) are often considered within the industry to be carbon steel, regardless of whether the amounts of the alloying elements are sufficient to require that the steel be classified as alloy steel under the HTSUS 92 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-30; PR at CTL-I-25 to CTL-I-26. 93 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-29 to CTL-I-30; PR at CTL-I-25. 94 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-29 n.47; PR at I-25 n.47. 95 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3364 at 5-7. 96 The Commission recognized that some domestic producers had not been able to segregate micro-alloy products out of their reported information in the first reviews. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3364 at 23 n.126. In these second reviews, data including and not including micro-alloy products were collected, and the questionnaires defined micro- alloy based on the definition used in the 2005 CTL plate reviews using the term “micro-alloy” in a narrow sense to refer to steel that contains one or more alloying elements in an amount that falls within a specified range, but none of the elements in a quantity greater than indicated. See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-30; PR at CTL-I-26. 97 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3364 at 5-7. 98 In those reviews, Commissioner Koplan declined to expand the domestic like product to include micro-alloy plate because Commerce had not been asked to and had not amended the scope to include those products, there was no evidence of significant technological changes in the production of plate since the original investigations (just an apparent increase in the amount of micro-alloy products being produced with that equipment), and because there was no evidence on the record of circumvention of the orders, which could furnish a potential motivation for the domestic producer’s request to expand the domestic like product. In his judgment, the evidence on the record regarding changes in the product fell short of establishing support for a modification of the original domestic like product determinations or for warranting a like product broader than the scope of the imported products subject to those reviews. 27 definitions. 92 Micro-alloy steel is, therefore, a subset of alloy steel under the HTSUS but also commonly considered within the industry as a carbon steel product along with non-alloy steel products.93 The scope of these second reviews, like the scope of the original investigations and first reviews, includes only steel that is classified as “non-alloy” under the HTSUS, and does not include alloy or micro-alloy products. 94 In the first reviews of these orders, the Commission rejected a request by domestic producer U.S. Steel to expand the definition of the domestic like product to include micro-alloy products. 95 In these second reviews, no party asked the Commission to expand the domestic like product to include micro-alloy products. b. Analysis of Relevant Facts and Conclusion In the first reviews of these orders, U.S. Steel advocated for the expansion of the domestic like product to include micro-alloy products. The Commission declined to expand the domestic like product to include such steel. It explained that this issue had not been considered and thus micro-alloy products were not specifically included in the domestic like product in the original investigations. It found that there was insufficient record evidence to indicate that changes in the marketplace had been sufficient to support modification of the domestic like product determinations made in the original investigations or to warrant a like product that was broader than the scope of the imported products subject to the reviews. The Commission also noted the absence of a standard definition of micro-alloy steel products, the fact that the issue was not raised until the prehearing briefs,96 and the related time constraints on the Commission’s ability to collect additional data or comments.97 A few years later, however, in the 2003 CTL plate reviews involving a different set of orders, Certain Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review), USITC Pub. 3626 at 7-9 (Sept. 2003) (Commissioner Koplan dissenting),98 again at U.S. Steel’s request, the Commission decided to expand the domestic like product to include micro-alloy products even though micro-alloy products were not within the scope of those orders. The Commission acknowledged that there had been no major technology changes since the original investigations but found there was increased usage of micro-alloy CTL plate in applications traditionally filled by non-alloy 99 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3626 at 8-9. The Commission also noted that it had considered micro-alloy steel to be part of the domestic like product in several original investigations and reviews involving CTL plate, hot-rolled steel, and cold-rolled steel. See, e.g., Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products from Australia, India, Japan, Sweden, and Thailand, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-965, 971-72, 979, and 981 (Final), USITC Pub. 3536 (Sept. 2002); Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Argentina and South Africa, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-404 (Final) and 731-TA-898 and 905 (Final), USITC Pub. 3446 (Aug. 2001); Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products from Argentina, Brazil, Japan, Russia, South Africa, and Thailand, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-393 and 731-TA-829 to 830, 833 to 834, 836, and 838 (Final), USITC Pub. 3283 (Mar. 2000); Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea, Invs. Nos. 701-TA- 387 to 391 (Final) and 701-TA-816 to 821 (Final), USITC Pub. 3273 at 5 (Jan. 2000); Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-807 (Final), USITC Pub. 3202 (June 1999); Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Brazil, Japan, and Russia, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-384 (Prelim.) and 731-TA-806 to 808 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3142 at 6 (Nov. 1998); see also, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-387 to 391 (Final) and 701-TA-816 to 821 (Final), USITC Pub. 3816 at 4-6 (Nov. 2005). 100 Nucor argues that micro-alloy plate and Grade X-70 plate cost more to produce and are purchased by customers that require additional product characteristics. As Nucor explains, if non-alloy plate, micro-alloy plate, and Grade X-70 were part of a continuum, Nucor would undoubtedly produce much more micro-alloy and Grade X- 70 plate than it does. See, e.g., Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Exh. 9 at 2. 101 Mittal asserts, however, that inclusion of the micro-alloy products in the definition of the domestic like product would not substantially alter the Commission’s analysis. See, e.g., Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 7; Mittal’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Answers to Commissioner Lane’s Questions at 8. 102 Domestic producers IPSCO and Oregon do not advocate any change in the definition of the like product previously determined by the Commission, and they insist that their arguments apply with equal force regardless of the treatment of micro-alloy plate. See, e.g., IPSCO/Oregon Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 4; IPSCO/Oregon Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at A-20. 103 See, e.g., Brazilian Respondents’ Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 1 n.1; AHMSA’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 7 n.23; Caterpillar’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 4. In their joint prehearing brief, several respondent interested parties argue that whether the Commission defines the domestic like product to include micro-alloy CTL plate or not, the record demonstrates that these orders should be terminated. See, e.g., Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 2 n.1. 104 Compare, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1 with, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2 (indicating that in 2005, 1.3 million short tons of micro-alloy CTL plate were produced compared to 7.2 million short tons of non-alloy CTL plate). 28 CTL plate, and it found that the differences between the two products were not so pronounced as to constitute clear dividing lines. In the absence of any contrary arguments, it expanded the domestic like product to include micro-alloy products.99 In these reviews, domestic producer Nucor states that there is a clear delineation in the marketplace between non-alloy CTL plate and other products such as micro-alloy plate and Grade X-70 plate. 100 Mittal, the owner of the former U.S. Steel CTL plate mill, also advocates defining the domestic like product consistent with the original determinations (i.e., without expanding the domestic like product to include micro-alloys). 101 Other domestic producers also advocate for the same definition of the domestic like product as in the original investigations and reviews.102 Respondent interested parties have taken no position on this issue and state that the result is the same regardless of how the Commission defines the domestic like product. 103 The record indicates that there is a sizeable amount of micro-alloy CTL plate production in the United States.104 We review the facts using the Commission’s traditional domestic like product factors: Physical characteristics and uses: Micro-alloy steel generally refers to steel designed to provide better mechanical properties or greater resistance to atmospheric corrosion than conventional non-alloy carbon steel. Although technically classified under the HTSUS as an alloy steel, micro-alloy steel is more 105 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-30 to CTL-I-31, Appendix G-3 to G-4, G-8, G-11; PR at CTL-I-25 to CTL-I-26; USITC Pub. 3626 at 8-9. 106 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3626 at 8-9. 107 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-30 to CTL-I-31, Appendix G-3 to G-4, G-8, G-11; PR at CTL-I-25 to CTL-I-26; USITC Pub. 3626 at 8-9. 108 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-21; PR at CTL-I-19. 109 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-21 to CTL-I-22; PR at CTL-I-19. 110 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-22; PR at CTL-I-19. 111 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-31, Appendix G-4 to G-5, G-8 to G-9, G-11 to G-12; PR at CTL-I-26; USITC Pub. 3626 at 7-9. 112 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-32, Appendix G-6 to G-7, G-10, G-12; PR at CTL-I-27; USITC Pub. 3626 at 7-9. 29 similar in physical characteristics and uses to non-alloy steel than to alloy steel.105 Only when plate is metallurgically tested are the differences between non-alloy and micro-alloy steel apparent.106 Most questionnaire respondents agree that there are only moderate differences in physical uses between non- alloy and micro-alloy plate. When compared to non-alloy grade plate, micro-alloy steel plates generally have higher strength and toughness characteristics; thus, micro-alloy plate is typically used for applications such as construction and earth-moving/mining equipment, rail cars, line pipes, poles and towers, armored vehicles, and machine parts and bridges.107 Non-alloy CTL plate is used in welded load- bearing and structural applications, such as agricultural and construction equipment (e.g., cranes, bulldozers, scrapers, and other tracked or self-propelled machinery); machine parts (e.g., the body of the machine or its frame); transmission towers and light poles; buildings; and heavy transportation equipment, such as railroad cars (especially tank cars) and ships.108 Non-alloy CTL plate is also used in the production of tanks, sills, floors, offshore drilling rigs, pipes, petrochemical plants and machinery, and various other fabricated products. 109 Non-alloy CTL plate can also be used in utility applications, such as wind towers and pressure vehicles.110 Interchangeability: The two types of plate are interchangeable in a variety of applications, although the generally higher cost of micro-alloy plate would discourage its use in the most common applications. Micro-alloy steels are good substitutes where increased strength is required along with less weight. The increased strength levels achieved by the alloy additions enable the thickness of the plate to be reduced, creating a lighter product. The higher strength of micro-alloy plate, however, may exceed design requirements, and certain alloys may be restricted by customers. Also, the higher cost of micro- alloy plate may exceed the budgets of some customers.111 Customer and producer perceptions: Micro-alloy steel is considered by the industry to be carbon, rather than alloy, steel because it is designed to satisfy specific mechanical properties rather than chemical composition requirements. Some questionnaire respondents report that micro-alloy plate is perceived to be a higher-quality product than non-alloy plate, due to its greater longevity, wear resistance, and strength. Many producers and customers, however, reportedly perceive little or no difference in comparable grades of non-alloy and micro-alloy plate. 112 Common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees: Of the fourteen mills and the ten processors producing plate in the United States, six mills and one processor also produce micro-alloy plate. The manufacturing process for micro-alloy plate is essentially the same as the process for non-alloy plate, but larger amounts of alloying elements are used in the production of micro-alloy steel. Control-temperature rolling and heat-treating are often used for micro-alloy plate, while these techniques may not be used in the production of non-alloy plate. The same equipment and employees are used to produce both non-alloy and micro-alloy plate. Since the original investigations, there have been no major changes in plate production technology and methods in the United States, 113 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-32, Appendix G-5; PR at CTL-I-27; USITC Pub. 3626 at 7-9. 114 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-31; PR at CTL-I-27; CR/PR at Tables CTL-I-18, CTL-I-20; CR at Appendix G-5 to G- 6, G-9 to G-10, G-12; USITC Pub. 3626 at 8-9. 115 The period of review for these second reviews was from January 2000 through June 2006. 116 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-33, Appendix G-7 to G-8, G-10 to G-11, G-12; PR at CTL-I-28; USITC Pub. 3626 at 8- 9. 30 although the plate market has seen an increased use of micro-alloy steel plate in applications traditionally filled by non-alloy plate.113 Channels of distribution: Both non-alloy and micro-alloy plate are sold through service centers and directly to end users, primarily original equipment manufacturers. On the other hand, non-alloy plate is typically purchased in standard grades for inventory, while micro-alloy plate tends to be purchased for specific jobs or by OEMs, a tendency that is reflected in the greater share of sales to end users.114 Price: Micro-alloy steel generally is priced from the base price for non-alloy steel rather than for alloy steel. Micro-alloy plate is usually priced higher than non-alloy plate due to the costs for the additional alloying elements. Questionnaire respondents do not agree about the exact premium, although reported data for the period of review115 indicate that average unit values for micro-alloy plate were consistently higher than for non-alloy plate. 116 Although there are some similarities in physical characteristics, micro-alloy steel has higher levels of certain alloying elements that provide it better mechanical properties or greater resistance to atmospheric corrosion than conventional non-alloy steel. These differences are apparent after metallurgical testing and are important to specific end-users and for specific end-uses. These differences limit interchangeability because the generally higher manufacturing cost and price of micro-alloy products would discourage their use for the more common applications for which non-alloy CTL plate is suitable. Although both are commonly considered carbon steel products, for certain customers and domestic producers, there are important differences between the two products. The same equipment and employees are used to produce both, although micro-alloy products require the addition of alloying elements during the production process. Whereas non-alloy CTL plate is typically purchased in standard grades for inventory, micro-alloy CTL plate tends to be purchased by end users for specific jobs or by OEMs. In conclusion, the factual record with respect to the traditional six-factor test is mixed, and consistent with this reality, three Commissioners decided to expand the domestic like product to include 117 While the original like product definition is the starting point for the like product definition in five-year reviews, the Commission has stated that it may revisit its original like product determination in appropriate circumstances, including when there have been significant changes in the product at issue since the original investigation. See Notice of Final Rulemaking, 63 Fed. Reg. 30599, 30602 (June 5, 1998); Carbon Steel Wire Rod From Argentina, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-A (Review) and 731-TA-157 (Review), USITC Pub. 3270 at 4-9 (Jan. 2000). The CIT has endorsed this approach. See, e.g., Chefline Corp. v. United States, 170 F. Supp.2d 1320, 1326-27 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001). Based on the record in these reviews, Chairman Pearson, Commissioner Hillman, and Commissioner Okun find it appropriate to include micro-alloy steel CTL plate in the definition of the domestic like product. First, the CTL plate market has seen an increased use of micro-alloy steel CTL plate in applications traditionally filled by carbon steel CTL plate. The CTL plate market has demanded higher strength steels that have the weight and other benefits of micro-alloy technology. Second, micro-alloy steel is not considered to be an alloy steel. Rather, micro- alloy steel is more similar in physical characteristics and uses to carbon than to alloy steel. Only when CTL plate is metallurgically tested are the differences between carbon and micro-alloy steel apparent. Third, the end uses for the two types of plate may be the same. The two types of plate are interchangeable in a variety of applications, although the generally higher cost of micro-alloy steel would discourage its use in the most common carbon steel applications. Fourth, micro-alloy steel generally is priced from the base price for carbon steel rather than for alloy steel plate. Fifth, manufacturing equipment and employees are similar for the two products. Sixth, the channels of distribution are also similar. Seventh, micro-alloy steel is considered by many producers and users to be carbon, rather than alloy, steel because it is designed to satisfy specific mechanical property rather than chemical composition requirements. Finally, such an approach takes into consideration the realities of today’s CTL plate industry and is consistent with the Commission’s treatment of the domestic like product in recent original antidumping and countervailing duty investigations involving CTL plate and other forms of flat-rolled steel and in the recent reviews involving CTL plate. They emphasize, however, that even had they declined to expand the domestic like product to include micro-alloy products, they would have reached negative determinations with respect to subject imports from each of the eleven subject countries. 118 Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that: (1) the scope of these reviews does not include micro-alloy products; (2) unlike in the 2003 CTL plate reviews, when domestic producer U.S. Steel asked the Commission to expand the domestic like product to include micro-alloy products, no party requested that action here; (3) all domestic producers, including Mittal Steel (the current owner of U.S. Steel’s CTL plate mill), disagree with such an expansion in these reviews; (4) the Commission rejected a similar request in the first reviews of these orders and did not include micro-alloy products in the domestic like product in the original investigations; and (5) even though there is more production now than previously, production of micro-alloy CTL plate is not a new phenomenon. For these reasons and to give the benefit of doubt to the domestic industry, they do not expand the domestic like product to include micro-alloy products in these reviews. In determining not to expand the domestic like product to include micro-alloy CTL plate, Vice Chairman Aranoff relied primarily on the fact that no party advocated such an expansion during these reviews. Depending on the facts found and the arguments presented in any future investigation or review, she could reach a contrary conclusion on whether to include micro-alloy CTL plate in the domestic like product. 31 micro-alloy products, 117 and three Commissioners declined to expand the domestic like product to include micro-alloy products. 118 3. Whether Certain Wide Flat Bars Rolled in a Bar Mill Are a Separate Domestic Like Product a. Background and Prior Treatment of This Issue The scope of these second reviews, as in the previous reviews and original investigations, includes certain universal mill plate that is typically produced at a bar mill. The scope, which borrows its 119 Universal mill plate is rolled on four faces and is up to 1,250 mm wide and may be as little as 4 mm thick. See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-24 n.29; PR at CTL-I-21 n.29. 120 The relevant portions of the scope language provide: “These products include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, painted nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances ... .” See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-19 to CTL-I-20; PR at CTL-I-17 to CTL-I-18. 121 MRM defined these wide flat bars as “carbon steel bars between 150 mm (5.9 inches) and 250 mm (approximately 10 inches) wide and 38.1 mm (1½ inches) thick.” 122 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-22 n.27; PR at CTL-I-19 n.27. 123 USITC Pub. 2549 at 25. 124 The Commission observed that flat bars are sold in strapped bundles of 5,000 or 10,000 pounds and not as individual plates like most but not all other CTL plate products. It noted that flat bars are not usually made on a plate or strip mill but on a bar mill that rolls blooms and billets as opposed to slabs. Although it found that flat bars are generally not interchangeable with the wider, thicker plate rolled on plate or strip mills, it found there was sufficient overlap of competition to include them in the category of CTL plate. The fact that flat bars were used for less demanding applications in the construction and equipment industries was not enough to distinguish them from the narrower strip mill plate because as the Commission noted, “[e]ven if flat bars and other cut-to-length plate are not interchangeable in exact applications, MRM has failed to show that these products are not used for the same general purposes.” The Commission also expressed uncertainty about whether there was any domestic production of flat bars, in which case it concluded that the domestic product most similar in characteristics and uses would be other CTL plate. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 2549 at 26-27. 32 language directly from the HTSUS, specifically mentions “universal mill plate”119 and refers to the “closed box pass” manufacturing process used to make it. Most products produced on a bar mill are made to smaller width dimensions than plate products, but some of the larger width flat bar products fall within the scope of these reviews. 120 In the preliminary phase of the 1993 original investigations, Caterpillar, Inc., an importer of universal mill plate, argued that universal mill plate was a separate domestic like product. Manitoba Rolling Mills (“MRM”), a Canadian producer, argued that certain wide flat bars should be considered a separate domestic like product.121 Wide flat bar is a subset of universal mill plate.122 The Commission rejected Caterpillar’s request, finding that “[b]ecause in many, if not all, applications universal mill plate is like sheared-mill plate, we find that the product like universal mill plate is cut-to-length plate.”123 Separately, the Commission also rejected MRM’s request.124 In the final phase of the 1993 original investigations, at the outset of its domestic like product discussion, before reaching any specific party arguments, the Commission emphasized in its final determinations that its domestic like product findings were made in the context of investigations involving a continuum of goods within each of the four major like product groupings (hot-rolled, cold- rolled, corrosion-resistant, and CTL plate flat-rolled products). It explained that: Respondents argued that certain of these products are differentiated, to a greater or lesser extent, from other steel products if viewed solely on the basis of the six like product factors we typically consider. However, our consideration of the six like product factors is made on the continuum on which those steel products exist. The Commission traditionally has been reluctant to fragment its like product definitions where a continuum of products exists. ... [I]n making our findings, we have carefully considered the asserted 125 USITC Pub. 2664 at 11-12. 126 It explained that all plate-mill plate produced in the United States was produced on sheared plate mills and trimmed by shearing or flame-cutting on all four edges whereas universal mill plate was produced by hot-rolling plate between horizontal and vertical finishing rolls to give universal mill plate two mill edges and two trimmed ends. Both products have the same basic physical characteristics including chemistry and metallurgical composition, strength, flatness, gauge and width tolerances, and ability to be welded or formed. The Commission observed that universal mill plate had been replaced by sheared-mill plate for most applications for which it was previously used, indicating interchangeability between the two types of plate. Both sheared-mill plate and universal mill plate were used for the same end products, were distributed through the same channels of distribution, and were perceived to be interchangeable by most end users. While sheared-mill plate and universal mill plate were produced on different mills and prices for universal mill plate were somewhat higher, the Commission concluded that the physical characteristics of these types of plate and their similar end uses warranted finding that they were part of the same domestic like product. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 2664 at 214. 127 See, e.g., U.K. Steel’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 3-4; Niagara’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 12-15. U.K. producer Corus, in contrast, does not argue that wide flat bar is a separate domestic like product, but rather that the production of wide flat bar products by other U.K. producers reinforces Corus’ argument that subject imports from the United Kingdom should not be cumulated with other subject imports. See, e.g., Corus’ Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Exh. A at 4. 128 See, e.g., Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Exh. 9 at 1. Nucor cautions, however, that the Commission lacks capacity and production information for this product from most of the subject foreign producers, and so it insists that the Commission would need to rely on adverse facts available. See, e.g., Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Exh. 9 at 1. In fact, however, the Commission collected data on flat bar production operations in subject countries (as well as U.S. operations), and, although a number of subject producers reported no such production, several reported data concerning their production of wide flat bars, including producers in Mexico and the United Kingdom. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-35 and CTL-IV-62. 129 See, e.g., Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 7; Mittal’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Answers to Commissioner Hillman’s Questions at 18-19 & n.79; IPSCO/Oregon Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 4; IPSCO/Oregon Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at A-20. Mittal emphasizes that both wide flat bars and CTL plate have similar characteristics and uses, share similar channels of distribution, are perceived to be similar and interchangeable, and that customers, with some exceptions, generally opt for the product that has the best price. Mittal also argues that the differences in production facilities used to produce the two products is only one of the factors that the Commission usually examines in a domestic like product analysis. See, e.g., Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 7; Mittal’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Answers to Commissioner Hillman’s Questions at 18-19 & n.79. 33 grounds for distinguishing various products in the context of the “continuum” nature of the steel products involved in these investigations.125 The Commission then went on to reject a request to find universal mill plate a separate domestic like product. 126 No party raised a domestic like product issue regarding wide flat bars or universal mill plate in the first reviews, so the Commission did not address the issue then. b. Analysis of the Relevant Facts and Conclusion In these second reviews, U.K. producers Niagara and Celsa request that the Commission find that certain wide flat bar products are a separate domestic like product.127 Domestic producer Nucor appears to advocate finding wide flat bars to be a separate domestic like product.128 Domestic producers Mittal, IPSCO, and Oregon Steel disagree that wide flat bars are a separate domestic like product.129 Other 130 Belgian producer Duferco Clabecq does not produce wide flat bar and takes no position on this issue; ***. See, e.g., Duferco’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Response to Question 8. Brazilian producers defer to the arguments of other respondents with an interest in this product. See, e.g., Brazilian Respondent Interested Parties’ Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 1 n.1. According to the German respondents, none of them produce wide flat bar, and they therefore take no position on this issue. See, e.g., German Respondents’ Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 1 at 4-5. Mexican producer AHMSA insists that *** although it did report its wide flat bar production in response to the Commission’s request. See, e.g., AHMSA’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 7 n.23. Purchaser Caterpillar takes no position with respect to the Commission’s definition of the domestic like product. See, e.g., Caterpillar’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 4. 131 Questionnaire Definitions. In several places in its prehearing brief, Niagara makes assertions about the products that it makes in the United Kingdom, which it refers to as “wide flat SBQ bar.” For example, it contrasts its own wide flat SBQ bar with “merchant bar” and CTL plate made in the United States and insists that its own product commands a price premium. See, e.g., Niagara’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 9 n.9, 14 n.16. Arguments about products and practices in the United Kingdom, however, are entirely irrelevant to the domestic like product analysis, which is focused on products made in the United States. 132 In the preliminary phase of the 1993 investigations, Manitoba defined wide flat bars as “carbon steel bars between 150 mm (5.9 inches) and 250 mm (approximately 10 inches) wide and 38.1 mm (1½ inches) thick.” USITC Pub. 2549 at 25. 133 One factual difference is that, although it was not known if there was any domestic production of wide flat bar products in the 1993 original investigations, today, there is such production. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-5. This was only one of the facts that informed the Commission’s decision, and it is not a fact that was even discussed in the Commission’s opinion in the 1993 final determinations (only in its opinion in the 1993 preliminary determinations). 134 See, e.g., Transcript of October 19, 2006, on CTL Plate Issues (revised and corrected copy) (“CTL Plate Hearing Tr.”) at 367-68 (Vice Chairman Aranoff). 135 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-21; PR at CTL-I-19. 136 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-21; PR at CTL-I-19. 137 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-21; PR at CTL-I-19. 34 parties, many of whom reported that they do not produce such wide flat bar products, have taken no position on this question.130 For purposes of these reviews, wide flat bar products are “hot-rolled non-alloy steel of rectangular cross section, more than 150 mm wide, but less than 600 mm wide, rolled on all four sides, not less than 4.75 mm thick, produced on a bar mill.”131 Although the dimensions of the products at issue here are not identical to the dimensions of the products at issue in the 1993 original investigations, 132 the thrust of the arguments is the same. 133 At the hearing, the Commission specifically asked the parties to address the findings in the 1993 preliminary and final determinations and their relevance to the current arguments.134 Neither of the two U.K. parties advocating finding that wide flat bars are a separate domestic like product responded to this request at the hearing and neither submitted a posthearing brief. Based on an examination of our traditional domestic like product factors, we determine the following: Physical characteristics and uses: CTL plate is a flat-rolled steel product that is generally 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness, and it can be made in a variety of widths, thicknesses, and shapes for incorporation into other products or for further processing.135 The term “cut-to-length” indicates that the product is produced as a flat plate with a defined length.136 CTL plate is used in welded load-bearing and structural applications, such as agricultural and construction equipment (e.g., cranes, bulldozers, scrapers, and other tracked or self-propelled machinery); machine parts (e.g., the body of the machine or its frame); transmission towers and light poles; buildings; and heavy transportation equipment, such as railroad cars (especially tank cars) and ships.137 CTL plate is also used in the production of tanks, sills, floors, offshore 138 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-21 to CTL-I-22; PR at CTL-I-19. 139 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-22; PR at CTL-I-19. 140 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-26; PR at CTL-I-22. 141 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-26; PR at CTL-I-22. 142 See, e.g., U.K. Steel’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 3-4. 143 See, e.g., Niagara’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 1-2 n.1, 7, 13. 144 See, e.g., Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Exh. 9 at 1. 145 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-26; PR at CTL-I-22; CR/PR at App. F. 146 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-26; PR at CTL-I-22. 147 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-26 to CTL-I-27; PR at CTL-I-22. 148 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-27; PR at CTL-I-23. 149 See, e.g., Niagara’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 14. 35 drilling rigs, pipes, petrochemical plants and machinery, and various other fabricated products.138 CTL plate can also be used in utility applications, such as wind towers and pressure vehicles.139 Flat bar is a hot-rolled carbon steel product made in various lengths and widths, usually starting at 1/8 inch in thickness. 140 It is often used in structural applications, such as bridges and trailers.141 U.K. producer Celsa argues that wide flat bars are used in applications where it is necessary to use a narrower form of steel than can be produced on a plate mill, such as in the production of truck trailers. Although it acknowledges that CTL plate made on a plate mill could in theory be used as a substitute for wide flat bars, Celsa insists that the cost of further cutting the plate to the correct width would make it uncompetitive for such applications. 142 Likewise, U.K. producer Niagara asserts that wide flat bar is typically used for precision cold-finishing and subsequently various highly demanding engineering applications for which CTL plate is entirely unsuited. Niagara argues that wide flat bar is made to stringent requirements (e.g., tight dimensional tolerances, accurate cross-sectional shape with sharp corners, and high surface finish) that are irrelevant to CTL plate producers.143 Domestic producer Nucor argues that while wide flat bar may be used for some of the same purposes as other CTL plate and has similar physical characteristics, it normally is sold as bar rather than plate. Nucor produces both to serve the full range of its customers’ needs.144 According to questionnaire responses, flat bars and CTL plate have similar characteristics and uses, although flat bars are much narrower than CTL plate, enabling them to be more easily used in applications where narrow widths are needed, such as machine parts. 145 Wide flat bars have a superior surface finish, dimensional precision, and precise edges, as they are rolled on a bar mill rather than being cut to length.146 Wide flat bars are rolled along both the width and thickness dimensions whereas CTL plates are only rolled along the thickness. 147 The cutting operation used for CTL plate makes the edges unsuitable for cold-drawing whereas flat bars can be cold-drawn and can also be produced with rounded or beveled edges for specific applications such as off-highway wheels and earthmover wear parts. 148 Interchangeability: U.K. producer Niagara asserts that certain questionnaire responses are contradictory on their face; even though some make conclusory assertions that wide flat bar and CTL plate products are interchangeable, elsewhere they recognize that CTL plate is not suitable for the specialty uses for which wide flat bar is designed, and CTL plate has inferior edge quality and surface finish and cannot be cold-finished.149 Domestic producer Mittal points out that wide flat bar, like CTL plate, can be sold as both a commodity product and as a specialty product. Flat bar of merchant quality is used in structural applications, like the fabrication of bridges and buildings, but specialty bar is needed for applications that require special tolerances. Mittal insists that, whether sold as commodity grade or 150 See, e.g., Mittal’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Answers to Commissioner Hillman’s Questions at 19, Answers to Commissioner Lane’s Questions at 8. 151 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-27; PR at CTL-I-22; CR/PR at App. F. 152 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-28; PR at CTL-I-24; CR/PR at App. F. 153 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-28; PR at CTL-I-24; CR/PR at App. F. 154 See, e.g., Niagara’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 14. 155 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-22 to CTL-I-28; PR at CTL-I-19 to CTL-I-21; CR/PR at App. F. 156 Domestic producer Nucor reports producing wide flat bar and other CTL plate at different facilities on different equipment and using different workers. See, e.g., Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Exh. 9 at 1. 157 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-28; PR at CTL-I-23; Niagara’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 7-8 & n.7. 158 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-27; PR at CTL-I-23; CR/PR at Tables CTL-I-18, CTL-I-19, App. F. 36 specialty grade, wide flat bar and CTL plate are generally interchangeable.150 According to questionnaire responses, interchangeability between wide flat bar products and CTL plate depends on the specific customer end use. For example, if the edge quality is critical, customers may prefer flat bar. The size and thickness of the material needed for the final application is also an important consideration.151 Customer and producer perceptions: Responding U.S. producers generally perceived wide flat bar to be interchangeable with CTL plate produced on plate mills or cut from coil. Similarly, responding producers generally reported that their customers perceived little or no substantial difference between wide flat bar and CTL plate produced on plate mills or cut from coil, despite the superior edge quality, cold-drawing capability, and tighter tolerances characteristic of wide flat bar.152 Customers’ responses were a bit more varied. While several U.S. purchasers reported general interchangeability or only limited differences, several other responding purchasers view CTL plate and wide flat bar as “not interchangeable” or “not compatible,” citing dimensional differences and the ability to cold-draw wide flat bar.153 U.K. producer Niagara asserts that several questionnaire respondents who perceived the two products to be interchangeable nevertheless identified important differences between them.154 Common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees: The production process for both flat bars and CTL plate begins at the melting or refining stage where steel is produced. In the next production phase, the steel is cast into semi-finished forms (blooms and billets, on the one hand, or slabs, on the other). In a bar mill, wide flat bar is produced when blooms and billets are rolled on all faces at the same time into a long bar shape. Most CTL plate is hot-rolled on a reversing plate mill (also known as a sheared plate mill) or in a special form of a reversing mill called a Steckel mill. Plate may also be rolled on a continuous hot-strip mill; these mills primarily produce hot-rolled sheet but may also be used to produce plate up to 72 inches wide and between three-sixteenth and one- half inch in thickness. Reversing plate mills, Steckel mills, and hot-strip mills all use slabs as the semi- finished input to make plate. Finally, some CTL plate is made from hot-rolled coiled plate cut by steel service centers. 155 Of the six U.S. mills that produce wide flat bar, only Nucor and Mittal produce other forms of CTL plate. 156 Although the melting processes are the same and both products are hot-rolled, flat bars are produced either with vertical and horizontal rolls to produce the desired width and thickness dimensions or in a closed box pass. CTL plate is rolled with horizontal rolls only. Neither the employees nor the equipment are generally interchangeable.157 Channels of distribution: Wide flat bars and CTL plate share similar channels of distribution. They both can be sold either to service centers or directly to end users, although a greater percentage of wide flat bars is sold to end users.158 159 Both U.S. producer and U.S. purchaser responses were divided between reporting no price (or price trend) differential (two producers and two purchasers); lower prices for wide flat bar (one producer and four purchasers); and higher prices for wide flat bar (one producer and one purchaser). The average unit value of shipments of wide flat bar was $398.89 in 2000; it increased to $567.11 in 2004, and has remained above that unit value through 2005- June 2006. In general, the average unit values of wide flat bar were lower than the average unit values of plate. See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-28 to CTL-I-29; PR at CTL-I-24. 160 See, e.g., Niagara’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 9, n. 2, 14. As noted previously, arguments as to products made outside the United States are irrelevant to our evaluation of domestic like product issues. 161 Except where noted, the data referenced in section IV of this opinion reflect the carbon CTL plate market (i.e., the data associated with a domestic like product defined as CTL plate, including micro-alloy and wide flat bar products). The data considered by Vice Chairman Aranoff, Commissioner Koplan, and Commissioner Lane differ to the extent that these Commissioners defined the domestic like product differently than their colleagues. Thus, for example, whereas Chairman Pearson, Commissioner Hillman, and Commissioner Okun refer to the data summaries for carbon CTL plate such as those provided in Table C-2 of the staff report, Vice Chairman Aranoff, Commissioner Koplan, and Commissioner Lane refer to the data summaries for non-alloy CTL plate such as those provided in Table C-1 of the staff report. Each Commissioner finds that the minor differences in the two data sets do not lead to differing results. 37 Price: According to questionnaire responses, prices of both CTL plate and wide flat bar follow similar trends, but the data are mixed about which is priced higher.159 Niagara asserts that the ambiguity in the data arises from the existence in the U.S. market of low-value wide “merchant bar,” which is not the product that Niagara sells. It insists that wide flat bar is sold at a price premium over CTL plate.160 Although there is some contrary evidence, on balance we find that there is no clear dividing line between wide flat bar products and other CTL plate products. Both products have similar physical characteristics related to their overlapping production processes at the melting stage, although wide flat bar products are made to more stringent requirements and are rolled along both the width and thickness dimensions instead of just the thickness dimensions like other CTL plate products. Although wide flat bars are narrower than other CTL plate products, that characteristic does not readily distinguish the two, because CTL plate comes in a variety of widths and thicknesses. The products can be used in overlapping applications, although wide flat bar products do not need to be further cut for narrower applications, are suitable for cold-drawing, and can be produced with rounded or beveled edges for specific applications. Their interchangeability thus depends on specific customer end uses, and most domestic producers perceived them to be interchangeable although some customers perceived them differently. Both are sold through the same channels of distribution, and there is no clear indication that one is priced differently than the other. The fact that the wide flat bars are produced at bar mills from blooms or billets is also not a distinguishing feature because other CTL plate products are rolled from slabs and then produced to specified lengths in a variety of manufacturing lines in a variety of different facilities (reversing mills, more specialized Steckel mills, hot-strip mills, or service centers’ processing lines), with resultant differences in their eventual characteristics. In conclusion, we do not find that wide flat bars rolled on a bar mill are a separate domestic like product. 4. Conclusion Based on our analysis of these two issues, we determine that the domestic like product is CTL plate including wide flat bars. Chairman Pearson, Commissioner Hillman, and Commissioner Okun, however, further define the like product to include micro-alloy products, but Vice Chairman Aranoff, Commissioner Koplan, and Commissioner Lane do not.161 162 We applied the domestic industry legal standards discussed in section III above. 163 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-22 to I-23; PR at CTL-I-19 to CTL-I-20. 164 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-23; PR at CTL-I-20. 165 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-24; PR at CTL-I-21. 166 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-25; PR at CTL-I-21. 167 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-25; PR at CTL-I-21. 168 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-25; PR at CTL-I-21. 169 We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above. 170 In the 1993 original determinations, the Commission defined the domestic industry as all domestic producers of CTL plate. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 2664 at 216. In the 1979 original determination, the Commission found a regional industry consisting of the facilities of domestic carbon steel plate producers located in the west coast states of California, Washington, and Oregon. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 970 at 4. No party argued that the Commission should define a regional industry in the first reviews of these orders, and the Commission applied a national rather than a regional analysis of the domestic industry in the first reviews. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3364 at 9-11. In the absence of any contrary arguments in these reviews, we again apply a national rather than a regional analysis of the domestic industry. 171 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3364 at 8-9. 172 The Commission also found it significant that the manufacturing equipment and processes used by service centers to decoil and cut to length coiled plate are the same as those used by the domestic mills. It also found that (continued...) 38 B. Domestic Industry 1. In General162 As noted above, CTL plate is produced in the United States using one of several production processes. Whether produced by the integrated or non-integrated process, molten steel is poured or “tapped” from the furnace into a ladle then cast into a suitable form and rolled.163 Most CTL plate is hot- rolled on a reversing plate mill (also known as a sheared plate mill) or in a special form of a reversing mill called a Steckel mill.164 Plate may also be rolled on a continuous hot-strip mill or wide flat bar products may be made in a bar mill.165 Finally, some service centers, which traditionally have served as distributors of CTL plate, also perform a wide range of value-added processing of steel products, such as uncoiling, flattening, and cutting plate products to length or flame/plasma cutting plate into non- rectangular shapes. 166 Service centers that process hot-rolled coiled plate into cut lengths or non- rectangular shapes purchase the coiled plate from U.S. or foreign mills. 167 The process of producing cut plate from coiled plate is the same whether performed at the steel mill or by a service center.168 2. Sufficient Production-Related Activities169 In the original determinations, the Commission defined the domestic industry as the steel mills producing CTL plate. 170 In the original determinations, the Commission did not address the issue of service centers that uncoil coiled hot-rolled plate and cut it to length into plate, and did not include such processors in the domestic industry. In the first reviews, however, at the request of respondent interested parties from Germany and the United Kingdom, the Commission did consider this issue, and, applying the reasoning from the 1997 CTL plate original investigations, it determined that service center processors engage in sufficient production-related activities to be included in the domestic industry.171 The facts relied upon by the Commission, in particular the fundamental fact that processors turn hot- rolled coiled plate into a separate domestic like product, CTL plate, have not changed since then.172 172 (...continued) processors account for a significant percentage of overall employment and invest a significant amount of capital in relatively sophisticated processing operations. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3364 at 8-9. In 2005, U.S. processors reported 874 PRWs and capital expenditures of $6.8 million. See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-1 at n.1; PR at III-1 at n.1. The Commission did not put much weight on the fact that the value added by service centers is small. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3364 at 8-9. 173 See, e.g., Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 7-8; Mittal’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Answers to Vice- Chairman Aranoff’s Questions at 19. 174 For example, purchaser Caterpillar takes no position with respect to the Commission’s definition of the domestic industry. See, e.g., Caterpillar’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 4. 175 As the report points out, domestic industry data for the period 1990 to 1992 do not include the operations of U.S. service centers engaged in processing hot-rolled steel coils in plate thicknesses into individual plates, but data from the first reviews (1997 to 1999) and the current reviews (Jan. 2000 to June 2006) do include service center operations. See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-1; PR at CTL-I-1. 176 We applied the related party legal standards discussed in section III above. 177 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 2664 at 95-99, 216. 178 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3364 at 12. The Commission focused on the small percentage of CTL plate shipped by California Steel Industries and the fact that it supported continuation of the orders. The Commission found Tuscaloosa Steel Corporation did not benefit from or receive any shielding effect from its relationship with U.K. producer Corus and it concluded that Corus’ extensive investment in the Tuscaloosa facilities exhibited a commitment to U.S. production. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3364 at 12. 39 In these reviews, Mittal urges the Commission to include processors in the definition of the domestic industry,173 and other parties either have not commented on this issue or have taken no position.174 In the absence of contrary arguments or any apparent change in the factual or legal basis for the Commission’s findings from the first reviews of these orders, we include service center processors in the domestic industry in these reviews. 175 3. Related Parties176 In the original 1993 investigations, the Commission did not find appropriate circumstances to exclude any producers from the domestic industry as related parties, although it noted that several domestic producers had a “financial relationship” with a subject producer through equity ownership, joint ventures, or to a lesser extent through importation of subject merchandise. It did not want to skew the data since related parties comprised a large portion of the industry and because most of the related parties were actively seeking relief from the very entities to which they were related.177 In the first reviews, the Commission found two related parties, California Steel Industries and Tuscaloosa Steel Corporation, each of which was then owned by a subject foreign producer. It did not, however, find appropriate circumstances to exclude either related party from the domestic industry, absent an indication that either had been or was likely to be significantly insulated from import competition if the orders were revoked such that its inclusion in the domestic industry would present a distorted picture.178 In these second reviews, no party has argued that any domestic producer is a related party or that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude any producers from the domestic industry on that basis. In these reviews, there are two domestic producers who may be considered related parties: domestic mill Mittal Steel USA and ***. As explained below, even if Mittal Steel USA did not directly import subject merchandise, there is some indication that a third party (Mittal Steel Co., NV) directly or indirectly controls Mittal Steel USA and exporters or importers of subject merchandise. *** imported *** short tons of subject CTL plate from *** in ***, representing less than *** percent of its CTL plate 179 See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-13; PR at III-10. Inexplicably, official import statistics show no imports from Finland in 2002. See, e.g., CR at CTL-V-13 n.12; PR at CTL-V-11 n.12. 180 See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-4 to III-7; PR at CTL-III-3 to CTL-III-5; CR/PR at Table CTL-III-1. 181 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-33 to CTL-I-34; PR at CTL-I-28; CR/PR at Table CTL-I-21. 182 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-34; PR at CTL-I-28. 183 Both are under the common control of Mittal Steel Company NV. See, e.g., Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 43 n.128; CR/PR at Tables CTL-I-21, CTL-I-22. 184 Mittal Steel USA explains that ***. See, e.g., Mittal’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Answers to Vice Chairman Aranoff’s Questions at 3-4. 185 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-33 to I-34; PR at CTL-I-28. Mittal Steel USA anticipates that ***. See, e.g., Mittal’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Answers to Vice Chairman Aranoff’s Questions at 2-3. 186 Industeel, a Belgian producer of subject merchandise, and Arceralia, a Spanish producer of subject merchandise, are both subsidiaries of Arcelor; neither firm provided the Commission with a completed questionnaire. See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-34; PR at CTL-I-28. German CTL plate producer Dillinger, which responded to the Commission’s questionnaires, is also a subsidiary of Arcelor. See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-37; PR at CTL-I-31. U.S. importers of subject merchandise, Arcelor and Industeel, are also Arcelor affiliates. See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-36 to CTL-I-37; PR at CTL-I-31; CR/PR at Table CTL-I-22. During the period of review, Arcelor imported from *** whereas Industeel imported from ***. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-I-22. 187 See, e.g., Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 44-45; CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-44 and CTL-IV-45. 188 See, e.g., Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 8 (citing questionnaire responses). 189 See, e.g., Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 44-45. 40 production that year.179 *** subject imports were small and isolated, and there is no indication that *** benefitted more than minimally from these imports, nor have any parties argued in favor of excluding *** from the domestic industry. With regard to Mittal Steel USA, Mittal Steel Co. NV was formed in 2005, as the result of a merger between Ispat International and LNM Holdings. As the largest global steelmaker, Mittal Steel Co. owns a number of plants located throughout the world, including domestic CTL plate producer Mittal Steel USA. How Mittal Steel USA acquired its various U.S. assets is discussed in more depth in the conditions of competition section below. In brief, Mittal Steel USA’s assets were acquired from the purchase of the bankrupt assets of Acme Steel, LTV, and Bethlehem Steel, as well as most of U.S. Steel’s CTL plate assets. 180 Mittal Steel Co. owns Mittal Steel Galati, a Romanian producer of subject merchandise,181 and has a *** percent share in Huta Batory, a Polish producer of subject merchandise. Huta Batory did not respond to the Commission’s questionnaires in these reviews. 182 Domestic producer Mittal Steel USA is also affiliated with importer Mittal Steel North America,183 ***. 184 In early 2006, Mittal Steel Co. announced its intent to merge with the second largest steelmaker in the world, Arcelor, S.A., a merger still in the process of being approved and finalized.185 As a result of this transaction, Mittal Steel USA will also have links to CTL plate producers in Belgium, Spain, and Germany as well as to two additional U.S. importers of CTL plate.186 During the period of review, Mittal Steel Galati shipped ***. The majority of its shipments to the United States were of a thickness ***.187 However, although ***.188 Joint respondent interested parties assert that Mittal Steel Galati’s products not only complement the product line offered by Mittal USA but also provide Mittal with additional capacity for its U.S. marketing plan.189 Mittal Steel USA, which has CTL plate production operations in Burns Harbor, Indiana, Coatesville, Pennsylvania, and Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, accounted for *** percent of domestic production of carbon steel CTL plate in 2005 and produces *** of micro-alloy steel CTL plate in the 190 During the period of review, *** See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-3 n.4; PR at CTL-I-CTL-III-3 n.4; CR/PR at Table CTL-I-21. 191 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-33 to I-34; PR at CTL-I-28; CR/PR at Table CTL-I-21; Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 1-2 n.2. 192 See, e.g., Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 7-8. 193 See, e.g., Mittal’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Answers to Vice-Chairman Aranoff’s Questions at 2-3. 194 See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-13 to CTL-III-14; PR at CTL-III-10; CR/PR at Table CTL-III-6. 195 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-I-21, CTL-III-10. 196 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-33; PR at CTL-I-28; CR/PR at Table CTL-I-21. Although industry shipment information was reported for fourteen active mills, one closed mill, and ten service centers, usable financial data was only reported for twelve U.S. mills and five processors. See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-18; PR at CTL-III-12. 41 United States. 190 The company ***. 191 Mittal Steel USA does not believe that it should be excluded as a related party in these reviews.192 ***, and as it explains, it ***. 193 In its importer’s questionnaire response, ***. 194 Although Mittal Steel USA has a number of ties to subject producers and importers of subject merchandise and it appears that the company will have additional ties once the Mittal/Arcelor merger has been approved, we do not find appropriate circumstances to exclude Mittal Steel USA from the domestic industry. The company accounts for a large amount of domestic production and through its various acquisitions during the period of review, discussed above and in more detail below, it has strengthened its U.S. presence and made clear its commitment to the U.S. market. It supports the continuation of these orders, ***, and there is ***.195 Based on the available facts, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to warrant the exclusion of any producers from the domestic industry as a related party under the Act. 4. Conclusion Accordingly, we determine that the domestic CTL plate industry includes the fourteen active mills (Arkansas Steel, Claymont, CMC Steel Alabama, CSI, Gerdau Ameristeel, IPSCO, Jindal, Kentucky Electric, LeTourneau, Mittal, Nucor, Oregon, U.S. Steel, and WCI) and one closed mill (Geneva) for which there were data as well as ten service centers from which the Commission received questionnaire responses (American Steel, Cargill, Feralloy, Friedman, IPSCO, Olympic, PDM, Primary, Robinson, and Steel Warehouse).196 197 Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane exercise their discretion to cumulate subject imports from all eleven subject countries. In doing so, they determine that (1) subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, assessed individually, are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation; (2) subject imports from these countries are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product in the event of revocation; and (3) many of the likely conditions of competition faced by subject imports from each of these subject countries are similar. See their separate views with respect to cumulation below in Section V, Separate Views of Commissioners Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane on Cumulation with Respect to Cut-To- Length Plate Products. 198 Although it noted that Canada and Mexico did not appear to export substantial quantities of subject plate, the Commission found that subject imports from these countries were still likely to have a discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry because “of their geographic proximity to the United States” as well as the fact that Mexican producer AHMSA was under bankruptcy protection, “an indication that it would have an incentive to maximize plate production and sales.” USITC Pub. 3364 at 20 n.101. 199 In declining to exercise its discretion to cumulate subject imports from Canada due to differences in conditions of competition, the Commission noted that only one major Canadian plate mill, Stelco, remained subject to the order. The Commission found that Stelco “rarely exported significant quantities of subject plate to any country.” USITC Pub. 3364 at 19. Moreover, record evidence showed that Canada was a net importer of plate (with much of its imports originating from the United States), that demand for plate in Canada was strong, and that Canada had antidumping orders in place with respect to several countries. See, e.g., id. 200 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun note that while they consider the same issues discussed in this section in determining whether to exercise their discretion to cumulate the subject imports, their analytical framework begins with whether imports from the subject countries are likely to face similar conditions of (continued...) 42 C. Cumulation 197 1. Framework and Background We applied the legal standards as discussed in Section III above. In the first reviews, the Commission found, based on the available information on capacity, production, product mix, and export orientation,198 as well as the “weakened condition of the U.S. industry,” that the subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom each would be likely to have a discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the finding and orders were revoked. The Commission also found that there likely would be a reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from all of those countries under review and the domestic like product, and among the subject imports from all of those countries, if the finding and orders were revoked. The Commission did not find any significant differences in the conditions of competition among those subject countries, except for Canada, with respect to which the order was revoked during those reviews and is therefore not subject to the current reviews. 199 For these reasons, the Commission exercised its discretion to cumulate subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. The threshold criterion for cumulation in these reviews is satisfied because all of the reviews of CTL plate were initiated on the same day. We consider three issues in deciding whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate the subject imports: (1) whether imports from any of the subject countries are precluded from cumulation because they are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry; (2) whether imports of CTL plate from the subject countries are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product; and (3) other considerations, such as similarities and differences in the likely conditions of competition of the subject imports with regard to their participation in the U.S. market for CTL plate.200 200 (...continued) competition. For those subject imports which are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition, they next proceed to consider whether those imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product. Finally, if based on that analysis they intend to exercise their discretion to cumulate one or more subject countries, they analyze whether they are precluded from cumulating such imports because the imports from one or more subject countries, assessed individually, are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. See Additional and Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun, found in Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-678, 679, 681, and 682 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3895 (Dec. 2006). They join Vice Chairman Aranoff and Commissioner Hillman’s discussion of the issues in this section, and reach the same conclusion. That is, Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun determine that subject imports from Mexico are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation, and therefore, subject imports from Mexico are not eligible for cumulation with the other subject imports. They also determine that certain factors indicate that subject imports from Romania will likely compete under different conditions of competition than other subject imports and, therefore, they do not exercise their discretion to cumulate subject imports from Romania for purposes of their analysis of likely volume, likely price effects, and likely injury. Finally, Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun determine that (1) many of the likely conditions of competition faced by subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom are similar; (2) subject imports from these countries are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product in the event of revocation; and (3) subject imports from these countries, assessed individually, are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation. Therefore, Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun exercise their discretion to cumulate subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. 201 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun examine the likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition only after first determining whether subject imports are likely to face similar conditions of competition. Because they determine that certain factors indicate that subject imports from Romania will likely compete under different conditions of competition than other subject imports, they do not include subject imports from Romania in their analysis of the likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition. 202 See Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 06-188, U.S. Court of International Trade (Dec. 22, 2006). 203 We find that cross-cumulation of dumped and subsidized subject imports is appropriate as an exercise of our discretion. See, e.g., Sugar from the European Union, and Sugar from Belgium, France, and Germany, Invs. Nos. 104-TAA-7 (Second Review) and AA1921-198-200 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3793 at 11, n.47 (Aug. 2005). 43 In so doing, we take into account the various arguments by the parties. Our focus in five-year reviews is not only on present conditions of competition, but also on likely conditions of competition in the reasonably foreseeable future. We have determined, as discussed below, that subject imports from Mexico are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation, and therefore, subject imports from Mexico are not eligible for cumulation with the other subject imports. We also have determined that subject imports from the remaining ten subject countries are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product in the event of revocation.201 We determine finally that certain factors indicate that subject imports from Romania will likely compete under different conditions of competition than other subject imports with regard to their participation in the U.S. market for CTL plate and, therefore, we do not exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Romania for purposes of our analysis of likely volume, likely price effects, and likely impact.202 We therefore exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.203 204 Because we decline to cumulate subject imports from Romania with those from any other subject countries on the basis of differences in conditions of competition, we find it unnecessary to decide the issue of no discernible adverse impact with respect to Romania. Cf. Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware from Korea, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-267 and 731-TA-304 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3485 at 5 (Jan. 2002) (declining to address criterion of no discernible adverse impact in the absence of evidence of a reasonable overlap of competition). 205 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-I-1. 206 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables C-2, C-1. AHMSA’s posthearing brief contains revised 1998 and 1999 import statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau listing the volume of imports from Mexico as 568 tons and 181 tons in 1998 and 1999, respectively. See id. citing AHMSA’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Exh. 11. 207 See, e.g., CR at OVERVIEW-12 to OVERVIEW-15; PR at OVERVIEW-10 to OVERVIEW-12; AHMSA’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 8. Romania and Poland were the only other subject countries exempted from the safeguards imposed on CTL plate. See, e.g., CR at OVERVIEW-12 to OVERVIEW-15 n.30; PR at OVERVIEW- 11 n.30. 208 In 2005, Mexico’s reported capacity was *** short tons, and its reported production was *** short tons. 209 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-30. Mexico’s capacity utilization was *** percent in 1992 and *** percent in 1999. 210 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-31. AHMSA’s internal study projects an annual growth rate of *** percent in home market consumption for both subject and nonsubject CTL plate products. See, e.g., AHMSA’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at Exhibit A. Independent economic indicators and studies also point to continued overall economic growth in Mexico and in the industries that consume CTL plate. See, e.g., AHMSA’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 11 n.44. Specifically, AHMSA notes that demand for CTL plate is expected to rise because Trinity, a major producer of railcars in both Mexico and the United States ***, recently opened a new railcar production facility in (continued...) 44 2. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact We consider all relevant factors in analyzing “no discernible adverse impact” in these reviews. Based on the record, we find that subject imports from Mexico are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on imports from Mexico are revoked. We do not find, however, that subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, or the United Kingdom are likely to have no discernible adverse impact if the antidumping finding, antidumping duty orders, and countervailing duty orders on imports from those countries are revoked. 204 a. Mexico We find that subject imports from Mexico are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation. During the 1993 original investigations, subject imports from Mexico were 41,520 short tons in 1990 and 59,993 short tons in 1992, or 0.7 percent and 1.2 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 1990 and 1992, respectively.205 Since the orders were imposed, subject imports from Mexico have maintained a minimal presence in the U.S. market, comprising less than 0.05 percent of the market in all years since 1997.206 Subject imports from Mexico have remained minimal despite an exemption from the Section 201 steel safeguards relief that imposed a 30 percent ad valorem tariff on CTL plate imports effective March 20, 2002, that was reduced to 24 percent on March 20, 2003, and ultimately terminated by the President on December 4, 2003.207 Mexico has a single producer of subject CTL plate, Altos Hornos de Mexico, S.A., de C.V. (“AHMSA”), and the Mexican industry has the smallest capacity and production of any of the subject industries. 208 While reported production capacity for subject CTL plate from Mexico remained flat over the period of review, capacity utilization rose to a full-year period high of *** percent in 2005.209 Substantially all of AHMSA’s capacity is dedicated to serving increasing home market demand.210 Even 210 (...continued) Mexico, and production from this facility is expected to increase over the next two years. See, e.g., id. at 16. 211 See, e.g., AHMSA’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 12. AHMSA reportedly accounts for *** percent of CTL plate production in Mexico. See, e.g., CR/PR at CTL-IV-48. We note that AHMSA has recently filed an antidumping duty petition with respect to CTL plate from China. See, e.g., AHMSA’s Dec. 4, 2006 Letter. Nevertheless, there is no evidence on this record that significant volumes of Chinese CTL plate imports are displacing Mexican home market sales, or forcing Mexico to increase its exports. In fact, Mexican home market shipments have increased steadily since 2003, and as noted above, the data do not show any significant exporting activity by Mexico. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-31. 212 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-50; PR at CTL-IV-25. 213 See, e.g., AHMSA’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 13. 214 Domestic interested parties have argued that Mexico’s exports to Canada, following revocation of the Canadian antidumping order on CTL plate from Mexico in 2003, showed Mexico’s ability to increase rapidly its exports following revocation. See, e.g., Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 16. In 2003, one of the three major Canadian producers of CTL plate, Stelco, exited from the industry, creating a supply deficit that could be filled only by imports. However, in 2004, when total CTL plate imports to Canada almost doubled, imports from Mexico declined to ***. In 2005, Canada’s CTL plate imports from Mexico increased to *** short tons, but this figure represents less than a *** percent share of total CTL plate imports into Canada from the rest of the world. In interim 2006, Mexico’s CTL plate exports to Canada were nominal. See, e.g., AHMSA’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at Exh. 15 citing Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Plate Originating in or Exported from Mexico, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of South Africa and the Russian Federation, Expiry Review No. RR-2001-006 (Jan. 10, 2003) at 3, 10, 14-15. 215 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-31. 216 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-47; PR at CTL-IV-25. To the extent AHMSA may ship CTL plate to the United States following revocation, it has stated that those shipments will serve a discrete set of multinational companies operating on both sides of the border that are end-users of CTL plate, as opposed to service centers or distributors. See, e.g., CTL Plate Hearing Tr. at 267-68 (Pierce). Since AHMSA cannot meet Mexican demand, and since the U.S. industry is the largest foreign supplier to the Mexican market, any limited sales by Mexico of CTL plate to these multinational companies, whose Mexican subsidiaries are already served by AHMSA, are likely to be at least partly offset by increased sales by the domestic industry to Mexican customers. 217 See, e.g., AHMSA’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 9-10; see also, e.g., CR at CTL-V-3; PR at CTL-V-2 (per- unit transportation costs from Mexico to the United States estimated at 4.76 percent). 218 See, e.g., AHMSA’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 10. 45 running at full capacity, AHMSA has been able to meet only a little over *** percent of home market demand, with the remainder being supplied by foreign sources.211 Indeed, growing home market demand has turned Mexico into a net importer of CTL plate. 212 Throughout the period of review, the United States was the largest exporter of CTL plate to Mexico, accounting for *** percent of apparent Mexican consumption in 2005.213 The Mexican CTL plate industry is not export-oriented.214 In each year of the period of review, all or substantially all of Mexico’s CTL plate shipments have been made to the home market.215 AHMSA reported minimal CTL plate exports to the *** in 2001, and 2005 marked the only other year it reported exports to any other markets; even then, exports accounted for only *** percent of its shipments.216 Moreover, U.S. CTL plate price levels will not serve as an incentive for AHMSA to start exporting to the United States. MEPS 2005-2006 pricing data, compared to home market prices supplied by AHMSA, show that AHMSA’s prices in Mexico closely track U.S. CTL plate prices. At its ***, AHMSA’s home market price was only *** than that of the domestic industry’s, ***.217 In *** months examined, ***. 218 219 See, e.g., Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 15-16. 220 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-47; PR at CTL-IV-25. 221 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-47; PR at CTL-IV-25. 222 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-47; PR at CTL-IV-25. 223 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-47; PR at CTL-IV-25. 224 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-47; PR at CTL-IV-25; AHMSA’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 3-4. How we define the reasonably foreseeable future is explained in the conditions of competition section below. 225 We also note that counsel for some of the domestic interested parties conceded that Mexico should not be cumulated absent a proposed capacity expansion. As stated by counsel during the hearing, “if {AHMSA’s capacity expansion} wasn’t public ... {t}hen Mexico would probably be out of this case in a minute ... based on {its} present capacity compared to the amount of imports in the {Mexican} market.” See, e.g., CTL Plate Hearing Tr. at 210. 226 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-C-2, CTL-IV-9 (*** percent for Belgium), CTL-IV-14 (*** percent for Brazil), CTL-IV-19 (*** percent for Finland), CTL-IV-25 (*** percent for Germany), CTL-IV-37 (*** percent for Poland), CTL-IV-48 (*** percent for Spain), CTL-IV-50 (*** percent for Sweden), CTL-IV-53 (*** percent for Taiwan), and CTL-IV-58 (*** percent for the United Kingdom). Vice Chairman Aranoff notes that these percentages are even higher based on her definition of the domestic like product, which does not include micro-alloy products. 227 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-9, CTL-IV-14, CTL-IV-19, CTL-IV-25, CTL-IV-37, CTL-IV-49, CTL- IV-51, CTL-IV-53, and CTL-IV-58. In 2005, total exports of CTL plate as a percentage of total shipments for subject industries ranged from a low of *** percent for the *** industry to a high of *** percent for the *** (continued...) 46 Domestic interested parties argue that AHMSA is likely to increase its shipments of CTL plate to the United States after revocation due to its planned capacity expansion.219 The record indicates that AHMSA’s planned expansion is intended to ***.220 These plans call for ***. 221 However, AHMSA’s ***. 222 Since 1999, AHMSA has been operating under suspension of payment status, which will require it to overcome numerous hurdles in order to obtain financing to undertake the expansion, including an inability to access normal lines of credit, downgrades in its credit rating, and court approval before undertaking a debt obligation of this size.223 Even if AHMSA is able to obtain financing for this expansion, which is uncertain at this time, it will take AHMSA at least three years for this expansion to come on line, a time frame which for purposes of these reviews we do not consider to be within the reasonably foreseeable future.224 225 For all of these reasons we find that subject imports from Mexico are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time in the event of revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on subject imports from Mexico, and, accordingly, we conclude that the statute precludes cumulation of subject imports from Mexico with other subject imports. b. Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom By contrast, we do not find that subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation of orders covering those imports. Relative to the U.S. market, the size of the CTL plate industry in each of these countries is significant. In 2005, the capacity in each subject country was equivalent to at least seven percent of apparent U.S. consumption.226 Each country has capacity to produce a large range of plate products, and the actual production of subject plate is significant in each country. Moreover, the CTL plate industries in all of the subject countries are globally recognized, and all subject countries export subject plate, although to varying degrees. 227 Prior to the imposition of the antidumping finding, antidumping duty orders, and 227 (...continued) industry. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-9, CTL-IV-14, CTL-IV-19, CTL-IV-25, CTL-IV-37, CTL-IV-49, CTL-IV-51, CTL-IV-53, and CTL-IV-58. 228 See, e.g., Domestic Interested Parties Questionnaire Responses at II-13, II-14; CR/PR Tables CTL-IV-10, CTL-IV-11 (Belgium), CTL-IV-15, CTL-IV-16 (Brazil), CTL-IV-20, CTL-IV-21 (Finland), CTL-IV-26, CTL-IV-27 (Germany), CTL-IV-38, CTL-IV-39 (Poland), CTL-IV-54, CTL-IV-55 (Taiwan), and CTL-IV-59, CTL-IV-60 (United Kingdom). Publicly available data from Sweden indicates that “heavy plate” constituted the majority of SSAB’s plate production during the period of review, although the company has stated that it plans on reducing the volume of heavy plate production in favor of high-strength steel and other niche products. See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV- 75; PR at CTL-IV-33. The record contains no information regarding the product mix from Spain. 229 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-21; PR at CTL-II-13. 230 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-II-5. 231 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-V-6. In these reviews, subject imports from Germany undersold the domestic like product. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-V-6. 232 See Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-278 to 280 (Final), USITC Pub. 1845 (May 1986), aff'd, Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988), aff'd, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 915 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996)). 233 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun examine the likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition only after first determining whether subject imports are likely to face similar conditions of competition. Because they determine that certain factors indicate that subject imports from Romania will likely compete under different conditions of competition than other subject imports, they do not include subject imports from Romania in their analysis of the likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition. 47 countervailing duty orders, subject imports from each country were present in the U.S. market, and we find that upon revocation of the orders, subject imports from each country are likely to have at least some presence in the U.S. market. With respect to product mix, the types of plate products manufactured and exported in each of the subject countries do not differ dramatically from the types of plate produced in the United States. 228 Imports from each of the subject countries are likely to be substitutable for, and competitive with, domestically produced plate.229 Such competition is likely to be based, at least in part, on price, in light of the importance of price in purchasing decisions.230 Producers in each country undersold U.S. producers at times during the original investigation period, and, in the case of Germany, during this review period as well. 231 Accordingly, we cannot conclude that subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation of orders covering those imports. 3. Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition In assessing likely competition for purposes of cumulation in original investigations, the Commission generally has considered four factors intended to provide a framework for determining whether the imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product: (1) fungibility; (2) sales or offers in the same geographic markets; (3) common or similar channels of distribution; and (4) simultaneous presence. 232 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether there likely would be a reasonable overlap of competition even if none currently exists because the subject imports are absent from the U.S. market. We consider these four factors in addition to those discretionary factors discussed below with respect to subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.233 Because we do not cumulate subject imports from Mexico due to our no discernible adverse impact finding with regard to those subject imports, we find it 234 In the original investigations and the first reviews the Commission stated that specialized or “niche” products constituted only a small percentage of imports from any one country, and that subject countries continue to produce substantial volumes of commodity CTL plate that accounted for a large share of the U.S. market. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 2664 at 20; USITC Pub. 3364 at 21; USITC Pub. 3587 at 9 (Remand Determination). 235 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-II-8. Large numbers of purchasers and importers reported that they had no familiarity with imports from all or most of the subject countries. A majority of purchasers also stated that imported and U.S. produced CTL plate are generally used in the same applications. 236 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-II-8. 237 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-29 to CTL-II-30; PR at CTL-II-19 to CTL-II-20. Twelve purchasers reported that certain grades, types, or sizes of CTL plate are available from only a single source. *** reported that abrasion- resistant material is only available from Sweden, Germany, and Canada, while *** reported that Germany has a patented material with a unique composition. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-25; PR at CTL-II-16. 238 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-II-7. No purchaser completed the comparison between the United States and Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Romania, Spain, Taiwan, or the United Kingdom, although five purchasers completed the comparison between the United States and “all foreign countries.” 239 See, e.g., CR/PR at CTL-Table II-8. German producers reported that ***. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-11 n.16; PR at CTL-II-7 n.16. 48 unnecessary to decide the issue of the likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition with respect to subject imports from this country. In these reviews, the record indicates that domestically produced and imported CTL plate are fungible products. Consistent with the Commission’s findings in the original investigations and the first reviews, the record in the current reviews indicates that the domestic like product and subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom are generally substitutable.234 For example, out of 103 responses from purchasers expressing familiarity with imports from subject countries (excluding Mexico), 42 reported CTL plate from these ten subject countries to be “always” interchangeable with U.S. produced CTL plate, 31 reported CTL plate from these ten subject countries to be “frequently” interchangeable with U.S.-produced CTL plate, 29 reported CTL plate from these ten subject countries to be “sometimes” interchangeable with U.S. produced CTL plate, and one reported CTL plate from these ten subject countries to be “never” interchangeable with U.S.-produced CTL plate.235 A vast majority of importers expressing familiarity with subject imports, 48 of 53, reported CTL plate from these subject countries to be “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with U.S.-produced CTL plate.236 Moreover, a vast majority of importers and purchasers expressing familiarity with subject imports reported that imports from subject countries were used interchangeably. A majority of purchasers reported that country of origin was rarely or never a factor in purchasing decisions.237 Purchasers were asked to compare domestic and subject CTL plate products on the basis of 20 ranking factors, and, although responses were limited, purchasers found that the U.S. product was generally comparable to, and sometimes superior to, subject imports.238 German and U.K. producers were the only respondent interested parties to present arguments regarding the likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition. They both argued that their exports are not substitutable for the domestic product because they currently export specialty CTL plate, and ***. However, the record refutes their contentions. Eleven of 14 importers and purchasers expressing familiarity with imports from the United Kingdom reported that such imports were “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with U.S.-produced CTL plate, while 16 of 20 importers and purchasers expressing familiarity with imports from Germany reported that such imports were “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with U.S.-produced CTL plate.239 Moreover, the record shows that both U.K. and German producers produce and export to non-U.S. markets significant quantities of carbon structural steel plate less than four inches thick, which are directly substitutable for U.S. produced CTL 240 See generally Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“The statute and legislative history are clear: the Commission is not required to find that subject imports currently compete in the U.S. market.”); cf. SAA at 888 (regional industry); see also, e.g., Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-385 to 386 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3823 at 13-14 (Dec. 2005). (“While subject imports from Japan currently consist of niche products, the current composition of subject imports is affected by the discipline of the antidumping duty orders and thus not necessarily indicative of likely post-revocation behavior.”) (finding a likely reasonable overlap of competition). 241 USITC Pub. 3364 at 22. 242 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-3; PR at CTL-II-3; CR/PR at Table CTL-II-2. Seven of nineteen producers and seven of fifteen importers reported selling nationwide during the review period. 243 USITC Pub. 3364 at 21. 244 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-1; PR at CTL-II-1. 49 plate. Although U.K. and German producers do not currently compete in the U.S. market to any significant degree, the focus of the Commission’s inquiry here is on “likely,” not current, competition.240 We, therefore, conclude that subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom are sufficiently fungible with one another and with the domestic like product. With respect to geographic overlap and simultaneous presence, in the first reviews, the Commission found that the record was “mixed” concerning simultaneous market presence and geographic overlap, but found that, “in light of the importance of sales to steel service centers, which are dispersed throughout the United States and hold sizeable plate inventories, we find it likely that subject imports from each subject country would be simultaneously present in the U.S. market as a whole and in the same geographical markets as other subject imports and the domestic like product.”241 Similar to the record in the first reviews, the record in the current reviews is mixed regarding geographic overlap and simultaneous presence in the market. The record continues to reflect that current producers and importers as a whole reported nationwide sales. Subject imports were also generally available in multiple regions of the country during the review period. 242 Subject imports from some subject countries were not present during some of the current review period. Imports of subject merchandise from all subject countries, except Romania, have declined substantially since the orders were imposed. There were reportedly *** imports of subject CTL plate from Belgium (except in 2005), Brazil, Finland, Poland, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom (except in 2003). According to official import statistics, there were no imports of subject CTL plate from Spain in 2001, and from 2003 through 2005, and from Sweden in 2003. Prior to the imposition of the orders, subject imports from each country were present in the U.S. market, and we find that upon revocation of the orders, subject imports from each country are likely to have at least some presence in the U.S. market. The record also indicates that there is sufficient overlap in the channels of distribution for domestic and imported CTL plate. In the first reviews, the Commission found that “domestic producers and importers ship plate to end users, distributors, and service centers.”243 This is generally consistent with the record in the current reviews, although there were too little data reported to comment specifically on imports from subject countries.244 On balance, we find that subject imports from the ten subject countries would be sufficiently fungible, move in the same channels of distribution, and compete in the same geographic markets during the same periods, and we therefore conclude that there would likely be a reasonable overlap of competition among subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Romania, Spain, 245 See Siderca S.A.I.C. v. United States, 391 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1364-65 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005) (For cumulation in reviews, “[t]here is no requirement that the ITC find that all four subfactors are independently supported by a ‘likeliness’ determination.”), citing Wieland Werke, 718 F. Supp. at 50. 246 We find it unnecessary to reach the issue of whether subject imports from Mexico are likely to compete in the U.S. market under different conditions of competition than other subject imports, because we decline to exercise our discretion to cumulate such imports on the basis of our finding of no likely discernible adverse impact, as discussed above. 247 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-64; PR at CTL-IV-29. 248 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-64 to CTL-IV-65; PR at CTL-IV-30. 249 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-III-1. In 2005, Mittal Steel USA accounted for *** percent of U.S. production of non-alloy CTL plate and *** percent of U.S. production of carbon CTL plate. Mittal Steel USA also has a corporate relationship with another subject producer, Polish producer Huta Batory (*** percent share). Further, once the Arcelor-Mittal merger is finalized ***, Mittal also will be linked to producers in Belgium, Germany, and Spain, which are subsidiaries of the Arcelor Group. See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-33 to CTL-I-34; PR at CTL-I-28. While these corporate relationships ultimately may affect the behavior of those producers in the same manner in which the behavior of Mittal Steel Galati will likely be affected, at this time we cannot determine that it is more likely than not that there will be the same effect in the reasonably foreseeable future. First, Mittal only has a partial ownership interest in Polish producer Huta Batory, and Huta Batory represents less than *** of Poland’s CTL plate production capacity. See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-54. Second, in the case of Belgium and Germany, Mittal’s eventual relationship with the Arcelor Group producers in those countries represents only a portion of the industries in Belgium (Industeel is one of two Belgian producers and only accounts for about *** percent of Belgian CTL plate production) and Germany (Dillinger is *** of three German CTL plate producers). See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-13, CTL-IV-41; PR at CTL-IV-12. Finally, while there is only one Spanish producer, it did not respond to the Commission’s questionnaire, and thus, we lack any data upon which to evaluate the likely effects of the eventual Arcelor-Mittal (continued...) 50 Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom and between these subject imports and the domestic like product in the event of revocation. 245 4. Other Considerations In determining whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom,246 we also examine other considerations, such as similarities and differences in the likely conditions of competition of the subject imports with regard to their participation in the U.S. market for CTL plate. Several factors indicate that subject imports from Romania will likely compete in the U.S. market under different conditions of competition than other subject imports, if the antidumping duty order on CTL plate imports from Romania were revoked. The Romanian CTL plate industry has undergone significant changes since the original investigations and the first five-year reviews that distinguish it from the CTL plate industries in the other subject countries. Most importantly, since April 2005, the lone Romanian producer of CTL plate has been in the same corporate group as a major U.S. producer of CTL plate. During the original investigations, the Commission identified two state-owned Romanian producers of CTL plate, Sidex SA Galati and Metalexportimport. During the first reviews, there remained only one producer, Sidex.247 Since the first five-year reviews, Sidex was privatized and purchased in 2001 by LNM Holdings, which eventually brought the company under the control of the multinational Mittal Group of steel companies. The Romanian producer now operates under the name Mittal Steel Galati.248 As of April 2005, Mittal Steel Co., NV purchased the assets of U.S. CTL plate producer International Steel Group (“ISG”), thereby creating Mittal Steel USA, which consequently is now affiliated with its Romanian sister company Mittal Steel Galati.249 This newly arising corporate affiliation between Mittal Steel Galati and Mittal Steel USA 249 (...continued) merger with regard to subject imports from Spain. See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-73; PR at CTL-IV-31. 250 There were no subject imports from Romania during the first half of 2006. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV- 1. 251 The record contains no information regarding the capacity or capacity utilization trends for Spain and Sweden over the period of review. 252 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-43. Romania’s reported increase in capacity was ***. See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-65; PR at CTL-IV-30. 253 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-43. 254 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-68; PR at CTL-IV-30. 255 We note even if we had decided to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from all eleven subject countries, we would have reached negative determinations with respect to subject CTL plate from each of the eleven countries. 51 will make it likely that decisions as to how Mittal Steel Galati will respond to revocation of the antidumping duty order will be made at the corporate level with the best interests of the U.S. affiliate in mind. 250 While the reported capacity of the CTL plate industry in each of the subject countries ***, Mittal Steel Galati’s capacity *** during the period of review.251 Mittal Steel Galati’s reported capacity increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2003, before declining to *** short tons in 2005, ***. 252 While the Romanian industry has increased its production over the period of review, in 2005 it still had the *** level of capacity utilization, *** percent, of any of the subject countries, and as a result, had the *** amount of excess capacity of any of the subject countries. 253 Finally, the record also indicates that Romania is the only subject country that faces tariff barriers in third-country markets. 254 Two of those countries with tariff barriers in place, Mexico and Canada, limit Romania’s export markets in North America. For these reasons, we find that the conditions of competition with respect to Romania are sufficiently different so as to provide a reasonable basis for us to decline to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Romania with those from the other subject countries. We do not find different conditions of competition sufficient to warrant our declining to exercise our discretion to cumulate the subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, or the United Kingdom. 5. Conclusion In sum, we determine that subject imports from Mexico are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation, and are therefore ineligible for cumulation. With respect to the remaining countries, we find that the no discernible adverse impact exception to cumulation does not apply and that there would likely be a reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from each country and the domestic like product as well as among subject imports from each country. We also determine, based on the existence of unique conditions of competition with respect to Romania, not to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Romania with those from any of the other subject countries. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we consider subject imports from Mexico separately from all other subject imports, we consider subject imports from Romania separately from all other subject imports, and we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.255 256 Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv); see also SAA at 887. In the final results of its second five-year reviews of the antidumping duty orders on CTL plate, Commerce assigned the following likely margins. Belgium: Forges de Clabecq, S.A. 6.78 percent, Industeel 13.38 percent, all others 6.84 percent; Brazil: Usiminas/Cosipa 42.68 percent, all others 75.54 percent; Finland: Rautaruukki 40.36 percent, all others 40.36 percent; Germany: Dillinger 36.00 percent, all others 36.00 percent; Mexico: AHMSA 49.25 percent, all others 49.25 percent; Poland: country-wide 61.98 percent; Romania: Metalexportimport, S.A. 75.04 percent, all others 75.04 percent; Spain: Ensidesa 105.61 percent, all others 105.61 percent; Sweden: SSAB 24.23 percent, all others 24.23 percent; Taiwan: CSC 34.00 percent, all others 34.00 percent; and United Kingdom: British Steel 109.22 percent, all others 109.22 percent. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-I-14. In the final results of its second five-year reviews of the countervailing duty orders on CTL plate, Commerce assigned the following likely subsidization rates. Belgium: Cockerill 2.82 percent, Industeel 0.56 percent, all others 0.50 percent; Brazil: Usiminas 5.44 percent, Cosipa 48.64 percent, all others 23.10 percent; Mexico: AHMSA 28.32 percent, all others 20.25 percent; Spain: country-wide 33.68 percent; Sweden: de minimis. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-I-15. In addition, the statute provides that “if a countervailable subsidy is involved, the Commission shall consider information regarding the nature of the countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement.” 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(6). In its unpublished Issues and Decision Memoranda issued in these second reviews, Commerce described 19 programs with respect to CTL plate from Belgium, and, with the exception of the “Promotion Brochure” and “Audio Visual Calling Card” programs, these programs do not fall within the meaning of Article 3. Commerce described 5 programs with respect to CTL plate from Brazil, none of which fall within the meaning of Article 3. Commerce described 11 programs with respect to CTL plate from Mexico, 2 of which were found to be export subsidies as described in Article 3 (Bancomext Export Loans and PITEX Duty-Free Imports for Companies that Export). Commerce described 6 programs with respect to CTL plate from Spain and 7 programs with respect to CTL plate from Sweden, and none of them fall within the meaning of Article 3. Commerce did not indicate that any of the programs involved Article 6.1 subsidies. See, e.g., CR at OVERVIEW-17 & nn.36-40; PR at OVERVIEW-10 & nn.36-40. 257 We note that this timeframe is consistent with the period advocated by domestic interested parties. See, e.g., CTL Plate Hearing Tr. at 385 (Brightbill) (“We believe two years is the appropriate timeframe for looking at what is reasonably foreseeable.”) 258 We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above. 52 D. Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury If the Antidumping Duty Orders and Finding and Countervailing Duty Orders Are Revoked 1. In General We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above.256 As a preliminary matter, in view of the nature of this industry and market, for purposes of these reviews, and based on the facts on this record, we have given significantly greater weight to developments likely to occur in the next two years than to those pertaining to later dates, although we cite other information as appropriate.257 2. Conditions of Competition and Business Cycle258 a. The Original Investigations In the 1993 original investigations, the Commission found that demand for CTL plate was generally declining over the period of investigation, and about 44 percent of domestic shipments and about 79 percent of imported CTL plate were sold to service centers. It found that service centers, which purchased CTL plate from a number of sources, did not require extensive pre-sale certification 259 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 2664 at 216-17. Conditions of competition were not separately discussed in the 1979 original determination concerning subject imports from Taiwan, which involved a regional industry. 260 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3664 at 23-25. 261 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1, Table C-2 (indicating that in 2005, 1.3 million short tons of micro-alloy CTL plate were produced compared to 7.3 million short tons of non-alloy CTL plate, such that non-alloy CTL plate constituted more than four-fifths of U.S. carbon steel plate production). 262 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-20; PR at CTL-II-13. 263 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-19; PR at CTL-II-12. 264 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-16; PR at CTL-II-10; Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 43; Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 26; Caterpillar’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 6. 53 procedures, and that virtually all CTL plate products were produced to ASTM standards in one of three standardized commercial grades.259 b. The First Reviews In the first reviews, the Commission found that demand in the U.S. market for CTL plate, which generally parallels the U.S. economy, had increased since the original investigations. It found that CTL plate products are used in industrial and agricultural equipment, construction, and transportation. It found that several domestic mills had closed, and that the overall industry’s capacity increased as some companies made the transition from conventional reversing mills to Steckel mills. It found that the domestic industry had a high ratio of fixed to total costs such that it must produce large volumes to operate profitably. It concluded that CTL plate is a commodity product sold primarily on the basis of price, and increasingly to service centers, entities that had become more consolidated and more sophisticated. The Commission also noted that there had been additional waves of imports from a number of suppliers throughout the world that resulted in suspension agreements being signed with China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine in 1997 and then antidumping and countervailing duty orders being put in place in 2000 with respect to imports from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea. 260 c. The Current Proceedings To the extent that non-alloy steel plate constitutes a substantial portion of the carbon CTL plate produced in the United States, 261 we find that the conditions of competition in the U.S. market are the same whether or not the domestic like product is expanded to include micro-alloy products. We find the following conditions of competition relevant to our determinations in these reviews. (1) Demand CTL plate often accounts for a relatively large percentage of the total cost of end-use products, although the cost share varies widely depending on end use. 262 While there are reported substitutes for CTL plate, the potential for substitution is often limited by end use.263 All parties agree that demand for CTL plate is derived from the demand for end-use applications.264 In terms of shipments in the U.S. market in 2005 compiled from American Iron & Steel Institute (“AISI”) reporting companies, more than half of shipments classified by AISI as CTL plate (54.1 percent) were for construction, 25.0 percent were for steel service centers and distributors, 8.7 percent were for rail transportation, 6.1 percent were for 265 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-17; PR at CTL-II-11. 266 According to information from the 1979 original investigation of subject imports from Taiwan, apparent U.S. consumption declined from 10.0 million short tons in 1974 to 7.7 million short tons in 1975 and to 6.8 million short tons in 1976 before increasing to 7.4 million short tons in 1977 and 8.6 million short tons in 1978. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 970 at A-2. Due to changes in the composition of the domestic industry, differences in the identities of the responding companies, and differences in the scope of the two investigations, these data are not directly comparable with data from the 1993 original investigations. According to the data in the latter investigations, apparent U.S. consumption declined from 5.6 million short tons in 1990 to 4.8 million short tons in 1991 before increasing to 5.0 million short tons in 1992. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-I-1. As of the time of the first reviews of these orders, apparent U.S. consumption increased from 6.6 million short tons in 1997 to 8.2 million short tons in 1998 before declining to 6.0 million short tons in 1999. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-I-1. Again, due to changes in the composition of the domestic industry, differences in the number and types of responding companies (including the response rate of bar mills), and especially the Commission’s decision to include service center processors in the industry data in the first reviews, these data are not directly comparable. 267 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. These data include shipments of micro-alloy CTL plate; although the Commission did not expand the domestic like product to include micro-alloy CTL plate in the first reviews, it acknowledged that some of the data it relied upon in those reviews contained micro-alloy shipments to the extent that some domestic producers were unable to segregate their micro-alloy data from their non-alloy CTL plate data. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3364 at 23 n.126. During the period of review, demand for non-alloy CTL plate, as measured by apparent U.S. consumption declined from 6.8 million short tons in 2000 to 6.2 million short tons in 2001, increased to 6.5 million short tons in 2002, declined to 6.4 million short tons in 2003 and then increased to 7.0 million short tons in 2004 and to 7.3 million short tons in 2005; demand in the first six months of 2006 (“interim 2006”) (4.4 million short tons) was also higher than in interim 2005 (3.6 million short tons). See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. 268 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-15; PR at CTL-II-10. 269 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-17; PR at CTL-II-11. 54 machinery, industrial equipment, and tools, and the remainder were for oil and gas, shipbuilding and marine equipment, electrical and agricultural equipment, and other end-use markets.265 (a) U.S. Market Since the original investigations, demand, as measured by apparent U.S. consumption (the sum of subject and non-subject imports and the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments) has fluctuated. 266 During the current period of review, demand for carbon CTL plate declined from 7.7 million short tons in 2000 to 7.1 million short tons in 2001, increased to 7.5 million short tons in 2002, declined to 7.3 million short tons in 2003 and then increased sharply to 8.3 million short tons in 2004 and to 8.6 million short tons in 2005; demand in the first six months of 2006 (“interim 2006”) (5.2 million short tons) was also much higher than in interim 2005 (4.3 million short tons).267 Explanations offered for the increase in demand during the period of review included the improved economy, increased investment, lower interest rates, increased global consumption, increased shipbuilding, increased oil and gas exploration, increased use for military applications, rebuilding activities after the hurricanes of 2005, and increased construction and manufacturing activity.268 Thirteen of sixteen responding purchasers who are end users reported that the demand for their firms’ final products that use CTL plate changed since 2000, with most citing increases in demand for these final products. In identifying the major factors that contributed to the demand changes, purchasers reported factors such as a growing U.S. economy, increased pipeline construction, new ship designs, and expanded product lines. 269 During this time of increasing demand in the U.S. market, raw material and energy costs increased, and CTL plate prices also increased. Raw material costs vary depending on the production process, with steel scrap playing a larger role in the raw material costs for electric arc furnace (“EAF”) 270 See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-22; PR at CTL-I-19. 271 See, e.g., CR at CTL-V-1; PR at CTL-V-1. 272 See, e.g., CR at CTL-V-1; PR at CTL-V-1; CR/PR at Figure CTL-V-1. 273 See, e.g., CR at CTL-V-1; PR at CTL-V-1. 274 See, e.g., CR at CTL-V-1; PR at CTL-V-1. 275 See, e.g., CR at CTL-V-1; PR at CTL-V-1 and V-2. 276 See, e.g., CR at CTL-V-2; PR at CTL-V-2. 277 See, e.g., IPSCO/Oregon’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 24, 27, Exh. 3; Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 43; Nucor’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 30-32; CTL Plate Hearing Tr. at 46-47 (Tulloch), 52-53 (McFadden), 56 (Insetta), 74 (Ballou), 114 (McFadden), 137 (Insetta); IPSCO/Oregon’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 9-13; Mittal’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 4-5 & n.13; Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 10-12, App. 3 at 1-7. 278 See, e.g., IPSCO/Oregon’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 2, 27; Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 29, 43-45; CTL Plate Hearing Tr. at 37 (Schagrin), 46-48 (Tulloch), 57-58 (Insetta), 74 (Ballou), 78-79 (Ruane), 193-95 (Ruane); IPSCO/Oregon’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 2-3, 9-13, Exh. 2; Mittal’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 3-5; Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 3 at 1-7. 279 See, e.g., Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 29, 43-45; CTL Plate Hearing Tr. at 56 (Insetta), 112-13 (Tulloch), 114 (McFadden); IPSCO/Oregon’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 3, 9-13; Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 3 at 1-7. 280 See, e.g., CTL Plate Hearing Tr. at 52-53 (McFadden), 86-87 (Tulloch), 129 (Tulloch), 137 (Insetta); Mittal’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 6-7, Conf. Exh. 2; Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 3 at 1-7. 55 mini-mills, for example. 270 Regardless of the production methodology used, the cost of raw materials (e.g., iron ore, coal, and steel scrap) and energy are important components of the total cost of producing CTL plate. 271 Prices in the United States of iron ore and coal rose over the period of review, with the increase for iron ore occurring primarily in 2005 and 2006.272 The price of iron and steel scrap in the United States decreased in 2000 and 2001 and then increased markedly.273 After a decrease in early 2005, scrap prices then increased through mid-2006 and only fell slightly in late 2006.274 The prices of both natural gas and electricity in the United States were higher in interim 2006 than in any of the full years between 2000 and 2005, and the prices of both generally rose over the period of review.275 During the period of review, all 19 responding U.S. producers reported increased CTL plate selling prices as a direct result of higher raw material prices, and five producers reported implementing raw material surcharges.276 Domestic interested parties acknowledge that the industry’s demand forecasts have been positive until recently, but assert that the recent increases in demand in the U.S. market are not likely to continue and demand will decline or grow more slowly.277 They point to two ways in which there will be changes in demand: (1) they expect declines in service center purchases while service centers work off inventories; and (2) they project slowing or declines in demand for CTL plate by end users. Domestic interested parties assert that there is little or no disagreement that service center inventories are historically high and appear to be at their peak; they believe that an inventory draw-down, with its accompanying rapid price declines, has begun and will continue to occur in the fourth quarter of 2006. 278 They also project a slowing or decline in demand because of declining demand from end users.279 They point to testimony that domestic producers will be idling equipment or limiting shifts in the fourth quarter of 2006 due to softening demand as well as testimony by other domestic producers that their order books are not being filled as quickly as was the case earlier in 2006. 280 Record data, however, contradict these claims, and instead indicate that demand in the U.S. market likely will continue to be strong for the reasonably foreseeable future. With respect to service center inventories, the evidence shows that inventory draw-downs are a regular but temporary occurrence 281 Respondent interested parties assert that the inventory data used by the domestic interested parties and reproduced in the staff report reflect a large proportion of non-subject coiled plate inventories and that absolute growth in inventory levels is not surprising in a growing market. In their view, inventory turnover rates measured by months of shipments on hand are more instructive. See, e.g., Brazilian Respondents’ Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 9 Exh. 1 at 1-14. We find that the service center data are a reliable depiction of the trend in plate inventories. We have examined both inventory levels as well as inventory turnover. Although these data do include some non- subject plate (e.g., plate in coils), they include only carbon plate. Additionally, plate in coils held by service centers, unlike plate in coils held by fabricators or pipe mills, frequently is converted into CTL plate. See, e.g., CR at CTL- III-13 n.26; PR at III-9 n.26; CR/PR at Figure CTL-III-1. Indeed, as noted above, we include service centers that process coiled hot-rolled plate into CTL plate in the domestic industry. 282 Apparent U.S. consumption in 2005 was higher than in 2004, and apparent U.S. consumption in interim 2006 exceeded demand in interim 2005. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables C-2, C-1. Likewise, although there was some leveling off or small decrease in prices in the U.S. market in 2005, the data do not show the sort of dramatic price declines that domestic interested parties suggest would have accompanied such inventory destocking. See, e.g., CR at CTL-V-23; PR at CTL-V-15; CR/PR at Figures CTL-V-3 to CTL-V-7, Tables CTL-V-1 to CTL-V-5. Moreover, the record demonstrates that the 2005 inventory correction took only a few months, after which time U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and prices quickly regained and exceeded their pre-correction levels. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables C-2, C-1, CTL-V-1 to CTL-V-5. 283 See, e.g., Brazilian Respondents’ Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 9-10, Exh. 1 at 1-14; CTL Plate Hearing Tr. at 113 (Tulloch), 135 (Tulloch). 284 IPSCO reported that demand growth is at a high level now and will continue at that level or perhaps a slightly lower level, particularly for energy, transportation, and construction equipment. See, e.g., CTL Plate Hearing Tr. at 111-13 (Tulloch). Oregon reported that it expects the large diameter pipe market to be strong over the next year and a half, although it expects overall demand from service centers will be down in 2007. See, e.g., CTL Plate Hearing Tr. at 114-15 (Montross). Mittal reported that it expects 2007 to be about the same as 2006 for CTL plate used by OEMs and fabricators. See, e.g., CTL Plate Hearing Tr. at 116 (Insetta). We recognize that demand associated with the recently enacted $280 billion 2005 Transportation Equity Act may not be as great as joint respondent interested parties argued. Compare, e.g., Corus’ Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. H at 3-4 and exhibits with, e.g., CTL Plate Hearing Tr. at 116-17 (Insetta), 170-71 (Montross), 171-72 (Insetta), 172 (Price); Mittal’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Answers to Commissioner Koplan’s Questions at 13-16; Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 3 at 5-7. 285 Reports from earlier in 2006 suggested that the U.S. market for CTL plate was buoyed by bridge and highway construction, heavy equipment production, barge building, shipbuilding, and the continued strength of the energy market. Indications at the time were that the CTL plate market would remain strong throughout 2006 and potentially beyond. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-16 n.26; PR at CTL-II-10 n.26 (citing “Carbon plate prices firm as demand holds steady,” American Metal Market, June 14, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-06-13 13-48-34.html, retrieved September 1, 2006). More recently, IPSCO reported that strong demand conditions are expected to extend into 2007, not only from the energy sector, but also from the production of barges, ships, and railcars. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-16; PR at CTL-II-10 (citing “Strong North American Plate Demand Expected to Continue,” Steel Business Briefing, October 11, 2006 in Brazilian Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Exh. 2). Other published reports also indicate that end user demand for CTL plate in the United States continues to be strong, especially from the oil and gas industry, even as sheet demand has weakened. See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-110; PR at CTL-IV-44. 286 *** publishes data on historical, current, and forecast consumption of reversing mill plate. These data are understated to the extent that they do not include plate cut from coils produced on a strip mill or Steckel mill plate, (continued...) 56 in this industry. 281 In the recent 2005 reviews of CTL plate orders involving other countries, domestic interested parties also pointed to the anticipated effects of an inventory overhang, but our data in these reviews do not show any meaningful change in the market dynamics after that inventory correction.282 Indeed, in their interviews with industry press, domestic producers anticipate that any effects of the current inventory adjustment will be temporary as well.283 Demand from end users is also expected to increase in the reasonably foreseeable future, as illustrated in domestic producers’ hearing testimony,284 anecdotal information collected in these reviews,285 forecasts by industry observers286 as well as 286 (...continued) but they are overstated due to the fact that they do not distinguish between carbon and non-carbon steel. Nevertheless, these data are consistent with other sources indicating an expectation of continued demand. See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-97 & n.175; PR at CTL-IV-40 & n.175. According to ***, consumption of reversing mill plate in North America (of which the U.S. market is a substantial subset) was as follows between 1994 and 2005: ***. ***. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-68. 287 For example, in a September 2006 presentation for the Metals Service Center Institute Economic Summit Forecast 2007, domestic producers anticipated that ***. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-16, CTL-III-8 n.19; PR at CTL-II- 10; IPSCO/Oregon’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Exh. 5; see also, e.g., German Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 11-14 (citing MEPS International Steel Review, ***, SBB Global Market Outlook, Welded Steel Tube & Pipe Monthly, and John Ferriola, Executive Vice President of the Sheet Mill Group of Nucor in an American Metal Market article); Caterpillar’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 2, 6-7; Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 27- 29 (citing Ferriola as well as IPSCO’s executive vice president and chief commercial officer); Emergency Committee for American Trade’s October 30, 2006, Written Submission at 3-4. 288 See, e.g., IPSCO/Oregon’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 24, 27, Exh. 3; Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 29-30, 43-45; IPSCO/Oregon’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 2-3, 9-13, A-5 to A-6, Exhs. 2, 5. We give little weight to the economic modeling prepared by domestic interested parties during these proceedings, which, inter alia, do not take into consideration each of the statutory criteria that govern these proceedings. See, e.g., Brazilian Respondents’ Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Exh. 1 at 23-29; see also, e.g., Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1063 to 1068 (Final), USITC Pub. 3748 at n.246 (Jan. 2005). 289 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-67 (reproducing *** data indicating that global reversing mill plate consumption has increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2005). As noted above, although these data pertain to reversing mill plate consumption and are in some respects both over- and under-inclusive, we find the trends to be consistent with other record data. See also, e.g., Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 35-36. 290 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-21; PR at CTL-II-13. 291 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-113 to CTL-IV-114; PR at CTL-IV-46 to CTL-IV-47; CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-68, CTL-IV-69; German Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 17-20. 57 predictions made by industry officials.287 Importantly, projections of likely increased demand from CTL plate end users are not limited to a single industry but encompass a wide variety of end user industries, each of which is likely to have strong demand for CTL plate in the reasonably foreseeable future. Thus, the contrary arguments made by the domestic industry in these proceedings288 simply do not override the weight of the evidence indicating likely continued strong and growing demand in the U.S. market in the reasonably foreseeable future. (b) Global Market Consistent with published data on global demand,289 ten producers, 7 importers, and 21 purchasers reported that demand outside the United States also increased over the period of review. They cited factors such as rapidly increasing demand in China and other industrializing countries in Asia and Latin America; the economic recovery in Japan; increased shipbuilding, mining, and oil and gas exploration; increased investment; improvements to infrastructure; the relocation of manufacturing activities outside of the United States; and global economic growth as reasons for the increase.290 In addition, the European Union has grown as a market since 2000 with the addition of thirteen new member states in 2004 and 2005 and remains a substantial non-U.S. market for exports.291 The record also 292 Demand for CTL plate is expected to grow steadily through 2010 in China, the Pacific Basin, and ex- communist countries, as defined by ***. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-21 n.29; PR at CTL-II-13 (citing IPSCO/Oregon’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Exh. 10). *** has also forecast continued demand growth in China, East and South East Asia (excluding China), Eastern Europe and Latin America in 2007. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-69. Consistent with other commentators, see, e.g., German Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 14-17, *** has also forecast continued increases in CTL plate demand in Europe as compared to the current level. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-69. 293 They were Armco Steel Corp., Bethlehem Steel Corp., Gilmore Steel Corp., Inland Steel Co., Interlake, Inc., Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., Kaiser Steel Corp., Lukens Steel Co., Phoenix Steel Corp., Republic Steel Corp., U.S. Steel Corp., and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 970 at A-5. 294 They were ***. See, e.g., Mem. INV-Q-115 at Table 12 (Jul. 20, 1993), as amended by Mem. INV-Q-116 (July 20, 1993); INV-Q-118 (July 21, 1993), INV-Q-119 (July 21, 1993), INV-Q-121 (July 22, 1993), INV-Q-122 (July 26, 1993); INV-Q-123 (July 27, 1993). The Commission did not include service centers in the domestic industry in either the 1979 or 1993 original determinations. 295 The mills were Bethlehem, California, Citisteel, Denro, Geneva, Gulf States, IPSCO, LeTourneau, National, North Star, Oregon, Tuscaloosa, and USX, and the processors included Cargill, Friedman, JIT, Olympic, O’Neal, Paper Cal, and Primary. See, e.g., Mem. INV-X-221 at OVERVIEW Table 2 (Oct. 18, 2000). 296 They include fourteen active U.S. mills (Arkansas Steel, Claymont, CMC Steel Alabama, CSI, Gerdau Ameristeel, IPSCO, Jindal, Kentucky Electric, LeTourneau, Mittal, Nucor, Oregon, U.S. Steel, and WCI) and one closed mill (Geneva) from whom the Commission received data as well as ten service centers from whom it also received questionnaire responses (American Steel, Cargill, Feralloy, Friedman, IPSCO, Olympic, PDM, Primary, Robinson, and Steel Warehouse). See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-33; PR at CTL-I-28; CR/PR at Table CTL-I-21. 297 See, e.g., Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 29-30, 56-57; Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 8; German Respondents’ CTL Plate Br. at App. 1. 298 Geneva Steel filed for bankruptcy in February 1999, emerged from bankruptcy as Geneva Steel Holdings in January 2001, shut down its operations in December 2001, and filed for bankruptcy again in January 2002. Geneva’s production assets were ultimately sold to a Chinese firm, Qindao Iron & Steel Co. Gulf States Steel also filed for bankruptcy and in 2000, while in bankruptcy proceedings, closed its mill and liquidated the company; the new owner announced plans to develop the property into an industrial park and sell the equipment to a Chinese company. LTV also filed for bankruptcy in 2000, National Steel filed in 2002, and WCI entered chapter 11 (continued...) 58 indicates that global demand is likely to continue to be strong and growing, including in the markets primarily served by subject producers.292 (2) Supply (a) U.S. Market Since the original investigations, there have been a number of changes in the identity of the suppliers to the U.S. market, although the U.S. market continues to be supplied primarily from the U.S. industry’s shipments as well as by smaller volumes of subject and non-subject imports. Twelve U.S. mills were the primary sources of supply to the U.S. market in 1978, 293 and there were likewise twelve U.S. mills supplying the U.S. market in 1992, although some of the primary producers had changed.294 As of the first reviews of these orders, after additional changes to the players, there were thirteen U.S. mills and seven processors supplying the U.S. market.295 During the period of review, there were fourteen U.S. mills and ten processors that accounted for the domestic industry’s shipments,296 and changes in the identity of the producers (particularly of the mills) continued.297 Several U.S. mills filed for bankruptcy during the period of review, and several shuttered production capacity.298 In addition, the CTL plate assets of several U.S. mills were purchased over the 298 (...continued) bankruptcy protection in 2003. Newport ceased producing its own hot-rolled steel for pipe production in 2001. Kentucky Electric Steel filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2003, and a newly formed entity (KES Acquisition Co. LLC) purchased these assets and restarted production in early 2004. In 2004, Oregon Steel idled its Napa pipe mill to focus on CTL plate production. See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-1, CTL-III-3 to CTL-III-4; PR at CTL- III-1, III-3 to CTL-III-4; CR/PR at Table CTL-III-1. 299 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-1; German Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 1. Neither Acme nor LTV produced CTL plate in more than minimal quantities. See, e.g., CR at Table CTL-I-1. 300 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-I-1. 301 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-III-1; German Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 1. 302 See, e.g., CR at III-6; PR at CTL-III-5. 303 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-III-1; Corus’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 8, Exh. 5. 304 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-III-1. 305 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-III-1; German Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 3, App. 3. 306 See, e.g., German Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 3, App. 4; Mittal’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Answers to Vice Chairman Aranoff’s Questions at 2-4. 307 See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-5 to CTL-III-6; PR at CTL-III-4 to CTL-III-5. 308 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-III-1; German Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 3. 309 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-III-1; German Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 3-4. 310 By 2005, IPSCO and Nucor together accounted for *** percent of domestic production of non-alloy CTL plate compared to *** percent for Mittal. Mittal does account, however, for ***. See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-33 to I-34, CTL- III-3 n.4; PR at CTL-I-28, CTL-III-3; CR/PR at Table CTL-I-21; see also, e.g., Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 4-14. 59 course of the period of review. For example, in April and May 2002, International Steel Group (“ISG”) acquired many of the assets of Acme Steel and LTV.299 In 2003, U.S. Steel acquired the integrated steelmaking assets of National Steel.300 In May 2003, ISG acquired most of the assets of bankrupt, but active, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, including the facilities at Burns Harbor, Indiana; Sparrows Point, Maryland; and Coatesville and Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. 301 ISG exchanged its pickle line at Indiana Harbor Works for U.S. Steel’s Gary Works’ plate mill. 302 In 2004, Nucor purchased substantially all of the steelmaking assets of Corus’ Tuscaloosa, Alabama facility. 303 Cargill, Inc., the parent company of North Star, sold the fixed assets and working capital of North Star to Gerdau Ameristeel.304 In April 2005, ISG was merged into Mittal Steel Company, N.V. (formerly Ispat International N.V.), and the U.S. CTL plate facilities of ISG are now referred to as Mittal Steel USA.305 In June 2006, Mittal Steel Company, N.V. announced its intention to merge with Arcelor S.A. to form Arcelor Mittal.306 Finally, two producers opened greenfield EAF mini-mills in the United States during the period of review that added a total of *** short tons of new capacity to the domestic industry.307 Nucor opened a new plate mill in Hertford County, North Carolina in 2000.308 IPSCO opened a new plate mill in Mobile County, Alabama in 2001. 309 As a result of these changes, the face of the U.S. industry has evolved in two fundamental ways: (1) the rising role of EAF mini-mill production facilities and the different cost structures that they involve; and (2) the consolidation of several of the integrated producers under a single company, Mittal. 310 While new entrants such as Nucor do not have the same legacy costs as some of the integrated mills, even the integrated mills have shed some of their legacy costs through the bankruptcy process and have reduced their propensity to take on such costs in the future by entering into new and innovative labor 311 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables C-2, C-1 (showing declines of *** in unit labor costs between 2000 and 2005); German Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 2-3, App. 1 (citing ISG’s Annual Report at 2 (2003)). Mittal’s predecessor, ISG, negotiated revised labor agreements with its purchase of Bethlehem Steel. In addition to a reduction in salaries and healthcare benefits, Bethlehem’s unfunded $3.7 billion pension plan was transferred to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. ISG’s labor agreement with the United Steelworkers of America, created in 2004 and in effect until 2008, established a trust to fund retiree, health, and welfare benefits. Contributions to the trust are based on quarterly profits and overtime hours worked. See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-7; PR at CTL-III-5; Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 57. 312 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables C-2, C-1 (showing large increases in productivity notwithstanding declines in the total number of production and related workers (PRWs) employed by the U.S. industry). 313 For example, although the former U.S. Steel plate mill facility at Gary Works was shut down, the resumption of production at the 110 inch mill at Burns Harbor, which had been idle since 2000, effectively replaced the capacity lost by shutting down the Gary Works facility and increased efficiency by producing closer to the source of the slabs. See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-6; PR at CTL-III-4; CR/PR at Table CTL-III-1. 314 See, e.g., Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 7 at 2. 315 Domestic interested parties point out that there has been some consolidation among service centers since the original investigations. They assert that service centers have increased their geographic presence and play a larger role in distributing product through the U.S. market. While we agree that the service centers, whose role has increased over the years, are “independent” of the U.S. mills, domestic interested parties overlook that, by definition in these reviews, the domestic industry includes service centers that produce CTL plate. Moreover, any additional pricing power that service centers may have gained through consolidation has apparently had little impact on restraining prices in the U.S. market during the period of review. See, e.g., Brazilian Respondents’ Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 11-12. 316 See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-8; PR at CTL-III-6. 317 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-5; PR at CTL-IV-5; CR/PR at Tables C-2, C-1. 318 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables C-2, C-1. 319 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables C-2, C-1. Because the volume of subject imports from Mexico was so small over the period of review, including Mexico does not change these trends. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. Indeed, combined market share for the eleven subject countries fluctuated over the period of review, largely as a function of the volume of subject imports from Romania, but peaked at 2.1 percent in 2004. See, e.g., CR at Table C-1. 60 agreements, thereby reducing both fixed costs and direct labor costs.311 Changes in the domestic industry have also contributed to increases in productivity 312 as well as better rationalization of production capacity.313 Domestic producer Nucor asserts that additional industry improvements of the kind that occurred over the period of review (such as the entry of EAF mini-mills and the shedding of some of the integrated producers’ legacy costs) would not be expected during the reasonably foreseeable future.314 Nevertheless, going forward the U.S. industry will continue to benefit from significant events such as these. The removal of some legacy costs has reduced the U.S. industry’s fixed costs and gives it more flexibility when setting production levels in the face of rising variable costs (such as rising raw material costs). The consolidation of some of the U.S. industry’s production assets will likely also make it easier to re-calibrate production in response to changes in demand in order to maintain prices. 315 For example, in response to perceived inventory oversupply at the service centers, rather than continuing their production operations at full capacity as they would have at the time of the original investigations, U.S. producers recently opted to conduct planned maintenance outages earlier than scheduled. 316 In addition to shipments from U.S. producers, there were also subject and non-subject imports (particularly from Canada and Korea) supplying the U.S. market during the period of review.317 The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption fluctuated over the period of review, but was always at least 89 percent.318 Market share for the nine cumulated subject countries also fluctuated over the period of review, but never accounted for more than one percent of apparent U.S. consumption.319 320 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables C-2, C-1. 321 During the period of review, qualified U.S. producers of CTL plate were eligible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, also known as the Byrd Amendment (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)) related to the orders under review. See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-17; PR at CTL-I-16; CR/PR at Tables CTL-16, CTL-17. 322 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table OVERVIEW-3. 323 Safeguard measures did not apply to CTL plate imports from Mexico, Poland, or Romania. See, e.g., CR at OVERVIEW-14 at n.30; PR at OVERVIEW-11 at n.30. 324 The President also instructed the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce to establish a system of import licensing to facilitate the monitoring of imports of certain steel products. Import licensing measures remained in place through March 21, 2005, at which time modified measures, which remain in place, were instituted. See, e.g., CR at OVERVIEW-12 to OVERVIEW-15; PR at OVERVIEW-10 to OVERVIEW-12. 325 They included the consolidation of the domestic industry; the U.S. safeguard measures on steel that increased duties on CTL plate between March 2002 and December 2003; increased U.S. capacity; bankruptcies, shutdowns, outages, or consolidations of some U.S. production facilities; increased energy and transportation costs; increased imports from non-subject countries; increased production and demand in China and India; and the U.S. military’s involvement in Iraq. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-4; PR at CTL-II-3; see also, e.g., Caterpillar’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 7-8; Caterpillar’s Posthearing Submission at 1-3; Brazilian Respondents’ Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 10-11. 326 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-5; PR at CTL-II-4. *** reported that in 2003 through 2005, there was limited heat- treatment material available, and *** reported that Mittal had customers on allocation in 2005 for thick plate. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-5; PR at II-4. 327 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-5 to CTL-II-6; PR at CTL-II-4. Mittal’s Sparrows Point blast furnace was temporarily idled in June 2006 due to an electrical storm, but is now fully operational. Its Conshohocken plate mill was temporarily idled as a result of a motor failure, but became operational again in ***. On October 24, 2006, one of Mittal’s Burns Harbor blast furnaces was idled due to a mishap. The blast furnace returned to planned levels of (continued...) 61 Non-subject import volumes also fluctuated over the period of review, reaching a period high in interim 2006. 320 During the period of review, there were a number of trade remedy measures in place that may have contributed to fluctuations in import levels in the U.S. market. In addition to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders and antidumping duty finding in place concerning subject imports,321 during at least some if not all of the period of review there were also antidumping duty orders or suspension agreements in effect with respect to CTL plate imports from eleven other countries. 322 Moreover, subsequent to the first reviews of these orders, in response to a request from the Office of the United States Trade Representative and a resolution adopted by the Committee on Finance of the U.S. Senate, the Commission conducted an investigation under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 of imports of certain steel products, including CTL plate. The Commission reached, inter alia, an affirmative determination with respect to certain flat-rolled steel including CTL plate. The President subsequently implemented corresponding safeguard measures,323 including an additional tariff of 30 percent ad valorem on imports effective March 20, 2002, that was reduced to 24 percent on March 20, 2003, and ultimately terminated by the President on December 4, 2003, after the Commission had conducted a mid-term review of the measures. 324 Questionnaire respondents reported a number of factors that affected the availability of CTL plate in the U.S. market since 2000. 325 Twenty-five purchasers reported that there had been problems with supply, with most reporting that domestic mills had placed them on allocation or controlled order entry from early 2004 to early-to-mid 2005.326 Four of the 19 responding producers and 5 of the 16 responding importers reported having refused, declined, or been unable to supply CTL plate since 2000. *** reported limiting orders from new accounts, reserving space for regular customers, concentrating on contractual and local accounts, or closing order books beginning in 2004. 327 Six purchasers reported being placed on 327 (...continued) operation on ***. See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-6 to CTL-III-7; PR at CTL-III-5 to CTL-III-6. 328 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-6 n.7; PR at CTL-II-4 n.7. 329 Five purchasers reported that domestic mills had placed them on allocation or controlled order entry in 2006, and another purchaser reported that supply has been tight in 2006. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-5; PR at CTL-II-4; Brazilian Respondents’ Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 10-11. 330 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table OVERVIEW-3. 331 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables C-2, C-1. We note that increases in demand in the U.S. market over the period of review were not fully matched by an increase in U.S. producers’ shipments. The U.S. industry’s CTL plate production capacity increased by 7.0 percent between 2000 and 2005, whereas the overall increase in apparent U.S. consumption was 11.2 percent. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-I-1, C-2. In the higher growth period from 2003 to 2005 (when the increase in apparent U.S. consumption was 18.2 percent), the U.S. industry’s production capacity actually declined by 3.2 percent. Although demand was 20.3 percent higher in interim 2005 than in interim 2006, the U.S. industry’s production capacity was only 3.4 percent higher in the latter interim period. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-I-1, C-2; see also, e.g., Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 29-30. 332 See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-7 to CTL-III-8; PR at CTL-III-5 to CTL-III-6; Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 29-35. *** also notes no changes to forecasted reversing mill or Steckel mill capacity for 2006-09. See, e.g., ***. Respondent interested parties also point out that additional U.S. production capacity may be allocated to specific end users as the result of recent acquisitions by domestic producers. See, e.g., Brazilian Respondents’ Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 10-11 (citing, e.g., IPSCO’s acquisition of major CTL plate consumers that will likely tie up more supply). 333 See, e.g., IPSCO/Oregon’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 1; Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 29-42, App. 5; Nucor’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 2, 8-29; Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 12-14, App. 2; Mittal’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 7-10, Exh. Hillman at 16-17, Conf. Exh. 3 (containing ***). 334 According to ***, reversing mill plate consumption in China grew from *** in 1994 to *** in 1999, an increase of *** percent. See, e.g., Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 2. Consumption in China continued to grow, increasing from *** in 2000 to an expected *** in 2005, an increase of *** percent. See, e.g., Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 2. China’s CTL plate production is projected to exceed its consumption by *** metric tons in 2006, compared to estimated excess production ranging from *** to *** metric tons annually during 2007 through 2010. See, e.g., Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 2. 335 See, e.g., Nucor’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 8-10. 62 allocation or having problems obtaining CTL plate from ***, but in its producer questionnaire response, *** reported that it was not unable and did not refuse or decline to supply CTL plate since 2000. 328 The record indicates that supply continued to be tight into 2006, especially for specific products or grades.329 With respect to likely supply in the U.S. market in the reasonably foreseeable future, antidumping duty orders or suspension agreements remain in place on CTL plate imports into the U.S. market from China, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Russia, and the Ukraine.330 The U.S. industry’s average production capacity fluctuated over the period of review as production facilities were closed, rationalized, and as the greenfield EAF mini-mills ramped up production.331 No new additions to the U.S. industry’s production capacity have been reported for the reasonably foreseeable future.332 (b) Global Supply Domestic interested parties forecast large expansions in global capacity, particularly in China, and project a growing imbalance between supply and demand.333 According to record data, demand from China increased substantially in recent years334 and contributed to increased prices both globally and in the U.S. market. 335 At least initially, much of the increased demand was reportedly met by CTL plate imported into China from other sources. As Chinese producers continued to increase their production 336 See, e.g., Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 2. 337 According to ***, Chinese reversing mill plate production increased from *** tons in 2000 to *** tons in 2006, an increase of *** percent, but is projected to increase from *** in 2006 to *** tons in 2008, an increase of only *** percent. See, e.g., Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 2. 338 Most CTL plate in the United States is produced from cast slabs, although ingots may be used to produce thicker plates since continuous cast slabs of sufficient thickness are not available. See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-23; PR at CTL-I-20. 339 Reversing mills produce plate ranging from 0.187 to 20 inches (4.75 to 508 mm) in thickness and from 48 to 154 inches (1,219 to 3,912 mm) in width. For much longer or thinner plates, specialized reversing plate mills called Steckel mills typically produce plate that ranges from 0.187 to 0.750 inches (4.75 to 19.1 mm) in thickness and 48 to 96 inches (1,219 to 2,438 mm) in width, although installed equipment can produce wider plate. Hot-strip mills that primarily produce hot-rolled sheet may also be used to produce plate up to 72 inches wide and between three- sixteenths and one-half inch in thickness. Where narrow widths are needed, such as for machine parts, wide flat bars from bar mills might be preferred. See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-23 to CTL-I-24, CTL-I-26; PR at CTL-I-20 to CTL-I-26. 340 Because of its capability to cross roll, a reversing mill is somewhat flexible with regard to the slab width used to produce a given plate width. Steckel mills and continuous hot-strip mills can only use slabs slightly wider than the width of the plate to be produced, but have the advantage of being able to roll longer, heavier slabs than could be used on a reversing plate mill. Because of its generally thicker dimensions, plate from a reversing mill is preferred for welded load-bearing and structural applications, such as bridgework; machine parts (e.g., the body of the machine or its frame); transmission towers and light poles; buildings; mobile equipment (e.g., cranes, bulldozers, scrapers, and other tracked or self-propelled machinery); and heavy transportation equipment, such as railroad cars (especially tanker cars) and oceangoing ships. Certain end users, such as those that burn out parts from plate, concerned about “coil set memory” (the possibility that the edges of plate cut from coils will curl on heating) may prefer plate from a reversing mill. See, e.g., CR at CTL-I-24; PR at CTL-I-20 to CTL-I-21. Processors generally do not have the capability of producing thicker plate (including plate that is over 1 inch in thickness), wide plate, or plate with special chemistries. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-7; PR at CTL-II-5. 341 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-1; PR at CTL-II-1. 342 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-1; PR at CTL-II-1. 63 capacity, by approximately 2005, China became a net exporter of CTL plate. 336 Although there has been a large increase in Chinese production over the period of review, future increases in Chinese production are not forecast to be anywhere near as large, and the volume of China’s net CTL plate exports is not expected to grow much beyond the levels seen in 2006.337 Moreover, as discussed in more detail below, record data do not show any significant decline in prices in either the U.S. or global markets associated with the change in China’s status from a net importer to a net exporter in 2005 or the increase in its production relative to consumption in 2006. (3) Substitutability There are some differences in CTL plate depending on the production methodologies used, but also considerable overlap. For example, there may be differences associated with the choice of semifinished product inputs, 338 the width ranges of the machines used, 339 and the limitations on product use associated with the underlying production process. 340 CTL plate may be produced in a variety of grades and is used in a variety of applications, such as the manufacture of storage tanks, heavy machinery and machinery parts, ships and barges, agriculture and construction equipment, and general load-bearing structures. 341 Some grades of CTL plate have superior strength and performance characteristics and typically are made to order for customers seeking specific properties, such as improved malleability, hardness or abrasion resistance, impact resistance or toughness, higher strength, and ease in machining and welding.342 These particular properties are achieved by chemically refining the steel by increasing or decreasing specific elements, and by accurate temperature control while hot rolling or heat treating the 343 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-1; PR at CTL-II-1. 344 When asked to list the three most important factors considered when choosing a supplier, price and quality were the most commonly cited factors overall; 12 of 38 responding purchasers reported that quality was the most important factor, and 11 reported that price was the most important factor. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-23-II-24; PR at CTL-II-15. Nineteen of 37 purchasers reported that they “always” or “usually” purchased the lowest priced CTL plate. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-24; PR at CTL-II-16. 345 A majority of purchasers reported that country of origin was rarely or never a factor in purchasing decisions. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-29 to CTL-II-30; PR at CTL-II-20. Twelve purchasers reported that certain grades, types, or sizes of CTL plate are available from only a single source. *** reported that abrasion-resistant material is only available from Sweden, Germany, and Canada, while *** reported that Germany has a patented material with a unique composition. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-25; PR at CTL-II-16. 346 Nine of the seventeen responding producers reporting selling at least 90 percent of their CTL plate produced to order with lead times ranging from three to fifteen weeks; five producers reporting selling at least 70 percent of their CTL plate from inventory, with lead times from two days to one week; and the other three producers having a relatively even split between selling from inventory and producing to order. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-31; PR at CTL- II-21. All seven responding importers reported selling at least 95 percent of their CTL plate produced to order, with lead times ranging from three to six months. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-31; PR at CTL-II-21. 347 Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane find subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom to be generally substitutable for one another and for the domestic like product. 348 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-16; PR at CTL-II-10; Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 43; Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 26; Caterpillar’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 6. 349 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-II-17. 350 We note that thirteen of the nineteen responding producers, ten of the fourteen responding importers, and twenty-one of thirty-five responding purchasers reported that the CTL plate market is not subject to business cycles or conditions of competition distinctive to CTL plate. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-18; PR at CTL-II-12. Among the fourteen purchasers reporting that the market is subject to distinct business cycles or conditions of competition, six reported that some specific end-use markets influence the overall business cycle of the CTL plate market. Others reported that the raw material costs, import/export dynamics, or the limited number of suppliers in the world are factors that affect the overall business cycle for the CTL plate market. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-18; PR at CTL-II-12. 64 plate. Specialized grades of CTL plate are used to manufacture railroad cars, line pipes, mobile equipment, highway and railway bridges, pressure vessels, military armor, and machinery components.343 In addition to price, quality is also an important factor to purchasers in this industry.344 Purchasers are generally indifferent to country of origin, although there are some products that are reportedly only available from certain sources. 345 There are some differences in lead times between domestic and imported products,346 but overall, as indicated in our cumulation discussion, we find subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom to be generally substitutable for one another and for the domestic like product.347 (4) Business Cycle Consistent with our finding that demand for CTL plate is derived from demand for end-use applications, 348 and in light of the wide variety of customers and multiplicity of distinct industries for which CTL plate is used,349 we do not find that the CTL plate market is characterized by a regular and measurable business cycle that might be characteristic of other industries.350 Although the various industries that use CTL plate may each be characterized by a specific business cycle, CTL plate producers respond to several different end-user industries and their individual business cycles. The diversity of customers and industries that use CTL plate limits the effects of upturns or downturns in demand from particular customers or other user industries, particularly to the extent that, at any given time, some CTL 351 We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above. 352 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 970 at 5. 353 The four Commissioners joining in the majority opinion used different combinations of cumulated countries in their analyses, as noted above, and all included imports from Canada, which are no longer subject to any orders. 354 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 2664 at 237-38. 355 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3364 at 27-28. 356 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3364 at 28. 357 Vice Chairman Aranoff examines the likely cumulated volume of CTL imports from nine countries, but, because she defines the domestic like product differently than Chairman Pearson, Commissioner Hillman, and Commissioner Okun, she refers to data for the non-alloy CTL plate industry such as that summarized in Table C-1. Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane examine the likely cumulated volume of CTL imports from eleven subject countries (Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the (continued...) 65 plate end-user industries are likely at different positions in their business cycles than other CTL plate end- user industries. 3. The Likely Volume of Cumulated Subject Imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom Would Not Be Significant in the Event of Revocation 351 a. The Commission’s Original Investigations and First Reviews In the 1979 original finding, the Commission found the volume of subject imports from Taiwan increased rapidly from a first shipment of approximately 1,000 tons in December 1977 to 47,667 tons in 1978, with a commensurate increase in U.S. market penetration from less than 0.1 percent in 1977 to about 6.6 percent in 1978.352 In the 1993 original determinations, the Commission found that the cumulated volume of CTL plate was significant in terms of both absolute volume and market share.353 The absolute volumes of cumulated imports considered by each Commissioner decreased between 1990 and 1991 before a partial recovery in 1992, although the cumulated imports increased their market share during a period of declining apparent domestic consumption.354 In the first reviews, the Commission exercised its discretion to cumulate all subject countries except for Canada. It found that the likely volume of cumulated subject imports would be significant because, on a cumulative basis, capacity was significant and the excess capacity of the subject countries greatly exceeded the volume of total subject imports in the 1993 investigations; product shifting was not difficult; there were foreign CTL plate inventories; all subject countries (except for Mexico) were significant exporters; there were a number of barriers to importation of subject CTL plate to other countries; and the recent imposition of U.S. orders on CTL plate from other countries would, in the event of revocation, give importers an incentive to purchase low-priced CTL plate from subject producers who would want to maximize production capacity.355 The Commission found that, as a result of the price- sensitive nature of the CTL plate market and the weakened condition of the domestic industry, even a relatively modest amount of subject imports would have a significant effect on U.S. prices and the U.S. industry. 356 b. The Current Proceedings In these reviews, we examine the likely cumulated volume of CTL plate imports from nine countries (Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom) in the event of revocation.357 357 (...continued) United Kingdom) in the event of revocation and because they concur with Vice Chairman Aranoff’s definition of the domestic like product, they also refer to data for the non-alloy CTL plate industry such as that summarized in Table C-1. 358 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-I-1. 359 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-I-1. Imports from Taiwan were already subject to order at the time of the 1993 original investigations; at the time of the 1979 original investigation of subject imports from Taiwan, the volume of CTL plate from Taiwan did increase over the period of investigation, but from a level of zero, since imports from Taiwan had not previously been in the U.S. market. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-I-1. 360 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-I-1, C-2, C-1. Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that the volume of subject imports from Mexico has never exceeded *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, regardless of the time period examined, including the 1993 original investigations, the first reviews or the second reviews. They note that the volume of subject imports from Romania has never exceeded *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption, regardless of the time period examined. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-I-1, C-1. Moreover, the market share of the eleven cumulated subject countries declined from 10.9 percent in 1990 to 8.7 percent in 1992 and has never been greater than 2.1 percent of apparent U.S. consumption of the non-alloy CTL plate market since then. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-I-1, C-1. 361 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-I-1, C-2, C-1. 362 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-1; PR at CTL-IV-1; compare, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-1 with CR at CTL-IV-5; PR at CTL-IV-5. 363 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-13, CTL-IV-18, CTL-IV-24, CTL-IV-36, CTL-IV-48, CTL- IV-50, CTL-IV-52, CTL-IV-57 (***). 364 The current combined production capacity of the nine subject countries is *** short tons, but if the capacities of each subject country had at the time of their respective original investigations been combined, that capacity would have been *** short tons. (figures derived from CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-13, CTL-IV-18, CTL-IV-24, CTL-IV-36, CTL-IV-48, CTL-IV-50, CTL-IV-52, CTL-IV-57). Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that the inclusion of data for Mexico and Romania do not change this trend. See also, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-30, CTL-IV-42. 66 At the time of the 1993 original investigations, the volumes of subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom were individually relatively small. None of these subject countries had a market share that exceeded 2.0 percent during the original period of investigation. The volume from each of these sources declined between 1990 and 1992, before these orders were imposed in 1993.358 Collectively, the volume from these countries accounted for 9.6 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 1990 and declined to 7.1 percent of apparent U.S. consumption by volume in 1992. 359 Not only were subject import volumes from these subject countries generally declining before the imposition of the orders, but their cumulated volume continued to be small after the orders were imposed, never exceeding one percent of apparent U.S. consumption in the time periods covered by the first reviews or the current period of review.360 Indeed, for several subject countries, there have been no imports into the U.S. market since the imposition of the orders. 361 The only two of these nine subject countries that consistently reported U.S. imports of over 1,000 short tons were Belgium and Germany, but record data indicate that even these volumes are probably overstated to the extent that the Belgian imports include out-of-scope floor plate and the German imports include out-of-scope X-70 plate. 362 There have been significant declines in production capacity in many of these subject countries since the original investigations, including for each of the countries with relatively larger capacities at the time of the original investigations. 363 As a result, combined production capacity for the nine subject countries has declined substantially since the original investigations. 364 Nor does the record reflect any likely significant increase in production capacity in the subject countries in the reasonably foreseeable future. The only reported future production capacity increases are for producers in ***. The expansion 365 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-21; PR at CTL-IV-14. Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane find that the ***. See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-47; PR at CTL-IV-25. They further note that ***. See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-68; PR at CTL-IV-30. 366 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-55; PR at CTL-IV-27. 367 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-58; PR at CTL-IV-28 (indicating that HSC reported plans ***. By 2010, the firm plans to ***, and ***. According to HSC, ***. 368 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-13, CTL-IV-18, CTL-IV-24, CTL-IV-36, CTL-IV-48, CTL- IV-50, CTL-IV-52, CTL-IV-57. Reported capacity utilization levels for *** were already quite high at the time of the original investigations. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-13, CTL-IV-18, CTL-IV-24, CTL-IV-36, CTL-IV-48, CTL-IV-50, CTL-IV-52, CTL-IV-57. 369 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-13, CTL-IV-18, CTL-IV-24, CTL-IV-36, CTL-IV-48, CTL- IV-50, CTL-IV-52, CTL-IV-57 (derived from data on seven of the nine subject countries because data were not available for Spain and Sweden). We note that producers in several subject countries reported capacity utilization rates above 100 percent. See, e.g., id. Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that including Mexico and Romania in the overall capacity utilization calculation also yields a high capacity utilization level of *** percent in 2005, or well above the *** percent level in 1992. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-13, CTL-IV- 18, CTL-IV-24, CTL-IV-30, CTL-IV-36, CTL-IV-42, CTL-IV-48, CTL-IV-50, CTL-IV-52, CTL-IV-57 (derived from data on nine of the eleven subject countries because data were not available for Spain and Sweden). 370 Derived from CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-13, CTL-IV-18, CTL-IV-24, CTL-IV-36, CTL-IV-48, CTL-IV-50, CTL-IV-52, CTL-IV-57, Table C-2. Vice Chairman Aranoff notes that the combined excess capacity was equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption of non-alloy CTL plate. (derived from CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-13, CTL-IV-18, CTL-IV-24, CTL-IV-36, CTL-IV-48, CTL-IV-50, CTL-IV-52, CTL-IV-57, Table C-1). Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that the combined excess capacity of the eleven subject countries was equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption of non-alloy CTL plate. (derived from CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-13, CTL-IV-18, CTL-IV-24, CTL-IV-30, CTL-IV-36, CTL-IV-42, CTL- IV-48, CTL-IV-50, CTL-IV-52, CTL-IV-57, Table C-1). 371 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-13, CTL-IV-18, CTL-IV-24, CTL-IV-36, CTL-IV-48, CTL- IV-50, CTL-IV-52, CTL-IV-57 (indicating the following capacity utilization levels: Belgium (*** percent); Brazil (*** percent); Finland (*** percent); Germany (*** percent); Poland (*** percent); Taiwan (*** percent); and the United Kingdom (*** percent). Information was not available on capacity utilization levels for Spain and Sweden in 2005, but their respective levels in 1999 were *** and *** percent, respectively. 372 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-67, CTL-IV-69; CR at CTL-II-21 n.29; PR at II-13 n.29. 67 of capacity by about *** in ***, however, is not expected to come into operation until ***, 365 or beyond what we consider to be the reasonably foreseeable future in these reviews. The planned expansion in *** 366 *** is contingent on certain conditions that are not expected to occur until ***,367 or beyond what we consider to be the reasonably foreseeable future. Not only are the increases in production capacity in the nine subject countries likely to be limited in the reasonably foreseeable future, but subject producers are operating at high capacity utilization levels, levels that for each subject country except for *** are higher than during the original investigations. 368 Available data indicate an overall capacity utilization of approximately *** percent.369 The combined excess capacity in 2005 in the nine cumulated countries was *** short tons, which was equivalent to approximately *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in that year.370 While the available excess capacity is not insubstantial in relation to the U.S. market, we do not find it likely that such volumes would be shipped to the United States if the finding and orders were revoked. Given that the subject foreign producers were generally operating at high levels of capacity utilization in 2005 (over 90 percent in most cases),371 and demand is projected to remain strong and even grow in the reasonably foreseeable future in the markets that these foreign producers serve, 372 these producers do not lack markets in which to sell their production. In addition, as discussed below, prices in the markets into which these producers sell are high and comparable to U.S. prices, even prior to allowing for higher 373 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-13, CTL-IV-18, CTL-IV-24, CTL-IV-36, CTL-IV-48, CTL- IV-50, CTL-IV-52, CTL-IV-57. 374 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-13; PR at CTL-IV-12 (suggesting that Industeel’s product mix is heavily weighted toward stainless steel and other alloy steel plate); CR at CTL-IV-14; PR at CTL-IV-12 (indicating that about *** percent of Duferco’s sales are of alloy plate, floor plate, and sheet); CR at CTL-IV-25; PR at CTL-IV-15; CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-17 (indicating that both Brazilian producers produce non-subject plate such as X-70 plate and alloy plate); CR at CTL-IV-32; PR at CTL-IV-17; CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-22 (indicating that approximately *** percent of Finnish producer Rautaruukki’s production is of non-subject CTL plate. Rautaruukki produces ***, uses its sheeting line to produce sheets with thicknesses less than 4.75 mm, and produces micro-alloy plate); CR at CTL-IV- 42 to CTL-IV-43; PR at CTL-IV-23; CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-28 (indicating that German producers produce X-70 plate, micro-alloy plate, and other non-subject plate (e.g., alloy plate)); CR at CTL-IV-60 to CTL-IV-61; PR at CTL- IV-29; CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-40 (indicating that HSC produces X-70 plate, micro-alloy plate, and alloy plate); CR at CTL-IV-75; PR at CTL-IV-33 (indicating that Swedish producer SSAB has been focusing on increasing production of high-strength steel and other niche products such as quenched steel); CR at CTL-IV-82; PR at CTL- IV-36 (indicating that Taiwan producer China Steel does not produce any non-subject CTL plate); CR at CTL-IV- 90; PR at CTL-IV-39; CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-61 (indicating that U.K. producers produce micro-alloy CTL plate, alloy plate, and non-subject bars)). Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that Mexico does not produce any non-subject plate on its production facilities, and Romania *** of micro-alloy CTL plate. See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-51, CTL-IV-70; PR at CTL-IV-26, CTL-IV-31. 375 See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-9; PR at CTL-III-3; see also, e.g., CTL Plate Hearing Tr. at 249-51 (Prusa). 376 In fact, even where a higher-value product was excluded from the scope of the orders (Belgian producer Duferco’s floor plate), the volume of imports of that product from Belgium did not increase subsequent to the revocation of the order as to that product. See, e.g., Duferco’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 17 & Exh. 6. 377 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-14, CTL-IV-19, CTL-IV-25, CTL-IV-36, CTL-IV-53, CTL- IV-58. Data for Spain and Sweden were not available. 378 Derived from CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-14, CTL-IV-19, CTL-IV-25, CTL-IV-36, CTL-IV-53, CTL-IV-58, C-2. Vice Chairman Aranoff notes that this amount was equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption of non-alloy CTL plate in that year. (derived from CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-14; CTL-IV- 19; CTL-IV-25; CTL-IV-36; CTL-IV-53; CTL-IV-58; C-1). Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that the combined end-of-period inventories for all subject countries for which there were data of *** short tons was equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption of non-alloy CTL plate in 2005. (derived from CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-14, CTL-IV-19, CTL-IV-25, CTL-IV-31, CTL-IV-36, CTL-IV-43, CTL-IV-53, CTL-IV- 58, C-1). 379 See, e.g., German Respondents’ Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 7; Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 23-24; CR at CTL-IV-30; PR at CTL-IV-16; CTL Plate Hearing Tr. at 264-65 (Malashevich), 287-88 (Cunningham), 371 (Montalbine). 68 shipping costs to the United States. As a result, these producers likewise have no price motivation to increase sales to the United States. We note also the *** short tons of excess capacity for these nine subject countries is considerably smaller than the 1.1 million short tons of excess capacity that existed among the eleven subject countries in the first reviews. 373 Some of the producers in the nine subject countries do produce non-subject products using the same production facilities and employees as subject merchandise. 374 As domestic producers recognize, however, shifting from other products to produce CTL plate, while sometimes possible, can be costly.375 We do not find that subject producers are likely to engage in much, if any, product shifting at the risk of abandoning existing customers and producing lower-value products than the micro-alloy, specialty, bar, and X-70 non-subject products currently being produced in these facilities.376 End-of-period inventories held by foreign producers in the nine subject countries in 2005 were a combined *** short tons. 377 This amount was equivalent to approximately *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption that year.378 These inventories are largely committed to existing orders.379 In any event, this level of inventories was not excessive in relation to subject producers’ production or shipments so as to 380 On a cumulated basis, subject producers’ end-of-period inventories in 2005 were equivalent to approximately *** percent of subject producers’ production and *** percent of subject producers’ shipments in 2005. Data on end- of-period inventories for Spain and Sweden were not available. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-14; CTL-IV-19; CTL-IV-25; CTL-IV-36; CTL-IV-53; CTL-IV-58. 381 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-14; CTL-IV-19; CTL-IV-25; CTL-IV-36; CTL-IV-53; CTL- IV-58. Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane also note that end-of-period inventories for Mexico and Romania were much smaller in 2005 than at the beginning of the period of review. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL- IV-31, CTL-IV-43. 382 Derived from CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-14; CTL-IV-19; CTL-IV-25; CTL-IV-36; CTL-IV-48; CTL-IV-50; CTL-IV-53; CTL-IV-58. 383 Derived from CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-14; CTL-IV-19; CTL-IV-25; CTL-IV-36; CTL-IV-53; CTL-IV-58. Data were not available for Spain and Sweden. 384 Derived from CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV-14; CTL-IV-19; CTL-IV-25; CTL-IV-36; CTL-IV-53; CTL-IV-58. Data were not available for Spain and Sweden. Figure does not include data for Brazil. In 2005, *** percent of Brazil’s shipments were to the home market. In questionnaire responses, Brazilian respondents reported *** Latin America as their primary export market. See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-21; PR at CTL-IV-14; CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-14. 385 We considered the European Union to be the geographic region of subject producers in Europe, Asia to be the geographic region for Taiwan, and Latin America to be the geographic region for Brazil. In 2005, *** percent of Belgian export shipments were to the European Union; *** percent of Finland’s exports were to the European Union; *** percent of German exports were to the European Union; *** percent of Poland’s exports were to the European Union; *** percent of Taiwan’s exports were to Asia; and *** percent of the United Kingdom’s exports were to the European Union. According to publicly available information, in 2005, 81.2 percent of Spain’s exports were to the European Union; 85.3 percent of Swedish exports were to the European Union, and Sweden also exported to other non-EU neighbors such as Norway. Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane join this footnote and do not consider “geographic regions” in their analysis. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-8, CTL-IV- 14, CTL-IV-19, CTL-IV-25, CTL-IV-36, CTL-IV-53, CTL-IV-58. 386 Belgian producers, which accounted for *** of these extra-region shipments, reported that these shipments were for specific projects, such as oil and gas projects in the Middle East. See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-15; PR at CTL- IV-12. With the impending accession of Romania to the European Union, Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane find it is likely that this figure will be lower in the reasonably foreseeable future. See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-114 & n.199; PR at CTL-IV-47 & n.199. 387 The European Union has eliminated customs duties between Member States, removed internal border restrictions, and otherwise facilitated access to a market of some 450 million consumers with a total gross domestic product of more than $11 trillion. See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-113 to CTL-IV-114; PR at CTL-IV-46 to CTL-IV-47. Similar to the European Union, Mercosur has eliminated most trade barriers in goods and services, achieved a common external tariff, and permitted more than 90 percent of intra-Mercosur trade to be duty-free (with remaining (continued...) 69 create an incentive to offload a significant quantity of product. 380 Nor is this level excessively high vis-a- vis the typical inventory level maintained by subject producers during the entire period of review. 381 We have also examined the level and composition of exports from the nine subject countries to markets other than the United States. The nine subject countries collectively exported *** short tons of subject CTL plate in 2005.382 Of the seven for which there is information on total shipments, their exports of *** short tons represented only *** percent of total shipments because an important share of their shipments were consumed internally and/or sold in their home market.383 Moreover, a substantial majority (*** percent) of these export shipments384 were to markets in the subject producers’ own geographic regions. 385 Only approximately *** percent of subject producers’ total shipments were exported to markets outside their local regions.386 We find that subject producers have a significant incentive to continue to ship to markets that are in relatively close proximity to them, and in the case of the European Union and Mercosur, that provide some logistical and tariff advantages.387 Given the 387 (...continued) goods to be phased in as well). See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-112 to CTL-IV-113; PR at CTL-IV-46. 388 See, e.g., CR at CTL-V-3 to CTL-V-4; PR at CTL-V-2 to CTL-V-3. 389 The stated strategy of both Arcelor and Mittal, even before their merger, for example, was to acquire or build plants to serve clients within a region, rather than having to export product from one region to another region. See, e.g., French Respondents’ Posthearing CORE Br. at 1-4, Exh. 6; Auto Producers’ Prehearing CORE Br. at 47-48, Exh. 2 at slides 16-17. 390 See, e.g., Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 64-65; CR at CTL-IV-15, CTL-IV-24, CTL-IV-31, CTL-IV-41, CTL-IV-59, CTL-IV-78, CTL-IV-85; PR at CTL-IV-12, CTL-IV-14, CTL-IV-16, CTL-IV-22, CTL-IV- 28, CTL-IV-35 to CTL-IV-36, CTL-IV-38. Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane also note that *** of Mexico’s shipments were to the home market and that Mexico does not face any tariff or non-tariff barriers in markets other than the United States. Although Romania does face tariff barriers in some third-country markets, they find that Romania is more likely to direct any further exports to the European Union in light of Romania’s impending accession to the European Union. See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-49, CTL-IV-68, CTL-IV-114; PR at CTL-IV- 25, CTL-IV-30. 391 See, e.g., IPSCO/Oregon’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 2-3; Mittal’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 1-5. 392 Apparent U.S. consumption declined from 10.0 million short tons in 1974 to 7.7 million short tons in 1975 and to 6.8 million short tons in 1976 before increasing to 7.4 million short tons in 1977 and 8.6 million short tons in 1978. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 970. 393 Apparent U.S. consumption declined from 5.6 million short tons in 1990 to 4.8 million short tons in 1991 before increasing to 5.0 million short tons in 1992. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-I-1. 394 Apparent U.S. consumption increased from 6.6 million short tons in 1997 to 8.2 million short tons in 1998 before declining to 6.0 million short tons in 1999. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-I-1. 70 geographic proximity of subject producers and purchasers in regional markets, transportation costs are generally lower than they would be in the case of shipments from those producers to the United States. 388 For these reasons and others, foreign producers, including Mittal, produce according to a model in which production facilities largely serve the regional markets in which they are located.389 Moreover, having invested efforts in cultivating customers within regional markets (customers with whom foreign producers may expect to enjoy certain natural advantages (such as those mentioned above)), foreign producers are not likely to abandon those existing regional customers in favor of more speculative and short-lived prospects with customers in the United States. For these reasons, we do not consider subject producers’ within-region exports to indicate that increased exports to the United States are likely if the finding and orders under review are revoked. We also note that producers in these nine countries did not report facing any tariff or non-tariff barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the United States. 390 Domestic interested parties assert that due to the likely decline in demand, or decline in the rate of demand growth in the reasonably foreseeable future, the U.S. market will not be able to absorb the likely increase in imports from the subject countries (as well as the already increasing volumes from non-subject countries). 391 This argument overlooks the relative strength of current and projected demand in the U.S. market. In the 1979 original investigation, apparent U.S. consumption declined overall between 1974 and 1978, reaching its lowest point in 1976 before increasing to levels that were not as high as in the beginning of the period. 392 A similar scenario was present in the 1993 original investigations to the extent that apparent U.S. consumption declined between 1990 and 1991 and was still well below the 1990 levels in 1992. 393 During the first reviews of these orders, the record reflected a sharp increase in apparent U.S. consumption between 1997 and 1998 but then a sharp decline in 1999 to levels well below those in 1997. 394 In contrast, during the current period of review, demand for carbon CTL plate declined from 7.7 million short tons in 2000 to 7.1 million short tons in 2001, increased to 7.5 million short tons in 2002, declined to 7.3 million short tons in 2003 and then increased sharply to 8.3 million short tons in 2004 and 395 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. These data include shipments of micro-alloy CTL plate; although the Commission did not expand the domestic like product to include micro-alloy CTL plate in the first reviews, it acknowledged that some of the data it relied upon in those reviews contained micro-alloy shipments to the extent that some domestic producers were unable to segregate their micro-alloy data from their non-alloy CTL plate data. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3364 at 23 n.126. During the period of review, apparent U.S. consumption of non-alloy CTL plate declined from 6,814,613 short tons in 2000 to 6,234,474 short tons in 2001, increased to 6,539,570 short tons in 2002, declined to 6,354,810 short tons in 2003 and then increased to 6,978,552 short tons in 2004 and to 7,281,971 short tons in 2005; demand in the first six months of 2006 (4,434,283 short tons) was also higher than in interim 2005 (3,646,154 short tons). See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-I-1. 396 Non-subject imports’ market share increased from 5.4 percent to 8.1 percent between 2004 and 2005 and was higher at 11.2 percent in interim 2006 than it was at 8.6 percent in interim 2005. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. The U.S. industry’s operating income increased from $901 million to $1.3 billion between 2004 and 2005, and was $794.1 million in interim 2006 as compared to $698.4 million in interim 2005. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. In terms of the non-alloy market, non-subject imports’ market share increased from 5.6 percent to 8.2 percent between 2004 and 2005 and was higher at 12.3 percent in interim 2006 than it was at 9.1 percent in interim 2005, and the U.S. industry’s operating income increased from $734.2 million to $982.3 million between 2004 and 2005 and was $598.1 million in interim 2006 as compared to $545.5 million in interim 2005. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. 397 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-68 and CTL-IV-69. 398 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-68, CTL-IV-69. 399 See, e.g., Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 45-60. Joint respondent interested parties report that subject producers have full order books through the end of 2006 and in the transportation and oil sectors some end- users have backlogs extending well into 2007. See, e.g., Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 52-53. 400 See, e.g., German Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 14-18, App. 10 citing MEPS (Int’l) Ltd., MEPS International Steel Review, North American Edition, 5 (Jan. 2005), (March 2005), (Apr. 2005), (Oct. 2005), (Apr. 2006); Doc Id. 262359; Steel Business Briefing, SBB Global Market Outlook, 7 (Sept. 2006). 401 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-69. 402 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-69. 403 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-99 to CTL-IV-100, CTL-V-3; PR at CTL-IV-40 to CTL-IV-41, CTL-V-2; CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-70 (indicating that EU-wide prices and prices in Germany, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom (continued...) 71 to 8.6 million short tons in 2005, well above the level at the beginning of the period; demand in the first six months of 2006 (“interim 2006”) (5,184,837 short tons) was also much higher than in interim 2005 (4,309,826 short tons). 395 Indeed, the domestic industry’s condition continued to improve toward the end of the period of review despite an increase in the volume of non-subject imports, indicating that the expanding U.S. market was able to absorb these additional imports.396 As discussed more fully above, demand in the U.S. and global markets will likely remain strong and increase in the reasonably foreseeable future. Despite declines during the beginning of the period of review, apparent U.S. consumption increased sharply in more recent periods and *** data on reversing mill plate consumption in North America project further increases through 2010, consistent with many industry forecasts for CTL plate demand in the United States. 397 As to global demand, *** data on reversing mill plate consumption outside of the North American market showed increases year after year throughout the period of review and show continuing increases through 2010.398 Demand is also expected to continue to be strong in the regional markets that subject producers currently serve.399 Consistent with other commentators, 400 *** forecasts continued increases in CTL plate demand in Europe as compared to the current level.401 *** also forecasts continued demand growth in China, East and South East Asia (excluding China), Eastern Europe, and Latin America in 2007.402 We have considered price levels in the markets of subject country producers vis-a-vis U.S. market prices. Prices in EU markets have fluctuated, but have frequently been at levels comparable to U.S. prices. 403 Asian market prices have typically been lower than U.S. prices.404 Thus there appears to be no 403 (...continued) are relatively similar to those in the U.S. market, especially once transportation costs to the United States are included); see also CR at CTL-IV-102, CTL-V-3; PR at CTL-IV-42, CTL-V-2; CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-71 (indicating that prices in Germany and the United Kingdom are relatively similar to those in the U.S. market, especially once transportation costs to the United States are included). In addition to finding that EU prices where any additional exports from Romania are likely to be sent are comparable to those in the U.S. market, Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane also find that prices in Mexico are similar to prices in the U.S. market. See, e.g., AHMSA’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 9-10; see also, e.g., CR at CTL-V-3; PR at CTL-V-2 (per-unit transportation costs from Mexico to the United States estimated at 4.76 percent). 404 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-70, CTL-IV-71. 405 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-9, CTL-IV-14, CTL-IV-19, CTL-IV-25, CTL-IV-37, CTL-IV-49, CTL- IV-58 (indicating that in 2005, the percentage of total shipments to China and “Other Asia” by subject producers were low: Belgium (*** to China and *** to Other Asia); Brazil (*** to China and *** to Other Asia); Finland (*** to China and *** to Other Asia); Germany (*** to China and *** to Other Asia); Poland (*** to China and *** to Other Asia); United Kingdom (*** to China and *** to Other Asia)). Data for Spain and Sweden were not available. 406 *** of Taiwan’s exports were to Asia. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-53. 407 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-53 (indicating *** percent of its sales were to the home market. 408 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-14. 409 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-14. 410 See, e.g., *** (“The {EU} plate market also continues to be a bastion of pricing strength.”); ***. In addition to finding that EU prices, where any additional exports from Romania are likely to be sent, are likely to remain strong, Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane also find that prices in Mexico, where *** of Mexican shipments are likely to be directed, are also likely to remain strong like the prices in the neighboring U.S. market. 72 price incentive for subject producers to shift sales from EU markets to the U.S. market, but there may be some incentive to shift sales from Asia to the United States. Most of the subject producers service mainly countries within the European Union, 405 where prices are not substantially below U.S. prices, with limited sales to Asia. The sole exceptions are Taiwan and Brazil.406 The Taiwan CTL plate industry, however, is *** the least export-oriented of the nine cumulated subject countries, with over *** percent of its shipments destined for its home market. 407 We find no basis to conclude that revocation of the finding on Taiwan would significantly change the Taiwan industry’s domestic market focus. In the case of Brazil, the home market accounted for over *** percent of the CTL plate industry’s shipments in 2005. 408 *** of the exports by the Brazilian CTL plate industry are directed to ***.409 We do not find it likely that the Brazilian CTL plate industry would turn its focus away from the home market and ***. Consistent with projected strong global demand for CTL plate, prices in the foreign markets primarily served by these subject producers are projected to remain firm.410 Accordingly, we conclude that prices in other markets relative to U.S. prices do not support a conclusion that revocation of the orders and finding will induce subject producers to shift sales away from other markets and into the U.S. market to a significant degree. Furthermore, we find that the domestic interested parties’ arguments that developments in China will likely lead to increased subject imports into the U.S. market are too speculative. Domestic interested parties assert that with China’s recent transition from a net importer to a net exporter of CTL plate, subject imports will be displaced from the Chinese market and from their own home and third-country markets. Domestic interested parties assert that, as a result, there will likely be increased subject imports 411 See, e.g., Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 29, 33, 36-42, 65-66, Apps. 5-6; Nucor’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 8-20; IPSCO/Oregon’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 1-2, 4-6, 9, Exh. 1; Mittal’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 7-10, Answers to Questions from Commissioner Okun at 5-6; Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 12-14, App. 2. 412 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3816 at 30. There are other important differences between the subject imports and subject producers at issue in these reviews and those at issue in the 2005 reviews of CTL plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea. Imports from the subject countries in the 2005 reviews (except for France) surged in volume in the period leading up to the orders; subject producers continued to ship into the U.S. market; subject producers increased production capacity over the period of review; and subject producers were subject to antidumping duties in third-country markets. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3816 at 27-31. 413 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun dissenting, USITC Pub. 3816 at 52. 414 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-9, CTL-IV-14, CTL-IV-19, CTL-IV-25, CTL-IV-37, CTL-IV-49, CTL- IV-58 (indicating that in 2005, the percentage of total shipments to China by subject producers were low or non- existent: Belgium (*** to China); Brazil (*** to China); Finland (*** to China); Germany (*** to China); Poland (*** to China); United Kingdom (*** to China)). Data for Spain and Sweden were not available. Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that Mexico had *** exports to China during the period of review and that any additional exports from Romania are likely to be sent to the European Union, in light of Romania’s impending accession to the European Union. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-31; CR at CTL-IV-114; PR at CTL-IV-47. 415 See, e.g., Corus’ Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 7-10; Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 2, 45, 53- 58, 60. Joint respondent interested parties also point out that the European Union already maintains quantitative restrictions on steel products (including CTL plate) from Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan that prevent any surge in imports from those countries into the European Union. See e.g., Corus’ Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. O at 1, Exhibits; Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 62-63. 416 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-9, CTL-IV-14, CTL-IV-19, CTL-IV-25, CTL-IV-37, CTL-IV-49, CTL- IV-51, CTL-IV-53, and CTL-IV-58. Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane observe that Mexico’s shipments to its home market increased between 2004 and 2005 and were higher in interim 2006 than in interim 2005 and that Romania’s shipments to its home market and to the European Union were higher in interim 2006 than in interim 2005. Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane did not consider regional markets in their analysis. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-31, CTL-IV-43. 417 According to ***, Chinese reversing mill plate production increased from *** tons in 2000 to *** tons in 2006, an increase of *** percent, but is projected to increase from *** in 2006 to *** tons in 2008, an increase of only *** percent. See, e.g., Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 2. China’s CTL plate production is projected to exceed its consumption by *** metric tons in 2006, compared to estimated excess production ranging from *** to *** metric tons annually during 2007 through 2010. See, e.g., Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 2. 73 into the U.S. market in the event of revocation.411 In contrast to the producers in the cumulated countries involved in the 2005 CTL plate reviews, which the Commission found relied on the Chinese market (except for Italy), 412 413 producers in these subject countries do not rely on the Chinese market. 414 Nor is there evidence that China has displaced subject producers in their home or regional markets.415 Instead, record data indicates that subject producers have recently shipped larger volumes to their home and regional markets. 416 Moreover, although there has been a large increase in Chinese production over the period of review, future increases in Chinese production and Chinese net CTL plate exports are forecast to be more moderate.417 In sum, if a displacement effect were likely, we should already have seen it, and we have not. Therefore, we do not expect a displacement effect in the reasonably foreseeable future. In addition to these demand conditions, there are also likely to be limitations on supply in the U.S. market associated with the existing antidumping duty orders and suspension agreements on CTL plate from eleven countries and the absence of any reported additions to the U.S. industry’s production capacity in the reasonably foreseeable future. Notwithstanding increased volumes of non-subject imports in the U.S. market toward the end of the period of review, there continued to be supply shortages in the U.S. market for certain grades, types, or sizes of CTL plate (such as thick plate made on a reversing or quarto mill and heat-treated plate), and, as discussed above, some supply shortages were reported even in 418 See, e.g., Caterpillar’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 7-8; Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 1, 28- 35; Corus’ Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. K at 8-9; Caterpillar’s Posthearing Submission at 1-3; Duferco’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Answer to Question 2. 419 Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane acknowledge that there may be some increase in cumulated volume of subject imports from the eleven subject countries in the reasonably foreseeable future, but, in light of these findings and their finding below that the domestic industry is not vulnerable, they do not find that the likely volume of cumulated subject imports from these eleven subject countries will be significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States in the event of revocation. 420 We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above. 421 Except as otherwise noted, this discussion reflects the views of the entire Commission. Vice Chairman Aranoff considered the likely price effects from cumulated subject imports from the nine subject countries on the non-alloy CTL plate industry. Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane considered the likely price effects from cumulated subject imports from all eleven subject countries on the non-alloy CTL plate industry. They arrived at the same conclusions as their colleagues who examined the likely price effects from cumulated subject imports from the nine subject countries on the carbon CTL plate industry. 422 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 970 at 6-7. The Commission estimated that had imports from Taiwan not been sold at less than fair value (at margins calculated at 34 percent), it is unlikely there would have been underselling (because the margin of underselling was as much as 20 percent). It stated that it was doubtful that CTL plate from Taiwan’s new mill would have been competitive in the U.S. market had it been sold at fair value, and it also expressed concern that the Taiwan producer and its counsel failed at the hearing to give assurances that future prices would be at fair value. As evidence of price suppression, the Commission noted that domestic producers had to offer discounts and specials to compete with imports from Taiwan. The Commission also noted a number of confirmed lost sales to subject imports on the basis of lower prices. See, e.g., id. 74 2006. 418 The U.S. industry’s production increases during the period of review did not keep pace with the growth in demand during this same period, and there are no projected additions to production capacity in the United States for the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, although it is likely that the domestic industry will produce more using existing equipment due to technological improvements, we nevertheless find it unlikely that there will be significant excess supply in the U.S. market, further limiting the significance of any increase in subject import volume. Although we acknowledge that there may be some increase in cumulated subject imports in the reasonably foreseeable future, in light of these findings and our finding below that the domestic industry is not vulnerable, we do not find that the likely volume of cumulated subject imports from these nine subject countries will be significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States in the event of revocation.419 4. There Are Not Likely to Be Significant Price Effects from Cumulated Subject Imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom420 421 a. The Commission’s Original Investigations and First Reviews In the 1979 original investigation of subject imports from Taiwan, the Commission found underselling as well as price suppression by subject imports from Taiwan.422 In the 1993 original investigations, the Commission found that subject imports were substitutable for one another and the domestic like product, and that the CTL plate market was price-sensitive. It found there had been significant price underselling by the cumulated subject imports, noting underselling in commercial grades 423 According to the data collected in the 1993 original investigations, there were eight instances of underselling and 11 instances of overselling by subject imports from Belgium, with margins of underselling ranging from 0.2 to 10.5 percent; there were 18 instances of underselling and 12 instances of overselling for subject imports from Brazil, with margins of underselling ranging from 0.4 to 26.6 percent; there were 25 instances of underselling and nine instances of overselling for subject imports from Finland, with margins of underselling ranging from 1.1 to 25.7 percent; there were 33 instances of underselling and 15 instances of overselling for subject imports from Germany, with margins of underselling ranging from 0.4 to 23.7 percent; there were eight instances of underselling and two instances of overselling by subject imports from Poland, with margins of overselling ranging from 0.1 to 11.5 percent; there were 22 instances of underselling and no instances of overselling for subject imports from Spain, with margins of underselling ranging from 7.7 to 43.1 percent; there were 27 instances of underselling and six instances of overselling for subject imports from Sweden, with margins of underselling ranging from 4.9 to 29.3 percent; and there were 33 instances of underselling and three instances of overselling for subject imports from the United Kingdom, with margins of underselling ranging from 1.1 to 26.5 percent. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-V-6. 424 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 2664 at 238-43. 425 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3364 at 29. 75 as well as declining unit values for twelve niche products. 423 It also found significant price depression or suppression and evidence of adverse price effects, in that unit production costs had risen steadily while market prices had been declining, resulting in a cost/price squeeze. It also observed that domestic producers met low-priced subject imports only to learn that subject producers had “ratcheted” their prices down again, and that there were a number of confirmed instances of lost sales and lost revenues. 424 In the first reviews, the Commission found that domestic prices were falling or, at best, had stabilized at low levels, with the domestic industry unable to capitalize on recent attempts to increase prices. Although there were minimal pricing data due to the limited volume of subject imports during the first period of review, the Commission found that domestic and subject CTL plate were generally interchangeable and competed based largely on price. It concluded that highly competitive prices were essential to obtain sales, which were generally on a spot basis. It found that the likely significant increased volumes of subject imports likely would undersell domestic plate products to a significant degree and have significant price suppressing and depressing effects within a reasonably foreseeable time. 425 426 For five specific products, the Commission requested that U.S. producers and importers of CTL plate provide quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of CTL plate that was shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market for the period January 2000 to June 2006. During the period of review, there were only three quarters in which there were any imports from any of the nine subject countries of any of the five pricing products. In the fourth quarter of 2004, there were *** short tons of subject imports of product 1 from Germany that undersold the domestic like product by *** percent. In the first quarter of 2002, there were *** short tons of product 2 from Finland that oversold the domestic like product by *** percent. In the fourth quarter of 2004, there were *** short tons of product 2 from Germany that oversold the domestic like product by *** percent. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-V-1 to CTL-V-6. We do not find these data to be very probative because they involved isolated transactions and limited volumes. In the first reviews, the Commission also collected pricing data, but there were only a limited number of comparisons due to the limited volume of subject imports from these nine countries during that time period. According to the data in those reviews, there were ten possible price comparisons between the domestic like product and imports from Belgium, and the Belgian imports oversold the domestic like product in each instance. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-V-6 at n.2. ***, however, reported that all of its imports from Belgium were of floor plate, a product that was ultimately found to be outside the scope of the orders. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-V-6 at n.2. Although data from the original investigations showed underselling by subject imports (as well as some overselling), as explained below, we do not find that there is likely to be significant price underselling by subject imports as compared to the domestic like product if the finding and orders are revoked. 427 Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that there were no reported pricing data on subject imports from Mexico during the period of review. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-V-1 to CTL-V-6. They observe that in the first reviews, there were no pricing comparisons for subject imports from Mexico and in the 1993 original investigations, there were only two pricing comparisons for subject imports from Mexico with margins of underselling that ranged from 2.0 to 3.8 percent. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-V-6. With respect to Romania, in the original 1993 investigations, they note that there were 12 instances of underselling and 1 instance of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 1.9 to 47.6 percent; there were no price comparisons for subject imports from Romania in the first reviews; and in the current reviews, subject imports from Romania undersold the domestic like product in 16 instances with margins ranging from 6.9 to 20.6 percent and oversold the domestic like product in one instance. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-V-6. Notwithstanding the underselling in the recent periods by some of the subject imports, they do not find it likely that there will be significant underselling by subject imports in the event of revocation in the reasonably foreseeable future because the underselling in the recent part of the period of review was accompanied by large increases in prices in the U.S. market. 428 See, e.g., CR at CTL-V-23; PR at CTL-V-15; CR/PR at Tables CTL-V-1 to CTL-V-5 and Figures V-3 to V-7. 429 See, e.g., CR at CTL-V-23 to CTL-V-24; PR at CTL-V-15; CR/PR at Tables CTL-V-1 to CTL-V-5 (showing an increase between the first quarter of 2000 to the second quarter of 2006 for pricing product 1 from $328.57 per short ton to $764.07 per short ton; for pricing product 2 from $353.64 per short ton to $779.89 per short ton; for pricing product 3 from $382.56 per short ton to $799.35 per short ton; for product 4 from $417.43 per short ton to $866.43 per short ton; and for product 5 from $270.60 per short ton to $647.41 per short ton); CTL Plate Hearing Tr. at 158-162, 318. 430 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-99; PR at CTL-IV-41. We note that the data from these outside sources are collected based on different product categories, timing, and commercial considerations, and so may not be directly (continued...) 76 b. The Current Proceedings According to the pricing data collected in these reviews,426 U.S. prices of CTL plate showed relatively little change from 2000 through 2003.427 Substantial price increases for all five products began in the first quarter of 2004, with some leveling off or small decreases in early 2005, with the exception of product 5, which showed additional price increases in 2006.428 According to these data, the U.S. industry’s prices for these products doubled or nearly doubled over the period of review reaching what are widely characterized as historic levels.429 These trends are consistent with price trends reflected in data collected by several other sources, including ***.430 430 (...continued) comparable. 431 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-100; PR at CTL-IV-41; CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-70. 432 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-70. 433 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-102; PR at CTL-IV-41 to CTL-IV-42; CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-71. 434 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-102; PR at CTL-IV-41 to CTL-IV-42; CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-71. 435 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-99; PR at CTL-IV-41. 436 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-102; PR at CTL-IV-42. 437 See, e.g., CR at CTL-V-2; PR at CTL-V-5. 438 See, e.g., Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 1, 67-70; IPSCO/Oregon’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at A-16, Exh. 13; CR/PR at Table CTL-III-9. The spread between total cost of goods sold (“COGS”) on a unit basis and net unit sales prices was $194 per short ton in 2005 and $197 per short ton in interim 2006. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-III-9. 77 Country-specific monthly transaction prices for hot-rolled plate compiled by MEPS indicate that for January 2005 through November 2006, U.S. negotiated transaction prices for U.S.-produced hot- rolled plate generally decreased over the first three quarters of 2005 before increasing in the fourth quarter of 2005 and in 2006. In the fall of 2006, they reached their highest price levels for the January 2005 through November 2006 period.431 According to these data, monthly U.S. negotiated transaction prices for U.S.-produced hot-rolled plate climbed to $*** per short ton by November 2006.432 According to data compiled by ***, U.S. prices were relatively stable between 2000 and 2003, though clearly “softer” in 2001 than in any other year. Reported U.S. prices rose sharply over the course of 2004, retrenched in 2005, but have shown signs of strengthening further in 2006. 433 According to this source, U.S. monthly prices for steel plate increased from $*** per short ton in January 2000 to $*** per short ton in November 2006.434 Dramatic price increases also occurred in the global market over the period of review. As reported by MEPS, world prices for hot-rolled plate declined irregularly between January 2000 and February 2002, decreasing from $283 per short ton to $242 per short ton during that time. Thereafter, prices recovered, slowly at first, then more rapidly, surpassing $300 per short ton in February 2003, $400 per short ton in March 2004, $500 per short ton in May 2004, and $600 per short ton in September 2004. World prices peaked in January 2005 at $686 per short ton, then declined to as low as $586 per short ton in February 2006 before rebounding to $685 per short ton by September 2006. 435 According to ***, German, U.K., EU, and Japan export prices were relatively stable between 2000 and 2003, but without the “softness” that characterized the U.S. market in 2001. In contrast, Far East prices proved more volatile, and, like U.S. prices, did fall to lower levels in 2001. In 2004, all reported prices increased over the course of the year, though none as sharply as U.S. prices. Far East prices increased only modestly. In 2005, most non-U.S. prices initially increased or at least maintained newly-established levels, but over the course of the year softened, with the exception of Japan export prices. Through November 2006, however, non-U.S. prices have largely recovered, with the exception of Japan export prices.436 During this time of increasing demand and increasing prices in both the U.S. and global markets, raw material and energy costs increased, as discussed above. During the period of review, all 19 responding U.S. producers reported increased CTL plate selling prices as a direct result of higher raw material prices, and five producers reported implementing raw material surcharges.437 Domestic producers issued successive price increases of $20, $30, and $20 per short ton for August, September, and October 2006 shipments, respectively. The spread between raw materials costs and net unit sales prices grew from $377 per short ton in 2005 to $398 per short ton in the first half of 2006. 438 During the period of review, the margin between scrap and plate prices was at an all time high to the advantage of mini-mill producers such as Nucor and IPSCO. Even as prices for steel scrap actually plunged by as much as $80 439 See, e.g., Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 1, 67-70. 440 IPSCO reports that its announcement ***. Oregon notes that ***. See, e.g., IPSCO/Oregon’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 14 n.8, A-16, Exh. 13. Nucor ***. See, e.g., Nucor’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 45-46; Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 4 at 1. Mittal ***. See, e.g., Mittal’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Responses to Vice Chairman Aranoff’s Questions at 5. 441 See, e.g., CR at CTL-V-2; PR at CTL-V-2. 442 Total imports increased in market share from 4.7 percent in 2003 to 7.1 percent in 2004. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. 443 See, e.g., Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 70-71; Brazilian Respondents’ Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 7 (referring to ***). 444 See, e.g., Caterpillar’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at 5. 78 to $90 per short ton in August 2006, steelmakers nevertheless raised CTL plate prices.439 Although there is some evidence that the October price increases did not succeed or were not attained in full,440 there is also evidence that in recent months, U.S. producers have rolled surcharges into their base prices, 441 and current prices remain well above levels at the beginning of the period of review and even at the beginning of 2004. Notably, these price increases occurred even as total imports of CTL plate increased in 2004.442 In light of this evidence as well as evidence about future demand conditions, although the prices of raw materials and energy inputs are likely to remain high, we do not find that subject imports are likely to enter the United States at prices that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic like products or that will significantly undersell the domestic like product. Domestic interested parties insist that the high and increasing prices in the U.S. market are unlikely to continue to the extent that demand growth is slowing or demand is declining in the reasonably foreseeable future. The record indicates otherwise. As we found above, demand in the U.S. market is likely to remain strong and growing in the reasonably foreseeable future. Inventory destocking is a regular phenomenon in this industry, and the more current record in these reviews shows that the most recent inventory destocking that occurred in 2005 had only a temporary effect on prices. Prices continued to be strong thereafter. Notwithstanding statements by the domestic industry about recent softening in prices, ***443 ***. 444 The record also indicates that global demand is likely to remain strong and growing in the reasonably foreseeable future. Because, as described above, prices in the home and regional markets of most subject producers are at least as attractive if not more attractive than prices in the U.S. market, we do not find it likely that any increased volumes from subject countries in the event of revocation (the level of which we do not expect to be significant, as explained above) would be likely to be sold at prices that significantly undersell the domestic like product or that significantly depress prices for the domestic like product. Given their lack of excess capacity and attractive prices in their existing markets, we do not find that subject producers have an incentive to price aggressively in order to move significant volumes into the U.S. market. As we also discussed above, supply in the U.S. market has been tight, including into 2006, and no new additions to U.S. production capacity are expected in the reasonably foreseeable future, so it is also not likely that there will be negative price effects associated with oversupply in the U.S. market. Based on these findings as well as our finding that the volume of cumulated subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom is not likely to be significant, we do not find that there is likely to be significant underselling by these subject imports as compared to the domestic like product, or that imports from these subject countries are likely 445 Based on these findings as well as their finding that the volume of cumulated subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom is not likely to be significant, Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane do not find that there is likely to be significant underselling by these subject imports as compared to the domestic like product, or that imports from these subject countries are likely to enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of the domestic like product. 446 We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above. As instructed by the statute, we have also considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related to the antidumping finding, antidumping duty orders, and countervailing duty orders at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked. The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked, the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at 885. 447 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 970 at 3-7. 448 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 2664 at 243-44. 449 See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3364 at 32-33. 79 to enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of the domestic like product. 445 5. Cumulated Subject Imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom Are Not Likely To Have a Significant Adverse Impact in the Event of Revocation 446 a. The Commission’s Original Investigations and First Reviews In the 1979 original finding, the Commission found that subject imports from Taiwan arrived in escalating volumes at low prices and caused price declines, price suppression, and lost sales to the domestic industry.447 In the 1993 original determinations, the Commission found that cumulated subject imports (including those from Canada which are no longer subject to any orders) had significant volume and price effects and caused material injury to the domestic industry. It noted the decline of key industry indicators and the domestic industry’s loss of market share during a time of declining apparent domestic consumption, as cumulated subject imports contemporaneously increased their market share.448 In the first reviews, the Commission found that the domestic industry’s condition improved somewhat after imposition of the subject orders but began to decline following multiple subsequent waves of unfairly traded imports from other countries. Although some of the industry’s indicators improved at the beginning of the period of review, they declined toward the end of the period of review. The Commission found the domestic industry to be in a weakened state, due at least in part to the effects of the dumped and subsidized imports from non-subject countries that were put under order during the period of review. Based on its finding that revocation of the orders would likely lead to significant increases in the volume of cumulated subject imports at prices that would undersell the domestic like product and significantly suppress or depress U.S. prices, the Commission concluded that the domestic industry would likely lose market share and experience lower sales and revenues. In turn, the domestic industry’s profitability and ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital investments would also be significantly adversely impacted.449 450 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table III-10. 451 See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-3 to CTL-III-5; PR at III-4 to III-5. 452 See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-7; PR at III-5. While one industry forecast predicted rising import levels and service center inventories, it also supports the Commission’s overall outlook for the CTL plate market and the likely market conditions in the reasonably foreseeable future. See IPSCO’s Posthearing Brief at Exh. 5 (***). Indeed, the forecast stated that domestic mills were operating ***, there was ***, ***, ***, and ***. 453 Vice Chairman Aranoff, Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that due to their decision not to expand the domestic like product to include micro-alloy products, they reviewed data pertaining to the non-alloy industry, such as that found at CR/PR at Table C-1. Although there are some minor differences in the data, all of the trends in the industry performance indicators for the data set including micro-alloy are equally applicable to the data set they examined. Vice Chairman Aranoff, as noted earlier, examined the likely impact of cumulated subject imports from nine subject countries; Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane examined the likely impact of cumulated subject imports from all eleven subject countries. 454 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2, C-1. 455 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. U.S. production was 20.0 percent higher in interim 2006 than in interim 2005. In addition, U.S. exports increased by 71.9 percent over the period of review, and were 87.9 percent higher in interim 2006 than in interim 2005. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. 456 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. U.S. shipments were 16.5 percent higher in interim 2006 than interim 2005. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. 457 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. Net sales were 20.0 percent higher in interim 2006 than interim 2005. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. 458 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. Capacity was 3.4 percent higher in interim 2006 than interim 2005. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. 459 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. Capacity utilization was 10.6 percentage points higher in interim 2006 than interim 2005. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. We note that throughout the period of review, U.S. mills operated at (continued...) 80 b. The Current Proceedings We find that the domestic industry is not currently vulnerable. Since the beginning of the period of review, the domestic industry, through closures, bankruptcies, consolidation, and expansion, has been significantly restructured and has emerged from this period stronger and fundamentally changed. In 1999, the three largest domestic producers of CTL plate were integrated producers Bethlehem/Lukens, Geneva, and U.S. Steel. In stark contrast to 1999, the three largest domestic producers now are IPSCO, Mittal, and Nucor, two of which are non-integrated “mini-mills,” representing approximately *** percent of domestic non-alloy CTL plate sales in 2005.450 Both Nucor and IPSCO became dominant players in the domestic CTL plate market after investing in greenfield facilities during the period of review that were more efficient than the older U.S. facilities and without the burden of legacy costs.451 The integrated segment of the industry was rationalized and consolidated under one principal producer, Mittal, which, as the successor in interest to assets acquired in 2003, is not subject to some of the legacy costs or labor agreements previously associated with those assets.452 Most industry performance indicators improved dramatically during the current period of review. 453 At the start of the period of review, the domestic industry’s production, U.S. shipments, and net sales quantities declined through 2001 with the economic recession, began to recover in 2002 and 2003, showed dramatic improvement in 2004, and reached full-year period highs in 2005.454 Consistent with significant increases in demand for CTL plate over the period of review, between 2000 and 2005 U.S. production increased 15.9 percent,455 U.S. shipments increased by 12.1 percent,456 and net sales increased by 22.0 percent.457 Average production capacity increased by 10.2 percent,458 while capacity utilization increased by 3.3 percentage points.459 Inventories as a share of total shipments declined by 3.4 459 (...continued) higher capacity utilization rates than processors, with mills reaching a period high capacity utilization rate of 82.5 percent in interim 2006. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables C-2a & C-2b. Moreover, mill capacity includes wide flat bar capacity. Although bar mills account for only a fraction of overall plate capacity, they account for a disproportionate share of available capacity. See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-4 n.8; PR at CTL-III-4 n.8. Notwithstanding the domestic industry’s reported capacity utilization figure of 67.0 percent in 2005, see, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2, as discussed in more detail above, numerous purchasers reported tight supply in 2004 and 2005, with most reporting that domestic mills had placed them on allocation or controlled order entry, and were extending lead times, none of which is indicative of much excess capacity. 460 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. End-of-period inventories as a share of total shipments were 0.7 percentage points lower in interim 2006 than interim 2005. 461 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. Productivity was 5.3 percent higher in interim 2006 than interim 2005. 462 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. Unit labor costs were 1.3 percent lower in interim 2006 than interim 2005. With respect to the non-alloy CTL plate market, Vice Chairman Aranoff, Commissioner Koplan, and Commissioner Lane find that between 2000 and 2005 U.S. production increased 12.6 percent, U.S. shipments increased by 8.2 percent, exports increased by 86.6 percent, and net sales increased by 17.4 percent. Average production capacity increased by 7.0 percent, while capacity utilization increased by 3.0 percentage points. End-of-period inventories as a share of total shipments declined by 3.5 percentage points, to a full-year period low of 7.0 percent in 2005. Although domestic employment decreased by 29.2 percent between 2000 and 2005, productivity increased by 53.5 percent. Moreover, unit labor costs have declined by 31.2 percent over the period of review. They also find continued improvements in the industry’s performance factors between interim 2005 and interim 2006. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. 463 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. Operating income was 13.7 percent higher in interim 2006 than interim 2005. 464 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. Gross profits were 13.6 percent higher in interim 2006 than interim 2005. 465 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. Operating income as a percentage of net sales was 25.7 percent in interim 2006 compared to 25.9 percent in interim 2005. In terms of the non-alloy CTL plate market, Vice Chairman Aranoff, Commissioner Koplan, and Commissioner Lane find that gross profits increased irregularly from a loss of $41.7 million in 2000 to a full-year period-high gain of $1.1 billion in 2005, and gross profits increased from $602.5 million in interim 2005 to $667.6 million in interim 2006. Operating income also increased irregularly from a loss of $153.3 million in 2000 to a full-year period-high gain of $982.3 million in 2005, and increased from $545.5 million in interim 2005 to $598.1 million in interim 2006. Additionally, operating income as a percentage of net sales declined from negative 8.7 percent in 2000 to negative 13.5 percent in 2001, before increasing irregularly to a full-year period high of 24.1 percent in 2005, a 32.9 percentage point increase over the period. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. 466 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. 81 percentage points, to a full-year period low of 7.0 percent in 2005.460 Although domestic employment decreased by 16.4 percent between 2000 and 2005, productivity increased by 42.1 percent.461 Moreover, unit labor costs have declined by 27.8 percent over the period of review.462 As noted above, by 2004 the domestic industry began to reap fully the benefits of restructuring and increased demand for CTL plate, which led to significant increases in prices. That year, the domestic industry turned operating losses into profits that have continued to increase thereafter. Gross profits increased irregularly from a loss of $138.0 million in 2000 to a full-year period-high gain of $1.4 billion in 2005. 463 Operating income also increased irregularly from a loss of $135.3 million in 2000 to a full- year period-high gain of $1.3 billion in 2005.464 Additionally, operating income as a percentage of net sales declined from negative 6.2 percent in 2000 to negative 9.9 percent in 2001, before increasing irregularly to a full-year period high of 24.6 percent in 2005, a 30.8 percentage point increase over the period. 465 The largest annual increase in operating income margin (25.5 percentage points from 2003 to 2004) occurred when total imports also had their largest year-over-year increase during the period of review (from 4.7 percent to 7.1 percent, or 2.4 percentage points).466 In contrast to 2000, when eight of 467 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-III-9; EDIS Document 26590. Eleven of fifteen firms reported higher operating margins in interim 2006 than in interim 2005. See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-20 to CTL-III-21; PR at CTL-III- 14. 468 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables C-2, C-1. Markup is defined on a per-unit basis as (AUV-COGS/COGS). 469 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. In terms of the non-alloy CTL plate market, per-unit operating income substantially improved over the period of review as the increase in per-unit sales value ($353 per short ton) was much greater than the combined effects of an increase in COGS ($150 per short ton) and a decline in SG&A expenses ($2 per short ton). See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. 470 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. COGS as a share of net sales were 0.2 percent higher in interim 2006 than interim 2005. In terms of the non-alloy CTL plate market, Vice Chairman Aranoff, Commissioner Koplan, and Commissioner Lane note that per-unit operating income substantially improved over the period of review as the increase in per-unit net sales values ($353 per short ton) was much greater than the combined effects of an increase in COGS ($150 per short ton) and a decline in SG&A expenses ($2 per short ton). Consequently, COGS as a share of net sales fell irregularly from 102.4 percent in 2000 to 72.9 percent in 2005, a decline of 29.5 percentage points. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. 471 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. In terms of the non-alloy CTL plate market, capital expenditures declined from $*** in 2000 to $*** in 2001, to a period low $20.6 million in 2003, before increasing to $86.1 million in 2005. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. 472 See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-5 to CTL-III-6; PR at CTL-III-4 to CTL-III-5. While we do not discount the costs associated with these non-recurring events, which contributed to the losses earlier in the period of review, the industry is better positioned because of these decisions, as evidenced by its recent profit margins. 473 Derived from CR/PR at Tables C-2, CTL-III-9. A similar result is obtained when data for the non-alloy CTL plate industry are examined. (derived from CR/PR at Tables C-1, CTL-III-9). 82 fourteen U.S. mills and processors reported operating losses, by 2005, all fifteen responding U.S. mills and processors reported operating profits, with ***.467 There is also no evidence of a cost/price squeeze. In 2005, U.S. producers sold CTL plate at more than a 30 percent mark-up over COGS.468 Per-unit operating income substantially improved over the period of review as the increase in per-unit net sales values ($363 per short ton) was much greater than the combined effects of an increase in COGS ($159 per short ton) and a decline in SG&A expenses ($2 per short ton). 469 Consequently, COGS as a share of net sales fell irregularly from 100.0 percent in 2000 to 72.5 percent in 2005, a decline of 27.5 percentage points. 470 Capital expenditures declined significantly over the period of review (from $*** in 2000 to $*** in 2001, to a period low $23.3 million in 2003, before increasing to $102.7 million in 2005). 471 However, we note that the large spikes in capital expenditures in 2000 and 2001 were associated with the construction of IPSCO’s and Nucor’s greenfield facilities, which are both modern and efficient.472 While it is also true that since 2002 depreciation exceeded the domestic industry’s capital expenditures, the domestic industry’s cash flows since 2004 ($2.9 billion) exceeded capital expenditures, depreciation, and repayment of negative cash flows from 2000-2003 ($1.9 billion) by more than one billion dollars.473 The domestic industry’s return on investment also increased dramatically from *** percent in 2000 to 36.0 474 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-III-13. Chairman Pearson, Commissioner Hillman, and Commissioner Okun note that the domestic industry’s return on investment as shown in the staff report does not include data related to micro-alloy products. They find, however, that since the domestic industry’s operating margins are similar and generally somewhat higher with the inclusion of micro-alloy plate, compare, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2 with CR/PR at Table C-1, it is unlikely that the return on investment for their defined domestic like product would differ much from the return on investment as shown in the staff report. 475 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables C-2, C-1. The increase in capital expenditures in interim 2006 were ***. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-III-12. 476 In reaching our likely impact conclusion, we have considered but have not relied upon, the impact analysis presented by domestic interested parties. See, e.g., Nucor’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at Exh 1. This analysis is predicated on subject import volumes of 500,000 short tons to two million short tons, and, as indicated above in our views on likely volume, we do not believe that this projected volume of subject imports is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. 477 Our finding that these conditions are not likely to change in the reasonably foreseeable future differs from the finding we made in the 2005 reviews of the orders on Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-388-391 and 731-TA-816-821 (Reviews), USITC Pub. 3816 (Nov. 2005) (Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun dissenting). While it did not find the domestic industry vulnerable in the 2005 reviews, the Commission majority did not find it likely that the much higher prices that began in 2004 were likely to continue in the then-reasonably foreseeable future, based on the information available at that time. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3816 at 31-32. The Commission majority noted that prices appeared to be falling from recent highs and that raw material costs had increased. See, e.g., Pub. 3816 at 32. It noted also that the modest growth in demand then forecast for the U.S. market seemed likely to be insufficient to absorb increased import volumes from the subject countries (the combined capacity and excess capacity of which far exceed the combined capacity and excess capacity of the subject producers in the current reviews). See, e.g., Pub. 3816 at 34. The majority noted in addition that China had recently transitioned to a net exporter of CTL plate, and that many of the producers at issue in those reviews exported considerable volumes to China and markets to which China would likely export. See, e.g., Pub. 3816 at 26-27, 30. In contrast with the prior reviews, the record now shows nearly three years of higher prices, continued growth in apparent U.S. consumption, and additional forecasts for continued demand growth, including by domestic producers participating in these reviews. Moreover, over the past two-and-a- half years, the domestic industry has generated profits that are very high by any measure. While the prior record suggested that this improved financial performance (which at that time had been seen for only one-and-a-half years) was likely transitory, it is now clear that the domestic industry has performed for so long at such a favorable rate that it has more than made up for losses and investments made during the early years of the period of review. In addition, China’s transition to a net exporter of CTL plate is now essentially complete, an event that has occurred without apparent adverse effects on world prices. See, e.g., Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 2 at 3 (extent to which Chinese CTL plate production exceeds consumption ***). Finally, unlike the situation in the 2005 reviews, the foreign producers at issue in these reviews generally do not export to China or other Asian markets, and there is no evidence that Chinese exports to the foreign producers’ home markets have displaced the subject producers in their respective home markets to any significant degree. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-9, CTL-IV-14, CTL- IV-19, CTL-IV-25, CTL-IV-37, CTL-IV-49, CTL-IV-51, CTL-IV-53. 478 See, e.g., CR at CTL-V-2; PR at V-2. 479 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-V-1 to V-5. For all five pricing products, prices have more than doubled from the first quarter of 2000 to the second quarter of 2006. Id. Domestic interested parties argue that plate prices have (continued...) 83 percent in 2005.474 Moreover, the domestic industry has recently increased its capital expenditures (capital expenditures in interim 2006 were almost double the capital expenditures for full-year 2004). 475 The conditions that have enabled the industry to become profitable since 2004 are not likely to change in the reasonably foreseeable future.476 477 Domestic producers have been able to pass along rising raw material costs and energy costs through the use of surcharges, which recently have been rolled into base prices. 478 Thus, in 2004 domestic prices rose significantly above their levels from the beginning of the period examined in these reviews. 479 The demand trends in the United States also do not suggest that 479 (...continued) begun to fall due to inventory destocking, and that revocation of the orders would further exacerbate these price declines. As discussed in more detail above, however, inventory destocking is a cyclical event, and even after the inventory destocking period in 2005, U.S. prices for CTL plate in 2006 were generally higher than prices in 2004. Moreover, as also indicated above, we do not find that subject imports from the nine cumulated countries would be likely to enter the U.S. market in significant volumes if the orders are revoked. 480 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. Apparent U.S. consumption was at its period high of 8.6 billion short tons in 2005. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. 481 Joint respondent interested parties reported that subject producers have full order books through the end of 2006, and in the transportation and oil sectors some end-users have backlogs extending well into 2007. See, e.g., Joint Respondents’ Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 45-60. 482 Given that they do not find it likely that there will be a significant volume of subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan and the United Kingdom or that there will likely be significant price effects from these imports, and because the domestic industry is in a healthy, rather than vulnerable, condition, Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane conclude that revocation of the antidumping duty finding and orders and the countervailing duty orders on subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom would not likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within the reasonably foreseeable future. 483 We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above. 484 Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane do not join in the discussion in this section. 485 For her examination of the likely volume of CTL imports from Mexico, because she defines the domestic like product differently than Chairman Pearson, Commissioner Hillman, and Commissioner Okun, Vice Chairman Aranoff refers to data for the non-alloy CTL plate industry such as that summarized in Table C-1. 84 the domestic industry is vulnerable to material injury. The domestic industry’s financial performance during the period of review occurred during a time of strengthening demand for CTL plate. Apparent U.S. consumption, for example, increased 11.2 percent from 2000 to 2005, with most of the growth occurring since 2003.480 Increased demand has continued into 2006, as apparent U.S. consumption was 20.3 percent higher in interim 2006 than in interim 2005. Moreover, as noted in the conditions of competition discussion supra, U.S. and global demand for CTL plate are forecast to remain strong and growing in the reasonably foreseeable future.481 Given that we do not find it likely that there will be a significant volume of subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom or that there will likely be significant price effects, and because the domestic industry is in a healthy, rather than vulnerable, condition, we conclude that revocation of the antidumping duty finding and orders and the countervailing duty orders on subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom would not likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within the reasonably foreseeable future.482 6. No Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a Reasonably Foreseeable Time If the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Subject Imports from Mexico Are Revoked483 484 a. The Likely Volume of Subject Imports from Mexico Would Not Be Significant in the Event of Revocation 485 As discussed in our no discernible adverse impact finding, prior to the imposition of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders, the volume of subject imports from Mexico did not rise 486 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-I-1. 487 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables C-2, C-1. AHMSA’s posthearing brief contains revised 1998 and 1999 import statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau listing the volume of imports from Mexico as 568 tons and 181 tons in 1998 and 1999, respectively. See, e.g., id. citing AHMSA’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at Exh. 11. 488 See, e.g., CR at OVERVIEW-12 to OVERVIEW-15; PR at OVERVIEW-10 to OVERVIEW-12; CR/PR at Tables CTL-I-8 to CTL-I-9; AHMSA’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 8. Romania and Poland were the only other subject countries exempted from the safeguards imposed on CTL plate. See, e.g., CR at OVERVIEW-12 to OVERVIEW-15; PR at OVERVIEW-11 n.30. 489 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-31. Mexico’s capacity utilization in 2005 represents a *** increase over its capacity utilization in the original investigations and the first reviews. 490 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-31. 491 See, e.g., AHMSA’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 12. 492 Domestic interested parties have argued that Mexico’s export trends to Canada following revocation of the Canadian antidumping order on CTL plate from Mexico in 2003 showed the Mexican industry’s ability to increase rapidly its exports following revocation. See, e.g., Mittal’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at 16. In 2003, one of the three major Canadian producers of CTL plate, Stelco, exited the industry, creating a supply deficit that could only be filled by imports. See, e.g., AHMSA’s Prehearing CTL Plate Br. at Exhibit 15 citing Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Plate Original in or Export from Mexico, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of South Africa and the Russian Federation, Expiry Review No. RR-2001-006 (Jan. 10, 2003) at 3, 10, 14-15. However, in 2004, when total CTL plate imports to Canada almost doubled, imports from Mexico declined to ***. In 2005, Canada’s CTL plate imports from Mexico increased to *** short tons, but this figure represented less than a *** percent share of total CTL plate imports into Canada. In interim 2006, Mexico’s CTL plate exports to Canada were negligible. 493 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-31. 494 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-47; PR at CTL-IV-25. To the extent AHMSA may ship CTL plate to the United States following revocation, it has stated that it will be to serve a discrete set of multinational companies operating on both sides of the border that are end-users of CTL plate, as opposed to service centers or distributors. See, e.g., CTL Plate Hearing Tr. at 267-68 (Pierce). Since AHMSA cannot meet Mexican demand, and since the U.S. industry is the largest foreign supplier to the Mexican market, any limited sales by Mexico of CTL plate to these multinational companies, whose Mexican subsidiaries are already served by AHMSA, are likely to be offset by increased sales by the domestic industry to Mexican customers. 85 above 1.2 percent of apparent U.S. consumption.486 Since the orders were imposed, subject imports from Mexico have appeared in the U.S. market in sporadic and minimal volumes, accounting for less than 0.05 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in each year since 1997.487 Subject imports from Mexico have remained minimal whether compared to apparent U.S. consumption or to U.S. production despite an exemption from the Section 201 steel safeguards relief that imposed a 30 percent ad valorem tariff on CTL plate imports effective March 20, 2002, that was reduced to 24 percent on March 20, 2003, and ultimately terminated by the President on December 4, 2003.488 While reported production capacity for subject CTL plate from Mexico remained flat over the period of review, capacity utilization rose to *** percent in 2005.489 Mexico’s capacity utilization was *** percent in interim 2006 as compared to *** percent in interim 2005.490 Due to increasing home market demand during the period of review, Mexico has become a net importer of CTL plate. Even operating at full capacity, AHMSA has been able to meet only a little over *** percent of home market demand, with the remainder being supplied by foreign sources.491 As also discussed supra, AHMSA, the sole Mexican producer of CTL plate, is not export- oriented. 492 In each year of the period of review, *** of its CTL plate shipments have been made to the home market. 493 AHMSA reported minimal CTL plate exports to the *** in 2001, and 2005 marked the only other year it reported exports to any other markets; even then, total exports accounted for only *** percent of its shipments. 494 495 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-51; PR at CTL-IV-26. 496 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-31. 497 For her examination of the likely price effects of CTL imports from Mexico, because she defines the domestic like product differently than Chairman Pearson, Commissioner Hillman, and Commissioner Okun, Vice Chairman Aranoff refers to data for the non-alloy CTL plate industry such as that summarized in Table C-1. 498 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-V-6. 499 For her examination of the likely impact of CTL imports from Mexico, because she defines the domestic like product differently than Chairman Pearson, Commissioner Hillman, and Commissioner Okun, Vice Chairman Aranoff refers to data for the non-alloy CTL plate industry such as that summarized in Table C-1. 86 The potential for product shifting appears insignificant. AHMSA produces only subject CTL plate on its production-related equipment.495 Moreover, the industry’s end-of-period inventories as a share of shipments are low (*** percent in 2005), and were only *** percent in interim 2006 as compared to *** percent in interim 2005.496 Despite acknowledging these conditions, domestic interested parties have argued that AHMSA is still likely to ship significant volumes of subject merchandise to the United States due to its planned capacity expansion. As discussed in our no discernible adverse impact analysis supra, although AHMSA has announced plans for a large capacity expansion, it still must overcome numerous hurdles even to obtain the financing for this expansion, and it will be another three years after AHMSA receives financing before this new capacity can be brought on line. Therefore, this proposed capacity expansion is merely speculative, and outside the time period that we consider the reasonably foreseeable future. For all of these reasons, and taking into consideration our findings above concerning the conditions of competition that are distinctive to this industry, including the sustained rise in CTL plate prices in the U.S. market described previously, we do not find it likely that the volume of subject CTL imports from Mexico would be significant, in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, within a reasonably foreseeable time in the event of revocation. b. There Are Not Likely to Be Significant Price Effects from Subject Imports from Mexico 497 In these reviews, as in the first reviews, no pricing data specific to CTL plate from Mexico were available to compare to the domestic like product. In the original investigations, imports from Mexico undersold the domestic like product in two of two comparisons, with margins of underselling of 2.0 and 3.8 percent.498 Since AHMSA has *** available capacity, it has no incentive to price aggressively to move large volumes of CTL plate into the U.S. market. Given the likely small volume of subject imports from Mexico in the event of revocation and taking into consideration our findings above concerning the conditions of competition that are distinctive to this industry, we find that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on subject imports of CTL plate from Mexico would not be likely to lead to significant underselling or significant price depression or suppression within a reasonably foreseeable time. c. Subject Imports from Mexico Are Not Likely To Have a Significant Adverse Impact in the Event of Revocation 499 In evaluating the likely impact on the domestic industry, we note that we have not found that the domestic industry is vulnerable. Rather, as explained in more detail above, the industry has reported large profits in 2004, 2005, and interim 2006. Given that we do not find it likely that there will be a significant volume of subject imports from Mexico or that there will likely be significant price effects from these imports, and taking into consideration our findings above concerning the conditions of competition that 500 We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above. 501 Commissioner Lane and Commissioner Koplan do not join in this section because they have exercised their discretion to cumulate all eleven subject countries. 502 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-I-1. 503 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-I-1. 504 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-64; PR at CTL-IV-29. 505 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-43. 506 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-43; CR at CTL-IV-64; PR at CTL-IV-29. In terms of the subject imports from Romania into the U.S. market during this time period, subject imports from Romania increased from 6 short tons in 2000 to 109,969 short tons in 2004, before declining to 49,813 short tons in 2005. Subject imports from Romania were 3,014 short tons in interim 2005 and zero short tons in interim 2006. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. 507 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-2. In terms of the non-alloy CTL plate market, Romania’s share of apparent U.S. consumption peaked at 1.6 percent in 2004, fell to 0.7 percent in 2005, and was 0.1 percent in interim 2005 and zero in interim 2006. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. 87 are distinctive to this industry, we find that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on subject imports from Mexico is not likely to lead to a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. Thus, we conclude that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on subject imports from Mexico would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. 7. No Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a Reasonably Foreseeable Time If the Antidumping Duty Order on Subject Imports from Romania Is Revoked 500 501 a. The Likely Volume of Subject Imports from Romania Would Not Be Significant in the Event of Revocation In the original investigations, even before an order was put into place, the volume of subject imports from Romania declined irregularly from 31,650 short tons in 1990 to 18,078 short tons in 1992. 502 The share of U.S. apparent consumption of CTL plate held by subject imports from Romania likewise declined in this same period from 0.6 percent to 0.4 percent.503 In the period examined in the first reviews, subject imports from Romania maintained only a minimal presence in the U.S. market of less than 0.05 percent of apparent U.S. consumption. Romanian export data were reported by Mittal Steel Galati, an affiliate of the Mittal Group, which accounts for substantially all of CTL plate production in Romania.504 During the current review period, subject exports from Romania increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004, before declining to *** short tons in 2005.505 In interim 2006, exports from Romania to the United States were *** short tons compared to *** short tons in interim 2005.506 Based on its level of imports into the United States, Romania’s share of apparent U.S. consumption peaked at 1.3 percent in 2004, fell to 0.6 percent in 2005, and was 0.1 percent in interim 2005 and zero in interim 2006.507 Looking to the reasonably foreseeable future, although several factors suggest that the Romanian industry has the ability to increase its exports to the United States substantially, we conclude that, given the incentives facing the Romanian industry, it is unlikely to do so. 508 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-65; PR at CTL-IV-30. Mittal Steel Galati has reported ***. 509 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-43. 510 Derived from CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-43, C-2. In terms of the non-alloy CTL plate market, Mittal Steel Galati’s excess capacity in 2005 was equivalent to *** percent of U.S. apparent consumption. (derived from CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-43, C-1). 511 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-43. 512 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-43. 513 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-43. 514 See, e.g., CR/CPR at Table CTL-IV-43. 515 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-43. 516 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-43. 517 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-III-1. Prior to this acquisition, Mittal Steel Galati had no affiliate located in the United States. 88 The Romanian industry’s productive capacity and production of CTL plate capacity increased over the period of review. As we found supra, the increase in production capacity in Romania was ***.508 Largely as a result of this action, the Romanian industry’s rate of capacity utilization declined irregularly from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005, and it was *** percent in interim 2006 compared to *** percent in interim 2005.509 Mittal Steel Galati’s excess capacity totaled *** short tons in 2005, an amount equivalent to *** percent of U.S. apparent consumption.510 Exports from Romania have accounted for more than *** percent of the Romanian industry’s total shipments since 2000. They constituted *** percent of its shipments in 2000 and *** percent in 2005. 511 In interim 2006, exports accounted for *** percent of shipments as compared to *** percent in interim 2005.512 The Romanian industry’s largest market during the period of review was ***, which accounted for almost *** percent of its shipments in 2005. The *** was its next largest market, accounting for nearly *** percent of its shipments in 2005.513 CTL plate exports from Romania to the European Union grew from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2004. While Romanian exports to that market fell to *** short tons in 2005, they jumped to *** short tons during just the first six months of 2006. 514 Exports to the United States accounted for *** percent of the industry’s shipments in 2000, increased irregularly to *** percent in 2004, before declining to *** percent in 2005.515 Exports to the United States accounted for less than *** percent of shipments in interim 2006 as compared to *** percent in interim 2005.516 The Romanian industry’s increased exports to the United States (peaking in 2004), its substantial available capacity, and its general export orientation are indications that the industry possesses the ability to ramp up its exports to the United States in the event of revocation. However, we do not find such an increase to be likely, for the following reasons. First and foremost, as noted in our cumulation analysis, supra, since April 2005, Mittal Steel Galati has been in the same corporate group as major U.S. producer Mittal Steel USA. This affiliation was the result of the acquisition in 2001 of the only Romanian producer by LNM Holdings, an affiliate of what was eventually to become the Mittal Steel Group, and the April 2005 acquisition of U.S. producer ISG by Mittal Steel Co. NV.517 This latter acquisition placed Mittal Steel Galati and Mittal Steel U.S.A., one of the largest U.S. CTL plate producers during the period of review, within the same corporate family. The evidence on the record supports the argument that these corporate realignments largely explain the recent fall in the volume of subject exports from Romania during the period of review. Specifically, prior to Mittal’s acquisition of ISG’s assets in April 2005, the volume of Romania’s exports to the United States increased from 2000 to 2004. Subsequently, the volume of those exports fell by more 518 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-66. 519 See, e.g., Nucor’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br. at App. 8. 520 See, e.g., CR at CTL-III-3 n.4; PR at CTL-III-4. 521 See, e.g., Mittal Steel America’s Importer’s Questionnaire Response at II-5 (projecting ***). 522 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables C-2, C-1. 523 See, e.g., Mittal USA’s Producer’s Questionnaire Response at II-12 and II-13. 524 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-114; PR at CTL-IV-47. The record indicates that only a few procedural hurdles remained before Romania’s entry into the European Union. See, e.g., id. 525 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-113 to CTL-IV-114; PR at CTL-IV-47. 526 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-69. 527 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-70. 528 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-43. 89 than *** from 2004 to 2005, and such volumes were sharply lower at *** short tons in interim 2006 than at *** short tons during interim 2005.518 We find that the close corporate affiliation between the Romanian and U.S. divisions of the Mittal Steel Group makes it unlikely that Mittal Steel Galati will move aggressively to capture U.S. market share or sell its products in a manner that would have a negative effect on the prices that Mittal Steel USA receives. Domestic producer Nucor argues that Mittal’s U.S. and Romanian operations ***. Nucor argues that Mittal will sell domestically-produced plate when it can do so at a profit and will import CTL plate from other Mittal mills when that is profitable. Nucor cautions that the Commission cannot assume that Mittal will control imports from Mittal Steel Galati so as to avoid injury to the U.S. CTL plate industry as a whole. 519 The fact that Mittal Steel U.S.A. has devoted ***520 does present at least the possibility that it will rationalize production to some extent by sourcing more *** from Romania. However, Mittal’s importing arm has indicated that it ***.521 This is consistent with the *** subject imports from Romania in interim 2006. 522 Moreover, the record indicates that Mittal Steel USA manufactures a full range of CTL plate products, 523 thus making it difficult for Mittal Steel NV to avoid harm to its U.S. operations should it choose to import subject merchandise from Romania. In addition, although Mittal Steel Galati exported significant quantities of CTL plate to diverse markets during the period of review, the European Union is likely to become a more attractive market for Romanian exports in the reasonably foreseeable future, if not in the immediate future. As of the closing of our record, Romania’s membership to the European Union was scheduled to be ratified by early 2007. 524 As discussed above, accession to EU membership eliminates customs duties between Member States, removes internal border restrictions, and facilitates access to a market of some 450 million consumers with a total gross domestic product of more than $11 trillion.525 As also noted above, demand in Europe is forecast to continue to increase as compared to the current level.526 Recent EU market prices have been comparable to U.S. prices, and thus, after factoring in the additional transportation costs associated with sales to the United States, the European Union is the more likely destination for any additional Romanian exports. 527 As noted above, Mittal Steel Galati’s exports to the European Union *** of its total shipments. 528 To the extent that Mittal Steel Galati will shift its exports in the coming years, it will be more likely to redirect those exports to markets within the European Union rather than to more distant markets such as the United States. 529 See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-68; PR at CTL-IV-30. In its most recent fiscal year, sales of CTL plate accounted for *** percent of Mittal Steel Galati’s total sales. See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-64; PR at CTL-IV-29. Mittal Steel Galati does not produce non-subject steel plate or specifically excluded CTL plate. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-46. 530 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-42. Mittal Steel Galati ***. 531 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-V-6. 532 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-V-6. 533 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-5. 534 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-V-1 to V-6. 535 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-V-1 to V-5; CTL-I-1. In 2005, U.S. prices for CTL plate represented a *** percent mark-up over cost of goods sold. 90 Mittal Steel Galati reported that CTL plate is not produced on machinery used in the production of other products, and also reported that it is ***.529 Thus the potential for product shifting appears to be limited. Moreover, the Romanian industry’s end-of-period inventories as a share of shipments were *** percent in 2005, significantly lower than they were in the original investigations (*** percent) and the first reviews (*** percent). 530 For all of these reasons, while some imports of subject CTL plate from Romania are possible if the order on Romania were revoked, we do not find it likely that the volume would be significant, either in absolute terms or relative to U.S. production or consumption, within a reasonably foreseeable time. b. There Are Not Likely to Be Significant Price Effects from Subject Imports from Romania In the original investigations, imports from Romania undersold the domestic like product in 12 of 13 comparisons, with margins of underselling ranging from 1.9 to 47.5 percent.531 In the first reviews, no price data specific to CTL plate from Romania were available to compare to the domestic like product. In the current reviews, imports from Romania undersold the domestic like product in 16 of 17 comparisons, with margins of underselling ranging from 6.9 to 35.0 percent.532 We note, however, that notwithstanding this underselling, prices for all five pricing products have more than doubled since 2000. 533 Notably, in 2004, when subject imports from Romania were at their highest levels for the period of review, all five pricing products experienced their greatest increases in price.534 With the expectations for continued increased demand in both the global and U.S. markets, prices for CTL plate in the United States are likely to continue to remain strong. Domestic producers have been able to pass along raw material and energy costs through the use of surcharges, which have recently been rolled into base prices. We note that the domestic industry raised prices even with an increase in total imports in 2004 and 2005. 535 As noted above, we do not expect the likely volume of subject imports from Romania to be significant. As a result, although price is an important consideration for purchasers, we do not find it likely that the additional volumes of subject imports from Romania will lead to significant price declines. Nor, in a time of likely increasing apparent U.S. consumption, do we expect subject imports from Romania to significantly suppress or depress U.S. prices. As noted above, Mittal Steel Galati would not have an incentive to drive U.S. prices down since to do so would have negative effects on its U.S. affiliate. Consequently, although some underselling may continue upon revocation of the order, taking into consideration the conditions of competition distinctive to this industry, we find that the likely modest volumes of lower-priced subject imports from Romania in the event of revocation will not place significant downward pressure on U.S. prices. 536 In the first reviews, Commissioner Stephen Koplan noted that in 1999 Corus, the sole producer of plate in the United Kingdom, fully owned Tuscaloosa Steel, a significant U.S. producer of plate. He found that Corus made substantial investments upgrading and expanding Tuscaloosa’s steel production facilities, and that any imports from the U.K. would likely enter the East Coast or Gulf Coast, both substantial markets for Tuscaloosa Steel. In exercising his discretion not to cumulate subject imports from the United Kingdom, Commissioner Koplan found (continued...) 91 Given the likely small volume of subject imports from Romania if the order were revoked, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject imports of CTL plate from Romania would not be likely to lead to significant underselling by the subject imports as compared to the domestic like product or that subject imports from Romania are likely to enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of the domestic like product. Therefore, we conclude that revocation of the order is not likely to lead to any significant adverse price effects. c. Subject Imports from Romania Are Not Likely To Have a Significant Adverse Impact in the Event of Revocation In evaluating the potential impact on the domestic industry of revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject imports from Romania, we note that we have not found that the domestic industry is vulnerable. Instead, as explained in more detail above, the industry has reported large profits in 2004, 2005, and interim 2006. Given that we do not find it likely that there will be a significant volume of subject imports from Romania or that there will likely be significant price effects, and taking into consideration the conditions of competition distinctive to this industry, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject CTL plate imports from Romania is not likely to lead to a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. Thus, we conclude that revocation of the antidumping duty order on subject imports of CTL plate from Romania would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we find that revocation of the countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil, Mexico, Spain, and Sweden, the antidumping duty orders on CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, as well as the antidumping finding on CTL plate from Taiwan would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. V. SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER STEPHEN KOPLAN AND COMMISSIONER CHARLOTTE R. LANE ON CUMULATION WITH RESPECT TO CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE PRODUCTS Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we concur with the Commission’s majority that, under section 751 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, revocation of the antidumping finding, and antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain imports of flat-rolled carbon steel cut-to-length plate products (“CTL plate”) from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. We separately present our views on cumulation to explain our decision to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from all eleven countries. 536 536 (...continued) that these “conditions of competition position Corus very differently from all other subject producers given that no other subject producer in any subject country has such a relationship with a domestic producer,” and that Corus’ “participation in the domestic market is likely to be altered by its relationship with – and significant investment in – Tuscaloosa Steel.” USITC Pub. 3364 at 59-61. In 2004, Corus sold its Tuscaloosa plant in Alabama to Nucor and no longer has any production facilities in the United States. CR at CTL-IV-84; PR at CTL-IV-37. In light of this change in conditions of competition, Commissioner Koplan now finds no compelling reason to not cumulate subject imports from the United Kingdom with imports from the other subject countries in the current reviews. 537 Although it noted that Canada and Mexico did not appear to export substantial quantities of subject plate, the Commission found that subject imports from these countries were still likely to have a discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry because “of their geographic proximity to the United States” as well as the fact that Mexican producer AHMSA was under bankruptcy protection, “an indication that it would have an incentive to maximize plate production and sales.” USITC Pub. 3364 at 20 n.101. 538 In declining to exercise its discretion to cumulate subject imports from Canada due to differences in conditions of competition, the Commission noted that only one major Canadian plate mill, Stelco, remained subject to the order. The Commission found that Stelco “rarely exported significant quantities of subject plate to any country.” USITC Pub. 3364 at 19. Moreover, record evidence showed that Canada was a net importer of plate (with much of its imports originating from the United States), that demand for plate in Canada was strong, and that Canada had antidumping orders in place with respect to several countries. See, e.g., id. 539 Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Askey dissented with respect to the United Kingdom. For the reasons stated by the majority, Commissioner Koplan found that the likely imports from the United Kingdom would have a discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry, and that there was likely to be a reasonable overlap of competition among the subject imports from the United Kingdom and between those subject imports and the domestic merchandise upon revocation of the order. However, Commissioner Koplan noted that in 1999 Corus, the (continued...) 92 Except as noted in the majority CTL plate opinion, we join the Commission’s determinations with respect to summary, background, legal standards, domestic like product and industry, conditions of competition, likely volume and price effects, and likely impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation of the subject finding and orders. As noted throughout those discussions, we examined the likely volume, likely price effects, and likely impact of cumulated imports from all eleven subject countries on the domestic industry producing non-alloy CTL plate. We write separately to explain our findings with regard to cumulation. A. Framework and Background We applied the legal standards for cumulation discussed in section III of the Views of the Commission. In the first reviews, the Commission found, based on the available information on capacity, production, product mix, and export orientation,537 as well as the “weakened condition of the U.S. industry,” that the subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom each would be likely to have a discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the finding and orders were revoked. The Commission also found that there likely would be a reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from all of those countries under review and the domestic like product, and among the subject imports from all of those countries, if the finding and orders were revoked. The Commission did not find any significant differences in the conditions of competition among those subject countries, except for Canada, with respect to which the order was revoked during those reviews and is therefore not subject to the current reviews. 538 For these reasons, the Commission exercised its discretion to cumulate subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. 539 539 (...continued) sole producer of plate in the United Kingdom at the time of the first reviews, fully owned Tuscaloosa Steel, a significant U.S. producer of plate. Commissioner Koplan noted that Corus had made substantial investments upgrading and expanding Tuscaloosa’s steel production facilities, and that any imports from the United Kingdom would likely enter the East Coast or Gulf Coast, both substantial markets for Tuscaloosa Steel. In declining to exercise his discretion to cumulate subject imports from the United Kingdom, Commissioner Koplan noted that these “conditions of competition position Corus very differently from all other subject producers given that no other subject producer in any subject country has such a relationship with a domestic producer,” and that Corus’ “participation in the domestic market is likely to be altered by its relationship with – and significant investment in – Tuscaloosa Steel.” See, e.g., USITC Pub. 3364 at 59-61. 540 See Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 06-188, U.S. Court of International Trade (Dec. 22, 2006). 541 We find that cross-cumulation of dumped and subsidized subject imports is appropriate as an exercise of our discretion. See, e.g., Sugar from the European Union, and Sugar from Belgium, France, and Germany, Invs. Nos. 104-TAA-7 (Second Review) and AA1921-198-200 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3793 at 11, n.47 (Aug. 2005). 542 In the first reviews, the Commission found, based on the available information on capacity, production, product mix, and export orientation, as well as the “weakened condition of the U.S. industry,” that the subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom each would be likely to have a discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the orders were revoked. Although it noted that Canada and Mexico did not appear to export substantial quantities of subject plate, the Commission found that subject imports from these countries were still likely to have a discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry because “of their geographic proximity to the United States” as well as the fact that Mexican producer AHMSA was under bankruptcy protection, “an indication that it would have an incentive to maximize plate production and sales.” USITC Pub. 3364 at 20 n.101. 93 The threshold criterion for cumulation in these reviews is satisfied because all of the reviews of CTL plate were initiated on the same day. We consider three issues in deciding whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate the subject imports: (1) whether imports from any of the subject countries are precluded from cumulation because they are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry; (2) whether imports of CTL plate from the subject countries are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product; and (3) differences in the likely conditions of competition of the subject imports with regard to their participation in the U.S. market for CTL plate. In so doing, we take into account the various arguments by the parties. Our focus in a review investigation is not only on present conditions of competition, but also on likely conditions of competition in the reasonably foreseeable future.540 We determine that (1) subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, assessed individually, are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation; (2) subject imports from these countries are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product in the event of revocation; and (3) many of the likely conditions of competition faced by subject imports from each of these subject countries are similar. Therefore, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from all eleven subject countries.541 B. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact We consider all relevant factors in analyzing “no discernible adverse impact” in these reviews. Based on the record, we do not find that subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, or the United Kingdom are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the antidumping finding, antidumping duty orders, and countervailing duty orders on imports from those countries are revoked. 542 543 See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-C-1, CTL-IV-9 (*** percent for Belgium), CTL-IV-14 (*** percent for Brazil), CTL-IV-19 (*** percent for Finland), CTL-IV-25 (*** percent for Germany), CTL-IV-31 (*** percent for Mexico), CTL-IV-37 (*** percent for Poland), CTL-IV-43 (*** percent for Romania), CTL-IV-48 (*** percent for Spain), CTL-IV-50 (*** percent for Sweden), CTL-IV-53 (*** percent for Taiwan), and CTL-IV-58 (*** percent for the United Kingdom). 544 In 2005, total exports of CTL plate as a percentage of total shipments for subject industries ranged from a low of *** percent for the *** industry to a high of *** percent for the *** industry. See, e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL- IV-9, CTL-IV-14, CTL-IV-19, CTL-IV-25,CTL-IV-31, CTL-IV-37, CTL-IV-43, CTL-IV-49, CTL-IV-51, CTL-IV- 53, and CTL-IV-58. 545 See, e.g., Domestic Interested Parties’ Questionnaire Responses at II-13, II-14; CR/PR Tables CTL-IV-10, CTL-IV-11 (Belgium), CTL-IV-15, CTL-IV-16 (Brazil), CTL-IV-20, CTL-IV-21 (Finland), CTL-IV-26, CTL-IV-27 (Germany), CTL-IV-32, CTL-IV-33 (Mexico), CTL-IV-38, CTL-IV-39 (Poland), CTL-IV-44, CTL-IV-45 (Romania), CTL-IV-54, CTL-IV-55 (Taiwan), and CTL-IV-59, CTL-IV-60 (United Kingdom). Publicly available data from Sweden indicates that “heavy plate” constituted the majority of SSAB’s plate production during the period of review, although the company has stated that it plans on reducing the volume of heavy plate production in favor of high-strength steel and other niche products. See, e.g., CR at CTL-IV-75; PR at CTL-IV-33. The record contains no information regarding the product mix from Spain. 546 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-21, PR at II-19. 547 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-II-5. 548 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-V-6. In these reviews, subject imports from Germany and Romania undersold the domestic like product. See Commission’s Views on Cut-to-Length Plate, for a discussion of pricing comparisons for the other subject countries in the original investigations. 94 Relative to the U.S. market, the size of the CTL plate industry in each of these countries is significant. In 2005, the capacity in each subject country was equivalent to at least *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption.543 Each country has the capacity to produce a large range of plate products, and the actual production of subject plate is significant in each country. Moreover, the CTL plate industries in all of the subject countries are globally recognized, and all subject countries export subject plate, although to varying degrees.544 Prior to the imposition of the antidumping finding, antidumping duty orders, and countervailing duty orders, subject imports from each country were present in the U.S. market, and we find that upon revocation of the orders, subject imports from each country are likely to have at least some presence in the U.S. market. With respect to product mix, the types of plate products manufactured and exported in each of the subject countries do not differ dramatically from the types of plate produced in the United States. 545 Imports from each of the subject countries are likely to be substitutable for, and competitive with, domestically produced plate.546 Such competition is likely to be based, at least in part, on price, in light of the importance of price in purchasing decisions.547 Producers in each country undersold U.S. producers at times during the original investigation period, and, in the case of Germany and Romania, during this review period as well.548 Accordingly, we cannot conclude that subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation of orders covering those imports. C. Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition In assessing likely competition for purposes of cumulation in original investigations, the Commission generally has considered four factors intended to provide a framework for determining whether the imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product: (1) fungibility; (2) sales or offers in the same geographic markets; (3) common or similar channels of distribution; and 549 See Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-278 to 280 (Final), USITC Pub. 1845 (May 1986), aff'd, Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988), aff'd, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 915 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996)). 550 In the original investigations and the first reviews the Commission stated that specialized or “niche” products constituted only a small percentage of imports from any one country, and that subject countries continue to produce substantial volumes of commodity CTL plate that accounted for a large share of the U.S. market. See, e.g., USITC Pub. 2664 at 20; USITC Pub. 3364 at 21; USITC Pub. 3587 at 9 (Remand Determination). 551 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-II-8. Large numbers of purchasers and importers reported that they had no familiarity with imports from all or most of the subject countries. A majority of purchasers also stated that imported and U.S. produced CTL plate are generally used in the same applications. 552 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-II-8. 553 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-29 to CTL-II-30; PR at CTL-II-19 to CTL-II-20. Twelve purchasers reported that certain grades, types, or sizes of CTL plate are available from only a single source. *** reported that abrasion- resistant material is only available from Sweden, Germany, and Canada, while *** reported that Germany has a patented material with a unique composition. See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-25; PR at CTL-II-16. 554 See, e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-II-7. No purchaser completed the comparison between the United States and Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Spain, Taiwan, or the United Kingdom, although five purchasers completed the comparison between the United States and “all foreign countries.” 95 (4) simultaneous presence. 549 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether there likely would be a reasonable overlap of competition even if none currently exists because the subject imports are absent from the U.S. market. We consider these four factors in addition to those discretionary factors discussed below with respect to subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. In these reviews, the record indicates that domestically produced and imported CTL plate are fungible products. Consistent with the Commission’s findings in the original investigations and the first reviews, the record in the current reviews indicates that the domestic like product and subject imports from all eleven subject countries are generally substitutable.550 For example, out of 113 responses from purchasers expressing familiarity with imports from subject countries, 45 reported CTL plate from these eleven subject countries to be “always” interchangeable with U.S. produced CTL plate, 33 reported CTL plate from these eleven subject countries to be “frequently” interchangeable with U.S.-produced CTL plate, 34 reported CTL plate from these eleven subject countries to be “sometimes” interchangeable with U.S. produced CTL plate, and only one reported CTL plate from these eleven subject countries to be “never” interchangeable with U.S.-produced CTL plate.551 A vast majority of importers expressing familiarity with subject imports, 55 of 60, reported CTL plate from these subject countries to be “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with U.S.-produced CTL plate.552 Moreover, a vast majority of importers and purchasers expressing familiarity with subject imports reported that imports from subject countries were used interchangeably. A majority of purchasers reported that country of origin was rarely or never a factor in purchasing decisions.553 Purchasers were asked to compare domestic and subject CTL plate products on the basis of 20 ranking factors, and, although responses were limited, purchasers found that the U.S. product was generally comparable to, and sometimes superior to, subject imports.554 German and U.K. producers were the only respondent interested parties to present arguments regarding the likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition. They both argued that their exports are not substitutable for the domestic product because they currently export specialty CTL plate, and ***. However, the record refutes their contentions. Eleven of 14 importers and purchasers expressing familiarity with imports from the United Kingdom reported that such imports were “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with U.S.-produced CTL plate, while 16 of 20 importers and purchasers expressing familiarity with imports from Germany reported that such imports were “always” or 555 See, e.g., CR/PR at CTL-Table II-8. German producers reported that *** See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-11 n.16; PR at CTL-II-7 n.16. 556 See generally, Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“The statute and legislative history are clear: the Commission is not required to find that subject imports currently compete in the U.S. market.”); cf. SAA at 888 (regional industry); see also, e.g., Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy and Japan, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-385 to 386 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3823 at 13-14 (Dec. 2005). (“While subject imports from Japan currently consist of niche products, the current composition of subject imports is affected by the discipline of the antidumping duty orders and thus not necessarily indicative of likely post-revocation behavior.”) (finding a likely reasonable overlap of competition). 557 USITC Pub. 3364 at 22. 558 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-3; PR at CTL-II-3; CR/PR at Table CTL-II-2. Seven of nineteen producers and seven of fifteen importers reported selling nationwide during the review period. 559 We note that there have been only limited imports of subject merchandise from Mexico during the period of review. With respect to Romania, we note that there have been imports of subject merchandise throughout the period of review. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1. 560 USITC Pub. 3364 at 21. 96 “frequently” interchangeable with U.S.-produced CTL plate.555 Moreover, the record shows that both U.K. and German producers produce and export to non-U.S. markets significant quantities of carbon structural steel plate less than four inches thick, which are directly substitutable for U.S. produced CTL plate. Although U.K. and German producers do not currently compete in the U.S. market to any significant degree, the focus of the Commission’s inquiry here is on “likely,” not current, competition.556 We, therefore, conclude that subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom are sufficiently fungible with one another and with the domestic like product. With respect to geographic overlap and simultaneous presence, in the first reviews, the Commission found that the record was “mixed” concerning simultaneous market presence and geographic overlap, but found that, “in light of the importance of sales to steel service centers, which are dispersed throughout the United States and hold sizeable plate inventories, we find it likely that subject imports from each subject country would be simultaneously present in the U.S. market as a whole and in the same geographical markets as other subject imports and the domestic like product.”557 Similar to the record in the first reviews, the record in the current reviews is mixed regarding geographic overlap and simultaneous presence in the market. The record continues to reflect that current producers and importers as a whole reported nationwide sales. Subject imports were also generally available in multiple regions of the country during the review period. 558 Subject imports from some subject countries were not present during some of the current review period. Imports of subject merchandise from all subject countries have declined substantially since the orders were imposed. There were reportedly no imports of subject CTL plate from Belgium (except in 2005), Brazil, Finland, Poland, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom (except in 2003).559 According to official import statistics, there were no imports of subject CTL plate from Spain in 2001, and from 2003 through 2005, and from Sweden in 2003. Prior to the imposition of the orders, subject imports from each country were present in the U.S. market, and we find that upon revocation of the orders, subject imports from each country are likely to have at least some presence in the U.S. market. The record also indicates that there is sufficient overlap in the channels of distribution for domestic and imported CTL plate. In the first reviews, the Commission found that “domestic producers and importers ship plate to end users, distributors, and service centers.”560 This is generally consistent 561 See, e.g., CR at CTL-II-1; PR at CTL-II-1. 562 See Siderca S.A.I.C. v. United States, 391 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1364-65 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005) (For cumulation in reviews, “[t]here is no requirement that the ITC find that all four subfactors are independently supported by a ‘likeliness’ determination.”), citing Wieland Werke, 718 F. Supp. at 50. 563 USITC Publication 3364 at 33 (Nov. 2000). 564 Id. at 30. 565 Id. 566 CR/PR at Table CTL-I-1. 567 Id. 97 with the record in the current reviews, although there were too little data reported to comment specifically on imports from subject countries.561 On balance, we find that subject imports from all eleven subject countries would be sufficiently fungible, move in the same channels of distribution, and compete in the same geographic markets during the same periods. We, therefore, conclude that there would likely be a reasonable overlap of competition among subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom and between these subject imports and the domestic like product in the event of revocation. 562 D. Other Considerations In determining whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from all eleven subject countries, we assess whether the subject imports from each country are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition in the U.S. market. In the first reviews, the Commission cumulated subject imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, noting that it did not find “any significant differences in the conditions of competition” among those countries.563 The Commission noted that relative to the U.S. market, the size of the CTL plate industry in each cumulated subject country was significant and each industry maintained substantial production capacity.564 The Commission also indicated that the “majority of the countries export a substantial percentage of their production.”565 The record in these reviews continues to show that there are no significant differences in the conditions of competition among subject imports. We conclude, consistent with the Commission’s determinations in the first reviews, that subject imports from each of the eleven subject countries remain likely to compete under similar conditions of competition in the U.S. market. We discuss additional other considerations specifically regarding Mexico and Romania below. Mexico. Consistent with the Commission’s findings in the first reviews, we find that subject imports from Mexico and other subject countries are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition in the U.S. market. In the original investigations, the sole Mexican CTL plate producer, AHMSA, clearly demonstrated both the ability and economic incentive to ship to the U.S. market in high volumes. Subject plate imports from Mexico increased from 19,343 short tons in 1991 to 59,993 short tons in 1992, the final year of the period of investigation.566 Additional volumes of subject imports from Mexico also entered the U.S. market during the first review.567 AHMSA maintains the ability to ship subject product to the U.S. market upon revocation. Mexican CTL plate capacity has increased since the original investigations, rising from *** short tons in 1992 to *** short tons in 2005. Although AHMSA has primarily served the Mexican market in recent years, this trend may not continue. Domestic interested parties contend that Mexico’s home market is becoming saturated with low-priced Chinese exports, which could shift at least some of the Mexican 568 See, e.g., Mittal’s Posthearing CTL Plate Br., at Answers to Commissioner Hillman’s Questions at 7. 569 See, e.g., AHMSA’s Prehearing CTL Plate Brief at Exh. 28. 570 See e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-31. 571 See e.g., Letter from Juan Castillo Ramirez, Legal Representative of AHMSA, Dec. 4, 2006, pp. 1-2. 572 See e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-43. Exports accounted for *** percent of the Romanian industry’s shipments in 1992, and *** percent of its shipments in 1999. See e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-42. 573 See e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-43. 574 See e.g., CR/PR at Tables CTL-IV-9, CTL-IV-37, and CTL-IV-58. 575 See e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-14. 98 producer’s shipments away from its home market and to the neighboring U.S. market. 568 We find this argument supported by the record. Import volumes of Chinese CTL plate into Mexico were greater than import volumes from any other source during interim 2006. 569 Furthermore, AHMSA began exporting CTL plate again in 2005, shipping *** to third country (non-U.S.) markets in 2005, demonstrating some export orientation on the part of the Mexican industry.570 On November 30, 2006, the Mexican CTL plate industry filed an antidumping duty petition against subject imports from China, providing further evidence that the Mexican home market is becoming further saturated with low-priced Chinese imports.571 Coupled with Mexican exports late in the period of review, these factors demonstrate some export orientation on the part of AHMSA, and competition from third-country plate producers in the Mexican home market. Inasmuch as other subject countries also export, Mexico’s recent exporting activities increase the likelihood that subject imports from Mexico and other subject countries will compete in the U.S. market under similar conditions of competition. In light of these factors, we conclude that subject imports from Mexico and other subject countries are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition in the U.S. market upon revocation. We therefore exercise our discretion to cumulate Mexico with the other ten subject countries. Romania. Similarly, we find that subject imports from Romania are also likely to compete under similar conditions of competition in the U.S. market with other subject countries upon revocation. Romania, as well as the majority of other subject countries, produced and exported subject product throughout the current period of review. Romania’s exports as a percentage of total shipments were large, increasing irregularly from *** percent of shipments in 2000 to *** percent in 2005.572 In interim 2005, exports accounted for *** percent of shipments before declining to a *** percent in interim 2006.573 Record data also indicate that the sole Romanian producer Mittal Steel Galati and the majority of subject producers exported to similar markets over the current period of review, with the majority of export volumes being shipped throughout the European Union and ***. Mittal Steel Galati, as well as subject producers from other countries, maintained more than minimal volumes of available capacity over this period of review. Commission data indicate that EU members Belgium, Poland and the United Kingdom maintained sizeable volumes of available capacity in 2005. 574 Brazil also maintained large volumes of available capacity throughout the majority of the current period of review, and importantly in 2005, the last full year of this period. 575 Each of these countries therefore maintained the ability to increase production of CTL plate for export markets, if needed. We do not find that the existence of excess capacity in Romania is a condition of competition which distinguishes Romania from other subject countries. We find the availability of Romanian excess capacity to be a condition of competition similar to other countries subject to these orders. The record indicates that subject imports from Romania will likely continue to be substitutable for and competitive with other subject imports in the reasonably foreseeable future, which increases the likelihood that these imports will compete under similar conditions of competition in the U.S. market. Carbon structural steel plate constituted the largest volume of total CTL plate shipments from Romania, 576 See e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-45. 577 See e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-III-1; CR at CTL-III-6 to CTL-III-7; PR at CTL-III-5. 578 See e.g., CR/PR at Table CTL-IV-43. 579 See e.g., “EU Accessions Bill”, BBC News; (Jan. 27, 2006), cited at CR at CTL-IV-114 n.199; PR at CTL-IV- 47 n.199. 580 See e.g., “The Customs Policy of the European Union” at http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/move/19/txt_en.htm, retrieved on Sept. 22, 2006, cited at CR at CTL-IV- 114 n.198; PR at CTL-IV-47 n.198. 99 including *** of Romania’s CTL plate exports. 576 The record demonstrates that other subject countries also concentrated the majority of their plate production on carbon structural steel plate, thus revealing an important competitive overlap in the type of plate produced and shipped by most subject countries. Unlike other subject countries, Romania ***. But in 2005, Mittal Steel Co., NV was formed as the result of a merger between Ispat International and LMN Holdings. Due to the merger, Mittal Steel Co., NV now owns Mittal Steel Galati, while maintaining significant CTL plate production assets in the United States through its subsidiary, Mittal Steel USA.577 Following this merger, Romania’s shipments of subject merchandise to the U.S. market declined substantially, and Mittal Steel Galati reported only minimal exports of subject plate to the U.S. market in interim 2006.578 Since the formation of Mittal Steel Co., NV, the Romanian CTL plate industry has focused on non-U.S. markets, specifically ***. This is consistent with other countries subject to these orders, particularly Belgium, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. Romania’s pending membership in the European Union is another important similarity to other subject countries that are also EU members. Romania was scheduled to become a member of the EU on January 1, 2007, and the Treaty of Accession for Romania has been ratified by a great majority of EU Member States since April 2005.579 Upon its accession to the EU, Romania will be able to compete throughout the relatively high-priced EU CTL plate market without being subject to customs duties.580 Romania’s ability to ship product throughout the EU without these duties increases the attractiveness of that market to the Romanian industry. In light of the above factors, we find that subject imports from Romania and other subject countries are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition in the U.S. market upon revocation, and we exercise our discretion to cumulate Romania with the other subject countries under review. E. Conclusion With respect to all eleven subject countries, we find that the no discernible adverse impact exception to cumulation does not apply and that there would likely be a reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from each country and the domestic like product as well as among subject imports from each country. We further find that the record in these reviews does not indicate that there are likely to be any significant differences in conditions of competition between subject CTL plate imports from any of the eleven subject countries. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from all eleven subject countries (Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom). 581 Commerce excluded from these reviews “flat rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (‘terne plate’), or both chromium and chromium oxides (‘tin-free steel’), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating; clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice in thickness; and certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.” CR at CORE-I-15, PR at CORE-I-14. 582 The subject merchandise is imported under the following HTS numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090. CR at CORE-I-16, PR at CORE-I-15. 583 CR at CORE-I-15, PR at CORE-I-14, n.16. Annealed nickel plate is also within Commerce’s scope, based on a 2005 ruling. CR at CORE-I-15, PR at CORE-I-14, n.16. 584 See generally CR/PR at App. E. 100 VI. CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL A. Domestic Like Product 1. In General We applied the domestic like product legal standards discussed in section III above. Commerce in its reviews defined the scope of merchandise covered by the orders on corrosion- resistant steel as: Flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Included in these orders are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”)–for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges.581 582 The scope in these reviews varies slightly from the scope in the original determinations. As a result of a 1998 scope ruling, Commerce included steel coils in thicknesses of 0.8 mm and a width of 2,000 mm, electrolytically coated with zinc, within the scope of the order.583 There also have been several scope rulings with respect to the subject merchandise from Germany and Japan which resulted in minor variations from the scope language of the orders on Germany and Japan from the other subject countries. 584 In general, however, the scope of Commerce’s reviews of the orders on Germany and Japan is essentially the same as the scope of its reviews with respect to Australia, Canada, France, and Korea. Corrosion-resistant steel is steel sheet that has been coated or plated with a corrosion- or heat- resistant metal coating to prevent corrosion and thereby extend the service life of products produced from the steel. It is used in the manufacture of automobiles and trucks, in appliances, industrial equipment, 585 CR at CORE-I-17-18, PR at CORE-I-15-16. In the hot-dip process, steel sheet is passed through a bath of molten zinc or aluminum. In the electrolytic process, steel sheet is passed through a series of electrolytic cells and zinc or other metal is electrolytically plated onto the surface of the steel. Both processes start with cold-rolled steel sheet. 586 Certain Flat-rolled Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-319-322, 334, 336-342, 344, and 347-353 and 731-TA-573-579, 581-592, 594- 597, 599-609 and 612-619 (Final), USITC Pub. 2664 (Aug. 1993) at 1-5. 587 Tr. at 260-261 (Hecht). 588 Mittal USA’s Prehearing Brief at 7. 589 Nucor/SDI’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commissioners’ Questions at 27. 590 CR at CORE-I-22, PR at CORE-I-18-19. 591 CR at CORE-III-8, PR at CORE-III-5, n.18 and CR/PR at Tables CORE-III-4, C-7, and C-8. 592 CR/PR at Table CORE-III-4. 593 Compare CR/PR at Table C-7 with Table C-8. 594 Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom (Review), Inv. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, 348-350, and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, 614-618, USITC Pub. 3364 (Nov. 2000) at 6-7. 101 agricultural equipment, and in many construction applications. The two widely used processes for manufacturing corrosion-resistant steel are the hot-dip process and the electrolytic process. 585 In its 1993 determination on corrosion-resistant steel, the Commission found two separate like products, corrosion-resistant steel and clad steel plate, a specialized corrosion-resistant steel product engineered to achieve specific performance requirements. The Commission made a negative determination with respect to clad steel plate.586 2. Whether to Expand the Domestic Like Product to Include Micro-alloys No party has argued that the Commission should determine that various forms of corrosion- resistant steel constitute separate domestic like products. While U.S. Steel indicated at the hearing that it favored the inclusion of micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel in the domestic like product,587 it did not address the issue in its briefs. Mittal USA stated that the inclusion of micro-alloy was not an issue in these second reviews in that it supported the definition of the like product from the first reviews, which did not include micro-alloy product.588 Nucor stated in its posthearing brief that it did not object to defining the domestic like product consistent with the scope, as the Commission did in the first reviews.589 With respect to micro-alloy product, only two domestic producers produce any micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel, U.S. Steel and Nucor.590 *** was able to provide separate data to the Commission on its production and shipments of micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel.591 The data show minuscule levels of micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel production – only *** short tons for the period January 2005 through June 2006. 592 Thus, inclusion or exclusion of micro-alloy steel in the domestic like product definition will produce almost no change in the data we considered.593 In the first reviews, the Commission considered the micro-alloy issue but did not expand the like product to include micro-alloy. 594 We reach the same conclusion in these reviews. In terms of the factors generally considered by the Commission in analyzing like product issues, micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel has limited interchangeability with non-alloy corrosion-resistant steel. Micro-alloy product generally has higher levels of alloying elements in the steel and is also stronger and tougher. Thus it has somewhat different uses. It is made in the same production facilities, 595 See generally, CR at CORE I-19-23, PR at CORE-I-16-19. 596 CR/PR at Table CORE-III-4. 597 Chairman Pearson and Commissioners Hillman and Okun conclude, based on the record evidence, that the appropriate domestic like product for corrosion-resistant steel does not include micro-alloy product, notwithstanding their finding, discussed above, that the appropriate domestic like product for cut-to-length plate does include micro- alloy product. Cut-to-length plate is produced from micro-alloy steel in large and growing volumes by many of the same mills that produce non-alloy steel plate. On balance, such plate is part of a product line continuum that is sold through the same channels of distribution for many of the same applications as non-alloy plate, generally with no more than moderate price premiums as a result of additional alloying elements. Corrosion-resistant micro-alloy steel, in contrast, is produced by a very limited number of mills in very small volumes, suggesting specialty status. Record evidence indicates as well that customers perceive corrosion-resistant micro-alloy steel to be distinct from corrosion-resistant steel produced from a non-alloy substrate. Accordingly, they do not expand the domestic like product for corrosion-resistant steel to include micro-alloy steel. 598 We note that the aggregate industry data compiled by the Commission include data for several toll producers. CR/PR at CORE-III-1, n.1. However, because the information provided by ***, a toll producer, was not entirely comparable with the other industry data, its data are included only in CR/PR at Tables C-9 and C-10. CR/PR at CORE-III-I, n.1. 102 using the same employees and processes, as non-alloy product, but only by two out of 23 U.S. producers of corrosion-resistant steel. Its price may vary because of its different physical characteristics and uses. Certain importers and purchasers described micro-alloy product as higher quality and preferred for certain end uses. The two products tend to move in similar channels of distribution.595 An additional consideration is that there are other forms of corrosion-resistant steel, both alloy and non-alloy, produced in greater quantities than micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel, that are likewise not included in the scope. 596 The record does not indicate that the similarities between domestically produced micro-alloy and in-scope non-alloy corrosion-resistant steel warrant expansion of the like product definition to include the micro-alloy product but not other types of out-of-scope product. Accordingly, we define the domestic like product as consistent with Commerce’s scope definition for corrosion-resistant steel and do not expand the like product to include micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel. 597 B. Domestic Industry 1. In General We applied the domestic industry legal standards discussed in section III above. In light of our domestic like product finding, we determine that there is one domestic industry consisting of all domestic producers of corrosion-resistant steel as defined in Commerce’s scope determination.598 2. Related Parties We applied the related party legal standards discussed in section III above. The only issue that arises in this second sunset review with respect to the Commission’s definition of the domestic industry is whether any producers should be excluded under the related parties provision, 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). The domestic interested parties view the domestic industry as encompassing all domestic producers of corrosion-resistant steel, and no party advocated the exclusion of any domestic producer as a related party. Section 771(4)(B) of the Act allows the Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject 599 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude a related party include: (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, i.e., 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; and (3) the position of the related producer vis-a-vis the rest of the industry, i.e., whether inclusion or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry. See, e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 600 The Commission has found such control to exist where the domestic producer was responsible for a predominant proportion of an importer’s purchases and the importer’s purchases were substantial. See, e.g., Foundry Coke from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-891 (Final), USITC Pub. 3449 (September 2001) at 8-9. 601 According to the Commission, a substantial percentage of domestic producers had “some financial relationship with foreign steel companies, either through equity ownership or joint ventures, and to a much lesser extent through importation of subject products.” However, the Commission observed that exclusion of these companies, and in particular any of the petitioning parties, would skew the domestic industry’s data because they made up a substantial portion of the industry. Furthermore, the Commission pointed out that the fact that most of the “related parties” were actively seeking to impose antidumping or countervailing duties on the very parties with which they were affiliated undercut any argument that they were somehow “shielded” from injury from the dumped imports. Finally, given the sporadic and low level of importation by the domestic industry, the Commission found that the interests of all the domestic producers were primarily in domestic production rather than importation. Consequently, the Commission found that there was an insufficient basis to exclude any of the related domestic producers from the corrosion-resistant industry. USITC Pub. 2664 at 97-99. 602 USITC Pub. 3364 at 14. 603 AK-ISG Steel Coating, Double G Coatings, and I/N Kote are all owned in part by Mittal Steel USA, whose parent company, Mittal Steel N.V., recently announced plans to merge with Arcelor, which has subsidiaries that produce corrosion-resistant steel in Canada, France, and Germany. CR/PR at Table CORE-I-12. The merger is scheduled to be completed in the first half of 2007. CR at CORE-III-5, PR at CORE-III-4. I/N Kote is also owned in part by Japanese producer Nippon Steel. Both Apollo and Thomas Steel have a sister company, Hille & Mueller USA, which imports subject product, and a sister company in Germany, Hille & Mueller, that produces corrosion- resistant steel. Canfield has a sister company, OMG, that imports subject product. CSI is related to JFE Steel, which produces subject product in Japan and exports it to the United States. Pro-Tec is 50 percent owned by Kobe Steel, which produces subject product in Japan. USS-POSCO is 50 percent owned by POSCO California, which is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (“POSCO”), which produces subject product in Korea; the other 50 percent owner of USS-POSCO is Pitcal, a direct wholly owned subsidiary of U.S. Steel, a U.S. producer. Wheeling-Nisshin is partly owned by Nisshin (Japan), which produces subject product in Japan and (continued...) 103 merchandise, or which are themselves importers.599 The Commission has also concluded that a domestic producer that does not itself import subject merchandise, or does not share a corporate affiliation with an importer or foreign producer or exporter, may nonetheless be deemed a related party if it controls large volumes of imports. 600 In the original 1993 investigations of corrosion-resistant steel, the Commission did not exclude any U.S. producer of corrosion-resistant steel under the related parties provision.601 Likewise, in the first reviews of corrosion-resistant steel, no party argued for the exclusion of any related parties from the domestic industry, and the Commission found that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude any related parties, given the related parties’ investments in U.S. facilities since the orders were imposed, the significant share of U.S. production they represented, and the absence of any indication that their domestic operations were shielded from the effects of subject imports. 602 In these reviews, a number of U.S. producers are affiliated with subject country producers of corrosion-resistant steel, or import or purchase subject imports.603 In addition to these affiliations with 603 (...continued) exports it to the United States, and by WPS, a U.S. producer. CR/PR at Table CORE-I-12. 604 CR/PR at Tables CORE-I-14, III-7. 605 *** imports were less than *** percent of its production in the one year, 2003, it imported subject product, and it reportedly imported to complete an obligation ***. ***’s imports represented *** percent of its production in 2002, but were not above *** percent of its production during the rest of the period, and this producer represented only *** percent of U.S. production in 2005. CR/PR at Table CORE-I-12. 606 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-13. 607 U.S. Producers’ Questionnaire Responses; CR at CORE-III-24, PR at CORE-III-15, CR/PR at Table CORE- III-12. 608 CR/PR at Table CORE-III-10. 609 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-12. 610 Commissioner Koplan and Commissioner Lane do not join the remainder of this opinion. For their views, see Separate and Dissenting Views of Commissioner Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane with respect to Certain Carbon Corrosion-Resistant Steel. 104 subject country producers and importers of corrosion-resistant steel, two U.S. producers imported subject product during the review period. 604 The quantity of imports during the period, however, was a relatively small proportion of these firms’ U.S. production of corrosion-resistant steel. 605 The only U.S. producers to fall within the related parties provision that *** continuation of the orders are ***, with respect to ***.606 These producers, however, represent a very small percentage of U.S. production. Moreover, 19 of the 23 U.S. producers providing information to the Commission, including all the related parties, reported capital expenditures during the period, indicating a commitment to their U.S. production, with no firm accounting for the majority of capital expenditures. Total capital expenditures by U.S. producers with related-party affiliations exceeded $250 million in 2005.607 The financial condition of these U.S. producers does not indicate that any of them are shielded from the effects of subject imports.608 The related parties account for a significant share of U.S. production -- more than *** of U.S. corrosion-resistant steel production in 2005.609 No party has argued for the exclusion of any related parties from the domestic corrosion-resistant steel industry. Based on these facts, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude any of the related parties from the corrosion-resistant steel industry. C. Cumulation610 1. Framework and Parties’ Arguments We applied the cumulation legal standards discussed in section III above. The threshold criterion for cumulation in these reviews is satisfied because all of the reviews of corrosion-resistant steel were initiated on the same day. We consider three issues in deciding whether to cumulate the subject imports: (1) whether imports from any of the subject countries are precluded from cumulation because they are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry; (2) whether imports of corrosion-resistant steel from the subject countries are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product according to the traditional four-factor test; and (3) other considerations, such as similarities and differences in the conditions of competition of the subject countries with regard to their participation in 611 See Allegheny Ludlum Corp. and AK Steel Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 06-188 (Ct. Int’l Trade, Dec. 22, 2006). 612 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun note that while they consider the same issues discussed in this section in determining whether to exercise their discretion to cumulate the subject imports, their analytical framework begins with whether imports from the subject countries are likely to face similar conditions of competition. For those subject imports which are likely to compete under similar conditions of competition, they next proceed to consider whether those imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product. Finally, if based on that analysis they intend to exercise their discretion to cumulate one or more subject countries, they analyze whether they are precluded from cumulating such imports because the imports from one or more subject countries, assessed individually, are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. See Additional and Dissenting Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun, found in Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-678, 679, 681, and 682 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3895 (Dec. 2006). They join Vice Chairman Aranoff and Commissioner Hillman’s discussion of the issues in this section, and reach the same conclusion. That is, Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun determine that certain factors indicate that subject imports from Canada will likely compete under different conditions of competition than other subject imports and, therefore, they do not exercise their discretion to cumulate subject imports from Canada for purposes of their analysis of likely volume, likely price effects, and likely injury. They also determine that (1) many of the likely conditions of competition faced by subject imports from Germany and Korea are similar; (2) subject imports from these countries are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product in the event of revocation; and (3) subject imports from these countries assessed individually, are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation. Therefore, they exercise their discretion to cumulate subject imports from Germany and Korea. Finally, Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun determine that (1) many of the likely conditions of competition faced by subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan are similar; (2) subject imports from these countries are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product in the event of revocation; and (3) subject imports from these countries assessed individually, are not likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation. Therefore, they exercise their discretion to cumulate subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan. 613 Given the pre-order levels of subject imports, sufficient excess capacity in each of the subject countries, their export-orientation, and the level of imports into the United States during the review period from certain countries, particularly *** and ***, they urge the Commission to find that the exception does not apply to any country. U.S. Steel’s Prehearing Brief at 13-45. 614 U.S. Steel’s Prehearing Brief at 46-51. They note that producers, importers and purchasers reported that imports from each country were “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with each other and the domestic like product, with similar channels of distribution and presence in the market. 615 U.S. Steel’s Prehearing Brief at 52-53 (All six countries have large corrosion-resistant steel industries. Producers in all countries are export-oriented and make steel that can be used in the most demanding applications. All six countries have excess capacity, make products that are sold on the basis of price, and will be impacted by changing conditions in China. With the exception of ***, all subject country producers have U.S. affiliates and such relationships could enhance their ability to penetrate the U.S. market.). 105 the U.S. market. 611 612 In so doing, we take into account the various arguments by the parties in favor of and against cumulation. Our focus in a five-year review investigation is not merely on present conditions of competition, but also on likely conditions of competition in the reasonably foreseeable future. The domestic interested parties argue that all subject imports of corrosion-resistant steel should be cumulated. They argue that the likelihood of “no discernible adverse impact” is a limited exception to cumulation that is not satisfied in this case for any subject country.613 They claim that it is likely that subject imports from each country will exhibit a reasonable overlap of competition with imports from other subject countries and with domestically produced corrosion-resistant steel.614 Finally, U.S. producers argue that there are no significant differences in conditions of competition among the subject countries that would not warrant the Commission exercising its discretion to cumulate any of them.615 616 The Korean respondents do not present specific arguments as to why subject imports from Korea should not be cumulated. They argue instead that, due to changes in the overall conditions of competition, all of the orders should be revoked. Korean Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 1. 617 Australian Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 10. 618 Canadian Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 1-8, Answers to Commissioners’ Questions at 31-41. 619 French Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 8-10. 620 German Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 5-9. 621 Japanese Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 15. 622 Cf. Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware from Korea, INV Nos. 701-TA-267 and 731-TA-304 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3485 (Jan. 2002) at 5 (declining to address criterion of no discernible adverse impact in the absence of evidence of a reasonable overlap of competition). In the first reviews, the Commission found that there was no likelihood of no discernible adverse impact in the event of revocation with respect to imports from all the subject countries, based on: their continuing presence in the U.S. market, indicating subject producers had the contacts and distribution channels necessary to compete; excess capacity; and the considerable resources devoted to export markets. USITC Pub. 3364 at 47. On remand with respect to Canada, France, and Germany, the Commission cited factors similar to those it considers in analyzing likelihood of material injury, but noting that the threshold for finding likelihood of a discernible or “noticeable” adverse impact is lower than the threshold for finding likelihood of material injury, or of a “significant” adverse impact if the order is revoked. USITC Pub. 3539 at 21-22; USITC Pub. 3753 at 3. The (continued...) 106 Corrosion-resistant steel producers in each subject country, except Korea,616 argue that their country’s imports should not be cumulated with those from the other subject countries on the following bases: Australia, no discernible adverse impact;617 Canada, different conditions of competition;618 France, no discernible adverse impact, lack of overlap of competition, and differences in conditions of competition, based mainly on the Arcelor-Mittal relationship;619 Germany, no discernible adverse impact;620 and Japan, no discernible adverse impact and different conditions of competition.621 Because we have not determined that subject imports from any country would be likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the U.S. industry, and that there is a reasonable overlap in competition among imports from all six countries and the U.S. industry, we have discretion to cumulate imports. We have determined that certain factors, discussed below, indicate that subject imports from Canada will likely compete under different conditions of competition and, therefore, we do not exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Canada for purposes of our injury analysis. We determine that many of the conditions of competition faced by subject imports from Germany and Korea are similar. Therefore, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Germany and Korea. We determine that many of the conditions of competition faced by subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan are similar. Therefore, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan. Finally, we find that the likely conditions of competition faced by subject imports from Germany and Korea will differ from the likely conditions of competition faced by subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan, and therefore we do not exercise our discretion to cumulate these groups of countries. 2. Likelihood of No Discernible Adverse Impact We consider all relevant factors in analyzing “no discernible adverse impact” in these reviews. Based on the record, we do not find that subject imports from Australia, France, Germany, Japan, or Korea are likely to have no discernible adverse impact in the event of revocation. Because we decline to cumulate subject imports from Canada with those from any other subject countries on the basis of differences in likely conditions of competition, we find it unnecessary to decide the issue of no discernible adverse impact with respect to Canada.622 622 (...continued) factors considered on remand for each of the subject countries included: production capacity and unused capacity relative to U.S. production and apparent consumption, available inventories, export reliance, substitutability of the subject imports with U.S. product, underselling in the original investigation, ability to product shift, and trade patterns during the original investigations. USITC Pub. 3539 at 27-28, 32. The Commission’s findings on remand of no likelihood of no discernible adverse impact and of a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury with respect to all three countries were upheld. 623 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-12. The Australian industry’s capacity increased from *** short tons in 1992 to *** short tons in 2005. 624 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. There was some underselling by subject imports from Australia in the original investigation, although no price comparisons were reported during either review period. Subject imports from Australia *** the domestic product in *** out of *** comparisons of sales to manufacturers and end users and *** the domestic product in *** out of *** purchaser price comparisons reported by distributors and service centers during the original investigation. Original Confidential Staff Report at Tables 110-112. 625 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-27. 626 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-29. 627 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. There were no price comparisons for subject imports from France in either review, but some underselling in the original investigation. Subject imports from France *** the domestic product in *** of *** comparisons of sales to distributors and service centers and *** the domestic product in *** of *** comparisons of sales to manufacturers and end users and in *** out of *** purchaser price comparisons reported by manufacturers and end users in the original investigation. Original Confidential Staff Report at Tables 110-112. 628 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-36. 629 CR/PR at Tables C-7, CORE-IV-38. We acknowledge that German producers reported *** capacity utilization in January to June 2006 and that this indicates a limited ability to increase exports via greater production. The German industry, however, reported *** in every other full-year and partial-year period since 2000, as well as some significant year-to-year fluctuations. As recently as 2005 German producers reported nearly *** short tons of available capacity. Given these facts, we do not conclude that the German industry will lack any available capacity in the foreseeable future based on the experience of a single partial year. 107 Australia: The information on the record indicates that the corrosion-resistant steel industry in Australia has significant production capacity and has increased its capacity since the original investigation period. The Australian producer’s excess capacity was *** short tons in 2005, and its capacity for January-June 2006 was *** short tons, as compared to *** short tons for January-June 2005. 623 There were some imports into the U.S. market from Australia during the review period, although at minimal levels, reaching a high during the current period of 297 short tons in 2003 and dropping to 16 short tons in 2005. 624 France: Similarly, producers in France have significant production capacity and have increased their capacity since the original investigation, from *** short tons in 1992 to *** short tons in 2005. 625 The French producers’ excess capacity was *** short tons in 2005, and their capacity for January-June 2006 was *** short tons, as compared to *** short tons for January-June 2005. 626 Even with the orders in place, subject imports from France were present in the U.S. market, although at a declining rate. Subject imports from France were at their highest level during the instant review period in 2002, at 15,753 short tons, and were 1,778 short tons in 2005.627 Germany: German producers report increased capacity and production, from *** short tons of capacity in 1992 to *** short tons in 2005, and from *** short tons of production in 1992 to *** short tons in 2005. While capacity utilization in 2005, at *** percent, was above that of the original investigation period, it had dropped from *** percent in 1999 during the first review period.628 German producers’ excess capacity was *** short tons in 2005, which was equivalent to almost *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. production in that year.629 630 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 631 CR/PR at Table C-7. 632 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-38. German respondent interested parties argue that demand in their home market and the EU is sufficiently strong that they would not have an incentive to ship product to the United States. They point out that over *** percent of their shipments are to the German market or other EU markets. German Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 3. We note below that prices for corrosion-resistant steel in EU markets have not been sufficiently below U.S. prices so as to create a price incentive to shift sales to the U.S. market. However, prices in certain Asian markets have typically been lower than U.S. prices, as has the “EU export” price. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-70, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006). Thus, there would appear to be some price incentive for German producers to direct to the United States sales currently made to markets outside the EU. The record also reflects that exports from Germany to markets outside the European Union increased in 2005, much of which was to the United States. 633 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-35. 634 Tr. at 521 (Gruenhage); Tr. at 264 (Gant); CR at CORE-IV-53, PR at CORE-IV-20. 635 The U.S. service center firm owned by ThyssenKrupp is TKSS. Corrosion-resistant steel is among the products distributed by TKSS. TKSS presents one ready avenue for subject imports from ThyssenKrupp or other producers in Germany to reach the U.S. market. German respondents claim that this is not likely because TKSS currently handles very little imported product, and because the sales of ThyssenKrupp Germany have been to auto- related end-users and not service centers. German Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 8-9. The fact that TKSS does not currently distribute much imported product with the orders in place does not diminish its availability as a channel for imports if the orders were revoked. 636 With respect to pricing, in both the original investigation and current reviews, subject imports from Germany mostly *** the domestic product. Original Confidential Staff Report at Tables 110-112; CR/PR at Table CORE-V- 17. Notwithstanding the ***, we find that the likely volume of subject imports from Germany would be sufficient to have a noticeable impact on the domestic industry. 637 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-45. 108 Imports from Germany to the United States of corrosion-resistant steel were 189,192 short tons in 1992. 630 While subject imports from Germany were lower during this review period, they increased by 63.5 percent from 2000 to 2005, from 46,453 short tons in 2000 to 75,941 short tons in 2005. 631 The German industry is export-oriented. Exports accounted for over *** percent of German shipments during each year since 2000. Although most exports remained in Europe, *** percent of its shipments in 2005 (over *** tons) were directed to overseas markets, including the United States.632 As discussed below, producers accounting for the vast majority of German production lack any production affiliate in the United States. These unaffiliated producers are ThyssenKrupp, the *** German producer and exporter to the United States, and the *** German producers, Salzgitter and Corus, which together represent *** percent of German production.633 ThyssenKrupp has an established customer base in the United States and owns a large U.S. service center chain.634 Thus, ThyssenKrupp has the need to supply corrosion-resistant steel to its customers in the United States and it has the logistical means to do so.635 ThyssenKrupp, however, has yet to establish a production facility in North America, and, as we discuss below, we cannot determine that it is more likely than not that ThyssenKrupp will acquire such a facility in the reasonably foreseeable future. Even if ThyssenKrupp were to construct a U.S. facility, this would take some years. In the meantime, ThyssenKrupp will need to supply its U.S. customers with imports from Germany so that it can maintain and likely build its customer base to support such a facility.636 Japan: Japanese producers also reported significant production capacity and increased capacity since the original investigation. The Japanese industry’s capacity increased from *** short tons in 1992 to *** short tons in 2005. 637 The Japanese producers’ excess capacity was *** short tons in 2005, and their capacity for January-June 2006 was *** short tons, as compared to *** short tons for January-June 638 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-47. 639 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. The Commission’s pricing data in this review show underselling by Japanese product in 5 out of 20 comparisons and overselling in the remaining 15 comparisons. CR/PR at Table CORE-V-17. In the original investigation, subject imports from Japan *** the domestic product in *** of *** comparisons of sales to manufacturers and end users, in *** of *** comparisons of sales to distributors and service centers, and in *** of *** purchaser price comparisons reported by manufacturers and end users. Original Confidential Staff Report at Tables 110-112. 640 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 641 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 642 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-54. 643 The Korean industry also produces non-subject product on the same equipment, including *** short tons of micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel, *** percent of which was exported to the United States in 2005. Korean producers, however, did not indicate how readily equipment used to produce non-subject product could be modified to produce subject merchandise. 644 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-56. 645 With respect to U.S. prices of imports from Korea, in the original investigation, subject imports from Korea *** the domestic product in *** of *** comparisons of sales to manufacturers and end users, in *** of *** comparisons of sales to distributors and service centers, and in *** of *** purchaser price comparisons reported by distributors and service centers. Original Confidential Staff Report at Tables 110-111, 113. The Korean product undersold the U.S. product in 13 of 53 comparisons during the current review period, with the orders in place. CR/PR at Table CORE-V-17. 646 CR at CORE-II-20, PR at CORE-II-13; CR at CORE-II-30, PR at CORE-II-23; CR at CORE-II-21, PR at CORE-II-14. 109 2005. 638 Subject imports from Japan were present in the U.S. market during the review period, ranging from a high of 27,543 short tons in 2000 to a low of 16,762 short tons in 2005. 639 Korea. Imports from Korea to the United States of corrosion-resistant steel were 193,513 short tons in 1992. 640 Despite the discipline imposed by the orders, Korea’s subject imports to the United States increased substantially during the review period, reaching a high of 330,858 short tons in 2005, or 1.5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption.641 Korean producers, representing *** percent of corrosion- resistant steel capacity in Korea, reported steady increases in their capacity, from 3.1 million short tons in 1992 to 8.4 million short tons in 2005, and in their production, from 2.9 million short tons in 1992 to 7.3 million short tons in 2005, but a drop in capacity utilization to 87.0 percent in 2005, from 93.8 percent in 1992. 642 Korean producers’ excess capacity was 1.1 million short tons in 2005.643 In addition to current substantial volumes of imports from Korea despite the orders, Korean producers exported 28.8 percent of their total shipments in 2005 to countries other than the United States, amounting to 2.1 million short tons of corrosion-resistant steel.644 Of these exports, Korean producers exported approximately 900,000 short tons to markets outside Asia, indicating a willingness to seek out markets that are distant from Korea. 645 In sum, with respect to Australia, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea, the information on the record indicates that the corrosion-resistant steel industry in each of these subject countries has significant production capacity and has increased its capacity since the original investigation period. Producers in each of the subject countries have unused capacity. Producers in each country have maintained at least some level of exports to the U.S. market during the review period, and undersold U.S. producers at times during the original investigation period, and, in some cases, during the review period as well. Finally, corrosion-resistant steel from domestic producers and the subject countries is generally substitutable.646 Accordingly, we do not conclude that the subject imports from Australia, France, Germany, Japan, or Korea would not have a discernible or noticeable adverse impact on the U.S. market if the orders were 647 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun examine the likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition only after first determining whether subject imports are likely to face similar conditions of competition. Because they determine that certain factors indicate that subject imports from Canada will likely compete under different conditions of competition than other subject imports, they do not include subject imports from Canada in their analysis of the likelihood of a reasonable overlap of competition. 648 See Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-278- 280 (Final), USITC Pub. 1845 (May 1986), aff'd, Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988), aff'd, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 915 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996)). 649 USITC Pub. 2664 at 173; USITC Pub. 3364 at 47-48. 650 CR at CORE-II-20, PR at CORE-II-13. 651 CR at CORE-II-30, PR at CORE-II-23. 652 CR at CORE-II-21, PR at CORE-II-14. 653 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-4-6, IV-11, IV-13-16, IV-19, IV-21-24, IV-28, IV-30-33, IV-37, IV-39-42, IV-46, IV-48-51, IV-55, IV-57-60. 654 Canadian Respondents’ Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commissioners’ Questions at 38. 110 lifted. We, therefore, are not precluded from exercising our discretion to cumulate subject imports from any of these countries. 3. Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition Because we have not found that the “no discernible adverse impact” exception to cumulation applies to any of the subject countries, we next consider the issue of likely reasonable overlap of competition.647 The Commission generally has considered whether subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product with reference to four factors: 1) fungibility; 2) sales or offers in the same geographic markets; 3) common or similar channels of distribution; and 4) simultaneous presence. 648 In five-year reviews, the relevant inquiry is whether there likely would be a reasonable overlap of competition even if none currently exists because the subject imports are absent from the U.S. market. In the original investigations and in the first reviews, the majority of the Commission cumulated subject imports from all subject countries, based on a reasonable overlap of competition.649 In these reviews, the record indicates that domestically produced and imported corrosion-resistant steel are fungible products. Subject imports and the domestic product share the same essential chemical and physical properties, and there is a moderate to high degree of substitution between them.650 Generally, producers, importers and purchasers reported that corrosion-resistant steel from the United States and from other countries is always or frequently interchangeable.651 Twenty-nine of 35 responding purchasers indicated that imported and domestically produced corrosion-resistant steel are generally used in the same applications, as long as the steel conforms to the purchaser’s specifications or the supplier has been approved.652 In addition, the types of corrosion-resistant steel that the subject producers either exported to the United States or produced during the review period reveal a sufficient degree of fungibility among the subject imports and with the domestic product.653 For example, while *** exported minimal quantities to the United States and produces only hot-dip corrosion-resistant steel, all the other subject countries produce and in some cases exported to the United States during the review period significant quantities of hot-dip product. In addition, while Canadian respondents argued that imports from Canada are focused on specialty automotive products to a much greater extent than other subject imports,654 the record shows a reasonable overlap. All the subject countries produce corrosion-resistant steel for exposed automotive applications, and there is sufficient overlap in the other types of corrosion-resistant steel they produce, as 655 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-4-6, IV-11, IV-13-16, IV-19, IV-21-24, IV-28, IV-30-33, IV-37, IV-39-42, IV-46, IV-48-51, IV-55, IV-57-60. 656 Japanese Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 90. 657 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-46, IV-48-51. 658 CR/PR at Table CORE-II-1. 659 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-8. 660 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-7. 661 CR/PR at Table CORE-II-2. 662 USITC Pub. 3364 at 48. 111 well as export to the United States. 655 While ***’s production of corrosion-resistant steel for automotive applications is a relatively *** percentage of its total production, it shipped significant quantities for non- automotive applications during the review period (2005), as did all the subject countries: Australia, *** short tons; Canada, *** short tons; France,*** short tons; Germany, *** short tons; Japan, *** short tons; and Korea, *** short tons. Similarly, while the Japanese producers assert a focus on high-value specialty products, 656 the record shows they produce a full-range of corrosion-resistant products.657 The record also indicates that there is sufficient overlap in the channels of distribution for domestic and imported corrosion-resistant steel. U.S. producers and importers ship corrosion-resistant steel to automotive, construction, and other end users, as well as to distributors and service centers, although in different proportions.658 With respect to simultaneous presence, imports from each of the subject countries have been present in the U.S. market during at least some portion of the review period.659 The record also indicates that, despite low levels of imports from some of the subject countries during the review period, subject imports and the domestic product are sold in the same geographic markets. 660 In addition, the record shows that U.S. producers and importers, on the whole, reported nationwide sales of corrosion-resistant steel. 661 On balance, we find that there will likely be a reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from each country and the domestic like product as well as among subject imports from each country should the orders be revoked. 4. Other Considerations In addition to the issues of no discernible adverse impact and reasonable overlap of competition, we also consider whether other factors, such as likely differing conditions of competition for the subject imports, likely differences in price or volume trends, or transnational ownership of facilities producing the subject product, warrant us not exercising our discretion to cumulate subject imports from certain countries. In the first reviews of corrosion-resistant steel, the Commission took into account other significant conditions of competition likely to prevail if the orders were revoked but found that the subject imports from each country would compete in the U.S. market under similar conditions of competition and exercised its discretion to cumulate the subject imports from all six countries.662 In this review, we have determined that certain factors, discussed below, indicate that subject imports from Canada will likely compete under significantly different conditions of competition and, therefore, we do not exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Canada for purposes of our injury analysis. We determine that many of the conditions of competition faced by subject imports from Germany and Korea are similar. Therefore, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Germany and Korea. We determine that many of the conditions of competition faced by subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan are similar. Therefore, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject 663 CR at CORE-IV-28-29, PR at CORE-IV-13. 664 CR/PR at Table CORE-II-3, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-164 (Dec. 13, 2006). 665 Canadian Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 2; Auto Producers’ Prehearing Brief at 48-50; Tr. at 163-164 (Scherrbaum), 266(DiMicco), 274-278, 386 (Malashevich). We note that our recognition of this perception of major purchasers is limited to auto producers and does not necessarily apply to other products or sectors, which accounted for *** percent of U.S. shipments of subject Canadian steel in 2005. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-4. 666 The majority of subject imports from Canada are shipped to auto producer customers. Canadian Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 2-5. We note that ***. Because Toyota is opening a new factory at Ontario, near Dofasco’s mill, Dofasco’s business plan calls for a ***. CR at CORE-IV-29, PR at CORE-IV-13. 667 CR at CORE-IV-105, PR at CORE-IV-39. For the United States, the rules for determining NAFTA eligibility are set forth in the HTS in general note 12(t); the pertinent rule is that for the tariff classification of the imported good. Third-country content in the good must change tariff classification in the prescribed manner, and any other requirements of the particular rule and GN 12 must be met. 668 CR at CORE-III-11, PR at CORE-III-9, CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-20. Exports from the United States to Canada and Mexico were between 88 and 98 percent of U.S. exports during the review period, with exports to Canada the dominant share. For example, in 2005, U.S. exports to Canada were 592,578 short tons; to Mexico, 276,911 shorts tons; and to all others, 40,981 short tons. CR at CORE-III-11, PR at CORE-III-9. 669 Canadian Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 2. 112 imports from Australia, France and Japan. Finally, we find that the likely conditions of competition faced by subject imports from Germany and Korea will differ from the likely conditions of competition faced by subject imports from Australia, France and Japan, and therefore we do not exercise our discretion to cumulate these groups of countries. Canada: The following factors indicate significant differences in the conditions of competition as pertains to Canadian producers as compared to producers in the other subject countries. Approximately *** percent of exports to the United States from Canada by Dofasco (the *** exporter) over the review period were to the automotive sector. 663 That sector dominated the U.S. market, accounting for 47.6 percent of U.S. market shipments in 2005.664 Auto producers and auto parts suppliers perceive the United States and Canada as a unified market for production and sourcing decisions, while they view other subject producers as “offshore.”665 North American mills, including those located in Canada, are significantly better positioned than the other subject country producers to economically satisfy the just-in-time delivery requirements of the auto and auto parts companies. 666 Thus, with or without the order in place, U.S. auto companies have economic incentives to continue to purchase the majority of their corrosion-resistant requirements from North American mills. Automakers are also sensitive to rules of origin under the North American Free Trade Agreement, which provide for preferential tariff treatment for goods that meet North American content requirements.667 In part due to these connections in the auto market, Canada is a net importer of corrosion-resistant steel, both globally and especially with regard to the United States. While imports of corrosion-resistant steel from Canada to the United States rose during the review period, exports of corrosion-resistant steel from the United States to Canada increased by a greater amount. In 2005, for example, U.S. producers exported 592,578 short tons of corrosion-resistant steel to Canada, up from 382,305 short tons in 2004, while exports from Canada to the United States in 2005 were *** short tons, up from *** short tons in 2004. In each year of the review period except 2003, U.S. exports to Canada exceeded exports from Canada to the United States.668 The fact that Canada is a net importer of corrosion-resistant steel demonstrates that the market for corrosion-resistant steel in Canada is healthy, and attractive to both Canadian and U.S. steel producers, and the two-way nature of the market further corroborates Canadian respondents’ arguments that auto makers operate as if there is an integrated North American auto market. 669 670 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 671 CR at CORE-IV-29, PR at CORE-IV-13. 672 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-4. 673 Nucor/SDI’s Posthearing Brief at 10-13. 674 Nucor/SDI’s Posthearing Brief at 10-13. 675 CR/PR at Table C-7. 113 Unlike the other subject imports, which either decreased after the orders were imposed or, in the case of Korea, increased dramatically, imports from Canada have maintained a steady presence in the U.S. market despite the orders.670 Dofasco, which represents *** percent of Canadian production and is the *** Canadian exporter to the United States, increased its exports to the United States during the review period. We find, however, that these imports were not due to price competition with U.S. suppliers, but instead resulted from several factors: ***.671 Moreover, imports from Canada during the review period were focused on specialty automotive products to a much greater extent than other subject imports – i.e., *** percent of imports from Canada were for critical exposed automotive applications, as opposed to *** such imports from Australia, France, and Japan, *** percent of imports from Korea, and *** percent of imports from Germany.672 In addition, unlike all the other subject countries, Canadian producers do not export to China and would not be vulnerable to any potential loss of China as an export market due to any build-up in Chinese capacity. We have considered the domestic producers’ arguments that subject imports from Canada should be cumulated. They reject the Canadian producers’ assertion that their exports do not really compete with U.S. product because their exports are determined by the production and sourcing decisions of their customers. 673 They note that, at the hearing, Dofasco testified it was in competition with a U.S. supplier for an existing OEM contract. They assert that the experience of U.S. exports in the Canadian market has no bearing on the Commission’s analysis here and further note that, despite claims that Canadian producer Stelco is focused exclusively on the Canadian market, recent public statements by its CEO indicate otherwise. 674 These arguments do not themselves establish that Canada does not face conditions of competition different than those under which imports from the other subject countries are likely to compete in the U.S. market. The way in which shipments from Canada compete in the U.S. market distinguishes them from other subject imports, as described above. Although we recognize that there is and will be some price competition between Canadian and U.S. producers, Canadian producers do not compete for sales in much of the market, and their dedicated sales into the auto segment are generally based more on demand for a specific auto part than on price. On balance, we find that the conditions of competition with respect to Canada are sufficiently different so as to provide a reasonable basis for us not to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Canada with those from the other subject countries. Korea and Germany: We find similarities in the conditions of competition in the U.S. market with respect to Korea and Germany such that it is appropriate to cumulate subject imports from these countries with each other, but not with subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan. Unlike imports from Australia, France, and Japan, corrosion-resistant steel from Korea and Germany had an increasing presence in the U.S. market over the review period. Subject imports from Korea increased by 30.5 percent, from 253,528 short tons in 2000 to 330,858 short tons in 2005, while subject imports from Germany increased by 63.5 percent from 2000 to 2005, from 46,453 short tons in 2000 to 75,941 short tons in 2005. This is in sharp contrast to subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan which decreased, respectively, by 92.6 percent, 50.7 percent, and 39.1 percent, from 2000 to 2005. 675 676 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 677 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 678 CR at CORE IV-81, PR at CORE-IV-29. 679 CR at CORE-IV-54, PR at CORE-IV-20. 680 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-43. The presence in the U.S. market of non-subject German micro-alloy steel shows that an economic incentive exists in shipping to the U.S. market, as well as the existence of established marketing channels. 681 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-53. 682 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-12. 683 POSCO’s Questionnaire Response at 9 (exports to the United States of *** tons in 2005). USS-POSCO’s net sales in 2005 were *** short tons. CR/PR at Table CORE-III-10. 684 Thyssen's share of exports of subject merchandise to the United States was *** percent in 2000, *** in 2001, *** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in January to June 2005, and *** percent in January to June 2006. Arcelor Germany and Saltzgitter ***. Corus ***. German Producers’ Questionnaire Responses at II-18a, II-18b. 685 As noted below, we do not believe we can determine that ThyssenKrupp’s efforts to obtain production facilities in North America are likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. 114 Subject imports from Korea rose to a substantially higher level at the end of the review period than at any point during the original or first review periods, reaching a high of 330,858 short tons in 2005, as compared to their highest level during the original investigation of 193,513 short tons. 676 Subject imports from Germany were higher in 2005, at 75,941 short tons, than at any time during the first or second review periods, although they were lower with the order in place than they were during the original investigations.677 In addition to their exports to the United States, Korean producers and German producers have both evidenced a strong interest in exporting to the North American market generally, confirming the attractiveness of the North American region to these producers. Korea’s exports to Canada and Mexico fluctuated, and increased overall from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2005. 678 Germany’s exports to Canada and Mexico during the period also fluctuated at significant levels, and increased overall from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2005. 679 German producers’ interest in the North American market is also evident in the level of their exports to the United States of micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel. German micro-alloy exports to the United States were *** during the entire review period (*** short tons in 2005), which further suggests an interest by German producers in having a substantial presence in the U.S. market. 680 Although Korea’s micro-alloy exports to the United States were ***, they steadily increased from 2003 to 2005, and were higher in interim 2006 than in interim 2005. Although the Korean and German industries have demonstrated a strong interest in the U.S. market, neither has a sufficient presence to supply the U.S. market from within the United States or elsewhere in North America. Korean producer POSCO has 50 percent ownership of U.S. producer USS- POSCO. While POSCO and its related Korean producer Pohang Coated Steel Co., Ltd. (“POCOS”) represent a substantial share of Korean production (*** percent in 2005),681 USS-POSCO represented only *** percent of 2005 production in the United States.682 Moreover, the presence of USS-POSCO has not stopped POSCO from shipping appreciable quantities of subject product to the U.S. market.683 ThyssenKrupp, representing *** percent of German production and *** German exports of subject corrosion-resistant steel to the United States since 2000,684 does not have a U.S. production affiliate.685 Nor do German producers Salzgitter and Corus, which together account for *** percent of German 686 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-35. 687 CR at CORE-IV-46, PR at CORE-IV-18, CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-35. 688 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-26. 689 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-12. 690 CR at CORE-IV-59, PR at CORE-IV-21-22, CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-44. JFE is affiliated with U.S. producer CSI; Kobe, with U.S. producer Pro-Tec; Nippon and Nittetsu, with U.S. producer I/N Kote; and Nisshin, with U.S. producer Wheeling-Nisshin. 691 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-12. 692 I/N Kote’s production was reported in part in the questionnaire response of Mittal, which owns I/N Kote together with Nippon Steel. 693 While the Australian producer has no U.S. affiliates that produce corrosion-resistant steel, no record evidence demonstrates that Australia has an interest in the U.S. market. 694 CR at CORE-IV-74-75, PR at CORE-IV-26, n.134. 695 CR at CORE-III-7, CORE-IV-24, n.28, PR at CORE-III-5, CORE-IV-12, n.28. 696 Representatives from ThyssenKrupp testified that as a global player, it has to supply its customers, some of which have moved to North America. Thus, ThyssenKrupp has a strategy to be present in the NAFTA market. Tr. at 521 (Gruenhage). While ThyssenKrupp has indicated an interest in establishing a production facility in North America, by purchasing the assets of Dofasco in Canada, or constructing or acquiring a production facility in the United States (CR at CORE-III-7, CORE-IV-24, n.28, PR at CORE-III-5, CORE-IV-12, n.28), it testified that this is “a period of uncertainty.” Tr. at 521 (Gruenhage). The uncertainty lies in the fact that its ability to purchase Dofasco is outside of its control in the regulatory process. The U.S. Department of Justice has required, as part of its antitrust review, that Arcelor-Mittal divest itself of Dofasco, or some other specified Mittal facility, and it is unknown at this time whether Dofasco will be sold or remain part of the Mittal group. CR at CORE-IV-24, PR at CORE-IV-12, n.28. Thus, we cannot determine that it is more likely than not that it will acquire Dofasco in the reasonably foreseeable future. Moreover, ThyssenKrupp’s ability to either construct or acquire a production facility (continued...) 115 production. 686 Arcelor Germany, which will soon be affiliated with a U.S. producer (Mittal Steel USA), represents only *** percent of German production.687 Thus, for Korea and Germany, the affiliations of their producers with U.S. producers represent either a relatively small share of U.S. production (in the case of Korea) or a relatively small share of foreign industry production (in the case of Germany). This is in direct contrast with the French and Japanese producers, for which producers accounting for the vast majority of production of corrosion- resistant steel are affiliated with major U.S. producers of corrosion-resistant steel. Arcelor in France, which also will soon be affiliated with Mittal Steel USA, accounts for *** percent of French corrosion- resistant production.688 Its U.S. affiliate Mittal Steel USA accounted for *** percent of U.S. production in 2005. 689 Five Japanese producers representing *** percent of Japanese production are related to U.S. producers of corrosion-resistant steel.690 Collectively these U.S. producers related to Japanese producers accounted for *** percent of domestic production in 2005,691 not counting the production of I/N Kote. 692 These distinctions are important because they show that, notwithstanding any interest French and Japanese producers may have in the U.S. market, they will likely exercise it largely through their U.S. affiliates. 693 The Korean and German producers, by contrast, have an interest, as indicated by the level of their exports of both subject and non-subject corrosion-resistant steel to the United States and to North America generally, but lack a significant presence through transnational affiliations. While POSCO has indicated plans to construct a production facility in Mexico, such a facility would not be completed until 2009. 694 Similarly, while ThyssenKrupp has indicated an interest in establishing a production facility in North America, by purchasing the assets of Dofasco in Canada, or constructing or acquiring a production facility in the United States,695 the record does not indicate that it is more likely than not that this will happen in the reasonably foreseeable future.696 696 (...continued) in the United States is even more distant than its ability to purchase Dofasco. Construction of a new facility takes years and any planning appears to be at a relatively early stage. In 2006 ThyssenKrupp began construction of a mill in Brazil with the announced intention that it would be a source of slabs for, among other things, its North American coated steel operations. This Brazilian mill would only be a factor once there was a ThyssenKrupp production facility in North America. 697 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-56. In the first half of 2006, shipments by Korean producers outside the Asian region were *** short tons, markedly higher than in the first half of 2005, when they were *** short tons. 698 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-38. German non-EU shipments were *** short tons in 2005, which was higher than in 2004 (*** short tons), even though German producers’ total exports were higher in 2004 than in 2005. German producers shipped approximately *** short tons to export markets outside Europe in first-half 2006. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-38. 699 We note that, while the proportion of Australia’s shipments to China and other Asian markets decreased from 2000 through 2005, its shipments to its home market increased, from *** percent of total shipments in 2000 to *** percent of total shipments in 2005. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-12. 700 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-39, CORE-IV-57. 701 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 702 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-12, IV-29, IV-47. 703 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-12. We recognize that these percentages have fluctuated over the period of review. 704 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-47. 116 An additional point that distinguishes producers in Korea, and to a lesser extent Germany, from producers in the other subject countries is their level of shipments outside their own geographic region. Exports from Korea to destinations outside Asia (such as to the European Union, United States, and other markets) were nearly 900,000 tons in 2005, accounting for 12.4 percent of total Korean industry shipments in 2005. 697 Similarly, during the review period, German producers shipped significant quantities of corrosion-resistant steel outside their geographic region (the European Union), representing *** percent of the German industry’s total shipments in 2005. 698 This is in contrast to producers in Australia, France, and Japan, whose extra-region shipments accounted for less than *** percent of their total industry shipments in 2005. 699 These differences indicate a greater willingness of Korean producers, and to a lesser extent German producers, to ship corrosion-resistant steel products to overseas markets, including the United States, as compared to producers in Australia, France, and Japan. We recognize that there are some important differences in the conditions of competition pertinent to Korea and Germany. For example, the German industry is more heavily focused on production for automotive uses (*** percent of total production in 2005) as compared to the Korean industry (*** percent of total production in 2005).700 Despite some differences, we find that the similarities outlined above indicate that cumulation of subject imports from Korea and Germany is warranted, but that imports from these two countries should be considered separately from imports from Australia, France, and Japan. Australia, France, Japan: Unlike the subject industries in Korea and Germany, subject producers in Australia, France, and Japan have demonstrated a lack of interest in supplying the U.S. market to any significant degree. Indeed, subject imports from these three countries have dropped to very low levels since the original investigation period.701 Rather, the industries in all three countries are focused to a significant extent on markets in their respective regions, including their home markets.702 With respect to Australia, a large percentage of its shipments have been to its home market, reaching *** percent in 2005. The next largest destination generally has been to Asia.703 With respect to Japan, a large percentage of its shipments consistently have been to its home market, roughly *** percent throughout the period of review. Likewise, the next largest destination consistently has been to Asia, remaining above *** percent for several years.704 With respect to France, the largest percentage of its shipments consistently have been to either its home market or used for internal consumption/transfers, roughly *** percent. The next 705 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-29. 117 largest destination has been to the European Union, which has been the destination of more than *** percent of French shipments throughout the period of review.705 Importantly, as noted above, French and Japanese producers, accounting for the vast majority of production of corrosion-resistant steel in their respective countries, are affiliated with major U.S. producers of corrosion-resistant steel, thereby making it more likely that they would supply the U.S. market from their affiliates’ U.S. production. Thus, while we recognize that there are some differences in the conditions of competition for these three countries, for example with respect to the markets they primarily serve and the fact that the Australian industry does not have a production platform in the United States, we find that the similarities outweigh these differences. On balance, then, we do not find any distinctions that provide a sufficient basis for us not to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan. 5. Conclusion In conclusion, we do not find that the no discernible adverse impact exception to cumulation applies to any of the subject countries. In addition, the record indicates that there would likely be a reasonable overlap of competition between subject imports from each country and the domestic like product as well as among subject imports from each country, based on the traditional four factors – the fungibility of the product, the simultaneous presence and geographic overlap of subject imports and the domestic like product, at least during portions of the review period, and the existence of common channels of distribution. However, based on important differences with respect to other factors, we do not exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Canada with those from any other country. Based on similar conditions of competition for imports from Korea and Germany, we exercise our discretion to cumulate imports from those two countries, but given their differences in conditions of competition with imports from Australia, France, and Japan, we do not cumulate Korean and German imports with those from Australia, France, and Japan. We do exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan, and consider them on a cumulated basis. 706 Section 752(a)(6) of the act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review investigation. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the magnitude of dumping to be used by the Commission in five-year review investigations as “the dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). In Commerce’s final five-year review determinations with respect to all subject countries, it assigned five-year review margins as follows: Australia, 24.96 percent; Canada, 11.71 to 22.70 percent; France, 29.41 percent; Germany, 10.02 percent; Japan, 36.41 percent; and Korea, 17.70 percent. CR/PR at Table CORE-I-7. Although the statute does not expressly define the “magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews, it states that “[t]he administering authority shall provide to the Commission the net countervailable subsidy that is likely to prevail if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.” 19 U.S.C. §1675a(b)(3). Commerce found likely subsidy rates as follows: France, 0.16 percent; and Korea, 1.15 percent. It revoked the countervailing duty order against corrosion-resistant steel from Germany. CR/PR at Table CORE-I-8. In five-year reviews concerning countervailing duty orders the Commission is required to consider “information regarding the nature of the countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement.” 19 U.S.C. §1675a(b)(6). In its final determinations, Commerce described the various subsidy programs as follows: France. In its final determination in the review of the countervailing duty order, Commerce identified 9 programs which provided countervailable subsidies to French subject producers, none of which fell within the meaning of Article 3 the Subsidies Agreement. Korea. In its final determination in the review of the countervailing duty order, Commerce identified 11 programs which provided countervailable subsidies to Korean subject producers, 5 of which were found to be export subsidies as described in Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement. CR at OVERVIEW-16-17, PR at OVERVIEW-14, nn.41 and 42. 707 The German respondents urged the Commission to consider a period not to exceed 24 months. German Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 2. 708 We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above. 709 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 118 D. Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury If the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders Are Revoked 1. In General We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above.706 As a preliminary matter, for purposes of the reviews of these corrosion-resistant steel orders and based on the facts on this record, we have given significantly greater weight to developments likely to occur in the next two years than to those pertaining to later dates, although we cite other information as appropriate. No party argued for a different time period as constituting the “reasonably foreseeable” future.707 2. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle 708 The statute directs the Commission to analyze the impact of subject imports on the domestic industry “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”709 In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that supply and demand conditions as well as the business cycle for corrosion-resistant steel had not changed significantly since the original investigations. The Commission noted the two processes for making corrosion-resistant steel, hot- dipping and electrolytic galvanizing, and observed that demand for corrosion-resistant steel depended on the level of demand in the principal end use markets, automotive and construction. It described demand for hot-dip corrosion-resistant steel as having grown significantly faster since the original investigations 710 USITC Pub. 3364 at 49-51. 711 CR at CORE-II-15, PR at CORE-II-10. 712 CR at CORE-II-17, PR at CORE-II-12. 713 CR at CORE-II-13, PR at CORE-II-9. 714 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 715 CR at CORE-II-6, III-4-6, PR at CORE-II-5, III-3-5. 716 CR/PR at Table CORE-II-3. 119 than demand for electrogalvanized product. It also found that apparent U.S. consumption had increased since the original investigations. The Commission in the first reviews found subject imports and the domestic like product to be broadly interchangeable and price therefore an important factor in purchasing decisions. It further found that price competition had increased since the original investigations with the consolidation of purchasing power in the automobile industry, the reduced number of service centers, and the adoption and application of international standards. It found that pricing patterns had not changed significantly during the review periods, with many purchasers reporting that they changed suppliers only infrequently. Domestic producers reportedly sold their product both by contract and on the spot market and indicated that contracts gave them little protection given that purchasers requested price concessions when spot prices fell. As in the original investigations, domestic producers dominated the U.S. market for corrosion- resistant steel during the first review period and had made significant investments since 1992 to add capacity and improve existing capacity. The Commission noted that corrosion-resistant steel production was technologically complex and capital intensive, with high fixed costs, requiring high capacity utilization rates for domestic producers to stay profitable. It further noted the affiliations of the major Japanese producers with U.S. producers. 710 We find the following conditions of competition relevant to our determinations in these reviews. a. Demand The demand for corrosion-resistant steel depends on the demand in its end-use sectors, primarily automotive manufacturing and construction, although it is also used in home appliances, HVAC components, and battery cans and components. 711 There are different cycles for the different end user industries, and the evidence is mixed on whether there is a distinctive business cycle for corrosion- resistant steel, with the majority of importers and purchasers reporting that there is not a distinctive business cycle and the majority of producers reporting that there is one. 712 Apparent U.S. consumption of corrosion-resistant steel showed some fluctuations from 2000 through 2005, but was higher in 2005, at 22.7 million short tons, as compared to 21.9 million short tons in 2000.713 Apparent U.S. consumption has increased by two-thirds since 1992, the final year examined in the original investigations, when it was 13.6 million short tons.714 In the United States, hot-dip galvanized demand appears to be increasing, while electrogalvanized demand may be declining, a trend that is continuing from the first reviews. The shift can be attributed to recent technological changes that have encouraged automakers to use the less costly hot-dip steel for exposed auto parts. 715 In the United States, electrogalvanized corrosion-resistant steel goes almost exclusively to automotive end users, who also receive about 40 percent of shipments of hot-dip corrosion- resistant steel. Overall, the automotive sector accounts for 47.6 percent of corrosion-resistant steel shipments to the U.S. market. 716 The growth in U.S. demand for hot-dip corrosion-resistant steel is reflected in the fact that all the capacity increases by the domestic industry over the review period were 717 CR/PR at Table CORE-III-3. We discuss additions to capacity by the domestic industry in more detail in our discussion of supply conditions. 718 CR/PR at Table CORE-III-3. 719 CR at CORE-II-14, PR at CORE-II-9-10, n.24. 720 CR at CORE-II-13-15, PR at CORE-II-9-10. 721 Joint Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 13; Auto Producers’ Posthearing Brief, Appendix at 8, 11. 722 CR at CORE-II-19, PR at CORE-II-13. 723 Tr. at 479-481 (Cover); Canadian Respondents’ Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commissioners’ Questions at 44. 724 CR at CORE-II-19, PR at CORE-II-13. 725 CR at CORE-II-19, PR at CORE-II-13, n.32. 120 for hot-dip steel. 717 U.S. producers’ hot-dip capacity grew from 19.1 million short tons in 2000 to 20.1 million short tons in 2005, whereas electrogalvanized capacity decreased from 4.4 million short tons to 3.4 million short tons, and other capacity also decreased from 2.9 million short tons to 2.7 million short tons over the same period. 718 U.S. demand has been robust through the first half of 2006, and demand growth is expected to continue for the reasonably foreseeable future, albeit at a slower rate. While demand in the residential construction sector showed signs of weakening at the end of the period and into 2007, which may reduce demand for HVAC components and appliances, non-residential construction is expected to remain strong into 2007 and is an increasingly more important market for corrosion-resistant steel producers than residential construction as appliance production in the United States declines. 719 North American auto production, which has been high over the review period by historical standards, is expected to decline somewhat in 2006, based on announced cuts in auto production by GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler, but is expected to recover in 2007 and grow at a slow rate through 2008, although heavy truck production is expected to decline in 2007.720 Production in 2005 by Japanese transplant auto producers increased, 12.6 percent; production by German transplant companies increased by 1.4 percent; and a Korean manufacturer began U.S. production. North American vehicle production by Honda, Nissan, and Toyota is projected to increase for the foreseeable future.721 The cost share of corrosion-resistant steel varies greatly by end-use. In autos and light trucks it is 1.4 to 5 percent of the total cost of the vehicle, but in individual vehicle parts it can be 50 to 85 percent, and an even higher percentage in certain construction components such as steel decks and roofs. 722 While some domestic producers argue that a shift in demand from SUVs and light trucks to smaller passenger cars will result in less corrosion-resistant steel per car, even if auto demand does not decline, the record evidence on this issue is mixed. Some smaller cars and mid-sized SUV/CUVs use proportionately more corrosion-resistant steel because of their unibody construction rather than a hot-rolled truck frame.723 Demand for corrosion-resistant steel outside the United States increased during the review period. Producers, importers, and purchasers attributed this increase in global demand to such factors as rapidly increasing demand in China and other industrializing countries in Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe; global economic growth; and increased auto production and construction activity worldwide.724 Forecasts by *** predict a significant increase in global vehicle production in the foreseeable future, driven by developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil. Dofasco reported that Canadian auto production will increase through 2008 and that its shipments to the Canadian non-residential construction industry are expected to increase. 725 Worldwide consumption of coated steel sheet increased by *** percent between 2000 and 2005, paced by substantial growth in consumption in East and Southeast Asia, and despite more modest growth in Europe and North America. Global consumption of coated steel sheet 726 CR at CORE-IV-88, PR at CORE-IV-32, CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-66, IV-67. 727 The safeguard tariff was 30 percent ad valorem for the first year of relief and 24 percent ad valorem starting on March 20, 2003. CR at OVERVIEW-12-15, PR at OVERVIEW-11. 728 CR/PR at Tables CORE-I-12, III-1. 729 CR at CORE-IV-36, PR at CORE-IV-16; French Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 2-3. 730 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-12. 731 Joint Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 3. 732 CR/PR at Table CORE-III-9. Much of the reduction in fixed costs as a percentage of total costs was due to the substantial rise in raw material and energy costs. However, unit fixed costs also declined markedly, from $228 per ton in 2000 to $200 in 2005. The unit fixed costs were even lower in 2003, 2004, and interim 2006. If inflation were factored in, the decline of unit fixed costs would have been even greater in real terms. CR/PR at Table CORE- III-9. 733 CR/PR at Table C-7. 734 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 121 is forecast to continue to grow in the reasonably foreseeable future, with the growth relatively evenly distributed in all major markets.726 b. Supply The review period was a time of significant consolidation and restructuring by U.S. producers, a process that was facilitated in part by global safeguards on a variety of steel products, including corrosion-resistant steel, from March 20, 2002, through December 4, 2003.727 The domestic industry, after experiencing bankruptcies from 2000 to 2002, underwent consolidation between 2003 and 2006. ISG acquired all of LTV’s assets in 2002, the assets of Bethlehem Steel in 2003, and Weirton Steel’s assets in 2004. In 2003, U.S. Steel bought the steel-making assets of National Steel. In 2004, Severstal purchased the assets of Rouge Steel. In 2005, Mittal acquired ISG, including corrosion-resistant production facilities previously owned by LTV Steel, Bethlehem Steel, Weirton Steel, and Ispat Inland.728 In June 2006, Mittal Steel USA’s parent company, Mittal Steel N.V., announced a merger with Arcelor. Once this merger closes in the first half of 2007, it will form the world’s largest steel producer with steelmaking facilities located in regions around the world.729 In 2005, the top four domestic mills, Mittal Steel USA, U.S. Steel, AK Steel, and Nucor, accounted for *** percent of U.S. corrosion-resistant steel production, 730 as compared to *** percent in 1999.731 During the process of consolidation and restructuring, domestic producers renegotiated labor contracts, shed more than $7.5 billion in legacy costs, reduced their fixed costs, and increased their productivity. Fixed costs, approximated in our data as the ratio of “other factory costs” to net sales, decreased from 41.4 percent in 2000 to 28.0 percent in 2005.732 Productivity increased by 66.1 percent over the period. 733 Thus, while corrosion-resistant steel production is still capital intensive, the domestic industry, as a result of the consolidations and restructuring, has lowered its fixed costs and is better able to control output and production and maintain price levels in response to changing business cycles than it was during the original investigations and first reviews. With substantial growth in apparent U.S. consumption since the period examined in the original investigations, domestic producers’ share of apparent consumption by quantity has risen slightly and was in the range of 87-93 percent during this review period, as compared to 83-86 percent during the original investigation period.734 735 CR/PR at Table C-7. 736 CR/PR at Table CORE-III-3. 737 CR/PR at Table CORE-III-12. 738 In the hot-dip process, as noted earlier, steel sheet is passed through a bath of molten zinc or aluminum, whereas in the electrolytic process, steel sheet is passed through a series of electrolytic cells and zinc or other metal is electrolytically plated onto the surface of the steel. CR at CORE-I-18, PR at CORE-I-16. 739 CSN’s Questionnaire Response. 740 Also, Thyssen, a German producer, has publicly announced that it is considering either establishing a greenfield plant in the United States, or entering into a joint venture with, or acquiring production facilities from, a U.S. producer, which we see as additional evidence that producers view U.S. capacity as a good investment. As noted above, however, we do not find it more likely than not that a Thyssen facility in the United States will be established within the reasonably foreseeable future. CR at CORE-III-5-7, PR at CORE-III-4-5. 741 CR/PR at Table CORE-II-1. 742 Auto Producers’ Posthearing Brief, Appendix at 80-81. 743 CR at CORE-III-7, PR at CORE-III-5. 744 CR at CORE-I-22, PR at CORE-I-18-19. 122 While the domestic industry’s overall capacity remained relatively steady during the review period, it did increase its capacity to produce hot-dip product, in response to growing demand.735 Capacity utilization fluctuated over the period, reflecting closures and start-ups. While the industry had excess capacity for both hot-dip and electrogalvanized product, its capacity utilization rate was generally higher for hot-dip production, particularly in the latter part of the period. Hot-dip capacity utilization was at 80.2 percent in 2005 and 86.9 percent in interim 2006, as compared to 74.8 percent in 2005 and 73.4 percent in interim 2006 for electrogalvanized capacity utilization.736 In addition, the domestic industry invested in new facilities during the period and plans to add 1.9 million net tons of corrosion-resistant capacity by 2008. The industry’s capital expenditures jumped to $428 million in 2005, from $295 million in 2000, with capital expenditures totaling $1.65 billion through June 2006; research and development expenses increased to $34 million in 2005, from $16 million in 2000, and were $217.7 million through June 2006.737 SeverCorr will start production in 2007 of a new $880 million facility started in 2005, which will produce 400,000 tons of hot-dip galvanized and galvannealed corrosion-resistant steel, along with non-corrosion-resistant steel products. Nucor plans to add 500,000 short tons of hot-dip galvanized capacity in 2006. Mittal plans to bring on line 700,000 tons of hot-dip galvanizing capability in 2006-07 and will shut down about 410,000 tons of other hot-dip and aluminizing capacity. Winner opened a new third hot-dip galvanizing line in interim 2006 for auto and appliance markets. 738 CSN was a new entrant during the review period, with *** short tons of capacity in 2001. 739 USS-POSCO ***, and Steelscape moved its idled California plant to Louisiana where it was scheduled to be restarted.740 U.S. producers sell slightly more than a third of their production directly to automotive end users. They sell about 25 percent directly to construction end users and just under 10 percent directly to other end users, such as appliance manufacturers, and the remaining 30 percent to service centers and distributors. 741 Automotive producers report that they purchase only minimal quantities from service centers, for irregular, small-volume orders of non-standard products. 742 Most domestic producers do not produce other products on the same equipment or with the same employees. 743 Those that do produce micro-alloy and alloy or stainless steel report these other products to be higher margin, but much lower volume. 744 The vast majority of corrosion-resistant steel sold by both domestic producers and importers is made to order. Twelve of 17 responding producers reported selling at least 95 percent of their corrosion- resistant steel produced to order and 18 of 20 responding importers reported selling 75 percent of their 745 CR at CORE-II-29, PR at CORE-II-21. 746 German Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 7; Japanese Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 13; Tr. at 229-230 (Goodish), 258-259 (Goodish), 329-330 (Bates). 747 Tr. at 187 (Goodish), 213-214 (Platz), 246 (Goodish). 748 CR/PR at Figure CORE-III-1. Service center inventory data, however, are for all steel sheet and are not limited to corrosion-resistant product. 749 Tr. at 213-214 (Platz). 750 U.S. Steel’s Posthearing Brief at 4-8. 751 U.S. Steel’s Posthearing Brief at 3-4. 752 Joint Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 18-21. For example, auto producers reported that there were shortages on committed tons of corrosion-resistant steel and for additional tons at contract prices. *** stated that it increased spot market purchases due to shortages from U.S. suppliers. CR at CORE-II-5, PR at CORE-II-4, n.7. 753 CR at CORE-II-5, PR at CORE-II-4-5. 754 CR/PR at CORE-II-5. 755 CR at CORE-II-5, PR at CORE-II-4. 123 corrosion-resistant steel produced to order.745 Moreover, some product being held in inventory, whether by producers, importers, or service centers, may already be committed to a specific customer, particularly in the automotive sector. 746 Because service centers are always trying to gauge whether prices are likely to rise or fall and plan their purchases accordingly, the market is characterized by periodic inventory corrections that last a few months as service centers stop buying from mills and prices decline temporarily until restocking resumes.747 After a correction in 2005, service center inventories began rising again.748 By the end of the review period, service center inventories were relatively high, suggesting another correction may be imminent.749 The parties disagree about the degree to which there have been supply shortages in the U.S. market during the period of review. The domestic producers maintain that in 2004 their ability to supply corrosion-resistant steel may have been constrained to some extent by raw material shortages but that there is currently no short supply. In addition, they assert that some shortages alleged by purchasers were not real shortages but resulted from consumers wanting quantities in excess of contract volumes at low contract prices, or from automakers switching product grades on very short notice.750 Excess domestic capacity, they say, is incompatible with assertions of supply shortages.751 By contrast, respondents maintain that during the review period domestic supply was extremely tight and U.S. producers were not able to supply additional quantities requested by their customers, including certain required quantities and grades, making imports a necessary part of the market. They noted the questionnaire responses from producers and importers that had refused or been unable to supply corrosion-resistant steel at certain times since 2000. 752 Purchasers reported periodic shortages during the review period, mostly in 2004 and early 2005, when demand and prices peaked, but continuing in 2006.753 The record provides support for these characterizations of supply shortages. Eleven of 17 producers responding to the Commission’s questionnaires and eight of 26 responding importers reported that they had refused orders or been unable to supply corrosion-resistant steel at certain times since 2000. 754 The reported shortages were in the form of allocations, controlled order entries, and the unwillingness of some domestic mills to supply quantities above those specified in their contracts, all of which forced some purchasers into the spot market. Some of the shortage can be attributed to unplanned outages at certain domestic facilities and labor unrest at AK Steel in 2006.755 The record also indicates, however, that domestic producers during the period of review abandoned their prior practice of selling over-contract volumes to automotive customers at contract prices, because they could obtain higher prices in the spot market. While automotive customers described the phenomenon as a type of shortage or allocation, we do not view that as an entirely accurate description. Rather, it appears as if automotive 756 CR/PR at Table C-7. 757 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-2. 758 CR at CORE-III-11, PR at CORE-III-8, n.23. 759 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-64, IV-67. 760 Korean Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 7. 761 French Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 1-3, Exhibit 6. 762 Auto Producers’ Prehearing Brief at 50; Auto Producers’ Posthearing Brief, Appendix at 56-58. 763 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 764 Mittal USA’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Chairman Pearson’s Questions at 8-15; CR/PR at Tables CORE- IV-29, IV-36. 124 customers generally could obtain the necessary steel, but they had to pay more as they were competing against higher spot market prices. We recognize that this was a new phenomenon. In addition to domestic supply and subject imports, non-subject imports held a modest share of the U.S. market during the review period. Non-subject imports as a share of apparent U.S. consumption rose irregularly over the review period, and were the highest in 2004 at 9.7 percent, when demand and prices were peaking.756 Non-subject imports then declined somewhat in 2005. In 2005, the largest sources of non-subject imports were India, Taiwan, Mexico, Brazil, and China. Imports from China were 147,794 short tons in 2005 (less than one percent of apparent U.S. consumption), but were higher in January-June 2006, at 292,426 short tons. 757 During the review period, U.S. producers’ exports constituted 3 to 5 percent of their total shipments and were almost entirely to Canada and Mexico. In 2004, Canada revoked antidumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from the United States, as well as Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. U.S. exports to Canada increased by 210,273 short tons in 2005. 758 Global production capacity also increased during the review period and is expected to continue increasing in the near future in both the subject countries and non-subject countries, including China, other Asian countries, the EU, Turkey, and Russia. Although China has been and is expected to remain a net importer of corrosion-resistant steel for the foreseeable future, the substantial increase in Chinese capacity will likely slow imports into China of corrosion-resistant steel somewhat. 759 As virtually all Chinese capacity is for hot-dip product, imports into China of electrogalvanized corrosion-resistant steel will not be affected by any increase in Chinese capacity.760 c. Local/Regional versus Global Corrosion-Resistant Steel Markets Consolidations and mergers among corrosion-resistant steel producers worldwide as well as in the United States have enabled producers to supply their customers from nearby production facilities. The stated strategy of both Arcelor and Mittal, even before their merger, for example, was to acquire or build plants to serve clients within a region, rather than having to export product from one region to another region. 761 U.S. automakers indicate a preference for sourcing their corrosion-resistant steel from suppliers in North America.762 Despite the growing local or regional nature of corrosion-resistant steel markets, significant quantities of corrosion-resistant steel continue to be traded internationally, as is evidenced by the level of non-subject imports into the United States during the review period,763 as well as exports into China from non-Asian sources. 764 765 CR at CORE-V-9, PR at CORE-V-8. 766 Mittal USA’s Prehearing Brief at 39-40. 767 CR at CORE-V-10, PR at CORE-V-8-9. 768 CR at CORE-V-10, PR at CORE-V-8, n.15. 769 CR at CORE-V-9, PR at CORE-V-8, n.14. 770 CR at CORE-V-11, PR at CORE-V-9. A meet-or-release clause requires a seller to meet a lower offer to its customer or to release the customer from the contract. 771 Nucor/SDI’s Prehearing Brief at 50-52; Auto Producers’ Prehearing Brief at 27-31. 772 Nucor/SDI’s Prehearing Brief at 50-52. 773 Auto Producers’ Prehearing Brief at 27-31. 774 CR at CORE-II-24-27, PR at CORE-II-16-19. 125 d. Purchasing Practices Purchasers buy corrosion-resistant steel frequently, often daily or weekly; some buy the product consistently over the course of a year, while others experience seasonal peaks in their purchasing. Producers generally reported determining prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis, based on market conditions and raw material costs.765 As in the original investigations and first reviews, price continues to be an important factor in purchasing decisions, given the broad interchangeability of corrosion-resistant steel from different suppliers.766 A majority of the largest domestic producers’ sales are by long-term contracts, although several producers make the majority of their sales on the spot market. Six producers (***), representing a majority of domestic production, reported that 60 percent or more of their sales are on a long-term contract basis, while eight of 20 U.S. producers reported that 85 percent or more of their sales are on a spot basis. 767 Automotive and appliance end users tend to favor longer-term contracts, whereas the construction industry’s purchasing pattern is more short-term and project-based.768 Auto producers reported that they generally enter into contracts with individual producers to supply steel for certain auto parts and that the life of the vehicles is multiple years. 769 Long-term contracts generally fix either price only or both price and quantity and have no meet-or-release provisions.770 Both domestic producers and respondent automakers agree that, toward the end of the review period, the duration of contracts was becoming shorter, ***.771 The parties disagree on why contract practices have changed, with each side describing the other as primarily responsible for the changes. According to domestic producers, even when sales are under contract, if spot prices fall, purchasers do not hesitate to request price concessions under the contracts. Conversely, when prices and costs rise, the domestic producers are locked into below-market prices under the contracts. 772 Respondent automakers assert that the U.S. industry is unwilling to commit to longer- term contracts because they believe prices will climb even higher than they did during the review period, and they have forced automakers to accept volume limitations in their contracts.773 On balance, we find that the relative balance of market power between domestic corrosion-resistant steel producers and auto producers has led to a stalemate in which multi-year contracts at set prices and volumes are unlikely under current market conditions. e. Substitutability Domestic and imported corrosion-resistant steel, both subject and non-subject, generally is used in the same applications, at least for lower end applications. The majority of purchasers reported that the domestic product is comparable or superior to subject imports from each country in every category.774 The qualification process for suppliers takes from one week to two years. Purchasers reported that some 775 CR at CORE-II-27, PR at CORE-II-20. Seven of 35 purchasers reported that one or more suppliers (citing both domestic, suppliers from subject countries, and suppliers from nonsubject countries) had failed to qualify their product or lost their approved status since 2000. 776 CR at CORE-V-2, PR at CORE-V-1-2. 777 Joint Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 9-11. 778 CR/PR at Table CORE-III-9. 779 While we considered subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan on a cumulated basis, by necessity we have included some discussion of each of the countries individually, because certain facts are specific only to a particular country. 780 USITC Pub. 3364 at 51-52. The Commission in the original investigations cumulated subject imports from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea. 781 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 782 CR/PR at Table C-7. 126 domestic and subject producers have failed to qualify on quality grounds, but there is some evidence that the problems tend to be resolved, resulting in the supplier becoming qualified.775 f. Raw Material/Energy Costs Over the review period, particularly in the latter half, the U.S. industry’s raw material and energy costs increased significantly and are forecast to remain at high levels for the foreseeable future.776 Such increases have affected producers of corrosion-resistant steel on a worldwide basis. Integrated producers that own and control their raw material inputs (mainly cold-rolled sheet) are better able to manage rising raw material costs. 777 While the domestic industry’s variable costs as a percent of total costs increased over the period, due in large part to rising raw material costs, unit fixed costs went down and productivity increased. 778 3. No Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Upon Revocation of the Orders on Cumulated Subject Imports from Australia, France, and Japan a. Likely Volume779 We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above. In the original determinations, the Commission found that the cumulated subject imports decreased slightly from 1990 to 1991, and then increased sharply to 1.9 million short tons in 1992, along with a significant increase in market share during the same period.780 During the original investigation period, the volume of subject imports from the three countries now cumulated – Australia, France, and Japan – was 1.1 million short tons, or 8.1 percent of apparent U.S. consumption, in 1992. After the orders were imposed, imports from the three countries dropped dramatically and were at minimal levels during both review periods.781 In 2005, cumulated subject imports from the three countries were 18,556 short tons, or 0.1 percent of apparent U.S. consumption and of U.S. production. Their highest level during the current review period was 40,332 short tons in 2002, or 0.2 percent of apparent U.S. consumption and of U.S. production.782 The three cumulated countries currently supply the least amount of corrosion-resistant steel to the U.S. market out of the subject countries. Quantities held in inventory, both in the United States and in the cumulated subject countries, do not appear to represent significant volumes that could be diverted readily to the U.S. market upon revocation of the orders. First, there were no reported inventories in the United States from either 783 CR/PR at Table C-7. 784 Japanese Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 13; Tr. at 229-230 (Goodish), 258-259 (Goodish), 329-330 (Bates). French producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, were *** percent in each full year of the period, and were *** short tons in 2005. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-29. Japanese producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005, and were *** short tons in 2005. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-47. The one exception is Australia. While the Australian producer’s inventories, as a share of total shipments, increased irregularly, from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005, and were *** short tons in 2005, we do not foresee a significant increase in volume as the Australian producer’s focus is on its home and Asian markets. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-12. 785 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-10, IV-28, IV-46. 786 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-10, IV-27, IV-45. 787 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-12. 788 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-12. 789 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-29. 790 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-47. 127 Australia or France during the review period, and inventories of Japanese product were only *** short tons in 2005. 783 Second, despite the existence of inventories held by the cumulated subject country producers at the end of the review period, the record indicates that most corrosion-resistant steel, including that held in inventory, is made to order and therefore already committed to specific customers. 784 Producers in all three countries have increased their capacity and production of corrosion- resistant-steel since the original investigations. However, they have operated at relatively high capacity utilization rates during the review period: the Australian producer’s rate was *** percent in 2005 and *** percent in interim 2006; the French industry’s rate was *** percent in 2005 and *** percent in interim 2006; and the Japanese industry’s rate was *** percent in 2005 and *** percent in interim 2006.785 Their combined excess capacity in 2005 was *** short tons.786 While these countries do possess some excess capacity and, in the case of France, saw some decline in capacity utilization during the review period, we do not find a likelihood that they will ship significant volumes of subject product to the United States if the orders are revoked. Each of the subject countries has exported corrosion-resistant steel during the review period, but their focus has been predominantly on their home and regional markets. In 2005, the Australian producer’s shipments to its home market were *** percent of its production, up from *** percent in 2000.787 Only *** percent of Australia’s exports were to destinations outside Asia.788 In 2005, French producers shipped *** percent of their production to their home market and for internal consumption; during the review period as a whole, less than *** percent of their shipments was exported outside the European Union. 789 Likewise, Japanese producers’ home market shipments were *** percent of total shipments in 2005, and most of their exports were to China and the rest of Asia. Exports outside the Asian region had decreased to less than *** percent of Japan’s total shipments by the end of the review period.790 These trends contrast to what was observed during the original period of investigation when the European Community was composed of 12 Member States compared to the EU’s 25 Member States in 2006. Moreover, demand in Asia, and particularly in China, was not as robust as compared to now. Producers in the three cumulated countries have not shown a strong interest in the North American market during the review period and, for various reasons discussed below, it does not appear likely that this would change in the reasonably foreseeable future. 791 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-12. 792 CR at CORE-IV-21, PR at CORE-IV-10. 793 CR at CORE-IV-21, PR at CORE-IV-10, n.21. 794 CR at CORE-IV-16, PR at CORE-IV-9, n.8. 795 CR at CORE-IV-21, PR at CORE-IV-10, n.22. 796 CR at CORE-IV-21, PR at CORE-IV-10, CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-15. 797 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-12. 798 Tr. at 412-413 (Furuta). 799 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-29, IV-47. 800 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-12. 128 Australia was at the time of the original investigation and remains now the smallest of all the subject country producers, with a total capacity of only *** short tons.791 BlueScope, the sole Australian producer, is focused on its home and nearby Asian markets. In addition to *** exports to the United States during the review period, BlueScope had *** exports to Canada and *** shipments to Mexico, even when such shipments were not subject to any trade remedies.792 The *** majority of BlueScope’s production is for non-automotive applications. Its business strategy has been to use much of its production internally, and through affiliates, to manufacture pre-fabricated construction components for its home market and other markets outside the United States. As a result of the subject orders, BlueScope ***. 793 Since the original investigation, BlueScope has also set up local corrosion-resistant production facilities in multiple Asian countries to serve regional construction markets.794 We note that, in April 2004, BlueScope acquired Butler Manufacturing Company, a market leader for pre-engineered steel building systems, with operations in the United States and China.795 The record indicates, however, that Butler’s U.S. operations reported *** purchases of corrosion-resistant steel from Australia during the review period; moreover, Butler also operates as an end user for the construction sector in China, a market that historically has been served by, and is a more likely market for, the Australian producer. BlueScope reported only minuscule exports of subject product to the United States since the acquisition of Butler (*** short tons in 2005). Australia does face significant tariffs on corrosion-resistant steel in Argentina and South Africa, but the South African order is only against painted corrosion-resistant steel, which is not a significant product for BlueScope, and Argentina has never been an important market for the Australian product.796 Domestic producers argue that, as China’s capacity to produce corrosion-resistant steel increases, Australia’s exports to China will be displaced, making the United States a more attractive market for BlueScope than it has been in recent years. The record does not support this assertion. Australia’s exports to China already showed a decline from 2003 through 2005, as its home market shipments and shipments to other non-U.S. export markets grew, resulting in no diversion outside the region.797 Moreover, the Australian producer supplies mostly corrosion-resistant steel for building construction to China and other Asian markets that is of higher quality than what the Asian producers currently produce or likely will be able to produce in the reasonably foreseeable future. 798 The industries in France and Japan likewise showed an orientation to their home and regional markets during the review period which we do not find likely to change if the orders are revoked.799 Producers in each country that account for the majority of corrosion-resistant steel production are affiliated with important U.S. producers of corrosion-resistant steel. The Arcelor-Mittal merger, which is scheduled to close in the first half of 2007, will establish an affiliation between Mittal USA, which accounts for *** percent of U.S. production, 800 and Arcelor 801 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-26. 802 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 803 French Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 1-3, Exhibits 3, 6. 804 CR at CORE-IV-41, PR at CORE-IV-17. 805 CR at CORE-IV-35, PR at CORE-IV-15, n.52, CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-2. 806 Duferco’s Questionnaire Response. 807 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-68, IV-69, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006). 808 CR/PR at Tables CORE-I-12, IV-44. Japanese producer Nippon, representing almost *** percent of Japanese production in 2005, has ***. Japanese Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 67. 809 CR/PR at Tables CORE-III-10, CORE-IV-45. 810 CR at CORE-IV-67, PR at CORE-IV-24. 129 France, which accounts for *** percent of French production801 and most of the French industry’s exports of corrosion-resistant steel to the United States during the review period. We find that the French industry, which has essentially been absent from the U.S. market at least since the first review period,802 has even less incentive to resume shipments to the United States, given the merger. Arcelor-Mittal’s stated strategy is to acquire corrosion-resistant facilities that can serve customers regionally and locally and, in the case of Mittal USA, is committed to serving the U.S. market from its U.S. producer.803 This strategy is consistent with the fact that Arcelor-Mittal will be the world’s largest steelmaker with production facilities located throughout the world. We thus find it unlikely that the U.S. market would be served with subject imports from France. Arcelor France’s exports to Canada declined even after the Canadian orders on corrosion-steel were lifted during the review period.804 In addition, none of Arcelor France’s affiliates in Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg, or Italy have shipped significant quantities of corrosion-resistant steel to the United States, despite the absence of any orders against these countries, including the periods preceding and following the U.S. safeguard action on steel, thus suggesting that Arcelor has made a decision not to rationalize production among manufacturing plants in different countries and the United States.805 Duferco, the other French producer, sold corrosion-resistant steel *** within the EU during the period.806 With respect to relative market prices, on balance we do not find prices for corrosion-resistant steel in France and other EU markets to be sufficiently below U.S. prices so as to create an incentive to shift sales to the U.S. market.807 There is no evidence that U.S. prices are likely to exceed European prices over a sustained period in the reasonably foreseeable future. Thus price would not be a sufficient incentive for the French producers to begin diverting exports to the United States if the orders were revoked. Similar to the industry in France, Japanese producers representing *** percent of Japanese production are related to U.S. producers of corrosion-resistant steel accounting for at least *** percent of U.S. production, not including I/N Kote’s toll production for Mittal, which is included in Mittal’s data.808 The Japanese industry’s entire excess capacity in 2005, of *** short tons, is well below their U.S. affiliates’ shipments in 2005 of *** short tons ***.809 After the orders were imposed, Japanese producers began to supply transplant Japanese automakers in the United States with corrosion-resistant steel made by the Japanese producers’ U.S. affiliates, who have been successful in meeting the automakers’ qualification requirements. The minimal quantities of corrosion-resistant steel exported from Japan to the United States during the review period consisted of certain specialty, high-strength automotive grades, such as 780 MPa and 980 MPa, 810 that were not available from U.S. producers, and of product needed when supply was tight. At present, Japanese producer Nippon, which represented almost *** percent of 811 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-44. 812 CR at CORE-IV-67, PR at CORE-IV-24. 813 Nucor/SDI’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commissioners’ Questions at 30-32. 814 See generally CR at CORE IV-59, PR at CORE-IV-21-22. Chairman Pearson and Vice Chairman Aranoff note that they did not participate in the first reviews. Moreover, the period examined in the first review (1996-2000) included some of the period of the Asian financial crisis when Japanese producers faced limited demand in their home market or other Asian markets. USITC Pub. 3364 at CORROSION-II-4-5. 815 Japanese Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 26-32. 816 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-47. 817 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-47. 818 Japanese Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 1-2. 819 Tr. at 412-413 (Furuta). 820 Consumption of coated steel sheet in Asia is projected to increase from *** short tons in 2006, to *** short tons in 2007, to *** short tons in 2008. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-67. 130 Japanese production in 2005,811 is providing ***, and has ***. 812 These commitments *** further support our conclusion that Japanese producers are committed to serving the U.S. market through U.S. production and would not seek new export customers in the event of revocation. Domestic producers argue that the Commission should not take into account the affiliated Japanese producers in the United States because it rejected similar arguments in the first review.813 However, the conditions of competition in the United States and around the globe have changed significantly and likely will impact the behavior of Japanese producers and their U.S. affiliates going forward differently than they did in the past.814 The record shows that, during the review period, the Japanese producers’ shipments to their home market increased as the Japanese economy strengthened and corrosion-resistant steel demand within Japan is expected to remain robust for the reasonably foreseeable future. During the review period automotive suppliers in Japan reported shortages due to Japanese corrosion-resistant producers’ inability to increase their production levels.815 Japanese producers have been successful, since the orders were imposed, in developing new markets in China and other Asian countries. In 2005, Japan’s export shipments represented *** percent of their total shipments and their export shipments to China and Asia accounted for *** percent of their total shipments. 816 Thus, only *** percent of Japanese shipments left the Asian region in 2005, down from *** percent in 2000.817 More than *** percent of their corrosion-resistant steel exports to China consist of electro-galvanized corrosion-resistant steel for use in the manufacture of appliances. Electro- galvanized steel is not made in China and would thus not be displaced by any increase in Chinese capacity to produce hot-dip corrosion-resistant steel.818 The other major use for Japanese exports to China is to supply Japanese transplant automakers in China with Japanese corrosion-resistant steel of a quality that Chinese producers have not yet attained and are not expected to be able to make in the reasonably foreseeable future.819 Consumption in Japan’s Asian markets as a whole is projected to remain strong for the reasonably foreseeable future. 820 The growth in global demand conditions, particularly in the Japanese home market and regional market, will make it less likely that the Japanese producers will export subject product to the United States in any significant quantities. Rather, the strong global demand will mean that the affiliated Japanese producers in the United States will need to supply U.S. demand from their joint venture U.S. production facilities. Four of the Japanese producers are involved with corrosion-resistant steel 821 JFE Steel owns 50 percent of California Steel Industries. Nippon Steel owns 50 percent of I/N Kote (also related to Nittetsu). Kobe Steel owns 50 percent of Pro-Tec. Nisshin owns *** percent of Wheeling-Nisshin. CR/PR at Table CORE-1-12, CR at CORE-IV-59, PR at CORE-IV-21-22; Japanese Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 65-68. 822 CR/PR at Tables CORE-I-12, IV-44. 823 Japanese Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 65, 67. 824 Japanese Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 65-68. 825 CR at CORE-IV-67, PR at CORE-IV-25, n.126. 826 Negotiated transaction prices for hot-dip galvanized steel show Japanese home market prices generally higher than U.S. prices in 2005 and lower in 2006. Negotiated transaction prices for electro-galvanized steel show Japanese home market prices higher than U.S. prices from February through June of 2005, generally lower from July 2005 through September 2006, and higher in October and November 2006. CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-68, CORE-IV-69, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006). *** monthly prices for galvanized steel show U.S. prices generally higher than Japanese export prices in 2002, 2004, and 2006, and generally lower during the rest of the review period. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-70, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006). 827 Japanese Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 4-9. 131 production in the United States and have been for more than a decade.821 These four joint ventures account for at least *** percent of U.S. production.822 Moreover, Nippon Steel *** and recently announced that it intends to initiate talks with Mittal Steel on doubling the size of its U.S. affiliate, I/N Kote. 823 The long-term investments of the Japanese producers in U.S. capacity 824 and Nippon’s *** appear consistent with the general trend toward supplying markets from regional production facilities. These conditions, therefore, limit the likelihood that Japanese producers would significantly increase their exports to the United States with revocation of the order. Japanese exports to Canada have remained minimal, even after the Canadian antidumping duty order on corrosion-resistant steel from Japan was lifted in 2004. Japan’s exports to Mexico fluctuated over the period, and were *** short tons in 2005. While this represents a discernible interest in the Mexican market, the record suggests that Japanese producers are not positioned to expand their sales to Mexico or the United States. ***.825 Accordingly, we do not find this level of exports indicative of a likely increase in exports by the Japanese producers to the U.S. market if the order is revoked. Further, *** provides further corroboration of the strong demand for Japanese exports in several markets, including the Japanese home market. Such conditions do not provide strong incentives for Japanese producers to establish new U.S. customers. Nor is price an incentive for Japanese producers to resume shipments to the U.S. market upon revocation of the order. Spot prices in Asia for certain types of corrosion-resistant steel may have been lower than U.S. prices during certain portions of the review period, but not in a significant, sustained fashion.826 Moreover, between *** and *** percent of the Japanese producers’ exports during the review period were under long-term contracts, whose prices were equivalent to U.S. prices, or not sufficiently below U.S. prices so as to serve as an incentive for Japanese producers to abandon existing customers, pay the added transportation and logistical costs, and divert exports to the U.S. market.827 These contracts are also evidence of the Japanese producers’ long-term relationships with their regional customers and track record of serving them. For all the foregoing reasons, we do not find that the volume of cumulated subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan likely would be significant if the orders are revoked. 828 USITC Pub. 3364 at 54. 829 USITC Pub. 3364 at 54. 830 Data on sales to, and purchases by, manufacturers and end users, showed that in the original investigations subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan mostly oversold domestic prices (overselling in *** comparisons for sales data, *** comparisons for purchase price data). Data on sales to distributors and service centers indicated that subject imports mostly undersold domestic prices (underselling for *** comparison). Purchase price data reported by distributors and service centers generally showed overselling by subject imports (overselling for *** comparisons). Original Confidential Staff Report at Tables 110-113. 831 CR/PR at Table CORE-V-17. 832 CR at CORE-II-21-22, PR at CORE-II-15. 833 CR at CORE-V-35, PR at CORE-V-16, CR/PR at Figures CORE-V-4 to V-11. 834 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-68 to IV-70, CORE-V-1 to V-14; Joint Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 54-57. 835 CR at CORE-V-35, PR at CORE-V-16, n.22. 836 Letters to the Commission from U.S. Steel (Nov. 16, 2006); Mittal Steel USA (Nov. 22, 2006); AK Steel (Dec. 5, 2006); Auto Producers’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 1. *** projects an increase per ton from *** in 2006 to *** (continued...) 132 b. Likely Price Effects We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above. In the original investigations, the Commission found that price was an important factor for purchasers. It also found price suppression and/or depression by the cumulated subject countries based on import prices that were falling at a greater rate than domestic prices, together with increased import volumes and confirmed lost sales and lost revenue allegations.828 In the first reviews, the Commission found that the increased sales of cumulated subject imports would likely be achieved by aggressive pricing, which would result in significant effects on domestic prices. It noted that while contracts provide some measure of insulation from spot market price fluctuations, prices in the spot market could affect prices in the domestic industry’s contract business. 829 In the original investigations, subject imports from the three countries cumulated here – Australia, France and Japan – showed mixed underselling and overselling.830 There were no price comparisons for imports from Australia and France in these reviews, nor in the first reviews. The Commission’s pricing data show underselling by Japanese product in 5 out of 20 comparisons and overselling in the remaining 15 comparisons during the current review period.831 We continue to find in these reviews that domestically produced and imported corrosion-resistant steel is generally substitutable, provided suppliers meet qualification requirements, and that price is an important factor in purchasing decisions.832 However, we find that the price effects from the cumulated subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan likely will not be significant both based on our finding that the volume of these cumulated subject imports likely will not be significant and because we find no incentive for producers in these countries to price aggressively any volumes they do sell or offer to sell in the U.S. market. U.S. prices generally strengthened during the review period. After showing relatively little change from 2000 through 2003, U.S. prices rose across all product categories, except product 8, from 2004 through 2006, and were substantially higher at the end of the period than at the beginning.833 Indeed, many market participants described prices as reaching historical highs not seen in decades during the review period.834 While prices for some products had fallen from their period highs by mid-2006, a number of U.S. producers announced additional price increases in the middle of 2006. 835 The record indicates that a number of contracts recently negotiated for shipments in the second half of 2006 and 2007 are at higher prices for domestic producers than in previous periods.836 836 (...continued) in 2007. *** shows a price increase from *** in 2006 to *** in 2007. 837 CR/PR at CORE-V-1-2. 838 CR at CORE-III-18, III-23, V-3-4, PR at CORE-III-14, V-3. 839 CR at CORE-III-23, PR at CORE-III-14, CR/PR at Table CORE-III-9. 840 Tr. at 235-236 (Scherrbaum), 248 (Goodish). 841 Tr. at 235-236 (Scherrbaum), 248 (Goodish). 842 Auto Producers’ Prehearing Brief at 27-31. 843 CR/PR at Tables CORE-I-12, III-10; Questionnaire Responses of U.S. Steel, Mittal USA, AK Steel and Pro- Tec. 844 Letters to the Commission from U.S. Steel (Nov. 16, 2006); Mittal Steel USA (Nov. 22, 2006); AK Steel (Dec. 5, 2006); Auto Producers’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 1. *** projects an increase per ton from *** in 2006 to *** in 2007. *** shows a price increase from *** in 2006 to *** in 2007. ***. 845 Tr. at 421-422 (Mohatarem), 455-456 (Cover). 133 There are several reasons why prices rose and remained high during the period of review. First, this period was marked by rapidly growing demand, both in the United States and globally, for corrosion- resistant steel.837 Second, price increases were driven by substantial increases in raw material and energy costs during the period. 838 Finally, because of the restructuring of the domestic industry that took place during the period, the domestic industry had somewhat lower fixed costs and more flexibility than it did in the past to manage output in order to maintain prices in the face of rising costs. Consequently, the domestic industry’s ratio of COGS to net sales fluctuated but declined overall during the review period, indicating that prices rose more quickly than costs and the domestic industry has not experienced a cost- price squeeze. 839 The domestic producers correctly point out that, although prices generally rose in the second half of the review period, price increases for contract sales (primarily to auto makers and also to some appliance manufacturers) lagged well behind price increases for spot market sales.840 As noted above, the historical practice in this industry has been for corrosion-resistant steel producers and their major auto and appliance customers to enter into long-term contracts that fix the price of steel over several years. A number of such contracts were in effect when prices in the spot market began their dramatic climb in 2004, locking the domestic producers into selling steel at prices that were increasingly unprofitable compared to what they could have earned in the spot market.841 Domestic producers reacted to this situation by declining to sell automakers volumes above those required by the contracts at contract prices, a significant change from past practice.842 Nevertheless, the record clearly demonstrates that the domestic producers who focused most heavily on contract sales with the auto industry fared less well than their competitors who sold more heavily in the spot market during 2004 and 2005.843 By 2006, however, many of these long-term contracts came up for renegotiation. The record indicates that domestic producers have managed to achieve *** price increases in contracts for shipments in the second half of 2006 and in 2007, at levels that they concede are likely to be ***.844 During these reviews, the auto producers argued that, even though they prefer to buy corrosion- resistant steel from North American suppliers in order to satisfy their just-in-time inventory requirements, the availability of subject imports in the event of revocation of the orders would give them leverage to negotiate more favorable prices.845 Although domestic producers urge us to treat this argument as an admission against interest by the auto producers, we decline to do so with respect to subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan, because the record does not support the auto producers’ assertion. We have already found that producers in these cumulated subject countries have neither the capacity nor the incentive to ship significant quantities of the subject product to the United States in the event of revocation. Lacking a need or incentive to move substantial volumes into the U.S. market, subject 846 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked, the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at 885. 847 USITC Pub. 3364 at 55. 848 USITC Pub. 3364 at 55-57. 849 We find that the domestic industry producing corrosion-resistant steel did benefit to some degree from the orders as they allowed U.S. producers time to undergo significant restructuring and rationalization. This restructuring, along with the shedding of the significant legacy costs, has created a more efficient and cost effective industry. 850 The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”), a federally created corporation designed to insure private firm pensions, has indicated that primary metal manufacturers have received $11.2 billion in pension relief through 2005. Four of the ten largest firms presenting claims to the PBGC were steel manufacturers, namely Bethlehem, LTV, National and Weirton. These firms received combined pension relief of over $7.5 billion. The assets of Bethlehem, LTV and Weirton were acquired by ISG, which then merged with Mittal. The assets of National were acquired by U.S. Steel. Joint Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 5. 134 producers in Australia, France, and Japan lack any incentive to price aggressively for such limited sales as they may make or offer to make after revocation. Given that the dramatic rise in prices in 2004 and 2005, and continuing into 2006, is a global phenomenon, subject producers have no incentive to partner with U.S. auto producers in an attempt to drive down prices in the U.S. market. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find that the cumulated subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan will likely have significant adverse price effects if the orders are revoked. c. Likely Impact We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above. As instructed by the statute, we have also considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related to the antidumping duty orders and countervailing duty orders at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked.846 In the original investigations, the Commission found that the increased volume of lower priced subject imports and their significant market share depressed prices and caused the U.S. industry to suffer lost market share, reduced capacity utilization, and growing financial losses despite increasing apparent consumption. The industry’s capital expenditures and research and development expenses also declined, especially during the latter part of the period examined.847 In the first reviews, the Commission found that the orders had a positive effect on the domestic industry’s performance, its operating margin was higher at the beginning of the review period than during the original investigations, and its capital expenditures and research and development expenses had increased. Nevertheless, it found the industry vulnerable, based on declines in operating income, operating margins, capacity utilization levels, and unit sales values. It found that the likely significant volumes of subject imports upon revocation would likely undersell the domestic product and suppress or depress U.S. prices, cause the domestic industry to lose market share and have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.848 In these second reviews, we do not find the domestic industry to be vulnerable. The consolidations and restructuring that occurred during the review period have resulted in an industry that is stronger and healthier than in previous periods considered.849 The industry’s improved condition is evident in a number of its financial and performance indicators. During the process of consolidation and restructuring, domestic producers renegotiated labor contracts, shed more than $7.5 billion in legacy costs, 850 reduced their fixed costs, and increased their productivity. Fixed costs, or “other factory costs,” 851 CR/PR at Table CORE-III-9. 852 CR/PR at Table C-7. 853 CR/PR at Table CORE III-6. 854 CR/PR at Table CORE III-12. 855 CR/PR at Table CORE III-25. 856 We also note that the business plans submitted by domestic producers do not contradict these positive findings. See Mittal USA’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commissioner Okun’s Questions at Exhibit 6; Nucor’s September 21, 2006 Submission; Pro-Tec’s Questionnaire Response at Question I-10 Attachment; Revisions to SDI’s Questionnaire Response (Sept. 7, 2006); Severstal’s Questionnaire Response at Attachment 1; U.S. Steel’s September 29, 2006 Submission; USS-POSCO’s Questionnaire Response at Exhibit I-10. Indeed, several of the business plans detail ***. 857 CR/PR at Table CORE-III-3. 858 CR at CORE-III-5-6, PR at CORE-III-4-5. Domestic producers have argued that the domestic industry is vulnerable because it cannot cover its costs of capital, and therefore cannot attract investment. Nucor/SDI’s Prehearing Brief at 2, 7. To the contrary, the significant investments by the domestic industry in expanding its hot- dip galvanized capacity and the entry of SeverCorr into the domestic industry indicate that the domestic industry has successfully attracted and implemented substantial investments over the review period. With respect to the SeverCorr investment alone, the domestic industry attracted $220 million in equity investment and was able to finance $625 million in debt and to obtain $36.5 million in government grants. CR at CORE-III-5-6, PR at CORE- III-4-5. 859 While Mittal has idled two of its 10 blast furnaces during the period, and AK Steel and Mittal idled their jointly owned electrogalvanizing facility in Cleveland, this is not evidence of a vulnerable industry. CR at CORE- III-7, PR at CORE-III-5, CR/PR at Table CORE-III-1. Rather, the industry has announced plans to expand capacity by more than 1.9 million tons in order to serve sectors of the market that are growing such as automotive demand for galvanneal, whereas Mittal has idled facilities, such as its joint venture with AK Steel, because demand for electro- galvanized steel, which is produced at that facility, is declining. Mittal USA’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commissioner Okun’s Questions at 7-8. 860 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 861 CR/PR at Table C-7. 135 as a ratio to net sales, decreased from 41.4 percent in 2000 to 28.0 percent in 2005.851 Productivity increased by 66.1 percent over the period.852 Inventories fell as a ratio of production and shipments. Inventories were 2.1 million short tons in 2000 and 1.7 million tons in 2005.853 Capital expenditures, at $428 million in 2005, were $133 million higher than in 2000. Research and development expenditures approximately doubled over the period.854 Return on investment, which was negative early in the review period, improved to 16.6 percent in 2004, and was 7.0 percent in 2005.855 856 While the industry’s overall capacity level remained relatively constant over the period, the industry was able to increase its capacity to produce hot-dip corrosion-resistant steel, in response to growing demand, and shed some capacity in the less efficient electrogalvanized sector.857 In addition, the industry invested in new facilities during the period and, as described above in the section on Conditions of Competition, plans to add 1.9 million net tons of corrosion-resistant capacity by 2008.858 These additions to capacity reflect both new investment by existing producers and investment by new entrants to the U.S. market. 859 The industry’s U.S. market share, by volume, was in the range of 87-93 percent during the review period and was higher than during the original period of investigation, when it ranged from 83-86 percent. 860 Whereas from 2000 through 2003, the industry registered negative operating margins, or was barely breaking even, in 2004 its operating margin rose to 10.8 percent and has remained positive, at 4.9 percent in 2005 and 5.2 percent in 2006.861 The industry’s higher profitability from 2004 through the first half of 2006 can be attributed in large part to the restructuring by many U.S. producers that permitted 862 CR/PR at Table CORE-III-10, n.3. A notable exception to this trend was *** which did not undergo restructuring during the period. 863 Chairman Pearson finds that the domestic industry has received significant financial benefits, in the form of pension relief, renegotiated labor contracts, and consolidations, that will continue to benefit it into the reasonably foreseeable future. He finds that four steel manufacturers purchased by Mittal USA, the largest domestic producer, reportedly received combined pension relief of over $7.5 billion. Most of the domestic producers have renegotiated their labor agreements. He finds that the domestic industry has fewer, larger producers that are better able to control and streamline their production of corrosion-resistant steel due to improved economies of scale. He finds that these conditions have improved the negotiating position of the domestic industry relative to their purchasers. Joint Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 2-8. Chairman Pearson finds that these are relevant economic factors to these reviews that may not be fully reflected in the financial performance data that the Commission considers in these reviews under the pertinent statutory provision, 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(4). 864 *** projects an increase per ton from *** in 2006 to *** in 2007. *** shows a price increase from *** in 2006 to *** in 2007. Letters to the Commission from U.S. Steel (Nov. 16, 2006); AK Steel (Dec. 5, 2006); see also Letter to the Commission from Mittal Steel USA (Nov. 22, 2006); Auto Producers’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 1. ***. 865 U.S. Steel’s Prehearing Brief at 73-74. 866 Nucor/SDI’s Posthearing Brief at 1. 867 Nucor and SDI argue that the domestic industry is more vulnerable now than it was in the prior reviews. Among other things, they observe that the industry’s operating margin over the entire period of review *** in the prior reviews, as compared to *** in these reviews. Nucor/SDI’s Prehearing Brief at 1. Their arguments, however, do not take into account the significant reorganization and consolidation that has taken place by the domestic industry that we discuss in text in this section, nor the downward trend in operating margins in the prior reviews. As Nucor recognizes, the industry’s operating margin ***, and further *** in the first three months of 2000. Nucor/SDI’s Prehearing Brief at 30. In contrast, in these reviews, following the onset of the restructuring and consolidation that took place in the industry discussed in the text and in our Conditions of Competition section, the domestic industry’s operating margin went from negative 1.6 percent in 2002, and 0.7 percent in 2003, to 10.8 percent in 2004, and 4.9 percent in 2005, even as total import market share increased. CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. Profitability and productivity increased from 2002 to 2005, and there has recently been significant investment in production capacity. Although Nucor and SDI argue that the domestic industry is fragmented and that its capacity utilization decreased over the review period (Nucor/SDI’s Prehearing Brief at 8), as discussed in Conditions of Competition, we find that the domestic industry has recently consolidated, and that lower capacity utilization decisions by the domestic industry reflect greater flexibility in production decisions rather than vulnerability. 136 them to terminate pension and healthcare liabilities and secure less costly labor contracts.862 863 In part as a result of these changes, starting in 2004, the industry was able to pass the additional costs of soaring raw material and energy prices on to purchasers and earn solid profits. At the end of the period, major U.S. suppliers to the auto industry were able to negotiate higher contract prices for a portion of their second half 2006 and 2007 shipments, a positive sign of *** into the reasonably foreseeable future.864 The domestic producers credit the orders with the improvement in the domestic industry’s performance during the review period, as evidenced by its higher operating income and operating margin, despite sharply rising raw material costs. They also note that the industry’s capital expenditures and research and development expenses rose during the period.865 Nevertheless, they contend that the domestic industry is vulnerable and describe its returns as “anemic.”866 We do not agree with domestic producers’ overall characterization of the state of the industry.867 We find that the significant restructuring has produced a changed industry. The industry’s reduction in fixed costs allows producers to better match their production levels to their demand so as to avoid over- production. In view of the many positive indicators described above, the major restructuring that occurred during the review period, and the ability of the industry to make significant investments in new facilities, we do not find that the industry currently is in a weakened state, as contemplated by the vulnerability criterion of the statute. 868 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 869 CR/PR at CORE-IV-4. These are official import statistics that have been adjusted to exclude non-subject lacquered tin-plate. Canadian producers representing *** percent of Canadian capacity and production reported, in line with these import figures, exports to the United States in 2005 of *** short tons. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-20. 870 CR/PR at CORE-IV-4, CR/PR at Table C-7. 871 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-18, IV-20. 872 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-20. 873 CR/PR at Table C-7. 137 Based on our finding that the domestic industry is not vulnerable, and moreover, that the volume of the cumulated subject imports is not likely to be significant nor to have significant adverse price effects, we do not find it likely that the cumulated subject imports will have a significant negative impact on the domestic industry in terms of output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, utilization of capacity, cash flow, inventories, employment, wage growth, ability to raise capital, investment, or the industry’s development and production efforts if the orders are revoked. 4. No Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Upon Revocation of the Order on Subject Imports from Canada a. Likely Volume We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above. During the original investigation, subject imports from Canada increased from 180,030 short tons in 1990 to 451,082 short tons in 1992. 868 During both review periods, subject imports from Canada did not show a dramatic decrease from pre-order levels, but have remained in the U.S. market at relatively consistent levels. Imports from Canada to the United States were 464,303 short tons in 2005.869 Canada’s share of the U.S. market was 3.4 percent by volume in 1992, and has fluctuated during both review periods between 1.6 percent and 2.5 percent of the U.S. market. Subject imports from Canada as a share of U.S. production were 2.2 percent in 2005.870 Canada was the only subject country that was exempt from Section 201 duties on corrosion-resistant steel during the review period. The Canadian industry’s production capacity, at *** short tons in 2005, was higher than during the original investigation period, at *** short tons in 1992, as was their production, at *** short tons in 2005, as compared to *** short tons in 1992. This increased capacity and production, however, did not result in increased excess capacity. The industry’s capacity utilization was high, at *** percent at the end of the period, and its excess capacity was only *** short tons in 2005.871 During the review period, the Canadian industry shipped between *** and *** percent of its total shipments of corrosion-resistant steel to its home market, and most of the remainder to the U.S. market.872 Canadian exports have thus remained in the U.S. market despite the order at levels that have been relatively consistent. During this time, U.S. prices rose and were significantly higher at the end of review period than at the beginning, and the U.S. industry’s operating margin improved to 10.8 percent in 2004, before declining somewhat to 4.9 percent in 2005 and 5.2 percent in interim 2006.873 The primary Canadian exporter to the United States during the review period was Dofasco, *** percent of whose exports were to the automotive sector pursuant to long-term contracts. The automakers, as discussed previously, regard the North American market as a unified market for production and sourcing decisions. Moreover, any increases in imports from Canada during the period for the most part did not displace U.S. production, or represent sales lost to Canadian product on the basis of price, but rather, reflected increased U.S. demand, or demand that U.S. producers were unable to supply, either on a 874 CR at CORE-IV-29, PR at CORE-IV-13. 875 CR at J-26-27, PR at J-3; Canadian Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at Exhibit 1. 876 CR at J-26-27, PR at J-3. Nucor/SDI argues that subject imports from Canada compete against the domestic like product, and reject Canadian respondents’ arguments that whether corrosion-resistant steel is purchased from the United States or from Canada is determined by where vehicles are produced and the longstanding supply contracts and arrangements related to those vehicles, rather than by the existence or revocation of the antidumping duty order. Nucor/SDI’s Posthearing Brief at 11-13. The domestic industry has stated that Dofasco testified that it was in competition with a U.S. supplier for an existing OEM account. Nucor/SDI’s Posthearing Brief at 12. We find, however, that the existence of the antidumping duty order does not seem to have been a factor in whether U.S. or Canadian mills are chosen to supply corrosion-resistant steel to U.S. auto makers. The record reflects several instances in which auto makers either switched from U.S. to Canadian mills or vice versa, due to production location changes, and not due to the antidumping duty order. CR at J-26-27, PR at J-3. Subject imports from Canada increased over the review period, apparently due to movements in vehicle production locations, ***, notwithstanding the imposition of the order. CR at J-26-27, PR at J-3; Canadian Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at Exhibit 1. 877 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-20, C-7. 878 German Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 7; Japanese Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 13; Tr. at 229-230 (Goodish), 258-259 (Goodish), 329-330 (Bates). 879 Canadian Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 24-28. 880 CR at CORE-IV-29, PR at CORE-IV-13. 881 Nucor/SDI argues that Stelco’s CEO has indicated that he has an interest in the U.S. market. Nucor/SDI’s Posthearing Brief at 12. However, Stelco ***. CR at J-28, 37, 40, 43, PR at J-3-4. 882 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-17. 138 temporary or permanent basis. Dofasco reported that ***.874 We find that the information submitted by Dofasco generally supports its contentions.875 Accordingly we find that at least *** of the nearly *** of Dofasco’s exports to the United States from 2000 to 2005 occurred for the above stated reasons and not because of price competition with the U.S. industry, and no record evidence suggests that the remaining volumes entered based on price competition.876 The record does not indicate that imports from Canada would increase significantly above current levels in the event of revocation. Capacity utilization, as noted, was high at the end of the period and excess capacity is not at a significant level. Canadian producers’ end-of-period inventories were at *** short tons in 2005, and inventories of Canadian product held by U.S. importers were only *** short tons. 877 This level of inventories would not be likely to contribute to a significant increase in imports, particularly since, as noted previously, corrosion-resistant steel inventories typically represent supply that has been made to order and already committed to a customer.878 Canada is a net importer of corrosion-resistant steel, not only from the United States, but globally. Production and demand in the Canadian automotive and non-residential construction sectors are forecast to remain strong through 2008,879 and thus to continue as the major outlet for Canadian corrosion-resistant steel production. We find credible Dofasco’s prediction of a ***, based on Toyota’s opening of a new factory in Ontario, near Dofasco’s mill.880 Stelco, which represented *** percent of Canadian production in 2005, was focused *** on its home market during the review period,881 as was Sorevco, which represented *** percent of Canadian production.882 The order has not had a material effect on subject import volumes from Canada, which have remained at relatively consistent levels since 1992. The pattern of the Canadian producers’ shipments during the review period and forecasts for continued strong Canadian demand thus do not indicate that shipments from Canada will grow significantly upon revocation. Price also would not provide an incentive for Canadian producers to shift shipments from their home market to the United States in the event of revocation. During the period, Canadian prices were comparable to U.S. prices, as would be expected in these markets showing significant connections in the 883 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-68, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006). 884 In the original investigation, subject imports from Canada *** the domestic product in *** of *** comparisons of sales to manufacturers and end users, in *** of *** comparisons of sales to distributors and service centers, in *** of *** purchaser price comparisons reported by manufacturers and end users, and in *** of *** purchaser price comparisons reported by distributors and service centers. Original Confidential Staff Report at Tables 110-113. 885 CR/PR at Table CORE-V-17. 886 CR at CORE-II-21-22, PR at CORE-II-14-15. 887 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 888 CR at CORE-V-35, PR at CORE-V-16, CR/PR at Figures CORE-V-4 to V-11. We note that product 8 involved relatively small U.S. volumes. 889 CR/PR at Table CORE-III-9. 890 CR/PR at Table CORE-III-9. 139 automotive sector. Negotiated transaction prices for hot-dip galvanized steel show U.S. prices to be higher than Canadian prices in the first half of 2005, lower than Canadian prices from the second half of 2005 through May of 2006, and higher than Canadian prices from June through November of 2006.883 Therefore, we do not find that the likely volume of subject imports from Canada would be significant upon revocation. Canadian subject imports have remained in the U.S. market at consistent levels that for the most part have not displaced U.S. sales. Based on the projected continued strength of the Canadian market, Canadian producers’ limited excess capacity, and their long-term volume commitments to a stable customer base that could not be readily diverted to supply new customers, we do not find it likely that subject imports from Canada will increase significantly upon revocation. b. Likely Price Effects We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above. In the original investigation period, as in the instant review period, there was mixed underselling and overselling by subject imports from Canada.884 The pricing data collected by the Commission for the current review period show underselling by Canadian product in 31 of 50 comparisons, and overselling in the remaining 19 quarters.885 As stated above with respect to the cumulated subject imports from Australia, France, and Japan, we continue to find in this review that domestically produced and imported corrosion-resistant steel is generally substitutable, provided suppliers meet qualification requirements, and that price is an important factor in purchasing decisions.886 However, we do not find subject imports from Canada are likely to have significant negative price effects in the event of revocation, given our finding that the volume of subject imports from Canada is not likely to increase significantly if the order is revoked. During the review period, subject imports from Canada have maintained a steady presence in the U.S. market at levels that were similar to the volume of subject imports from Canada in 1992, the last year of the original period of investigation. 887 At the same time, U.S. prices generally strengthened during the review period. After showing relatively little change from 2000 through 2003, U.S. prices generally rose across all product categories, except product 8, from 2004 through 2006, and were substantially higher at the end of the period than at the beginning.888 While the price increases were largely driven by sharply rising raw material and energy costs, U.S. producers reduced their fixed costs over the period.889 They were thus also able to manage output and maintain price levels as raw material and energy costs soared. The domestic industry’s ratio of COGS to net sales fluctuated yet declined overall during the review period.890 Moreover, as stated above, the record indicates that a number of contracts recently negotiated for shipments in the second half of 2006 and 2007 are at higher prices for domestic producers 891 Letters to the Commission from U.S. Steel (Nov. 16, 2006); Mittal Steel USA (Nov. 22, 2006); AK Steel (Dec. 5, 2006); Auto Producers’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 1. 892 CR at CORE-IV-28-29, PR at CORE-IV-13. 893 CR at J-26-27, PR at J-3. 894 Derived from CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 895 Derived from CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 140 than in previous periods. 891 These contracts are all for sales to the automotive sector, to which *** percent of sales by the major Canadian exporter, Dofasco, were directed during the review period.892 Moreover, the record does not indicate that increased imports from Canada will likely result in significant sales lost by U.S. producers. As described above, the increase in imports from Canada since 2000 (from Dofasco) was not generally the result of price competition with U.S. producers. We see no basis to conclude that revocation of the order on Canada will cause this situation to change to a significant degree in the foreseeable future. 893 Given the consistent level of Canadian product in the U.S. market during a time when U.S. prices rose and were strong relative to rising costs, and our finding that the volume of subject imports from Canada is not likely to increase significantly if the order is revoked, we do not find it likely that subject imports from Canada will have significant adverse price effects upon revocation. c. Likely Impact We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above. As instructed by the statute, we have also considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related to the antidumping duty order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is revoked. For the reasons already discussed, we do not find the domestic industry to be vulnerable. We incorporate herein our entire finding on vulnerability from section VI.D.3.c above. Based on our finding that the domestic industry is not vulnerable, and moreover, that the volume of subject imports from Canada is not likely to increase significantly nor to have significant adverse price effects, we do not find it likely that the subject imports from Canada will have a significant negative impact on the domestic industry in terms of output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, utilization of capacity, cash flow, inventories, employment, wage growth, ability to raise capital, investment, or the industry’s development and production efforts if the order is revoked. 5. Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Upon Revocation of the Orders on Cumulated Subject Imports from Germany and Korea a. Likely Volume We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above. By the end of the original period of investigation, cumulated subject imports from Korea and Germany had risen to 382,705 short tons and had captured 2.8 percent of the U.S. market.894 By the end of the current review period, cumulated subject imports from Korea and Germany had reached their highest level of any prior period, at 406,799 short tons, and represented 1.8 percent of apparent U.S. consumption and 1.9 percent of U.S. production.895 Korean and German producers have substantially increased both their production capacity and their production of corrosion-resistant steel since the original investigations. Subject producers from 896 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-36, IV-54. 897 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-36, IV-54. 898 CR/PR at Tables CORE IV-36, IV-54. Cumulated excess capacity in interim (January-June) 2006 was approximately *** tons. This represents excess capacity of Korea alone as German producers reported no excess capacity in interim 2006. As discussed above, given that the German industry reported excess capacity in every other full- and partial-year period of the period of review, and substantial year-to-year fluctuations in capacity utilization, we are hesitant to conclude that German producers will have no available capacity in the foreseeable future based on the experience of a single partial year. 899 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-56. 900 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-38. German respondent interested parties argue that demand in their home market and the EU is sufficiently strong that they would not have an incentive to ship product to the United States. They point out that over 90 percent of their shipments are to the German market or other EU markets. German Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 3. We note below that prices for corrosion-resistant steel in EU markets have not been sufficiently below U.S. prices so as to create a price incentive to shift sales to the U.S. market. However, prices in certain Asian markets have typically been lower than U.S. prices, as has the “EU export” price. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-70, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006). Thus, there would appear to be some price incentive for German producers to direct to the United States sales currently made to markets outside the EU. The record also reflects that exports from Germany to markets outside the European Union increased in 2005, much of which was to the United States. 901 The same is true over the interim periods, with combined exports to the United States growing from *** short tons in interim 2005, to *** short tons, in interim 2006. CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-38, IV-56. Korean producers attribute the increase in their U.S. exports during the review period to a short-term request by Hyundai for POSCO to supply Hyundai’s new facility in Alabama. Even if this were correct, which is not clear on the current record, several purchasers in the construction sector also reported significant increases in purchases of Korean product in 2005, indicating that imports from Korea were more broadly based. Questionnaire Responses of ***. 902 Derived from CR at CORE-IV-54 and CORE-IV-81, PR at CORE-IV-20 and CORE-IV-29. 903 Germany produced *** short tons of micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel in 2005. German exports of micro- alloy corrosion-resistant steel to the United States ranged from *** percent of total German exports of micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel in 2000 to *** percent in interim 2006, and were *** short tons in 2005. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-43. Although Korea’s total exports of micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel were *** than those of (continued...) 141 Korea and Germany increased their cumulated capacity from *** short tons in 1992 to *** short tons in 2005. 896 Further, subject producers from Korea and Germany, in the aggregate, increased their production of corrosion-resistant steel from *** short tons in 1992 to *** tons in 2005.897 Korean and German producers had combined excess capacity of *** short tons in 2005.898 This excess capacity is equivalent to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2005. The corrosion-resistant steel industries in Korea and Germany are export-oriented. Korea exported 28.8 percent of its total shipments in 2005 to countries other than the United States, amounting to 2.1 million short tons of corrosion-resistant steel. Korean producers exported nearly 900,000 short tons outside their home and regional markets in 2005.899 Exports accounted for over *** percent of German shipments during each year since 2000. Although most exports remained in Europe, *** percent of its shipments in 2005 (over *** tons) were directed to overseas markets, including the United States.900 Subject producers in Korea and Germany have exhibited a strong interest in exporting to the United States. On an aggregated basis, exports from Korea and Germany to the United States increased from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2005, an increase of *** percent.901 Along with their increase in exports to the United States during the review period, Korean and German producers increased their exports to Canada and Mexico substantially over the review period, from *** short tons in 2000 to *** short tons in 2005. 902 The producers have also exported a significant amount of their production of non-subject micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel to the United States.903 903 (...continued) Germany, *** short tons, *** percent of these exports were exported to the United States in 2005. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-61. 904 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-53. 905 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-12. 906 POSCO’s Questionnaire Response at 9 (exports to the United States of *** tons in 2005). USS-POSCO’s net sales in 2005 were *** short tons. CR/PR at Table CORE-III-10. 907 German Producers’ Questionnaire Responses at II-18a, II-18b. 908 CR at CORE-IV-46, PR at CORE-IV-18, CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-35. 909 CR at CORE-III-7, CORE-IV-24, n.28, PR at CORE-III-5, CORE-IV-12, n.28. 910 Korean Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 7-9. 911 CR at CORE-V-10, PR at CORE-V-8, n.15. 912 CR at OVERVIEW-17, PR at OVERVIEW-14, n. 42. We note that Commerce found that the Korean government provides export subsidies to Korean corrosion-resistant steel producers in 5 of the 11 programs investigated. 142 Although the Korean and German industries have demonstrated a strong interest in serving the U.S. market, neither has a sufficient presence to supply the U.S. market from within the United States or even North America. Korean producer POSCO has 50 percent ownership of U.S. producer USS-POSCO. While POSCO and its related Korean producer POCOS represent a substantial share of Korean production (*** percent in 2005),904 USS-POSCO represented only *** percent of 2005 production in the United States. 905 Moreover, the presence of USS-POSCO has not stopped POSCO from shipping appreciable quantities of subject product to the U.S. market.906 ThyssenKrupp, representing *** percent of German production in 2005 and accounting for *** exports of subject corrosion-resistant steel to the United States since 2000, 907 does not have a U.S. production affiliate. Nor do German producers Salzgitter and Corus, which together accounted for *** percent of German production in 2005. Arcelor Germany, which will soon be affiliated with a U.S. producer (Mittal Steel USA), represented only *** percent of German production in 2005.908 Thus, for Korea and Germany, the affiliations of their producers with U.S. producers represent either a relatively small share of U.S. production (in the case of Korea) or a relatively small share of foreign industry production (in the case of Germany). ThyssenKrupp Germany has taken some steps toward establishing a production facility in North America, by seeking to purchase the assets of Dofasco in Canada, to construct or acquire a facility in the United States, or both.909 As noted above, the record does not indicate that it is more likely than not that, in the reasonably foreseeable future, ThyssenKrupp will have such a U.S. or North American facility from which to serve its interest in the U.S. market. The demonstrated interest of Korean and German producers in serving the U.S. market combined with a lack of sufficient U.S. or North American production assets indicate that these producers are likely to deepen their participation in the U.S. market through exports from Korea and Germany. The increase is likely to occur in the several main end-use sectors for corrosion-resistant steel. A significant portion of Korea’s exports and production is for the construction sector,910 which typically is project-based and not supplied under long-term contracts.911 Thus, subject producers in Korea would be likely to increase sales to the U.S. construction sector if the orders were revoked, in many cases without being hampered by long-term supply commitments in other markets.912 913 CR/PR at Table CORE-II-1 (U.S. shipments of subject imports from Korea to automotive end users constituted *** percent of shipments of Korean product in 2005). The auto sector accounts for about *** percent of Korea’s total shipments. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-57. 914 CR/PR at Tables CORE IV-4, IV-39. The automotive sector accounts for *** of German producers’ total corrosion-resistant steel shipments. 915 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-68, CORE-IV-69, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006) (data published by MEPS). 916 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-70, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006). 917 Negotiated transaction prices for hot-dip galvanized steel show German prices higher than U.S. prices from January through September of 2005, lower from October 2005 through September 2006, and higher in October and November 2006. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-68, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006). Negotiated transaction prices for electro-galvanized steel show U.S. prices generally higher than German prices throughout 2005 and 2006. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-69, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006). *** monthly price data for galvanized steel from 2005 through November 2006 show a mixed pattern of whether U.S. prices were higher or lower than German and EU-wide prices. CR at CORE-IV-95, PR at CORE-IV-34-35, CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-70, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006). 918 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-70, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006). 919 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-38. 920 CR at CORE-IV-53, PR at CORE-IV-20. 921 The U.S. service center firm owned by ThyssenKrupp is TKSS. Corrosion-resistant steel is among the products distributed by TKSS. TKSS presents one ready avenue for subject imports from ThyssenKrupp or other producers in Germany to reach the U.S. market. German respondents claim that this is not likely because TKSS currently handles very little imported product, and because the sales of ThyssenKrupp Germany have been to auto- related end-users and not service centers. German Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 8-9. The fact that TKSS does not currently distribute much imported product with the orders in place does not diminish its availability as a channel for imports if the orders were revoked. 143 The Korean industry also had a significant and growing level of U.S. imports into the contract- based automotive sector. 913 The largest share of Germany’s exports to the United States over the period has been to the automotive sector, and we would expect this trend to continue if the order were lifted.914 We have considered relative prices for corrosion-resistant steel in the markets served by Korean and German producers. Negotiated transaction prices for hot-dip galvanized steel show Korean prices to be lower than U.S. prices during 2005 and 2006, except from May through September of 2005. Negotiated transaction prices for electro-galvanized steel show Korean prices to be lower throughout 2005 and 2006. 915 Other data (published by ***) show prices in China (a major market of Korean producers) and the Far East to be lower than U.S. prices from at least September 2005.916 Thus Korean producers would have an incentive to shift some sales to the U.S. market to obtain higher prices. With respect to Germany, most German shipments are made to its domestic market or other European markets. On balance, prices for corrosion-resistant steel in Germany and other EU markets do not appear to be sufficiently below U.S. prices so as to create a price incentive to shift sales to the U.S. market. 917 However, prices in certain Asian markets have typically been lower than U.S. prices, as has the “EU export” price. 918 Thus, German producers would have some price incentive to direct to the United States sales currently made to markets outside the EU. German exports to markets outside the European Union increased in 2005, with much of the increase directed to the United States.919 Subject producers in Korea and Germany have strong relationships with U.S. distributors and/or customers that would facilitate their increased exports to the United States from their production operations in their home countries, if the orders on the two countries were revoked. ThyssenKrupp supplies the U.S. market from inventories maintained in warehouses in Michigan. 920 It owns a significant U.S. service center.921 While German respondents argue that the vast majority of the subject product imported from Germany is ***, we find that ThyssenKrupp will need to supply its U.S. customers with 922 CR at CORE-II-21-22, PR at CORE-II-14-15. 923 CR at CORE-V-35, PR at CORE-V-16, CR/PR at Figures CORE-V-4 to V-11. 924 Letters to Commission from U.S. Steel (Nov. 16, 2006); Mittal Steel USA (Nov. 22, 2006); AK Steel (Dec. 5, 2006); Auto Producers’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 1. 925 CR/PR at Table CORE-III-9. 926 CR/PR at Table CORE-III-9. 927 During the period examined in the original investigation, subject imports from Korea *** the domestic product in *** of *** comparisons of sales to manufacturers and end users, in *** of *** comparisons of sales to distributors and service centers, and in *** of *** purchaser price comparisons reported by distributors and service centers. Original Confidential Staff Report at Tables 110-111, 113. In the first review period, Korean product undersold the U.S. product in 22 of 65 sales to distributors and in 25 of 44 sales to end users. USITC Pub. 3364 at Tables CORROSION-V-5, V-7. In the current review period, Korean product undersold U.S. product in 13 of 53 comparisons. CR/PR at Table CORE-V-17. 928 In the original investigation, subject imports from Germany *** the domestic product in *** of *** comparisons of sales to distributors and service centers and in *** of *** purchaser price comparisons reported by manufacturers and end users and *** the domestic product in *** of *** comparisons of sales to manufacturers and end users. Original Confidential Staff Report at Tables 110-112. In the first review, subject product from Germany (continued...) 144 imports from Germany so that it can maintain and likely build its customer base to support an eventual North American production platform. Korean producers already have strong relationships with U.S. customers, as evidenced by the level of their shipments to the United States during the review period. The record thus indicates that Korean and German producers would have a significant volume of subject product available for shipment to the United States if the orders were revoked, based on their substantial capacity and production of corrosion-resistant steel, excess capacity, general export orientation, the substantial and increasing level of their exports to the United States during the review period, and their well established relationships or distribution channels that would facilitate their increased supply to the U.S. market. Generally higher prices in the United States than in other Asian markets would give Korean producers the incentive to increase shipments to the U.S. market and German producers the incentive to redirect volumes currently exported to Asia to the U.S. market. We thus find, based on the foregoing, that the likely volume of subject imports from Korea and Germany would increase, and would be significant absent the orders. b. Likely Price Effects We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above. As during the original investigation and first review period, we continue to find that domestically produced and imported corrosion-resistant steel are generally substitutable, provided suppliers meet qualification requirements, and that price is an important factor in purchasing decisions.922 While U.S. prices generally strengthened over the review period,923 a major driver behind the rise in prices was soaring raw material and energy costs, and there is no indication that these costs will decrease for the foreseeable future. 924 As we have noted, the U.S. industry underwent major restructuring and reduced its fixed costs over the review period, and has been able to obtain prices comfortably above rising variable costs, particularly raw material and energy costs.925 The domestic industry’s ratio of COGS to net sales fluctuated yet declined overall during the review period.926 Nevertheless, an influx of subject imports of corrosion-resistant steel from Korea and Germany would likely limit the industry’s ability to recover the costs, forcing it into a cost-price squeeze. In the original investigation and both review periods, there was mixed underselling and overselling by Korean product.927 The prices of imports from Germany generally showed overselling in both the original investigation, first review, and current review.928 The generally higher prices in the U.S. 928 (...continued) oversold the domestic product in all 15 comparisons. USITC Pub. 3364 at CORROSION-V-10-12. Pricing data collected by the Commission in this review show German product underselling U.S. product in 8 of 38 comparisons despite the order. CR/PR at Table CORE-V-17. 929 Tr. at 421-422 (Mohatarem), 455-456 (Cover). 930 The record does not support that same proposition with respect to imports from Canada, Australia, France, or Japan. Canadian producers already participate actively in the U.S. market. Their available capacity is modest. Many sales of Canadian producers have not been on the basis of aggressive pricing. We do not expect a substantial change in Canada’s participation in the U.S. market if the order on Canada is revoked. With respect to Australia, France, and Japan, we have found that those subject producers either lack incentive or the ability to export significant volumes to the United States. For example, the major French and Japanese producers have strong corporate relationships with significant U.S. counterparts. Any price leverage they would add would be through the activities of their U.S. production assets which are part of the domestic industry. Producers in these subject countries are generally operating at relatively high levels of capacity utilization and what excess capacity they have is directed at their home and regional markets. 145 market than key Asian markets, as described above, would enable producers in Korea, and to a lesser extent Germany, to obtain higher prices in the U.S. market and still sell below the prevailing U.S. market price. As discussed above, Korean production and exports to the United States have been focused on non-automotive uses such as the construction sector. Construction sales are mainly spot sales or project- based sales and are not typically based on long-term contracts. Under these conditions the expected increased imports from Korea for construction uses would have an immediate effect on market prices. Lower spot market prices would have a ripple effect on the overall market including having a negative influence on contract sales prices. As noted above, Korean and German producers would also be likely to increase their sales into the U.S. automotive sector. U.S. auto producers have indicated that, though they prefer to buy from suppliers in the North American market, the availability of subject imports in the event of revocation would give them leverage to negotiate more favorable prices with U.S. producers.929 Imports could only serve as leverage if they presented a sufficiently credible volume threat to existing sales of domestic producers. We find that the increased subject imports offered by producers in Germany and Korea likely would be sufficient for the U.S. auto producers to use them as a tool to hold down the contract price levels they negotiate with U.S. producers. 930 The likely price suppression that would result would be exacerbated by elevated variable costs. Based on the foregoing, we determine that the substantially larger volume of subject imports from Korea and Germany that are likely to enter the U.S. market upon revocation would either be priced aggressively to gain market share, or leveraged by purchasers to obtain more favorable domestic prices, and would likely depress or suppress domestic prices to a significant degree. We consequently conclude that revocation of the orders on subject imports from Korea and Germany would likely result in significant adverse price effects. c. Likely Impact We applied the legal standards discussed in section III above. As instructed by the statute, we have also considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related to the antidumping duty orders and countervailing duty order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked. For the reasons already discussed, we do not find the domestic industry to be vulnerable. We incorporate herein our entire finding on vulnerability from section VI.D.3.c above. While we do not find the domestic industry to be vulnerable, we do find that if the orders were revoked, the likely significant increase in the volume of subject imports from Germany and Korea, 146 coupled with their likely adverse price effects, would likely have a significant negative impact on the domestic industry. The negative effects would be felt in such industry factors as output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, utilization of capacity, cash flow, inventories, employment, wage growth, ability to raise capital, investment, and the industry’s development and production efforts. As we noted above in our discussion of likely price effects, there is no indication that raw material and energy costs will decrease in the reasonably foreseeable future, and the domestic industry’s ability to continue to recover these costs and remain profitable will be hampered by increased volumes of subject imports that are either priced aggressively to gain market share, or leveraged by purchasers to obtain favorable domestic prices. While the domestic industry is stronger and better able to handle the vicissitudes of the corrosion-resistant market, it is not impervious to the effects of significant quantities of aggressively priced import supplies. We find that the negative impact caused by subject imports would be felt both by U.S. producers that supply the construction and other non-automotive sectors and to those that supply automotive customers. The combined negative effect on the industry as a whole would be significant. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the likely significant volumes of subject imports from Germany and Korea likely would have a significant negative impact on the domestic industry if the orders on Germany and Korea were revoked. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we find that revocation of the countervailing duty order on corrosion- resistant steel from France and the antidumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Canada, France, and Japan, would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. We also find that revocation of the countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel from Korea and the antidumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from Germany and Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 1 Specifically, section 752(a) of the Act provides that: the Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of the subject merchandise from all countries with respect to which reviews under section 1675(b) or (c) of this title were initiated on the same day, if such imports would be likely to compete with each other and with domestic like products in the United States market. The Commission shall not cumulatively assess the volume and effects of imports of the subject merchandise in a case in which it determines that such imports are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7). 147 SEPARATE AND DISSENTING VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER STEPHEN KOPLAN AND COMMISSIONER CHARLOTTE R. LANE WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN CARBON CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL Based on the record in these five-year reviews, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the countervailing duty orders on certain carbon corrosion-resistant (“CORE”) steel from France and Korea and antidumping duty orders on CORE steel from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Therefore, we dissent from the Commission’s determination with respect to CORE steel imports from Australia, Canada, France, and Japan, and write separately to explain our findings. Except, as noted in the Commission’s opinion, we join its determination regarding legal standards, cut-to-length plate, and CORE steel with respect to background, domestic like product, and domestic industry. I. CUMULATION We applied the legal standards for cumulation discussed in section III of the Commission’s Views above. 1 In these reviews, the statutory requirements for cumulation that all CORE steel reviews be initiated on the same day is satisfied. We consider three issues in deciding whether to cumulate the subject imports: (1) whether imports from any of the subject countries are precluded from cumulation because they are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry; (2) whether imports of CORE steel from the subject countries are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product according to the traditional four-factor test; and (3) other factors that the Commission may consider. In so doing, we take into account the various arguments by the parties in favor of and against cumulation. Based on the available information regarding, inter alia, the capacity, excess capacity, and exports of the industries in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea, as well as their trade and pricing patterns during the original investigations and the first and second reviews, we find that subject imports from all six countries would be likely to have a discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the orders were revoked. We also find that a reasonable overlap of competition between the subject imports and the domestic like product would be likely to exist if the orders were revoked. While there are some variations in the volume and price trends for subject imports from all six countries during the current review period, we find that none of them are distinct from all others or that there are any significant differences in the conditions of competition among the subject countries. We, therefore, have exercised our discretion to cumulatively assess the likely volume and effect of subject imports of CORE steel from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea. 2 U.S. Steel’s Prehearing Brief at 13. 3 U.S. Steel’s Prehearing Brief at 13-45. 4 U.S. Steel’s Prehearing Brief at 49-51. 5 U.S. Steel’s Prehearing Brief at 52-53. 6 The Korean respondents do not object to cumulation of all subject imports, including those from Korea, but instead argue that, due to changes in the overall conditions of competition, all the orders should be revoked. Korean Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 1. 7 Australian Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 10. 8 Canadian Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 1-8, Answers to Commissioners’ Questions at 31-41. 9 French Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 8-10. 10 German Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 5-9. 11 Japanese Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 15. 12 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(7). 148 A. Parties’ Arguments The domestic interested parties argue that all subject CORE steel imports should be cumulated. They argue that the likelihood of “no discernible adverse impact” is a “limited exception” to the Commission’s ability to cumulate subject imports in five-year reviews.2 Given the pre-order levels of subject imports, sufficient excess capacity in each of the subject countries, their export-orientation, and the level of imports into the United States during the review period by certain countries, particularly *** and ***, they urge the Commission to find that the exception does not apply to any country.3 Addressing the traditional four-factor test, they note, with respect to fungibility, that producers, importers, and purchasers responding to the Commission’s questionnaires overwhelmingly reported that imports from each country were “always” or “frequently” interchangeable with each other and the domestic like product. They maintain that, even with the orders in place, subject imports from all countries have been simultaneously present in the U.S. market, have similar channels of distribution, and have also been sold in the same geographic markets before and since the imposition of the orders and this will likely continue. 4 U.S. producers also argue that there are no significant differences in conditions of competition among the subject countries that would warrant the Commission exercising its discretion not to cumulate any of them. All six countries have large CORE steel industries. Producers in all countries are export- oriented and make steel that can be used in the most demanding applications. All six countries have excess capacity, make products that are sold on the basis of price, and will be impacted by changing conditions in China. Finally, with the exception of ***, all subject country producers have U.S. affiliates and such relationships could enhance their ability to penetrate the U.S. market. 5 Respondents from each of the subject countries, except Korea,6 argue that their imports should not be cumulated with those from the other subject countries on the following bases: Australia, no discernible adverse impact; 7 Canada, different conditions of competition;8 France, lack of discernible adverse impact, lack of overlap of competition, and differences in conditions of competition, based mainly on the Arcelor-Mittal relationship;9 Germany, no discernible adverse impact;10 and Japan, no discernible adverse impact and different conditions of competition.11 B. Likely Discernible Adverse Impact The statute precludes cumulation if the Commission finds that subject imports from a country are likely to have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry.12 In the first reviews, the Commission found that there was no likelihood of no discernible adverse impact in the event of revocation with respect to all the subject countries, based on: their continuing presence in the U.S. 13 USITC Pub. 3364 at 47. 14 USITC Pub. 3539 at 21-22; USITC Pub. 3753 at 3. 15 USITC Pub. 3539 at 27-28, 32. 16 The Australian respondent, BlueScope, contends that its imports likely would have no discernible adverse impact on the basis that it has been absent from the U.S. market for many years and is fully committed to its home and export markets outside of Asia. Australian Respondent’s Posthearing Brief at 1 and 7-9. 17 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 18 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. We note that CORE steel imports from Australia have been subject to antidumping duty margins ranging from 24.96 percent to 39.05 percent during the current review period. See CR/PR at Table CORE-I-2. 19 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 20 In its posthearing brief, Australian producer, BlueScope Steel, acknowledges these increases in capacity and refutes other alleged capacity increases. Australian Respondent’s Posthearing Brief at 13-14; CR at CORE-IV-17; PR at CORE-IV-9-10. BlueScope Steel provided information in the current review and reported that it is currently the sole producer of the subject product in Australia; there were two known producers during the first review and one producer during the original investigation. CR at CORE-IV-16; PR at CORE-IV-9. No Australian producer responded to the first review, but there are data from the original investigation. 21 In 1992, the Australian industry’s capacity utilization was ***. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-10. 22 CR/PR at Tables CORE-I-1 and IV-12. 23 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-12. 149 market, indicating they had the contacts and distribution channels necessary to compete; their excess capacity; and the considerable resources devoted to export markets.13 In its remand opinions with respect to Canada, France, and Germany, the Commission discussed the “no discernible adverse impact” standard in greater detail, citing some of the same factors it considers in analyzing likelihood of material injury, but noting that the threshold for finding likelihood of a discernible or “noticeable” adverse impact is lower than the threshold for finding likelihood of material injury, or of a “significant” adverse impact if the order is revoked. 14 The factors considered on remand for each of the subject countries included: production capacity and unused capacity relative to U.S. production and apparent consumption, available inventories, export reliance, substitutability of the subject imports with U.S. product, underselling in the original investigation, ability to product shift, and trade patterns during the original investigations.15 We consider all these factors in analyzing “no discernible adverse impact” in these reviews. Our review of the record, as discussed below, indicates that there is no basis for concluding that revocation of any of the CORE steel orders would likely have no discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry. In particular, the CORE steel industry in each of these subject countries has significant production capacity, considerable unused capacity, and is export-oriented. Therefore we are not precluded from cumulating any of the subject countries on the basis of the “no discernible adverse impact” exception to cumulation. Australia. 16 In 1992, imports from Australia to the U.S. market of CORE steel were 183,782 short tons. 17 Subject imports from Australia declined sharply after imposition of the orders and have remained at minimal levels with the discipline of the orders in place.18 Australian capacity to produce CORE steel has increased since the original investigation, from *** in 2005. 19 Moreover, the evidence indicates that there has been an increase of *** in Australian capacity in 2006 and that there will be increases of another *** in 2007.20 Capacity utilization, on the other hand, declined from *** in 2005. 21 Thus, even before the capacity increases in 2006 and 2007, the Australian producer’s excess capacity was *** in 2005, more than *** of its total exports to the United States during 1992, the last year of the original investigation period.22 Australian inventories, as a share of total shipments, also increased from ***, and were *** in 2005.23 While Australia’s total exports, as a 24 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-12 25 In April 2004, BlueScope acquired Butler, a market leader in the U.S. and China for pre-engineered steel building systems, which provides it increased contacts and distribution channels for its CORE steel in the construction sector of the U.S. market. CR at CORE IV-21, n.22; PR at CORE IV-16, n.22. 26 The Australian producer reported that *** and does not have other production lines that could be diverted to produce CORE steel. CR at CORE-II-10 and Table CORE-IV-16; PR at CORE-II-7 and Table CORE-IV-16. 27 In the original investigation, Australian product *** the U.S. product in all but *** possible price comparisons. Original Confidential Staff Report at Tables 110 and 113. 28 CR at CORE-IV-21; PR at CORE-IV-10. 29 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 30 We note that CORE steel imports from Canada have been subject to antidumping duty margins ranging from 0.51 percent to 18.71 percent during the current review period. See CR/PR at Table CORE-I-3. 31 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. In contrast, during the first review period, subject imports from Canada declined by 9.5 percent from 1997 to 1999. Id. We recognize that the import statistics show higher levels than the exports reported by Canadian mills in Commission questionnaire responses and may be overstated in that the import statistics reportedly include some non-subject tin-and chromium-coated steel sheet that has been lacquered. CR/PR at CORE-IV-4; Canadian Respondents’ Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commission Questions at 21-22. We note, however, that exports reported by Canadian mills may be lower because they do not include exports by Canadian service centers and show an increase of *** during the current review period, from *** in 2000 to *** in 2005. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-20. 32 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-18 and IV-20. 33 Canadian production of CORE steel increased from *** in 1992 to *** in 1999 and was *** in 2005; the Canadian industry’s capacity utilization rate increased from *** in 1992 to *** in 1999, and declined to *** in 2005. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-20. 34 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-20. The Canadian industry’s exports to Mexico, its primary other export market, increased *** in absolute quantity and as a share of its total shipments in 2005. Id. 150 share of its total shipments, ranged from a high of *** in 2000 to a low of *** in 2005, its total exports in January-June 2006 were *** of its total shipments, or ***.24 All Australian CORE steel production is hot-dip galvanized and largely produced for premium building construction materials. 25 There is no evidence of an ability to product shift26 and there were no price comparisons for imports from Australia in this review, nor in the first review.27 Australia, the only subject country to face import barriers in third countries, is subject to a 79 percent tariff on painted corrosion-resistant steel in South Africa and a 70 percent tariff in Argentina. 28 In sum, the Australian CORE steel industry has substantial excess capacity and inventories, considerable resources devoted to export markets, and produces CORE steel that is substitutable with the domestic product. These factors indicate that subject imports from Australia are likely to have a discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the orders are revoked. Canada. During the original investigation, imports from Canada to the U.S. market of CORE steel increased from 180,030 short tons to 451,082 short tons, an increase of 151 percent. 29 Canadian imports remained in the U.S. market in substantial quantities after imposition of the orders,30 and increased by 43.8 percent during this review period, from 380,490 short tons in 2000 to 547,326 short tons in 2005. 31 Since the original investigation, the Canadian industry’s capacity to produce CORE steel has increased from *** in 1992 and 1999 to *** in 2005.32 While production and capacity utilization have increased since the original investigation,33 an increasing share of Canadian shipments was directed to the U.S. market, during the current review period, from *** of total shipments in 2000 to *** in 2005.34 Canada’s increasing reliance on exports to the U.S. market likely will continue as Canadian demand for 35 Nucor/SDI’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commission Questions at 1-4; U.S. Steel’s Prehearing Brief at 23 and 24 (alleges that Dofasco’s rosy view of Canadian demand in this proceeding is inconsistent with the position it took before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal regarding demand for all flat-rolled steel). In contrast, Dofasco alleges that Canadian demand will increase through 2008, but provides nothing to support this allegation. Canadian Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 24-28; Canadian Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 8 and 9. Moreover, Dofasco’s business plan notes that ***. Dofasco Importer’s Questionnaire Response at Attachment 2, p. 10. 36 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-18 and IV-20. 37 One Canadian producer reported that ***. CR at CORE-II-10; PR at CORE-II-7. In 2005, Canadian non- subject corrosion-resistant steel production was approximately ***, as compared to *** of subject product. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-24. Exports of non-subject micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel to the U.S. market in 2005 were ***, representing *** of Canada’s total shipments of that product and virtually all its exports. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-25. 38 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-19. 39 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-21. 40 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-4. 41 CR/PR at Table CORE-V-17. In the original investigation, subject imports from Canada *** the domestic product in *** of *** possible price comparisons. Original Confidential Staff Report at Tables 110-113. 42 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-68, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006). Negotiated transaction prices for hot-dipped galvanized steel show U.S. prices as higher than Canadian prices in early 2005, lower than Canadian prices from the second half of 2005 through May of 2006, and higher than Canadian prices from June through November of 2006. Id. 43 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 44 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. We note that CORE steel imports from France have been subject to antidumping duty margins of 29.41 percent. See CR/PR at CORE-I-7 and Table CORE-I-7. 151 CORE steel is projected to decrease.35 Moreover, the Canadian industry had *** in excess CORE steel capacity in 2005 and *** in inventories in 2005.36 There also is the possibility of product-shifting by Canadian producers, given that they produce micro-alloy and other types of non-subject corrosion resistant steel on the same equipment used to produce the subject product. 37 Virtually all Canadian CORE steel production (*** in 2005) is hot-dipped galvanized.38 The Canadian industry produces CORE steel for both automotive and non-automotive applications, with *** of total Canadian shipments for automotive applications in 2005. 39 U.S. importers’ shipments of Canadian CORE steel, however, are virtually all for automotive applications, *** in 2005.40 The Commission has price comparisons for imports from Canada in this review which show price underselling, even with the discipline of the orders in place, in 31 of 50 possible comparisons.41 Moreover, Canadian negotiated transaction prices for hot-dip galvanized coils were lower than U.S. prices for each month from June to November 2006.42 In sum, the Canadian CORE steel industry has substantial capacity, excess capacity, and inventories; devotes considerable and increasing resources to the U.S. market; produces and exports to the U.S. market CORE steel that is substitutable with the domestic product; has the ability to shift production; and has undersold the U.S. product in the majority of possible price comparisons during this review period, even with the discipline of the orders. These factors indicate that subject imports from Canada are likely to have a discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the orders are revoked. France. In 1992, imports from France to the U.S. market of CORE steel were 94,523 short tons. 43 Subject imports from France declined sharply after imposition of the orders and have remained at minimal levels with the discipline of the orders in place.44 45 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-27. Two French producers, Arcelor and Duferco, appear to represent all CORE steel capacity in France, with Arcelor representing *** in 2005. CR at CORE-IV-35 and Table CORE-IV-26; PR at CORE-IV-15 and Table CORE-IV-26. 46 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-27. In 1992, French capacity utilization was ***. Id. We recognize the French respondents’ claims that declines in capacity utilization reflect “the company’s decision to ***.” French Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 10. However, the evidence demonstrates that French CORE steel exports to other North American markets increased substantially during the current review period and indicate French producers’ continuing interest in supplying markets in North America. 47 CR/PR at Tables CORE-I-1 and IV-28. 48 French producers reported non-subject production, mostly of micro-alloy product, in 2005 of *** as compared to *** of subject product, and *** of their micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel was exported, including ***, to the United States. CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-33 and CORE-IV-34. French producers, however, did not indicate how readily equipment used to produce the non-subject product could be switched to production of subject CORE steel. 49 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-29. 50 CR at CORE-IV-41; PR at CORE-IV-17. 51 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-28. 52 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-30. 53 Original Confidential Staff Report at Tables 110-112. 54 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-68 and CORE-IV-69, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006). 152 French capacity to produce CORE steel has *** since the original investigation, increasing from *** in 1992, to *** in 1999, to *** in 2005. 45 However, since French production has not increased at the same rate, French capacity utilization has declined from *** at the end of the first review period in 1999 to *** in 2005. 46 As a result, the French CORE steel industry has substantial excess capacity, *** in 2005; excess capacity equivalent to *** of apparent U.S. consumption in 2005 and *** of total subject imports in 2005. 47 There also is the possibility of product-shifting by French producers, given that they produce and export micro-alloy and other types of non-subject corrosion resistant steel.48 The French industry devotes considerable resources to export markets, *** of total shipments in 2005. 49 While shipments of subject product to the U.S. market, with the orders in place, have been minimal, *** exports of subject CORE steel to other North American markets (Canada and Mexico) have ***. 50 The majority of French CORE steel production (*** in 2005) is hot-dipped galvanized.51 The French industry produces CORE steel for both automotive and non-automotive applications, with *** of total French shipments for automotive applications in 2005.52 While there were no price comparisons for subject imports from France in this review or in the first review, subject imports from France *** the U.S. product in *** possible price comparisons in the original investigation.53 Negotiated transaction prices for hot-dip galvanized coils and for electro- galvanized are mixed with French prices higher than U.S. prices in the spring of 2005 and the second half of 2006, but lower for the middle of 2005 to the middle of 2006. 54 In sum, the French CORE steel industry has substantial capacity and excess capacity; devotes considerable resources to export markets; has substantially increased exports to other North American markets during this review period; produces CORE steel that is substitutable with the domestic product; and has the ability to shift production. These factors indicate that subject imports from France are likely to have a discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the orders are revoked. 55 German respondents contend that German imports should not be cumulated on the basis that the German industry does not have substantial excess capacity or inventories, their focus is on their home and the European markets, and German producers owned by Arcelor-Mittal will avoid exporting to compete with related U.S. plants. German Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 5-9, 13, and Answers to Commission Questions at 2, 12, and 27-28. 56 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 57 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. In contrast, during the first review period, subject imports from Germany declined by 37.2 percent from 1997 to 1999. Id. We note that CORE steel imports from Germany have been subject to antidumping duty margins of 10.02 percent. See Id. at CORE-I-7 and Table CORE-I-7. 58 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-36. 59 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-36. In 1992, German capacity utilization was ***. Id. 60 CR/PR at Tables C-7 and CORE-IV-38. 61 Of the reported German production in 2005 of *** was subject product, and the remainder was non-subject product, with *** consisting of micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-42. Exports of micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel to the U.S. market, as a percentage of total shipments of that product, ranged from *** in interim 2006, and were *** in 2005. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-43. German producers stated, however, ***. CR at CORE-II-12; PR at CORE-II-8. 62 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-38. 63 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-38. 64 CR at CORE-IV-54; PR at CORE-IV-20. 65 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-37. 66 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-39. 67 CR/PR at Table CORE-V-17. In the original investigation, German product oversold U.S. product in *** possible price comparisons. Original Confidential Staff Report at Tables 110-112. 153 Germany. 55 In 1992, imports from Germany to the U.S. market of CORE steel were 189,192 short tons. 56 German imports remained in the U.S. market, after imposition of the orders, and increased by 63.5 percent during this review period, from 46,453 short tons in 2000 to 75,941 short tons in 2005, even with the discipline of the orders. 57 German capacity to produce CORE steel has increased since the original investigation, with the substantial increases occurring since the first review; capacity increased from *** of capacity in 1999 to *** in 2005. 58 However, since German production has not increased at the same rate, German capacity utilization has declined from *** at the end of the first review period in 1999 to *** in 2005.59 As a result, the German CORE steel industry has substantial excess capacity, *** in 2005, which was equivalent to *** of apparent U.S. consumption, *** of U.S. production, and *** of total subject imports in 2005. 60 Moreover, German producers manufacture substantial quantities of non-subject corrosion- resistant steel on the same equipment used to produce subject product, raising the possibility of product shifting.61 German producers’ inventories were *** as a share of total shipments and *** in 2005.62 The German industry devotes considerable resources to export markets, *** of total shipments in 2005. 63 Not only did shipments of subject product to the U.S. market increase, with the orders in place, but German exports of subject CORE steel to other North American markets (Canada and Mexico) ***.64 The majority of German CORE steel production (*** in 2005) is hot-dipped galvanized.65 The German industry produces CORE steel for both automotive and non-automotive applications, with *** of total German shipments for automotive applications in 2005.66 Pricing data collected by the Commission show German product underselling U.S. product in 8 of 38 comparisons during the current review period, even with the discipline of the orders in place. 67 Negotiated transaction prices for hot-dip galvanized steel show German prices generally higher than U.S. prices from January through September of 2005, lower from October 2005 through September 2006, and 68 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-68, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006). 69 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-69, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006). 70 CR at CORE-IV-95; PR at CORE-IV-35; CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-70, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD- 162 (Dec. 5, 2006). 71 We note the German producers’ assertions regarding product shifting and inventories, but find that subject imports from Germany would not be likely to have no discernible adverse impact in the event of revocation even if we do not include non-subject product and inventories as potential increased shipments to the United States. CR at CORE-II-12; PR at CORE-II-8; German Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 7. 72 Japanese respondents contend that Japanese CORE steel imports should not be cumulated on the basis that the Japanese industry has no excess capacity and has strong home and other export market demand, including a competitive advantage in supplying China and Asia. Japanese Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 86-89. 73 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 74 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. We note that CORE steel imports from Japan have been subject to antidumping duty margins ranging from 1.61 percent to 36.41 percent during the current review period. See CR/PR at CORE-I-7- 8 and Table CORE-I-4. 75 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-45. 76 CR/PR at Tables C-7 and CORE-IV-47. 77 The Japanese industry produced non-subject product on the same equipment, in the amount of *** in 2005, out of *** in total production. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-51. Japan’s exports to the U.S. market of non-subject micro- alloy corrosion-resistant steel were at a high of *** in 2000 and were *** in interim 2006. These exports to the U.S. market represented *** of total shipments in 2005 and *** in interim 2006, with total exports around *** of total shipments throughout most of the review period. CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-52. One Japanese producer ***. CR at CORE-II-12; PR at CORE-II-8. 78 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-47. 154 higher in October and November 2006;68 for electro-galvanized steel, German prices were lower in all months for the January 2005-November 2006 period, except four.69 *** monthly prices for galvanized steel from 2000 through November 2006 show U.S. prices often higher than German prices.70 In sum, Germany has substantial production capacity and unused capacity relative to apparent U.S. consumption and production; it relies heavily on export markets, including markets outside the European Union; its exports to the U.S. market increased significantly during the period, demonstrating that it has an interest in the U.S. market, as well as established distribution channels to readily divert shipments to this market; and it shipped significant quantities of non-subject micro-alloy corrosion- resistant steel to the United States during the period.71 These factors indicate that subject imports from Germany are likely to have a discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the orders are revoked. Japan. 72 In 1992, imports from Japan to the U.S. market of CORE steel were 824,743 short tons. 73 Subject imports from Japan declined sharply after imposition of the orders and have remained at low levels with the discipline of the orders in place. 74 Japanese capacity to produce CORE steel has increased since the original investigation, with a substantial increase occurring since the first review; capacity increased from *** of capacity in 1999 to *** in 2005. 75 While Japanese production and capacity utilization have increased since the first review, Japan still had substantial excess capacity in 2005; Japanese producers’ excess capacity was *** in 2005, which was equivalent to *** of apparent U.S. consumption and *** of total subject imports in 2005.76 Moreover, Japanese producers manufacture substantial quantities of non-subject corrosion-resistant steel on the same equipment used to produce subject product, raising the possibility of product shifting. 77 Japanese producers’ inventories were ***, as a share of total shipments, and *** in 2005. 78 79 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-47. 80 See Nucor/SDI’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commission Questions at 22. 81 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-46. 82 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-48. 83 CR/PR at Table CORE-V-17. In the original investigation, Japanese product undersold U.S. product in *** possible price comparisons. Original Confidential Staff Report at Tables 110-112. 84 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-68 and CORE-IV-69, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006). 85 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-70, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006). 86 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 87 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. We note that CORE steel imports from Korea have been subject to antidumping duty margins ranging from 0.68 percent to 17.70 percent during the current review period. See CR/PR at Table CORE-I-5. 88 CR/PR at Tables CORE-I-1, IV-1, and C-7. 89 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-54. 155 The Japanese industry devotes considerable resources to export markets (mostly to China and other Asian markets), *** of total shipments in 2005.79 While shipments of subject product to the U.S. market, with the orders in place, have been low, the evidence in the record show that Japanese exports of subject CORE steel to other North American markets (Canada and Mexico) have been substantial and increasing during this review period.80 These exports demonstrate a continuing interest in serving and shipping to other North American markets in close proximity to the U.S. market. The majority of Japanese CORE steel production (*** in 2005) is hot-dipped galvanized.81 The Japanese industry produces CORE steel for both automotive and non-automotive applications, with *** of total Japanese shipments for automotive applications in 2005. 82 The Commission’s pricing data show underselling by Japanese product in 5 out of 20 comparisons during the current review period, even with the discipline of the orders. 83 Negotiated transaction prices for hot-dip galvanized steel show Japanese prices generally higher than U.S. prices in 2005 and lower in 2006; for electro-galvanized steel, Japanese prices generally were higher than U.S. prices from February through June of 2005, lower from July 2005 through September 2006, and higher in October and November 2006.84 *** monthly prices for galvanized steel show U.S. prices generally higher than Japanese export prices in 2002, 2004, and 2006, and generally lower during the rest of the review period.85 In sum, the Japanese CORE steel industry has substantial capacity, excess capacity and inventories; devotes considerable resources to export markets; has substantially increased exports to other North American markets during this review period, indicating a continued interest in serving the markets in close proximity to the U.S. market; produces CORE steel that is substitutable with the domestic product; has shipped significant quantities of non-subject micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel to the U.S. market during the review period; and has the ability to shift production. These factors indicate that subject imports from Japan are likely to have a discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the orders are revoked. Korea. In 1992, imports from Korea to the U.S. market of CORE steel were 193,513 short tons.86 Korean subject imports remained in the U.S. market after imposition of the orders and increased substantially during the review period, despite the discipline imposed by the orders.87 During this review period, Korean subject imports reached a high of 330,858 short tons in 2005, or 1.5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption, for an increase of 30.5 percent from 2000 to 2005, and were 50.4 percent higher in interim 2006 than in interim 2005.88 Korean capacity to produce CORE steel has more than doubled since the original investigation, increasing from 3.1 million in 1992, to *** in 1999, to 8.4 million in 2005.89 However, since Korean production has not increased at the same rate, Korean capacity utilization has declined from *** at the 90 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-54. In 1992, Korean capacity utilization was 93.8 percent. Id. 91 CR/PR at Tables CORE-I-1 and IV-56. 92 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-60 and CORE-IV-61. Korean producers, however, did not indicate how readily equipment used to produce non-subject product could be modified to produce subject merchandise. 93 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-56. 94 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-56. 95 CR at CORE-IV-81; PR at CORE-IV-29. 96 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-55. 97 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-57. 98 CR/PR at Table CORE-V-17. In the original investigation, Korean product undersold U.S. product in *** possible price comparisons. Original Confidential Staff Report at Tables 110, 111, and 113. 99 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-68 and CORE-IV-69, as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-162 (Dec. 5, 2006). 156 end of the first review period in 1999 to 87.0 percent in 2005.90 As a result, the Korean CORE steel industry has substantial excess capacity, 1.1 million short tons in 2005; excess capacity equivalent to almost 5 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2005 and 113 percent of total subject imports in 2005.91 The Korean industry also produces non-subject product on the same equipment, including *** of micro- alloy corrosion-resistant steel, *** of which was exported to the U.S. market in 2005.92 Korean producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, increased from 3.3 percent in 2000 to 4.6 percent in 2005, and were 334,202 short tons in 2005.93 In addition to current substantial volumes of U.S. imports from Korea despite the orders, Korea exported 28.8 percent of its total shipments in 2005 to countries other than the United States, amounting to 2.1 million short tons of CORE steel.94 These other export markets included Korean exports of subject CORE steel to other North American markets (Canada and Mexico), which *** from 2000 to 2005.95 The majority of Korean CORE steel production (*** in 2005) is hot-dipped galvanized.96 The Korean industry produces CORE steel for both automotive and non-automotive applications, with 20.5 percent of total Korean shipments for automotive applications in 2005. 97 Pricing data show Korean product underselling U.S. product in 13 of 53 comparisons during the current review period, even with the discipline of the orders. 98 Negotiated transaction prices for hot-dip galvanized steel show Korean prices higher than U.S. prices in May through September of 2005, and lower in the remaining months of 2005 and 2006; for electro-galvanized steel, Korean prices generally were lower throughout 2005 and 2006.99 In sum, the Korean CORE steel industry has substantial production capacity, excess capacity, and inventories; relies heavily on export markets; devotes considerable and increasing resources to the U.S. and other North American markets during the review period, demonstrating that it has an interest in the U.S. market, as well as established distribution channels to readily divert shipments to this market; and shipped significant quantities of non-subject micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel to the United States during the period. These factors indicate that subject imports from Korea are likely to have a discernible adverse impact on the domestic industry if the orders are revoked. Conclusion. In sum, each of the subject countries has increased its capacity since the original investigation and each has excess capacity. Each country has maintained at least some level of exports to the U.S. market during the review period, devotes considerable resources to export markets, and undersold U.S. product at times during the original investigation period, and, in some cases, during the review periods as well. These factors indicate that the subject imports from each country would have a discernible adverse impact on the U.S. market if the orders were lifted. 100 The four factors generally considered by the Commission in assessing whether imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product are: (1) the degree of fungibility between the imports from different countries and between 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 geographical markets of imports from different countries and the domestic like product; (3) the existence of common or similar channels of distribution for imports from different countries and the domestic like product; and (4) whether the imports are simultaneously present in the market. See e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989). 101 See generally Chefline Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002). 102 See Mukand Ltd. v. United States, 937 F. Supp. 910, 917 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). 103 USITC Pub. 3364 at 47-48. 104 CR at CORE-II-20; PR at CORE-II-13. 105 CR at CORE-II-30; PR at CORE-II-23. 106 CR at CORE-II-21; PR at CORE-II-14. 107 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-4-6, IV-11, IV-13-16, IV-19, IV-21-24, IV-28, IV-30-33, IV-37, IV-39-42, IV-46, IV-48-51, IV-55, IV-57-60. 108 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-4, IV-11, IV-19, IV-28, IV-37, IV-46, and IV-55. 109 Canadian Respondents’ Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commission Questions at 38. 110 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-4-6, IV-11, IV-13-16, IV-19, IV-21-24, IV-28, IV-30-33, IV-37, IV-39-42, IV-46, IV-48-51, IV-55, IV-57-60. 157 C. Likelihood of a Reasonable Overlap of Competition Since we find that the “no discernible adverse impact” exception to cumulation does not apply to any of the subject countries, we next analyze the four factors the Commission typically examines in determining whether there will be a likely overlap of competition.100 We note that the relevant inquiry is whether there would likely be competition even if there are no current imports from a subject country.101 Further, only a “reasonable overlap” of competition is required.102 In the original investigations and in the first five-year reviews, the Commission majority found a reasonable overlap of competition and cumulated subject imports from all subject countries.103 Fungibility. In these reviews, the record indicates that domestically produced and imported CORE steel are fungible products. Subject imports and the domestic product share the same essential chemical and physical properties, and there is a moderate to high degree of substitution between them.104 Generally, producers, importers and purchasers reported that CORE steel from the U.S. and from other countries is always or frequently interchangeable.105 Twenty-nine of 35 responding purchasers indicated that imported and domestically produced CORE steel are generally used in the same applications, as long as the steel conforms to the purchaser’s specifications or the supplier has been approved.106 The evidence also shows that the types of CORE steel produced by the subject producers during the review period reveal a sufficient degree of fungibility among the subject imports and with the domestic product.107 For example, producers in all subject countries produced hot-dip galvanized CORE steel during the review period and in some cases exported significant quantities to the U.S. market.108 In addition, contrary to Canadian respondents’ claims that imports from Canada are focused on specialty automotive products to a much greater extent than other subject imports,109 all the subject countries produce CORE steel for exposed automotive applications and the record shows that the majority of U.S. shipments of imports from Germany also are used in automotive applications (***). 110 Moreover, there is sufficient overlap in the other types of CORE steel produced in all six countries, as well as exported to the 111 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-4-6, IV-11, IV-13-16, IV-19, IV-21-24, IV-28, IV-30-33, IV-37, IV-39-42, IV-46, IV-48-51, IV-55, IV-57-60. 112 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-13, IV-21, IV-30, IV-39, IV-48, and IV-57. 113 Japanese Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 90. 114 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-46, IV-48-51. 115 CR/PR at Table CORE-II-1. 116 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-8. 117 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-7. 118 CR/PR at Table CORE-II-2. 119 See e.g., U.S. Steel’s Prehearing Brief at 52-53; Nucor/SDI’s Posthearing Brief at 10-15; Mittal’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commission Questions at Koplan-7-11, Lane-1-4, Okun-1-6, and Aranoff-1-3. 158 United States. 111 Specifically, each country shipped significant quantities of CORE steel for non- automotive applications during the review period (2005): Australia, ***; Canada, ***; France, ***; Germany, ***; Japan ***; and Korea, ***.112 Similarly, while the Japanese producers assert a focus on high-value specialty products, 113 the record shows they produce a full-range of CORE steel products. 114 Channels of Distribution. The record also indicates that there is sufficient overlap in the channels of distribution for domestic and imported CORE steel. U.S. producers and importers ship CORE steel to automotive, construction, and other end users, as well as to distributors and service centers, although in different proportions.115 This is similar to the distribution patterns observed in the original investigations and prior reviews. Simultaneous Presence and Geographic Overlap. Imports from each of the subject countries have been present in the U.S. market during at least some portion of the review period.116 The record also indicates that, despite low levels of imports from some of the subject countries during the review period, subject imports and the domestic product are sold in the same geographic markets. 117 In addition, the record shows that U.S. producers and importers, on the whole, reported nationwide sales of CORE steel. 118 Similarly, in both the original investigations and prior reviews, U.S. producers and importers reported that the United States was the geographic market area in which they competed. Conclusion. The record indicates that the likely reasonable overlap in competition criteria are satisfied. Both domestically produced CORE steel and subject imports from all sources are fungible, are sold through similar channels of distribution, have geographic overlaps in sales, and have been present in the U.S. market during at least some portion of the period of review. We consequently conclude that subject imports from each of these six countries will likely compete with each other and with the domestic like product should the orders under review be revoked. D. Other Considerations In determining whether to exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports of CORE steel, we assess whether the subject imports from each country are likely to compete under similar or different conditions of competition in the U.S. market. The domestic producers contend that there are no appreciable differences between the subject countries in likely conditions of competition.119 Respondents from Canada, France and Japan, however, contend that their imports are likely to compete under conditions of competition different from those of other subject imports and thus that each of their countries’ imports should not be cumulated. We address their arguments below. Canada. The Canadian respondent contends that trade patterns and conditions, due primarily to the integration of the North American automotive and CORE steel markets are different for Canadian 120 Canadian Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 1-15; Canadian Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 1-8 and Answers to Commission Questions at 31-41. 121 Canadian Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 2-3. 122 We note that other subject imports are held in service center inventories to meet just-in-time requirements. 123 On the issue of whether the North American market is integrated, the Canadian respondent contends that the domestic CORE steel producers testified at the Commission hearing that it is “not integrated” but argued that they were “operating in an integrated North American market” in the 2004 Canadian sunset proceedings. Canadian Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 4-5. The statements by the domestic CORE steel producers are not necessarily inconsistent when taken in context. For example, in the Canadian sunset proceeding, the context was whether the U.S. mills were dumping in the Canadian market (i.e., selling at a different price in the home market relative to the Canadian market); the Canadian decision stated “U.S. Mills submitted that they have no propensity to dump because, operating in an integrated North American market, they do not differentiate between U.S. and Canadian customers for pricing purposes, and selling at the same ex-mill price is not dumping.” Id. at Exhibit 2 (paragraph 162, page 25). At the Commission hearing, the context was whether the U.S. and Canadian markets for steel sourcing were a single market and the question from Commissioner Hillman was “whether you would agree that the auto market in North America has become an integrated market, in terms of sourcing steel.” Tr. at 334. Mr. Goodish of U.S. Steel responded: “Would not look at it as an integrated market. Auto manufacturers come to us and we bid steel – or price steel based on specific models, not looking necessarily where they’re going to be bid. We do have different arrangements that we have to make from a freight perspective on getting material into Canada. So, we’re not looking at it as an integrated market. I think that would be dangerous on our part.” Id. Mr. Gant of AK Steel added: “it’s a border that’s easily crossed. But, from another matter, it is a different country. . . . there are different costs of doing business for producers there. . . . we ship to Mexico and Canada at the request of our customers and we do that to serve them, because its proximity is reasonable. But, it’s not the same market.” Id. at 336. 124 Canadian Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 5-6; Canadian Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 3. 125 Tr. at 512-513. 159 imports relative to the conditions for CORE steel imports from other subject countries. 120 In particular, the Canadian respondents maintain that automotive companies treat Canadian producers as domestic producers and that only North American suppliers are the “core” suppliers which the auto industry has indicated it would continue to rely principally on, even if the orders were revoked.121 First, any differences in conditions of competition between Canada and other subject countries due to the proximity of the Canadian suppliers are not significant enough to find that such imports are not likely to compete with each other if the orders are revoked.122 The U.S. and Canadian markets do not comprise one home market, either legally or factually.123 Nor do we find a basis for claims that Canadian exports do not compete with U.S. product or other subject imports because Canadian exports are the result of decisions by auto companies to shift model production to the U.S. market and thus require their “core” steel companies to redirect shipments to the new assembly location. 124 While the Canadian respondent provided examples where such shifts resulted in CORE steel exports to the U.S. market, it also testified at the Commission hearing that “Dofasco has actually lost a major piece of corrosion resistant steel business at an OEM location in the United States due to a lower priced product from a U.S. mill displacing Dofasco.”125 Clearly, Canadian CORE steel imports compete with U.S. product and CORE steel imports from other subject countries. Moreover, as discussed above regarding no discernible adverse impact and reasonable overlap of competition, the Canadian CORE steel industry has substantial excess capacity and inventories, produces CORE steel that is substitutable with the domestic product and other subject imports, devotes considerable and increasing resources to exports to the U.S. market, and has undersold the U.S. product in the majority of possible price comparisons during this review period. We find that the evidence does not demonstrate any significant differences in conditions of competition between likely subject imports from Canada and CORE steel imports from other subject countries. 126 French Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 8-10 (they also contend that Arcelor’s investment plans are to acquire production facilities so as to produce locally rather than to export from France); French Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 14-16. 127 CR at CORE-III-5; PR at CORE-III-4. 128 French Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 13; French Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 3. 129 See e.g., Mittal’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commission Questions at Okun-3-6. 130 French Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 5. 131 CR at CORE-IV-41; PR at CORE-IV-17. 132 Japanese Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 89 and 90. 133 See USITC Pub. 3364 at 48, n. 321. 160 France. In arguing that “there are fundamental differences in competition between France” and other subject countries, the French Respondents focus on the proposed merger of Mittal and Arcelor, and indicate that Arcelor has no incentive to ship to the U.S. market to compete against Mittal.126 We recognize the June 2006 announcement that Arcelor and Mittal plan to merge, but also take into consideration that this merger is under review and is not expected to be finalized until at best June 2007. 127 We also acknowledge the statements by Arcelor officials that “[i]f the Orders were revoked, whatever imports of subject merchandise from France to the United States that occur will have no adverse impact on the U.S. industry, because it is not in Arcelor-Mittal’s interest to do anything to undermine its position in the United States.”128 Both Arcelor and Mittal produce a broad range of products.129 While Arcelor may not intend to export to the U.S. market in a manner that adversely impacts its proposed U.S. affiliate operations, such statements do not speak to whether its exports would adversely impact the U.S. industry as a whole. Thus, rather than rely on intentions, we base our findings on the record evidence in the current review, which do not demonstrate that subject imports from France likely would compete under different conditions of competition in the U.S. market, if the orders were revoked. As discussed above regarding no discernible adverse impact, the French CORE steel industry has substantial and increasing excess capacity, produces CORE steel that is substitutable with the domestic product and other subject imports, and devotes considerable resources to export markets. French respondents contend that their exports to the U.S. market will follow the pattern of their exports to Canada after revocation of the Canadian orders. 130 However, they do not mention the pattern of CORE steel exports from France to another North American market, Mexico, whose imports from France substantially increased from 2002 to 2005.131 These French exports demonstrate a continuing interest in serving and shipping to other North American markets in close proximity to the U.S. market. Finally, during the current review period, French producers of CORE steel have exported non-subject corrosion- resistant steel, such as micro-alloy steel, to the U.S. market providing them existing customers and channels of distribution for subject CORE steel exports if the orders were revoked. We find that the evidence does not demonstrate any significant differences in conditions of competition between likely subject imports from France and CORE steel imports from other subject countries. Japan. In arguing that subject imports from Japan likely will compete under different conditions of competition, Japanese respondents focus on their affiliations with U.S. CORE steel producers, and assertions about Japanese trade patterns and product mix.132 First, as the Commission recognized in the first review, significant Japanese affiliate presence existed prior to the original investigations, but this did not cause the Japanese companies to participate in the U.S. market in a significantly different way than the other subject producers.133 We do not believe that the situation is fundamentally different today. In fact, there are fewer Japanese CORE steel producers affiliated with U.S. operations today, and they account for a smaller share of U.S. capacity and 134 In the current review, *** Japanese respondents have an ownership interest in a domestic producer. CR/PR at Table CORE-I-12. While the current Japanese affiliations represent *** of U.S. production in 2005, the six Japanese producers with domestic producer affiliations in the first review accounted for *** of U.S. capacity in 1999. CR/PR at Table CORE-I-12; Japanese Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 90; Confidential Views of the Commission (First Review) at 77. 135 Japanese Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 10-12. 136 The Japanese customs evidence was provided by Nucor/SDI. See Nucor/SDI’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commission Questions at 22. Japanese respondents acknowledged CORE steel exports to Mexico, but did not provide specifically requested export data regarding Mexico and did not refute the Japanese customs evidence provided by Nucor/SDI. See Japanese Posthearing Brief at Tab E. 137 Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review investigation. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the magnitude of dumping to be used by the Commission in five-year review investigations as “the dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). In Commerce’s final five-year review determinations with respect to all subject countries, it (continued...) 161 production than in the first review.134 Thus, we do not agree with the Japanese respondents’ claim that their significant investments in U.S. affiliate CORE steel producers sufficiently distinguishes them from the producers in other subject countries, many of whom also have, or have plans to have, significant U.S. CORE steel investments. Second, the evidence shows that the Japanese industry’s production is not limited to specialty products but rather includes production of a broad range of CORE steel products which compete with other subject CORE steel. Finally, Japanese respondents (as did French respondents) urge the Commission to consider their exports to Canada after revocation of the Canadian order as a “model” of their likely trade patterns to the U.S. market if the orders were revoked.135 In doing so, Japanese respondents also fail to make mention of the substantial and increasing CORE steel exports from Japan to Mexico during the current review period. Japanese customs evidence shows Japanese exports to Mexico were large and increased substantially– increased from about 75,000 metric tons in 2000 to 186,412 metric tons in 2004, and were 125,780 metric tons in 2005 and 131,610 metric tons for the January-October 2006 period. 136 These exports demonstrate a continuing interest in serving and shipping to other North American markets in close proximity to the U.S. market rather than a commitment to have U.S. affiliates supply these North American markets. Moreover, as discussed above regarding no discernible adverse impact, the Japanese CORE steel industry has substantial and increasing excess capacity, produces CORE steel that is substitutable with the domestic product and other subject imports, and devotes considerable resources to export markets. We find that the evidence does not demonstrate any significant differences in conditions of competition between likely subject imports from Japan and subject CORE steel imports from other subject countries. We find that the record in these reviews does not indicate that there are likely to be any significant differences in conditions of competition between subject CORE steel imports from any of the six subject countries. Consequently, we exercise our discretion to cumulate subject imports from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea. II. REVOCATION OF THE ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS ON CORE STEEL FROM AUSTRALIA, CANADA, FRANCE, GERMANY, JAPAN, AND KOREA WOULD BE LIKELY TO LEAD TO CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY We applied the legal standards regarding the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic CORE steel industry as discussed in section III of the Commission’s Views above. 137 137 (...continued) assigned five-year review margins as follows: Australia, 24.96 percent; Canada, 11.71 to 22.70 percent; France, 29.41 percent; Germany, 10.02 percent; Japan, 36.41 percent; and Korea, 17.70 percent. CR/PR at Table CORE-I-7. Although the statute does not expressly define the “magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews, it states that “[t]he administering authority shall provide to the Commission the net countervailable subsidy that is likely to prevail if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.” 19 U.S.C. §1675a(b)(3). Commerce found likely subsidy rates as follows: France, 0.16 percent; and Korea, 1.15 percent. It revoked the countervailing duty order against CORE steel from Germany. CR/PR at Table CORE-I-8. In five-year reviews concerning countervailing duty orders the Commission is required to consider “information regarding the nature of the countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement.” 19 U.S.C. §1675a(b)(6). In its final determinations, Commerce described the various subsidy programs as follows: France. In its final determination in the review of the countervailing duty order, Commerce identified 9 programs which provided countervailable subsidies to French subject producers, none of which fell within the meaning of Article 3 the Subsidies Agreement. Korea. In its final determination in the review of the countervailing duty order, Commerce identified 11 programs which provided countervailable subsidies to Korean subject producers, 5 of which were found to be export subsidies as described in Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement. CR at OVERVIEW-16-17, nn.41 and 42; PR at OVERVIEW-14, nn.41 and 42. 138 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 139 USITC Pub. 3364 at 49-51. 162 A. Conditions of Competition In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the statute directs the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”138 In the first five-year reviews, the Commission found that supply and demand conditions as well as the business cycle for CORE steel had not changed significantly since the original investigations.139 The Commission noted the two processes for making CORE steel, hot-dipping and electrolytic galvanizing, and that demand depended on the level of demand in the principal end use markets, automotive and construction. It described demand for hot-dipped CORE steel as having grown significantly faster since the original investigations than demand for the electrogalvanized product. It also found that apparent U.S. consumption had increased since the original investigations. The Commission in the first reviews found subject imports and domestic product to be broadly interchangeable and price therefore an important factor in purchasing decisions. It further found that price competition had increased since the original investigations with the consolidation of purchasing power in the automobile industry, the reduced number of service centers, and the adoption and application of international standards. It found that pricing patterns had not changed significantly in recent years, with many purchasers reporting they changed suppliers only infrequently. Domestic producers reportedly sold their product both by contract and on the spot market and indicated that contracts gave them little protection given that purchasers requested price concessions when spot prices fell. As in the original investigations, domestic producers dominated the U.S. market for CORE steel during the first review period and had made significant investments since 1992 to add capacity and improve existing capacity. The Commission noted that CORE steel production was technologically complex and capital intensive, with high fixed costs, requiring high capacity utilization rates for domestic producers to stay profitable. It further noted the affiliations of the major Japanese producers with U.S. producers. While many of these conditions of competition are the same in the second reviews, there are some differences which we also find relevant to our determinations in these reviews. 140 CR at CORE-II-15; PR at CORE-II-10. Although the cost share of CORE steel varies greatly by end use, it can account for a relatively large percentage of the total cost of end use products. In vehicle parts for automobiles and light trucks, it can be 50 to 85 percent even though it accounts for only 1.4 to 5 percent of the total cost of the vehicle. In certain construction components, such as metal studs, steel decks, and metal roofs, CORE steel accounts for 70 to 100 percent of the total cost. CR at CORE-II-19; PR at CORE-II-21. 141 CR/PR at Table CORE-II-3 (American Iron & Steel Institute data), as revised by Memorandum INV-DD-164 (Dec. 13, 2006). Based on Commission questionnaire responses, U.S. producers reported in 2005 that 35.6 percent of their total shipments were directly to automotive end users, 24.0 percent directly to construction end users, 9.4 percent to other end users, and 31.0 percent to steel service centers and distributors. CR/PR at Tables CORE-I-11 and II-1. 142 CR at CORE-II-17. 143 CR/PR at Tables CORE-I-17 and C-7. While apparent U.S. consumption was 14.6 percent higher in January- June 2006 compared with January-June 2005, we note that there have been substantial fluctuations in apparent U.S. consumption in recent years; apparent U.S. consumption increased by 15.3 percent from 2003 to 2004, but declined by 9.3 percent from 2004 to 2005. Id. 144 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 145 CR at CORE-II-14 and II-15, and notes 24-28; PR at CORE-II-9 and II-10, and notes 24-28. See Auto Producers’ Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commission Questions at 6-12 (GM Projection at 9 and CSM Global Production – North America at 11); see also Nucor/SDI’s Prehearing Brief, Exhibit 14 at Exhibit 1 (Ward’s US Light Vehicle Production); U.S. Steel’s Prehearing Brief at Exhibit 37; Japanese Respondents’ Prehearing Brief, Volume 2, Exhibit 9 at 6. 146 See CR at CORE-II-14 and II-15, and notes 24-28; PR at CORE-II-9 and II-10, and notes 24-28. The parties disagreed about how to characterize the demand forecasts, but the evidence that they provided was similar. While the “Auto Producers project that domestic demand for CORE will continue to be ‘robust,’” we note that the evidence they provided showed declines in automobile production in 2006, and flat demand in 2007. Specifically, the Auto Producers recognized these similarities in stating: In the near term, these data [GM projections] demonstrate that North American vehicle production will (continued...) 163 1. Demand Demand for CORE steel continues to be dependent on the demand in its end use sectors, primarily automotive manufacturing and construction, although it is also used in home appliances, HVAC components, and battery cans and components. 140 In the current reviews, the automotive sector accounted for 47.6 percent of domestic CORE steel shipments in 2005, with 25.8 percent to steel service centers and distributors, 18.8 percent to the construction sector, 3.6 percent to appliances/utensils/cutlery, and 4.2 percent to other sectors. 141 There are different business cycles for the different end user industries, and the evidence is mixed on whether there is a distinctive business cycle for CORE steel, with the majority of purchasers reporting there is not a distinctive business cycle and the majority of producers reporting there is. 142 Apparent U.S. consumption of CORE steel, which fluctuated from year to year over the 2000- 2005 period, only increased by 3.4 percent from 21.9 million short tons in 2000 to 22.7 million short tons in 2005. 143 In contrast, the increase in apparent U.S. consumption was higher in the original investigations – 6.0 percent from 1990 to 1992 – and substantially higher in the first reviews – 12.1 percent from 1997 to 1999. 144 Demand for CORE steel, based on projections for end use demand, is expected to remain flat or increase at a slower rate in the reasonably foreseeable future than over the current review period.145 For example, the record evidence shows that North American automobile production is expected to decline in 2006, based on announced cuts in automobile production by General Motors, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler, stabilize or level off in 2007 and not increase until 2008 or 2009, depending on the forecast considered.146 146 (...continued) decline slightly in 2006, stabilize in 2007 and 2008, and then begin to increase significantly starting in 2009. Similarly, Ward’s and Automotive News (another highly reliable industry publication) predict a small decrease in U.S. vehicle production in 2006, a leveling off in 2007, and then increases from 2008 through 2010. Auto Producers’ Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commission Questions at 10; see also Nucor/SDI’s Prehearing Brief, Exhibit 14 at Exhibit 1 (Ward’s US Light Vehicle Production); U.S. Steel’s Prehearing Brief at Exhibit 37; Japanese Respondents’ Prehearing Brief, Volume 2, Exhibit 9 at 6. 147 Domestic producers argue that a shift in demand from SUVs and light trucks to smaller passenger cars will result in less CORE steel per car. See U.S. Steel’s Posthearing Brief at Exhibit B, and Answers to Commission Questions at 7 (“U.S. Steel estimates that the average SUV contains *** pounds of corrosion-resistant steel, while the average small car contains only *** pounds of corrosion-resistant steel. In other words, small cars generally use *** less corrosion-resistant steel than SUVs. As these figures show, any major shift in production from SUVs to smaller, more fuel-efficient automobiles could have a *** impact on demand for corrosion-resistant steel.”); Mittal’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commission Questions at Koplan-12-15 (“the amount of CORE used in the average passenger car is likely to be 470 pounds less than the CORE content of the average SUV or light truck. Thus, for each reduction in SUV and light truck production of 1,000 vehicles, an additional 1,374 passenger cars would need to be produced to maintain CORE demand at a steady volume. . . . [for example, the] increasingly popular Civic model requires only 53 to 57 percent of the CORE needed to construct the heavier Pilot model, meaning that nearly two Civics need to be built to create the same demand for CORE generated by one Pilot vehicle.”); Nucor/SDI’s Prehearing Brief at Exhibit 14. According to respondents, a “possible ‘modest’ shift in consumer demand for smaller automobiles is not going to result in a decrease in the amount of CORE used to produce the average vehicle.” See Canadian Respondents’ Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commission Questions at 44 (“As smaller cross-over utility vehicles (‘CUV’) gain in popularity and take market share from larger sport utility vehicles (‘SUV’), the demand for CORE may increase as the typical CUV is a unibody vehicle in which the frame uses relatively more CORE than the average SUV.”); Auto Producers’ Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commission Questions at 18-23. 148 CR at CORE-II-14, n. 24; PR at CORE-II-9, n. 24. 149 CR at CORE-II-14 and n. 24; PR at CORE-II-9 and n. 24. 150 CR at CORE-II-5 and n.5; PR at CORE-II-4 and n.5. 151 CR at CORE-II-4-6; PR at CORE-II-3-5. 152 Electrogalvanized CORE steel almost exclusively is shipped to automotive end users, who also receive about 40 percent of shipments of hot-dipped CORE steel. All domestic production capacity added over the current review period was for hot-dipped CORE steel, which increased from 19.1 million short tons in 2000 to 20.1 million short tons in 2005, whereas electrogalvanized capacity decreased from 4.4 million short tons to 3.4 million short tons, and other capacity also decreased from 2.9 million short tons to 2.7 million short tons over the same period. CR/PR at (continued...) 164 The evidence on the record is mixed as to whether a shift in production from SUVs and light trucks to smaller passenger cars will result in less CORE steel per car.147 Thus, any increases in CORE steel consumption due to increases in production of smaller vehicles is generally offset by declines in CORE steel consumption due to decreases in SUV production. North American heavy truck production is expected to decline in 2007. 148 In addition, demand in the residential construction sector showed signs of weakening at the end of the period and into 2007, which likely will reduce demand for HVAC components and appliances; non-residential construction is expected to remain strong into 2007.149 Continuing the trend developing during the first reviews, demand for hot-dipped galvanized CORE steel grew while demand for electrogalvanized CORE steel declined. Electrogalvanized CORE steel reportedly is more costly to produce in part due to zinc and energy costs.150 The shift can be attributed to costs as well as recent technological changes that have encouraged automakers to use the less costly hot-dipped steel in place of electrogalvanized for exposed auto parts.151 While the shift has meant that new capacity is hot-dip CORE steel and that some electrogalvanized has been phased out, 152 there 152 (...continued) Table CORE-III-3. 153 See e.g., U.S. Steel’s Posthearing Brief at 5, n. 19 and Exhibit B at paras. 12-16; Tr. at 195-196 and 535-536 (Mr. Cover: “There is no swing in mix from electrogalvanized to hot-dipped, and the reason is a technical reason. GM is the largest consumer of electrogalvanized steel in the country, and the design specifications for our use of that product are stable. There are four other companies in the United States that also produce their vehicles with electrogalvanized steel. Those are Ford, Chrysler, BMW and Mercedes Benz. . . .To move from one product to another is technically infeasible in a short time for lots of manufactureability and product validation reasons, so to my knowledge, and it’s certainly true of GM, there is no intentional design shift to move the materials of construction from electrogalvnized to galvaneal.”). 154 See CR at CORE-III-4-6 and Table CORE-III-3; PR at CORE-III-4 and Table CORE-III-3. The consolidations have included: ISG acquired all of LTV’s assets in 2002, the assets of Bethlehem Steel in 2003, and Weirton Steel’s assets in 2004; in 2003, U.S. Steel bought the steel-making assets of National Steel; in 2004, Severstal purchased the assets of Rouge Steel; in 2005, Mittal acquired ISG, including CORE steel production facilities previously owned by LTV Steel, Bethlehem Steel, Weirton Steel, and Ispat Inland. CR/PR at Tables CORE-I-12 and III-1. 155 The seven largest CORE steel producers accounted for *** of CORE steel production in 2005 as follows: ***. CR/PR at Table CORE-I-12. In 2005, the top four domestic mills accounted for *** of U.S. CORE steel production, as compared to *** in 1999. CR/PR at Table CORE-I-12. 156 CR at CORE-I-23; PR at CORE-I-19; Confidential Views of the Commission (First Review) at 77. 157 We recognize that during the current review period the restructuring of the U.S. CORE steel industry may have been facilitated in part by global safeguards on a variety of steel products, including CORE steel, from March 20, 2002, through December 4, 2003. The safeguard tariff was 30 percent ad valorem for the first year of relief and 24 percent ad valorem starting on March 20, 2003. CR at OVERVIEW-12-15; PR at OVERVIEW-10-11. 158 Fixed costs, or “other factory costs,” as a ratio to net sales, decreased from 41.4 percent in 2000 to 28.0 percent in 2005. CR/PR at Table CORE-III-9. Productivity increased by 66.1 percent over the current period. CR/PR at Table C-7. 159 CR/PR at Tables CORE-I-1 and C-7. While the industry had excess capacity for both hot-dipped and electrogalvanized product, its capacity utilization rate was generally higher for hot-dipped production: hot-dipped capacity utilization was at 80.2 percent in 2005 as compared to 74.8 percent in 2005 for electrogalvanized capacity utilization. CR/PR at Table CORE-III-3. 160 CR at CORE-III-7; PR at CORE-III-5. 165 still is demand for electrogalvanized, particularly by certain auto producers that have not changed their requirements and/or designs. 153 2. Supply Since the first reviews, there have been a number of mergers and a restructuring of the domestic CORE steel industry.154 However, while the domestic CORE steel industry has become somewhat more concentrated,155 the number of domestic CORE steel producers has remained about the same – in the original investigations, 23 firms produced CORE steel; in the first reviews, 20 firms produced CORE steel; and in these reviews, 23 firms produced CORE steel.156 During the process of consolidation and restructuring,157 domestic producers have been able to reduce their fixed costs, and increase their productivity.158 Nevertheless, CORE steel production still is technologically complex, involves high fixed costs, is capital intensive in nature, and requires high capacity utilization rates to remain profitable. In spite of the consolidation and restructuring, the domestic industry’s overall production capacity remained relatively steady during the current review period, and its capacity utilization hovered around 80 percent, down from 87.3 percent in 1999.159 Most domestic producers do not produce other products on the same equipment or with the same employees. 160 161 USITC Pub. 3364 at 55. 162 CR at CORE-III-5-6 and Table CORE-III-3; PR at CORE-III-4-5 and Table CORE-III-3. In line with plans to upgrade and add this capacity, the industry’s capital expenditures were $428,147,000 in 2005, increasing from $295,331,000 in 2000, and research and development expenses increased to $34,022,000 in 2005, from $15,950,000 in 2000. CR/PR at Table CORE-III-12. 163 CR at CORE-III-4-7 and Table CORE-III-1; PR at CORE-III-4 and Table CORE-III-1. 164 Twelve of 17 responding producers reported selling at least 95 percent of their CORE steel produced to order and 18 of 20 responding importers reported selling 75 percent of their CORE steel produced to order. CR at CORE- II-29; PR at CORE-II-21. 165 CR/PR at Figure CORE-III-1. Service center inventory data, however, are for all steel sheet and are not limited to CORE steel product. 166 Eleven of 17 producers responding to the Commission’s questionnaires and 8 of 26 responding importers reported that they had refused, declined or been unable to supply CORE steel at certain times since 2000. CR/PR at CORE-II-5. 167 CR at CORE-II-4-6; PR at CORE-II-4. The domestic producers maintain that in 2004 their ability to supply CORE steel may have been constrained to some extent by raw material shortages but there is currently no short supply. In addition, they assert that some shortages alleged by purchasers were not real shortages but resulted from consumers wanting quantities in excess of contract volumes at low contract prices, or from automakers switching the grades they wanted on very short notice. See e.g., U.S. Steel’s Posthearing Brief at 4 and 6-8. 168 CR at CORE-II-4 - II-5 and CORE-III-14; PR at CORE-II-3 - II-5 and CORE-III-11. When the collective bargaining agreement between AK Steel and its union expired on March 1, 2006, AK Steel locked out its union workers and began operating its Middletown Works facility using salaried and replacement workers. Negotiations have continued. CR at CORE-III-14 and n. 27; PR at CORE-III-11 and n. 27. 169 CR/PR at Tables CORE-I-1 and C-7. 166 In the first reviews, as the orders had a positive effect on the domestic CORE steel producers’ performance, they were able to make significant investments to add capacity and improve existing capacity for a net increase of 6.7 million short tons from 1992 to 1999. 161 In the second reviews, while overall domestic CORE steel capacity remained flat from 2000 to 2005, a number of investments were undertaken in 2005 and 2006, which will add 1.9 million short tons of CORE steel capacity by 2008.162 Specifically, the additional capacity includes: Winner Steel added 700,000 tons of hot-dip galvanized and galannealed steel in 2006; SeverCorr began construction in 2005 on a new mill which is expected to start production in 2007 and reach full capacity in 2008 with 400,000 tons devoted to hot-dip galvanized and galannealed steel production; Mittal plans to bring on line 700,000 tons of hot-dipped galvanizing capability by the end of the first quarter of 2007 and will shut down about 410,000 tons of other hot-dip and aluminizing capacity, for a net increase in CORE steel capacity of 290,000 tons; and Nucor announced plans to add 500,000 short tons of hot-dipped galvanized capacity.163 The majority of CORE steel sold by both domestic producers and importers is made to order, but a significant minority is sold from inventory.164 By the end of the review period, service center inventories were relatively high. After a correction in 2005 they began rising again.165 Purchasers reported periodic shortages during the second review, mostly in 2004 and early 2005, when demand and prices peaked.166 The reported shortages were in the form of allocations, controlled order entries, and attempts to obtain supply quantities in excess of those specified in their contracts, all of which forced some purchasers into the spot market.167 Some of the shortages can be attributed to unplanned outages at certain domestic facilities and labor disputes at AK Steel.168 The percentage of apparent U.S. consumption supplied by the domestic CORE steel industry declined during the second review, from 92.6 percent in 2000 to 88.4 percent in 2005.169 Imports from subject sources increased their presence in the U.S. market during the second review, as discussed 170 CR/PR at Tables CORE-I-1 and C-7. 171 CR/PR at Table C-7. 172 CR/PR at Table CORE-IV-2. In 2005, the largest sources of non-subject imports were: India, Taiwan, Mexico, Brazil, and China. Imports from China were 148,000 short tons in 2005 (less than one percent of apparent U.S. consumption), but were higher in interim 2006, at 292,426 short tons. 173 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-63 and IV-64. The evidence demonstrates that production in East and Southeast Asia resulted in that region being a net exporter of about *** tons of coated steel sheet in 2005 and that the region is expected to continue to be a net exporter, increasing to about *** tons in 2007. Id. at Tables CORE-IV-63, IV-64, IV-66, and IV-67. 174 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-64 and IV-67. 175 USITC Pub. 3364 at 51. 176 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-12. 177 CR at CORE-II-24-27; PR at CORE-II-20-21. 178 CR at CORE-V-11; PR at CORE-V-9; U.S. Steel’s Posthearing Brief at 12-14; Mittal’s Posthearing Brief at 4- 5; Nucor/SDI’s Prehearing Brief at 50-51. 179 CR/PR at CORE-V-2. 167 below. 170 Non-subject imports as a share of apparent U.S. consumption rose irregularly during the current review, and were the highest in 2004 at 9.7 percent, when demand and prices were peaking.171 Non- subject imports then declined in 2005.172 Global production capacity also increased during the second review and is expected to continue increasing in the near future in both the subject countries and non-subject countries, including China, other Asian countries, the EU, Turkey and Russia.173 Although China has been and is expected to remain a net importer of CORE steel for the foreseeable future, the substantial increase in Chinese capacity will likely slow imports into China of CORE steel.174 In the original investigations and the first reviews, each of the six major Japanese CORE steel producers owned or was affiliated with a domestic producer.175 During the current review period, *** Japanese respondents, *** Korean producer and *** German producer are affiliated with domestic producers. 176 Moreover, if the proposed Arcelor/Mittal merger is finalized, Canadian, French and more German producers also will have affiliations with domestic producers. 3. Substitutability Domestic and imported CORE steel, both subject and non-subject, is used in the same applications. The majority of purchasers reported that the domestic product is comparable or superior to subject imports from each country in every category.177 Given the broad interchangeability of CORE steel, price continues to be an important factor in purchasing decisions, as it was in the original investigations and first reviews. As discussed below, domestic CORE steel is sold both by contract and on the spot market with little protection from contracts since price concessions are requested by purchasers if spot prices decline. 178 4. Raw Material/Energy Costs Over the second review period, particularly in the latter half, the U.S. CORE steel industry’s raw material and energy costs increased substantially and are forecast to remain at high levels for the foreseeable future.179 For example, the world price of zinc, a primary coating material in the production of CORE steel, has risen from $800 per metric ton in October 2003 to a high of $3,600 per metric ton in 180 CR at CORE-IV-104 and Figures CORE-V-1 and V-2; PR at CORE-IV-38 and Figures CORE-V-1 and V-2. 181 CR/PR at CORE-V-1. For example, natural gas prices increased from $4.45 per thousand cubic feet in 2000 to $8.21 per thousand cubic feet in 2006, and electricity prices increased from $4.64 per kilowatt-hour in 2000 to $5.93 per kilowatt-hour in 2006. Id. 182 CR/PR at CORE-V-3. 183 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2). 184 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D). 185 USITC Pub. 3364 at 51-52. 186 USITC Pub. 3364 at 52-53. 187 CR/PR at Table C-7. In the first reviews, apparent U.S. consumption increased by 12.1 percent from 1997 to 1999, while cumulated subject imports increased by about 40 percent for the same period. CR/PR at Table CORE-I- 1. 188 CR/PR at Table C-7. 168 May 2006 and was $3,300 per metric ton in August 2006.180 Energy costs also have increased substantially from 2000 to 2005.181 Both producers and importers reported that raw material price increases have had a dramatic effect on CORE steel prices, especially since 2004.182 B. Likely Volume of Subject Imports In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review are revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.183 In doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories; (3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products. 184 In the original determinations, the Commission found that the cumulated subject imports decreased slightly from 1990 to 1991, and then increased sharply to 1.9 million short tons in 1992, along with a significant increase in market share during the same period.185 In the first reviews, the Commission noted that the volumes of subject imports fell substantially after the orders were issued and had been at levels significantly below the pre-order levels during the review period. It found the volume of cumulated subject imports likely to be significant upon revocation based on: total production capacity in the subject countries that exceeded apparent U.S. consumption in 1999; additional non-subject capacity that could be shifted to produce the subject product; substantial excess capacity in the subject countries and the incentive to maximize and sustain the utilization of available capacity given the producers’ high fixed costs; and subject producers’ reliance on export markets.186 Several factors in the current five-reviews, similar to the first reviews, support the conclusion that the likely volume of subject imports would be significant if the orders were revoked. First, even with the discipline of the orders in place, increases of cumulated subject imports of CORE steel substantially outpaced increases in consumption during the review period. While apparent U.S. consumption increased by 3.4 percent from 2000 to 2005, cumulated subject imports increased by 36.6 percent, from 711,842 short tons in 2000 to 972,681 short tons in 2005. 187 Cumulated subject imports were 14.1 percent higher in the January-June 2006 period compared with the January-June 2005 period. 188 The market penetration of cumulated subject imports increased as the domestic industry’s share of the U.S. market declined from 189 CR/PR at Table C-7. 190 Calculated from CR/PR at Table C-7. Despite increases in apparent U.S. consumption during the current review period, domestic CORE steel production declined by 1.5 percent from 2000 to 2005. Id. 191 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-12, IV-20, IV-29, IV-38, IV-47, and IV-56. During the period of review, the CORE steel production capacity in all subject countries has increased. See our analysis for each individual subject country in the no discernible adverse impact section of our opinion above. 192 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-12, IV-20, IV-29, IV-38, IV-47, IV-56 and C-7. 193 Calculated from CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-20, IV-24, IV-29, IV-33, IV-38, IV-42, IV-47, IV-51, IV-56, and IV-60. 194 Calculated from CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-12, IV-20, IV-29, IV-38, IV-47, and IV-56. 195 See USITC Pub. 2664 at 19; USITC Pub. 3364 at 52; Mittal’s Prehearing Brief at 25-26; Nucor/SDI’s Prehearing Brief at 6-7; Tr. at 530. 196 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-12, IV-20, IV-29, IV-38, IV-47, and IV-56. 197 CR/PR at Tables CORE-IV-12 (Australia, exports as a share of total shipments ranged from ***), IV-20 (Canada, ranged from ***), IV-29 (France, ranged from ***), IV-38 (Germany, ranged from ***), IV-47 (Japan, ranged from ***), and IV-56 (Korea, ranged from 29.2 percent to 33.6 percent). 198 CR at CORE-IV-30, IV-41, IV-54, IV-68, IV-81 and Table CORE-I-1; PR at CORE-IV-14, IV-17, IV-20, IV- 24, IV-29 and Table CORE-I-1; Nucor/SDI’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commission Questions at 22. 199 Respondents argue that their investments and affiliations with domestic producers provide a disincentive to their increasing export shipments to the U.S. market that would harm their U.S. affiliates. See e.g., French Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 13 and 14; German Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 12-14; Japanese Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 13 and Attachment C; Korean Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 11-12 and Answers to Commission Questions at 2-5. We note that the presence of U.S. affiliates of Japanese and Korean producers during the original investigations did not prevent substantial volumes of imports from Japan and Korea from entering the U.S. market, and together with the other subject imports, causing injury to the domestic industry, (continued...) 169 2000 to 2005. 189 Cumulated subject imports also increased relative to U.S. production during the current review period.190 Second, there is considerable and increasing capacity to produce CORE steel in the subject countries. CORE steel production capacity in the subject countries increased by 10.4 percent from 2000 to 2005. 191 It was 37.7 million short tons in 2005, equivalent to 166 percent of apparent U.S. consumption.192 The total subject country production capacity is even more significant considering that additional capacity of 7.1 million short tons currently used to produce non-subject corrosion-resistant steel (such as micro-alloy) could be shifted to production of the subject merchandise.193 In spite of the relatively high capacity utilization rates reported by all responding subject producers, there is substantial and increasing excess capacity in the subject countries. In 2005, excess CORE steel capacity was 3.4 million short tons, equivalent to 15.1 percent of apparent U.S. consumption. Moreover, total excess capacity in the subject countries increased by 18.7 percent from 2000 to 2005.194 Given the high fixed costs associated with CORE steel production, there continues to be an incentive to maximize and sustain the utilization of available capacity.195 Furthermore, subject CORE steel producers held substantial inventories of subject product, almost 2 million short tons in 2005.196 Finally, as evident in the original investigations and first reviews, producers in all subject countries continue to rely heavily on their export markets. In 2005, total cumulated export shipments accounted for 30.3 percent of total cumulated shipments, with individual countries’ devotion of resources to exports ranging from *** percent to *** percent of their total shipments.197 Exports from subject countries have increased to the U.S. market, notwithstanding the discipline of the orders, and to other North American markets (Canada and Mexico) during the period of these reviews.198 This evidence demonstrates that producers in subject countries have an interest in the U.S. market and established distribution channels to readily divert additional shipments to this market if the orders were revoked.199 199 (...continued) as a whole. Moreover, in the case of the Korean producers, such an affiliation did not preclude substantial increases in subject Korean imports during the current review. In addition, we recognize the intentions, as discussed above, regarding any affiliations with French and German producers resulting from the proposed Arcelor and Mittal merger, but note that these have not been finalized. 200 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely on circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAA at 886. 201 USITC Pub. 3364 at 54. 202 USITC Pub. 3364 at 54. 203 CR at CORE II-21-24 and Tables CORE-II-5-6; PR at CORE II-13-14 and Tables CORE-II-5-6. 204 CR at CORE II-21-24 and Tables CORE-II-5-6; PR at CORE II-13-14 and Tables CORE-II-5-6. 205 CR/PR at Table CORE-II-5. 206 CR/PR at Table CORE-II-6. 170 Given the subject producers’ reliance on export markets, their substantial and increasing excess capacity, taken together with the incentive to maximize production, and their continued and increasing presence in the U.S. market, we find that they likely will export significant and increasing volumes of CORE steel to the U.S. market upon revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. Thus, we find that the volume of cumulated subject imports likely would be significant if the orders were revoked. C. Likely Price Effects In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders under review are revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of the domestic like product. 200 In the original investigations, the Commission found that price was an important factor for purchasers. It also found price suppression and/or depression based on import prices that were falling at a greater rate than domestic prices, together with increased import volumes and confirmed lost sales and lost revenue allegations.201 In the first reviews the Commission found that the increased sales of subject imports would likely be achieved by aggressive pricing, which would result in significant effects on domestic prices. It noted that while contracts provide some measure of insulation from spot market price fluctuations, prices in the spot market could affect prices in the domestic industry’s contract business. 202 In considering the likely price effects of subject imports in these reviews if the orders were revoked, we recognize that domestically produced CORE steel and subject imports are used in the same applications, and are considered interchangeable and comparable.203 Moreover, the general importance of price in purchasing decisions has not changed since the time of the original investigations and first five- year reviews. 204 The record in these reviews indicates that price is the factor most frequently cited by U.S. purchasers as the number one factor in their purchasing decisions, with quality the second most frequently cited factor.205 Price also was a factor repeatedly cited by purchasers as a “very important” factor in purchasing decisions; the only factor that purchasers cited as frequently was “availability.”206 Moreover, the evidence shows that the domestic product and subject imports overwhelming compete in the same markets, specifically the automotive and construction industry markets. In light of the high degree of interchangeability and comparable quality, price will be the principal factor influencing purchasing decisions absent the orders. Thus, sustained underselling by even a relatively small amount of subject imports is likely to have significant price-suppressing or -depressing effects. 207 CR at CORE-V-9; PR at CORE-V-8. 208 Eight of 20 U.S. producers reported that 85 percent or more of their sales are on a spot basis, while six producers (***) reported that 60 percent or more of their sales are on a long-term contract basis. CR at CORE-V-10; PR at CORE-V-8. 209 CR at CORE-V-10, n.15; PR at CORE-V-8-9, n.15. 210 CR at CORE-V-9, n.14; PR at CORE-V-8, n.14. 211 CR at CORE-V-11; PR at CORE-V-9. 212 Nucor/SDI’s Prehearing Brief at 50-51; Auto Producers’ Prehearing Brief at 27-31. 213 CR at V-3, nn.6 and 7, and V-10, n.16; PR at V-3, nn.6 and 7, and V-9, n.16. According to domestic producers, even when sales are under contract, if spot prices fall, purchasers do not hesitate to request price concessions under the contracts. Conversely, when prices and costs rise, the domestic producers are locked into below-market prices under the contracts. Nucor/SDI’s Prehearing Brief at 50-51; U.S. Steel’s Posthearing Brief at 12-14; Mittal’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commission Questions at Koplan-4-5. Respondents assert that the U.S. industry is unwilling to commit to longer-term contracts because they believe prices will climb even higher than they did during the review period, and they have forced automakers to accept volume limitations in their contracts. Auto Producers’ Prehearing Brief at 27-31. 214 CR at CORE-V-35 and Figures CORE-V-4 to V-11; PR at CORE-V-16 and Figures CORE-V-4 to V-11. The prices of products 5, 7, and 8 (according to Mittal, products 5-8 are higher valued products for the automotive sector) showed little change over the period for contract sales, while prices of non-contract sales increased over the period for products 5 and 7. With the exception of products 5, 7, and 8, contract and non-contract prices generally followed the same trend. Prices of imports of products 2 and 6 from Korea, product 6 from Germany, and products 7 and 8 from Canada followed the general U.S. price trend. CR at CORE-V-35 and n. 23; PR at CORE-V-16 and n. 23. 215 CR at CORE-V-1, V-3, V-35 and Figures CORE-V-1, V-2, and V-4 to V-11; PR at CORE-V-1, V-3, V-16 and Figures CORE-V-1, V-2, and V-4 to V-11. 216 CR at CORE-V-17; PR at CORE-V-11. 171 Purchasers buy CORE steel frequently, often daily or weekly; some buy the product consistently over the course of a year, and others experience seasonal peaks in their purchasing. Producers generally reported determining prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis, based on market conditions and raw material costs.207 A portion of domestic producers’ sales are by long-term contracts, but several producers make the majority of their sales on the spot market.208 Automotive and appliance end users tend to favor longer- term contracts, whereas the construction industry is more short-term and project-based.209 Auto producers reported that they generally enter into contracts with individual producers to supply steel for certain auto parts and that the life of the vehicles is multiple years. 210 Long-term contracts generally fix either price only or both price and quantity and have no meet-or-release provisions.211 Both domestic producers and respondents seemed to agree that toward the end of the current review period long-term contracts were becoming shorter ***.212 Whereas in the first reviews the Commission found that contracts provided some measure of insulation, the evidence in the current reviews shows that contracts, particularly long- term contracts that do not provide for adjustments based on increases in raw material and energy costs, have been less advantageous for CORE producers than the spot market. 213 Pricing trends over the current period of review differ among the several products. Commission pricing data generally showed relatively little change for U.S. prices from 2000 through 2003 with increases in 2004 that leveled off or declined slightly in late 2004 or early 2005 and increases for some products in the first half of 2006.214 While in general prices were somewhat higher at the end of the period of review than in 2000, both producers and importers reported that increases in raw material costs had a dramatic effect on CORE steel prices, particularly since 2004.215 The pricing data also show a mixture of underselling and overselling by subject imports even with the orders in place.216 Because price is important to purchasing decisions, the presence of significant quantities of CORE steel imports that are likely to enter the United States after revocation of the orders will force 217 Tr. at 421-422; see also Tr. at 455-456 (Mr. Cover: “we can’t make a supplier do anything that they don’t want to do. Only competition or competitive pressure can do that. So revocation of the orders would allow us to invite proposals from the subject countries. It would allow us to start the validation process. It would allow us and the domestic industry to observe the level of interest and energy that those countries would put into winning our business. I think for those reasons the appearance and the reality of competitive pressure would create more flexibility for us in the domestic supply base and make it a more balanced engagement when we do negotiate each year price and volume.”). 218 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 219 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 220 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked, the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at 885. 221 USITC Pub. 3364 at 55. 172 domestic CORE steel producers to either lower prices or lose sales. In fact, the Auto Producers explicitly testified at the Commission’s hearing that the mere threat of competition from subject imports is likely to drive prices down in the U.S. market, if the orders are revoked. For example, General Motor’s economist stated, “We think if you revoke the industry will know that the domestic buyers have an alternative and therefore will be much more willing to sit down in a partnership with us and supply this field we need at globally competitive prices. . . . We have qualified suppliers around the world. . . . But we believe that the threat of potential competition, the alternative is what will drive the domestic steel industry to behave competitively in negotiations, in the supply terms, with the domestic manufacturers.”217 For the foregoing reasons, we find that the significant likely volume of subject imports is likely to significantly undersell and have significant price depressing or suppressing effects on the prices of the domestic product, if the orders are revoked. D. Likely Impact of Subject Imports In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under review are revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to: (1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product. 218 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry.219 As instructed by the statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related to the orders at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked.220 In the original investigations, the Commission found that the increased volume of lower priced subject imports and their significant market share depressed prices and caused the U.S. industry to suffer lost market share, reduced capacity utilization, and growing financial losses despite increasing apparent consumption. The industry’s capital expenditures and research and development expenses also declined, especially during the latter part of the period examined.221 In the first reviews, the Commission found that the orders had a positive effect on the domestic industry’s performance, its operating margin was higher at the beginning of the review period than during the original investigations, and its capital expenditures and research and development expenses had increased. Nevertheless, it found the industry vulnerable, based on declines in operating income, 222 USITC Pub. 3364 at 55-57. 223 CR/PR at Table C-7. 224 CR/PR at Table C-7. 225 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 226 CR/PR at Table C-7. Imports of CORE steel from nonsubject sources also increased their presence in the U.S. market during the review period. Id. 227 CR/PR at Table C-7. 228 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. The Commission found the industry vulnerable in the first reviews where operating margins declined from 10.5 percent in 1997 to 5.9 percent in 1999. Id. 229 CR/PR at Table CORE-I-1. 230 CR/PR at Table CORE-III-9. 173 operating margins, capacity utilization levels, and unit sales values. It found that the likely significant volumes of subject imports upon revocation would likely undersell the domestic product and suppress or depress U.S. prices, cause the domestic industry to lose market share and have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.222 The domestic CORE steel industry’s performance has been mixed during the current reviews. The domestic industry’s production and U.S. shipments have fluctuated from year to year and declined overall from 2000 to 2005 by 1.5 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively.223 These declines occurred while apparent U.S. consumption increased by 3.4 percent and cumulated subject imports increased by 36.6 percent. 224 Whereas in the first reviews, the domestic industry’s production and U.S. shipments increased from 1997 to 1999, by 13 percent and 10.9 percent, respectively, as apparent U.S. consumption also increased by 12.1 percent.225 During the current reviews, the domestic industry’s share of the U.S. market declined as the presence in the U.S market of the cumulated subject imports increased.226 Capacity utilization fluctuated from year to year but hovered about 80 percent through the review period, down from 87.3 percent in 1999 at the end of the first reviews. 227 The domestic industry’s financial performance at the beginning of the current reviews was lower than that in the first reviews and similar to its performance during the original investigations. In the first reviews, the domestic CORE steel industry appeared to have positively benefitted from the orders, at least initially, with declines in financial performance at the end of the first review period. That weakening financial performance worsened from 2000 to 2003 at the beginning of the second reviews. Operating margins fluctuated between low income margins and losses from 2000 to 2003 (1.4 percent in 2000, -5.0 percent in 2001, -1.6 percent in 2002, and 0.7 percent in 2003), down from 5.9 percent at the end of the first review in 1999.228 The domestic industry’s performance improved substantially to 10.8 percent in 2004, as apparent U.S. consumption and domestic production increased and capacity utilization reached a period high of 85 percent. While this level of operating income might not suggest vulnerability, even for a high value-added product such as CORE steel, it was not sustained as the domestic industry’s operating income declined to 4.9 percent in 2005.229 Based on the record evidence in these reviews, we find that the domestic industry is currently vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked. There are a number of important factors underlying the financial performance of the CORE steel industry. First, the swings in the domestic industry’s financial performance correlate to the increases in cost of goods sold, particularly rising raw material and energy costs. As discussed above, raw material costs as a share of net sales increased from 42.1 percent in 2000 to 55.6 percent in 2005, as direct labor costs (11.3 percent to 7.9 percent) and other factory costs (41.4 percent to 28 percent) declined overall from 2000 to 2005.230 The evidence indicates that the automotive producers, which account for 47.6 percent of CORE steel shipments, have generally 231 CR/PR at CORE-V-3 and nn. 6 and 7. We recognize that some recently negotiated contracts for future CORE steel shipments to the automotive sector may contain such adjustment provisions for raw material and energy costs. CR/PR at CORE-V-3, n. 7; Auto Producers’ Prehearing Brief at 30 232 See e.g., Mittal’s Posthearing Brief, Answers to Commission Questions at Koplan-1-6; U.S. Steel’s Prehearing Brief at 81-82. 233 CR/PR at Tables CORE-I-12 and III-10 (net sales data); *** Producer Questionnaire at Question II-3; *** Producer Questionnaire at Question II-3; *** Producer Questionnaire at Question II-3. We recognize that ***, which accounts for *** of domestic production and sells about *** of its production to the automotive sector, had an operating margin of *** in 2005. However, *** has a niche market – the development and commercialization of *** to the auto producers. CR at CORE-III-5; PR at CORE-III-4. In contrast, the *** automotive U.S. CORE steel producer, ***, which sells about *** of its production to the automotive sector, had an operating margin of *** in 2005. 234 These projections were included in submissions that Commission staff requested from AK Steel, U.S. Steel, and Mittal. See AK Steel Supplemental Submission (December 4, 2006); U.S. Steel Supplemental Submission (November 16, 2006); and Mittal Supplemental Submission (November 22, 2006). We have considered the 2007 projections, particularly the projected operating income and margins, submitted by *** with caution because each includes assumptions regarding expenses or costs that raise questions about the accuracy of the projections. For example, *** 2007 projection does not include any expenses for ***. *** that zinc and other raw material and energy costs likely will continue to increase. 235 *** also provided a breakdown of its automotive sales by company – its operating margins on its sales to ***, which accounted for about *** of its automotive shipments, were *** in 2005 and *** in 2006; its operating margins on its sales to ***, which also accounted for *** of its automotive sales, were *** in 2005 and *** in 2006. It has mixed operating margins on automotive sales for the other ***. See AK Steel Supplemental Submission (December 4, 2006); U.S. Steel Supplemental Submission (November 16, 2006); and Mittal Supplemental Submission (November 22, 2006). 174 not agreed to contracts with adjustments for increases in raw material and energy costs.231 Thus, the domestic industry has been caught in a cost/price squeeze.232 As discussed above, the automotive producers explicitly indicated that if the orders were revoked that they would use the threat of competition from subject imports to ensure that the domestic CORE steel producers priced “competitively” and thus that this cost/price squeeze would continue. Second, the CORE steel producers with substantial shares of their shipments devoted to the automotive sector generally are experiencing worse financial performance than those not serving the automotive sector. For example, the largest three domestic CORE steel producers with substantial shipments to the automotive sector, and their share of production and operating margins: Share of U.S. production 233 Share of Sales to the Automotive Sector 2005 Operating Margin *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** In response to a request from the Commission, these domestic producers provided the Commission specific materials regarding their sales to the automotive industry which demonstrate the differences in financial performance regarding sales to the automotive industry. 234 For example, *** had a positive overall operating margin of *** in 2005. However, its operating margin in 2005 for its sales to the automotive industry, which accounted for *** of its total sales, was ***; in 2006, its automotive sales operating margin was ***.235 236 CR at CORE-III-5-6 and Table CORE-III-3; PR at CORE-III-4-5 and Table CORE-III-3. In line with plans to upgrade and add this capacity, the industry’s capital expenditures were $428,147,000 in 2005, increasing from $295,331,000 in 2000, and research and development expenses increased to $34,022,000 in 2005, from $15,950,000 in 2000. CR/PR at Table CORE-III-12. 175 As the domestic CORE steel industry experienced positive financial performance in 2004 and 2005, plans for a number of investments were announced in 2005 and 2006, which will add 1.9 million short tons of CORE steel capacity by 2008.236 However, these investments will provide for substantially less additional capacity than the 6.7 million short tons that the industry’s positive performance warranted undertaking in first review period. We have concluded that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders with respect to CORE steel from the six subject countries likely would lead to significant increases in the volume of subject imports in the reasonably foreseeable future. Such increases in subject import volumes will likely have the effect of exacerbating the declines in production, shipments, and market share, and the increases in the cost of goods sold that the domestic industry sustained during the current period of review. Additionally, because of the likely aggressive pricing of the subject imports, the domestic industry either will need to cut prices for the domestic like product or lose sales. Under either scenario, the domestic industry’s revenues will likely decline significantly in light of the anticipated volume of subject imports. This, in turn, will likely lead to declines in the industry’s operating performance. We consequently find that revocation of the orders under review will likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. We therefore determine that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CORE steel from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea will likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic CORE steel industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC PUB 3899-vol2 === Certain Carbon Steel Products From Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom Investigation Nos. AA1921-197 (Second Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review) VOLUME II: Information Obtained in the Reviews Publication 3899 January 2007 U.S. International Trade Commission Robert A. Rogowsky Director of Operations COMMISSIONERS Address all communications to Secretary to the Commission United States International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 Jennifer A. Hillman Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, Chairman Stephen Koplan Deanna Tanner Okun Charlotte R. Lane Staff assigned Elizabeth Haines, Investigator Michael Szustakowski, Investigator Kelly Clark, Economist Gerald Houck, Industry Analyst Heather Sykes, Industry Analyst Mary Klir, Accountant June Brown, Attorney David Fishberg, Attorney Mary Jane Alves, Attorney Gabriel Ellenberger, Research Assistant Steven Hudgens, Statistician Douglas E. Corkran, Supervisory Investigator U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 January 2007 www.usitc.gov Publication 3899 Certain Carbon Steel Products From Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom Investigation Nos. AA1921-197 (Second Review); 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review) VOLUME II: Information Obtained in the Reviews i CONTENTS Page Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Views of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Separate and Dissenting Views of Commissioner Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane with Respect to Certain Carbon Corrosion-Resistant Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Introduction and Overview Introduction and overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-1 The original investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-2 The Commission’s investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-2 Subsequent proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-4 The first reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-4 The Commission’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-4 Subsequent proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-5 Previous and related title VII investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-5 Previous and related safeguard investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-10 Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-12 Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-12 Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW-14 Cut-To-Length (CTL) Plate Part I: Introduction and Overview General information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-1 Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-6 Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-6 Results of expedited and full five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-12 Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-16 The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-17 Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-17 Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-18 The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-19 Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-19 Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-19 Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-21 Domestic like product issues concerning wide flat bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-22 Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-22 Interchangeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-23 Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-23 Common manufacturing facilities, employees, and processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-23 Producer and consumer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-24 Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-24 ii CONTENTS – Continued Page Part I: Introduction and overview – Continued Domestic like product issues concerning micro-alloy CTL plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-25 Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-25 Interchangeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-26 Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-27 Common manufacturing facilities, employees, and processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-27 Producer and consumer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-27 Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-28 U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-28 U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-28 U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-30 U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-32 Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-I-34 Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-1 U.S. channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-1 Supply and demand considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-3 U.S. supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-3 U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-9 Substitutability issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-13 Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-15 Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports . . . CTL-II-21 Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-28 U.S. supply elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-28 U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-28 Substitution elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-II-28 Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-3 Anticipated changes in existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-5 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-6 U.S. producers’ domestic shipments, company transfers, and export shipments . . . CTL-III-7 U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-9 U.S. producers’ imports and purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-10 U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-11 Financial experience of the\ U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-12 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-12 Operations on CTL plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-12 Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-15 Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-III-16 iii CONTENTS – Continued Page Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-1 Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-7 Fungibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-7 Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-8 Presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-10 U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-11 The industry in Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-11 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-11 CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-12 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-13 The industry in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-13 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-13 CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-14 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-15 The industry in Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-15 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-15 CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-16 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-17 The industry in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-17 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-17 CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-18 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-23 The industry in Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-24 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-24 CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-25 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-26 The industry in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-26 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-26 CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-27 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-29 The industry in Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-29 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-29 CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-30 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-31 The industry in Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-31 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-31 The industry in Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-32 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-32 The industry in Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-34 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-34 CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-35 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-36 The industry in the United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-36 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-36 CTL plate operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-37 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-39 iv CONTENTS – Continued Page Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries – Continued Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-39 Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-39 Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-40 Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-40 Additional global supply and demand factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-42 Consolidation among global producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-45 Global raw material availability and prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-45 Regional developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-IV-46 Part V: Pricing and related information Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-1 Raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-1 Transportation costs to the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-2 U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-3 Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-3 Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-9 Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-9 Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-10 Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-11 Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-15 Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CTL-V-16 v CONTENTS – Continued Page Corrosion-Resistant (CORE) Steel Part I: Introduction and overview General information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-1 Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-5 Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-5 Results of expedited and full five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-10 Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-12 The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-14 Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-14 Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-15 The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-15 Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-15 Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-16 Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-16 Domestic like product issues concerning micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel . . . . CORE-I-17 Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-17 Interchangeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-18 Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-18 Common manufacturing facilities, employees, and processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-18 Producer and consumer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-19 Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-19 U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-19 U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-19 U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-21 U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-23 Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-I-25 Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-1 U.S. channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-1 Supply and demand considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-3 U.S. supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-3 U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-9 Substitutability issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-13 Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-15 Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports . . . CORE-II-21 Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-25 U.S. supply elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-25 U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-25 Substitution elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-II-25 vi CONTENTS – Continued Page Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-2 Anticipated changes in existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-4 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-5 U.S. producers’ domestic shipments, company transfers, and export shipments . . . CORE-III-6 U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-9 U.S. producers’ imports and purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-10 U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-10 Financial experience of the U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-11 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-11 Operations on corrosion-resistant steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-12 Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-15 Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-III-16 Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-1 Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-4 Fungibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-5 Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-6 Presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-7 U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-8 The industry in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-9 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-9 Corrosion-resistant steel operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-9 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-11 The industry in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-11 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-11 Corrosion-resistant steel operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-12 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-14 The industry in France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-15 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-15 Corrosion-resistant steel operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-16 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-17 The industry in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-18 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-18 Corrosion-resistant steel operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-19 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-21 The industry in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-21 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-21 Corrosion-resistant steel operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-23 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-25 The industry in Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-25 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-25 Corrosion-resistant steel operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-26 Alternative products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-30 vii CONTENTS – Continued Page Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industries – Continued Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-32 Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-32 Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-31 Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-33 Additional global supply and demand factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-35 Consolidation among global producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-38 Global raw material availability and prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-38 Regional developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-IV-39 Part V: Pricing and related information Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-1 Raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-1 Transportation costs to the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-3 U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-4 Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-4 Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-8 Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-8 Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-8 Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-9 Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-16 Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CORE-V-17 Appendixes Appendixes A. Federal Register notices and statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 B. Hearing witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 C. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 D. Treatment of CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel in the HTSUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1 E. Excluded forms of carbon steel products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1 F. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers regarding flat bar and other forms of CTL plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1 G. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers regarding carbon and micro-alloy steel CTL plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1 H. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers regarding carbon and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1 I. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers regarding the effects of the orders on CTL plate and the likely effects of revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 J. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers regarding the effects of the orders on corrosion-resistant steel and the likely effects of revocation . . . J-1 K. Additional purchasing factor comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K-1 Note.–Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks. 1 The term “certain carbon steel products” includes cut-to-length (“CTL”) carbon steel plate (report pages marked “CTL” and referred to as “CTL plate”) and corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (report pages marked “CORE” and referred to as “corrosion-resistant steel”). 2 The Commission’s notice of institution, notice to conduct full reviews, scheduling notice, and statement on adequacy appear in app. A and may also be found on the Commission’s web site (www.usitc.gov). Commissioners’ votes on whether to conduct an expedited or full review may also be found at the web site. OVERVIEW-1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW BACKGROUND On November 1, 2005, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that it had instituted second reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain carbon steel products1 from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry. Effective February 6, 2006, the Commission determined that it would conduct full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. Table OVERVIEW-1 presents information relating to the background and schedule of these reviews. 2 Table OVERVIEW-1 Certain carbon steel products: Background information Effective date Action November 20, 2000 The Commission makes affirmative determinations in the first reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate and/or corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. The Commission makes negative determinations in the first reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Canada as well as the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on cold-rolled steel from Germany, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden (65 FR 75301, December 1, 2000). December 15, 2000 U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issues continuation orders following the first reviews (65 FR 78469) April 1, 2004 Commerce revokes Germany’s CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel countervailing duty orders (69 FR 17131) November 1, 2005 Commission’s institution of second reviews (70 FR 62324, October 31, 2005) February 6, 2006 Commission’s decision to conduct full reviews (71 FR 8874, February 21, 2006) March 8, 2006 Commerce’s final results of expedited reviews on antidumping duty orders on CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom (71 FR 11577) March 22, 2006 Commission’s scheduling of the reviews (71 FR 16178, March 30, 2006) June 6, 2006 Commerce’s final results of expedited reviews on countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Brazil (71 FR 32522), Mexico (71 FR 32521), and Spain (71 FR 32523); countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel from Korea (71 FR 32519); and antidumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea (71 FR 32508) October 3, 2006 Commission revises schedule (71 FR 58431) Table continued on next page. 3 43 FR 49375, October 25, 1978. 4 44 FR 9639, February 14, 1979. 5 44 FR 11854, March 2, 1979. 6 The petitions were filed by Armco, Bethlehem, Geneva, Gulf States, Ispat/Inland, Laclede Steel, LTV, Lukens, National, Sharon, USX, and WCI. 7 Certain Flat-rolled Carbon Steel Products from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-319-354 and 731-TA-573-620 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 2549, August 1992, pp. 2-4. OVERVIEW-2 Table OVERVIEW-1--Continued Certain carbon steel products: Background information Effective date Action October 4, 2006 Commerce’s final results of full reviews on countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Belgium (71 FR 58585), Sweden (71 FR 58587), and the United Kingdom (71 FR 58587) and on corrosion-resistant steel from France (71 FR 58584) October 4, 2006 Commission terminates countervailing duty review on CTL plate from the United Kingdom (71 FR 62121, October 23, 2006) following Commerce’s revocation of the CVD order (see above) October 17, 2006 Commission’s hearing on corrosion-resistant steel1 October 19, 2006 Commission’s hearing on CTL plate1 December 14, 2006 Commission’s vote January 25, 2007 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce 1 App. B contains a list of witnesses appearing at the hearings. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS The Commission’s Investigations On October 25, 1978, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) instituted an antidumping duty investigation on imports of plate from Taiwan in conjunction with its administration of the Trigger Price Mechanism, a program established to monitor prices at which certain steel mill products enter the United States. 3 On February 14, 1979, Treasury published a dumping finding with respect to plate from Taiwan. 4 The Commission instituted investigation AA1921-197 on February 26, 1979,5 and made its final determination on May 12, 1979. The Commission found that the U.S. industry that was injured or likely to be injured was a regional industry consisting of domestic producers in California, Washington, and Oregon. Treasury issued an antidumping finding on June 13, 1979. On June 30, 1992, petitions6 were filed with Commerce and the Commission alleging that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of CTL plate from 10 countries; hot-rolled products from 7 countries; cold-rolled products from 11 countries; and corrosion- resistant products from 8 countries. The petitions further alleged that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of dumped imports of CTL plate from 15 countries; hot-rolled products from 9 countries; cold-rolled products from 15 countries; and corrosion-resistant products from 9 countries.7 Following affirmative final determinations of subsidization and sales at LTFV by Commerce and material injury by the Commission, Commerce published the countervailing duty orders on August 17, 1993 and the antidumping duty orders on August 19, 1993. With respect to the CTL plate product at issue in these reviews, the Commission made final affirmative determinations regarding subject imports from Belgium, 8 Certain Flat-rolled Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-319-322, 334, 336-342, 344, and 347-353 and 731-TA-573-579, 581-592, 594- 597, 599-609 and 612-619 (Final), USITC Publication 2664, August 1993, pp. 2-5. 9 As discussed in greater detail in the section entitled “The First Reviews,” Commerce revoked Canada’s CTL plate antidumping and countervailing duty orders on December 15, 2000 (65 FR 78467). Subsequently, Commerce revoked Germany’s CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel countervailing duty orders on October 4, 2004 (69 FR 17131) and revoked the United Kingdom’s CTL plate countervailing duty order on October 4, 2006 (71 FR 58587). OVERVIEW-3 Brazil, Canada, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. With respect to the corrosion-resistant steel product at issue in these reviews, the Commission made final affirmative determinations regarding subject imports from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea. 8 Table OVERVIEW-2 presents information on the merchandise still subject to order, the dates of the original orders issued by Commerce, the types of orders, the countries covered, the investigation numbers at both Commerce and the Commission, and the relevant Federal Register citations for the issuance of the subject orders. 9 Table OVERVIEW-2 Certain carbon steel products: Subject merchandise, dates of original orders, types of orders, countries, investigation numbers, and Federal Register notices Subject merchandise Order date Type of order Country Investigation number Federal Register noticeCommerce Commission Carbon steel plate 6/13/79 Antidumping duty Taiwan A-583-080 AA1921-197 44 FR 33877 8/17/93 Countervailing duty Belgium C-423-806 701-TA-319 58 FR 43749 8/17/93 Countervailing duty Brazil C-351-818 701-TA-320 58 FR 43751 8/17/93 Countervailing duty Mexico C-201-810 701-TA-325 58 FR 43755 8/17/93 Countervailing duty Spain C-469-804 701-TA-326 58 FR 43761 8/17/93 Countervailing duty Sweden C-401-804 701-TA-327 58 FR 43758 8/19/93 Antidumping duty Belgium A-423-805 731-TA-573 58 FR 44164 8/19/93 Antidumping duty Brazil A-351-817 731-TA-574 58 FR 44164 8/19/93 Antidumping duty Finland A-405-802 731-TA-576 58 FR 44165 8/19/93 Antidumping duty Germany A-428-816 731-TA-578 58 FR 44170 8/19/93 Antidumping duty Mexico A-201-809 731-TA-582 58 FR 44165 8/19/93 Antidumping duty Poland A-455-802 731-TA-583 58 FR 44166 8/19/93 Antidumping duty Romania A-485-803 731-TA-584 58 FR 44167 8/19/93 Antidumping duty Spain A-469-803 731-TA-585 58 FR 44167 8/19/93 Antidumping duty Sweden A-401-805 731-TA-586 58 FR 44168 8/19/93 Antidumping duty United Kingdom A-412-814 731-TA-587 58 FR 44168 Corrosion- resistant steel 8/17/93 Countervailing duty France C-427-810 701-TA-348 58 FR 43759 8/17/93 Countervailing duty Korea C-580-818 701-TA-350 58 FR 43752 8/19/93 Antidumping duty Australia A-602-803 731-TA-612 58 FR 44161 8/19/93 Antidumping duty Canada A-122-822 731-TA-614 58 FR 44162 8/19/93 Antidumping duty France A-427-808 731-TA-615 58 FR 44169 8/19/93 Antidumping duty Germany A-428-815 731-TA-616 58 FR 44170 8/19/93 Antidumping duty Japan A-588-824 731-TA-617 58 FR 44163 8/19/93 Antidumping duty Korea A-580-816 731-TA-618 58 FR 44159 Source: Cited Federal Register notices. 10 Stalexport and Huta Czestochowa v. United States, 890 F. Supp. 1053 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1995). 11 Stalexport and Huta Czestochowa v. United States, 890 F. Supp. 1053, p. 1076 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1995). 12 Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450 (1995). 13 Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 827 (1995). 14 Certain Carbon Steel Products From Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and The United Kingdom, Invs. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, and 348-350, and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, and 614-618, USITC Publication 3364, November 2000, p. 2. OVERVIEW-4 Subsequent Proceedings The Commission’s determinations in the original flat-rolled carbon steel investigations faced several legal challenges before the U.S. Court of International Trade (“Court” or “CIT”). In addition to litigation involving cold-rolled steel, a product that is not at issue in these second reviews, the Commission’s CTL plate determinations regarding Belgium, Poland, Finland, and Romania were appealed. 10 The Court sustained the Commission’s determinations to cumulate South African imports as well as those from Belgium, Poland, Finland, and Romania, and its decision to exclude imports from France and Korea. 11 The Commission’s corrosion-resistant steel determinations were appealed and upheld as well. The CIT affirmed both the Commission’s affirmative determinations and its negative determinations. 12 The CIT remanded one Commissioner’s separate determination with respect to application of the negligibility exception to imports from Mexico. Upon remand, the Court sustained the Commissioner’s clarified views.13 THE FIRST REVIEWS The Commission’s Reviews On September 1, 1999, the Commission gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that it had instituted reviews to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain carbon steel products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry. Effective December 3, 1999, the Commission determined that it would conduct full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. On November 20, 2000, the Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, determined that the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Additionally, the Commission determined that the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission further determined that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Canada, and on cold-rolled steel from Germany, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden, would not be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.14 On December 15, 2000, Commerce published notice of the continuation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, 15 65 FR 78469, December 15, 2000. 16 65 FR 78467, December 15, 2000. 17 Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, 26 CIT __, Slip Op. 02-39 at 25 (2002). 18 Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, 26 CIT __, Slip Op. 02-152 at 23 (2002). 19 Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 20 Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, 27 CIT __, Slip Op. 03-118 (2003), aff’d, 112 Fed. Appx. 59 (2004). 21 Usinor v. United States, 342 F.Supp. 2d 1267 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004). 22 Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada, USA-CDA-2000-1904-11. OVERVIEW-5 Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.15 Also on December 15, 2000, Commerce published notice of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Canada, and on cold-rolled steel from Germany, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden.16 Subsequent Proceedings The Commission’s affirmative final determinations in its first five-year review of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Belgium and Germany were the subject of appeal. Initially, the CIT remanded the case for the Commission to apply the meaning of “likely” as “probable” in conducting both its cumulation analysis under 19 U.S.C. §1675a(a)(7) and its likelihood of material injury analysis.17 The Commission provided further explanation for its views, and the CIT found that the Commission had adequately explained all the issues on which the determinations were remanded.18 However, because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) had ruled in a Commerce case that floor plate was not within the scope of the 1993 antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Belgium (contrary to Commerce’s finding), 19 the CIT again remanded the determinations so that the Commission could review the pertinent data without consideration of floor plate. On the second remand, the Commission once again determined that revocation of the countervailing and antidumping duty orders on CTL plate from Belgium and Germany would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. The CIT and, ultimately, the CAFC, affirmed.20 The Commission’s affirmative determinations in the first review with respect to corrosion- resistant steel from France and Germany were appealed, but ultimately upheld by the CIT following remand.21 In May 2005, a NAFTA Panel affirmed the Commission’s affirmative determination in the first review with respect to corrosion-resistant steel from Canada.22 PREVIOUS AND RELATED TITLE VII INVESTIGATIONS The Commission has conducted a number of previous import relief investigations on certain carbon steel products or substantially similar merchandise. Table OVERVIEW-3 presents data on previous and related title VII investigations for CTL plate, and table OVERVIEW-4 presents data on previous and related title VII investigations on corrosion-resistant steel. OVERVIEW-6 Table OVERVIEW-3 CTL plate: Previous and related investigations, 1978-2006 Original Investigation First Review Current Status Date1 Number Country Outcome Date 1 Outcome 1978 AA1921-179 Japan Affirmative - - ITA revoked 4/18/86 1979 AA1921-197 Taiwan Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1979 AA1921-203 Poland Negative - - - 1980 731-TA-18 Belgium Affirmative 2 - - Terminated 10/1/80 1980 731-TA-19 Germany (West) Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 10/8/80 1980 731-TA-20 France Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 10/8/80 1980 731-TA-21 Italy Affirmative 2 - - Petition withdrawn 10/8/80 1980 731-TA-22 Luxembourg Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 10/8/80 1980 731-TA-23 Netherlands Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 10/8/80 1980 731-TA-24 United Kingdom Affirmative 2 - - Petition withdrawn 10/8/80 1981 701-TA-83 Belgium Affirmative 2 - - Incorporated into 701-TA-86 1981 701-TA-84 Brazil Affirmative2 - - Incorporated into 701-TA-87 1982 731-TA-51 Romania Affirmative2 - - Incorporated into 731-TA-58 1982 701-TA-86 Belgium Affirmative - - Terminated 10/26/82 1982 701-TA-87 Brazil Affirmative - - Terminated 9/18/85 1982 701-TA-88 France Negative 2 - - - 1982 701-TA-89 Italy Negative 2 - - - 1982 701-TA-90 Luxembourg Negative 2 - - - 1982 701-TA-91 Netherlands Negative 2 - - - 1982 701-TA-92 United Kingdom Affirmative 2 - - Terminated 10/26/82 1982 701-TA-93 Germany (West) Affirmative2 - - Terminated 10/26/82 1982 701-TA-155 Spain Affirmative - - ITA revoked 8/21/85 1982 701-TA-170 Korea Affirmative - - ITA revoked 10/10/85 1982 731-TA-53 Belgium Affirmative 2 - - Terminated 10/26/82 1982 731-TA-54 France Negative 2 - - - 1982 731-TA-55 Italy Negative 2 - - - 1982 731-TA-56 Luxembourg Negative 2 - - - 1982 731-TA-57 Netherlands Negative 2 - - - 1982 731-TA-58 Romania Affirmative2 - - Terminated 7/3/85 1982 731-TA-59 United Kingdom Affirmative 2 - - Terminated 10/26/82 1982 731-TA-60 Germany (West) Affirmative2 - - Terminated 10/26/82 Table continued on next page. OVERVIEW-7 Table OVERVIEW-3--Continued CTL plate: Previous and related investigations, 1978-2006 Original Investigation First Review Current Status Date1 Number Country Outcome Date 1 Outcome 1983 701-TA-204 Brazil Affirmative - - ITA revoked 9/6/85 1983 731-TA-123 Brazil Affirmative - - ITA revoked 8/21/85 1983 731-TA-146 Belgium Affirmative2 - - Terminated 12/10/84 1983 731-TA-147 Germany (West) Affirmative (on remand) 2 - - Terminated 11/29/84 1983 731-TA-151 Korea Affirmative - - ITA revoked 4/17/86 1984 701-TA-225 Sweden Negative - - - 1984 701-TA-226 Venezuela Affirmative 2 - - Terminated 7/31/85 1984 731-TA-169 Finland Affirmative 2 - - Petition withdrawn 1/18/85 1984 731-TA-170 South Africa Affirmative 2 - - Petition withdrawn 6/07/84 1984 731-TA-171 Spain Affirmative 2 - - Terminated 1/22/85 1984 731-TA-213 Czechoslovakia Affirmative 2 - - Petition withdrawn 5/28/85 1984 731-TA-214 Germany (East) Affirmative2 - - Terminated 8/12/85 1984 731-TA-215 Hungary Affirmative2 - - Petition withdrawn 5/28/85 1984 731-TA-216 Poland Affirmative 2 - - Terminated 8/12/85 1984 731-TA-217 Venezuela Affirmative 2 - - Petition withdrawn 7/19/85 1992 701-TA-319 Belgium Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 701-TA-320 Brazil Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 701-TA-321 France Negative - - - 1992 701-TA-322 Germany Affirmative 1999 Affirmative ITA revoked 4/1/04 1992 701-TA-323 Italy Negative - - - 1992 701-TA-324 Korea Negative - - - 1992 701-TA-325 Mexico Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 701-TA-326 Spain Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 701-TA-327 Sweden Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 701-TA-328 United Kingdom Affirmative 1999 Affirmative ITA revoked 10/4/06 Table continued on next page. OVERVIEW-8 Table OVERVIEW-3--Continued CTL plate: Previous and related investigations, 1978-2006 Original Investigation First Review Current Status Date1 Number Country Outcome Date 1 Outcome 1992 731-TA-573 Belgium Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 731-TA-574 Brazil Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 731-TA-575 Canada Affirmative 1999 Negative - 1992 731-TA-576 Finland Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 731-TA-577 France Negative - - - 1992 731-TA-578 Germany Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 731-TA-579 Italy Negative - - - 1992 731-TA-580 Japan Negative 2 - - - 1992 731-TA-581 Korea Negative - - - 1992 731-TA-582 Mexico Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 731-TA-583 Poland Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 731-TA-584 Romania Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 731-TA-585 Spain Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 731-TA-586 Sweden Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 731-TA-587 United Kingdom Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1996 731-TA-753 China Affirmative 2002 Affirmative Order in place 1996 731-TA-754 Russia Affirmative 2002 Affirmative Suspension agreement 1996 731-TA-755 South Africa Affirmative 2002 Negative - 1996 731-TA-756 Ukraine Affirmative 2002 Affirmative Suspension agreement 1999 731-TA-815 Czech Republic Negative 2 - - - 1999 731-TA-816 France Affirmative 2005 Negative - 1999 731-TA-817 India Affirmative 2005 Affirmative Order in place 1999 731-TA-818 Indonesia Affirmative 2005 Affirmative Order in place 1999 731-TA-819 Italy Affirmative 2005 Affirmative Order in place 1999 731-TA-820 Japan Affirmative 2005 Affirmative Order in place 1999 731-TA-821 Korea Affirmative 2005 Affirmative Order in place 1999 731-TA-822 Macedonia Negative 2 - - - 1 “Date” refers to the year in which the investigation or review was instituted by the Commission. 2 Preliminary determination. Source: Compiled from Commission determinations published in the Federal Register. OVERVIEW-9 Table OVERVIEW-4 CORE: Previous and related investigations, 1978-2006 Original Investigation First Review Current Status Date1 Number Country Outcome Date 1 Outcome 1980 731-TA-18 Belgium Affirmative 2 - - Terminated 10/1/80 1980 731-TA-19 Germany (West) Affirmative2 - - Terminated 10/1/80 1980 731-TA-20 France Affirmative2 - - Terminated 10/1/80 1980 731-TA-21 Italy Affirmative 2 - - Terminated 10/1/80 1980 731-TA-23 Netherlands Affirmative 2 - - Terminated 10/1/80 1980 731-TA-24 United Kingdom Affirmative 2 - - Terminated 10/1/80 1982 701-TA-110 Belgium Negative 2 - - - 1982 701-TA-111 France Negative 2 - - - 1982 701-TA-112 Italy Negative 2 - - - 1982 701-TA-113 Luxembourg Negative 2 - - - 1982 701-TA-114 Netherlands Negative 2 - - - 1982 701-TA-115 United Kingdom Negative 2 - - - 1982 701-TA-116 Germany (West) Negative2 - - - 1982 701-TA-158 Spain Affirmative - - ITA revoked 8/21/85 1982 701-TA-173 Korea Affirmative - - ITA revoked 10/10/85 1982 731-TA-75 Belgium Negative 2 - - - 1982 731-TA-76 France Negative 2 - - - 1982 731-TA-77 Italy Negative 2 - - - 1982 731-TA-78 Luxembourg Negative 2 - - - 1982 731-TA-79 Netherlands Negative 2 - - - 1982 731-TA-80 United Kingdom Negative 2 - - - 1982 731-TA-81 Germany (West) Negative2 - - - 1984 701-TA-212 Australia Affirmative 2 - - ITA negative 5/10/84 1984 701-TA-233 Austria Negative 2 - - - 1984 701-TA-234 Venezuela Negative 2 - - - 1984 731-TA-178 Australia Affirmative 2 - - Petition withdrawn 1/18/85 1984 731-TA-179 South Africa Affirmative 2 - - Petition withdrawn 6/7/84 1984 731-TA-180 Spain Affirmative 2 - - Petition withdrawn 1/18/85 1984 731-TA-230 Austria Negative2 - - - 1984 731-TA-231 Germany (East) Negative2 - - - 1984 731-TA-232 Romania Negative 2 - - - 1984 731-TA-233 Venezuela Negative 2 - - - Table continued on next page. 23 19 U.S.C. § 2252. 24 Institution and Scheduling of an Investigation under Section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) (the Act), 66 FR 35267, July 3, 2001. 25 19 U.S.C. § 2251. 26 Consolidation of Senate Finance Committee Resolution Requesting a Section 201 Investigation with the Investigation Requested by the United States Trade Representative on June 22, 2001, 66 FR 44158, August 22, 2001. OVERVIEW-10 Table OVERVIEW-4--Continued CORE: Previous and related investigations, 1978-2006 Original Investigation First Review Current Status Date1 Number Country Outcome Date 1 Outcome 1992 701-TA-342 Korea Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 701-TA-348 France Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 701-TA-349 Germany Affirmative 1999 Affirmative ITA revoked 4/1/04 1992 701-TA-354 Taiwan Negative 2 - - - 1992 731-TA-612 Australia Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 731-TA-613 Brazil Negative - - - 1992 731-TA-614 Canada Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 731-TA-615 France Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 731-TA-616 Germany Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 731-TA-617 Japan Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 731-TA-618 Korea Affirmative 1999 Affirmative Under review 1992 731-TA-619 Mexico Negative - - - 1992 731-TA-620 Taiwan Negative2 - - - 1 “Date” refers to the year in which the investigation or review was instituted by the Commission. 2 Preliminary determination. Source: Compiled from Commission determinations published in the Federal Register. PREVIOUS AND RELATED SAFEGUARD INVESTIGATIONS Following receipt of a request from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) on June 22, 2001, the Commission instituted investigation No. TA-201-73, Steel, under section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 23 to determine whether certain steel products, including CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel, 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 industries producing articles like or directly competitive with the imported article.24 On July 26, 2001, the Commission received a resolution adopted by the Committee on Finance of the U.S. Senate (“Senate Finance Committee” or “Committee”) requesting that the Commission investigate certain steel imports under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974. 25 Consistent with the Senate Finance Committee’s resolution, the Commission consolidated the investigation requested by the Committee with the Commission’s previously instituted investigation No. TA-201-73.26 On December 20, 2001, the Commission issued its determinations and 27 Presidential Proclamation 7529 of March 5, 2002, To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to Competition From Imports of Certain Steel Products, 67 FR 10553, March 7, 2002. 28 The increased duties were reduced from 30 percent to 24 percent on March 20, 2003. 29 The Department of Commerce published regulations establishing such a system on December 31, 2002. 30 Of the countries subject to these reviews, no safeguard measures were applied to imports from Canada, Mexico, and Poland. While safeguard measures were applied to Romania for certain steel products, safeguard measures were not applied to flat-rolled steel from that country. Imports of flat-rolled steel other than tin mill products from Brazil were subject to the U.S. safeguard measures, notwithstanding that country’s designation as a developing country WTO member. 31 Steel: Monitoring Developments in the Domestic Industry, Inv. No. TA-204-9, USITC Publication 3632, September 2003. 32 Steel: Monitoring Developments in the Domestic Industry, Inv. No. TA-204-9, Volume I, USITC Publication 3632, September 2003, p. ix. 33 Presidential Proclamation 7741 of December 4, 2003, To Provide for the Termination of Action Taken With Regard to Imports of Certain Steel Products, 68 FR 68483, December 8, 2003. OVERVIEW-11 remedy recommendations. The Commission reached an affirmative determination with respect to certain flat-rolled steel (including CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel). On March 5, 2002, following determinations regarding serious injury or threat of serious injury by the Commission under section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974, the President announced the safeguard measures that he planned to implement to facilitate efforts by various domestic steel industries and their workers to make a positive adjustment to import competition with respect to certain steel products. The safeguard measures encompassed 10 different product categories for which the Commission made affirmative determinations or was evenly divided. Presidential Proclamation 7529 implemented the safeguard measures, principally in the form of tariffs and tariff-rate quotas, effective March 20, 2002, for a period of three years and one day. Import relief relating to CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel consisted of an additional tariff of 30 percent ad valorem on imports in the first year, 24 percent in the second year, and 18 percent in the third year.27 28 The President also instructed the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce to establish a system of import licensing to facilitate the monitoring of imports of certain steel products.29 The safeguard measures applied to imports of subject steel products from all countries except Canada, Israel, Jordan, and Mexico, which had entered into free trade agreements with the United States, and most developing countries that were members of the World Trade Organization.30 The President’s initial proclamation also excluded numerous specific products from the measures, and was followed by subsequent additional exclusions. On September 19, 2003, the Commission submitted a mid-term report to the President and the Congress on the results of its monitoring of developments in the steel industry, as required by section 204(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974. 31 The Commission’s monitoring report noted that, although growth in demand for carbon and alloy flat-rolled products (the product category that included both CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel) was at most modest and total imports increased, output-related indicators for the domestic industry such as production, capacity utilization, and shipments increased in the first relief year, as did labor productivity. Per-unit net sales rose while per-unit costs fell (despite rising raw material costs), resulting in improved financial performance.32 On December 4, 2003, President Bush terminated the U.S. measure with respect to increased tariffs, following receipt of the Commission’s mid-point monitoring report in September 2003, and after seeking information from the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Secretary of Labor, having determined that the effectiveness of the action taken had been impaired by changed circumstances.33 34 Proclamation 7741 terminated the tariff-rate quota and the increased import duties on certain steel products, but directed the Secretary of Commerce to continue the monitoring system until the earlier of March 21, 2005, or such time as the Secretary establishes a replacement program. On March 11, 2005, Commerce published an interim final rule to implement a replacement program for the period beyond March 21, 2005. Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis System, 70 FR 12133, March 11, 2005. On December 5, 2005, Commerce published its final rule. Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis System, 70 FR 72373, December 5, 2005. OVERVIEW-12 Import licensing, however, remained in place through March 21, 2005, and continues in modified form at this time. 34 On March 21, 2005, the Commission instituted an investigation under section 204(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of the relief action imposed by the President on imports of certain steel products. The Commission’s report on the evaluation was transmitted to the President and the Congress on September 19, 2005. STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT Statutory Criteria Section 751(c) of the Act requires Commerce and the Commission to conduct a review no later than five years after the issuance or continuation of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, or the suspension of an investigation, to determine whether revocation of the order or termination of the suspended investigation “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.” Section 752(a) of the Act provides that in making its determination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury-- (1) IN GENERAL.-- . . . the Commission shall determine whether revocation of an order, or termination of a suspended investigation, would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission shall consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated. The Commission shall take into account-- (A) its prior injury determinations, including the volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry before the order was issued or the suspension agreement was accepted, (B) whether any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement, (C) whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and (D) in an antidumping proceeding . . ., (Commerce’s findings) regarding duty absorption . . .. (2) VOLUME.--In evaluating the likely volume of imports of the subject merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider whether the likely volume of imports of the subject merchandise would be significant if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States. In so doing, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors, including-- OVERVIEW-13 (A) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the exporting country, (B) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories, (C) the existence of barriers to the importation of such merchandise into countries other than the United States, and (D) 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. (3) PRICE.--In evaluating the likely price effects of imports of the subject merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider whether-- (A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by imports of the subject merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and (B) imports of the subject merchandise are likely to enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic like products. (4) IMPACT ON THE INDUSTRY.--In evaluating the likely impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors which are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to-- (A) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (B) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, and (C) likely negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product. The Commission shall evaluate all such relevant economic factors . . . within the context of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry. 35 Retrieved from http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html on November 20, 2006. 36 Commerce described 19 programs with respect to Belgium. However, with the exception of the “Promotion Brochure” and “Audio Visual Calling Card” programs, these programs do not fall within the meaning of Article 3. 37 Commerce described 5 programs with respect to Brazil, none of which fall within the meaning of Article 3. 38 Commerce described 11 programs with respect to Mexico, 2 of which were found to be export subsidies as described in Article 3: Bancomext Export Loans and PITEX Duty-Free Imports for Companies that Export. 39 Commerce described 6 programs with respect to Spain, none of which fall within the meaning of Article 3. 40 Commerce described 7 programs with respect to Sweden none of which fall within the meaning of Article 3. 41 Commerce described 9 programs with respect to France, none of which fall within the meaning of Article 3. 42 Commerce described 11 programs with respect to Korea, 5 of which were found to be export subsidies as described in Article 3: Reserve for Export Loss; Reserve for Overseas Market Development; Short-Term Export Financing; Unlimited Deduction of Overseas Entertainment Expenses; and Duty Drawback. OVERVIEW-14 Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states further that in making its determination, “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy. If a countervailable subsidy is involved, the Commission shall consider information regarding the nature of the countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement.” In these second reviews, Commerce discussed in its unpublished Issues and Decision Memoranda35 countervailable subsidies for CTL plate from Belgium, 36 Brazil,37 Mexico, 38 Spain, 39 and Sweden 40 and corrosion-resistant steel from France41 and Korea. 42 Organization of the Report Information obtained during the course of these reviews that relates to the statutory criteria presented above appears throughout this report. The report is divided into two primary sections based on the Commission’s findings with respect to the domestic like products in the first reviews. The first section relates to CTL plate. The second section relates to corrosion-resistant steel. A summary of data collected in the reviews relating to CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel is presented in appendix C. Appendix D reproduces portions of the tariff schedule to illustrate the treatment of CTL plate and corrosion-resistant steel in the HTSUS. Appendix E identifies excluded forms of carbon steel products. Appendixes F, G, and H present comments by market participants regarding the domestic like product (i.e., the product most “like” the subject imports). Appendixes I and J present the views of market participants regarding the effectiveness of the subject orders and the likely effect of their revocation. Finally, appendix K elaborates on purchasing considerations for U.S. and nonsubject imported product. 1 Additional U.S. import data are compiled by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”). 2 Certain Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Final), USITC Publication 3076, December 1997, pp. 10-12. CTL-I-1 PART CTL-I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW GENERAL INFORMATION U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of 27 firms that accounted for nearly all of the U.S. production of CTL plate during the period for which data were collected in these second reviews. U.S. import data are based on official Commerce statistics.1 Responses by U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers of CTL plate to a series of questions concerning the significance of the countervailing duty orders and the existing antidumping duty orders and the likely effects of revocation are presented in appendix I. Responses concerning the comparability of flat bar and micro-alloy plate with carbon steel CTL plate are presented in appendixes F and G, respectively. Table CTL-I-1 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. Data relating to the domestic industry for the period 1990-92 do not include the operations of U.S. service centers engaged in processing hot-rolled steel coils in plate thicknesses into individual plates. However, since 1997, the Commission has deemed such operations to constitute “production” of CTL plate.2 Accordingly, in these second reviews, as in the first reviews, both U.S. mills’ and U.S. processors’ operations are included in data and descriptions pertaining to the domestic industry. Table CTL-I-1 CTL plate: Comparative data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1990-92, 1997-99, and 2000-05 Item Calendar years 1990 1991 1992 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Quantity (short tons) Apparent U.S. consumption 5,633,203 4,756,817 4,964,626 6,627,268 8,222,194 6,001,329 6,814,613 6,234,474 6,539,570 6,354,810 6,978,552 7,281,971 Share (percent) Producers’ share 84.9 85.4 84.1 83.6 79.4 89.8 89.7 89.7 91.6 95.1 92.3 90.9 Importers’ shares-- Belgium 2.0 1.8 1.0 ( 1 ) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Brazil 0.9 1.4 0.9 0.1 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 (1 ) (1 ) Finland 1.5 1.2 0.9 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 (1 ) 0.0 0.0 (1 ) 0.0 Germany 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.2 (1 ) (1 ) 0.1 (1 ) 0.6 (1 ) 0.3 (1 ) Mexico2 0.7 0.4 1.2 (1 ) 0.6 1.2 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) Poland 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.1 ( 1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 0.0 (1 ) (1 ) Romania 0.6 0.8 0.4 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.1 0.7 1.1 1.6 0.7 Spain 1.2 1.5 1.1 0.0 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 (1 ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sweden 1.6 1.4 1.8 (1 ) 0.0 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 (1 ) (1 ) Taiwan3 -- -- -- 0.0 ( 1 ) 0.0 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 United Kingdom 0.8 0.7 0.4 ( 1 ) 0.2 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) All subject sources 10.9 10.9 8.7 0.3 1.0 1.5 0.4 0.4 1.5 1.2 2.1 0.9 All other sources 3 4.2 3.8 7.2 16.1 19.6 8.7 9.8 9.8 6.9 3.7 5.6 8.2 Total imports 15.1 14.6 15.9 16.4 20.6 10.2 10.3 10.3 8.4 4.9 7.7 9.1 Value (1,000 dollars) Apparent U.S. consumption 2,553,215 2,054,628 1,952,410 2,885,058 3,566,250 2,196,369 2,454,787 2,101,040 2,229,060 2,268,951 4,347,057 5,131,625 Share (percent) Producers’ share 85.9 86.4 85.8 86.2 81.8 91.2 91.3 90.9 92.0 95.4 93.1 91.3 Importers’ shares– Belgium 2.0 1.8 1.0 ( 1 ) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 Brazil 0.8 1.3 0.8 0.1 (1 ) (1 ) 0.1 0.1 (1 ) 0.0 (1 ) 0.1 Finland 1.4 1.1 0.9 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 (1 ) 0.0 0.0 (1 ) 0.0 Germany 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.1 (1 ) (1 ) 0.2 (1 ) 0.8 0.1 0.2 (1 ) Mexico2 0.6 0.3 1.0 (1 ) 0.5 1.0 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) Poland 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.1 ( 1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 0.0 (1 ) (1 ) Romania 0.5 0.7 0.3 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.1 0.6 0.9 1.3 0.6 Spain 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.0 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 (1 ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sweden 1.6 1.4 1.7 (1 ) 0.0 (1 ) (1 ) 0.1 (1 ) 0.0 (1 ) (1 ) Taiwan3 -- -- -- 0.0 ( 1 ) 0.0 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table continued on next page. CTL-I-2 CTL-I-3 Table CTL-I-1--Continued CTL plate: Comparative data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1990-92, 1997-99, and 2000-05 Item Calendar years 1990 1991 1992 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Share (percent) Importers’ shares–continued United Kingdom 0.7 0.6 0.4 ( 1 ) 0.3 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 All subject sources 10.2 10.1 8.1 0.3 1.0 1.3 0.5 0.5 1.6 1.1 1.8 0.9 All other sources 3 3.9 3.5 6.1 13.5 17.2 7.5 8.1 8.6 6.4 3.5 5.1 7.8 Total imports 14.1 13.6 14.2 13.8 18.2 8.8 8.7 9.1 8.0 4.6 6.9 8.7 Quantity (short tons), Value (1,000 dollars), Average unit value (per short ton) U.S. Imports from— Belgium: Quantity 114,073 87,654 48,951 66 8,051 8,591 15,614 16,575 11,615 6,226 10,271 10,388 Value 51,827 36,953 18,760 33 4,046 3,537 6,458 6,511 4,951 3,086 7,023 8,923 Average unit value $454 $422 $383 $507 $503 $412 $414 $393 $426 $496 $684 $859 Brazil Quantity 52,680 67,481 46,380 4,172 1,430 1,358 3,243 2,978 1,477 0 18 2,460 Value 21,512 26,920 16,295 2,357 801 553 1,546 1,386 288 0 7 3,138 Average unit value $408 $399 $351 $565 $560 $407 $477 $465 $195 -- $366 $1,276 Finland Quantity 83,287 55,648 46,875 34 1,024 28 0 19 0 0 1,290 0 Value 36,591 22,587 18,020 29 387 11 0 10 0 0 1,112 0 Average unit value $439 $406 $384 $848 $378 $411 -- $537 -- -- $862 -- Germany Quantity 59,479 38,482 20,665 10,716 2,512 1,296 8,783 129 40,536 2,647 23,413 2,078 Value 26,736 17,207 11,172 3,990 1,623 594 4,030 92 17,028 1,688 10,641 1,440 Average unit value $450 $447 $541 $372 $646 $458 $459 $710 $420 $638 $454 $693 Mexico: 2 Quantity 41,520 19,343 59,993 225 50,366 74,696 153 271 273 308 1,083 440 Value 15,143 6,505 19,331 98 16,968 21,757 65 141 81 123 570 271 Average unit value $365 $336 $322 $434 $337 $291 $428 $521 $298 $400 $526 $615 Poland: Quantity 25,546 38,357 24,605 4,312 477 71 3 386 0 0 45 61 Value 9,521 13,309 7,427 1,544 167 23 4 95 0 0 23 36 Average unit value $373 $347 $302 $358 $351 $321 $1,270 $247 -- -- $505 $595 Table continued on next page. CTL-I-4 Table CTL-I-1--Continued CTL plate: Comparative data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1990-92, 1997-99, and 2000-05 Item Calendar years 1990 1991 1992 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Quantity (short tons), Value (1,000 dollars), Average unit value (per short ton) U.S. Imports–continued Romania: Quantity 31,650 36,428 18,078 56 620 348 6 5,981 44,339 69,552 109,969 49,813 Value 12,476 14,578 6,656 21 166 114 6 1,433 12,627 20,706 58,584 31,292 Average unit value $394 $400 $368 $387 $267 $327 $890 $240 $285 $298 $533 $628 Spain: Quantity 68,136 69,560 54,054 0 446 356 5 0 6 0 0 0 Value 28,367 26,871 18,377 0 191 191 2 0 2 0 0 0 Average unit value $416 $386 $340 -- $427 $538 $444 -- $358 -- -- -- Sweden: Quantity 91,269 68,337 89,741 123 0 188 354 1,312 198 0 280 182 Value 41,200 29,479 33,968 27 0 90 198 1,095 192 0 131 108 Average unit value $451 $431 $379 $220 -- $478 $559 $835 $970 -- $470 $595 Taiwan:3 Quantity (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0 223 0 75 66 226 0 0 0 Value (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0 55 0 26 20 270 0 0 0 Average unit value ( 1 ) (1 ) (1 ) -- $247 -- $353 $309 $1,194 -- -- -- United Kingdom: Quantity 43,489 34,869 21,276 781 18,726 2,706 847 125 79 23 8 17 Value 18,287 13,224 7,672 336 11,545 924 246 88 49 7 3 6 Average unit value $421 $379 $361 $430 $617 $342 $291 $708 $624 $305 $374 $342 All subject sources: Quantity 611,129 516,159 430,618 20,486 83,875 89,638 29,083 27,842 98,749 78,755 146,377 65,439 Value 261,660 208,179 157,678 8,436 35,949 27,794 12,581 10,873 35,489 25,610 78,094 45,214 Average unit value $428 $403 $366 $412 $429 $310 $433 $391 $359 $325 $534 $691 All other sources:3 Quantity 239,074 178,658 357,008 1,069,578 1,611,887 522,600 669,666 611,424 452,321 234,670 390,123 598,444 Value 99,555 70,995 119,732 389,369 613,822 165,821 199,956 180,362 143,493 78,892 221,897 400,852 Average unit value $416 $397 $335 $364 $381 $317 $299 $295 $317 $336 $569 $670 All sources: Quantity 850,203 694,817 787,626 1,090,064 1,695,762 612,238 698,749 639,266 551,069 313,425 536,500 663,883 Value 361,215 279,174 277,410 397,805 649,771 193,615 212,537 191,235 178,982 104,501 299,990 446,065 Average unit value $425 $402 $352 $365 $383 $316 $304 $299 $325 $333 $559 $672 Table continued on next page. CTL-I-5 Table CTL-I-1--Continued CTL plate: Comparative data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1990-92, 1997-99, and 2000-05 Item Calendar years 1990 1991 1992 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Quantity (short tons), Value (1,000 dollars), Average unit value (per short ton) U.S. producers’– Capacity 7,413,000 7,347,000 6,958,000 7,338,833 9,090,730 8,367,246 10,086,195 10,382,440 10,600,470 11,138,353 10,629,073 10,793,425 Production 4,915,000 4,219,000 4,342,000 5,763,807 6,830,947 5,534,481 6,322,806 5,676,017 6,089,710 6,286,468 6,883,546 7,119,199 Capacity utilization 4 66.3 57.4 62.4 78.5 75.1 66.1 62.7 54.7 57.4 56.4 64.7 65.7 U.S. shipments Quantity 4,783,000 4,062,000 4,177,000 5,537,204 6,526,432 5,389,091 6,115,864 5,595,208 5,988,501 6,041,385 6,442,052 6,618,088 Value 2,192,000 1,776,000 1,675,000 2,487,253 2,916,479 2,003,204 2,242,250 1,909,806 2,050,077 2,164,450 4,047,066 4,685,560 Unit value $458 $437 $401 $449 $447 $372 $367 $341 $342 $358 $628 $708 Ending inventories 222,000 231,000 243,000 390,001 467,710 403,893 698,145 609,687 564,800 573,515 546,697 526,917 Inventories/total shipments 4 4.6 5.5 5.6 6.8 6.9 7.2 11.0 10.6 9.1 9.0 8.0 7.5 PRWs (number) 3,743 3,557 3,515 8,021 8,337 6,558 5,547 4,869 4,477 4,317 3,973 3,928 Hours worked (1,000) 7,785 7,340 7,331 17,086 17,835 13,401 12,515 10,928 10,241 9,762 9,191 9,192 Net sales Quantity 4,688,000 3,990,000 4,073,000 5,010,162 5,929,487 4,532,809 4,830,187 4,367,368 4,745,921 5,297,394 5,638,486 5,672,541 Value 2,183,000 1,770,000 1,652,000 2,260,302 2,664,135 1,738,319 1,758,271 1,477,637 1,609,886 1,915,063 3,530,933 4,070,019 Unit value $466 $444 $406 $451 $449 $384 $364 $338 $339 $362 $626 $717 COGS 1,890,000 1,663,000 1,660,000 2,097,346 2,436,994 1,834,144 1,800,011 1,572,475 1,628,547 1,908,344 2,692,538 2,967,611 Gross profit or (loss) 293,000 107,000 (9,000) 162,956 227,141 (95,825) (41,740) (94,838) (18,661) 6,719 838,395 1,102,408 Operating income or (loss) 211,000 29,000 (84,000) 89,650 134,291 (177,067) (153,340) (200,090) (115,190) (130,436) 734,173 982,308 Unit COGS $403 $416 $408 $419 $411 $405 $373 $360 $343 $360 $478 $523 Unit operating income or (loss) $45 $7 ($21) $18 $23 ($39) ($32) ($46) ($24) ($25) $130 $173 COGS/sales 4 86.6 93.9 100.5 92.8 91.5 105.5 102.4 106.4 101.2 99.6 76.3 72.9 Operating income or (loss)/ sales 4 9.7 1.6 (5.1) 4.0 5.0 (10.2) (8.7) (13.5) (7.2) (6.8) 20.8 24.1 1 Less than 0.05 percent. 2 AHMSA’s posthearing brief contains revised 1998-99 import statistics, listing the volume of imports from Mexico at 568 tons and 181 tons in 1998 and 1999, respectively. 3 U.S. imports of carbon steel plate from Taiwan were 0 short tons in 1976, 1,000 short tons in 1977, and 91,000 short tons in 1978. Carbon Steel Plate From Taiwan, Investigation No. AA1921-197, USITC Publication 970, May 1979, p. A-2. In the 1992-93 investigations, however, U.S. imports from Taiwan were considered nonsubject imports and thus are included in “all other sources” for the period 1990-92. “All other sources” also include U.S. imports from Canada, pursuant to the Commission’s negative determination with respect to such imports in the first reviews. 4 In percent. Note.–Comparability of data from the original investigations and the first reviews to data from the current reviews is mitigated by changes in coverage. These current reviews include several wide flat bar facilities and several larger processors not included in the original investigations and first reviews. Note.– Part CTL-IV presents data on imports from Belgium and Germany for which countervailing and antidumping duties were collected between January 2000 and June 2006. Source: Certain Carbon Steel Products From Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom (Review) Inv. Nos. AA1921-197 and 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, and 348-350 and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, and 614-618, USITC Publication 3364, November 2000, official Commerce import statistics, and data compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires. 3 There were no administrative reviews for firms covered by the antidumping duty orders or countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Poland or Spain. 4 For previously reviewed or investigated companies not included in an administrative review, the cash deposit rate continues to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period. 5 63 FR 10589, March 4, 1998. 6 59 FR 56056, November 10, 1994. CTL-I-6 COMMERCE’S REVIEWS Administrative Reviews The following tables present information on Commerce’s administrative reviews of the subject orders. 3 4 Belgium Commerce completed only one antidumping duty administrative review of producers/exporters of subject merchandise. A review for the period August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997 was terminated. 5 The results of the completed administrative review are presented in table CTL-I-2. Table CTL-I-2 CTL plate: Administrative review of the antidumping duty order for Belgium Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin January 20, 1998 (63 FR 2959)1 8/01/1995 - 7/31/1996 Fafer (now Industeel) 12.96 All others 6.752 1 Results amended in accordance with final court decision affirming redetermination on May 17, 2002. 67 FR 35098. First amended results published on March 20, 1998. 63 FR 13261. 2 Rate from duty order. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. Commerce completed one countervailing duty administrative review of producers/exporters of subject merchandise. A review for December 7, 1992 to December 31, 1993 was terminated.6 The results of the completed administrative review are presented in table CTL-I-3. Table CTL-I-3 CTL plate: Administrative review of the countervailing duty order for Belgium Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin March 16, 1999 (64 FR 12982)1 1/01/1996 - 12/31/1996 Fafer 0.69 All others 5.92 1 Results amended on April 13, 1999. 64 FR 18001. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. 7 63 FR 42000, August 6, 1998. 8 61 FR 64066, December 3, 1996. 9 63 FR 5501, February 3, 1998. CTL-I-7 Brazil Commerce completed two administrative reviews of producers/exporters of subject merchandise. A review for the period August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997 was initiated and then rescinded.7 The results of the completed administrative reviews are presented in table CTL-I-4. Table CTL-I-4 CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Brazil Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin April 15, 1997 (62 FR 18486) 8/01/1994 - 7/31/1995 CST 0.0 All others 75.54 March 16, 1998 (63 FR 12744)1 8/01/1995 - 7/31/1996 Cosipa 11.70 Usiminas 11.70 All others 36.00 1 Results amended on April 27, 1998. 63 FR 20570. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. Commerce initiated and then terminated one countervailing duty administrative review of producers/exporters of subject merchandise for the period of January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1995. 8 Finland Commerce completed three antidumping duty administrative reviews of producers/exporters of subject merchandise. A review for the period August 1, 1996 to July 31, 1997 was initiated and then rescinded.9 The results of the completed administrative reviews are shown in table CTL-I-5. Table CTL-I-5 CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Finland Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin January 29, 1996 (61 FR 2792) 2/04/1993 - 7/31/1994 Rautaruukki 0.00 All others 32.25 April 15, 1997 (62 FR 18468)1 8/01/1994 - 7/31/1995 Rautaruukki 30.70 All others 32.80 January 20, 1998 (63 FR 2952) 8/01/1995 - 7/31/1996 Rautaruukki 0.0 All others 40.36 1 Results amended in accordance with final court decision on December 8, 1999. 64 FR 68669. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. 10 62 FR 13595, March 21, 1997; 63 FR 4429, January 29, 1998; and 65 FR 66524, November 6, 2000. 11 69 FR 17131, April 1, 2004. 12 60 FR 4592, January 24, 1995. CTL-I-8 Germany Commerce completed four antidumping duty administrative reviews of producers/exporters of subject merchandise and published the preliminary results of a fifth administrative review, the results of which are shown in Table CTL-I-6. Reviews for the periods August 1, 1995 to July 31, 1996; August 1, 1996 to July 31, 1997; and August 1, 1999 to July 31, 2000 were initiated and then rescinded by Commerce. 10 Table CTL-I-6 CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Germany Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin March 28, 1996 (61 FR 13834)1 2/04/93 - 7/31/94 Dillinger 2.61 All others 19.32 April 15, 1997 (62 FR 18389)2 8/01/1994 - 7/31/1995 Dillinger 0.16 3 All others 36.00 January 16, 2001 (66 FR 3545) 8/01/1997 - 7/31/1998 Reiner Brach 36.00 All others 36.00 January 16, 2001 (66 FR 3545) 8/01/1998 - 7/31/1999 Reiner Brach 36.00 All others 36.00 September 11, 2006 (71 FR 53382)4 8/01/2004 - 7/31/2005 Dillinger 0.16 3 All others 36.00 1 Results amended on May 24, 1996. 61 FR 26159. 2 Results amended on August 22, 2001. 66 FR 44114. 3 De minimis margin (i.e., margin is less than 0.5 percent), therefore no cash deposit was required to be paid to Customs. 4 Preliminary results. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. Commerce revoked Germany’s countervailing duty order in 2004.11 Prior to the order’s revocation, Commerce completed two countervailing duty administrative reviews of exporters/producers of subject merchandise. Commerce initiated and then rescinded one countervailing duty administrative review of subject merchandise from Germany for the period December 7, 1992 to December 31, 1993. 12 The results of the completed administrative reviews are shown in table CTL-I-7. Table CTL-I-7 CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the countervailing duty order for Germany Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin January 17, 2001 (66 FR 3985) 1/01/1997 - 12/31/1997 Novosteel/Reiner Brach 0.001 Co. KG 0.001 January 17, 2001 (66 FR 3985) 1/01/1998 - 12/31/1998 Novosteel/Reiner Brach 0.001 Co. KG 0.001 1 De minimis margin (i.e., margin is less than 0.5 percent), therefore no cash deposit was required to be paid to Customs. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. 13 62 FR 26472, May 14, 1997; 65 FR 6359, February 9, 2000; 65 FR 64422, October 27, 2000; and 68 FR 19189, April 18, 2003, respectively. 14 59 FR 66939, December 28, 1994; 61 FR 2492, January 26, 1996; 61 FR 68239, December 27, 1996; and 62 FR 63920, December 3, 1997, respectively. CTL-I-9 Mexico Commerce completed three antidumping administrative reviews of exporters/producers of subject merchandise. Reviews for the periods August 1, 1995 to July 31, 1996, August 1, 1998 to July 31, 1999, August 1, 1999 to July 31, 2000, and August 1, 2001 to July 31, 2002 were initiated and then rescinded.13 The results of the completed administrative reviews are shown in table CTL-I-8. Table CTL-I-8 CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Mexico Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin January 4, 1999 (64 FR 76) 8/01/1996 - 7/31/1997 AHMSA 49.25 All others 49.25 February 18, 2000 (65 FR 8338)1 8/01/1997 - 7/31/1998 AHMSA 0.072 All others 49.25 March 19, 2003 (68 FR 13260) 8/01/2000 - 7/31/2001 AHMSA 0.00 All others 49.25 1 Results amended in accordance with final court decision on February 20, 2003. 68 FR 8202. First amended results published on November 2, 2000. 65 FR 65830. Second amended results published on December 12, 2000, 65 FR 77566. Third amended final results published on January 24, 2001. 66 FR 7619. 2 De minimis margin (i.e., margin is less than 0.5 percent), therefore no cash deposit was required to be paid to Customs. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. Commerce completed three countervailing duty administrative reviews. Four reviews were initiated and then terminated for the periods of December 7, 1992 to December 31, 1993, January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994, January 1, 1995 December 31, 1995, and January 1, 1996 December 31, 1996. 14 The results of the completed administrative reviews are shown in table CTL-I-9. Table CTL-I-9 CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the countervailing duty order for Mexico Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin March 13, 2000 (65 FR 13368) 1/01/1997 - 12/31/1997 AHMSA 10.42 All others 20.25 March 13, 2001 (66 FR 14549) 1/01/1998 - 12/31/1998 AHMSA 11.68 January 13, 2004 (69 FR 1972) 1/01/2001 - 12/31/2001 AHMSA 13.37 Source: Cited Federal Register notices. 15 65 FR 69734, November 20, 2000, and 66 FR 56057, November 6, 2001. CTL-I-10 Romania Commerce completed four antidumping duty administrative review of subject merchandise from Romania and published preliminary results of a fifth administrative review. Commerce initiated and then rescinded reviews for the periods of August 1, 1999 to July 31, 2000 and August 1, 2000 to July 31, 2001. 15 The results of the administrative reviews are shown in table CTL-I-10. Table CTL-I-10 CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Romania Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin January 12, 2000 (65 FR 1847) 8/01/1997 - 7/31/1998 Windmill 21.07 All others 75.04 January 12, 2001 (66 FR 2879) 8/01/1998 - 7/31/1999 MEI 0 All others 75.04 March 15, 2005 (70 FR 12651)1 8/01/2002 - 7/31/2003 MEI 13.50 Ispat Sidex 13.50 All others 75.04 February 10, 2006 (71 FR 7008)2 8/01/2003 - 7/31/2004 MEI 75.04 MS Galati 75.04 All others 75.04 September 11, 2006 (71 FR 53377)3, 4 8/01/2004 - 7/31/2005 MS Galati 0.075 All others 75.04 1 CSR and MINMET included in initial review, but rescinded because did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during period of review. 2 Metanef, MINMENT, CSR, and COST included in initial review, but rescinded. 3 Preliminary results. 4 MEI included in initial review, but rescinded. 5 De minimis margin (i.e., margin is less than 0.5 percent), therefore no cash deposit was required to be paid to Customs. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. Sweden Commerce completed four antidumping duty administrative reviews of subject merchandise. The results of the administrative reviews are shown in table CTL-I-11. 16 61 FR 64066, December 3, 1996. CTL-I-11 Table CTL-I-11 CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Sweden Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin February 12, 1996 (61 FR 5381) 12/7/1992 - 4/05/1993 All companies 2.98 4/06/1993 - 8/19/1993 All companies -- 8/17/1993 - 12/31/1993 All companies 2.98 April 9, 1996 (61 FR 15772)1 2/04/1993 - 7/31/1994 SSAB 7.25 All others 24.23 April 15, 1997 (62 FR 18396) 8/01/1994 - 7/31/1995 SSAB 24.23 All others 24.23 September 5, 1997 (62 FR 46947)2 8/01/1995 - 7/31/1996 SSAB 34.00 All others 24.23 1 Results amended on May 18, 1998. 63 FR 27260. 2 Commerce found duty absorption on all sales; see also results of preliminary determination, 62 FR 26473, May 14, 1993. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. Commerce completed four countervailing duty administrative reviews. A review for calender year 1995 was terminated.16 The results of the administrative reviews are shown in table CTL-I-12. Table CTL-I-12 CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the countervailing duty order for Sweden Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin February 12, 1996 (61 FR 5378) 12/07/1992 - 4/05/1994 All companies 2.98 February 12, 1996 (61 FR 5378) 4/06/1993 - 8/19/1993 All companies 0.00 February 12, 1996 (61 FR 5381) 8/17/1993 - 12/31/1993 All companies 2.98 April 7, 1997 (62 FR 16549) 1/1/1994 - 12/31/1994 SSAB 1.91 All companies 2.98 Source: Cited Federal Register notices. Taiwan Commerce completed three antidumping duty administrative reviews of exporters/producers of subject merchandise. The results of the administrative reviews are shown in table CTL-I-13. 17 63 FR 70388, December 21, 1998, and 65 FR 13714, March 14, 2000. 18 71 FR 58587, October 4, 2006. 19 63 FR 2959, June 20, 1998. 20 62 FR 46947, September 5, 1997. 21 Caterpillar argues that the ITC cannot consider these duty absorption because the Federal Circuit has held that Commerce has no authority to conduct duty absorption inquiries with respect to transition orders. Caterpillar CTL plate respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 11. CTL-I-12 Table CTL-I-13 CTL plate: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Taiwan Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter1 Margin October 1, 1981 (46 FR 48280) 2/14/1979 - 5/31/1980 CSC 19.97 March 31, 1982 (47 FR 13547) 6/01/1980 - 5/31/1981 CSC 19.97 September 23, 1983 (48 FR 43366) 6/01/1981 - 5/31/1982 CSC 0.00 1 CSC was the only known exporter to the United States. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. United Kingdom Commerce initiated and then rescinded antidumping duty administrative reviews for the periods of August 1, 1997 to July 31, 1998 and August 1, 1998 to July 31, 1999. 17 Commerce revoked the United Kingdom’s countervailing duty order in 2006.18 Prior to revocation, Commerce initiated no countervailing duty administrative reviews for the United Kingdom. Duty Absorption Findings Commerce made two duty absorption findings in its antidumping administrative reviews. For the August 1, 1995 to July 31, 1996 review period for Belgium, Commerce found that Fafer (now Industeel) absorbed duties on 100 percent of its sales.19 Additionally, for the August 1, 1995 to July 31, 1996 review period for Sweden, Commerce found that SSAB absorbed duties on 100 percent of its sales.20 21 Results of Expedited and Full Five-Year Reviews Commerce has issued final determinations with respect to all subject countries. Tables CTL-I-14 and CTL-I-15 present the margins calculated by Commerce in its original investigations, first reviews, and its recent second reviews. CTL-I-13 Table CTL-I-14 CTL plate: Commerce’s original and five-year antidumping duty review margins for producers/exporters, by subject country Producer/exporter Original margin (percent) First five-year review margin (percent) Second five-year review margin (percent) Belgium1 Forges de Clabecq, S.A.2 6.78 6.78 6.78 Industeel (formerly Fafer) 13.31 27.50 13.31 All others 6.84 6.75 6.84 Brazil3 Usiminas/Cosipa4 ( 5 ) 42.08 42.68 Cosipa 109.00 ( 5 ) ( 5 ) Usiminas 42.08 ( 5 ) ( 5 ) All others 75.54 75.54 75.54 Finland6 Rautaruukki 32.80 40.36 40.36 All others 32.80 40.36 40.36 Germany7 Dillinger 36.00 36.00 36.00 All others 36.00 36.00 36.00 Mexico8 AHMSA 49.25 49.25 49.25 All others 49.25 49.25 49.25 Poland9 Country-wide 61.98 61.98 61.98 Romania10 Metalexportimport, S.A. 75.04 75.04 75.04 All others 75.04 75.04 75.04 Spain11 Ensidesa 105.61 105.61 105.61 All others 105.61 105.61 105.61 Table continued on next page. CTL-I-14 Table CTL-I-14–Continued CTL plate: Commerce’s original and five-year antidumping duty review margins for producers/exporters, by subject country Producer/exporter Original margin (percent) First five-year review margin (percent) Second five-year review margin (percent) Sweden12 SSAB 24.23 24.23 24.23 All others 24.23 24.23 24.23 Taiwan13 CSC 34.00 34.00 34.00 All others 34.00 34.00 34.00 United Kingdom14 British Steel 15 109.22 109.22 109.22 All others 109.22 109.22 109.22 1 Amended final determination of sales at LTFV and antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44164, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18292, April 7, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006. 2 Commerce has never conducted a changed circumstance review finding that Duferco is the successor-in-interest to Forges de Clabecq, S.A. As a result, Duferco is subject to the all others rate. 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006. 3 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44164, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18052, April 6, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006. 4 Commerce reported only one margin for Usiminas and Cosipa in their first and second sunset reviews because they had done so in the administrative review completed prior to the first sunset review. 5 Not applicable. 6 Amended final determination of sales at LTFV and antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44165, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18054, April 6, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006. 7 Amended final determination of sales at LTFV and antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44170, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18056, April 6, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006. 8 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44165, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18052, April 6, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006. 9 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44166, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18054, April 6, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006. 10 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44167, August 19, 1993; final results of first full sunset review, 65 FR 47382, August 2, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006. 11 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44167, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18056, April 6, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006. 12 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44168, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18054, April 6, 2000 13 See "Notice of Withholding of Appraisement and Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value," 44 FR 9639, February 14, 1979, and Treasury Decision 79-166 as published in 44 FR 33877, June 13, 1979; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18054, April 6, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006. 14 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44168, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18056, April 6, 2000; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18054, April 6, 2000. 15 Commerce has never conducted a changed circumstance review finding that Corus is the successor-in-interest to British Steel. As a result, Corus is subject to the all others rate. 71 FR 11577, March 8, 2006. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. CTL-I-15 Table CTL-I-15 CTL plate: Commerce’s original and five-year countervailing duty review margins for producers/exporters, by subject country Producer/exporter Original margin (percent) First five-year review margin (percent) Second five-year review margin (percent) Belgium1 Cockerill 23.15 23.15 2.82 Industeel (formerly Fafer) ( 2 ) 1.05 0.56 All others 5.92 5.92 0.50 Brazil3 Usiminas 5.44 5.44 5.44 Cosipa 48.64 48.64 48.64 All others 23.10 23.10 23.10 Germany4, 5 Ilsenburg 0.80 0.80 (6 ) Preussag 1.72 0.77 (6 ) Thyssen 0.51 0.51 (6 ) Country-wide (Dillinger) 14.84 14.84 ( 6 ) Mexico7 AHMSA (2 ) 25.87 28.32 All others 20.25 20.25 20.25 Spain8 Country-wide 36.82 36.86 33.68 Sweden9 Country-wide 4.27 4.27 De minimis United Kingdom10 Glynwed Steels Ltd 0.73 23.15 (11 ) All others 12.00 1.05 (11 ) 1 Original countervailing duty order, 58 FR 43749, August 17, 1993; amended countervailing duty order, 62 FR 37880, July 15, 1997; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18066, April 6, 2000; final results of second full sunset review, 71 FR 58585, October 4, 2006. 2 No rate specified 3 Countervailing duty order, 58 FR 43751, August 17, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18065, April 6, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 32522, June 6, 2006. 4 Countervailing duty order, 58 FR 43756, August 17, 1993; final results of first full sunset review, 65 FR 47407, August 2, 2000. 5 Commerce stated that "Although Salzgitter is a successor-in-interest for both Ilsenburg and Preussag, without an appropriate review, we cannot discern the appropriate rate for the successor. Therefore, for Ilsenburg and Preussag, we are reporting the rates for the original investigation, as adjusted. The country-wide rate applies to Dillinger, and TKS (Thyssen Krupp Stahl AG) is the successor-in-interests of Thyssen." 65 FR 47409, August 2, 2000. 6 Commerce revoked the countervailing duty order against CTL plate from Germany in 2004. 69 FR 17131, April 1, 2004. 7 Countervailing duty order, 58 FR 43755, August 17, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18067, April 6, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 32521, June 6, 2006. 8 Countervailing duty order, 58 FR 43761, August 17, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18307, April 7, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 32523, June 6, 2006. 9 Countervailing duty order, 58 FR 43758, August 17, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18307, April 7, 2000; final results of second full sunset review, 71 FR 58587, October 4, 2006. 10 Countervailing duty order, 58 FR 43748, August 17, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18309, April 7, 2000. 11 Commerce revoked the countervailing duty order against CTL plate from the United Kingdom in 2006. 71 FR 58587, October 4, 2006. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. 22 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)). 23 19 CFR 159.64 (g). CTL-I-16 DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these producers incur after the issuance of such orders. 22 During the review period, qualified U.S. producers of CTL plate were eligible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) under CDSOA relating to 7 countervailing duty and 12 antidumping duty orders on the subject product beginning in Federal fiscal year 2001.23 Tables CTL-I-16 and CTL-I-17 present CDSOA disbursements and claims for Federal fiscal years (October 1-September 30) 2001-05 by source and by firm, respectively. Table CTL-I-16 CTL plate: CDSOA disbursements, by source, Federal fiscal years 2001-05 Item Federal fiscal year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Disbursements (1,000 dollars) Belgium (AD) 275 100 (290) 778 6 Belgium (CVD) 0 85 0 669 0 Brazil (AD) 162 2 22 20 ( 1 ) Brazil (CVD) 0 6 0 12 1 Canada2 196 110 32 260 5 Finland 0 0 ( 1 ) 1 ( 1 ) Germany (AD) 2 1 55 175 14 Germany (CVD)2 0 4 42 66 24 Mexico (AD) 15 ( 1 ) 0 115 10 Mexico (CVD) 0 (1 ) 0 58 4 Poland 0 2 6 0 ( 1 ) Romania 0 0 4 50 285 Spain (AD) 0 0 0 0 0 Spain (CVD) 0 0 0 0 0 Sweden (AD) 0 ( 1 ) 7 198 11 Sweden (CVD) 0 2 0 30 2 Taiwan (AD) 0 0 0 0 ( 1 ) United Kingdom (AD) 228 0 (12) 42 0 United Kingdom (CVD)2 0 0 0 2 0 Total 878 313 (134) 2,477 363 1 Less than $500. 2 Order revoked. Note.--Negative disbursement amounts are the result of refunds to importers as a result of liquidations or court cases. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved from www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd. CTL-I-17 Table CTL-I-17 CTL plate: CDSOA disbursements and claims, by firm, Federal fiscal years 2001-05 Item Federal fiscal year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Disbursements (1,000 dollars) Bethlehem Steel 491 0 0 0 0 Bethlehem Steel aka Pennsylvania Steel 0 178 0 0 0 Bethlehem Steel aka Pennsylvania Steel (successor to Lukens Steel) 0 34 0 0 0 California Steel Industries 0 0 1 16 2 Geneva Steel 78 0 0 0 0 International Steel Group 0 0 113 1,558 0 Lukens Steel (Bethlehem aka Pennsylvania Steel) 105 0 0 0 0 Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. 0 0 0 0 245 National Steel 8 3 0 0 0 Thompson Steel Co. Inc. 0 0 0 88 0 U.S. Steel 196 97 0 0 0 United States Steel Corp.1 0 0 (49) 816 115 United Steelworkers of America (2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) Total2 878 313 (134) 3 2,477 363 Claims (1,000 dollars) Total 175,620,995 203,084,133 92,583,063 224,590,940 303,833,079 1 United States Steel Corp. became the successor to National Steel and U.S. Steel after 2003. 2 Less than $500. 3 Figures do not add up to total because some of the negative payments were by companies that did not file a claim in 2003 (Staff telephone interview with ***, July 18, 2006). Note.--Negative disbursement amounts are the result of refunds to importers as a result of liquidations or court cases. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved from www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd. THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE Commerce’s Scope The scope definition for the imported product subject to the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders under review, as defined by Commerce, is as follows: Hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a carbon steel cut-to-length plate (“cut-to-length plate”) closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which 24 62 FR 30569, June 4, 1997. 25 United States Court of International Trade, Judgement Order in Duferco Steel, Inc. V. United States, et al., No. 01-1443, October 12, 2002. http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op02/SlipOp02-125.pdf#search=%22court%20of%20international%20trad e%2001-1443%22, retrieved September 12, 2006. 26 Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Finland, Germany, and United Kingdom: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Reviews, and Revocation of Orders in Part, 64 FR 46343, August 25, 1999. CTL-I-18 exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Included in these orders are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”)--for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Additionally, as a result of a scope ruling, profile slabs have been determined to be within the scope of the order. 24 Excluded from these reviews is grade X-70 plate and micro-alloy steel. With Respect to Subject Merchandise from Belgium: As a result of a decision by the Court of International Trade, excluded from the scope of the antidumping duty order of cut-to-length plate from Belgium is cut-to-length floor plate imported by Duferco Steel, Inc. “with patterns in relief derived directly from the rolling process.”25 With Respect to Subject Merchandise from Finland, Germany, and the United Kingdom: As a result of a changed circumstance review, the order was revoked with respect to certain carbon cut-to-length steel plate with a maximum thickness of 80mm in steel grades BS 7191, 355 EM and 355 EMZ, as amended by Sable Offshore Energy Project Specification XB MOO Y 15 0001, types 1 and 2. 26 With Respect to Subject Merchandise from Taiwan: The scope with respect to subject merchandise from Taiwan includes all hot-rolled carbon steel plate, 0.1875 inch or more in thickness, over eight inches in width, not in coils, not pickled, not coated, or plated with metal, not clad, other than black plate, and not pressed or stamped to non-rectangular shape. Tariff Treatment The subject merchandise is imported under the following HTS statistical reporting numbers: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. General U.S. tariffs on CTL plate, applicable to U.S. imports that are products of the subject countries other than Canada and classified under these headings, ranged from 2.4 to 6.5 percent ad valorem at the time of the original investigations. These duties were subject to phased elimination beginning in 1995 and were eliminated as of January 1, 2004. Duties on eligible goods of Canada under the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement ranged from 1.2 to 3.2 percent ad valorem at the time of the original investigations, were subject to phased elimination, and were eliminated as of January 1, 1998. Further details regarding the relevant HTS statistical reporting numbers are 27 Wide flat bar, a subset of universal mill plate, is produced in a bar mill. In this type of mill, blooms and billets (rather than slabs) are rolled on all faces at the same time into a long bar shape. The production process is otherwise similar to the process described in this section. 28 U.S. Steel, The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel (William T. Lankford, Jr. et al., eds., 1985), p. 24, and International Iron and Steel Institute, “About Steel,” http://www.worldsteel.org, retrieved August 30, 2005. CTL-I-19 presented in appendix D. The column l-general, or normal trade relations, rates of duty for plate were eliminated as of January 1, 2004 as a result of the Uruguay Round Agreements. Further details regarding the relevant HTS statistical reporting numbers are presented in appendix D. THE DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT Description and Applications Steel plate is a flat-rolled steel product that is generally 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness. It can be produced in a variety of widths, thicknesses, and shapes in order to be incorporated into other products or to be further processed into products. The term “cut-to-length” indicates that the product is produced as a flat plate with a defined length. Plate is used in welded load-bearing and structural applications, such as agricultural and construction equipment (e.g., cranes, bulldozers, scrapers, and other tracked or self-propelled machinery); bridges; machine parts (e.g., the body of the machine or its frame); transmission towers and light poles; buildings; and heavy transportation equipment, such as railroad cars (especially tank cars) and ships. Plate also is used in the production of tanks, sills, floors, offshore drilling rigs, pipes, petrochemical plant and machinery, and various other fabricated pieces. Plate can also be used in utility applications, such as wind towers and pressure vessels. Manufacturing Processes27 In general, there are three processing distinct stages for hot-rolled nonalloy steel products, including: (1) melting or refining steel, (2) casting steel into semi-finished forms, and (3) hot rolling semi-finished forms into flat-rolled hot-rolled steel mill products. These processing stages are summarized below. Melt Stage Steel is produced by either the integrated or the nonintegrated process.28 In the nonintegrated process, molten steel is produced by melting scrap and primary iron products (such as pig iron or direct-reduced iron) in an electric arc furnace. In the integrated process, iron ore is smelted in a blast furnace with coke to produce molten iron, which is subsequently poured into a steelmaking furnace, generally a basic oxygen furnace, together with a small amount of scrap metal. The molten metal is processed into steel by blowing oxygen into the furnace. Whether produced by the integrated or nonintegrated process, molten steel is poured or “tapped” from the furnace into a ladle to be transported to casting. It is common for steelmakers to utilize a secondary steelmaking stage (the ladle metallurgy station) to refine the product further into extra-clean or low-carbon steels satisfying stringent surface or internal requirements or microcleanliness quality and mechanical properties before casting. Steelmakers may adjust the chemical content by adding alloying elements, lowering the carbon content (decarburization), or adjusting the temperature of the molten steel for optimum casting. The essential physical properties of the steel are established in the melt stage. CTL-I-20 Casting Stage Following the melt stage, the molten steel is cast into a form suitable for the rolling process. Two principal methods of casting are used, ingot teeming and continuous casting. Continuous slab casting is the preferred, lower-cost method and is normally used to produce plates up to approximately 4 inches in thickness. Ingots are used to produce thicker plates, since continuous cast slabs of sufficient thickness are not available. Rolling Stage Most CTL plate is hot-rolled on a reversing plate mill (also called a sheared plate mill) consisting of one or two reversing hot-rolling mill stands and associated equipment. If there are two stands, the first is called the roughing mill and the second is called the finishing mill. The roughing mill is equipped with special tables in front of and behind the mill to rotate the plate one-quarter turn between rolling passes in order to allow cross-rolling, increasing the width rather than the length of the plate as the thickness is reduced. After the desired finished width is reached, the plate is again rotated one-quarter turn and rolled straightaway to finished thickness. Reversing mills produce plate ranging from 0.187 to 20 inches (4.75 to 508 mm) in thickness and from 48 to 154 inches (1,219 to 3,912 mm) in width. Some reversing plate mills (known as “Steckel mills”) are equipped with coilers on each side of the finishing mill that operate inside small heating furnaces, keeping the steel hot and allowing the production of much longer or thinner plates. Plate also can be rolled on a Steckel mill without using the heated coilers, in which case the mill operates like a conventional reversing plate mill. Steckel mills are equipped with coilers to produce coiled plate as well as in-line shearing facilities to produce discrete plate. Plate cut from hot-rolled coils is processed on a separate line where it is uncoiled, flattened, and cut to length. Plate produced in a Steckel mill typically ranges from 0.187 to 0.750 inches (4.75 to 19.1 mm) in thickness and 48 to 96 inches (1,219 to 2,438 mm) in width, although installed equipment can produce wider plate. In addition to reversing plate mills, plate may also be rolled on a continuous hot-strip mill. Such a mill has either a reversing rougher or a number (usually 4 or 5) of nonreversing roughing mills followed by a finishing section comprised of a series of mill stands, usually six, spaced close together so that a plate is rolled continuously in a single pass in one direction. The finished plate is coiled, discharged from the mill, allowed to cool, then uncoiled, flattened, and cut to length on a separate processing line. Although continuous hot-strip mills primarily produce hot-rolled sheet, they also may be used to produce plate up to 72 inches wide and between three-sixteenths and one-half inch in thickness. Because of its capability to cross roll, a reversing mill is somewhat flexible with regard to the slab width used to produce a given plate width. Steckel mills and continuous hot-strip mills can only use slabs slightly wider than the width of the plate to be produced, but have the advantage of being able to roll longer, heavier slabs than could be used on a reversing plate mill. Because of its generally thicker dimensions, plate from a reversing mill is preferred for welded load-bearing and structural applications, such as bridgework; machine parts (e.g., the body of the machine or its frame); transmission towers and light poles; buildings; mobile equipment (e.g., cranes, bulldozers, scrapers, and other tracked or self-propelled machinery); and heavy transportation equipment, such as railroad cars (especially tanker cars) and oceangoing ships. End users concerned about “coil set memory” (such as those that burn out parts from plate) may prefer plate from a reversing mill because the edges of plate cut from coils may curl on heating. 29 A universal mill is a mill capable of simultaneously rolling between both horizontal and vertical rolls. Universal mill plate is defined in HTSUS Chapter 72 Additional U.S. Note 1(b) as follows: Flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1,250 mm and of thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils without patterns in relief. 30 As a result of a decision by the Court of International Trade, cut-to-length floor plate from Belgium imported by Duferco Steel, Inc. is excluded from the scope of these reviews. United States Court of International Trade, Judgement Order in Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, et al., No. 01-1443, October 12, 2002, http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op02/SlipOp02-125.pdf#search=%22court%20of%20international%20trad e%2001-1443%22, retrieved September 12, 2006. CTL-I-21 Most CTL plate is smooth on both sides, since by definition the product excludes plate with patterns in relief if produced on a universal mill.29 “Patterns in relief” are used primarily in floor plate, which has a non-skid pattern of raised figures at regular intervals on one surface of the plate. Floor plate, however, can be produced on other mills, with patterns in relief derived directly from rolling. Such plate is produced primarily by continuous hot-strip mills by placing an embossed roll in the final stand of the continuous mill. It can also be produced on a Steckel mill by holding the hot plate on one of the Steckel furnaces at the mill after completing all but the final rolling pass. One roll is then changed, and the final rolling pass completed. Using this method, the roll would be changed again to roll the next plate.30 Marketing Steel service centers traditionally have served as distributors of plate, but typically do not have plate mills. In addition to marketing, some service centers also perform a wide range of value-added processing of steel products, such as uncoiling, flattening, and cutting plate products to length or flame/plasma cutting plate into nonrectangular shapes. Service centers that process coiled plate into cut lengths or nonrectangular shapes may purchase the coiled plate from U.S. or foreign mills. The process of producing CTL plate from coiled plate is the same whether performed at a steel mill or by a service center. CTL plate can also be sold directly to end users. Table CTL-I-18 presents data on U.S. producers’ and importers’ shipments of CTL plate by channel of distribution. Table CTL-I-18 CTL plate: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ channels of distribution, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Share (percent) Share of U.S. shipments-- To distributors 55.2 51.2 54.1 54.0 57.2 54.4 56.3 54.9 To end users 44.8 48.8 45.9 46.0 42.8 45.6 43.7 45.1 Share of U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments-- To distributors 67.0 61.8 54.6 66.1 74.4 73.7 78.0 76.3 To end users 33.0 38.2 45.4 33.9 25.6 26.3 22.0 23.7 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 31 In the preliminary phase of the 1992-93 original investigations, the Commission considered whether universal mill (“UM”) plate and certain flat bars (carbon steel bars between 150 mm (5.9 inches) and 250 mm (approximately 10 inches) wide and 38.1 mm (1.5 inches) thick) constituted separate domestic like products. On the basis of similar applications for UM plate and sheared plate, and sufficient overlap of competition between certain flat bars and sheared plate, the Commission declined to find either certain flat bars or UM plate to be separate domestic like products. USITC Publication 2549, August 1992, pp. 26-27. In the final phase of the original investigations, the Commission considered whether UM plate was a separate domestic like product from the bulk of CTL plate but did not revisit the issue of certain flat bars. On the basis of the similar physical characteristics, distribution, and end uses of sheared plate and UM plate, and notwithstanding differences in manufacturing facilities and price, the Commission again concluded that UM plate was not a separate domestic like product. USITC Publication 2664, August 1993, p. 214. The Commission did not revisit either issue in the first reviews. In these second reviews, UK respondent interested parties Spartan, Celsa Steel, and Niagara have argued that the Commission should consider separately wide flat bars and other forms of plate covered under the broader product category of CTL plate. Spartan and Celsa Steel's prehearing brief, p. 4, and Niagara's prehearing brief, p. 13. Corus stated that it does not argue that wide flat bar should be a separate like product but does observe that there is only highly attenuated competition between wide flat bar products and CTL plate. Corus' posthearing brief, answers to Commissioners’ questions, pp. 3-4. On the like product question, Brazilian producers deferred to the arguments of other respondents with an interest in bar. Brazilian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, p.1. Duferco Clabecq and the German producers both took no position on the issue in their posthearing briefs. Duferco’s posthearing brief, responses to the questions of the Commission, p. 8, and German respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, app. 1, p. 5. IPSCO, Oregon Steel, and Mittal supported the definition of domestic like product applied in the original investigations, which includes flat bar. IPSCO and Oregon Steel’s posthearing brief, p. A-20, and Mittal’s posthearing brief, Commissioner Hillman’s questions, p. 18. Nucor took no position but noted that CTL plate and wide flat bar cannot be produced using the same facilities. They also noted that wide flat bar may be used for some of the same purposes as CTL plate and has similar physical characteristics but that it is normally sold as bar rather than plate. Nucor’s posthearing brief, exh. 9, p. 1. Data permitting evaluation of the resulting industries based on a distinction between wide flat bar and other forms of CTL plate appear in appendix C of this report. 32 *** importer questionnaire response, section II-8-a. 33 *** producer questionnaire response, section V-2-a. 34 *** purchaser and foreign producer questionnaire responses, sections V-1-a and IV-2-a. 35 *** producer questionnaire response, section V-2-a. CTL-I-22 DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES CONCERNING WIDE FLAT BAR31 Physical Characteristics and Uses Wide flat bar is a hot-rolled carbon steel product made in various lengths and widths, usually starting at 1/8 inch in thickness. It is often used in structural applications, such as bridges, and trailers. According to questionnaire respondents, wide flat bar and CTL plate have similar characteristics and uses. However, flat bar is much narrower than CTL plate, enabling it to be used more easily in applications where narrow widths are needed, 32 such as machine parts. 33 Wide flat bar has a superior surface finish, dimensional precision, and precise edges, as it is rolled on a bar mill rather than being cut- to-length.34 Wide flat bar is rolled along both the width and thickness dimensions, while CTL plate is only rolled along the width.35 The cutting operation used for CTL plate makes the edges unsuitable for 36 Alternative processes, such as machining, milling, and grinding on all sides can be used. *** foreign producer questionnaire response, section IV-2-a. 37 *** producer questionnaire response, section V-2-a. 38 *** foreign producer questionnaire response, section IV-2-a. 39 *** producer questionnaire response, section V-2-b; and *** foreign producer questionnaire response, section IV-2-b. 40 *** producer questionnaire response, section V-2-b. 41 *** producer questionnaire response, section V-2-c. 42 *** producer questionnaire response, section V-2-c. CTL-I-23 cold-drawing.36 Flat bar can be cold-drawn,37 and also can be produced with rounded or beveled edges for specific applications such as off-highway wheels and earthmover wearparts. 38 Interchangeability Interchangeability between flat bar and CTL plate depends on the specific customer end use. For example, if the edge quality is critical, customers may prefer flat bar.39 The size and thickness of the material needed for the final application is also an important consideration.40 Channels of Distribution Wide flat bar and other forms of CTL plate are sold either to service centers or directly to end users. Wide flat bar, however, is sold in greater proportion to end users, while the opposite is true for CTL plate generally. Table CTL-I-19 presents data on U.S. producers’ shipments of wide flat bar by channel of distribution. Table CTL-I-19 Wide flat bar: U.S. producers’ channels of distribution, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Share (percent) Shipments to distributors 32.9 36.5 37.1 37.2 40.7 41.3 44.6 40.7 Shipments to end users 67.1 63.5 62.9 62.8 59.3 58.7 55.4 59.3 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Common Manufacturing Facilities, Employees, and Processes Of the six mills that produce wide flat bar, Nucor and Mittal produce other forms of CTL plate. Although the melting processes are the same and both products are hot-rolled, flat bar is produced either with vertical and horizontal rolls to produce the desired width and thickness dimensions or in a closed box pass. CTL plate is rolled with horizontal rolls only.41 Neither the employees nor the equipment are generally interchangeable.42 43 See generally U.S. producers’ questionnaire responses, section V-2-e, and U.S. purchasers’ questionnaire responses, section V-1-d, summarized in appendix F. 44 *** producer questionnaire response, section V-2-f. 45 The wide variety of responses by market participants may reflect differences in the type of wide flat bar under consideration, consistent with the distinctions drawn by Niagara LaSalle between its special bar quality (“SBQ”) wide flat bar and lower value “merchant” wide flat bar. Niagara LaSalle’s prehearing brief, p. 9 nn. 8-9. 46 Compare tables C-1 and C-5. CTL-I-24 Producer and Consumer Perceptions As noted above, responding U.S. producers generally perceived wide flat bar to be interchangeable with CTL plate produced on plate mills or cut from coil. Similarly, responding producers generally reported that their customers perceived little or no substantial difference between wide flat bar and CTL plate produced on plate mills or cut from coil, despite the superior edge quality, cold drawing capability, and tighter tolerances characteristic of wide flat bar. Customers’ responses were more varied. While several U.S. purchasers reported general interchangeability or only limited differences, several other responding purchasers view plate and wide flat bar as “not interchangeable” or “not compatible,” citing dimensional differences and the ability to cold draw wide flat bar.43 Price Although it has been noted that prices of both CTL plate produced on plate mills or cut from coil and wide flat bar follow similar trends,44 it is unclear from questionnaire responses which product is priced higher. Both U.S. producer and U.S. purchaser responses were divided between reporting no price (or price trend) differential (two producers and two purchasers); lower prices for wide flat bar (one producer and four purchasers); and higher prices for wide flat bar (one producer and one purchaser).45 The average unit value of shipments of wide flat bar was $398.89 in 2000; it increased to $567.11 in 2004, and has remained above that unit value through 2005-June 2006. In general, the average unit values of wide flat bar were lower than the average unit values of CTL plate. 46 47 In the original investigations, the Commission did not consider the issue of whether to expand the domestic like product beyond carbon (non-alloy) steel. Although such an expansion was advocated belatedly by domestic producers in the first reviews, the Commission concluded that there was insufficient record evidence to support modification of the domestic like product. USITC Publication 3364, November 2000, pp. 6-7. No party initially advocated expansion of the domestic like product to include micro-alloy steel in these second reviews. Nonetheless, the Commission has considered micro-alloy steel to be part of the domestic like product (consistent with Commerce’s scope) in original investigations on plate, hot-rolled steel, and cold-rolled steel, and expanded the domestic like product to include micro-alloy steel in the 2003 five-year review Certain Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review). Accordingly, the Commission opted to collect data on micro-alloy steel. Data permitting evaluation of the resulting broader industries based on the inclusion of micro-alloy steel appear in appendix C of this report. In their posthearing briefs, Nucor, Mittal, IPSCO, and Oregon Steel all support the Commission’s original definition of the domestic like product, which excludes micro-alloy plate. However, while Mittal, IPSCO, and Oregon Steel state that they do not believe the inclusion of micro-alloy plate would affect the Commission’s analysis, Nucor expressly states its opposition to any such inclusion. Nucor’s posthearing brief, exh. 9, p. 2; Mittal’s posthearing brief, Commissioner Lane’s questions, p. 8; IPSCO and Oregon Steel’s posthearing brief, p. A-20. Further, in their posthearing brief, the Brazilian producers take no position on the definition of the domestic like product, but do note their belief that inclusion of micro-alloy steel would not affect the outcome of the case. Brazilian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, p. 2. 48 The HTSUS does not mention “carbon steel”; rather, it provides a definition of “other alloy steel” as steel, other than stainless steel, containing more than a specified amount of at least one of several elements. Steel that is not stainless steel or other alloy steel is referred to as “non-alloy steel.” HTSUS, Chapter 72 Note 1(f). 49 Lankford, William T., Jr., Ed., The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel, Tenth Edition, p. 1313. 50 Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-388-391 and 731-TA-816-821 (Review), USITC Publication 3816, November 2005. CTL-I-25 DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES CONCERNING MICRO-ALLOY CTL PLATE47 Physical Characteristics and Uses The HTSUS differentiates between three categories of steel: stainless steel, “other alloy steel,” and “non-alloy steel.” Steel that is not stainless steel but that contains one or more alloying elements in an amount that exceeds a specified limit is defined as “other alloy steel.” Steel that is not stainless steel or other alloy steel is referred to as “non-alloy steel.”48 The scope of these reviews includes only steel that is classified as “non-alloy” under the HTSUS, whereas a commonly used industry term “carbon steel” arguably includes some steel that must be classified under the HTSUS as alloy steel. In particular, the use of small amounts of such alloying elements as columbium, vanadium, and titanium to produce a class of steels known as high-strength, low-alloy (HSLA) steels is common, and these steel compositions are often considered within the industry to be carbon steel, regardless of whether the amounts of the alloying elements are sufficient to require that the steel be classified as alloy steel under the HTSUS definitions.49 For purposes of these reviews, this report uses the term “micro-alloy” in a narrow sense to refer to steel that contains one or more alloying elements in an amount that falls within the range specified in the tabulation below, and none of the elements in a quantity greater than that indicated. The definition for micro-alloy used in these reviews was based on the requirements specified in the most recent five-year reviews covering CTL plate. 50 51 *** producer questionnaire responses, section VI-2-a. 52 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-a. 53 In contrast, certain alloy grades of steel are used when high hardenability is needed, such as in the tool and die industry. *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-a. 54 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-b. 55 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-b. 56 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-b. 57 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-b. 58 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-b. CTL-I-26 Element Percent by weight Non-alloy steel Micro-alloy steel less than not less than not more than Aluminum 0.3 0.3 0.50 Boron 0.0008 — — Chromium 0.3 0.3 1.25 Cobalt 0.3 — — Copper 0.4 0.4 1.00 Lead 0.4 — — Manganese 1.65 1.65 1.80 Molybdenum 0.08 0.08 0.10 Nickel 0.3 0.3 1.25 Niobium 0.06 0.06 0.10 Silicon 0.6 0.6 1.50 Titanium 0.05 0.05 0.41 Tungsten 0.3 — — Vanadium 0.1 0.1 0.15 Zirconium 0.05 0.05 0.15 Other elements, except sulfur, phosphorus, carbon, and nitrogen 0.1 — — Most questionnaire respondents agree that there are only moderate differences in physical characteristics and uses among carbon and micro-alloy CTL plate. When compared to carbon grade CTL plate, micro-alloy steel plates generally have higher strength and toughness characteristics.51 Because of these characteristics, micro-alloy CTL plate typically is used for applications such as construction and earth-moving/mining equipment, rail cars, line pipe, poles and towers, armored vehicles, and machine parts and bridges. 52 53 Interchangeability Carbon and micro-alloy plate are sometimes interchangeable, depending on end use. Micro-alloy steels are good substitutes where increased strength is required along with less weight.54 The increased strength levels achieved by the alloy additions enable the thickness of the plate to be reduced, creating a lighter product. 55 However, the higher strength of micro-alloy plate may exceed design criteria56 and certain alloys may be restricted by customers.57 Also, the higher cost of micro-alloy plate may exceed the budgets of some customers.58 59 *** importer questionnaire response, section II-10-b. 60 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-c. 61 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-c. 62 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-c. 63 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-e. 64 *** importer questionnaire response, section II-10-d. 65 *** purchaser and importer questionnaire responses, sections VI1-d and II-10-d; *** importer questionnaire response, section II-10-d; and *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-e. CTL-I-27 Channels of Distribution Both carbon and micro-alloy plate are sold through service centers and directly to end users, primarily original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). However, carbon plate typically is purchased in standard grades for inventory, while micro-alloy plate tends to be purchased for specific jobs or by OEMs, 59 a tendency that is reflected in the greater share of sales to end users. Table CTL-I-20 presents data on U.S. shipments of micro-alloy steel CTL plate by channel of distribution. Table CTL-I-20 Micro-alloy steel plate: U.S. producers’ channels of distribution, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January- June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Share (percent) Shipments to distributors 30.1 26.2 25.7 23.7 17.9 16.9 14.5 20.2 Shipments to end users 69.9 73.8 74.3 76.3 82.1 83.1 85.5 79.8 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Common Manufacturing Facilities, Employees, and Processes Of the 14 mills and the 9 processors producing CTL plate, 6 and 1, respectively, also produce micro-alloy steel plate. The manufacturing process for micro-alloy plate resembles the process for carbon plate, but larger amounts of alloying elements are used for micro-alloy steel.60 Control-temperature rolling and heat-treating is often used for micro-alloy plate, which may not be used for carbon plate.61 The same equipment and employees are used to produce both carbon and micro-alloy plate.62 Producer and Consumer Perceptions Some questionnaire respondents note that micro-alloy steel plate is perceived to be a higher- quality product than carbon steel plate63 due to its greater longevity, wear resistance, and strength.64 However, many producers and customers reportedly perceive little or no difference in comparable grades of carbon and micro-alloy steel.65 66 *** producer questionnaire response, section VI-2-f. 67 The Commission received one “no” response from ***, and *** did not provide a response. *** provided the Commission with anecdotal data on its limited production of CTL plate. 68 Total U.S. production coverage is based on a comparison of reported U.S. mill production and AISI shipment data. 69 E-mail from ***, October 18, 2006. CTL-I-28 Price Micro-alloy steel plate usually is priced higher than carbon plate due to the costs for the additional alloying elements.66 Questionnaire respondents do not agree as to the exact amount of the premium. The tabulation below presents the average unit value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of carbon steel CTL plate and micro-alloy steel CTL plate, based on questionnaire data. Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Unit value (per short ton) Carbon steel CTL plate $367 $341 $342 $358 $628 $708 $742 $710 Micro-alloy steel CTL plate $466 $466 $424 $428 $671 $884 $880 $875 U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS U.S. Producers In the current second reviews, the Commission mailed questionnaires to 16 integrated and non- integrated mills and 42 service centers believed to have cut-to-length processing lines. The Commission received questionnaire responses from 14 active mills67 and historical data from one closed mill, representing substantially all U.S. mill shipments68 of CTL plate in the United States. In addition, 10 service centers provided the Commission with data on their CTL plate operations. Five firms, representing *** percent of reported 2005 production, have filed notices of appearances in these reviews. Eleven firms, representing *** percent of reported 2005 production, support the continuation of the orders; nine firms, representing *** percent of production, *** on the orders; and one firm, representing *** percent of production, opposes all the orders. Mittal is the one U.S. mill (and importer) related to producers from subject countries. Since the inception of these reviews, the Arcelor-Mittal merger has further expanded Mittal’s relationship to subject producers. Mittal is related to Mittal Steel (“MS”) Galati from Romania. ***. Mittal has a *** percent share in non-responding Polish producer Huta Batory.69 The Arcelor-Mittal merger has linked Mittal to producers in Belgium, Germany, and Spain. Industeel, a Belgian CTL plate producer, and Arceralia, a Spanish CTL plate producer, are both subsidiaries of Arcelor. Neither firm provided the Commission with a completed questionnaire in the current reviews. The merger has also linked Mittal to German CTL plate producer Dillinger, a member of the Arcelor group. Three firms are owned by plate producers located in nonsubject countries. IPSCO is owned by IPSCO Canada which produces CTL plate and exports it to the United States. Jindal United Steel Corp. is owned by Jindal Group of India. Finally, CSI is *** percent owned by JFE, a Japanese plate producer. U.S. production of CTL plate occurs throughout the country. The West had experienced a decline in its share of production with the closure of producer Geneva in Vineyard, UT, followed by the exit of CSI’s Fontana, CA, mill from the plate market. Details regarding each firm’s production location, share of production, parent company, and position on the orders are presented in table CTL-I-21. CTL-I-29 Table CTL-I-21 CTL plate: U.S. mills and service centers, locations, share of 2005 production, parent company, and position on the orders Firm Production locations Share of production (percent) Parent company Position on the orders U.S. mills Arkansas Steel Newport, AR *** (2 ) (2 ) Claymont Claymont, DE *** ***% HIG Capital *** CSI Fontana, CA *** ***% JFE ***% Rio Doce LTD *** CMC Steel Alabama Birmingham, AL *** Commercial Metals Co. (100%) *** Gerdau Ameristeel Cartersville, GA Jackson, TN Wilton, IA Calvert City, KY *** ***% Gerdau, S.A. *** Geneva Vineyard, UT *** (3 ) (3 ) IPSCO Enterprises, Inc. Montpelier, IA Axis, AL St. Paul, MN Houston, TX *** ***% IPSCO, Inc. *** Jindal United Steel Corp. Baytown, TX *** ***% Jindal Group *** Kentucky Electric Ashland, KY *** None *** LeTourneau Longview, TX *** ***% Rowan Companies, Inc. *** Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. Burns Harbor, IN Coatesville, PA Conshohocken, PA *** A division of Mittal Steel Company, NV *** Nucor Steel Cofield, NC Tuscaloosa, AL *** ***%, a division of Nucor Corporation *** Oregon Steel Mills Portland, OR *** None *** U.S. Steel Gary, IN *** None *** WCI Steel, Inc. Warren, OH *** ***% Renco Steel Holdings, Inc. *** Table continued on next page. CTL-I-30 Table CTL-I-21–Continued CTL plate: U.S. mills and service centers, locations, share of 2005 production, parent company, and position on the orders Firm Production locations Share of production (percent) Parent company Position on the orders U.S. service centers American Steel Portland, OR *** ***% Reliance Steel *** Cargill Steel Service Centers Houston, TX Memphis, TN Catoosa, OK Panama City, FL East Chicago, IN Nashville, TN *** A division of Cargill Inc. *** Feralloy Chicago, Il Portage, IN *** ***% TUI-AG *** Friedman Lone Star, TX AR Morel, AR *** None *** IPSCO Enterprises, Inc. St. Paul, MN Houston, TX *** (4 ) (4 ) Olympic Cleveland, OH *** None *** PDM Fresno, CA *** ***% Reliance Steel & Aluminum ( 2 ) Primary Steel Chicago, IL Middletown, CT *** ( 2 ) *** Robinson Steel East Chicago, IN Granite City, IL *** None *** Steel Warehouse South Bend, IN Oak Creek, WI Rock Island, IL Memphis, TN Chattanooga, TN *** Lerman Holding Co., Inc. (***%) and Lerman Enterprise LLC. (***%) *** Total: 100.0% 1 Less than 0.05 percent. 2 Information not supplied. 3 Geneva closed in December 2001. 4 ***. Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to total shown. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. Importers For these reviews, the Commission sent importers’ questionnaires to all U.S. mills; all U.S. service centers believed to have cut-to-length processing lines; all U.S. firms believed to have imported CTL plate during previous investigations; and firms identified by *** as importers of record for CTL plate between January 2000 and March 2005. In response to the Commission’s importers’ questionnaires, 16 firms supplied usable data and 25 firms indicated that they had not imported the product since 2000. Several firms reported small amounts of imports of the subject product but did not complete the 70 Imports of non-excluded CTL plate from Belgium amounted to *** short tons in 2005. CTL-I-31 questionnaires. The imports for these firms typically occurred in one year and were not substantial. Table CTL-I-21 presents a summary of information regarding U.S. importers of CTL plate. Arcelor, a subsidiary of Arcelor France, is related to Dillinger in Germany, Industeel in Belgium, and Aceralia (Arcelor’s Spanish operations). Arcelor is also related to GTS (France) and Industeel (which has French operations and a U.S. office for importation). Likewise, Industeel, an importer of CTL plate from Belgium, is part of Arcelor, and shares the same relationships. Duferco is related to its Belgian parent company by the same name, and imports CTL plate from ***. 70 Duferco is also related to CTL plate producers Makstil in Macedonia and trading company Duferco SA (incorporated in Switzerland). Mitsui is related to Japanese CTL plate producer Mitsui. IPSCO is related to IPSCO Canada which produces CTL plate and exports it to the United States. Table CTL-I-22 CTL plate: U.S. importers, source of imports, U.S. headquarters, and parent company Firm Source of imports Headquarters Parent company Alro *** Jackson, MI None Arcelor *** New York, New York Arcelor, France Cargill *** Minnetonka, MN None Duferco *** Matawan, NJ Nina Finance (Luxembourg) 100% IPSCO *** Lisle, IL IPSCO, Inc. (Canada) Industeel *** Wayne, PA Arcelor S.A., Belgium KS Bearings *** Fountain Inn, SC KS International Investing (U.S.A.) Macsteel *** White Plains, NY *** Man Ferrostal *** Houston, TX Man Capitol Corp. 100% Marubeni Itochu *** New York, NY MISI (Japan) Mitsui Steel *** New York, NY Mitsui & Co., Ltd. (Japan) Mittal *** Chicago, IL Mittal, Netherlands Metal One *** Rosemont, IL Metal One Holdings (U.S.) Vestas American Wind Tech. *** Portland, OR Vestas Wind Systems (Denmark) 100% Ryerson Tull *** Chicago, IL None Schaeffler Group USA Corp. *** Fort Mill, SC Schaeffler Group (Germany) 100% Stemcor *** New York, New York Stemcor Holdings, UK Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 71 Purchaser questionnaires also were sent with importer questionnaires. CTL-I-32 U.S. Purchasers In response to purchaser questionnaires issued by the Commission to 68 firms, 39 purchasers supplied usable data and 20 reported that they had not purchased the subject product during the period for which data were collected. U.S. purchasers, their sources, U.S. locations, and type of firm, are shown in table CTL-I-23. 71 Table CTL-I-23 CTL plate: U.S. purchasers, their sources of purchases, U.S. locations, and types of firms Firm Source of purchases U.S. office location Type of firm A.M. Castle *** Franklin Park, IL *** Berg Steel Pipe Corp.1 *** Panama City, FL *** BWX Technologies, Inc. 2 *** Lynchburg, VA *** Carolina Steel Group LLC3 *** Greensboro, NC *** Caterpillar, Inc. *** Peoria, IL *** Central Steel & Wire Company *** Chicago, IL *** Chatham Steel4 *** Savannah, GA *** Commercial Metals Company5 *** Irving, TX *** Corus International America Houston6 *** Sugar Land, TX *** DuBose Steel Inc. of NC *** Roseboro, NC *** EMJ7 *** Schaumburg, IL *** Jeffboat LLC8 *** Jeffersonville, IN *** John Deere *** Moline, IL *** Kenilworth Steel Co.9 *** Warren, OH *** Kiewit Offshore Services, Inc. 10 *** Ingleside, TX *** KS Bearings *** Fountain Inn, SC *** Macsteel Service Centers USA *** Newport Beach, CA *** Metals USA, Inc. *** Houston, TX *** Metso Minerals Industries, Inc. *** Waukesha, WI *** Mitsui Steel, Inc.11 *** New York, NY *** Morse Steel Service *** Bellingham, WA *** Nance Steel Sales, Inc. *** Southfield, MI *** Table continued on next page. CTL-I-33 Table CTL-I-23–Continued CTL plate: U.S. purchasers, their sources of purchases, U.S. locations, and types of firms Firm Source of purchases U.S. office location Type of firm National Steel and Shipbuilding Co. 12 *** San Diego, CA *** Niagara LaSalle Corp. 13 *** Hammond, IN *** Olympic Steel, Inc. *** Cleveland, OH *** O’Neal Steel *** Birmingham, AL *** Pacific Steel & Recycling *** Great Falls, MT *** Panama Machinery & Equipment, Inc. *** Everett, WA *** Pioneer Steel Corp. *** Detroit, MI *** Primary Steel LLC *** Middletown, CT *** Reliance Steel Company *** Los Angeles, CA *** Russel Metals Williams Bahcall14 *** Appleton, WI *** Ryerson, Inc. *** Chicago, IL *** Samuel, Son, & Co. Inc. *** Lancaster, NY *** Schaeffler Group USA Corp. 15 *** Fort Mill, SC *** Synergy Steel Inc. *** Troy, MI *** Thomas & Betts Corp. *** Memphis, TN *** Union Tank Car Company16 *** Chicago, IL *** Vestas American Wind Technology, Inc.17 *** Portland, OR *** 1 Owned by Europipe GmbH. 2 Owned by McDermott. 3 Owned by Hirschfeld Holdings LP. 4 Owned by Reliance Steel & Aluminum. 5 Owned by Commercial Metals Corp. 6 Owned by Reliance Steel. 7 Owned by Corus Group PLC. 8 Owned by American Commercial Lines, Inc. 9 Owned by Stemcor, Inc. 10 Owned by Kiewit Corp. 11 Owned by Mitsui & Co. 12 Owned by NASSCO Holdings, Inc. 13 Owned by Niagara Corp. 14 Owned by Russel Metals Inc. 15 Owned by Schaeffler Group Kg. 16 Owned by The Marmon Group. 17 Owned by Vestas Wind Systems A/S. Note.–Despite repeated contacts by Staff, *** of Houston, TX, did not provide a questionnaire response, despite committing to do so. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. CTL-I-34 APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES Table CTL-I-24 presents apparent U.S. consumption and table CTL-I-25 presents market shares. Table CTL-I-24 CTL plate: Apparent U.S. consumption, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) U.S. producers' U.S. shipments 6,115,864 5,595,208 5,988,501 6,041,385 6,442,052 6,618,088 3,304,432 3,866,052 Imports from-- Belgium 15,614 16,575 11,615 6,226 10,271 10,388 2,767 6,853 Brazil 3,243 2,978 1,477 0 18 2,460 1,961 420 Finland 0 19 0 0 1,290 0 0 0 Germany 8,783 129 40,536 2,647 23,413 2,078 1,491 15,671 Mexico 153 271 273 308 1,083 440 379 168 Poland 3 386 0 0 45 61 61 0 Romania 6 5,981 44,339 69,552 109,969 49,813 3,014 0 Spain 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 Sweden 354 1,312 198 0 280 182 182 50 Taiwan 75 66 226 0 0 0 0 0 United Kingdom 847 125 79 23 8 17 0 19 Subtotal 29,083 27,842 98,749 78,755 146,377 65,439 9,856 23,181 Nonsubject 669,666 611,424 452,321 234,670 390,123 598,444 331,866 545,050 Total imports 698,749 639,266 551,069 313,425 536,500 663,883 341,722 568,231 Apparent U.S. consumption 6,814,613 6,234,474 6,539,570 6,354,810 6,978,552 7,281,971 3,646,154 4,434,283 Value (1,000 dollars) U.S. producers' U.S. shipments 2,242,250 1,909,806 2,050,077 2,164,450 4,047,066 4,685,560 2,452,976 2,744,626 Imports from-- Belgium 6,458 6,511 4,951 3,086 7,023 8,923 1,976 5,904 Brazil 1,546 1,386 288 0 7 3,138 2,714 323 Finland 0 10 0 0 1,112 0 0 0 Germany 4,030 92 17,028 1,688 10,641 1,440 980 15,574 Mexico 65 141 81 123 570 271 244 79 Poland 4 95 0 0 23 36 36 0 Romania 6 1,433 12,627 20,706 58,584 31,292 2,084 0 Spain 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Sweden 198 1,095 192 0 131 108 108 33 Taiwan 26 20 270 0 0 0 0 0 United Kingdom 246 88 49 7 3 6 0 6 Subtotal 12,581 10,873 35,489 25,610 78,094 45,214 8,143 21,920 Nonsubject 199,956 180,362 143,493 78,892 221,897 400,852 227,169 325,305 Total imports 212,537 191,235 178,982 104,501 299,990 446,065 235,312 347,225 Apparent U.S. consumption 2,454,787 2,101,040 2,229,060 2,268,951 4,347,057 5,131,625 2,688,288 3,091,851 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission’s questionnaires, and official import statistics. CTL-I-35 Table CTL-I-25 CTL plate: U.S. market shares, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) Apparent U.S. consumption 6,814,613 6,234,474 6,539,570 6,354,810 6,978,552 7,281,971 3,646,154 4,434,283 Value (1,000 dollars) Apparent U.S. consumption 2,454,787 2,101,040 2,229,060 2,268,951 4,347,057 5,131,625 2,688,288 3,091,851 Share of quantity (percent) U.S. producers' U.S. shipments 89.7 89.7 91.6 95.1 92.3 90.9 90.6 87.2 Imports from-- Belgium 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 Brazil (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 (1 ) (1 ) 0.1 (1 ) Finland 0.0 (1 ) 0.0 0.0 (1 ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Germany 0.1 (1 ) 0.6 (1 ) 0.3 (1 ) (1 ) 0.4 Mexico (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) Poland (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 0.0 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 Romania (1 ) 0.1 0.7 1.1 1.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 Spain (1 ) 0.0 (1 ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sweden (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) Taiwan (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 United Kingdom ( 1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 0.4 0.4 1.5 1.2 2.1 0.9 0.3 0.5 Nonsubject 9.8 9.8 6.9 3.7 5.6 8.2 9.1 12.3 Total imports 10.3 10.3 8.4 4.9 7.7 9.1 9.4 12.8 Share of value (percent) U.S. producers' U.S. shipments 91.3 90.9 92.0 95.4 93.1 91.3 91.2 88.8 Imports from-- Belgium 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 Brazil 0.1 0.1 (1 ) 0.0 (1 ) 0.1 0.1 (1 ) Finland 0.0 (1 ) 0.0 0.0 (1 ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Germany 0.2 (1 ) 0.8 0.1 0.2 (1 ) (1 ) 0.5 Mexico (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) Poland (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 0.0 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 Romania (1 ) 0.1 0.6 0.9 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 Spain (1 ) 0.0 (1 ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sweden (1 ) 0.1 (1 ) 0.0 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) Taiwan (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 United Kingdom ( 1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.0 (1 ) Subtotal 0.5 0.5 1.6 1.1 1.8 0.9 0.3 0.7 Nonsubject 8.1 8.6 6.4 3.5 5.1 7.8 8.5 10.5 Total imports 8.7 9.1 8.0 4.6 6.9 8.7 8.8 11.2 1 Less than 0.05 percent. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission’s questionnaires, and official Commerce import statistics. 1 Coiled plate also is used as the feedstock for the manufacture of welded pipe. 2 Service centers generally purchase coiled plate from U.S. or foreign mills to produce CTL plate. CTL-II-1 PART CTL-II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS CTL plate is produced from carbon steel slabs. As discussed in Part CTL-I, slabs are formed from molten steel, then typically passed through either a traditional reversing plate mill or a steckel mill, which increases the width and reduces the thickness. Alternatively, the slab may be processed into coiled plate1 on a hot strip mill (or a combination mill) and processed through a separate shear line. The plate is finished to the customer’s specified thickness, width, and length.2 Commodity-grade CTL plate is used in a variety of applications, such as the manufacture of storage tanks, heavy machinery and machinery parts, ships and barges, agriculture and construction equipment, and general load-bearing structures. Non-commodity grades of CTL plate have superior strength and performance characteristics as compared with commodity grades of CTL plate and typically are made to order for customers seeking specific properties, such as improved malleability, hardness or abrasion resistance, impact resistance or toughness, higher strength, and ease in machining and welding. These particular properties are achieved by chemically refining the steel by increasing or decreasing specific elements, and by accurate temperature control while hot rolling or heat treating the plate. Non- commodity grades of CTL plate are used to manufacture railroad cars, line pipes, mobile equipment, highway and railway bridges, pressure vessels, military armor, and machinery components. U.S. CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION U.S. producers and importers ship CTL plate to end users, as well as to distributors and service centers (see table CTL-II-1). U.S. producers shipped slightly more than half of their CTL plate to distributors and slightly less than half to end users during the review period. There was too little data reported to comment on imports from subject countries, but importers from nonsubject countries shipped more than one-half of their CTL plate to distributors in every year except 2002. U.S. producers and importers, as a whole, reported nationwide sales, although most individual firms reported that their sales were concentrated in particular regions. Generally, producers reported serving primarily the Midwest, Central Southwest, and Southeast, as well as the national market, and importers reported primarily serving the Midwest and Central Southwest, as well as the national market (see table CTL-II-2). Three of the seven importers that reported nationwide sales import from subject countries, and three importers from subject countries did not respond to the question. *** reported modest sales of CTL plate using the internet, generally *** percent of sales or less. None of the 39 purchasers reported buying CTL plate over the internet. CTL-II-2 Table CTL-II-1 CTL plate: Channels of distribution for domestic product and imports1 sold in the U.S. market (as a percent of total) by year and by source, 2000-052 Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Share of quantity (percent) Domestic industry: Shipments to distributors/service centers 55.2 51.2 54.1 54.0 57.2 54.4 Shipments to end users 44.8 48.8 45.9 46.0 42.8 45.6 Imports from Belgium: Shipments to distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments to end users *** *** *** *** *** *** Imports from Finland: Shipments to distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments to end users *** *** *** *** *** *** Imports from Germany: Shipments to distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments to end users *** *** *** *** *** *** Imports from Romania: Shipments to distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments to end users *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject imports: Shipments to distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments to end users *** *** *** *** *** *** 1 No data were reported for imports from Brazil, Mexico, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, or the United Kingdom. ***. 2 In the original investigations, U.S. mills shipped 53.7 percent of their CTL plate to end users and 46.3 percent to distributors, service centers, and processors. U.S. importers shipped 17.8 percent of their CTL plate to end users and 82.2 percent to distributors, service centers, and processors. In the first reviews, U.S. producers shipped 59.5 percent of their CTL plate to distributors and 40.5 percent to end users. For information on imports of CTL plate from the first reviews, see supplemental memorandum INV-X-229, October 30, 2000. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires; Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, 348-350, and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, 614-618 (Review), USITC Publication 3364 (November 2000); and Certain Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-319-332, 334, 336-342, 344, 347-353, and 731-TA-573-579, 581-592, 594-597, 599-609, 612-619 (Final), USITC Publication 2664 (August 1993). CTL-II-3 Table CTL-II-2 CTL plate: Geographic market areas in the United States served by domestic producers and importers of subject product1 Region Producers Importers Contiguous United States 7 7 Northeast 2 1 Midwest 10 7 Central Southwest 8 5 Southeast 9 2 Mountains 2 1 Pacific Coast 5 2 1 In the first reviews, U.S. producers and importers, as a whole, reported nationwide sales, though most individual firms reported that their sales were concentrated in particular regions. In the original investigations, the staff report did not discuss geographic market area data reported by U.S. producers and importers but official statistics showed that imports from the subject countries entered all four major regions of the United States. Note.–Nineteen producers and 15 importers responded to this question. Firms were not limited to the number of market areas that they could report. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires; Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, 348-350, and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, 614-618 (Review), USITC Publication 3364 (November 2000); and Certain Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-319-332, 334, 336-342, 344, 347-353, and 731-TA-573-579, 581-592, 594-597, 599-609, 612-619 (Final), USITC Publication 2664 (August 1993). SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS U.S. Supply Domestic Production Four producers and three importers reported that consolidation in the U.S. CTL plate industry has affected the availability of CTL plate since 2000. One producer reported that the U.S. safeguard measures on steel, which included increased duties on CTL plate from March 2002 until December 2003, affected the availability of CTL plate. Other producers and importers reported that increased capacity in the U.S. industry, shutdowns at some U.S. facilities, increased energy and transportation costs, increased imports from nonsubject countries, and increased CTL plate production and demand in China and India have affected supply since 2000. Eighteen of the 19 responding producers and 13 of the 15 responding importers reported they do not anticipate any change in the availability of U.S.-produced CTL plate in the U.S. market in the future. *** reported that it expects a decrease in the availability of U.S.-produced CTL plate due to mill outages, consolidation, and increases in line pipe production. Purchasers were asked if there have been changes in any factors that affected the availability of CTL plate in the U.S. market since 2000. Thirty of the 36 responding purchasers reported that there had been changes, such as shortages and price increases of raw materials, mill consolidations, bankruptcies, increases in capacity, increased energy and transportation costs, and increased demand for CTL plate and 3 A motor outage in mid-June 2006 caused Mittal Steel’s Conshohocken, PA plant, which produces carbon and stainless steel plate, to run at reduced capacity. “Plate market feeling strain after Mittal mill loses motor.” American Metal Market, June 28, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-06-27__15-23-39.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. The mill’s repaired motor was installed August 29, 2006 and carbon steel production has resumed. “Mittal Steel ramping up plate mill hit by motor breakdown in June.” American Metal Market, September 1, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-09-01__15-59-01.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. In addition, Mittal also experienced a blast furnace outage at its Sparrows Point mill in June 2006 but both Conshohocken and Sparrows Point are back to normal operations. Hearing transcript, p. 61 (Fabina). More recently, Mittal experienced two different blast furnace outages, one in late October 2006 and one in mid-November 2006, but both were repaired and are now back in service. “Mittal’s ‘C’ furnace at Burns Harbor briefly idled after breakout at tuyere.” American Metal Market, November 13, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-11-13__15-12-41.html, retrieved November 20, 2006. 4 Caterpillar reported that it was on allocation in 2004 but that it is not currently on allocation. However, it reported that ***. Caterpillar’s posthearing brief, pp. 1-2. 5 IPSCO, Nucor, and Oregon reported that they do not have any customers on allocation in 2006. Hearing transcript, pp. 91-92 (Tulloch, McFadden, and Montross). However, *** reported that it has had trouble with supply from Mittal, Nucor, and IPSCO from “January 2004 to the present.” *** reported that from the second quarter of 2006 until “further notice,” Mittal, Nucor, IPSCO, and Citisteel had customers on allocation. *** reported that domestic mills had a controlled order entry system in 2006. *** reported that it has been on allocation for the second and third quarters of 2006 from most U.S. producers. *** reported that Mittal, IPSCO, and Nucor are on allocation in 2006. 6 Heavy-carbon products, including plate, have reportedly experienced strong demand conditions and a possible structural shortfall in domestic capacity. “Two steel markets veering off in opposite directions.” American Metal Market, August 11, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-08-11__21-20-35.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. 7 Six purchasers reported being placed on allocation or having problems obtaining CTL plate from ***, but *** reported that it did not refuse, decline, or was unable to supply CTL plate since 2000. CTL-II-4 raw materials in China, which limited the availability of foreign products. Most purchasers reported that raw material, energy, and transportation cost increases began in late 2003 or early 2004. *** reported that the U.S. safeguard action and the U.S. military’s involvement in Iraq have affected the availability of CTL plate in the U.S. market. *** reported that Mittal’s rougher mill outage in June 2006 has affected the availability of plate more recently.3 Purchasers also were asked if any suppliers refused, declined, or were unable to supply CTL plate since 2000. Twenty-five purchasers reported that there had been problems with supply, with most reporting that domestic mills had placed them on allocation, or controlled order entry, from early 2004 to early-to-mid 2005.4 *** reported that in 2003 through 2005, there was limited heat-treatment material available, and *** reported that Mittal had customers on allocation in 2005 for thick plate. Five purchasers reported that domestic mills had placed them on allocation or controlled order entry in 2006,5 with another purchaser reporting that supply has been tight in 2006.6 *** reported that suppliers in Mexico refused new customers in 2004, and *** reported that a supplier in France has not quoted prices since 2004 and that a German company had placed the firm on controlled order entry since 2004. Four of the 19 responding producers and 5 of the 16 responding importers reported having refused, declined, or been unable to supply CTL plate since 2000. *** reported limiting orders from new accounts, reserving space for regular customers, concentrating on contractual and local accounts, or closing order books beginning in 2004.7 *** reported that it declined to sell certain plate products during the period covered by the U.S. safeguard action and that it has limited new customers since 2004, and *** reported that since 2004, it has focused on its core customers and limited new customers. Producers and importers reported that, generally, there have been no significant changes in the product range, product mix, or marketing of CTL plate since 2000, nor do they anticipate any changes in the future. *** reported that it began using the internet for marketing, *** reported that there has been a general switch from blast furnaces to electric arc furnaces since 2000, and *** reported that heat 8 “Nucor’s carbon focus puts heat treat on hold.” American Metal Market, February 22, 2005, found at http://amm.com/2005-02-22__15-05-41.html, retrieved September 20, 2006. 9 By January-June 2006, however, the U.S. mills’ capacity utilization rate was approaching 90 percent, while the U.S. processors’ capacity utilization exceeded 50 percent. More than one-half of available mill capacity in interim 2006, moreover, was located at bar mills producing wide flat bars. CTL-II-5 treatment, chemistry, and dimensional characteristics have become more sophisticated. *** also reported that it expects Nucor and IPSCO to invest in value-added heat treatment capabilities. Purchasers were asked to identify and discuss any improvements/changes in the U.S. CTL plate industry since 2000 and any improvements/changes that they anticipate in the future, and eight purchasers responded. *** reported that consolidation of the U.S. industry has produced three large suppliers of CTL plate in Mittal, Nucor, and IPSCO and, they believed, reduced supply in the U.S. market. *** reported that consolidation has lead to price stability and that the absence of unfairly traded imports has eliminated disruptive price fluctuations. *** reported that IPSCO and Nucor have invested significant capital in their facilities since 2001 and that they now represent a significant proportion of North American capacity. *** reported that the U.S. mills have gone from making large losses to large profits during the review period and that IPSCO and Nucor have abandoned plans for controlled rolling and a new heat treatment facility because demand has outpaced supply in the U.S. market. 8 *** reported that old participants have shed legacy costs through consolidation and new efficient producers have entered the market. *** reported that the increased use of computers and consolidation within the U.S. industry has affected modernization by increasing efficiency and capacities, and that it expects continued consolidation to bring CTL plate prices down. Based on available information, U.S. producers are likely to respond to changes in demand with small to moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced CTL plate. The main contributing factors to the low to moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused capacity, few export shipments, low levels of inventories, and some production alternatives. Industry capacity U.S. producers reported excess capacity throughout the period for which data were collected in these reviews. U.S. producers’ capacity utilization for CTL plate increased irregularly from 62.7 percent in 2000 to 65.7 percent in 2005 and, at 75.5 percent, was higher in January-June 2006 than it was at any time during the review period (see table CTL-III-2). U.S. mills’ reported capacity utilization increased from 70.5 percent in 2000 to 75.6 percent in 2005 (see table C-1a), and U.S. processors’ reported capacity utilization increased from 46.8 percent in 2000 to 47.4 percent in 2005 (see table C-1b). 9 Processors generally do not have the capability of producing thicker plate (including plate that is over 1 inch in thickness), wide plate, or plate with special chemistries. Alternative markets U.S. producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from 3.7 percent in 2000 to 6.2 percent in 2005 (see table CTL-III-4), and export shipments in January-June 2006 were higher than they were during the same period in 2005. This relatively low level of exports during the period indicates that domestic producers may be somewhat constrained in their ability to shift shipments between the United States and other markets in response to price changes. Indeed, 16 of the 18 responding producers reported that they are unable or limited in their ability to shift sales of CTL plate between the U.S. market and alternative country markets. Most producers reported that freight costs, competition from subsidized foreign producers, and the lack of established contacts in other markets limit their ability to shift sales. Three producers reported that U.S. exports of CTL plate are subject to tariff or 10 *** reported that, although there are no known antidumping or countervailing duty orders on U.S. exports of CTL plate, there are a number of other barriers to U.S. exports. See *** producer questionnaire, response to question IV-B-30. 11 Mittal reported that service center inventories of CTL plate in September 2006 were at their highest level since 2002. Mittal’s posthearing brief, pp. 3-4 and public exhibit 2. Joint respondent interested parties reported that the MSCI inventory data include both CTL plate and coiled plate and suggest that the majority of the data reported are inventories of nonsubject product. Brazilian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, exhibit 1 (joint respondent interested parties’ answers to Commissioners’ questions), pp. 1-3. The MSCI data appear in part CTL-III of this report. 12 *** reported that they have not or do not anticipate in the future producing other products on the same machinery and equipment or using the same production and related workers in the production of CTL plate but reported that they could switch production between CTL plate and other products in response to a relative price change. *** reported that they have produced other products on the same machinery and equipment or using the same production and related workers in the production of CTL plate but reported that they could not switch production in response to a relative price change. CTL-II-6 non-tariff barriers in other countries including currency manipulation, local content requirements, and foreign government subsidies. 10 Inventory levels U.S. producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, decreased from 11.0 percent in 2000 to 7.5 percent in 2005 and were lower in January-June 2006 than they were during the same period in 2005 (see table CTL-III-5). U.S. mills’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, fell from 8.2 percent in 2000 to 5.5 percent in 2005 (see table C-1a) and were slightly lower in January-June 2006 than during the same period in 2005. U.S. processors’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, decreased from 19.3 percent in 2000 to 13.4 percent in 2005 and similarly were slightly lower in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005 (see table C-1b). 11 Production alternatives Ten of the 19 responding producers reported that they produce other products, such as hot-rolled sheet in coils, hot-rolled coated steel, angles, CTL sheets, alloy plate, stainless steel plate, and clad plate, on the same equipment and machinery used in the production of CTL plate. Eleven producers12 reported that they are able to switch production to these other products in response to relative price changes. Six producers (three mills and three processors) reported that the time and cost to switch production are minimal, but other producers reported that the switch would be unlikely. Subject Imports The sensitivity of supply of subject imported CTL plate to changes in price depends upon such factors as the existence of excess capacity, the levels of inventories, and the existence of export markets. Relevant information from questionnaire responses for Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom follows, but there was limited information from questionnaire responses for producers from Spain or Sweden. 13 Duferco reported ***. It also reported facing competition in its home market from ***. 14 The two responding Brazilian producers are ***. However, Brazilian producers reported that they ***. Brazilian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, exhibit 5, pp. 10-11. 15 Rautaruukki reported that ***. It also reported that it is ***. 16 German producers reported that ***. They also reported that ***. CTL-II-7 Belgium Based on available information, the responding Belgian producer is likely to respond to changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market.13 The main contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate markets, low levels of inventories, some production alternatives, and high capacity utilization. Belgian export shipments, as a share of total shipments, decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005, with over *** percent going to the European Union (see table CTL-IV-9). Belgian inventories, as a share of total shipments, increased irregularly from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Belgian capacity utilization for CTL plate decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Duferco reported that ***. Brazil Based on available information, Brazilian producers are likely to respond to changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market. 14 The main contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate markets, moderate levels of inventories, and high capacity utilization. Brazilian producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005 and at *** percent, were *** (see table CTL-IV-14). Brazilian inventories, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005, ***. Brazilian producers’ capacity utilization for CTL plate increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization was *** percent in January-June 2006, down from *** percent during the same period in 2005. One Brazilian producer reported that ***. Finland Based on available information, Finnish producer Rautaruukki is likely to respond to changes in demand with small to moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market.15 The main contributing factors to the low to moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate markets, low levels of inventories, and high capacity utilization. Rautaruukki’s export shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased irregularly from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005 (see table CTL-IV-19). Finnish inventories, as a share of total shipments, were about the same in 2000 (*** percent) and 2005 (*** percent). Finnish capacity utilization for CTL plate increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization was *** percent in January- June 2006, down from *** percent during the same period in 2005. Rautaruukki reported ***. Germany Based on available information, German producers are likely to respond to changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market.16 The main contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate markets, moderate levels of inventories, and high capacity utilization. German producers’ export 17 AHMSA reported that ***. It also reported that ***. 18 HSC reported that ***. 19 Mittal Steel Galati reported that ***. It also reported that ***. CTL-II-8 shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from 38.4 percent in 2000 to 43.3 percent in 2005 (see table CTL-IV-25). German producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, increased irregularly from 8.9 percent in 2000 to 10.2 percent in 2005. German producers’ capacity utilization for CTL plate increased from 92.1 percent in 2000 to 104.4 percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization was 104.0 percent in January-June 2006, just as during the same period in 2005. German producers reported that they produce alloy and X-70 plate using the same equipment or production workers as CTL plate but cannot shift production as a result of a relative price change. Mexico Based on available information, the Mexican producer, AHMSA, is likely to respond to changes in demand with relatively small changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market. 17 The main contributing factors to the low degree of responsiveness of supply are few export shipments, low levels of inventories, and high levels of capacity utilization. The Mexican producer’s export shipments, as a share of total shipments of CTL plate, increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005 (see table CTL-IV-31). Mexican inventories, as a share of total shipments, decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Capacity utilization increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005, and was *** percent in January-June 2006, up from *** percent during the same period in 2005. AHMSA reported that ***. Poland Based on available information, Polish producers are likely to respond to changes in demand with small to moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market.18 The main contributing factors to the low to moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate markets, low levels of inventories, some production alternatives, and high capacity utilization. Polish producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments, decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005 and were lower in January-June 2006 than during the same period in 2005 (see table CTL-IV-37). Polish producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Polish producers’ capacity utilization for CTL plate decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization was *** percent in January-June 2006, up from *** percent during the same period in 2005. Polish producer HSC reported that ***. Romania Based on available information, Romanian producer Mittal Steel (MS) Galati is likely to respond to changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market. 19 The main contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate markets, moderate levels of inventories, and some unused capacity. The Romanian producer’s export shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005, with the largest share going to Asia, other than China (see table CTL-IV-43). The Romanian producer’s inventories, as a share of total shipments, decreased irregularly from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Romanian capacity utilization for CTL plate decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization was *** percent in January-June 2006, up from *** percent during the same period in 2005. Mittal Steel Galati reported that ***. 20 China Steel reported that ***. 21 Niagara LaSalle reported that ***. The UK producers reported that ***. Corus reported that ***. 22 As described in the Overview to this report, increased duties on CTL plate were in effect between March 2002 and December 2003 as part of the U.S. safeguard action on certain steel products. CTL-II-9 Taiwan Based on available information, China Steel is likely to respond to changes in demand with small changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market.20 The main contributing factors to the low degree of responsiveness of supply are low levels of exports, low levels of inventories, and high capacity utilization. Taiwan export shipments, as a share of total shipments, decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005 (see table CTL-IV-51). Taiwan inventories, as a share of total shipments, decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Taiwan capacity utilization for CTL plate increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization was *** percent in January-June 2006, down from *** percent during the same period in 2005. China Steel reported that ***. United Kingdom Based on available information, UK producers are likely to respond to changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of CTL plate to the U.S. market.21 The main contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate markets, low levels of inventories, some production alternatives, and some unused capacity. UK producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005 and were largely destined for EU markets (see table CTL-IV-56). UK producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. UK producers’ capacity utilization for CTL plate increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization was *** percent in January-June 2006, down from *** percent during the same period in 2005. One UK producer reported that ***. Nonsubject Imports Imports from nonsubject countries decreased from 2000 to 2003 before increasing in 2004 and 2005 (see table CTL-IV-2). 22 Six of the 18 responding producers and 5 of the 14 responding importers reported that the availability of nonsubject CTL plate has changed since 2000. Producers reported that there were increased imports from Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, China, Australia, Korea, Canada, Italy, and France during the period. *** reported that the U.S. safeguard action decreased the volume of nonsubject imports but that after the safeguard was terminated, U.S. imports from some countries increased significantly. Four importers reported that nonsubject availability has been reduced during the period, in part due to strong demand in their home markets, as well as globally. One importer reported that there has been an increase in nonsubject imports. U.S. Demand Demand Characteristics Apparent U.S. consumption of CTL plate fluctuated in a generally downward trend from 2000 through 2003, decreasing from 6.8 million short tons in 2000 to less than 6.4 million short tons in 2003. Apparent U.S. consumption then increased to 7.3 million short tons in 2005 and was higher in January- 23 *** reported that higher energy costs and higher interest rates will contribute to a slowdown in farm machinery, factory equipment, and new building construction. It also reported expecting some growth in bridge and highway construction and railcar manufacturing. *** producer questionnaire, response to question IV-B-27. 24 “Berg planning to build 180,000 ton large-diameter welded pipe mill.” American Metal Market, July 26, 2006, found at http://amm.com/wrappers/story.asp?file=/2006-07-26__19-49-23.xml, retrieved September 20, 2006. “A big backlog and even bigger potential in large-diameter pipe.” American Metal Market, September 8, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-09-08__18-47-24.html, retrieved September 20, 2006. 25 ***. Mittal’s prehearing brief, pp. 43-45 and confidential exhibit 1. In addition, the joint respondent interested parties submitted numerous reports and news articles on demand in various end use segments in their prehearing brief, exhibit 5. In a September 2006 presentation for the Metals Service Center Institute Economic Summit Forecast 2007, domestic producers reported that demand in all end-use segments is expected to remain strong and that demand in 2007 is expected to be “a little less” than in 2006. IPSCO and Oregon’s posthearing brief, exhibit 5. IPSCO reported that demand growth is at a high level now and will continue at that level or perhaps a slightly lower level, particularly for energy, transportation, and construction equipment. Hearing transcript, pp. 111-113 (Tulloch). Nucor reported that it expects lower volume and prices in 2007, particularly due to slower demand growth in heavy equipment, capital goods, and machinery. Hearing transcript, p. 114 (McFadden). Oregon reported that it expects the large diameter pipe market to be strong over the next year and a half and that overall demand from service centers will be down in 2007. Hearing transcript, pp. 114-115 (Montross). Mittal reported that it expects 2007 to be about the same as 2006 for CTL plate. Hearing transcript, p. 116 (Insetta). 26 Reports from earlier in 2006 suggested that the U.S. market for CTL plate has reportedly been buoyed by bridge and highway construction, heavy equipment, barge building, shipbuilding, and the continued strength of the energy market. Indications at the time were that the CTL plate market would remain strong throughout 2006 and potentially beyond. “Carbon plate prices firm as demand holds steady.” American Metal Market, June 14, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-06-13__13-48-34.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. More recently, IPSCO reported that strong demand conditions are expected to extend into 2007, not only from the energy sector, but also from the production of barges, ships, and railcars. “Strong North American Plate Demand Expected to Continue.” Steel Business Briefing, October 11, 2006, in Brazilian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, exhibit 2. 27 Purchasers who distribute or resell CTL plate listed oil and gas fabricators, shipbuilders, storage tank and structural fabricators, heavy machinery and equipment manufacturers, machine shops, processing service centers, (continued...) CTL-II-10 June 2006 than in January-June 2005. Twelve producers, 10 importers, and 24 purchasers reported that demand has increased since 2000, while five producers, two importers, and four purchasers reported that demand has not changed. Of those reporting that demand increased, factors cited included the improved economy, increased investment, lower interest rates, increased global consumption, increased shipbuilding and oil and gas exploration, increased use for military applications, rebuilding activities after the hurricanes of 2005, and increased construction and manufacturing activity. Two producers, one importer, and one purchaser reported that demand has fluctuated, with both increases and decreases during the period. Two purchasers reported that demand decreased, citing the departure of manufacturing from the United States as the reason. When asked if they anticipate future changes in CTL plate demand in the United States and the rest of the world, 9 producers, 23 2 importers, and 13 purchasers responded in the affirmative, and many explained that China, India, and developing countries will continue to be a factor in demand growth as well as growth in oil and gas pipelines 24 and infrastructure improvements. 25 Some reported that there is increased demand for alternative energy sources, such as wind towers.26 Three producers and one purchaser reported that demand will ease, and another purchaser reported that the continued loss of manufacturing activity will further affect demand. The overall demand for CTL plate primarily depends upon the demand for a variety of end-use applications (see table CTL-II-3). Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to list the end uses of CTL plate. The most commonly reported uses were the construction of bridges, oil and gas pipelines, offshore platforms, ships, barges, storage vessels, utility poles, and agricultural, construction, mining, and forestry equipment.27 27 (...continued) and railcar and other transportation-related manufacturers as consumers of their CTL plate. CTL-II-11 Table CTL-II-3 CTL plate: Shipments by market, 20051 Market Share of quantity (percent) Construction 54.1 Steel service centers and distributors2 25.0 Rail transportation 8.7 Machinery, industrial equipment, and tools 6.1 Oil and gas 2.8 Shipbuilding and marine equipment 2.7 Electrical and agricultural equipment 0.5 Other 0.1 1 Data are for calendar year 2005 and include only classified shipments as reported by AISI reporting companies. 2 Data are not available from AISI on the end-use markets of shipments from service centers and distributors. Source: American Iron & Steel Institute, 16C Report, Shipments of Steel Products by Market Classification, Carbon Steel, Report AIS 16C, 2005. When asked if there had been any changes in the end uses of CTL plate since 2000, one producer reported that there have been increased shipments to pole and tower markets; one importer reported that there are more uses for thick CTL plates; one importer reported that there has been increased use of CTL plate for armor in the Iraq war; one purchaser reported that there was a new ship design introduced in 2001 to use millimetric plate; one purchaser reported that a cone crusher plant closed in 2004; and one producer and one purchaser reported that, beginning in 2003-04, CTL plate is being used to manufacture wind towers. Thirteen of the 16 responding purchasers who are end users reported that the demand for their firms’ final products that use CTL plate changed since 2000, with most citing increases in demand for these final products. In identifying the major factors that contributed to the demand changes, purchasers reported that such things as a growing U.S. economy, increased pipeline construction, new ship designs, and expanded product lines were factors. Twenty-two of 36 responding purchasers reported that the specifications of CTL plate vary depending on the end-use application. Eight purchasers described the different standards set by such organizations as ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers), AAR (Association of American Railroads), FRA (Federal Railroad Administration), API (American Petroleum Institute), and ABS (American Bureau of Shipping). *** reported that OEMs have specific grades relative to their needs; *** reported that bridges use grades that vary with state requirements; *** reported that there are differences in the steel intended for laser applications; *** reported that mining and heavy construction equipment manufacturers have their own specifications; and *** reported that there are differences between high-strength and commercial grades and that there are certain applications that require abrasion resistance. Thirteen of the 19 responding producers and 10 of the 14 responding importers reported that the CTL plate market is not subject to business cycles or conditions of competition distinctive to CTL plate, 28 IPSCO reported that the industry is three years into a capital-spending cycle that others expect to last five to seven years in total; however, due to global changes in the steel industry, it is difficult to look at historical analysis in terms of the business cycle. Hearing transcript, p. 217 (Tulloch). Mexican respondent interested parties reported that the current cycle is unusual in that all of the end use segments have grown at the same time. Hearing transcript, pp. 323-324 (Maleshevich). CTL-II-12 and only one producer and two importers reported that the emergence of new markets has affected the business cycle or conditions of competition distinctive to CTL plate.28 Twenty-one purchasers reported that the CTL plate market is not subject to business cycles or conditions of competition distinctive to CTL plate. Among the 14 purchasers reporting that the market is subject to distinct business cycles or conditions of competition, six reported that some specific end-use markets influence the overall business cycle of the CTL plate market. Others reported that raw material costs, import/export dynamics, or the limited number of suppliers in the world are factors that affect the overall business cycle for the CTL plate market. Only six responding purchasers reported that the emergence of new markets for CTL plate since 2000 has affected the business cycle or conditions of competition distinctive to CTL plate, with two citing increased consumption in industrializing nations, one citing increased demand for military applications, one citing the rebuilding activities after the 2005 hurricanes, and one citing the push for new oil and gas pipelines. Purchasers were asked whether their purchasing patterns for CTL plate from domestic, subject, and nonsubject sources had changed since 2000. Five purchasers reported that their U.S. purchases have increased since 2000, citing such factors as competitive pricing, a weak U.S. dollar, and growth in the CTL business or specific product lines. Two purchasers reported increased German purchases due to increased German production and the lack of available U.S. CTL plate. Other purchasers reported decreased purchases from Finland, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, due to such factors as the antidumping duties, the lack of availability, or uncompetitive pricing. Twelve purchasers reported that their purchasing patterns are largely unchanged. Thirteen purchasers reported purchasing from subject sources before the years that the countervailing/antidumping duties under review became effective. Six purchasers reported that their purchasing pattern from subject countries is essentially unchanged; five reported that they reduced or discontinued their purchases from subject countries because of the orders; and two reported that they changed the pattern of purchases from subject countries for other reasons, specifically because the firm was doing less business or that the product was no longer offered and was not competitively priced. Fourteen purchasers reported that they did not purchase from nonsubject sources before or after the orders; 13 reported that their purchasing pattern from nonsubject sources was essentially unchanged; 6 changed their purchasing pattern for reasons other than the orders; and 2 increased their purchases from nonsubject countries because of the orders. Substitute Products While there are reported substitutes for CTL plate, the potential for substitution is often limited by the end use, as well as such factors as width, thickness, strength, and price. Concrete, alloy plate, aluminum, ceramic, fiberglass, plastics, castings, and wood were listed as substitutes for CTL plate in certain applications. Five producers, 3 importers, and 19 purchasers reported that there are no substitutes for CTL plate. When asked if there have been any changes in the number or type of products that can be substituted for CTL plate, *** reported that the product in coils has been getting more sophisticated at the expense of CTL plate and that they expect the trend to continue. One purchaser reported that substitutes have been gaining market share due to increased steel costs and also reported that because of the high price of CTL plate, it expects the substitute products to continue gaining market share. Another purchaser also expects substitute products to gain market share if the price of steel increases in the future. The other 29 Demand for CTL plate is expected to grow steadily through 2010 in China, the Pacific Basin, and ex- communist countries, as defined by ***. IPSCO and Oregon’s posthearing brief, exhibit 10. ***. Mittal’s prehearing brief, confidential exhibit 1. ***. Nucor’s prehearing brief, exhibit 4. 30 Corus reported that demand will remain strong in the oil and gas sector, as well as for infrastructure, especially in Asia, India, and the Middle East. Corus’ response to the notice of institution, p. 8. In addition, demand for oil and gas transmission lines and platforms, as well as naval construction, is expected to remain strong in Brazil. Brazilian respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, exhibit 1 and response to the notice of institution, pp. 18-19. CTL-II-13 importers and purchasers, as well as all of the producers, reported that there have been no changes in the number or type of substitutes, nor do they expect any changes in the future. Cost Share CTL plate often accounts for a relatively large percentage of the total cost of end-use products, although the cost share does vary widely, depending on the end use. Purchasers reported that CTL plate accounts for between 5 and 100 percent of the total cost of the end products in which CTL plate is used. In wind turbine towers and bridge girders, CTL plate reportedly represents 100 percent of the total cost of the end product, whereas in barges, offshore platforms, and other bridge components, CTL plate represents 50 percent. According to purchasers, CTL plate represents 5 percent of the total cost of trucks and tractors, 5 to 10 percent of the cost of construction and forestry equipment, 5 to 20 percent of the total cost of bearings, 40 percent of the total cost of railroad tank cars, 42 percent of the total cost of steel plate burnouts, and 45-65 percent of the total cost of tubular transmission poles. Producers reported that CTL plate represents less than 15 percent of the total cost of pressure vessels, 12 to 18 percent of the total cost of ships, 18 to 75 percent of the total cost of railcars, and 70 percent of the total cost of utility poles and storage tanks. Demand Outside the United States Producers, importers, and purchasers also were asked how demand for CTL plate outside the United States has changed since 2000. Ten producers, 7 importers, and 21 purchasers reported that demand outside the United States increased, citing factors such as rapidly increasing demand in China and other industrializing countries in Asia and Latin America; the economic recovery in Japan; increased shipbuilding, mining, and oil and gas exploration; increased investment; improvements to infrastructure; the relocation of manufacturing activities outside of the United States; and global economic growth.29 One producer and two purchasers reported that demand outside the United States was unchanged. Two producers, one importer, and one purchaser reported that demand outside the United States has varied, with both increases and decreases during the period.30 SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES The degree of substitution between domestic and imported products depends upon such factors as relative prices, quality, and conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and delivery dates, payment terms, product services, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there may be some differences between domestic and imported CTL plate, but overall, there is a moderate to high degree of substitution between CTL plate produced in the United States and the subject countries and other import sources. This section is based primarily on the responses of 39 purchasers that accounted for approximately 25.3 percent of total consumption in 2005. Twenty-three purchasers described themselves 31 Purchasers who described themselves as distributors reported selling CTL plate to OEMs and to various construction and manufacturing end users. 32 Purchasers who described themselves as end users reported that they use CTL plate to manufacture such items as railroad tank cars, offshore platforms, ships, bridge components, barges, bearings, steel transmission poles, and agricultural, construction, mining, and forestry equipment. CTL-II-14 as distributors, 31 14 as end users, 32 and 2 as processors. When asked to indicate the nature of the firm’s business or the market in which they sell CTL plate (allowing for multiple selections), 21 purchasers indicated construction, 15 indicated heavy machinery and equipment, 10 indicated shipbuilding, and 6 indicated oil and gas. Purchasers reported being involved in other markets, including automotive, transportation, agriculture, and power transmission. Purchasers tended to purchase primarily from U.S., German, and nonsubject sources, with none reporting purchases from Spain (see table CTL-II-4). Table CTL-II-4 CTL plate: Purchased quantities in short tons, by country and by year, 2000-05 and January-June 20061 Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Jan.-June 2006 United States 1,491,854 1,458,979 1,533,678 1,552,520 1,736,605 1,654,782 948,026 Belgium *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Brazil *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Finland *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Germany *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Mexico *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Poland *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Romania *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Sweden *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Taiwan *** *** *** *** *** *** *** United Kingdom *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject 2 160,985 108,202 113,070 77,432 101,993 109,686 91,525 Note.--Not all purchasers reported data for each year. 1 *** did not provide data, *** purchases are estimates based on its knowledge of country of origin, and *** reported that it buys small amounts from nonsubject countries but could not report the data. 2 Nonsubject countries include Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, China, the Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Norway, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. When asked if imported and domestically produced CTL plate are used in the same applications, 20 purchasers reported that they are generally used in the same applications, as long as the CTL plate conforms to standards or the purchaser’s specifications. Some purchasers reported that customers require U.S.-produced CTL plate, and others reported that interchangeability is limited by chemical composition and intended end use. 33 For example, Gulf States Steel halted plate production in late 2000; Nucor began production at a new plate mill in North Carolina in late 2000; IPSCO began production at a new plate mill in Alabama in early 2001; and Geneva Steel halted plate production in 2001. CTL-II-15 Purchasers of CTL plate tend to buy frequently, and many have changed suppliers since 2000. Twenty-three of the 39 responding purchasers reported that they purchase daily or weekly, with seven purchasing monthly and four on an as-needed basis. Four purchasers reported that they purchase quarterly and one reported purchasing annually. Four purchasers reported that they expect this purchasing pattern to change in the next two years, with two reporting that they will buy more frequently and one reporting that it will no longer buy CTL plate. Twenty-four purchasers reported that the quantity purchased is generally consistent throughout the year. Nine purchasers reported that their purchases are somewhat seasonal, with one reporting that purchases are dependent on the construction industry, one reporting that purchases are concentrated at the beginning of the federal government’s fiscal year, and two reporting that July and December are slower months. Twenty of the 38 responding purchasers reported changing suppliers since 2000; nine of the changes resulted from mergers, consolidations, bankruptcies, and new mills starting within the industry.33 Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions Purchasers were asked to identify the three major factors considered by their firm in deciding from whom to purchase CTL plate (table CTL-II-5). Price and quality were the most commonly cited factors overall. Twelve of the 38 responding purchasers reported that quality was the most important factor, and 11 reported that price was the most important factor. The next most commonly cited factors were availability, delivery and service, product meets industry standards, product range, and reliability. Table CTL-II-5 CTL plate: Most important factors in selecting a supplier, as reported by purchasers Factor First Second Third Quality 12 9 7 Price 11 13 12 Availability 8 6 6 Product meets industry standards or specifications 3 0 0 Reliability 1 1 0 Delivery/service 0 9 3 Product range 0 1 2 Other 4 0 9 Note.--Other category includes qualification of supplier, domestic supplier, traditional supplier, material properties, extension of credit, supplier performance/track record, supplier capabilities, size of material, contracts, consistency, transportation costs, and research and development. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Purchasers were asked what factors determined the quality of CTL plate. Factors cited included surface quality, flatness, dimensional tolerance, strength, durability, consistency, gauge control, weldability, chemical and physical properties, and edge quality. Eighteen purchasers cited the necessity of meeting the firm’s specifications or meeting ASTM, API, or another of the various industry standards. 34 *** reported that only 1 percent of its total purchases of CTL plate in 2005 required some form of certification or prequalification. 35 *** reported that in order for it to buy from foreign sources, the price must be significantly less than the price of the U.S. product in order to overcome problems with logistics and lead times, and *** reported that the antidumping duties are a factor. 36 See appendix K of this report for additional country comparisons. CTL-II-16 Twenty-nine of the 39 responding purchasers reported that they require suppliers to become certified or prequalified and that these requirements applied to all, or nearly all, of their 2005 purchases.34 Most of the requirements consist of standards set by independent organizations, such as the ASTM, ISO, and ASME. Other purchasers perform audits and mill inspections or require product samples for testing or trial runs. Purchasers were asked if they always, usually, sometimes, or never purchased the lowest-priced CTL plate. Nineteen of the 37 responding purchasers reported always or usually purchasing the lowest- priced product and 13 sometimes purchased the lowest-priced CTL plate. Of those who reported sometimes or never purchasing the lowest-priced product, availability, quality, lead times, reliability, and logistics were factors cited as to why price is not a controlling factor. 35 Some purchasers reported that the importance of buying from a domestic supplier was a factor in buying a higher priced product. Purchasers also were asked if they purchased CTL plate from one country in particular. Eighteen purchasers responded, reporting reasons why they purchased from one country in particular. Reasons provided included “Buy American” requirements or preferences, government work that requires a domestic supplier, logistics, quality, and customers who specify a specific supplier. *** reported that it orders CTL plate from Norway for the universal plates that are rolled to metric dimensions; *** reported that Germany has a patented material with a unique composition; and *** reported that abrasion-resistant material is only available from Canada, Germany, and Sweden. Twelve purchasers reported that certain grades, types, or sizes of CTL plate are available only from a single source; with nine reporting that certain widths or types are available from only one domestic mill and one reporting that larger and heavier plate is only available from a French supplier. In rating the importance of 20 factors in their purchasing decisions (table CTL-II-6), all 39 responding purchasers rated availability as very important; 37 reported that reliability of supply was very important; 35 reported that delivery time and price were very important; 34 reported that quality meets industry standards was very important; and 31 reported that product consistency was very important. Purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison of the same 20 factors. Five purchasers completed this comparison for the United States and Germany, one for the United States and Mexico, one for the United States and Poland, one for the United States and Sweden, and seven for the United States and nonsubject countries (table CTL-II-7). 36 The majority of purchasers stated that the domestic and German products were generally comparable; however, the U.S. product was reported to be superior for delivery time and proximity of supplier, and the German product was reported to be superior for quality exceeds industry standards. The one responding purchaser reported that the U.S. product was generally comparable or superior to the product from Mexico. The one responding purchaser reported that the U.S. product was generally comparable or superior to the Polish product, with the exception of a lower price, where the purchaser found the Polish product to be superior. The one responding purchaser reported that the U.S. product was generally comparable or superior to the Swedish product, with the exception of finish/appearance and product consistency, where the purchaser found the Swedish product to be superior. Purchasers generally found the U.S. product to be comparable or superior to the product from nonsubject countries. Thirty-two purchasers reported factors they considered in qualifying a new supplier. Factors considered included quality, price, availability, reliability, service, delivery, surface finish, dimensional CTL-II-17 control, location, supplier reputation, and meeting ASTM or ISO standards. The time required to qualify a new supplier was reported by 14 purchasers and ranged from a few minutes or hours to two years. Purchasers were asked if any suppliers had failed to qualify their product or lost their approved status. *** reported that *** had failed to qualify; *** reported that *** had problems with ***; *** reported that *** and several suppliers in China had failed to qualify due to quality reasons; *** reported that a producer in Thailand failed to ***; *** reported that *** and a supplier in Ukraine failed to qualify due to quality issues; *** reported that *** had failed due to ***; and *** reported that *** had failed to qualify. Table CTL-II-6 CTL plate: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by purchasers Factor Very important Somewhat important Not important Number of firms responding Availability 39 0 0 Contract with supplier 14 15 10 Delivery terms 23 15 0 Delivery time 35 4 0 Discounts offered 12 21 6 Extension of credit 14 11 14 Finish/appearance 23 14 1 Minimum quantity requirements 9 17 13 Packaging 5 18 16 Price 35 4 0 Product consistency 31 7 0 Product range 16 18 5 Proximity of supplier 7 19 13 Qualification for certain applications 19 17 3 Quality meets industry standards 34 3 1 Quality exceeds industry standards 17 14 8 Reliability of supply 37 1 0 Technical support/service 18 19 2 Traditional supplier 12 19 8 U.S. transportation costs 15 23 1 Note.--Not all purchasers responded for each factor. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. CTL-II-18 Table CTL-II-7 CTL plate: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported by purchasers1 Factor U.S. vs Germany U.S. vs Mexico U.S. vs Poland S C I S C I S C I Number of firms responding Availability 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 Contract with supplier 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Delivery terms 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Delivery time 3 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Discounts offered 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Extension of credit 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Finish/appearance 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 Minimum quantity requirements 1 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Packaging 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Price2 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Product consistency 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 Product range 0 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 Proximity of supplier 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Qualification for certain applications 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 Quality meets industry standards 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Quality exceeds industry standards 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 Reliability of supply 0 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 Technical support/service 2 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 Traditional supplier 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 U.S. transportation costs2 0 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Table continued on next page. CTL-II-19 Table CTL-II-7--Continued CTL plate: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported by purchasers1 Factor U.S. vs Sweden U.S. vs nonsubject 3 S C I S C I Number of firms responding Availability 1 0 0 4 3 0 Contract with supplier 1 0 0 1 6 0 Delivery terms 0 1 0 3 4 0 Delivery time 1 0 0 5 2 0 Discounts offered 0 1 0 1 5 1 Extension of credit 0 1 0 0 7 0 Finish/appearance 0 0 1 0 6 1 Minimum quantity requirements 0 1 0 1 6 0 Packaging 0 1 0 0 6 1 Price2 1 0 0 1 3 1 Product consistency 0 0 1 0 6 1 Product range 1 0 0 3 3 0 Proximity of supplier 1 0 0 5 2 0 Qualification for certain applications 0 1 0 0 7 0 Quality meets industry standards 0 1 0 0 7 0 Quality exceeds industry standards 0 1 0 0 6 1 Reliability of supply 0 1 0 4 3 0 Technical support/service 0 1 0 3 3 1 Traditional supplier 0 1 0 3 4 0 U.S. transportation costs 2 0 1 0 3 4 0 1 No purchaser completed the comparison for the United States and Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Mexico, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, or the United Kingdom. Five purchasers completed the comparison for the United States and “all foreign countries” (see appendix K). 2 A rating of “S” on price and U.S. transportation costs indicates that this country has lower prices/costs than the other country. 3 Nonsubject countries include Italy, Korea, Norway, Russia, Thailand, and Ukraine. Note.--S=first-listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first-listed country’s product is inferior. Note.--Not all purchasers responded for every factor. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Purchasers were asked how often they and their customers make purchasing decisions involving CTL plate based on the producer of the product they purchase and based on the country of origin of the CTL plate they purchase. Their responses are summarized in the following tabulation: 37 AHMSA reported that its capacity expansion will not be operational before 2009, if at all. AHMSA’s posthearing brief, pp. 1 and 3-4. CTL-II-20 Factor Always Usually Sometimes Rarely/never Firm purchases based on producer? 10 13 6 10 Customers purchase based on producer? 2 9 14 13 Firm purchases based on country of origin? 7 4 7 21 Customers purchase based on country of origin? 1 5 11 20 When asked how the firm or its customers determine the source, some purchasers reported that they require the name of the mill prior to the purchase, monitor the track record of the mill, require documentation for traceability, require test results, and require domestic product by law or by preference. When asked why the information is important, purchasers reported that such things as quality, availability, delivery, logistics, reliability, and price may vary by supplier. *** reported that some producers create a laser-friendly product, *** reported that only three U.S. mills produce wide plate and that only one mill produces it in sufficient quantities, and *** reported that many oil companies have origin restrictions for the CTL plate they buy. Purchasers were asked if buying a product that is produced in the United States is an important factor in their purchases of CTL plate. Twenty-three of the 38 responding purchasers reported that it was, with most saying that purchases of the domestic product are either required by law or regulation or required by customers. Thirteen purchasers reported that this generally involved a range from less than 1 percent to 30 percent of their purchases of CTL plate, and five purchasers reported that this involved 70 percent or more of their purchases. Purchasers also were asked how often domestically produced, subject imports, and nonsubject imports of CTL plate meet minimum quality specifications. Their responses are summarized in the following tabulation: Source Always Usually Sometimes Never Domestically produced 21 15 0 0 Subject imports 5 13 2 0 Nonsubject imports - Russia 3 2 0 0 Nonsubject imports - Thailand 2 2 0 0 Nonsubject imports - Ukraine 2 2 0 0 Nonsubject imports - Canada 0 4 0 0 Of the 12 purchasers who reported being aware of new suppliers in the market since 2000, eight cited domestic mills having entered the market and three cited entries from Malaysia and Thailand. Ten of the 12 reported having purchased from one of the new suppliers cited. Only six responding purchasers expect new CTL plate suppliers to enter the market in the future, with one reporting that AHMSA of Mexico is expected to add a new mill and capacity in 2007.37 38 *** reported a lead time of three to five days for goods produced to order. 39 Caterpillar reported that in 2006, it has faced lead times from *** for standard CTL plate and *** for heavy (thick) plate. Caterpillar’s posthearing brief, p. 2. 40 Large numbers of producers, importers, and purchasers reported that they had no familiarity with imports from all or most of the subject countries. CTL-II-21 Lead Times Nine of the 17 responding producers38 reported selling at least 90 percent of their CTL plate produced to order, with lead times ranging from 3 to 15 weeks.39 Five producers reported selling at least 70 percent of their CTL plate from inventory, with lead times from two days to one week. The other three producers reported a relatively even split between selling from inventory and producing to order. All seven responding importers reported selling at least 95 percent of their CTL plate produced to order, with lead times ranging from three to six months. Ten producers reported offering just-in-time or similar inventory services for CTL plate customers in the United States. *** reported having a standard plate program of popular sizes and grades, and *** reported providing a 48-hour order-to-ship service. Three of the 14 responding importers reported offering these types of services. Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to assess how interchangeable CTL plate from the United States is with CTL plate from both subject and nonsubject countries. Their answers are summarized in table CTL-II-8. Generally, producers, importers, and purchasers reported that CTL plate from the United States and from other countries are always or frequently interchangeable.40 For those firms that reported that CTL plate is sometimes or never used interchangeably, they were asked to explain the factors that preclude interchangeable use. *** reported that German producers focus on quality and niches and that long-term relationships are key. *** reported that differences arise with Mexican, Polish, Romanian, and Taiwan CTL plate due to size, surface finish, and quality issues. Reported factors cited by purchasers included different levels of quality and country of origin requirements. *** reported that certain mills are limited in production capabilities, such as size, thickness, and grade; *** reported that meeting quality requirements is mill-specific, not country-specific; *** reported that Mexico and Romania cannot produce the full range of products required in the U.S. market; and *** reported that Germany produces a patented material that has a unique composition. Producers and importers were asked to assess how often differences other than price were significant in sales of CTL plate from the United States, subject countries, and nonsubject countries (table CTL-II-9). Generally, producers said differences other than price were never significant, while importers said differences other than price were sometimes or never significant. For those firms that reported that factors other than price are always or frequently a significant factor in their sales of CTL plate, they were asked to explain the advantages or disadvantages imparted by such factors. *** reported that lead times are a factor, and *** reported that CTL plate from the Ukraine has problems with quality and gauge control, as well as transportation issues. Importers cited factors such as size and product ranges, quality, shipment, and technical support. *** reported that non-price factors depended on the grade of CTL plate and that with more sophisticated grades, the interchangeability factor drops. CTL-II-22 Table CTL-II-8 CTL plate: U.S. producers’, importers’, and purchasers’ perceived degree of interchangeability of products produced in the United States and in other countries1 Country comparison U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers 2 A F S N 0 A F S N 0 A F S N 0 U.S. vs. Belgium 8 2 0 0 4 5 0 1 0 6 6 3 2 0 15 U.S. vs. Brazil 8 2 0 0 4 5 1 0 0 6 3 5 4 0 14 U.S. vs. Finland 8 2 0 0 4 5 1 0 0 6 5 2 1 0 18 U.S. vs. Germany 8 2 0 0 4 5 1 0 0 7 5 5 3 1 13 U.S. vs. Mexico 8 3 0 0 3 3 4 0 0 5 3 2 5 0 16 U.S. vs. Poland 8 2 0 0 4 3 1 1 0 7 3 2 4 0 17 U.S. vs. Romania 8 2 0 0 4 3 1 2 0 6 3 4 4 0 15 U.S. vs. Spain 8 2 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 8 4 2 2 0 18 U.S. vs. Sweden 8 2 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 7 5 4 2 0 15 U.S. vs. Taiwan 8 2 0 0 4 4 0 1 0 7 3 2 4 0 17 U.S. vs. United Kingdom 8 2 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 8 5 2 3 0 16 U.S. vs. other countries 7 3 0 0 3 3 6 1 0 2 4 7 4 1 11 Belgium vs. Brazil 8 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 6 3 2 1 0 17 Belgium vs. Finland 8 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 6 4 2 0 0 17 Belgium vs. Germany 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 1 16 Belgium vs. Mexico 8 1 0 0 5 3 2 0 0 6 3 2 1 0 17 Belgium vs. Poland 8 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17 Belgium vs. Romania 8 1 0 0 5 3 1 1 0 6 3 2 1 0 17 Belgium vs. Spain 8 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Belgium vs. Sweden 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Belgium vs. Taiwan 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17 Belgium vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Belgium vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 5 3 2 1 0 5 3 1 1 0 17 Brazil vs. Finland 8 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 6 4 2 0 0 17 Brazil vs. Germany 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 1 16 Brazil vs. Mexico 8 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 6 3 2 1 0 17 Brazil vs. Poland 8 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17 Brazil vs. Romania 8 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17 Brazil vs. Spain 8 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Brazil vs. Sweden 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Table continued on next page. CTL-II-23 Table CTL-II-8--Continued CTL plate: U.S. producers’, importers’, and purchasers’ perceived degree of interchangeability of products produced in the United States and in other countries1 Country comparison U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers 2 A F S N 0 A F S N 0 A F S N 0 Brazil vs. Taiwan 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17 Brazil vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Brazil vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 5 3 2 0 0 6 3 1 1 0 17 Finland vs. Germany 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 1 16 Finland vs. Mexico 8 1 0 0 5 3 2 0 0 6 3 2 1 0 17 Finland vs. Poland 8 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17 Finland vs. Romania 8 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17 Finland vs. Spain 8 1 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Finland vs. Sweden 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Finland vs. Taiwan 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17 Finland vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Finland vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 5 3 2 0 0 6 3 1 1 0 17 Germany vs. Mexico 8 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 6 3 2 1 1 16 Germany vs. Poland 8 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 6 3 2 1 1 16 Germany vs. Romania 8 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 6 3 2 1 1 16 Germany vs. Spain 8 1 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 6 4 2 0 1 16 Germany vs. Sweden 8 1 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 6 4 2 0 1 16 Germany vs. Taiwan 8 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 7 3 2 1 1 16 Germany vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 6 3 2 1 1 16 Germany vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 4 3 3 0 0 5 3 1 2 1 16 Mexico vs. Poland 8 1 0 0 4 3 0 1 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Mexico vs. Romania 8 1 0 0 4 3 0 1 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Mexico vs. Spain 8 1 0 0 4 3 0 1 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Mexico vs. Sweden 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Mexico vs. Taiwan 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Mexico vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Mexico vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 4 3 2 0 0 6 3 1 1 0 17 Poland vs. Romania 8 1 0 0 4 3 0 1 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Poland vs. Spain 8 1 0 0 4 3 0 1 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Poland vs. Sweden 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Table continued on next page. CTL-II-24 Table CTL-II-8--Continued CTL plate: U.S. producers’, importers’, and purchasers’ perceived degree of interchangeability of products produced in the United States and in other countries1 Country comparison U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers 2 A F S N 0 A F S N 0 A F S N 0 Poland vs. Taiwan 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Poland vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Poland vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 4 3 2 0 0 6 4 1 0 0 17 Romania vs. Spain 8 1 0 0 4 3 0 1 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Romania vs. Sweden 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Romania vs. Taiwan 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Romania vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Romania vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 1 0 0 17 Spain vs. Sweden 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Spain vs. Taiwan 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17 Spain vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Spain vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 4 3 2 0 0 6 3 1 1 0 17 Sweden vs. Taiwan 8 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 17 Sweden vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 17 Sweden vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 4 3 2 0 0 6 3 1 1 0 17 Taiwan vs. United Kingdom 8 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 7 4 1 0 0 17 Taiwan vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 4 3 2 0 0 6 3 1 1 0 17 United Kingdom vs. other countries 7 1 0 0 4 3 2 0 0 6 3 1 1 0 17 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if CTL plate produced in the United States and in other countries is used interchangeably. 2 Three purchasers did not fill out the data grid but reported the following: *** reported it had no reason to believe CTL plate between countries was not fungible; *** reported that the CTL plate it buys is interchangeable; and *** reported that if the CTL plate is produced to the same specifications, all domestic and imported CTL plate is interchangeable. Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never, and “0” = No familiarity. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. CTL-II-25 Table CTL-II-9 CTL plate: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than price in sales of product produced in the United States and in other countries1 Country comparison U.S. producers U.S. importers A F S N 0 A F S N 0 U.S. vs. Belgium 0 2 0 8 4 1 2 1 1 3 U.S. vs. Brazil 0 2 0 8 4 1 0 2 1 4 U.S. vs. Finland 0 2 0 8 4 1 2 1 1 3 U.S. vs. Germany 0 2 0 8 4 1 1 1 1 4 U.S. vs. Mexico 0 3 0 8 3 1 1 2 1 3 U.S. vs. Poland 0 2 0 8 4 1 0 2 1 4 U.S. vs. Romania 0 2 0 8 4 1 1 2 1 3 U.S. vs. Spain 0 2 0 8 4 1 0 2 1 4 U.S. vs. Sweden 0 2 0 8 4 1 1 1 1 4 U.S. vs. Taiwan 0 2 0 8 4 1 0 1 1 5 U.S. vs. United Kingdom 0 2 0 8 4 1 1 1 1 4 U.S. vs. other countries 0 3 0 7 3 1 3 3 1 0 Belgium vs. Brazil 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Belgium vs. Finland 0 1 0 8 5 1 2 1 1 4 Belgium vs. Germany 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Belgium vs. Mexico 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Belgium vs. Poland 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Belgium vs. Romania 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 2 1 4 Belgium vs. Spain 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Belgium vs. Sweden 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 1 1 5 Belgium vs. Taiwan 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 1 1 6 Belgium vs. United Kingdom 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 1 1 5 Belgium vs. other countries 0 1 0 7 5 1 2 2 1 3 Brazil vs. Finland 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 2 1 4 Brazil vs. Germany 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Brazil vs. Mexico 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 1 1 5 Brazil vs. Poland 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 1 1 5 Brazil vs. Romania 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 1 1 5 Brazil vs. Spain 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Brazil vs. Sweden 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Table continued on next page. CTL-II-26 Table CTL-II-9--Continued CTL plate: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than price in sales of product produced in the United States and in other countries1 Country comparison U.S. producers U.S. importers A F S N 0 A F S N 0 Brazil vs. Taiwan 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 1 1 6 Brazil vs. United Kingdom 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Brazil vs. other countries 0 1 0 7 5 1 1 2 1 4 Finland vs. Germany 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Finland vs. Mexico 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Finland vs. Poland 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Finland vs. Romania 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Finland vs. Spain 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Finland vs. Sweden 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Finland vs. Taiwan 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 1 1 6 Finland vs. United Kingdom 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Finland vs. other countries 0 1 0 7 5 1 1 2 1 4 Germany vs. Mexico 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Germany vs. Poland 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Germany vs. Romania 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Germany vs. Spain 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Germany vs. Sweden 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 1 1 5 Germany vs. Taiwan 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 1 1 6 Germany vs. United Kingdom 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 1 1 5 Germany vs. other countries 0 1 0 7 5 1 1 2 1 4 Mexico vs. Poland 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 1 1 5 Mexico vs. Romania 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 1 1 5 Mexico vs. Spain 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Mexico vs. Sweden 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Mexico vs. Taiwan 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 1 1 6 Mexico vs. United Kingdom 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Mexico vs. other countries 0 1 0 7 5 1 1 2 1 4 Poland vs. Romania 0 1 0 8 5 1 1 1 1 5 Poland vs. Spain 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Poland vs. Sweden 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Table continued on next page. CTL-II-27 Table CTL-II-9--Continued CTL plate: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than price in sales of product produced in the United States and in other countries1 Country comparison U.S. producers U.S. importers A F S N 0 A F S N 0 Poland vs. Taiwan 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 1 1 6 Poland vs. United Kingdom 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Poland vs. other countries 0 1 0 7 5 1 1 2 1 4 Romania vs. Spain 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Romania vs. Sweden 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Romania vs. Taiwan 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 1 1 6 Romania vs. United Kingdom 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Romania vs. other countries 0 1 0 7 5 1 2 2 1 3 Spain vs. Sweden 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Spain vs. Taiwan 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 1 1 6 Spain vs. United Kingdom 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 5 Spain vs. other countries 0 1 0 7 5 1 1 2 1 4 Sweden vs. Taiwan 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 1 1 5 Sweden vs. United Kingdom 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 2 1 4 Sweden vs. other countries 0 1 0 7 5 1 1 2 1 3 Taiwan vs. United Kingdom 0 1 0 8 5 1 0 1 1 5 Taiwan vs. other countries 0 1 0 7 5 1 1 1 1 4 United Kingdom vs. other countries 0 1 0 7 5 1 1 2 1 3 1 Producers and importers were asked if differences other than price between CTL plate produced in the United States and in other countries are a significant factor in their sales of the products. Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never, and “0” = No familiarity. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 41 Within the range, there may be differences in terms of the domestic industry’s ability to increase or decrease shipments of the many different types of CTL plate, from commodity grades up through specialty products. 42 Joint respondent interested parties reported that they question the “highly implausible capacity utilization figures” reported by the domestic industry, and that the domestic supply elasticity more likely approaches 0. Joint respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 23. 43 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change. 44 Joint respondent interested parties reported that U.S. producers are unable or unwilling to produce specialty plate in quantities sufficient to satisfy domestic demand and that an elasticity of substitution of 0.5 to 2.5 is more appropriate for countries like Germany and the United Kingdom, whereas the range of 3 to 5 might be accurate for countries like Romania. Joint respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 33. CTL-II-28 ELASTICITY ESTIMATES U.S. Supply Elasticity The domestic supply elasticity for CTL plate measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of CTL plate. The elasticity of domestic supply depends on several factors including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which producers can alter capacity, producers’ ability to shift to and from production of other products, the existence of inventories, and the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced CTL plate. Earlier analysis of these factors indicates that the U.S. industry has a small to moderate ability to increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market; an estimate in the range of 1 to 341 is suggested. 42 U.S. Demand Elasticity The U.S. demand elasticity for CTL plate measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of CTL plate. This estimate depends on factors discussed earlier such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as well as the component share of CTL plate in the production of any downstream products. Based on the available information, the aggregate demand elasticity for CTL plate is likely to be in a range of -0.3 to -0.7. Substitution Elasticity The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the domestic and imported products.43 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality and conditions of sale. Based on available information concerning product range, quality, availability, and degree of substitution, the elasticity of substitution between domestic and subject CTL plate is likely to be in the range of 3 to 5 for all 11 subject countries.44 1 In the first reviews, the Commission included processors within the definition of the domestic industry, consistent with the views expressed in its January 2000 investigations on CTL plate ( “We include all producers of CTL plate in the domestic industry, whether toll producers, integrated producers, or processors.” Certain Cut-to- Length Steel Plate From France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-387-391 (Final) and 731-TA-816-821 (Final), USITC Publication 3273, January 2000, p. 10.) The Commission had reached a similar conclusion in the previous investigations involving CTL plate as well. See Certain Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-753-756, USITC Publication 3076, December 1997, p. 12. As discussed in those investigations, processors invest a substantial amount of capital in relatively sophisticated processing operations, and account for a sizeable share of overall employment of the U.S. industry. In 2005, U.S. processors reported 874 production and related workers and capital expenditures of $6.8 million. As in 2000, the manufacturing equipment and processes used by service centers to decoil and cut to length coiled plate is the same as that used by the domestic mills to produce CTL plate from coiled plate. While the Commission noted in 2000 that the overall value added by processors is small, the processing performed by the service centers converts coiled plate - a commodity that is not part of the domestic like product - into CTL plate. 2 Three U.S. producers provided business plans and three provided internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze future market conditions or market conditions if the orders were revoked. CTL-III-1 PART CTL-III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY The information in this section of the report was compiled from responses to the Commission’s questionnaires. Fourteen mills and 10 processors,1 which together accounted for the vast majority of U.S. production of CTL plate during the period for which data were collected, supplied information on their operations. 2 Staff also included previously-reported data from Geneva Steel, which filed for bankruptcy in February 1999, emerged from bankruptcy as Geneva Steel Holdings in January 2001, shut down its operations in December 2001, and filed for bankruptcy again in January 2002. Table CTL-III-1 summarizes important industry events that have taken place since January 2000. Table CTL-III-1 CTL plate: Important industry events, January 2000-November 2006 Year Company Description of event (merger, shutdown, bankruptcy, change in capacity) 2000 Gulf States Steel Closure: While in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, mill closes and company is liquidated. The new owner subsequently announces plans to develop the property into an industrial park and sell the equipment to companies in China. LTV1 Bankruptcy: Files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Nucor New Mill: Opens new plate mill in North Carolina. 2001 Geneva Closure: Production of CTL plate halted. IPSCO New Mill: Opens new plate mill in Alabama. Newport 1 Closure: Ceases producing its own hot-rolled steel for pipe production. Table continued on next page. CTL-III-2 Table CTL-III-1--Continued CTL plate: Important industry events, January 2000-November 2006 Year Company Description of event (merger, shutdown, bankruptcy, change in capacity) 2002 Acme Steel1 Bought Out: In Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, Acme is liquidated. International Steel Group (ISG) purchases and operates Acme’s major assets. Gallatin Steel Co. Acquisition: Purchases assets of Huntco Steel (a service center) in Ghent, KY, in order to process its own steel products. Geneva Bankruptcy: Enters Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. International Steel Group Acquisition: Created by the acquisition of LTV and Acme Steel. Kentucky Electric Steel Closure: Plant closes. LTV1 Bought Out: ISG purchases many of the assets of LTV (including the plate mill). LTV is liquidated. National Steel1 Bankruptcy: Files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. 2003 Bethlehem Bought Out: ISG purchases most of Bethlehem’s assets, including the plate mills. Bethlehem Steel is liquidated. International Steel Group Acquisition, Capacity Expansion, Manufacturing Change: Acquires Bethlehem Steel. Exchanges its pickle line at Indiana Harbor Works for U.S. Steel’s Gary Works’ plate mill but elects not to roll plate at Gary, instead directing raw steel to other facilities. Kentucky Electric Steel Bankruptcy: Files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. A newly formed entity, KES Acquisition Co. LLC, purchases the assets of Kentucky Electric Steel and restarts production in early 2004. National1 Bought Out: U.S. Steel purchases and operates substantially all of the assets. National is liquidated. Oregon Steel Manufacturing Change: Idles melt shop in Portland, OR, and relies solely on purchased slabs for feedstock at that facility. U.S. Steel Acquisition, Capacity Reduction, Manufacturing Change: Acquires the integrated steelmaking assets of National Steel and exchanges the assets of its CTL plate business, including the plate mill at Gary Works, for the assets of ISG's No. 2 pickle line at Indiana Harbor Works. U.S. Steel continues to produce plate in coils. WCI 1 Bankruptcy: Enters Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. 2004 Corus Tuscaloosa Bought Out: Nucor purchases substantially all of Tuscaloosa’s steelmaking assets. Kentucky Electric Steel Reopening: Plant reopens. North Star Bought Out: Cargill, Inc. (parent company of North Star) sells fixed assets and working capital of North Star to Gerdau Ameristeel. Nucor Acquisition: Purchases substantially all of the steelmaking assets of Corus Tuscaloosa. Oregon Steel Manufacturing Change: Idles pipe mill at Napa facility to focus on plate production. Table continued on next page. 3 Staff notes that data for 2000 and 2001 are slightly understated, as they do not include limited production by Gulf States Steel prior to its closure; the operations of Kentucky Electric Steel prior to its closure and subsequent acquisition; and the bar mills acquired by Gerdau Ameristeel. Kentucky Electric began production on January 26, 2004. There are no historical records detailing Kentucky Electric’s CTL plate production prior to this date available to the Commission. Estimating production based on public records (e.g., 10-K statements) prior to the facility reopening is not possible due to the lack of detail of the product mix available in public reports. Staff telephone interview ***, August 24, 2006. 4 Additionally, ***. 5 Frank Haflich, Geneva’s assets slow sail to China; furnace sold back, American Metal Markets, March 8, 2005, found at http://www.amm.com/news-2005-03-08__14-15-22.html, retrieved August 15, 2005. 6 This mill has been idle since it was acquired by Mittal. CTL plate hearing transcript, p. 132 (Fabina). CTL-III-3 Table CTL-III-1--Continued CTL plate: Important industry events, January 2000-November 2006 Year Company Description of event (merger, shutdown, bankruptcy, change in capacity) 2005 Citisteel / Claymont Bought Out: H.I.G. Capital, a U.S.-based private equity and venture capital investment firm, acquires mill in June 2005. Citisteel now operates under the name Claymont Steel. ISG Bought Out, Capacity Expansion: In April, shareholders of ISG approve the $4.5-billion acquisition by Mittal Steel, a company based in the Netherlands. Also, Mittal Steel re-starts the 110-inch plate mill at Burns Harbor, IN (formerly ISG’s mill) which had been idle since 2000. Kentucky Electric Steel Bought Out: YouthStream Media Networks, Inc. acquired KES Acquisition Co., LLC, the owner and operator of Kentucky Electric Steel. 2006 Mittal Temporary Capacity Reduction: Sparrows Point and Conshohocken mills both temporarily idled in June because of furnace issues. Both mills are fully operational, but in late October one of the Burns Harbor blast furnaces was idled due to a mishap. It is expected to be fully operational by mid-November. Oregon Purchase Offer: Russian steel manufacturer Evraz to pay $2.3 billion for Oregon, and will supply the U.S. operations with Russian slabs to be rolled into steel plate. 1 While capable of producing strip mill plate, actual production of CTL plate is believed to be minimal. Source: AMM, Steel News, company websites and annual reports, and other press articles. U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION As shown in table CTL-III-2, overall U.S. producers’ capacity in 2005 was higher than in 2000.3 Capacity fluctuated noticeably during the intervening years, however, reflecting mill openings, mill closures, and asset swaps among mills.4 In 2000, Geneva Steel had the capacity to produce *** short tons of CTL plate. The closure of Geneva Steel in December 2001 removed this capacity from the U.S. plate market. Ultimately, Geneva’s production assets were sold to a Chinese firm, Qindao Iron & Steel Company. 5 The effect on domestic capacity from this closure, however, was mitigated by the ramping up of production at Nucor’s and IPSCO’s facilities (discussed below). The decline in capacity from 2003 to 2004 can be attributed primarily to the idling of U.S. Steel’s Gary Works plate mill, now owned by Mittal. 6 Production decreased between 2000 and 2001, recovered in 2002, then increased markedly in 2004. The trend was sustained in 2005, and production in January-June 2006 was higher than in January to June 2005, reflecting greater output by ten reporting mills and by eight reporting processors. 7 As shown in table CTL-III-3, however, reported production and capacity for all CTL plate products reflects an even higher level of capacity utilization. 8 Mill capacity includes wide flat bar capacity. Although bar mills account for only a fraction of overall plate capacity, they account for a disproportionate share of available capacity. In 2005, available wide flat bar capacity was 495,003 short tons whereas available CTL plate mill capacity was 1,211,476 short tons. In January-June 2006, available wide flat bar capacity was 232,798 short tons whereas available CTL plate mill capacity was 217,332 short tons (appendix tables C-1, C-1a, and C-5). CTL-III-4 Table CTL-III-2 CTL plate: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January - June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Capacity 10,086,195 10,382,440 10,600,470 11,138,353 10,629,073 10,793,425 5,370,412 5,524,993 Production 6,322,806 5,676,017 6,089,710 6,286,468 6,883,546 7,119,199 3,453,719 4,184,481 Capacity utilization (percent) 62.7 54.7 57.4 56.4 64.7 65.7 64.1 75.5 Note.–Capacity allocation for *** was based on a method devised by staff and approved by ***. *** supplied the Commission with overall CTL plate capacity and production of specified plate products. The ratios of the individual shares of overall production of the specified products were applied to overall capacity to estimate the shares of specified products’ allocated capacity. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. After a steep decline between 2000 and 2001, capacity utilization generally increased over the period for which data were collected, and reached its highest level in January-June 2006 at 75.5 percent.7 Mills’ share of the domestic industry’s CTL plate total capacity in 2005 was 64.9 percent, and accounted for 74.5 percent of CTL plate production. Mills, however, accounted for about 1.7 million short tons of available capacity in 2005,8 while service centers accounted for about 2 million short tons of available capacity. Throughout the period for which data were collected, processors operated at capacity utilization rates between 43 percent and 53 percent (appendix table CTL-C-1b). During the same period, mills operated at higher capacity utilization rates than processors, from 60 to 88 percent. Both U.S. processors and U.S. mills recorded their highest levels of capacity utilization in January-June 2006. Most responding firms experienced changes to their operations relating to the production of CTL plate since 2000. In addition to Geneva’s closing, other firms experienced closures in their operations. CSI shut down its CTL plate operations in October 2004, removing *** short tons of capacity. In May 2003, Oregon closed its Portland melt shop, opting to ***. In addition, Jindal reported that it was shut down for *** months in late 2003. Its operations, however, were restarted, in contrast to the aforementioned permanent closures, and subsequently ***. Gerdau Ameristeel acquired its Cartersville, GA, mill in 2002, then expanded further in 2004 with its Calvert City and Wilton, IA, mills. Gerdau primarily produces long products, however, it produces wide flat bar on bar mills at these facilities. Kentucky Electric Steel, LLC, another producer of wide flat bar, bought the assets of the predecessor company (Kentucky Electric) in 2002. The mill remained idle through 2003 and restarted in 2004. In 2003, Robinson acquired full ownership of a CTL plate line in Granite City, IL, which was until then a joint venture with National Steel. Steel Warehouse opened facilities in Memphis, TN, and Chattanooga, TN. More substantial expansions are Nucor’s and IPSCO’s plant openings that added a total of *** short tons of new capacity to the domestic industry. Nucor added capacity with a greenfield expansion when it completed construction of its Hertford County, NC, facility, beginning production in October 9 Corus is a respondent interested party with CTL plate operations in the United Kingdom. 10 Nucor’s producer questionnaire, section II-5. 11 Mishap idles BF at Mittal Steel USA’s Burns Harbor works, Steel Business Briefing, October 26, 2006, found in Brazilian’s respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, exhibit 2, article 1. 12 E-mail, ***, November 21, 2006. 13 *** producer questionnaires, section II-2, II-3, and II-5. CTL-III-5 2000 and commencing commercial operations in 2001. Capacity at the Hertford mill *** during the period. On July 17, 2004, Nucor acquired Corus’ Tuscaloosa, AL, plate mill.9 Nucor reported that it *** capacity at these two facilities with changes in operating practices and learning curve efficiencies. It also reported that ***.10 IPSCO reported that it began production of CTL plate at its minimill in Mobile County, AL, in the first quarter of 2001. This new capability complemented the company’s previous additions to its coil processing capability. In the second quarter of 2000, IPSCO Texas began producing CTL plate at its temper level coil processing plant in Houston. In the fourth quarter of 2000, a temper mill was added to IPSCO Minnesota Inc.’s coil processing facility in St. Paul, MN. On October 31, 2003, United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”) and International Steel Group (“ISG,” now Mittal) completed an exchange of most of the assets of U.S. Steel’s plate business, which included the 160" plate mill at Gary Works, for the assets of ISG’s No. 2 pickle line at Indiana Harbor Works. U.S. Steel has continued to produce strip mill plate in limited quantities. U.S. Steel rebuilt its No. 13 blast furnace at Gary Works, which has improved its hot-rolled operations, which produce CTL plate in coils for processing by ***. The extensive changes experienced by Bethlehem/ISG/Mittal are noted in table CTL-III-1. On April 15, 2005, ISG was merged with Mittal Steel Company, NV. Subsequently, Mittal reactivated the Burns Harbor 110" mill plate mill, which had been idled since 2000, in May 2005. This mill has the capacity to produce *** short tons per year, although it is currently staffed to operate at only *** short tons per year. This production schedule is expected to ***. Mittal’s Sparrow Point blast furnace was temporarily idled in June 2006 due to an electrical storm, but is now repaired and fully operational. Also in June 2006, Mittal’s Conshohocken plate mill was temporarily idled as a result of a motor failure, and became operational ***. On October 24, 2006, one of Mittal’s Burns Harbor blast furnaces was idled due to a mishap. 11 The blast furnace returned to planned levels of operation on November 8, 2006.12 Mittal’s labor agreements have undergone extensive changes. Mittal’s predecessor, ISG, enacted revised labor agreements with its purchase of Bethlehem Steel. In addition to a reduction in salaries, healthcare benefits, Bethlehem’s unfunded $3.7 billion pension plan was transferred to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. ISG’s labor agreement with the United Steelworkers of America, created in 2004 and in effect until 2008, established a trust to fund retiree, health, and welfare benefits. Contributions to the trust are based on quarterly profits and overtime hours worked. Several firms reported no changes or changes that have had neither a significant impact on individual firms or the industry as a whole. 13 Anticipated Changes in Existing Operations The Commission asked domestic producers to report anticipated changes in their operations. *** will not affect plate operations or capacity. If domestic plate demand declines, *** contends that it will have to reconsider the operations of ***. Any expected changes would be in response to domestic demand. IPSCO is in the process of ***. IPSCO is also ***. This will not affect overall CTL plate production capacity, but ***. IPSCO reported that ***. Success of these operations is considered to be 14 CTL plate hearing transcript, p. 87 (Tulloch). 15 CTL plate hearing transcript, p. 137 (Insetta). 16 Mittal's posthearing, brief, response to Staff question. 17 Nucor’s posthearing brief, exhibit 11, p. 8. 18 IPSCO’s and Oregon's posthearing brief, answers to Commissioners' questions, 14. 19 According to a presentation at a breakout session on carbon and alloy plate at the MSCI Economic Summit (Forecast 2007), both Nucor and IPSCO reported strong demand through the first three quarters of 2006, and as late as September forecast strong end use demand through 2007, while noting existing import levels and service center inventory levels. IPSCO indicated that routine maintenance outages starting in the first quarter of 2007 would be more significant than in 2006, but would remain within historical ranges. IPSCO’s and Oregon's posthearing brief, answers to Commissioners' questions, exhibit 5. 20 Producers’ questionnaire, section II-6. 21 Oregon’s producer questionnaire, II-10a, however, does not show reduction in plate capacity. 22 Producers’ questionnaire, section II-9. CTL-III-6 contingent upon the maintenance and findings against unfair trade. Likewise, Nucor reported, assuming there are no import surges, ***. In addition to the outages Mittal has experienced recently, Nucor reported that it will be idling facilities14 and Mittal reported that it will reduce hours of operations due to slackening demand. 15 Planned idling for 2006 for Mittal includes melt shop outages for the Coatsville and Conshohocken plants from October 22 through October 26. Mittal’s 160 inch plate mill will be down for repairs from November 18 through November 26.16 Nucor reported having scheduled planned outages at its Hertford mill in April 2007 and at its Tuscaloosa mill in June 2007, each lasting nine to ten days, and does not anticipate additional outages. 17 IPSCO reported that it takes down its rolling mill for routine maintenance for 48 hours once a month without fail, and IPSCO has an annual seven day maintenance outage planned for January 2007, which it is subject to rescheduling, depending on order book levels. 18 Oregon reported that it is shifting a seven day maintenance outage from the first quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2006 due to a lack of orders. IPSCO will additionally take ten days out of the schedule for both the Mobile and Montpellier mills if there is no improvement in orders.19 Alternative Products IPSCO reported that it can produce hot-rolled coil, slabs, CTL sheet, and alloy plate on the same equipment and machinery used to produce CTL plate.20 Nucor’s Hertford facility is dedicated to producing plate, while its Tuscaloosa mill produces coiled plate. Oregon commissioned a new Steckel mill in 1997 which has the flexibility to produce both CTL plate and coiled plate. Since 2000, coiled plate *** and is expected to ***.21 Olympic also produces hot-rolled and stainless sheet. Wide flat bar producers CMC and Kentucky Electric primarily produce long products. Shifting from producing CTL plate to other products, while possible, is not always desirable. IPSCO can produce slab for resale and hot-rolled coil products. However, to produce these other products, ***. 22 *** noted that price is but one factor among many (e.g., forward production planning, customer needs, pre-existing commitments to customers, and operating flexibility) when considering switching product mix. Any change to operations would have to be justified for a long-term sustainable shift. As shown in table CTL-III-3, the Commission collected data on nonsubject CTL production. Data including production of micro-alloy CTL plate are presented in appendix C. 23 According to Canadian import statistics, during the period 2000-05, the quantity of CTL plate imports from all sources increased by 96 percent. The quantity of imports from the United States rose by 84 percent during this period. In 2005, imports from the United States represented 63 percent of all imports. German CTL plate respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, appendix 6. The magnitude of overall Canadian CTL plate imports and the United States share is similarly reflected in Canadian import statistics provided by IPSCO’s and Oregon’s posthearing brief, exhibit 7. During this period, Stelco, a producer in Canada, ceased CTL plate production. CTL plate hearing transcript, p. 31 (Ortiz). In addition, Canada has rescinded orders on CTL plate from Mexico in 2003 (AHMSA’s CTL plate prehearing brief, exhibit 15). Canada has also rescinded orders on CTL plate from Spain in 2004, and Brazil and Finland in 2005 (Joint respondents’ prehearing brief, exhibit 15). 24 *** reported that free trade agreements create additional availability of product that results in lower costs. CTL-III-7 Table CTL-III-3 CTL plate: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL plate, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) Capacity (short tons) 13,468,127 6,721,846 6,988,369 Production (short tons) Subject CTL plate 7,004,588 3,442,204 4,069,157 Specifically excluded (e.g., X-70) CTL plate *** *** *** Micro-alloy CTL plate 1,592,810 812,471 953,006 Other nonsubject (e.g., alloy) steel plate *** *** *** Total production of CTL plate 9,700,738 4,811,612 5,718,289 Capacity utilization (percent) 72.0 71.6 81.8 Note.– Subject CTL plate data presented in the above table differ from data presented in table CTL-III-2 because several producers relied on separate sources of data to generate the requisite information. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. PRODUCERS’ DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS, COMPANY TRANSFERS, AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS Data on domestic producers’ shipments of CTL plate are presented in table CTL-III-4. From 2000 to 2005, the quantity of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments increased by more than 500,000 short tons. Likewise, the quantity of U.S. shipments in January-June 2006 was 561,620 short tons greater than the quantity in January-June 2005. The average unit values of U.S. shipments ranged between $341 and $358 per short ton between 2000 and 2003, increased to $628 per short ton in 2004, and have been above $700 since 2005. As a result, the value of U.S. shipments by the domestic industry increased by more than $2.4 billion between 2000 and 2005, and was nearly $292 million higher in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005. Export shipments by the U.S. industry also rose, increasing by 86.6 percent from 2000 to 2005 and registering continued gains in January-June 2006 relative to January-June 2005. The primary export markets for U.S. producers are Mexico and Canada. 23 Most U.S. producers (including ***, which reportedly does a limited amount of business in these countries) reported that free trade agreements such as NAFTA do not affect the character of their operations,24 although ***, which has ***, reported that NAFTA facilitates the flow of goods across borders and enables the company to take advantage of market opportunities and optimize the use of its facilities. CTL-III-8 Table CTL-III-4 CTL plate: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) Commercial shipments 6,019,012 5,470,738 5,814,176 5,901,038 6,305,145 6,514,075 3,258,209 3,744,474 Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments 6,115,864 5,595,208 5,988,501 6,041,385 6,442,052 6,618,088 3,304,432 3,866,052 Export shipments 233,283 146,677 197,405 306,342 425,436 435,382 154,323 298,047 Total 6,349,147 5,741,885 6,185,906 6,347,727 6,867,488 7,053,470 3,458,755 4,164,099 Value (1,000 dollars) Commercial shipments 2,204,991 1,869,937 1,989,459 2,111,915 3,956,100 4,613,788 2,422,204 2,659,805 Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments 2,242,250 1,909,806 2,050,077 2,164,450 4,047,066 4,685,560 2,452,976 2,744,626 Export shipments 86,689 49,835 65,408 107,006 279,701 314,340 115,086 210,273 Total 2,328,939 1,959,641 2,115,485 2,271,456 4,326,768 4,999,900 2,568,062 2,954,899 Unit value (per short ton) Commercial shipments $366 $342 $342 $358 $627 $708 $743 $710 Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments 367 341 342 358 628 708 742 710 Export shipments 372 340 331 349 657 722 746 706 Average 367 341 342 358 630 709 742 710 Share of quantity (percent) Commercial shipments 94.8 95.3 94.0 93.0 91.8 92.4 94.2 89.9 Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments 96.3 97.4 96.8 95.2 93.8 93.8 95.5 92.8 Export shipments 3.7 2.6 3.2 4.8 6.2 6.2 4.5 7.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Share of value (percent) Commercial shipments 94.7 95.4 94.0 93.0 91.4 92.3 94.3 90.0 Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments 96.3 97.5 96.9 95.3 93.5 93.7 95.5 92.9 Export shipments 3.7 2.5 3.1 4.7 6.5 6.3 4.5 7.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 25 To provide public data, this tabulation is based on official export statistics of Commerce for the following HTS statistical reporting numbers: 7208.40.0000, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0050, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.0000, 7210.90.5000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0000, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.0000, and 7212.50.0000. These data are not an exact match with domestic producers’ reported exports. Staff believes that, while markedly higher, the export statistics accurately reflect the trend in exports to primary markets. 26 The Brazilian producers' posthearing brief (exhibit 1, p. 2) characterized service center inventory data as reflecting mostly nonsubject merchandise. Commission staff believes that the service center data presented above is a reliable depiction of the trend in plate inventories. Although these data do include some nonsubject plate (i.e., plate in coils), they include only carbon plate. E-mail, ***, November 2, 2006. Additionally, plate in coils held by service centers, unlike plate in coils held by fabricators or pipe mills, frequently is converted into CTL plate. CTL-III-9 As the following tabulation demonstrates, exports to Canada and Mexico ranged between 85 and 97 percent of U.S. exports of CTL plate.25 Source Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) Canada 396,241 353,911 471,113 492,414 629,115 686,258 336,868 431,851 Mexico 171,174 164,200 132,814 177,776 206,366 201,425 90,438 130,926 All others 32,390 29,106 17,995 22,622 42,680 158,036 35,749 42,953 Total 599,805 547,217 621,922 692,812 878,161 1,045,719 463,055 605,730 U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES Data collected in these reviews on U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories of CTL plate are presented in table CTL-III-5. The domestic industry’s inventories of CTL plate experienced a decline from its peak year in 2000 to 2001 and then fluctuated in a generally downward trend. Domestic industry inventories relative to U.S. and total shipments also were highest in 2000, decreased through 2005, and were lower in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005. Table CTL-III-5 CTL plate: U.S. producers’ inventories, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) Inventories 698,145 609,687 564,800 573,515 546,697 526,917 481,010 521,320 Ratios (percent) Ratio to production 11.0 10.7 9.3 9.1 7.9 7.4 7.0 6.2 Ratio to U.S. shipments 11.4 10.9 9.4 9.5 8.5 8.0 7.3 6.7 Ratio to total shipments 11.0 10.6 9.1 9.0 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.3 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Figure CTL-III-1 illustrates inventories of plate held by U.S. service centers and the number of months of shipments on hand. 26 27 *** is a service center, and did not provide the Commission with a response for why it imported subject CTL plate. *** importer questionnaire response, section II-6. 28 This response was included in *** importer questionnaire response, section II-6. *** acts as an importer whereas *** is a CTL plate producer in the United States. 29 ***, domestic producer questionnaire supplement. CTL-III-10 Figure CTL-III-1 Plate: Inventories held by U.S. service centers, by months, January 2000-October 20061 1 SSCI data include both CTL and coiled plate. Also, these inventories include plate from both domestic and foreign sources. Source: Business Conditions, Steel Service Center Institute (Cleveland, OH), October 2006. U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES Data concerning U.S. producers’ direct imports of CTL plate are shown in table III-6. Two U.S. producers reported importing CTL plate from a subject country. ***. 27 ***. Although the importing entity *** reported that it does not produce subject goods within the United States,28 the CTL plate producing division ***. ***.29 Table CTL-III-6 CTL plate: U.S. producers’ direct imports, by sources, 2000-05, January-June 2005 and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * In addition, table III-7 presents U.S. producers’ reported purchases of CTL plate. Table CTL-III-7 CTL plate: U.S. producers’ purchases, by sources, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 01-Jan-00 01-Apr-00 01-Jul-00 01-Oct-00 01-Jan-01 01-Apr-01 01-Jul-01 01-Oct-01 01-Jan-02 01-Apr-02 01-Jul-02 01-Oct-02 01-Jan-03 01-Apr-03 01-Jul-03 01-Oct-03 01-Jan-04 01-Apr-04 01-Jul-04 01-Oct-04 01-Jan-05 01-Apr-05 01-Jul-05 01-Oct-05 01-Jan-06 01-Apr-06 01-Jul-06 1-Oct-06 Month/Year 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Inventories (thousand tons) Shipments on Hand (number of months) 30 Comparisons of company-specific productivity data are complicated by the variety of production methods used to manufacture CTL plate, including traditional integrated production; minimill plate and bar-mill production via electric arc furnaces; production by mills that purchase and roll slab, but do not themselves produce the input; and of course processors that acquire hot-rolled coils in plate thicknesses and then level and shear the product to form CTL plate. 31 Historical data for Geneva only included data for 2000. The closure of the mill, then, is reflected in the year- on-year change for 2000-01 instead of 2001-02. CTL-III-11 U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY Table CTL-III-8 provides data on U.S. CTL plate producers’ production and related workers. Between 2000 and 2005 production and related workers, hours worked, and wages paid (despite rising hourly wages) all trended downward, offset by substantially higher productivity, leading to an overall reduction in labor costs.30 Table CTL-III-8 CTL plate: U.S. producers’ employment-related indicators, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Production and related workers (PRWs) 5,547 4,869 4,477 4,317 3,973 3,928 3,802 4,212 Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 12,607 10,929 10,224 9,578 8,994 9,078 4,630 5,307 Wages paid to PRWs (1,000 dollars) 268,471 233,945 218,022 213,011 201,105 208,286 103,535 124,368 Hourly wages $21.30 $21.41 $21.32 $22.24 $22.36 $22.95 $22.36 $23.43 Productivity (short tons produced per 1,000 hours) 453.3 469.7 537.4 592.9 688.4 709.6 668.9 720.7 Unit labor costs (per short ton) $46.98 $45.57 $39.68 $37.51 $32.48 $32.34 $33.43 $32.52 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Over the period for which data were collected, employment measured by production and related workers (“PRWs”) decreased by nearly one-quarter. From 2000 to 2002, employment declined by 1,070 workers. The initial employment decrease from 2000 to 2001 was primarily due to the closure of Geneva Steel. 31 The decline from 2001 to 2002 was shared across the industry as a whole, with larger producers such as *** experiencing more substantial employment losses than smaller ones. During the same period, *** were adding employees. The increase in the number of PRWs from 2005 to January-June 2006 is primarily attributed to an increase in employees by mills such as ***. Hourly wages fluctuated slightly upward throughout the period, and as production increased, so did productivity, most notably reflected in the year-on-year changes from 2003 to 2004. 32 The firms (and their fiscal year ends if other than December 31) are: Cargill (May 31), Claymont, CMC (August 31), CSI, Friedman (March 31), Geneva (September 30), Gerdau, IPSCO, Kentucky Electric (September 30), LeTourneau, Mittal, Nucor, Oregon, PDM, Robinson, Steel Warehouse (September 30), and U.S. Steel. 33 Geneva Steel exited the industry in 2001. Data on Geneva Steel’s 2000 operations were based on historical data previously reported for Inv. Nos. 701-TA-388-391 and 731-TA-816-821 (Review). CSI shut down its CTL plate production line in October 2004, and Kentucky Electric resumed production in 2004 following its bankruptcy and closure. 34 *** did not provide financial data. ***. ***. ***. 35 ***. CTL-III-12 FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCERS Background Twelve U.S. mills and five processors provided usable financial data on their operations on CTL plate. 32 33 34 These data are believed to account for the large majority of U.S. production of CTL plate in 2005. While several firms reported internal consumption and/or transfers, the quantity and value of these affiliated party transactions were small, accounting for less than *** percent of total sales (quantity and value) in 2005. Accordingly, these data are not presented separately in this section of the report. Operations on CTL Plate Income-and-loss data for U.S. mills and processors on their operations on CTL plate are presented in table CTL-III-9. Selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table CTL-III-10.35 The domestic industry experienced operating losses from 2000 to 2003, then rebounded sharply in 2004, continued to improve in 2005, and generated higher levels of operating income in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005. Net sales quantities increased from 2000 to 2003 by 9.7 percent, from 2003 to 2005 by 7.1 percent, and were 20.6 percent higher in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005. Net sales values increased from 2000 to 2003 by 8.9 percent, from 2003 to 2005 by 112.5 percent, and were 15.0 percent higher in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005. The declines in operating income from 2000 to 2003 cut across the majority of the industry, as 9 of 13 mills and processors operating continuously from 2000 to 2003 reported a decrease in operating profits or deepening losses. CTL-III-13 Table CTL-III-9 CTL plate: Results of operations of U.S. mills and processors, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January- June 2006 Item Fiscal year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) Total net sales 4,830,187 4,367,368 4,745,921 5,297,394 5,638,486 5,672,541 2,802,305 3,379,555 Value ($1,000) Total net sales 1,758,271 1,477,637 1,609,886 1,915,063 3,530,933 4,070,019 2,119,953 2,437,411 COGS 1,800,011 1,572,475 1,628,547 1,908,344 2,692,538 2,967,611 1,517,442 1,769,847 Gross profit (loss) (41,740) (94,838) (18,661) 6,719 838,395 1,102,408 602,511 667,564 SG&A expenses 111,600 105,252 96,529 137,155 104,222 120,100 56,963 69,429 Operating income (loss) (153,340) (200,090) (115,190) (130,436) 734,173 982,308 545,548 598,136 Interest expense 39,646 48,008 39,975 41,381 39,517 41,998 16,224 14,228 CDSOA income 0 827 146 1,508 2,677 413 0 0 Other income/(expense) 5,072 (3,382) 18,761 17,787 16,978 21,598 (88) 9,601 Net income (loss) (187,914) (250,653) (136,258) (152,522) 714,312 962,321 529,236 593,508 Depreciation 109,461 114,677 127,946 121,969 116,779 116,072 58,565 60,141 Cash flow (78,453) (135,976) (8,312) (30,553) 831,091 1,078,393 587,801 653,650 Ratio to net sales (percent) COGS: Raw materials 44.9 45.0 45.2 49.7 47.9 47.3 46.2 44.8 Direct labor 14.4 14.2 12.1 11.6 5.6 5.1 4.4 5.2 Other factory costs 43.1 47.3 43.9 38.3 22.8 20.5 20.9 22.6 Total COGS 102.4 106.4 101.2 99.6 76.3 72.9 71.6 72.6 Gross profit (loss) (2.4) (6.4) (1.2) 0.4 23.7 27.1 28.4 27.4 SG&A expenses 6.3 7.1 6.0 7.2 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.8 Operating income (loss)1 (8.7) (13.5) (7.2) (6.8) 20.8 24.1 25.7 24.5 Net income (loss) (10.7) (17.0) (8.5) (8.0) 20.2 23.6 25.0 24.4 Unit value (per short ton) Total net sales $364 $338 $339 $362 $626 $717 $757 $721 COGS: Raw materials 163 152 153 180 300 340 350 323 Direct labor 52 48 41 42 35 37 34 38 Other factory costs 157 160 149 139 143 147 158 163 Total COGS 373 360 343 360 478 523 541 524 Gross profit (loss) (9) (22) (4) 1 149 194 215 198 SG&A expenses 23 24 20 26 18 21 20 21 Operating income (loss) (32) (46) (24) (25) 130 173 195 177 Net income (loss) (39) (57) (29) (29) 127 170 189 176 Number of firms reporting Operating losses 8 8 9 10 1 0 1 0 Data 14 13 14 15 16 15 15 15 1 ***. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. CTL-III-14 The industry-wide financial decline reversed from 2003 to 2005. Per-unit operating income substantially improved as the increase in per-unit net sales values ($356 per short ton) was much greater than the combined effects of an increase in unit cost of goods sold (“COGS”) ($163 per short ton) and a decline in selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses ($5 per short ton). While *** enjoyed some of the largest increases in operating profitability from 2003 to 2005, the 2003 to 2005 increase cut across the industry, as all mills (individually) and processors (collectively) operating continuously during this time frame reported increased operating profits or smaller losses. The domestic industry’s operating income was also higher in January-June 2006 than in January- June 2005 due to the increase in net sales quantity; however, on a per-unit basis, lower net sales values ($35 per short ton) were greater in magnitude than the net reduction in COGS (lower by $18 per short ton) and SG&A expenses (higher by $0.22 per short ton). The higher operating income level in January- June 2006 was generally reflected across the industry, as a majority (11 of 15) of firms reported greater operating income than in January-June 2005. Table CTL-III-10 CTL plate: Results of operations of U.S. mills (by firm) and processors, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * From 2003 to 2005, the increase in COGS is due primarily to the increase in raw material costs. During this time, per-unit raw material costs increased by 89 percent, while per-unit direct labor and other factory costs combined increased by 2 percent. Table CTL-III-10 highlights the differences between the mills and the processors. From 2000 to 2003, the mills posted aggregate operating losses while the processors reported aggregate operating profits due primarily to the processors’ lower fixed costs and ability to purchase steel at lower prices. In 2004 and 2005, as well as from January-June 2005 to January-June 2006, the price of steel increased and the mills reported large increases in operating profits, while the aggregate operating profits for processors were more stable during this timeframe. A variance analysis for CTL plate is presented in table CTL-III-11. The information for this variance analysis is derived from table CTL-III-9. The variance analysis provides an assessment of changes in profitability as it relates to changes in pricing, cost, and volume. The analysis shows that the improvement in operating income from 2000 to 2005 is primarily attributable to the higher favorable price variance despite an increased unfavorable net cost/expense variance (that is, prices rose higher than costs/expenses). Lower costs/expenses and greater volume outweighed a decline in prices from January- June 2005 to January-June 2006. CTL-III-15 Table CTL-III-11 CTL plate: Variance analysis on operations of U.S. mills and processors, 2000-05, and January-June 2005-06 Item Between fiscal years January- June 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Value ($1,000) Total net sales: Price variance 2,005,117 (112,160) 4,171 118,109 1,492,562 517,760 (119,234) Volume variance 306,631 (168,474) 128,078 187,068 123,308 21,326 436,692 Total net sales variance 2,311,748 (280,634) 132,249 305,177 1,615,870 539,086 317,458 Cost of sales: Cost variance (853,690) 55,062 80,226 (90,561) (661,318) (258,811) 60,175 Volume variance (313,911) 172,474 (136,298) (189,236) (122,876) (16,262) (312,580) Total cost variance (1,167,600) 227,536 (56,072) (279,797) (784,194) (275,074) (252,405) Gross profit variance 1,144,148 (53,098) 76,177 25,380 831,676 264,012 65,053 SG&A expenses: Expense variance 10,963 (4,345) 17,846 (29,409) 41,764 (15,248) (732) Volume variance (19,462) 10,693 (9,123) (11,217) (8,831) (629) (11,734) Total SG&A variance (8,500) 6,348 8,723 (40,626) 32,933 (15,877) (12,466) Operating income variance 1,135,648 (46,750) 84,900 (15,246) 864,609 248,135 52,588 Summarized as: Price variance 2,005,117 (112,160) 4,171 118,109 1,492,562 517,760 (119,234) Net cost/expense variance (842,727) 50,717 98,072 (119,970) (619,554) (274,059) 59,443 Net volume variance (26,742) 14,693 (17,343) (13,385) (8,399) 4,434 112,378 Note.-- Unfavorable variances are shown in parentheses; all others are favorable. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses The responding firms’ aggregate data on capital expenditures and research and development (“R&D”) expenses are shown in table CTL-III-12. Aggregate capital expenditures irregularly declined from 2000 to 2005, and were higher in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005. Aggregate R&D expenses irregularly increased from 2000 to 2005 and were also higher in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005. *** accounted for the majority of reported capital expenditures during most of the review period, while *** accounted for the majority of reported R&D expenses during the entire review period. In total, 15 firms reported capital expenditure data and four firms reported R&D data. Table CTL-III-12 CTL plate: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. mills and processors, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Fiscal year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Value ($1,000) Capital expenditures ***1 ***1 38,505 20,630 23,063 86,056 20,612 43,030 R&D expenses *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 1 ***. ***. ***. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. CTL-III-16 Assets and Return on Investment The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing, and sale of CTL plate to compute return on investment (“ROI”). Although ROI can be computed in many different ways, a commonly used method is income divided by total assets. Therefore, ROI is calculated as operating income divided by total assets used in the production, warehousing, and sale of CTL plate. Data on the U.S. CTL plate mills’ and processors’ total assets and their ROI are presented in table CTL-III-13. The total assets utilized in the production, warehousing, and sale of CTL plate irregularly increased from $*** in 2000 to $2.7 billion in 2005, with the large increase in current assets from 2003 to 2004 due mostly to the increases in the prices and costs for CTL plate. The ROI was negative from 2000 to 2003, then improved to 24.8 percent in 2004 and 36.0 percent in 2005. Table CTL-III-13 CTL plate: Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. mills and processors, 2000-05 Item Fiscal year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Value of assets: Value ($1,000) Current assets: Cash and equivalents 20,205 14,585 22,477 26,506 277,899 99,314 Accounts receivable, net 222,524 235,994 206,687 295,467 562,132 524,832 Inventories 318,856 310,888 320,858 312,923 576,808 595,428 Other 65,527 46,756 41,097 17,867 11,749 11,710 Total current assets 627,112 608,223 591,119 652,763 1,428,588 1,231,284 Property, plant and equipment: Original cost 2,538,747 2,856,655 2,672,482 2,403,851 2,218,573 2,257,426 Less: accumulated depreciation 992,337 905,082 849,786 759,618 703,466 791,007 Equals: book value 1,546,410 1,951,573 1,822,696 1,644,233 1,515,107 1,466,419 Other non-current assets1 *** *** *** *** 11,384 23,475 Total assets *** *** *** *** 2,955,079 2,721,178 Operating income or (loss) 2 (131,213) (199,370) (114,700) (129,500) 733,366 980,463 Share (percent) Return on investment 2 *** *** *** *** 24.8 36.0 1 ***. 2 ***. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 1 The official import statistics that form the core of the data are limited to non-alloy steel plate. While most of this volume is believed to be CTL plate consistent with the scope of these reviews, some of the HTS subheadings included in the scope provide for plate in both coiled and non-coiled form. This has resulted in an overstatement in the volume of subject imports of CTL plate. While Staff believes that this overstatement is minor in aggregate, it can have a noticeable impact on data for certain suppliers in periods where their overall volume is relatively small. 2 No importers reported entering or withdrawing CTL plate from bonded warehouses in the United States, nor did any importer report importing CTL plate through a foreign trade zone (“FTZ”). 3 Consistent with data presented in the first reviews, data for CTL plate are compiled from HTS statistical reporting numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, and 7211.14.0045. CTL-IV-1 PART CTL-IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRIES U.S. IMPORTS Import data in this report are derived from official Commerce statistics for CTL plate.1 The Commission sent importers’ questionnaires to all U.S. plate mills, all U.S. service centers believed to have cut-to-length processing lines, all U.S. firms believed to have imported CTL plate during previous investigations, and firms identified by *** as importers of record for CTL plate between January 2000 and April 2006. Sixteen firms supplied usable data,2 while 25 reported that they had not imported CTL plate since 2000. The Commission received responses from firms accounting for a substantial share of CTL plate imports from Romania, and limited responses from smaller-volume subject countries. Imports of CTL plate from each of the subject countries and from all nonsubject countries appear in table CTL-IV-1. 3 The combined imports from the subject countries varied over the period for which data were collected, fluctuating primarily due to the level of imports from Romania. Besides imports from Romania, the only two subject countries consistently reporting U.S. imports of over 1,000 short tons were Germany and Belgium. However, U.S. imports from both of these countries may include products excluded from these orders. In the case of Belgium these products may include floor plate; in the case of Germany these products may include X-70 plate. Therefore, a tabulation is presented for Belgium and Germany detailing the quantity of imports from these countries for which duties were collected. As shown, there was a marked decrease in the amount of imports from these two countries. CTL-IV-2 Table CTL-IV-1 CTL plate: U.S. imports, by sources, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Source Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) Belgium 15,614 16,575 11,615 6,226 10,271 10,388 2,767 6,853 Brazil 3,243 2,978 1,477 0 18 2,460 1,961 420 Finland 0 19 0 0 1,290 0 0 0 Germany 8,783 129 40,536 2,647 23,413 2,078 1,491 15,671 Mexico 153 271 273 308 1,083 440 379 168 Poland 3 386 0 0 45 61 61 0 Romania 6 5,981 44,339 69,552 109,969 49,813 3,014 0 Spain 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 Sweden 354 1,312 198 0 280 182 182 50 Taiwan 75 66 226 0 0 0 0 0 United Kingdom 847 125 79 23 8 17 0 19 Subtotal 29,083 27,842 98,749 78,755 146,377 65,439 9,856 23,181 All other sources 669,666 611,424 452,321 234,670 390,123 598,444 331,866 545,050 Total 698,749 639,266 551,069 313,425 536,500 663,883 341,722 568,231 Value (1,000 dollars)1 Belgium 6,458 6,511 4,951 3,086 7,023 8,923 1,976 5,904 Brazil 1,546 1,386 288 0 7 3,138 2,714 323 Finland 0 10 0 0 1,112 0 0 0 Germany 4,030 92 17,028 1,688 10,641 1,440 980 15,574 Mexico 65 141 81 123 570 271 244 79 Poland 4 95 0 0 23 36 36 0 Romania 6 1,433 12,627 20,706 58,584 31,292 2,084 0 Spain 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Sweden 198 1,095 192 0 131 108 108 33 Taiwan 26 20 270 0 0 0 0 0 United Kingdom 246 88 49 7 3 6 0 6 Subtotal 12,581 10,873 35,489 25,610 78,094 45,214 8,143 21,920 All other sources 199,956 180,362 143,493 78,892 221,897 400,852 227,169 325,305 Total 212,537 191,235 178,982 104,501 299,990 446,065 235,312 347,225 Table continued on next page. CTL-IV-3 Table CTL-IV-1--Continued CTL plate: U.S. imports, by sources, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Source Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Unit value (per short ton) Belgium $414 $393 $426 $496 $684 $859 $714 $862 Brazil 477 465 195 (2 ) 366 1,276 1,384 769 Finland (2 ) 537 (2 ) (2 ) 862 (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) Germany 459 710 420 638 454 693 657 994 Mexico 428 521 298 400 526 615 645 472 Poland 1,270 247 ( 2 ) (2 ) 505 595 595 (2 ) Romania 890 240 285 298 533 628 691 ( 2 ) Spain 444 ( 2 ) 358 (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) Sweden 559 835 970 (2 ) 470 595 595 663 Taiwan 353 309 1,194 (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) United Kingdom 291 708 624 305 374 342 ( 2 ) 338 Subtotal 433 391 359 325 534 691 826 946 All other sources 299 295 317 336 569 670 685 597 Total 304 299 325 333 559 672 689 611 Share of quantity (percent) Belgium 2.2 2.6 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.6 0.8 1.2 Brazil 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.0 (3 ) 0.4 0.6 0.1 Finland 0.0 (3 ) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Germany 1.3 (3 ) 7.4 0.8 4.4 0.3 0.4 2.8 Mexico (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 (3 ) Poland (3 ) 0.1 0.0 0.0 (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) 0.0 Romania (3 ) 0.9 8.0 22.2 20.5 7.5 0.9 0.0 Spain (3 ) 0.0 (3 ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sweden 0.1 0.2 (3 ) 0.0 0.1 (3 ) 0.1 (3 ) Taiwan (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 United Kingdom 0.1 ( 3 ) (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) 0 (3 ) Subtotal 4.2 4.4 17.9 25.1 27.3 9.9 2.9 4.1 All other sources 95.8 95.6 82.1 74.9 72.7 90.1 97.1 95.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table continued on next page. CTL-IV-4 Table CTL-IV-1--Continued CTL plate: U.S. imports, by sources, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Source Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Share of value (percent) Belgium 3.0 3.4 2.8 3.0 2.3 2.0 0.8 1.7 Brazil 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.0 (3 ) 0.7 1.2 0.1 Finland 0.0 (3 ) 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Germany 1.9 (3 ) 9.5 1.6 3.5 0.3 0.4 4.5 Mexico (3 ) 0.1 (3 ) 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 (3 ) Poland (3 ) (3 ) 0.0 0.0 (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) 0.0 Romania (3 ) 0.7 7.1 19.8 19.5 7.0 0.9 0.0 Spain (3 ) 0.0 (3 ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sweden 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) Taiwan (3 ) (3 ) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 United Kingdom 0.1 ( 3 ) (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) 0.0 (3 ) Subtotal 5.9 5.7 19.8 24.5 26.0 10.1 3.5 6.3 All other sources 94.1 94.3 80.2 75.5 74.0 89.9 96.5 93.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Ratio of import quantity to U.S. production (percent) Belgium 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 Brazil 0.1 0.1 (3 ) 0.0 (3 ) (3 ) 0.1 (3 ) Finland 0.0 (3 ) 0.0 0.0 (3 ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Germany 0.1 (3 ) 0.7 (3 ) 0.3 (3 ) (3 ) 0.4 Mexico (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) Poland (3 ) (3 ) 0.0 0.0 (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) 0.0 Romania (3 ) 0.1 0.7 1.1 1.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 Spain (3 ) 0.0 (3 ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sweden (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) 0.0 (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) Taiwan (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 United Kingdom ( 3 ) (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) (3 ) 0.0 (3 ) Subtotal 0.5 0.5 1.6 1.3 2.1 0.9 0.3 0.6 All other sources 10.6 10.8 7.4 3.7 5.7 8.4 9.6 13.0 Total 11.1 11.3 9.0 5.0 7.8 9.3 9.9 13.6 1 Landed, duty paid. 2 Not applicable. 3 Less than 0.05 percent. Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics. 4 Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 5 Floor plate imports from Belgium accounted for *** short tons in 2000, *** short tons in 2001, and *** short tons in 2002. E-mail from ***, November 15, 2006. 6 The data in this table are based on official import statistics of Commerce for non-alloy steel plate. CTL-IV-5 The following tabulation presents *** data on imports from Belgium and Germany for which countervailing and antidumping duties were collected between January 2000 and June 2006. In addition, in July 2002, the Federal Circuit ruled that floor plate was not within the scope of the original orders on Belgium. 4 Consequently, Commerce instructed Customs to liquidate all unliquidated floor plate without regard to countervailing and antidumping duties effective February 12, 2000. Therefore, the following tabulation further deducts reported floor plate imports from Belgium during 2000-02.5 * * * * * * * Imports of CTL plate also entered the United States from 32 nonsubject countries during the period for which data were collected (table CTL-IV-2).6 The total quantity of CTL plate imports from all sources decreased from 2000 to 2005 by 5.0 percent. Canada and Korea were the largest sources for U.S. imports from countries not subject to these reviews. Since 2001, the United States has consistently imported more than 100,000 short tons of CTL plate from Canada annually. From January 2000 through June 2006, the United States imported 566,142 short tons from Korea. Table CTL-IV-2 CTL plate: U.S. imports by source (nonsubject countries only), 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January- June 2006 Source Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) Covered by order or suspension agreement since 1997 China 148,181 90,775 31,098 6,036 1,176 2,084 1,866 1,326 Russia 87,148 79,070 34,453 3,742 685 2,789 90 38,417 Ukraine 25,408 31,316 5,650 4,712 129,159 87,732 64,179 28,445 Covered by order since 2000 India 1 1,485 1,200 0 0 6 0 0 3,836 Indonesia1 0 123 0 0 622 2,682 2,498 19 Italy 1,715 0 0 0 28,227 5,574 5,540 702 Japan 2,309 3,101 36,165 0 2,928 5,504 4,282 2,982 Korea 155,375 145,037 71,390 11,789 26,737 72,292 44,586 83,522 Table continued on next page. CTL-IV-6 Table CTL-IV-2--Continued CTL plate: U.S. imports by source (nonsubject countries only), 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January- June 2006 Source Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Not covered by order Australia 34,911 40,986 14,344 7,807 3,514 9,091 0 44,089 Austria 1,928 6,176 1,679 55 3,457 10,799 635 9,823 Bulgaria1 15,502 24,766 36,927 1,096 0 1,118 1,118 4,767 Canada 2 80,318 121,283 124,393 134,184 106,756 158,413 64,944 95,370 Cyprus 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 Czech Republic 1 50,837 17,965 53,868 40,866 36,166 11,055 2,678 11,266 Denmark 441 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Dominican Rep 1 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 Egypt 1 0 0 0 112 2,386 8 4 0 Estonia 1 0 0 0 0 146 0 0 0 France 2,329 736 455 129 717 4,626 4,119 921 Hungary1 4,089 3,004 6,308 3,137 2,184 1,617 1,213 529 Kazakhstan 271 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 Macedonia 1 6,276 8,917 0 0 0 0 0 14,778 Malaysia 0 0 0 0 7,647 70,005 42,929 70,515 Malta 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Zealand 0 23 0 0 0 349 255 0 Norway 350 490 1,020 1,209 681 917 561 349 Slovak Republic 1 1,669 1,179 1,385 849 604 2,713 1,708 1,197 South Africa1 3,992 7,520 11,889 16,086 17,643 27,552 13,309 26,982 Switzerland 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thailand 1 44,717 25,207 17,397 2,646 16,666 120,084 74,315 99,383 Turkey1 0 2,384 3,880 203 2,013 1,423 1,029 5,831 Venezuela 1 358 0 0 0 0 17 8 0 Total 669,666 611,424 452,321 234,670 390,123 598,444 331,866 545,050 1 Country not subject to safeguard measures. 2 Member of free trade agreement; safeguard measures not applied. Note-- Highlighted years indicate the period of time during which increased tariffs were in effect pursuant to the U.S. safeguard measure on steel. Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics. CTL-IV-7 CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS In assessing whether subject imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product with respect to cumulation, the Commission generally has considered the following four factors: (1) fungibility, (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets, (3) common or similar channels of distribution, and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. Fungibility considerations and channels of distribution are discussed in Part II of this report; additional information regarding fungibility, geographic markets, and presence in the market are discussed below. Fungibility Tables CTL-IV-3 and IV-4 present U.S. commercial shipments of CTL plate reported by U.S. producers and U.S. importers by the types of plate and the thickness of plate, respectively. Table CTL-IV-3 CTL plate: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments, by source and type of plate, 20051 Item Floor plate Carbon structural steel plate Pressure vessel plate Platform plate Ship- building plate Plate for line pipe Wide flat bar All other CTL plate Total CTL plate Quantity (short tons) United States 25,517 4,201,221 336,999 73,050 284,993 47,567 607,892 845,009 6,422,248 Belgium *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Brazil *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Germany *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Romania *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All others 3,783 143,186 33,699 0 0 0 0 61,251 241,919 Share of quantity (percent) United States 0.4 65.4 5.2 1.1 4.4 0.7 9.5 13.2 100.0 Belgium *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 Brazil *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 Germany *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 Romania *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 100.0 All others 1.6 59.2 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.3 100.0 1 No U.S. commercial shipments were reported for imports from Finland, Mexico, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 7 Official Commerce statistics measure imports at the port of entry; material imported into one district, however, may be shipped to another geographic region. CTL-IV-8 Table CTL-IV-4 CTL plate: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments, by source and thickness of plate, 20051 Item < 1.00" $ 1.00" but < 3.00" $ 3.00" but < 4.00" $ 4.00" Total Quantity (short tons) United States 4,643,882 1,425,504 99,622 111,730 6,280,738 Belgium *** *** *** *** *** Brazil *** *** *** *** *** Germany *** *** *** *** *** Romania *** *** *** *** *** All others 167,659 38,166 6,202 2,757 214,784 Share of quantity (percent) United States 73.9 22.7 1.6 1.8 100.0 Belgium *** *** *** *** 100.0 Brazil *** *** *** *** 100.0 Germany *** *** *** *** 100.0 Romania *** *** *** *** 100.0 All others 78.1 17.8 2.9 1.3 100.0 1 No U.S. commercial shipments were reported for imports from Finland, Mexico, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Geographic Markets As noted previously, CTL plate production occurs throughout the United States, and CTL plate is shipped nationwide. Information summarizing national and regional markets and the shipment of CTL plate is presented in Part CTL-II. Of the CTL plate imported into the United States from the subject countries from January 2000 to June 2006, the top ten Customs districts accounted for nearly all entries. As illustrated in table CTL-IV-5,7 imports from Romania are concentrated in the Gulf States region. Accordingly, the Houston-Galveston, TX, district accounted for the largest share of subject imports (51.6 percent). CTL-IV-9 Table CTL-IV-5 CTL plate: U.S. imports from subject countries, by Customs district, January 2000-June 2006 Customs district Belgium Brazil Finland Germany Mexico Poland1 Houston-Galveston, TX 35,350 5,085 1,154 15,475 0 0 New Orleans, LA 2,322 3,040 0 18,194 0 0 Tampa, FL 2,485 0 0 53,087 0 0 Seattle, WA 8,428 12 0 89 0 0 Detroit, MI 6,327 0 0 954 0 40 Philadelphia, PA 2,220 420 0 1,964 0 0 Los Angeles, CA 6,803 0 0 4 0 0 Chicago, IL 5,197 196 14 11 0 9 Laredo, TX 129 1,477 0 8 2,413 0 Savannah, GA 3,458 0 0 64 0 0 All others 4,822 365 141 3,407 283 447 Total 77,542 10,596 1,309 93,256 2,696 495 Customs district Romania Spain 2 Sweden 3 Taiwan 4 UK5 — Houston-Galveston, TX 184,983 0 0 0 66 — New Orleans, LA 86,672 0 0 0 71 — Tampa, FL 2,572 0 0 0 0 — Seattle, WA 0 0 256 20 0 — Detroit, MI 0 0 393 0 46 — Philadelphia, PA 2,557 0 0 0 8 — Los Angeles, CA 0 0 0 222 101 — Chicago, IL 0 0 1,294 0 31 — Laredo, TX 348 0 0 0 0 — Savannah, GA 0 0 0 0 28 — All others 2,527 11 432 125 765 — Total 279,660 11 2,376 367 1,118 — 1 The primary “other” port of entry for CTL plate from Poland was San Juan, PR. 2 The primary “other” ports of entry for CTL plate from Spain were Ogdensburg, NY, and St. Albans, VT. 3 The primary “other” ports of entry for CTL plate from Sweden were Chicago, IL; Detroit, MI; New York, NY; and Seattle, WA. 4 The primary “other” ports of entry for CTL plate from Taiwan were Los Angeles, CA, and Ogdensburg, NY. 5 The primary “other” ports of entry for CTL plate from the United Kingdom were San Juan, PR, Los Angeles, CA, and New Orleans, LA. Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics. CTL-IV-10 Presence in the Market Table CTL-IV-6 presents data on the monthly entries of U.S. imports of CTL plate, by source, during the period for which data were collected. Plate products from Belgium and Germany (see earlier note) were generally present throughout the period for which data were collected, while CTL plate from Mexico and Romania was more prevalent later in the period. Monthly entries of imports from Brazil, Sweden, and the United Kingdom all declined between January 2000 and June 2006, while monthly entries of imports from Finland, Poland, and Spain were minimal throughout the period for which data were collected. Table CTL-IV-6 CTL plate: U.S. imports, monthly entries into the United States, by source, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Source Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Belgium 1 12 12 12 8 10 10 4 6 Brazil 8 4 5 0 1 4 1 1 Finland 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 Germany1 6 5 10 10 12 11 6 6 Mexico 5 4 4 4 9 7 4 5 Poland 1 3 0 0 2 1 1 0 Romania 1 1 8 4 10 5 1 0 Spain 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Sweden 9 8 3 0 3 2 2 2 Taiwan 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 United Kingdom 5 2 6 1 1 1 0 1 All others 12 12 12 12 12 12 6 6 1 Nonsubject imports are included in entries from Belgium (floor plate) and Germany (X-70 plate). Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics. 8 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-98, and USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-1. CTL-IV-11 U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES Data relating to U.S. importers’ inventories of subject imports and all CTL plate imports are presented in table CTL-IV-7. Table CTL-IV-7 CTL plate: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Imports from subject sources1 Inventories (short tons) 0 0 0 0 *** *** 0 0 Ratio to imports (percent) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 *** *** 0.0 0.0 Ratio to shipments of imports (percent) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 *** *** 0.0 0.0 Imports from all other sources Inventories (short tons) 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 *** *** 2,663 2,758 Ratio to imports (percent) 2.1 1.5 0.9 1.7 *** *** 0.8 0.8 Ratio to shipments of imports (percent) 2.1 1.5 0.9 0.5 *** *** 0.8 0.7 Total imports Inventories (short tons) 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 20,148 7,756 2,663 2,758 Ratio to imports (percent) 2.0 1.5 0.9 1.5 5.0 2.3 0.8 0.8 Ratio to shipments of imports (percent) 2.0 1.5 0.9 0.5 5.3 2.2 0.7 0.7 1 Romania was the exclusive source of inventories of imports of CTL plate from subject sources. Note–Partial-year ratios are based on annualized import and shipment data. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Responding U.S. importers reported that they had arranged for the delivery of *** short tons of CTL plate from *** after June 30, 2006 through December 2007. For this same period, responding U.S. importers reported arranging for delivery 20,360 short tons of CTL plate from nonsubject sources. THE INDUSTRY IN BELGIUM Overview The Commission identified four Belgian producers of CTL steel plate - Clabecq, Cockerill, Fabfer, and Sidmar - in the original investigations, and two producers in the first reviews - Duferco and Industeel. 8 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to two producers in 9 However, non-responding producer Industeel’s U.S. affiliate supplied the Commission with a completed importers’ questionnaire. 10 ***. 11 ***, contained in ***. 12 Duferco’s prehearing brief, exhibit 2. 13 Duferco’s 2005 Annual Report indicates that the firm is shifting from producing commodity plate to specialty plate. See Duferco’s prehearing brief, exhibit 4. 14 Duferco’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-13 (a) and (b). 15 Duferco’s posthearing brief, exhibit 2. 16 Ibid. CTL-IV-12 Belgium, one of which, Duferco, responded and is a party.9 Accordingly, the data presented on Belgian production of CTL plate for the current second reviews are for Duferco. *** reports that there are two reversing plate mills in Belgium (both owned by Duferco),10 but gives no indication of reversing plate mill capacity owned by Industeel (owned by Arcelor-Mittal).11 Duferco contends, however, that Industeel’s product mix is heavily weighted toward stainless steel and other alloy steel plate.12 CTL plate sales represented *** percent of Duferco’s total sales. Duferco reportedly represents *** percent of production of CTL plate in Belgium. Table CTL-IV-8 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. Table CTL-IV-8 CTL plate: Comparison of select Belgian industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005 * * * * * * * CTL Plate Operations Duferco reported that it stopped producing steel in December 2001 and ***, without changing ***. Since 2003, both capacity and production have increased. Since 2004, Duferco has been operating at the equivalent of *** shifts per week. From 2000 to 2003, it was operating at the equivalent of *** shifts per week. ***. Although Duferco reported that ***.13 ***, are the target customers for ***. Duferco reported that plate constitutes *** of its sales. Some of its sales are nonsubject plate (e.g., alloy plate, floor plate, and sheet) which it sells in *** quantities, representing about *** percent of its sales. Duferco reported that ***. As shown in table CTL-IV-9, during the period for which data were collected, Duferco reported exports to the United States in 2005 of *** short tons. Duferco reported ***. Free trade agreements reportedly *** its operations. Duferco’s CTL plate exports are not subject to any tariff or nontariff barriers in any countries, nor subject to current investigations in any other country.14 Duferco reported that sales are ***. However, ***. Duferco reported that average prices for CTL plate to the European market ranged from $*** per short ton to $*** per short ton over the final quarter of 2006. Duferco estimates that for the first quarter of 2007 its average price for CTL plate products in the European market will be ***. 15 Sales to the rest of the world are on a project basis, focusing on specialized products, ranging in price from ***.16 Table CTL-IV-9 CTL plate: Belgium’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * 17 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-99; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-5. 18 The non-responding company is Gerdau Acominas SA. However, according to the responses of COSIPA and Usiminas, they account for all CTL plate production in Brazil. Additionally, according to ***, these two firms account for all reversing plate mill capacity in Brazil. ***, contained in ***. 19 Though legally two entities, COSIPA is a wholly owned subsidiary of USIMINAS, but both act under the same commercial strategy. COSIPA’s and USIMINAS’ foreign producer questionnaires, section II-1. CTL-IV-13 As shown in table CTL-IV-10, shipments of plate products less than 1 inch thick represent the largest share of total shipments by thickness. In addition, as shown in table CTL-IV-11, carbon structural CTL plate constitutes the largest amount of shipments of plate for home market consumption. Exports constitute ***. Like the domestic market, carbon structural steel plate represents the largest amount of sales, but the export market’s product mix includes substantial quantities of shipbuilding plate as well as pressure vessel plate. Table CTL-IV-10 CTL plate: Belgium’s total shipments of plate, by thickness, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CTL-IV-11 CTL plate: Belgium’s total shipments of specified plate, by market, 2005 * * * * * * * Alternative Products Duferco produces nonsubject plate, but *** does not track it separately from subject CTL plate production. However, as demonstrated in table CTL-IV-12, Duferco was able to estimate subject and nonsubject plate production alone for 2005. Table CTL-IV-12 CTL plate: Belgium’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL plate, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * THE INDUSTRY IN BRAZIL Overview The Commission identified two Brazilian producers of CTL steel plate - COSIPA and USIMINAS - in the original investigations and the same producers in the first reviews. 17 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to three producers in Brazil, two of which responded and are parties.18 Accordingly, the data presented on Brazilian production of CTL plate for the current second reviews are for USIMINAS and COSIPA. COSIPA, however, is a wholly owned subsidiary of USIMINAS. 19 CTL plate sales represented *** percent of COSIPA’s total sales and *** percent of USIMINAS’ total sales. Responding Brazilian producers reportedly combine for 100 percent of production of CTL plate in Brazil. Table CTL-IV-13 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. 20 USIMINAS’ foreign producer questionnaire, section II-12. 21 COSIPA’s and USIMINAS’ foreign producer questionnaires, section II-17. 22 COSIPA’s and USIMINAS’ foreign producer questionnaires, section II-12. 23 COSIPA’s and USIMINAS’ foreign producer questionnaires, section I-7. 24 COSIPA’s and USIMINAS’ foreign producer questionnaires, section II-13 (a) and (b). 25 COSIPA’s and USIMINAS’ foreign producer questionnaires, section II-14. 26 COSIPA’s and USIMINAS’ foreign producer questionnaires, section II-3. 27 Brazilian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, exhibit 5, p. 9. CTL-IV-14 Table CTL-IV-13 CTL plate: Comparison of select Brazilian industry data: 1992, 1999, and 2005 * * * * * * * CTL Plate Operations Neither firm reported ***. USIMINAS reported that it is planning ***.20 COSIPA reported *** anticipated changes. Planned future investments ***.21 USIMINAS noted that plans for ***. Table CTL-IV-14 presents the Brazilian industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of CTL plate for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. Since 2000, capacity has fluctuated irregularly; production trends mirrored this fluctuation. Capacity utilization ***. Home market sales constitute the largest share of shipments, but were at their lowest level relative to total shipments in ***. Exports to non-EU and non-Asian markets represented the largest share of all shipments after home market shipments. As noted above, Brazil reported Latin America as a primary export market. Table CTL-IV-14 CTL plate: Brazil’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * As shown in table CTL-IV-14, there were *** reported exports of CTL plate from Brazil to the United States. Likewise, *** reported maintaining inventories of CTL plate in the United States.22 Brazilian producers believe that the preferential treatment that NAFTA offers its members ***.23 Brazilian CTL plate exports are not subject to any tariff or nontariff barriers, nor subject to current investigations in any other countries. 24 Brazilian CTL producers *** as a result of the orders. Since the orders, however, Brazil’s CTL plate sales to its home market have increased. In addition, sales have increased to existing customers in Europe and Asia, but predominantly in Latin America. The firms operate ***, limiting potential sales to new markets.25 Finally, if the orders are revoked, these firms ***. 26 Additionally, neither firm prepares independent projected prices, but, rather, both firms relies on private pricing services (e.g., ***) and published price information.27 As shown in table CTL-IV-15, shipments of plate products less than 1 inch thick represent the largest share of shipments by thickness. In addition, as shown in CTL-IV-16, carbon structural steel plate constitutes the largest amount of shipments of plate for home market consumption and for exports. 28 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-104; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-6. 29 Rautaruukki’s only plant is Rautaruukki Oyj, located in Helsinki, Finland. *** confirms that this is the sole producer of reversing CTL plate in Finland. ***, contained in ***. Rautaruukki also produces strip mill plate. 30 This figure includes all CTL plate (subject and nonsubject) because Rautaruukki was unable to separate the products in its records. Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-10. 31 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a. CTL-IV-15 Table CTL-IV-15 CTL plate: Brazilian producers’ total shipments of plate, by thickness, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CTL-IV-16 CTL plate: Brazilian producers’ total shipments of specified plate, by market, 2005 * * * * * * * Alternative Products Both Brazilian producers produce nonsubject plate, e.g., X-70 plate and alloy plate (table CTL- IV-17). However, neither producer reported micro-alloy plate production. Table CTL-IV-17 CTL plate: Brazil’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL plate, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * THE INDUSTRY IN FINLAND Overview The Commission identified one Finnish producer of CTL plate - Rautaruukki - in the original investigations and in the first reviews.28 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued a questionnaire to, and received data from, Rautaruukki, the sole Finnish producer of CTL plate. 29 In the most recent fiscal year, sales of CTL plate represented *** percent of Rautaruukki’s total sales.30 This amount reportedly accounts for *** percent of CTL plate production in Finland.31 Table CTL-IV-18 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. Table CTL-IV-18 CTL plate: Comparison of select Finnish industry data: 1992, 1999, and 2005 * * * * * * * Rautaruukki has remained the sole producer of CTL plate since the original investigations. However, Rautaruukki reported *** because of its strategy of focusing on the markets in Europe. 32 Plate mills currently represent *** percent of the production of CTL plate in Rautaruukki mills and hot strip mills account for the remaining *** percent of production. 33 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-1 and II-2. 34 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-17. 35 Rautaruukki uses ***. Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-5. 36 Rautaruukki reported that the overall steel production of the basic oxygen furnaces at the steel plant ***. Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-9. 37 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-2 and II-17. 38 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-4. 39 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-6 and II-8. 40 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-11. 41 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-12 and II-18a. 42 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-15 and II-16. 43 Rautaruukki’s response to the notice of institution, p. 10. 44 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a. 45 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-14. 46 Rautaruukki’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-13 and I-7. CTL-IV-16 Additionally, Rautaruukki’s CTL plate capacity was lower in 2003 because it was ***. Rautaruukki noted that it ***. Rautaruukki ***.32 This would ***. 33 CTL Plate Operations Table CTL-IV-19 presents the Finnish industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of CTL plate for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. Table CTL-IV-19 CTL plate: Finland’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Rautaruukki ***.34 35 36 The changes in production that have taken place at Rautaruukki’s mills have been due to ***.37 Other than ***, Rautaruukki reported ***.38 Rautaruukki only produces CTL plate to order, which explains the small fluctuations in production over the period reviewed. As discussed in greater detail under the subheading “Alternative Products,” Rautaruukki reportedly ***.39 Additionally, Rautaruukki reported that ***.40 Rautaruukki reported ***.41 Therefore, the company reported that the orders ***.42 The overwhelming majority of export shipments of CTL plate made by Rautaruukki were to markets in ***, followed by shipments to ***, which Rautaruukki identifies as its core markets.43 Very little was shipped to *** over the period reviewed. Exports made up *** percent of Rautaruukki’s shipments in 2005, and home market sales made up *** percent.44 Rautaruukki reported that its marketing strategy is ***.45 Rautaruukki’s exports of CTL plate are not currently subject to any tariff or non-tariff barriers in any country, not subject to current investigations outside the United States, and not affected by any free trade agreements. 46 As shown in table CTL-IV-20, the largest share of CTL plate shipments from Finland were less than one inch thick. The share of CTL plate shipments ***. Furthermore, as shown in table CTL-IV-21, 47 Rautaruukki ’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-6. 48 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-107; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-7. CTL-IV-17 carbon structural steel plate constituted the largest volume of shipments for both the home market and exports, followed by shipbuilding plate. Table CTL-IV-20 CTL plate: Finnish producer’s total shipments of plate, by thickness, 2005, January-June 2005 and January- June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CTL-IV-21 CTL plate: Finnish producer’s total shipments of specified plate, by market, 2005 * * * * * * * Alternative Products As shown in table CTL-IV-22, Rautaruukki produces nonsubject CTL plate. Of the CTL plate Rautaruukki produces, *** percent of it is nonsubject plate. Rautaruukki produces ***. Rautaruukki also uses its sheeting line for producing sheets with thicknesses ***. 47 In addition, Rautaruukki reported producing ***. Table CTL-IV-22 CTL plate: Finland’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL plate, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CTL-IV-23 presents data on Finland’s production of micro-alloy CTL plate. Table CTL-IV-23 Micro-alloy CTL plate: Finland’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * THE INDUSTRY IN GERMANY Overview The Commission identified six German producers of CTL steel plate - Preussag, Ilsenburg, Krupp, Kloeckner, Dillinger, and Thyssen - in the original investigations, and four such producers in the first reviews - Bremen, Dillinger, Salzgitter, and Thyssen.48 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to six companies in Germany, three of which responded and are parties. Accordingly, the data presented on German production of CTL plate for the current second reviews are for ThyssenKrupp, AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke (“Dillinger”), and Salgitter AG Stahl und Technologie (“Salzgitter”). Responding German producers reportedly combine for 100 percent of production of CTL plate in Germany. According to *** there are three producers of CTL plate in Germany operating four reversing 49 ***, contained in ***. 50 Salzgitter provided the Commission with data on its Mannessmannrohrn facility in a separate supplemental submission and its posthearing brief. The additional data are not presented in tables CTL-IV-24-27 because the facility primarily produces alloy steel plate. Capacity and alloy steel plate production are included in table CTL-IV- 28. Salzgitter did not include the Mannessmannrohrn facility in its original response because, although it is a plate mill, it is operationally considered to be under Salzgitter’s tube division. Plate produced at this facility is internally transferred to its pipe division. Dillinger submission, October 18, 2006. Salzgitter’s plate facility for its pipe mill was not included in the original investigations or reviews. 51 German CTL plate respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, pp 8-9. 52 Dillinger’s, ThyssenKrupp’s, and Salzgitter’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-1. 53 Dillinger’s and Salzgitter’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-2. CTL-IV-18 plate mills, two of which are operated by Salzgitter.49 50 Since the original investigations, the German plate industry has undergone restructuring and consolidations that reduced the number of producers from six to three. A respondent to the original investigations, Preussag Stahl AG (now Salzgitter) closed a heavy plate facility in Salzgitter when it purchased a plate facility in Ilsenburg. Krupp Hoesch Stahl resulted from mergers in 1993 of Krupp and Hoesch Stahl. In 1997, this entity then merged with Thyssen to form ThyssenKrupp. Overall plate capacity was reduced after these mergers. Klockner exited the plate business in 1994 when selling its plate operations to Sidmar (which then became part of the Arcelor group). Plate production was discontinued on December 31, 1999.51 Sales of CTL plate in 2005 accounted for *** percent of total firm sales from ***, *** percent from ***, and *** percent from ***. Table CTL-IV-24 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. Table CTL-IV-24 CTL plate: Comparison of select German industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005 Item 1992 1999 2005 Capacity (1,000 short tons) 3,516 *** 2,053 Production (1,000 short tons) 2,499 *** 2,143 Capacity utilization (percent) 71.1 *** 104.4 Exports/shipments (percent) 37.0 *** 43.3 Inventories/shipments (percent) 4.8 *** 10.2 Note.– Data for 1992 were provided by Preussag, Ilsenburg, Krupp, Kloeckner, Dillinger, and Thyssen. Data for 1999 were provided by Bremen, Dillinger, Salzgitter, and Thyssen. Data for 2005 were provided by ThyssenKrupp, Dillinger, and Salzgitter. Source: USITC Publication 2664; confidential first review report (INV-X-221, October 18, 2000) table CTL-IV-7; and 2006 questionnaire responses identified above. CTL Plate Operations German producers reported several operational/ organizational changes since January 1, 2000. 52 *** restructured its operations into independent divisions. *** has also gone through regular periodic revisions to its labor agreements, but reported that these resulted in no change to the character of its operations. In 2003, ***. *** reported no changes to the character of its operations or organization and, like ***, anticipates *** in 2006 and 2007. 53 *** did, however, report that it plans to replace its ***. ***. ***. ***. 54 German producers reported similar production constraints in response to foreign producer questionnaire, section II-9: Thyssen reported production constraints arise from ***. Production capacity constraints for Dillinger arise from ***. Salzgitter reported that production constraints arise from the ***. 55 Dillinger’s, ThyssenKrupp’s, and Salzgitter’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-11. 56 German CTL plate respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, appendix 1, p. 4. CTL-IV-19 Table CTL-IV-25 presents the German industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of CTL plate for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. German producers, in general, have not undergone capacity or production expansions during the period of review.54 *** increased CTL plate capacity by *** metric tons from 2005 onwards due to available capacity previously reserved for stainless steel plate tolling operations. *** reported that since imposition of the orders in 1993, the capacity allocated to and subsequent production of subject CTL plate has declined due to an increase in demand for nonsubject products (e.g, alloyed plate, X-70, and higher line pipe plate). *** expects that sales of nonsubject plate will continue to grow, and it will therefore ***. *** reported plans to add, expand, curtail, or shut down production capacity. As discussed below in greater detail, German mills produce products other than CTL plate on equipment used to produce CTL plate. However, ***.55 Additionally, German plate producers expect prices in the European Union and the United States to remain stable through 2007, though commodity grade plate prices may decline due to inventory corrections by service centers and distributors.56 CTL-IV-20 Table CTL-IV-25 CTL plate: Germany’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) Capacity 2,485,000 2,303,000 2,521,000 2,437,000 2,333,000 2,053,000 1,105,000 1,220,000 Production 2,289,700 2,088,000 2,238,800 2,320,500 2,337,400 2,142,600 1,149,400 1,269,300 End-of-period inventories 199,500 191,100 182,800 206,600 178,800 214,700 174,300 215,300 Shipments: Internal consumption / transfers 132,300 123,800 129,000 153,300 126,100 170,500 97,100 106,600 Home market 1,251,100 1,007,500 1,162,500 1,182,000 1,283,900 1,025,000 578,500 635,600 Exports to: United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** European Union 673,000 695,600 717,000 659,700 643,600 647,500 353,200 346,000 China *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Other Asia 84,300 103,800 100,800 114,300 103,200 83,800 31,300 101,800 All other markets 96,800 142,200 123,500 144,200 150,800 132,800 65,600 65,600 Total exports 862,300 965,100 955,600 961,400 955,200 911,200 478,300 526,500 Total shipments 2,245,700 2,096,400 2,247,100 2,296,700 2,365,200 2,106,700 1,153,900 1,268,700 Ratios and shares (percent) Capacity utilization 92.1 90.7 88.8 95.2 100.2 104.4 104.0 104.0 Inventories/ production 8.7 9.2 8.2 8.9 7.7 10.0 7.6 8.5 Inventories/shipments 8.9 9.1 8.1 9.0 7.6 10.2 7.6 8.5 Share of total shipments: Internal consumption/ transfers 5.9 5.9 5.7 6.7 5.3 8.1 8.4 8.4 Home market 55.7 48.1 51.7 51.5 54.3 48.7 50.1 50.1 Exports to: United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** European Union 30.0 33.2 31.9 28.7 27.2 30.7 30.6 27.3 China *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Other Asia 3.8 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.4 4.0 2.7 8.0 All other markets 4.3 6.8 5.5 6.3 6.4 6.3 5.7 5.2 Total exports 38.4 46.0 42.5 41.9 40.4 43.3 41.5 41.5 Table continued on next page. 57 *** did not, however, maintain inventories of CTL plate in the United States and *** reported no plans to export CTL plate to the United States. CTL-IV-21 Table CTL-IV-25--Continued CTL plate: Germany’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Value ($1,000) Commercial shipments: Home market 372,057 327,348 382,500 475,083 646,910 761,634 446,594 447,831 Exports to: United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** European Union 213,468 238,761 243,154 270,047 333,230 485,583 271,723 248,369 China *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Other Asia 26,975 39,473 34,113 52,708 57,208 80,112 25,680 99,549 All other markets 35,906 54,361 48,308 68,047 87,448 118,021 57,322 52,951 Total exports 279,521 342,292 331,301 410,920 512,071 728,176 380,547 415,486 Total commercial shipments 651,578 669,640 713,801 886,003 1,158,981 1,489,810 827,141 863,317 Unit value (per short ton) Commercial shipments: Home market $297 $325 $329 $402 $504 $743 $772 $705 Exports to: United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** European Union 317 343 339 409 518 750 769 718 China *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Other Asia 320 380 338 461 554 956 820 978 All other markets 371 382 391 472 580 889 874 807 Total exports 324 355 347 427 536 799 795 789 Total commercial shipments 308 339 337 413 518 769 783 743 1 Less than 0.05 percent. 2 Not applicable. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. The *** largest producer of CTL plate in Germany, ***, is the only German CTL plate producer to report *** during the period for which data were collected,57 primarily through ***. *** reported imports primarily consisting of micro-alloy CTL plate from ***. 58 Dillinger’s, ThyssenKrupp’s, and Salzgitter’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-13 (a) and (b). 59 Dillinger’s, ThyssenKrupp’s, and Salzgitter’s foreign producer questionnaires, section I-7. 60 SBBInsight, Issue 20, September 13, 2006, included in Nucor’s prehearing brief, attachment 8. 61 Dillinger, foreign producer questionnaire, appendix 4. 62 SBBInsight, Issue 20, September 13, 2006, included in Nucor’s prehearing brief, attachment 8. CTL-IV-22 German CTL plate exports are not subject to any tariff or nontariff barriers in any countries, nor subject to current investigations outside the United States.58 Free trade agreements reportedly do not affect German mills’ operations.59 However, *** consider Europe to be their most important export market and credit the expansion of the European Union as a major sales factor. Countries outside of Europe *** account for *** percent of *** exports of CTL plate, but not as a result of the orders placed against the firm by the United States. *** has also made inroads in the ***. Additionally, while Germany is a leading CTL plate exporting country, 60 according to official import statistics supplied by Dillinger, Germany is a net importer of CTL plate.61 German mills reportedly concentrate on producing valuable higher grade CTL plate and imports are comprised of commodity grade CTL plate. 62 As shown in table CTL-IV-26, plate greater than 4 inches thick represents the largest share of shipments by thickness, but constitutes less than half of all shipments by thickness. In addition, as shown in table CTL-IV-27, the “all other” category for CTL plate constitutes the largest amount of shipments of plate for home market consumption and for non-U.S. exports. In addition, ***. Table CTL-IV-26 CTL plate: German producers’ total shipments of plate, by thickness, 2005, January-June 2005, and January- June 2006 Item 2005 Jan.-June 2005 Jan.-June 2006 Quantity (short tons) < 1.00" 728,300 394,400 493,800 $ 1.00" but < 3.00" 481,700 259,500 280,700 $ 3.00" but < 4.00" 196,200 105,700 96,900 $ 4.00" 948,700 513,500 523,200 Total 2,354,900 1,273,100 1,394,600 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 63 Dillinger’s, ThyssenKrupp’s, and Salzgitter’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-6, and II-8. CTL-IV-23 Table CTL-IV-27 CTL plate: German producers’ total shipments of specified plate, by market, 2005 Item Home U.S. Other exports Quantity (short tons) Carbon structural steel plate 300,249 *** 211,652 Floor plate 0 *** 0 Pressure vessel plate 111,863 *** 137,109 Platform plate 9,181 *** 60,510 Shipbuilding plate 130,563 *** 116,958 Other plate for line pipe 104,749 *** 46,449 Hot-rolled wide flat bar 0 *** 0 All other cut-to-length plate 538,895 *** 336,627 Total 1,195,500 *** 909,306 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Alternative Products As shown in table CTL-IV-28, all three German producers produced nonsubject plate (e.g., micro-alloy plate, alloy plate, grade X-70 and greater, and sheet) on the same equipment and machinery, using the same production related workers, that is used to produce subject merchandise.63 Production and capacity allocation are dictated by longstanding customer relationships and project commitments. In spite of sharing production equipment, and the insubstantial amount of time and expense needed to perform the shift in product mix, *** reported that it can not switch production between CTL plate and other products due to the potential cost in losing longstanding customers that purchase these other products. 64 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-123; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-8. 65 AHMSA reported that it produces CTL plate in Prolongacion Juarez s/n, Monclova, Coahuila, Mexico. 66 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a. Additionally, *** confirms that AHMSA is the sole producer of reversing mill plate in Mexico. ***, contained in ***. 67 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-10. CTL-IV-24 Table CTL-IV-28 CTL plate: Germany’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL plate, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) Capacity 3,684,000 1,886,000 1,904,000 Production Subject CTL plate 2,142,600 1,149,400 1,269,300 Specifically excluded (e.g., X-70) CTL plate *** *** *** Micro-alloy CTL plate *** *** *** Other nonsubject (e.g., alloy) steel plate 717,000 330,400 396,800 Total production of CTL plate 3,890,900 1,991,200 1,996,100 Capacity utilization (percent) 105.6 105.6 104.8 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table CTL-IV-29 presents data on German production of micro-alloy CTL plate. Table CTL-IV-29 Micro-alloy CTL plate: Germany’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * THE INDUSTRY IN MEXICO Overview The Commission identified one producer of CTL steel plate in Mexico - AHMSA - in the original investigations, the first reviews, and the current second reviews.64 Accordingly, the data presented on Mexican production of CTL plate for the current second reviews are for AHMSA.65 AHMSA reportedly accounts for *** percent of production of CTL plate in Mexico.66 Sales of CTL plate in 2005 accounted for *** percent of total firm sales from AHMSA.67 Table CTL-IV-30 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. 68 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-1. 69 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-5. AHMSA’s constraints arise from limited raw material supply, labor supply, and maintenance downtime. AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-9. 70 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-2. 71 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-4, and II-17. 72 AHSMA, however, since 1999, has been operating under suspension of payment status (ostensibly the Mexican equivalent of Chapter 11 under U.S. bankruptcy law). AHMSA argues that operating under this status makes obtaining capital difficult, thereby making capacity expansion uncertain. AHMSA’s posthearing brief, p. 3, and attachment 3. 73 Mittal’s CTL plate posthearing brief, public exhibit 4. 74 Mittal’s CTL plate posthearing brief, response to Vice Chairman Aranoff’s questions. 75 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire, section I-6. 76 AHMSA’s posthearing brief, p 11. 77 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-13 (a) and (b). 78 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-13. 79 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire, section I-7. CTL-IV-25 Table CTL-IV-30 CTL plate: Comparison of select Mexican industry data: 1992, 1999, and 2005 * * * * * * * CTL Plate Operations AHMSA reported no changes to the character of its operations or organization since 2000.68 AHMSA reported that its production methods have not changed since 2000.69 As shown in CTL-IV-31, capacity has *** throughout the period. AHMSA reported minimal CTL plate exports to *** in 2001, and 2005 marked the only other year it reported exports to any markets; even then, exports accounted for only *** percent of its shipments. AHMSA is ***. 70 *** 71 *** 72 ***. Mittal is purportedly interested in establishing CTL plate operations in Mexico;73 ***. 74 AHMSA reported that it ***.75 AHMSA anticipates ***. Additionally, AHMSA estimates that high prices in the Mexican market are likely to persist for the foreseeable future.76 Table CTL-IV-31 CTL plate: Mexico’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Mexican CTL plate exports are not subject to any tariff or nontariff barriers in any countries, nor subject to current investigations in other countries.77 Canada’s antidumping duty order on CTL plate from Mexico was revoked in January 2003. Since then, AHMSA has reportedly shipped *** short tons to Canada. Shipments were made to ***.78 AHMSA believes that NAFTA has ***. 79 CTL plate demand in Mexico has grown due to ***. NAFTA is also credited with ***. Most of AHMSA’s shipments are less than one inch thick (table CTL-IV-32). CTL plate thicker than three inches accounted for *** of its shipments in 2005. Carbon structural steel plate accounted for 80 AHMSA’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-6 and II-8. 81 Stalexport and Huta Czestochowa provided data on these three mills. 82 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-126; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-9. 83 HSC listed HK Walcownia Blach Grubych Batory and Huta Pokoj as other known producers of CTL plate and listed Euroblacha, HSW–Zaklad Metalurgiczny, and HSW–Walcownia Blach as other known producers of plate, but not necessarily CTL plate. HSC’s response to the notice of institution, p. 3. 84 HSC’s only plant is Huta Stali Cz“stochowa, located in Cz“stochowa, Poland. HSC has two related firms, Alchevsk Iron and Steel Works and Dunaferr, that produce CTL plate in the Ukraine and Hungary, respectively. CTL-IV-26 the *** majority of CTL plate that AHMSA ships domestically and internationally (table CTL-IV-33). AHMSA also shipped pressure vessel plate, other plate for line pipe, and all other CTL plate. Table CTL-IV-32 CTL plate: Mexican producer’s total shipments of plate, by thickness, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CTL-IV-33 CTL plate: Mexican producer’s total shipments of specified plate, by market, 2005 * * * * * * * Alternative Products As shown in table CTL-IV-34, AHMSA produces subject CTL plate alone on its production related equipment. Capacity ***.80 Table CTL-IV-34 CTL plate: Mexico’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL plate, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * As shown in table CTL-IV-35, AHMSA plate operations include ***. Table CTL-IV-35 Wide flat bar: Mexico’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * THE INDUSTRY IN POLAND Overview The Commission identified three Polish producers of CTL plate - Huta Batory, Huta Cz“stochowa, and Huta Pokoj - in the original investigations81 and six such producers in the first reviews, none of which responded to the first review questionnaires. 82 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to seven Polish firms believed to be producers of CTL plate and received data from Huta Stali Cz“stochowa (HSC) and Huta Pokoj. 83 84 In the most recent fiscal year, 85 HSC could not estimate the percentage of total production of CTL plate in Poland accounted for by its production in 2005, but noted that HSC’s share in quarto (discreet) plate production was *** percent. HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a. CTL plate sales as a share of total sales is not available as Huta Pokoj supplied the Commission with basic trade data. 86 ***, contained in ***. Mittal Steel USA did, however, provide the Commission with an estimate of Huta Batory’s 2006 production of *** metric tons and, for 2007, estimates production of *** metric tons. E-mail from ***, November 14, 2006. 87 USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-10. 88 HSC’s foreign producer’s questionnaire, section II-1. 89 HSC’s foreign producer’s questionnaire, section II-2. CTL-IV-27 sales of CTL plate represented *** percent of HSC’s total sales.85 Table CTL-IV-36 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. According to ***, there are three firms that produce reversing plate in Poland. Of these, Huta Batory, the non-responding firm, has reversing plate mill capacity of less than *** short tons.86 Table CTL-IV-36 CTL plate: Comparison of select Polish industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005 Item 1992 1999 2005 Capacity (1,000 short tons) *** ( 1 ) *** Production (1,000 short tons) *** 1,175 *** Capacity utilization (percent) *** ( 1 ) *** Exports/shipments (percent) *** ( 1 ) *** Inventories/shipments (percent) *** ( 1 ) *** 1 Not applicable. 2 No Polish producers responded to questionnaires in the 2000 reviews. Production data are based on the 1998 heavy plate production volume provided by the Metallurgical Chamber of Industry and Commerce. Note.--Data for 1992 were provided by Huta Czestochowa and Stalexport (on behalf of Huta Batory, Huta Czestochowa, and Huta Pokoj). Data for 2005 were provided by HSC and Huta Pokoj. Source: Confidential original report (INV-Q-115, July 20, 1993), table 86; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-10; and 2006 questionnaire responses identified above. CTL Plate Operations Table CTL-IV-37 presents data on the Polish industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of CTL plate for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. The Polish industry producing CTL plate has changed since the period examined in the original investigations. As part of its entry into the European Union, Poland had been under pressure to privatize a significant part of its industry. 87 After much restructuring, including a bankruptcy filing in 2002 and a purchase by the IUD in 2005, Huta Cz“stochowa emerged in its current form as HSC in 2006. The restructuring ***. However, HSC did ***. 88 HSC reported anticipating a name change to ISD Huta Cz“stochowa by the end of 2006. Additionally, HSC plans to *** in 2007. 89 Table CTL-IV-37 CTL plate: Poland’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * 90 HSC’s posthearing brief, p. 2-5; see also HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-4. 91 HSC’s posthearing brief, p. 8. 92 HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-8, and HSC’s posthearing brief, p. 3. 93 HSC’s posthearing brief, p. 10. 94 HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-6 and II-8. 95 HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-11. 96 HSC reported ***. HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-9. 97 HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-12 and II-18a. 98 HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-15 and II-16. 99 Poland is reportedly a net importer of hot-rolled steel in general and CTL plate in particular. HSC’s response to the notice of institution, p. 3. 100 HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-14. 101 HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-13. 102 HSC’s foreign producer questionnaires, section I-7. 103 HSC’s response to the notice of institution, p. 3. CTL-IV-28 HSC produces CTL plate solely on plate mills. HSC’s capacity *** over the period in these reviews, ***. The Polish industry’s production and capacity utilization were lower in 2005 than they were in 2000. HSC reported plans to *** because of ***. By 2010 the firm plans to ***. HSC reported planning to ***. 90 With its planned ***, HSC reported that its role within the IUD group is to supply higher value and nonsubject alloy products to Europe, and that the Ukranian and Hungarian IUD mills would supply the global market with CTL plate. 91 However, according to HSC, the planned ***.92 In the event that Poland’s capacity expansions to higher grade steel do not occur, HSC will reportedly supply ***. 93 However, as discussed in the OVERVIEW section, CTL plate from Ukraine is subject to a suspension agreement with the United States. As discussed in greater detail under the subheading “Alternative Products,” HSC’s mills reportedly produce other products on the same equipment used to produce CTL plate using the same production workers. 94 Additionally, HSC reported that ***.95 96 HSC reported ***.97 HSC also reported that the orders ***.98 A large proportion of HSC’s exports in 2005 were to countries in the ***, followed by export shipments to ***. Home market shipments comprised *** percent of HSC’s shipments, and exports made up *** percent.99 HSC reported plans to continue targeting the markets in ***.100 HSC’s exports of CTL plate are not currently subject to any tariff or non-tariff barriers in any country, nor subject to current investigations in any other country. 101 While free trade agreements ***,102 the development of the European Union - in particular its expansion in 2004, as well as reportedly favorable pricing trends, delivery times, and reaction to customer demand - is a consideration.103 As shown in table CTL-IV-38, the largest share of CTL plate shipments from Poland is less than one inch thick. As shown in table CTL-IV-39, carbon structural steel plate represents the majority of exports, while home market shipments were split between shipbuilding plate and carbon structural steel plate. Table CTL-IV-38 CTL plate: Poland’s total shipments of plate, by thickness, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * 104 HSC’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-6. 105 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-128; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-11. 106 MS Galati has the following affiliate companies: Mittal Steel USA in the United States, Mittal Steel Annaba in Algeria, Mittal Steel Skopje in the Formal Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Mittal Steel SA in South Africa. MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section I-5. 107 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-10. 108 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a. 109 ***, contained in ***. CTL-IV-29 Table CTL-IV-39 CTL plate: Poland’s total shipments of specified plate, by market, 2005 * * * * * * * Alternative Products As shown in table CTL-IV-40, of the CTL plate HSC produces, a substantial minority is nonsubject, primarily micro-alloy plate. In addition to subject CTL plate, HSC produces ***. HSC reported planning to increase production of these products relative to CTL plate.104 Table CTL-IV-40 CTL plate: Poland’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL plate, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CTL-IV-41 provides additional details on HSC’s operations on micro-alloy steel plate. Table CTL-IV-41 Micro-alloy CTL plate: Poland’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * THE INDUSTRY IN ROMANIA Overview The Commission identified two Romanian producers of CTL plate - Sidex SA Galati and Metalexportimport - in the original investigations and one such producer - Sidex - in the first reviews.105 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to, and received data from, Mittal Steel (“MS”) Galati.106 In the most recent fiscal year, sales of CTL plate represented *** percent of MS Galati’s total sales. 107 This amount reportedly accounts for all or nearly all of CTL plate production in Romania. 108 According to ***, MS Galati represents *** in Romania.109 Table CTL-IV-42 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. Table CTL-IV-42 CTL plate: Comparison of select Romanian industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005 * * * * * * * 110 E-mail from ***, September 5, 2006. 111 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-1. 112 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-17. 113 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-4. 114 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-6 and II-11. 115 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a. 116 Most subject CTL plate was produced in ***. MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-5. 117 MS Galati reported ***. MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-9. 118 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-15 and II-16. 119 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-13 and I-7. 120 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a. 121 MS Galati’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-7. CTL-IV-30 CTL Plate Operations Prior to 2001, MS Galati was a state-owned company operating as Sidex. The company was purchased by LNM Holdings in 2001 and then acquired by Ispat International in 2004. Prior to privatization, in 1998, Sidex ***. After the company was privatized, the decision was made ***. This explains the increase in capacity from 2000 to 2001.110 However, there were no physical changes to production capabilities, and MS Galati reported no anticipated changes to production of CTL plate in the future. 111 Table CTL plate IV-43 presents the Romanian industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of CTL plate for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. Table CTL-IV-43 CTL plate: Romania’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * MS Galati’s capacity increased from 2000 to 2003, and then began decreasing, but ***. From 2000 to 2004, production of CTL plate increased substantially, but then decreased from 2004 to 2005. Capacity utilization fluctuated *** between *** percent and *** percent. MS Galati ***. 112 Additionally, MS Galati reported ***.113 CTL plate is not produced on machinery used in the production of other products, ***.114 In general, both capacity and production increased for MS Galati over the period reviewed.115 116 117 MS Galati ***. Exports were greater in 2005 than in 2000, but exports to the United States in 2004 were ***. MS Galati reported that the current orders had no effect on its exports to the United States and anticipated no effect on exports should the orders change. 118 MS Galati’s exports are currently subject to tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade in Argentina, Canada, Mexico, and Thailand, but MS Galati is not subject to current investigations in any other country nor is it affected by free trade agreements.119 Markets in Asia, specifically ***, received the largest proportion of MS Galati’s exports, followed by the European Union.120 Production of CTL plate in Romania takes place primarily on plate mills. Less than *** of Romanian CTL plate production is on hot-strip mills.121 As shown in table CTL-IV-44, the largest share of CTL plate shipments from Romania was of CTL plate less than one inch thick. In addition, as shown in table CTL-IV-45, carbon structural steel 122 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-129; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-11. 123 Staff were unable to locate any plate-specific information on Arcelor’s website or Eucomsa’s website. 124 ***, contained in ***. CTL-IV-31 plate accounted for the largest portion of Galati’s total shipments, followed by shipbuilding plate and pressure vessel plate. Table CTL-IV-44 CTL plate: Romanian producer’s total shipments of plate, by thickness, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CTL-IV-45 CTL plate: Romanian producer’s total shipments of specified plate, by market, 2005 * * * * * * * Alternative Products As shown in table CTL-IV-46, the majority of CTL plate production by MS Galati is subject merchandise. However, MS Galati also reported production of *** amounts of micro-alloy plate, the data of which is presented in table CTL-IV-47. Table CTL-IV-46 CTL plate: Romanian capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL plate, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CTL-IV-47 Micro-alloy CTL plate: Romania’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * THE INDUSTRY IN SPAIN Overview The Commission identified one producer of CTL plate - Ensidesa - in the original investigations and one in the first review- Arceralia.122 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to Arceralia but received no response.123 Table CTL-IV-48 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. According to ***, Arceralia represents all Spanish ***.124 Table CTL-IV-48 CTL plate: Comparison of select Spanish industry data: 1992, 1999, and 2005 * * * * * * * Table CTL-IV-49 presents data on Spanish exports of CTL plate. 125 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-130; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-12. 126 ***. 127 SSAB has two plants that produce CTL plate: SSAB Oxelösund and SSAB Tunnplat. http://www.ssabox.com/company/en_index.htm, retrieved September 23, 2006. 128 ***, contained in ***. CTL-IV-32 Table CTL-IV-49 CTL plate: Spanish exports by destination, 2000-05 Partner Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Quantity (short tons) Top 5 EU destinations: France 116,093 86,756 65,299 67,969 72,226 77,207 Portugal 41,797 39,127 43,035 40,386 53,198 55,858 United Kingdom 43,357 48,237 43,645 33,982 27,062 18,072 Germany 9,562 20,004 18,098 19,549 22,154 17,295 Netherlands 26,830 38,882 27,357 13,676 19,171 17,067 All Other EU 23,393 25,938 53,427 34,836 28,676 22,853 Total EU 261,032 258,944 250,861 210,398 222,488 208,351 Top 5 Non-EU destinations: South Korea 16 5 99 3 8 13,650 Syria 0 0 41 1,094 2,902 5,716 Brazil 129 1 18 4 16 5,173 Cuba 5,002 2,673 4,970 11,726 4,076 3,333 Turkey 1,721 5,665 1,587 1,373 1,660 2,569 All Other Non-EU destinations 22,114 26,387 44,048 25,226 13,116 17,820 World total 290,013 293,677 301,624 249,823 244,267 256,613 Note.--HS codes included: 7208.40, 7208.51, 7208.52, 7208.53, 7208.90, 7210.70, 7211.13, 7211.14, 7211.90, 7212.40, and 7212.50. Source: Reported by Global Trade Atlas. THE INDUSTRY IN SWEDEN Overview The Commission identified one producer of CTL plate - SSAB - in the original investigations and the first reviews. 125 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to SSAB but received no response. SSAB is believed to account for all of the plate produced in Sweden. 126 127 Table CTL-IV-50 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. According to ***, SSAB represents all Swedish ***.128 129 Response of domestic producers to notice of institution, p. 19, and SSAB 2004 annual reports, found at www.ssab.com/uk. 130 http://www.ssab.com/templates/IFrame____784.aspx, retrieved September 5, 2006. 131 http://www.ssab.com/templates/PressRelease____817.aspx ?releaseId=207362, retrieved September 5, 2006. 132 http://www.ssab.com/upload/SSAB2Q06_International.pdf, retrieved September 5, 2006. 133 http://www.ssab.com/templates/PressRelease____817.aspx ?releaseId=222962, retrieved September 5, 2006. 134 www.ssabox.com/company/en_indext.htm, retrieved September 5, 2006. CTL-IV-33 Table CTL-IV-50 CTL plate: Comparison of select Swedish industry data: 1992, 1999, and 2005 Item 1992 1999 2005 Capacity (1,000 short tons) *** *** ***1 2 Production (1,000 short tons) *** *** 6971 3 Capacity utilization (percent) *** *** ( 4 ) Exports/shipments (percent) *** *** 90.03 Inventories/shipments (percent) *** *** ( 5 ) 1 Original data published in metric tons, which were converted to short tons by multiplying by 1.102311. 2 ***. 3 Data are for heavy plate produced at Oxelösund. http://www.ssabox.com/company/en_index.htm 4 Cannot be calculated from data reported in table because capacity and production come from different sources. 5 Data are not available. Note.--Data for 1992 were provided by SSAB. Data for 1999 were provided by SSOX and SSTP (sister companies owned by SSAB). Data for 2005 were calculated from SSAB’s website and *** data. Source: Confidential original report (INV-Q-115, July 20, 1993), table 90; Confidential first review report (INV-X-221, October 18, 2000), table PLATE-IV-11; and SSAB’s website and *** data. From 1999 to 2005, SSAB’s heavy plate production increased by 144,000 tons. 129 However, according to SSAB’s 2005 annual report, the company has been focusing on increasing production of high-strength steel and other niche products.130 In March 2006, SSAB’s Board of Directors approved investment of SEK 900 million at SSAB Oxelösund for continued expansion of quenched steel capacity, such as abrasion-resistant and extreme high-strength construction steels. SSAB is also investing in a new slag granulation plant and a sheet center in China.131 Additionally, according to SSAB’s half-year 2006 presentation, SSAB plans on reducing the volume of normal heavy plate production in favor of niche products (such as quenched steel). Core niche products reportedly increased from 34 percent to 38 percent of SSAB’s production. 132 In July 2006, SSAB reported its second highest half-year profit as well as a higher inflow of orders and more sales than in 2005.133 According to official U.S. import statistics, Sweden’s shipments of CTL plate to the United States have been minimal during the period for which data were collected during these second reviews. In 2005, 90 percent of SSAB Oxelösund’s CTL plate was exported, and Germany was reportedly its biggest export market. Further, SSAB Oxelösund reported maintaining extensive stocks in more than 40 countries.134 Table CTL-IV-51 presents data on Swedish exports of CTL plate. 135 USITC Publication 970, p. A7; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-12. 136 The two non-responding producers are Chin Ho Fa Steel & Iron Co. Ltd. and Tung Ho Steel Enterprise Corp. 137 ***, contained in ***. CTL-IV-34 Table CTL-IV-51 CTL plate: Swedish exports, by destination, 2000-05 Partner Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Quantity (short tons) Top 5 EU destinations: Germany 110,190 99,962 109,386 89,978 122,593 91,047 Denmark 103,149 97,853 81,943 86,515 69,531 70,124 Finland 50,341 47,519 37,036 46,665 36,377 33,168 Poland 32,013 37,524 15,986 17,784 25,094 22,171 Spain 15,155 25,105 21,464 16,242 16,530 20,564 All Other EU 192,192 196,974 136,704 98,813 114,961 99,872 Total EU 503,039 504,937 402,519 355,997 385,086 336,946 Top 5 Non-EU destinations: Norway 43,031 45,144 45,228 34,172 33,378 29,166 Switzerland 10,552 8,761 7,081 7,101 8,450 6,482 Syria 98 1,243 927 2,013 2,918 4,403 Pakistan 200 348 360 148 267 3,592 Russia 2,641 5,131 3,076 3,914 5,511 2,319 All Other Non-EU destinations 14,844 22,393 23,742 39,799 18,252 12,180 World total 574,406 587,957 482,933 443,143 453,862 395,087 Note.--HS codes included: 7208.40, 7208.51, 7208.52, 7208.53, 7208.90, 7210.70, 7211.13, 7211.14, 7211.90, 7212.40, and 7212.50. Source: Reported by Global Trade Atlas. THE INDUSTRY IN TAIWAN Overview The Commission identified ten small producers of CTL plate as well as the startup facility of China Steel Corp. in the original investigations and used data provided by the American Institute of Taiwan in the first reviews. 135 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to three producers in Taiwan, one of which responded.136 Accordingly, the data presented on Taiwan production of CTL plate for the current second reviews are for China Steel. According to ***, China Steel represents all Taiwan ***.137 CTL plate sales represented *** percent of China Steel’s total sales. China Steel reportedly represents *** percent of production of CTL plate in Taiwan. Table CTL-IV-52 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. 138 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-9. 139 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-1. 140 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-2. 141 Likewise, China Steel reported ***. China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-4 and II-17. 142 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a. 143 Mittal’s prehearing brief, exhibit 1. 144 E-mail from ***, November 3, 2006. 145 Consequently, China Steel reported ***. China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-12. 146 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section I-6. CTL-IV-35 Table CTL-IV-52 CTL plate: Comparison of select Taiwan industry data: 1978, 1999, and 2005 Item 1978 1999 2005 Capacity (1,000 short tons) 440 *** *** Production (1,000 short tons) ( 1 ) *** *** Capacity utilization (percent) ( 1 ) *** *** Exports/shipments (percent) ( 2 ) *** *** Inventories/shipments (percent) ( 1 ) *** *** 1 Data not provided. 2 According to the staff report from the original investigation, a sizeable portion of China Steel Corporation’s output was exported to the United States. Note.--Data for 1978 are from the original staff report; data for 1999 were provided by U.S. Department of State telegram, 003117, American Institute of Taiwan, Taipei, September 29, 2000 for CSC. Data for 2005 were provided by China Steel. Source: Carbon Steel Plate From Taiwan, Investigation No. AA1921-197, USITC Publication 970, May 1979, pages A7-8; confidential first review report (INV-X-221, October 18, 2000), table PLATE-IV-12; and 2006 questionnaire responses identified above. CTL Plate Operations Table CTL-IV-53 presents China Steel’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of CTL plate for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. As shown, production of CTL plate by China Steel ***. Indeed, China Steel reported ***.138 China Steel ***. Capacity has remained constant at more than *** short tons per year, and there have been ***.139 In spite of operating *** during the entire period, China Steel reported ***,140 nor ***. 141 Home market shipments accounted for more than *** percent of total shipments throughout the period for which data were collected. Total exports as a share of shipments declined from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Asia was the only reported market to which China Steel ships. According to China Steel’s questionnaire, the producer’s principal Asian market includes ***.142 However, according to official import statistics from China,143 imports from Taiwan are substantial. In fact, China Steel recognizes that ***, since Taiwan regulations stipulate that exports from Taiwan to China must go through Hong Kong.144 There were no reported exports of CTL plate to the United States during the period for which data were collected. Indeed, China Steel reported ***,145 nor ***. 146 China Steel reported that its CTL plate exports are not subject to any tariff or nontariff barriers in any countries, nor 147 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-13 (a) and (b). 148 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section I-7. 149 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-3. 150 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-6. 151 China Steel’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-11. 152 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-131; USITC Publication 3364, p. PLATE-IV-13. CTL-IV-36 subject to current investigations in any other country.147 Free trade agreements reportedly ***.148 If the orders were to be revoked, China Steel believes that ***.149 Table CTL-IV-53 CTL plate: Taiwan’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * As shown in table CTL-IV-54, shipments of plate product less than 1 inch thick represent the largest share of total plate shipments. In addition, as shown in table CTL-IV-55, carbon structural steel plate accounts for the majority of shipments of plate for home market consumption and non-U.S. exports. Table CTL-IV-54 CTL plate: Taiwan total shipments of plate, by thickness, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CTL-IV-55 CTL plate: Taiwan total shipments of specified plate, by market, 2005 * * * * * * * Alternative Products As shown in table CTL-IV-56, China Steel does not produce nonsubject CTL plate. China Steel produces CTL plate ***. 150 Therefore, ***.151 Table CTL-IV-56 CTL plate: Taiwan’s production capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL plate, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM Overview The Commission identified one producer of CTL steel plate in the United Kingdom - British Steel - in the original investigations and one such producer in the first reviews - Corus Steel. 152 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to four producers in the United Kingdom (Corus, Niagara Lasalle, Spartan, and Celsa), all of which responded and are parties. The data presented on production of CTL plate in the United Kingdom for the current second reviews are for Corus, Niagara 153 Niagara LaSalle and Celsa solely produce wide flat bars. Celsa did not supply the Commission with a completed questionnaire, but did provide partial shipment data. Because Celsa provided only partial shipment data, its information is not included in the UK data in this report. 154 ***, contained in ***. 155 Corus’ and Niagara LaSalle’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-18a. 156 Corus’ and Niagara LaSalle’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-10. 157 Corus’ foreign producer questionnaire, section II-1. 158 Corus’ and Niagara LaSalle’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-2. 159 Corus’ foreign producer questionnaire, section II-4. 160 On October 20, 2006, Tata, an Indian steel firm, offered to acquire Corus. The board of directors recommended approving the takeover. Corus argues that the potential acquisition should have no impact on the Commission’s analysis, believing that any new owners would be pleased with Corus’ plate operations. Corus’ posthearing brief, attachment O. However, domestic interested party Nucor argues that there is no reason to believe that new management would adopt the same strategy as Corus’ current management. Nucor’s posthearing brief, attachment 1. 161 Corus’ and Niagara Lasalle’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-17. 162 Spartan’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-1. 163 Spartan’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-2. 164 Spartan’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-4. CTL-IV-37 LaSalle, and Spartan.153 According to ***, there are three reversing plate mills in the United Kingdom, all of which are accounted for in this report.154 In 2005, Corus reportedly accounted for *** percent of production of CTL plate in the United Kingdom, Spartan estimated that it accounted for *** percent, and Niagara LaSalle for *** percent.155 Sales of CTL plate in 2005 accounted for *** percent of total sales from Spartan, *** percent from Corus, and *** percent from Niagara LaSalle.156 Table CTL-IV-57 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. Table CTL-IV-57 CTL plate: Comparison of select UK industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005 * * * * * * * CTL Plate Operations *** reported that its ***.157 In 2004, Corus sold its Tuscaloosa Plant in Alabama to Nucor, and thus no longer has any production facilities in the United States. ***. Neither firm ***,158 and neither has ***. 159 160 ***, but in 2005 ***. ***. 161 Spartan began operations in 2001. It was known previously as Spartan Redheugh, whose assets were acquired through bankruptcy procedures by the Italian firm Trametal SpA in 1999. In 2001, Trametal established Spartan UK Ltd as a UK-registered company, and transferred the assets to Spartan.162 Spartan reported that it expects no changes to the character of its operations or organization163 and has ***. 164 165 Corus’ revised October 27, 2006 foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a. 166 Niagara LaSalle reported production constraints arising from the ***. For Corus, capacity constraints are due to ***. Corus’ and Niagara LaSalle’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-9. Currently, Corus has ***. Corus’ foreign producer questionnaire, section II-18a. 167 Corus’ foreign producer questionnaire, section II-2. 168 Corus’ and Niagara LaSalle’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-12. 169 Corus’ and Niagara LaSalle’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-13 (a) and (b). 170 Corus’, Niagara LaSalle’s, and Spartan’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-14. 171 Corus’ posthearing brief, attachment 2. CTL-IV-38 Table CTL-IV-58 illustrates the decline in production capacity after Corus ***.165 UK capacity utilization reached its high mark ***, and was no less than *** percent since 2002.166 ***. 167 The only reported export shipment of CTL plate from the United Kingdom to the United States was *** short tons in ***. No firm reported ***.168 Throughout the period for which data were collected, home market shipments constituted more than *** of total CTL shipments, exports accounted for ***, and internal consumption and company transfers accounted for the remainder. UK CTL plate exports are not subject to any tariff or nontariff barriers in any countries, nor subject to current investigations in any other country.169 *** noted that many countries maintain *** specific import tariffs, whose effects on *** trading policies are negligible. *** has, however, been subject to Canadian antidumping orders which were rescinded in 1998. Subsequent to the recision, ***. Niagara LaSalle reported ***. Corus reported ***, it did not develop alternative export markets as a result of the orders. ***. 170 Corus projects 2007 shipments of CTL plate outside Europe to range from ***. 171 Table CTL-IV-58 CTL plate: United Kingdom’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CTL-IV-59 shows that most shipments in 2005 of CTL plate were less than one inch thick. In 2005, carbon structural steel plate accounted for the majority of home market shipments and exports (table CTL-IV-60). Table CTL-IV-59 CTL plate: United Kingdom’s total shipments of plate, by thickness, 2005, January-June 2005, and January- June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CTL-IV-60 CTL plate: United Kingdom’s total shipments of specified plate, by market, 2005 * * * * * * * 172 Corus’ and Niagara Lasalle’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-11. 173 ***. 174 Production data compiled by *** are for reversing mill plate and are believed to account for the large majority of global CTL plate production. Such data do not include plate cut from coils produced on hot strip mills or on combination (or “Steckel”) mills, as such mills are not dedicated to plate production. *** data do not distinguish between carbon and non-carbon steel; accordingly, the production totals reported for reversing mill plate production are somewhat overstated. CTL-IV-39 Alternative Products Table CTL-IV-61 presents data on overall British plate production. Niagara LaSalle reported that ***, but Corus reported that ***. 172 Table CTL-IV-61 CTL plate: United Kingdom’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject CTL plate, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CTL-IV-62 presents data on UK production of wide flat bar. Table CTL-IV-62 Wide flat bar: United Kingdom’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CTL-IV-63 presents data on UK production of micro-alloy CTL plate. Table CTL-IV-63 Micro-alloy CTL plate: United Kingdom’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * GLOBAL MARKET Production Global production of reversing mill plate products has grown considerably in recent years. According to one published source,173 global production of reversing mill plate increased by *** percent between 1994 and 1999, and by *** percent between 2000 and 2005. In terms of sheer volume, the East and Southeast Asia region accounted for the greatest production increases in both periods, and is forecast to lead global production in the coming years as well. Data compiled by *** on historical, current, and projected global production of reversing mill plate are presented in tables CTL-IV-64 through CTL-IV- 66. 174 Table CTL-IV-64 Reversing mill plate: Global and regional production of reversing mill plate, 1994-99 * * * * * * * 175 Consumption data compiled by *** are for reversing mill plate and are believed to account for the large majority of global CTL plate consumption, although such data do not include plate cut from coils produced on a strip mill or Steckel mill plate. *** data do not distinguish between carbon and non-carbon steel; accordingly, the consumption totals reported for reversing mill plate are somewhat overstated. 176 See Part CTL-II of this report for the individual perspectives of U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers on demand in the United States and in other markets. CTL-IV-40 Table CTL-IV-65 Reversing mill plate: Global and regional production of reversing mill plate, 2000-05 * * * * * * * Table CTL-IV-66 Reversing mill plate: Forecast of global and regional production of reversing mill plate, 2005-10 * * * * * * * Consumption Data compiled by *** on historical, current, and forecast global consumption of reversing mill plate are presented in tables CTL-IV-67 through CTL-IV-69.175 Worldwide consumption of reversing mill plate increased by *** percent between 1994 and 1999, despite reductions in consumption in North America and Latin America. Worldwide consumption increased by *** percent between 2000 and 2005, paced by a near-*** of consumption in East and Southeast Asia. Global consumption of reversing mill plate is forecast to continue to grow in the coming years, with the growth evenly distributed in all major markets except Europe. 176 Table CTL-IV-67 Reversing mill plate: Global and regional consumption of reversing mill plate, 1994-99 * * * * * * * Table CTL-IV-68 Reversing mill plate: Global and regional consumption of reversing mill plate, 2000-05 * * * * * * * Table CTL-IV-69 Reversing mill plate: Forecast of global and regional consumption of reversing mill plate, 2005-10 * * * * * * * Prices The Commission asked producers, importers, and purchasers to compare market prices of CTL plate in U.S. and non-U.S. markets. Three responding producers reported that U.S. prices are generally higher than prices in other markets. *** reported that prices of CTL plate in the United States are similar to prices in Canada. Importers also generally reported that U.S. prices are higher than prices in other markets. However, *** reported that U.S. prices are similar to prices in other markets. Most purchasers 177 *** reported that in early 2006, U.S. prices were approximately $140 to $200 per ton higher than the price of steel from Thailand, *** reported that U.S. prices are slightly higher than Canadian prices, and *** reported that U.S. prices are higher but did not specify what country or market it was using as a comparison. 178 Original data are published in metric tons, and were converted to short tons using the following conversion factor: 1 metric ton = 1.102311 short tons. MEPS, World Carbon Steel Product Prices, found at http://www.meps.co.uk, retrieved on September 6, 2006, and updated on November 8, 2006 and December 1, 2006. This pricing series is available to the public and its use is unrestricted. 179 Prices are an arithmetic average of the low transaction values identified in the EU, Asia, and North America, converted into U.S. dollars. 180 MEPS, International Steel Review, January 2005 - November 2006. CTL-IV-41 were unable to compare prices, but two reported that prices were approximately the same in various markets and two reported that U.S. prices are generally higher than anywhere else.177 Published price data are available from several reputable sources, although often such data are available by subscription only and cannot be reproduced without consent of their publisher. These data, however, are collected based on different product categories, timing, and commercial considerations, and therefore may not be directly comparable with each other. Moreover, such data are distinct from the pricing data presented in Part CTL-V of this report, which are collected directly from U.S. producers and U.S. importers via the Commission’s questionnaires according to precise product definitions. As reported by MEPS, world prices for hot-rolled plate declined irregularly between January 2000 and February 2002, decreasing from $283 per short ton to $242 per short ton during that time. Thereafter, prices recovered, slowly at first, then more rapidly, surpassing $300 per short ton in February 2003, $400 per short ton in March 2004, $500 per short ton in May 2004, and $600 per short ton in September 2004. World prices peaked in January 2005 at $686 per short ton, then declined to as low as $586 per short ton in February 2006 before rebounding to $685 per short ton by September.178 179 As presented in table CTL-IV-70, country-specific monthly transaction prices for hot-rolled plate are also compiled by MEPS,180 and show monthly price fluctuations across major producing countries. According to data compiled by MEPS, for January 2005 through November 2006, U.S. negotiated transaction prices for U.S.-produced hot-rolled plate generally decreased over the first three quarters of 2005 before increasing in the fourth quarter of 2005 and in 2006, and in the fall of 2006 reached their highest price levels in the January 2005 - November 2006 period. In Europe, major steel market prices for hot-rolled plate generally decreased from January 2005 through the first quarter of 2006, before recovering in the second quarter of 2006. At the start of 2005, transaction prices in Europe were generally higher than transaction prices in the United States, but, by the second quarter of 2005, these trends were reversing, with U.S. prices being the highest relative to most European prices in the first quarter of 2006. U.S. prices and European prices are currently very similar. Prices in Poland followed a slightly different trend, increasing in the first quarter of 2005 and remaining higher than U.S. prices into the fourth quarter of 2005. Prices in Poland dropped much lower relative to U.S. prices in the second quarter of 2006 than the other European prices. In the U.S. market, prices exceeded those in the Taiwan market throughout 2005 and 2006 year-to-date, with price differentials in the $*** range. Table CTL-IV-70 Hot-rolled plate: Negotiated transaction prices (ex mill) for prime hot-rolled plate, by subject country and by month, January 2005-October 2006 * * * * * * * In addition, *** compiles country- and region-specific monthly prices for steel plate, presented in table CTL-IV-71. According to these data, U.S. prices were relatively stable during 2000-03, though clearly “softer” in 2001 than in any other year. Reported U.S. prices rose sharply over the course of 181 Compiled from data published in the ***. 182 Ibid. 183 Information presented in this section is primarily derived from the following sources: Steel Business Briefing, SBB Global Market Outlook, July 2006; MEPS International Steel Review, July-November 2006; ***; American Metal Market, “Two Steel Markets Veering Off in Opposite Directions,” August 11, 2006, “Duration of Correction Tied to Imports, but Execs Say It’s Likely Short-Lived,” October 20, 2006, “U.S. Flat-Roll Import Tags Fall; Downturn Seen Shortlived,” November 2, 2006, and “Revealing the Inner Details of Steel’s Inventory Run-Up,” November 6, 2006; and Paul Glader, “Steel Prices are Likely to Jump, Adding to Manufacturers’ Woes,” The Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2006. 184 ***. According to the same source, China alone accounts for nearly *** percent of South and South East Asian reversing mill plate capacity, or nearly *** percent of global reversing mill plate capacity. ***. CTL-IV-42 2004, retrenched in 2005, but have shown signs of strengthening further in 2006. German, UK, EU export, and Japan export prices likewise could be viewed as relatively stable between 2000 and 2003, albeit without the “softness” that characterized the U.S. market in 2001. In contrast, Far East prices proved more volatile, and like U.S. prices did fall to lower levels in 2001. In 2004, all reported prices increased over the course of the year, though none as sharply as U.S. prices. Indeed, Far East prices increased only modestly. In 2005, most non-U.S. prices initially increased or at least maintained newly- established levels, but over the course of the year softened, with the exception of Japan export prices. Through November 2006, however, non-U.S. prices have largely recovered, with the exception of Japan export prices. 181 Based on ***’s published monthly prices for steel plate, U.S. prices were generally higher than non-U.S. prices. Over the 83-month period presented in table CTL-IV-71, U.S. prices were consistently and noticeably higher than Far East (and later China) prices. Japan export prices were frequently higher than U.S. prices from late 2000 through 2003, but lower thereafter, as were German (until November 2006) and EU export prices. UK prices, however, were more often than not higher than U.S. prices, frequently during the period 2000-03 but continuing with less frequency in 2004-06. 182 Table CTL-IV-71 Plate: Prices for steel plate, by country or by region, and by month, January 2000-November 2006 * * * * * * * Additional Global Supply and Demand Factors183 Worldwide, the majority of reversing mill plate capacity resides in East and South East Asia - *** percent, by ***’s estimate, compared to *** percent in Western Europe. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) accounts for a further *** percent. In contrast, the majority of Steckel mill capacity (approximately *** the capacity of reversing plate mills globally) is located in the North America, home to *** percent of total Steckel mill capacity. The following tabulation presents rated capacities of reversing and Steckel plate mills, by region (in metric tons). 184 * * * * * * * Although the quantity of steel produced in China grew throughout the first half of 2006, several disruptions to global supply allowed China’s increased production to be absorbed. Global demand was firm and the price of finished steel remained strong. However, demand has weakened in many markets in recent months. CTL-IV-43 While there are currently no safeguard measures in place for CTL plate, several countries (in addition to the United States) implemented safeguard measures from 2002 to 2004. Table CTL-IV-72 summarizes the countries, products covered, safeguard type, and implementation and termination dates. Table CTL-IV-72 Steel safeguards imposed by foreign trade partners, 2002–05 Country Products covered Safeguard type Implementation date Termination date China Subject products: Carbon steel plate. Non-subject products: Carbon steel slab, sheet, galvanized sheet, and organic- coated sheet. Electrical steel sheets. Tin mill products. Stainless steel plates and sheets. Carbon steel bars, rebars, and wire. Carbon steel sections. Iron or steel seamless pipes. Provisional– Tariff rates ranging from 7 percent to 26 percent on imports exceeding quota levels. May 24, 2002 Nov. 19, 2002 European Union Subject products: Carbon steel plate. Non-subject products: Carbon sheet, strip, and quatro plate. Alloy steel flat-rolled products. Electrical steel sheets. Tin mill products. Carbon and alloy steel bar and rebar. Stainless steel wire. Alloy steel fittings and flanges. Provisional– Tariff rates for above-quota imports range from 14.9 percent to 26.0 percent depending on product category. Mar. 29, 2002 Sept. 28, 2002 European Union Subject products: Carbon steel plate. Non-subject products: Hot-rolled and cold- rolled sheet, and strip. Alloy steel flat-rolled products. Alloy steel fittings and flanges. Definitive– Initial tariff quotas are based on the average annual import volume over the prior 3 years plus 10 percent. The quota level is to increase by 5 percent in each subsequent year beginning Sept. 29, 2002. Tariff rates for above-quota imports range from 14.1 percent to 26.0 percent depending on product category. Sept. 29, 2002 Dec. 5, 2003 Hungary Subject products: Carbon steel plate. Non-subject products: Carbon sheet, bar, rod, sections, pipe, tube, hollow profiles, wire-cloth, grill netting, and fencing. Tariff rate quota increases by 2.5 percent in each successive 6-months period. Tariff rates for above-quota imports set between 15-25 percent, depending on product category, and declines by 5 percent in each successive 6-months period. Provisional: June 3, 2002 Definitive: Apr. 2, 2003 May 1, 2004 1 1 Safeguards terminated with country’s accession to the European Union. Source: World Trade Organization. 185 For the purpose of this chapter, this report presents import data for subject countries and not export data due to apparent discrepancies between import and export statistics reported by Global Trade Atlas. CTL-IV-44 Notwithstanding the impact of global safeguard actions on trade in CTL plate, imports worldwide increased between 2000 and 2005.185 As shown in tables CTL-IV-73, between 2000 and 2005, worldwide CTL plate imports increased by 6.2 million short tons. Table CTL-IV-73 CTL plate: Global imports, 2000-05 Reporting country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Quantity (short tons) Subject countries: Belgium 742,173 636,945 659,877 786,792 976,468 1,010,939 Brazil 11,494 51,524 27,877 10,727 11,851 23,179 Finland 130,002 151,081 123,488 139,155 122,061 132,750 Germany 2,102,239 2,364,313 2,151,393 2,046,787 2,263,483 2,091,513 Mexico1 287,242 225,740 262,471 195,376 406,340 330,037 Poland 583,851 799,305 649,096 678,845 750,764 937,723 Romania 45,185 96,998 74,693 92,302 84,384 157,931 Spain 558,764 610,700 704,734 718,280 762,108 642,235 Sweden 277,816 237,431 247,814 242,016 216,135 233,809 Taiwan 593,251 311,306 507,915 473,550 648,675 352,952 United Kingdom 566,158 730,079 600,119 597,368 607,579 587,271 Total: subject countries 5,898,175 6,215,422 6,009,477 5,981,198 6,849,848 6,500,339 Top 10 other sources: South Korea 984,370 1,002,852 1,266,891 1,535,056 2,537,325 2,680,686 India 365,108 389,464 544,695 710,120 648,366 1,453,738 China 1,099,304 1,369,651 2,270,161 3,954,722 2,447,882 1,316,642 United States 949,805 1,096,794 835,627 656,787 987,580 1,163,800 France 1,212,037 1,057,839 1,081,390 968,290 1,111,510 990,954 Turkey 449,294 253,340 433,258 451,948 681,529 986,180 Canada 487,357 436,430 633,888 545,328 826,539 868,002 Netherlands 679,715 702,013 681,875 631,779 830,215 794,756 Singapore 397,283 499,363 470,677 454,347 602,372 752,008 Russia 230,749 353,046 311,183 465,078 471,547 632,731 Subtotal 6,855,021 7,160,794 8,529,645 10,373,455 11,144,864 11,639,497 All other sources 5,606,526 5,484,140 5,610,676 5,649561 6,133,027 6,441,367 World total 18,359,722 18,860,356 20,149,798 22,004,214 24,127,739 24,581,203 1 As Mexico did not report its imports in most years during 2000-05, the data shown for Mexico are the quantities that partner countries reportedly exported to Mexico. Note.--HS codes included: 7208.40, 7208.51, 7208.52, 7208.53, 7208.90, 7210.70, 7211.13, 7211.14, 7211.90, 7212.40, 7212.50. Source: Reported by Global Trade Atlas. According to published reports, end user demand for steel plate in the United States continues to be strong, especially from the oil and gas industry, even as sheet demand has weakened. Earlier in 2006, many analysts believed there was a shortage in domestic production capacity for plate, and lead times 186 American Metal Market, “Tata Steel in $8.1B deal to acquire Corus Group,” October 20, 2006, at http://amm.com/2006-10-20__14-37-46.html, retrieved on November 13, 2006. CTL-IV-45 were extended due to unexpected outages at Mittal’s mills. However, over the past few months, these mills have come back online and demand for commercial grade products has slowed. Prices generally have remained steady, despite growing U.S. imports and high inventory levels at service centers (now de- stocking, likely into the first quarter of 2007), as production cuts by U.S. producers have offset lower service center orders. The European market for flat products is also experiencing strong demand and prices have increased since mid-2005, with prices robust at present and, at worst, mixed views regarding possible future weakness in Southern European commodity plate markets. Both the oil industry and other consuming industries are continuing to drive up plate demand. Maintenance outages have also contributed to a tight European market. Demand in the European plate market is strongest for the higher qualities and grades. European plate mills have benefitted from a strategic shift away from the commodity market and are finding good export opportunities for higher value-added production. China’s domestic demand for plate is low compared with its production levels; however, there has been a recent increase in prices stemming from demand from the shipbuilding and construction sectors. Shipments of Chinese plate to Europe have resumed, following the European summer holiday season, alleviating a buildup of excess production in the Chinese domestic markets. Along with low regional stocks and generally solid supply / demand fundamentals in other Asian markets, these factors have so far offset growing local supply. Consolidation Among Global Producers Consolidation in the global steel industry has accelerated in recent years. Most recently, Indian company Tata Steel Ltd. has agreed to purchase European producer Corus Group Plc for $8.1 billion. 186 In the largest recent merger, Mittal and Arcelor came together to form Arcelor Mittal. In this transaction, Mittal acquired 92 percent of Arcelor’s assets for 26.9 billion euros. The new company has the capacity to produce 120 million metric tons per year of raw steel. Other notable mergers and acquisitions are reviewed in Part CTL-III. Global Raw Material Availability and Prices Despite strong demand at the beginning of the year that resulted in steel producers reinstating raw materials surcharges, prices of raw materials have eased. Global iron ore prices, which had risen 72 percent during July 2005-July 2006, declined due to decreased demand and lower steel prices in China before rising again in recent months on increased Chinese demand. Many steelmakers own iron ore mines, but need to rely on the global market for some of their supply. Three large iron ore producers, Rio Tinto PLC, Companhia Vale do Rio Doce, and BHP Billiton Ltd., account for 75 percent of global iron ore production. Global coke prices have stabilized after recent falls. Demand from India, Europe, and Brazil has increased. The coke market is improving within China, as demand has increased amid tighter supply. Scrap prices have declined and are expected to fall further in the United States, but are steady throughout the rest of the world. Steel production cuts within the United States have led to decreased demand and prices for scrap. High shipping costs, particularly on long routes, partially offset the recent price decreases in these raw materials. 187 This section discusses Mercosur and the European Union. For information on NAFTA, please refer to Part CORE-IV. 188 Profile: Mercosur – Common Market of the South, BBC News, July 26, 2006; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5195834.stm. The European Union and Mercosur are engaged in negotiations regarding a potential free trade agreement, however important differences exist over issues such as agricultural subsidies and tariffs on industrial goods. 189 Christopher M. Bruner, Hemispheric Integration and the Politics of Regionalism: The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). 33 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 1 (2002). 190 Merco Press, June 15, 2004. 191 Profile: Mercosur – Common Market of the South, BBC News, July 26, 2006; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5195834.stm. 192 General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), Article XXIV. 193 Foreign Trade Barriers: Argentina, 2006; http://search.crownpeak.com/cpt_search/result_1?q=steel+2006&account=1003. 194 The European Union, producing 193 million tonnes of crude steel, accounts for 18 percent of world production. The value of the annual EU steel production is estimated at i21 billion, representing more than 1 percent of the EU’s GDP. Employment in the steel sector has contracted steadily over the years, from 1 million people working in the sector in 1970 to just 347,000 in 2005. Employment in the industry is less than 1.5 percent of (continued...) CTL-IV-46 Regional Developments187 Mercosur comprises five member countries (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and the latest addition in December 2005, Venezuela), five associate countries, and one observer country in South America. Founded in 1991 to promote free trade and eliminate trade barriers among the signatory parties, it has granted associate membership status to all members of the Andean Community (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru). Associate members can enter into the free trade agreements of Mercosur but remain outside of its customs union. Full members are barred from entering into bilateral trade deals outside the organization.188 Mercosur represents the third largest trading bloc in the world after the European Union and NAFTA. It brought an initial reduction of approximately 95 percent of trade barriers among its members. 189 Since the signing of the Asunción Treaty establishing Mercosur, inter-regional trade quickly expanded from $5.1 billion in 1990 to $14.38 billion in 1995.190 The combined gross domestic product of the trading bloc is approximately $1.1 trillion a year with about 220 million customers. 191 Although Mercosur was, to a certain extent, inspired by the European Union model, it is not a supranational organization. Rather, Mercosur is an intergovernmental organization geared towards the creation of a common market, without discarding the possibility of an economic union or a common currency in the future. Mercosur is a customs union -- one characterized by the elimination of barriers of trade between member states and a Common External Tariff (CET), which dictates the customs duty rates applicable for imports of goods into the member countries. 192 As it stands currently, Mercosur has eliminated most trade barriers in goods and services and achieved a common external tariff. More than 90 percent of intra-Mercosur trade is duty-free, while the group's CET applies to more than 85 percent of imported goods. Remaining goods are scheduled to be phased into the CET by the end of 2006, although some delay is anticipated. CETs range from zero to 20 percent ad valorem, with a number of country- specific exceptions. 193 The membership of the European Union (EU) in 2006 stood at 25 Member States. The EU Member States combined represent the world's largest economy by GDP. Its economy is expected to grow further over the next decade as more countries join the union; the 2005 growth rate was approximately 1.5 percent. 194 The European Union has a common single market consisting of a customs 194 (...continued) total employment in the Union ’s manufacturing industries. Steel Sector, Europa, July 2006, found at http://ec.europa.eu/comm/trade/issues/sectoral/industry/steel/index_en.htm. 195 Activities of the EU: Internal market, Europa, May 2006. 196 2006 Trade Policy Agenda and 2005 Annual Report, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, www.ustr.gov. 197 “The Euro: Our Currency,” found at http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/our_currency_en.htm, retrieved on September 22, 2006. 198 “The Customs Policy of the European Union” athttp://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/move/19/txt_en.htm, retrieved on September 22, 2006. 199 “EU Accessions Bill", BBC News; January 27, 2006. CTL-IV-47 union, a single currency managed by the European Central Bank, a Common Trade Policy, a Common Agricultural Policy, a Common Fisheries Policy, and a Common Foreign and Security Policy.195 The European Union constitutes a market of some 450 million consumers with a total gross domestic product of more than $11 trillion.196 The euro is currently the common currency for 12 of the 25 Member States with a combined population of over 300 million: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain. Slovenia is scheduled to adopt the euro as its currency in 2007.197 As a customs union, the European Union maintains a common external tariff, has abolished customs duties between Member States, and since 1993, has removed internal border restrictions. The EU has expanded gradually, increasing from six Member States to 15 between 1958 and 1995. The “EU Enlargement” in May 2004 added ten new Member States, increasing population in the EU by nearly 20 percent and increasing GDP by almost 5 percent.198 Bulgaria and Romania are scheduled to become members on January 1, 2007, provided that they meet the conditions for membership. The Treaty of Accession for the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania has been ratified by parliaments of EU Member States since April 2005, but issues remain for both countries remain before ratification is possible. 199 1 Rising iron ore costs in 2006 reportedly have pushed steel price forecasts for the second half of 2006 up by approximately 19 percent. “Steel prices are likely to jump, adding to manufacturers’ woes,” The Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2006. 2 U.S. producers announced price increases for July 2006 due, in part, to rising scrap prices. “Carbon plate prices poised for up to $30 per ton hike in July,” American Metal Market, April 27, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-04-27__18-06-13.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. CTL-V-1 PART CTL-V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES Raw Materials The cost of raw materials, consisting primarily of iron ore, coal, and steel scrap, is an important component of the total cost of producing CTL plate. Public data show that prices in the United States of iron ore and coal rose during the January 2000 to September 2006 period, with the increase for iron ore occurring primarily in 2005 and 2006 (figure CTL-V-1).1 The price of iron and steel scrap in the United States decreased in 2000 and 2001 and then increased markedly. After a decrease in early 2005, scrap prices then increased through mid-20062 and have only fallen slightly in late 2006. Figure CTL-V-1 Raw material costs: Producer price indexes (January 2000=100) of iron ore, coal, and iron and steel scrap in the United States, by months, January 2000-September 2006 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 7, 2006. Energy costs are another important factor in the production of CTL plate. Both natural gas prices and electricity prices in the United States were higher in January-July 2006 than in any of the full years between 2000 and 2005, as shown in the following tabulation: 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 January 2000 = 100 Iron ore Coal Iron and steel scrap 3 “Carbon plate prices poised for up to $30 per ton hike in July,” American Metal Market, April 27, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-04-27__18-06-13.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. 4 These estimates are based on a weighted average of HTS statistical reporting numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, and 7211.14.0045. A weighted average of data from 2000 through 2005 was used for Finland, Spain, and Taiwan due to a lack of data in 2005. CTL-V-2 Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 3 U.S. natural gas industrial price1 $4.45 $5.24 $4.02 $5.81 $6.41 $7.09 $8.21 Electricity industrial price2 4.64 5.04 4.88 5.13 5.11 5.27 5.93 1 In dollars per thousand cubic feet. 2 In cents per kilowatt-hour. 3 Monthly average for January through July. Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov. Producers and importers were asked to what extent changes in the prices of raw materials had affected the selling price of CTL plate since 2000. All 19 responding producers reported that selling prices have increased as a direct result of higher prices for raw materials (e.g., scrap, iron ore, coal, and others). Five producers reported implementing surcharges as a result of increased raw material costs. The domestic mills implemented raw material surcharges beginning in January 2004, but recently some U.S. producers have reportedly rolled surcharges into base prices. 3 Most importers reported that raw material price increases had a marked affect on CTL plate prices since 2000. Transportation Costs to the United States Transportation costs for shipping CTL plate to the United States (excluding U.S. inland costs) from the subject countries are estimated for 2005 in the tabulation that follows. These estimates are derived from official import data for the HTS statistical reporting numbers for the subject product in 2005 and represent the transportation and other charges on imports valued on a c.i.f. basis, as compared with a customs value basis. 4 Country Estimated shipping cost in 2005 (in percent) Belgium 9.00 Brazil 5.40 Finland 13.30 Germany 7.03 Mexico 4.76 Poland 7.54 Romania 10.92 Spain 0.66 Sweden 2.46 Taiwan 7.21 United Kingdom 14.36 5 *** reported that 15 percent of the total cost of CTL plate purchased is accounted for by U.S. inland transportation costs when it sources from Oregon Steel, and *** reported that inland transportation accounted for 60 percent of the total cost when shipping by truck, compared with 20 percent when shipping by barge or rail. CTL-V-3 U.S. Inland Transportation Costs U.S. inland transportation costs for delivery of CTL plate vary widely. Most producers estimated that U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from 2.5 to 10 percent of their costs of CTL plate. Importers reported that U.S. inland transportation costs generally ranged from less than 5 percent to 15 percent of their costs of CTL plate. Twenty-four of the 37 responding purchasers reported that inland transportation costs were not a major factor in consideration of which suppliers to source their CTL plate requirements. Purchasers also reported that inland transportation costs generally ranged from 2 to 10 percent of the total cost of CTL plate purchased. 5 Fourteen of the 19 responding producers reported that they arranged delivery and three reported that the purchaser arranged delivery. Producers reported shipping the vast majority of their CTL plate 1,000 miles or less, with only three responding producers reporting that they ship between 20 and 35 percent of their CTL plate more than 1,000 miles. Among importers, 11 of the 14 responding firms reported that the purchaser arranged delivery, one reported that it arranged delivery, and two reported that both producer and purchaser arranged delivery. While six of the ten responding importers shipped 75 percent or more of their CTL plate less than 100 miles, one importer shipped the vast majority between 101 and 1,000 miles, and two shipped all of their CTL plate more than 1,000 miles. Exchange Rates Quarterly data reported by the International Monetary Fund indicate that the real and nominal values of the euro (Belgium, Finland, Germany, and Spain) and the Swedish krona first depreciated and then appreciated relative to the U.S. dollar during the period for which data were collected (figure CTL- V-2). Both the real and nominal values of the Brazilian real depreciated relative to the U.S. dollar until late 2002 when both began to appreciate. While the nominal value of the Brazilian real was higher in early 2006 than it was in early 2000, the real value was lower than in 2000. The real and nominal values of the Mexican peso and Taiwan dollar remained relatively constant during the period. The real and nominal values of the Polish zloty remained relatively constant before appreciating in late 2004 and leveling off in 2005. The nominal value of the Romanian leu depreciated during the period, but the real value appreciated relative to the U.S. dollar. The real and nominal values of the British pound first appreciated and then depreciated relative to the U.S. dollar during the period. CTL-V-4 Figure CTL-V-2 Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Belgian, Brazilian, Finnish, German, Mexican, Polish, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish, Taiwan, and British currencies relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 Figure continued on next page. Belgium 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Nominal Real Jan-Mar 2000=100 Brazil 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Nominal Real Jan-Mar 2000=100 CTL-V-5 Figure CTL-V-2--Continued Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Belgian, Brazilian, Finnish, German, Mexican, Polish, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish, Taiwan, and British currencies relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 Figure continued on next page. Finland 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Nominal Real Jan-Mar 2000=100 Germany 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Nominal Real Jan-Mar 2000=100 CTL-V-6 Figure CTL-V-2--Continued Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Belgian, Brazilian, Finnish, German, Mexican, Polish, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish, Taiwan, and British currencies relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 Figure continued on next page. Mexico 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Nominal Real Jan-Mar 2000=100 Poland 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Nominal Real Jan-Mar 2000=100 CTL-V-7 Figure CTL-V-2--Continued Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Belgian, Brazilian, Finnish, German, Mexican, Polish, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish, Taiwan, and British currencies relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 Figure continued on next page. Romania 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Nominal Real Jan-Mar 2000=100 Spain 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Nominal Real Jan-Mar 2000=100 CTL-V-8 Figure CTL-V-2--Continued Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Belgian, Brazilian, Finnish, German, Mexican, Polish, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish, Taiwan, and British currencies relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 Figure continued on next page. Sweden 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Nominal Real Jan-Mar 2000=100 Taiwan 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Nominal Jan-Mar 2000=100 6 Caterpillar reported that it ***. Caterpillar’s posthearing brief, p. 6. CTL-V-9 Figure CTL-V-2--Continued Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Belgian, Brazilian, Finnish, German, Mexican, Polish, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish, Taiwan, and British currencies relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, retrieved from http://ifs.apdi.net/imf/about.asp on October 26, 2006. PRICING PRACTICES Pricing Methods Producers generally reported determining prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis, based on market conditions and competition. Four of 18 responding producers reported having contracts for multiple shipments, and five producers reported using price lists. Importers also reported determining prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis based on market conditions and negotiations. Only two importers reported contract pricing, and only one, ***, reported using price lists. Most purchasers reported contacting between two and six suppliers before making a purchase, with three purchasers reporting that they only contact one supplier and eight purchasers not giving a specific number or range. Twenty-seven of the 39 responding purchasers reported that purchases of CTL plate usually involve negotiations between supplier and purchaser, with some explaining that prices, availability, delivery, and compliance with specifications are part of the negotiations. Five purchasers reported that they rarely or never quote competing prices, and two purchasers reported that they do quote competing prices. 6 Fifteen purchasers reported varying their purchases from a given supplier based on the price offered for a specified period, with the time period being monthly, quarterly, or annually. Purchasers were asked how frequently the price of CTL plate they are purchasing changes. Twenty-two purchasers reported that the price changes monthly; nine quarterly; two weekly, one semi- United Kingdom 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Nominal Real Jan-Mar 2000=100 7 *** reported that long-term contracts are anywhere from six months to two years in length, and *** reported that they are six months to one year in length. Caterpillar reported that it ***. Caterpillar’s posthearing brief, p. 4. 8 ***, the only importer to report sales using long-term contracts, reported that long-term contracts are one year in duration, with price fixed, renegotiations possible, and no meet-or-release provisions. CTL-V-10 annually, two annually, and two daily. In explaining the main factors that cause price changes, most purchasers reported that the supply and demand situation in the marketplace or changes in the various raw material, energy, and transportation surcharges contribute to regular price changes. Twenty-three purchasers reported that there have been no individual producers, importers, or purchasers that have influenced the U.S. wholesale market price of CTL plate since 2000. Of the ten purchasers that reported firms having influenced the market price, six named U.S. producers, specifically Mittal (6), Nucor (1), and IPSCO (1). One purchaser reported that imports of CTL plate affect the U.S. market price if large distributors are involved, and one purchaser reported that producers in Malaysia and Thailand have had a negative effect on plate pricing. Sales Terms and Discounts Seven producers and six importers reported that they normally quote f.o.b. prices, three producers and two importers commonly quote on a delivered basis, and eight producers and four importers reported doing both or some other basis. Producers’ sales terms are generally 0.5/10 net 30 days, and importers’ are generally net 30 days. Nine of 18 producers reported that 75 percent or more of their sales are on a spot basis, with one producer reporting that almost all of its sales are on a short-term contract basis. Seven producers reported some sales on a long-term contract basis, but generally involving 33 percent or less of total CTL plate sales. Among importers, 8 of the 11 responding firms reported that all of their sales are on a spot basis, and one reported that all of its sales are on a short-term contract basis. Only one importer reported some sales on a long-term contract basis. Producers generally reported that long-term contracts are one year in length, 7 with both price and quantity fixed, renegotiations possible, and no meet-or-release provisions.8 Producers reported that short- term contracts are generally from three to six months, with both price and quantity fixed, renegotiations possible, and no meet-or-release provisions. Generally, importers reported that short-term contracts are usually three to four months in duration, with no renegotiations, and no meet-or-release provisions. One importer reported that both price and quantity are fixed, one reported that only price is fixed, and one reported that only quantity is fixed. Producers and importers were asked if they imposed any surcharges or other price increases during the pendency of any long-term contracts. Four producers reported implementing surcharges, and one producer/importer reported applying no surcharges at the present time. Ten of the 19 responding producers reported having a discount policy; four reporting volume discounts, one reporting discounts for early payment, two reporting both volume discounts and discounts for early payment, and three reporting that discounts are negotiated on an individual basis or based on market conditions. Twelve of the 13 responding importers reported offering no discounts, with one reporting that its discount policy varies. Only two producers, ***, and one importer, ***, reported offering financing to U.S. purchasers of CTL plate. 9 Products 1 through 4 are the same pricing items that were specified in the first reviews, with certain modifications. Mittal requested that the Commission change the thickness range on product 1 from 0.5" through 0.99" to 0.5" through 1.0" and the width and thickness ranges on product 2 from 60" through 70" and 0.1875" through 0.249" to 72" through 96" and 0.1875" through 0.499". In addition, UK producer Niagara requested that product 5 (wide flat bars) be added. 10 *** reported that it was “too onerous” to provide pricing data; *** could not report pricing data for 2000; and *** could not report pricing data for the years prior to 2005. 11 For product 5, *** reported much larger quantities in 2002-06 than in 2000-01. *** did not report any data prior to 2004. 12 Importers did not report data for imports from Finland or Germany in 2005. *** reported data for imports from Finland in 2002, but official import statistics do not show any imports from Finland in 2002. The quantity of imports from Germany reported in 2004 was *** percent of total imports from Germany in 2004. CTL-V-11 PRICE DATA The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of CTL plate to provide quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of CTL plate that was shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market. Data were requested for the period January 2000 to June 2006. The products for which pricing data were requested are as follows:9 Product 1.–Hot-rolled carbon steel plate, ASTM A36 or equivalent as rolled, sheared edge, not heat treated, not cleaned or oiled, in cut lengths, 72 inches through 96 inches in width, 0.5 inches through 1.0 inches in thickness; Product 2.–Hot-rolled carbon steel plate, ASTM A36 or equivalent as rolled, sheared edge, not heat treated, not cleaned or oiled, in cut lengths, 72 inches through 96 inches in width, 0.1875 inches through 0.499 inches in thickness; Product 3.–Hot-rolled carbon steel plate, high strength low alloy (HSLA), ASTM A572, Grade 50, sheared edges, not cleaned or oiled, in cut lengths, 72 inches through 120 inches in width, 0.5 inches through 1.5 inches in thickness; Product 4.–Hot-rolled carbon steel plate, SAE 1045, no ASTM specification, trimmed edges, not cleaned or oiled, in cut lengths, 72 inches through 96 inches in width, 1.0 inches through 1.5 inches in thickness; and Product 5.–Hot-rolled wide flat bars, in free-cutting grades, in cut lengths, 6 inches through 12 inches in width, 0.25 inches through 2.0 inches in thickness. Twelve U.S. producers10 and six 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, shown in tables CTL-V-1 to CTL-V-5 and figures CTL-V-3 to CTL-V-7, accounted for 14.9 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of CTL plate and *** percent of U.S. imports from Romania in 2005. 12 CTL-V-12 Table CTL-V-1 CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 1, 1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 Period U.S. producers Imports from Germany Imports from Romania Quantity Price Quantity Price Margin Quantity Price Margin Short tons Per short ton Short tons Per short ton Percent Short tons Per short ton Percent 2000: Jan.-Mar. 54,942 $328.57 -- -- -- *** *** *** Apr.-June 50,424 346.08 -- -- -- -- -- -- July-Sept. 42,428 354.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- Oct.-Dec. 36,839 350.47 -- -- -- -- -- -- 2001: Jan.-Mar. 82,198 338.28 -- -- -- -- -- -- Apr.-June 79,993 334.68 -- -- -- -- -- -- July-Sept. 61,887 345.46 -- -- -- -- -- -- Oct.-Dec. 56,988 329.63 -- -- -- -- -- -- 2002: Jan.-Mar. 58,143 335.11 -- -- -- -- -- -- Apr.-June 70,085 345.35 -- -- -- -- -- -- July-Sept. 64,020 353.38 -- -- -- -- -- -- Oct.-Dec. 55,054 363.61 -- -- -- *** *** *** 2003: Jan.-Mar. 60,768 364.79 -- -- -- -- -- -- Apr.-June 61,213 353.50 -- -- -- -- -- -- July-Sept. 69,085 348.13 -- -- -- -- -- -- Oct.-Dec. 70,180 361.35 -- -- -- -- -- -- 2004: Jan.-Mar. 67,814 487.02 -- -- -- -- -- -- Apr.-June 61,122 632.61 -- -- -- -- -- -- July-Sept. 71,217 758.56 -- -- -- -- -- -- Oct.-Dec. 48,989 815.24 *** *** *** -- -- -- 2005: Jan.-Mar. 37,114 831.85 -- -- -- *** *** *** Apr.-June 32,575 800.72 -- -- -- -- -- -- July-Sept. 51,785 752.66 -- -- -- *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 66,683 782.36 -- -- -- *** *** *** 2006: Jan.-Mar. 78,486 760.02 -- -- -- -- -- -- Apr.-June 87,041 764.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 Product 1.–Hot-rolled carbon steel plate, ASTM A36 or equivalent as rolled, sheared edge, not heat treated, not cleaned or oiled, in cut lengths, 72 inches through 96 inches in width, 0.5 inches through 1.0 inches in thickness. Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. CTL-V-13 Table CTL-V-2 CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 2, 1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 Period U.S. producers Imports from Finland Quantity Price Quantity Price Margin Short tons Per short ton Short tons Per short ton Percent 2000: Jan.-Mar. 59,566 $353.64 -- -- -- Apr.-June 58,196 366.20 -- -- -- July-Sept. 43,928 370.68 -- -- -- Oct.-Dec. 42,996 364.65 -- -- -- 2001: Jan.-Mar. 77,366 350.67 -- -- -- Apr.-June 70,881 357.23 -- -- -- July-Sept. 60,698 366.29 -- -- -- Oct.-Dec. 58,270 356.51 -- -- -- 2002: Jan.-Mar. 68,591 340.98 *** *** *** Apr.-June 57,660 400.59 -- -- -- July-Sept. 60,261 367.27 -- -- -- Oct.-Dec. 50,870 369.44 -- -- -- 2003: Jan.-Mar. 53,173 387.30 -- -- -- Apr.-June 55,461 382.89 -- -- -- July-Sept. 59,489 386.76 -- -- -- Oct.-Dec. 52,174 400.90 -- -- -- 2004: Jan.-Mar. 64,028 535.65 -- -- -- Apr.-June 59,181 649.72 -- -- -- July-Sept. 59,610 663.40 -- -- -- Oct.-Dec. 45,607 693.06 -- -- -- 2005: Jan.-Mar. 49,823 818.28 -- -- -- Apr.-June 46,297 786.19 -- -- -- July-Sept. 44,496 809.11 -- -- -- Oct.-Dec. 47,215 807.42 -- -- -- 2006: Jan.-Mar. 76,624 765.99 -- -- -- Apr.-June 64,122 779.89 -- -- -- Table continued on next page. CTL-V-14 Table CTL-V-2--Continued CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 2, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CTL-V-3 CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 3, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CTL-V-4 CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers of product 4, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CTL-V-5 CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S. producers of product 5, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Figure CTL-V-3 CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 1, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Figure CTL-V-4 CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 2, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Figure CTL-V-5 CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 3, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Figure CTL-V-6 CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by U.S. producers of product 4, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Figure CTL-V-7 CTL plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by U.S. producers of product 5, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * 13 Kenilworth described prices as “severely depressed” in 2000 through 2003 and reported that initial subsequent price increases were generally accepted by the marketplace. Hearing transcript, p. 161 (Heltzel). 14 News and industry reports have attributed the 2004 steel price increases to various factors, including increased demand in China, raw material price increases, increased demand in end-use markets, and changes within the U.S. industry that caused tight supply. “Plate makers see strength, kick tags up another notch,” American Metal Market, December 26, 2003, found at http://amm.com/2003-12-26__01-05-00.html, retrieved September 1, 2006; “Brisk demand for plate serves up price hikes,” American Metal Market, August 27, 2004, found at http://amm.com/2004-08-27__01-07-00.html, retrieved September 1, 2006; and “Careful, plate’s hot,” Metal Center News, August 2004. 15 U.S. producers reported that service centers were destocking inventories in 2005 and that spot prices decreased by more than $100 per short ton. Hearing transcript, p. 57 (Insetta) and p. 79 (Ruane). 16 U.S. producers reportedly sought price increases in response to controlled import levels, comparable prices on imports, and expectations that the U.S. plate market will be strong through the end of 2006. “DiMicco and company look ahead and definitely like what they see,” American Metal Market, April 21, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-04-21__11-34-29.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. Both producers and purchasers are reportedly expecting a strong plate market through the end of 2006. “Plate market’s strength expected to last all year,” American Metal Market, August 4, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-08-04__20-08-07.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. More recently, Nucor reported that it announced a price increase in October 2006 but that prices in November 2006 will be lower. Hearing transcript, p. 156 (McFadden). IPSCO reported that its October 2006 price increase announcement did not result in “additional pricing.” Hearing transcript, p. 157 (Tulloch). There have been recent CTL plate price decreases, but most market participants reportedly agree that end-use demand for CTL plate remains strong. “Inventory selloffs push steel plate prices down,” American Metal Market, October 30, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-10-30__13-20-46.html, retrieved November 2, 2006. Caterpillar reported that in its ongoing 2007 contract negotiations, ***. Caterpillar’s posthearing brief, p. 5. 17 One purchaser reported that the price of U.S.-produced CTL plate is now higher than the price of the product from Asia and the EU; one purchaser reported that the price of U.S.-produced CTL plate is now higher than the price of the product from Russia and Ukraine; one purchaser reported that the price of the U.S. product is higher than the price of the product from the EU, China, Japan, and Korea; and one purchaser reported that the price of U.S.- produced CTL plate is now higher than the price of the product from Korea but lower than the price of the product from Canada. CTL-V-15 Price Trends Among Commission pricing products, U.S. prices of CTL plate showed relatively little change from 2000 through 2003.13 Substantial price increases for all five products began in the first quarter 2004, 14 with some leveling off or small decreases in early 2005,15 with the exception of product 5, which showed additional price increases in 2006.16 There was too little data reported by importers to comment on price trends of imports from Finland, Germany, and Romania. Importers responding to Commission questionnaires did not report data for imports from Belgium, Brazil, Mexico, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, or the United Kingdom. Purchasers were asked if there had been a change in the price of CTL plate since 2000 and, if so, how the price of domestic CTL plate changed relative to the price of CTL plate produced in the various subject countries. One purchaser reported that there has been no change in price, and 16 purchasers reported that prices have changed by the same amount. The responses for how U.S. prices reportedly changed relative to the various subject countries17 are presented in the following tabulation: 18 Mittal reported that its forecasts, ***, show that the U.S. price for A36 or equivalent CTL plate are *** prices in Germany and are *** the EU export price and the South China import price for 2006, 2007, and 2008. Mittal’s posthearing brief, response to Commissioner Koplan’s questions, pp. 9-10. CTL-V-16 Country Price of U.S. product is now relatively higher than price of subject country product Price of U.S. product is now relatively lower than price of subject country product Brazil 2 0 Mexico 1 0 Poland 0 1 Romania 1 0 Price Comparisons Consistent with the reported volumes of subject imports, there were relatively few comparisons possible between subject imports and the domestic like product. As shown in table CTL-V-6, subject imports from Finland, Germany, and Romania undersold the comparable U.S. product in 17 of 20 comparisons. 18 Finland Imports from Finland oversold the U.S. product in the one quarter where a comparison was possible. The margin was *** percent (table CTL-V-2). Germany Imports from Germany undersold U.S. product 1 in one quarter where a comparison was possible, with a margin of underselling of *** percent (table CTL-V-1). For product 2, the German product oversold the U.S. product in the only possible comparison. The margin was *** percent (table CTL-V-2). Romania For products 1, 2, and 3, imports from Romania undersold the U.S. product in 16 of 17 quarters where comparisons were possible, with margins of underselling ranging from 6.9 to 35.0 percent (tables CTL-V-1 through CTL-V-3). In the one instance of overselling by the Romanian import, the margin was *** percent. CTL-V-17 Table CTL-V-6 CTL plate: Instances of underselling/(overselling) and the range and average margins for products 1-3, by source country, 1 January 2000 - June 20062 Country Underselling Overselling Number of instances Range (percent) Average margin (percent) Number of instances Range (percent) Average margin (percent) Finland 0 -- -- 1 -- *** Germany 1 -- *** 1 -- *** Romania 16 6.9 to 35.0 20.6 1 -- *** 1 Importers responding to Commission questionnaires did not report data for imports from Belgium, Brazil, Mexico, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, or the United Kingdom. In addition, there were no data reported for imports of products 4 or 5 from any subject country. 2 In the first reviews, there were 10 possible price comparisons between U.S.-produced CTL plate and imports from Belgium. Such imports oversold the U.S. products in all 10 comparisons. ***, however, reported that all of its imports from Belgium were of floor plate. In the original investigations, there were 247 possible price comparisons between U.S.-produced CTL plate and imports from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In 188 of those comparisons, subject imports undersold the domestic product; in the remaining 59 instances, the subject product oversold the domestic product. For Belgium, there were 8 instances of underselling and 11 instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 0.2 to 10.5 percent. For Brazil, there were 18 instances of underselling and 12 instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 0.4 to 26.6 percent. For Finland, there were 25 instances of underselling and 9 instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 1.1 to 25.7 percent. For Germany, there were 33 instances of underselling and 15 instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 0.4 to 23.7 percent. For Mexico, there were 2 instances of underselling and no instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 2.0 to 3.8 percent. For Poland, there were 8 instances of underselling and 2 instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 0.1 to 11.5 percent. For Romania, there were 12 instances of underselling and 1 instance of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 1.9 to 47.5 percent. For Spain, there were 22 instances of underselling and no instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 7.7 to 43.1 percent. For Sweden, there were 27 instances of underselling and 6 instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 4.9 to 29.3 percent. For the United Kingdom, there were 33 instances of underselling and 3 instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 1.1 to 26.5 percent. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires; Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, 348-350, and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, 614-618 (Review), USITC Publication 3364 (November 2000); Certain Flat- Rolled Carbon Steel Products from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-319-332, 334, 336-342, 344, 347-353, and 731-TA-573-579, 581-592, 594-597, 599-609, 612-619 (Final), USITC Publication 2664 (August 1993); and Certain Carbon Steel Products (Cut-to-Length Plate) from Belgium and Germany, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-319, 322 and 731-TA-573, 578 (Review) (Remand), confidential staff report (March 2003). CORE-I-1 PART CORE-I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW GENERAL INFORMATION U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of 23 firms that accounted for nearly all of the U.S. production of corrosion-resistant steel during the period for which data were collected in these second reviews. U.S. import data are based on official Commerce statistics. Responses by U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers of corrosion-resistant steel to a series of questions concerning the significance of the existing countervailing duty orders and the existing antidumping duty orders and the likely effects of revocation are presented in appendix J. Responses concerning the comparability of corrosion-resistant carbon and micro-alloy steel are presented in appendix H. Table CORE-I-1 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. Table CORE-I-1 Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparative data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1990-92, 1997-99, and 2000-05 Item Calendar years 1990 1991 1992 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Quantity (short tons) Apparent U.S. consumption 12,795,000 11,489,000 13,562,000 17,776,625 18,318,059 19,934,889 21,948,820 20,478,057 22,680,025 21,693,361 25,012,571 22,686,342 Share (percent) Producers’ share 85.6 85.0 82.7 91.2 91.7 90.2 92.6 92.4 90.5 92.3 87.2 88.4 Importers’ shares-- Australia 0.9 1.3 1.4 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) Canada2 1.4 2.1 3.4 2.2 2.2 1.8 1.7 1.6 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.4 France 0.5 0.6 0.7 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.1 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) Germany 1.3 1.2 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 Japan 6.6 6.0 6.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Korea 1.0 1.1 1.4 0.3 0.8 1.6 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.8 1.5 Subtotal 11.7 12.3 14.4 3.0 3.3 3.8 3.2 3.0 3.7 3.3 3.1 4.3 All other sources 2.7 2.7 2.9 5.8 4.9 6.0 4.2 4.6 5.8 4.3 9.7 7.3 Total imports 14.4 15.0 17.3 8.8 8.3 9.8 7.4 7.6 9.5 7.7 12.8 11.6 Value (1,000 dollars) Apparent U.S. consumption 7,786,000 6,801,000 7,826,000 10,896,245 10,880,352 11,031,334 11,997,978 10,138,475 11,839,622 11,817,862 17,324,558 16,414,341 Share (percent) Producers’ share 84.1 84.0 81.7 91.5 91.9 90.8 92.6 92.6 90.4 91.8 86.4 87.6 Importers’ shares-- Australia 1.1 1.4 1.4 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) Canada2 1.3 1.9 3.0 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.5 2.8 2.0 2.4 France 0.5 0.6 0.7 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 0.1 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) Germany 1.4 1.2 1.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 Japan 7.6 6.9 7.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 Korea 1.2 1.2 1.5 0.4 0.9 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.7 Subtotal 13.1 13.2 15.3 2.9 3.2 3.8 3.4 3.3 4.1 3.8 3.1 4.6 All other sources 2.8 2.8 3.0 5.6 4.9 5.4 4.0 4.2 5.5 4.4 10.4 7.8 Total imports 15.9 16.0 18.3 8.5 8.1 9.2 7.4 7.4 9.6 8.2 13.6 12.4 Quantity (short tons), Value (1,000 dollars), Average unit value (per short ton) U.S. imports from— Australia: Quantity 121,230 147,624 183,782 636 82 39 220 176 275 297 119 16 Value 82,377 94,020 112,968 524 111 100 216 228 260 262 123 22 Average unit value $680 $637 $615 $824 $1,359 $2,561 $981 $1,292 $945 $883 $1,039 $1,348 Table continued on next page. CORE-I-2 Table CORE-I-1--Continued Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparative data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1990-92, 1997-99, and 2000-05 Item Calendar years 1990 1991 1992 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Quantity (short tons), Value (1,000 dollars), Average unit value (per short ton) U.S. imports from –continued Canada: Quantity2 180,030 245,091 451,082 393,986 397,529 356,620 380,490 331,774 530,248 552,434 524,711 547,326 Value 2 102,188 132,391 234,752 215,365 208,575 192,081 208,645 173,957 292,684 331,067 341,546 398,538 Average unit value 2 $568 $540 $520 $547 $525 $539 $548 $524 $552 $599 $651 $728 France: Quantity 59,087 70,786 94,523 5,677 2,478 4,121 3,608 9,302 15,753 6,530 4,613 1,778 Value 36,666 40,776 53,306 3,725 1,890 2,377 1,543 3,944 8,601 3,848 3,268 1,949 Average unit value $621 $576 $564 $656 $763 $577 $428 $424 $546 $589 $708 $1,096 Germany: Quantity 161,712 137,767 189,192 54,869 21,557 34,434 46,453 23,557 53,479 34,530 31,191 75,941 Value 106,892 84,820 119,055 33,776 16,060 21,071 28,221 13,955 30,585 20,312 17,999 48,634 Average unit value $661 $616 $629 $616 $745 $612 $608 $592 $572 $588 $577 $640 Japan: Quantity 838,598 681,563 824,743 24,269 34,182 49,248 27,543 17,338 24,304 18,570 19,628 16,762 Value 591,512 468,218 562,349 21,908 27,159 35,961 23,072 15,273 30,092 20,206 19,464 19,054 Average unit value $705 $687 $682 $903 $795 $730 $838 $881 $1,238 $1,088 $992 $1,137 Korea: Quantity 124,220 124,897 193,513 58,658 154,984 309,989 253,528 235,041 212,413 113,810 201,002 330,858 Value 89,731 83,030 119,120 42,580 97,667 166,010 140,605 123,305 122,919 77,195 156,934 285,156 Average unit value $722 $665 $616 $726 $630 $536 $555 $525 $579 $678 $781 $862 All subject sources: Quantity 1,484,877 1,407,728 1,936,835 538,095 610,811 754,451 711,842 617,188 836,473 726,171 781,264 972,681 Value 1,009,366 903,255 1,201,550 317,878 351,463 417,600 402,301 330,662 485,142 452,890 539,333 753,352 Average unit value $680 $642 $620 $591 $575 $554 $565 $536 $580 $624 $690 $775 Other sources: Quantity 348,330 308,147 391,118 1,030,237 906,203 1,198,894 919,625 933,033 1,325,751 936,741 2,424,153 1,647,998 Value 225,255 184,471 230,977 612,252 532,307 595,013 481,017 420,783 647,862 515,137 1,808,700 1,286,429 Average unit value $647 $599 $591 $594 $587 $496 $523 $451 $489 $550 $746 $781 All sources: Quantity 1,833,207 1,715,875 2,327,953 1,568,332 1,517,014 1,953,345 1,631,467 1,550,221 2,162,224 1,662,911 3,205,416 2,620,679 Value 1,234,621 1,087,726 1,432,527 930,130 883,770 1,012,613 883,318 751,445 1,133,004 968,027 2,348,033 2,039,782 Average unit value $673 $634 $615 $593 $583 $518 $541 $485 $524 $582 $733 $778 Table continued on next page. CORE-I-3 Table CORE-I-1--Continued Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparative data from the original investigations, first reviews, and current reviews, 1990-92, 1997-99, and 2000-05 Item Calendar years 1990 1991 1992 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Quantity (short tons), Value (1,000 dollars), Average unit value (per short ton) U.S. producers’– Capacity 13,752,000 14,258,000 14,983,000 18,325,094 19,870,392 21,725,474 26,321,105 25,698,401 26,161,576 25,663,099 26,283,125 26,280,223 Production 11,288,000 9,941,000 11,450,000 16,777,451 17,747,333 18,960,113 21,213,322 19,537,128 21,289,304 20,455,321 22,392,513 20,889,145 Capacity utilization 3 82.1 69.7 76.4 91.6 89.3 87.3 80.6 76.0 81.4 79.7 85.2 79.5 U.S. shipments Quantity 10,962,000 9,774,000 11,235,000 16,208,293 16,801,045 17,981,544 20,317,353 18,927,836 20,517,801 20,030,450 21,807,155 20,065,663 Value 6,551,000 5,714,000 6,393,000 9,966,115 9,996,582 10,018,721 11,114,660 9,387,030 10,706,618 10,849,835 14,976,525 14,374,559 Unit value $599 $589 $575 $615 $595 $557 $547 $496 $522 $542 $687 $716 Ending inventories 1,398,000 1,376,000 1,409,000 1,511,463 1,845,068 2,123,546 2,086,296 1,900,994 1,939,320 1,855,669 1,745,399 1,701,618 Inventories/total shipments 3 12.8 14.2 12.6 9.1 10.7 11.5 9.9 9.6 9.1 8.9 7.7 8.1 PRWs (number) 10,129 9,680 9,942 23,318 24,074 22,879 24,546 24,568 20,868 15,211 13,999 13,348 Hours worked (1,000) 20,366 19,025 20,113 48,468 50,251 49,057 50,757 44,888 41,018 32,512 31,531 29,927 Net sales (1,000 dollars) Quantity 10,789,000 9,526,000 11,048,000 16,637,652 17,380,151 18,614,348 20,141,105 19,629,769 20,954,676 19,537,241 22,276,759 20,679,606 Value 6,513,000 5,615,000 6,312,000 10,224,465 10,348,910 10,393,878 11,091,856 9,797,243 10,989,071 10,474,476 15,186,936 14,712,596 Unit value $604 $589 $571 $615 $595 $558 $551 $499 $524 $536 $682 $711 COGS 5,780,000 5,357,000 5,959,000 8,810,259 9,062,220 9,383,494 10,514,307 9,868,736 10,726,907 9,911,144 13,047,722 13,466,769 Gross profit or (loss) 733,000 258,000 353,000 1,414,206 1,286,690 1,010,384 577,549 (71,493) 262,164 563,332 2,139,214 1,245,827 Operating income or (loss) 447,000 (28,000) 77,000 1,070,501 895,383 617,421 151,581 (485,119) (173,824) 74,289 1,644,320 717,789 Unit COGS $536 $562 $539 $530 $521 $504 $522 $503 $512 $507 $586 $651 Unit operating income or (loss) $41 ($3) $7 $64 $52 $33 $8 ($25) ($8) $4 $74 $35 COGS/sales 3 88.7 95.4 94.4 86.2 87.6 90.3 94.8 100.7 97.6 94.6 85.9 91.5 Operating income or (loss)/ sales 3 6.9 (0.5) 1.2 10.5 8.7 5.9 1.4 (5.0) (1.6) 0.7 10.8 4.9 1 Less than 0.05 percent. 2 As discussed in Part CORE-IV, subject U.S. imports from Canada are believed to be somewhat overstated due to the inclusion of tin- and chromium-coated steel sheet that has been lacquered. 3 In percent. Note.–Data for the period 2000-05 include 11 more mills (representing 13.5 percent of 2005 production) than data for 1997-99. Source: Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and The United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197 (Review), 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, and 348-350 (Review), and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, and 614-618 (Review) , USITC Publication 3364, November 2000, official Commerce import statistics, and data compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires. CORE-I-4 1 There were no administrative reviews for firms covered by the antidumping duty order or (prior to its revocation) countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant steel from Germany. 2 For previously reviewed or investigated companies not included in an administrative review, the cash deposit rate continues to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period. 3 66 FR 39145, July 27, 2001. CORE-I-5 COMMERCE’S REVIEWS Administrative Reviews The following tables present information on Commerce’s administrative reviews of the subject orders. 1 2 Australia Commerce completed two antidumping duty order administrative reviews of producers/exporters from Australia. The results of the administrative reviews are shown in the following table: Table CORE-I-2 Corrosion-resistant steel: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Australia Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin March 29, 1996 (61 FR 14649) 2/04/1993 - 7/31/1994 BHP 39.051 All others 24.96 2 August 27, 1996 (61 FR 44039) 8/01/1994 - 7/31/1995 BHP 39.05 All others 24.96 1 Amended on August 2, 1996. 61 FR 40399. 2 Rate from duty order. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. Canada Commerce completed nine antidumping duty order administrative reviews of producers/exporters from Canada and has published the preliminary results of a tenth administrative review. A review for the period of August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000 was initiated and then rescinded.3 Commerce found duty absorption in its administrative reviews for August 1, 1995 to July 31, 1996 and August 1, 1997 to July 31, 1998. The results of the completed administrative reviews are shown in the following table: Table CORE-I-3 Corrosion-resistant steel: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Canada Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin March 28, 1996 (61 FR 13815) 2/04/1993 - 7/31/1994 CCC (Continuous Colour Coating) 1.96 Dofasco 1.65 Stelco 0.191 All others 18.71 April 15, 1997 (62 FR 18448)2 8/01/1994 - 7/31/1995 CCC 1.31 Dofasco 0.59 Stelco 0.553 All others 18.71 Table continued on next page. CORE-I-6 Table CORE-I-3--Continued Corrosion-resistant steel: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Canada Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin March 16, 1998 (63 FR 12725)4 8/01/1995 - 7/31/1996 CCC 5 0.54 Dofasco5 0.72 Stelco5 0 6 All others 18.71 January 13, 1999 (64 FR 2173)7 8/01/1996 - 7/31/1997 CCC 2.26 Dofasco 1.00 Stelco 2.73 All others 18.71 February 24, 2000 (65 FR 9243)8 8/01/1997 - 7/31/1998 CCC 9 1.01 Dofasco 0.201 National 5.65 Stelco9 4.24 All others 18.71 January 16, 2001 (66 FR 3543)10 8/01/1998 - 7/31/1999 CCC 2.11 Dofasco 0.51 Sorevco 0.51 All others 18.71 January 16, 2004 (69 FR 2566)11,12 8/01/2001 - 07/31/2002 Dofasco 1.87 All others 18.71 March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13458)13, 14, 15 8/01/2002 - 7/31/2003 Dofasco 2.15 Stelco 0.02 All others 18.71 March 16, 2006 (71 FR 13582)16 8/01/2003 - 7/31/2004 Dofasco 2.96 Stelco 3.08 All others 18.71 September 11, 2006 (71 FR 53363)17 8/01/2004 - 7/31/2005 Dofasco 4.78 Stelco 1.45 All others 18.71 1 De minimis margin (i.e., margin is less than 0.5 percent), therefore no cash deposit was required to be paid to Customs. 2 Results amended on August 19, 1997. 62 FR 44105. 3 Results amended in accordance with NAFTA Binational Panel Decision on May 20, 2003. 68 FR 27529. 4 Results amended on May 18, 1998. 63 FR 27258. 5 Commerce found that duties were absorbed on 2.72 percent of CCC's U.S. sales; 16.05 percent of Dofasco's U.S. sales; and 16.50 percent of Stelco's sales. 63 FR 12725, March 16, 1998. 6 Results amended in accordance with NAFTA Panel Decision on October 12, 2001. 66 FR 52095. 7 Results amended on February 16, 1999. 64 FR 7622. 8 Results amended on April 7, 2000. 65 FR 18287. 9 Commerce found that duties were absorbed on 20.38 percent of CCC's U.S. sales and 22.63 percent of Stelco's sales. 10 Results amended on February 26, 2001. 66 FR 11553. 11 Results amended on February 24, 2004. 69 FR 8380. 12 Stelco included in initial review, but rescinded on July 11, 2003. 68 FR 41302. 13 Results amended on May 3, 2005. 70 FR 22846. 14 CCC, Impact Steel, and Ideal Roofing included in initial review, but rescinded on December 19, 2003. 68 FR 70764. Russel Metals included in initial review, but rescinded on March 30, 2004. 69 FR 16521. 15 Dofasco, Sorevco, and Do Sol Galva were collapsed and treated as a single respondent as in prior segments of the proceeding, 69 FR 55138. September 13, 2004. 16 Impact Steel included in initial review, but rescinded on April 7, 2005. 70 FR 17648. 17 Preliminary results. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. 4 71 FR 16553, April 3, 2006, and 59 FR 56056, November 10, 1994. 5 71 FR 68549, November 27, 2006. 6 69 FR 17131, April 4, 2004. 7 65 FR 14534, March 17, 2000; 69 FR 18346, April 7, 2004; and 70 FR 36369, June 23, 2005. CORE-I-7 France Commerce initiated and then rescinded an antidumping duty administrative review for the period August 1, 2004 to July 31, 2005 and initiated and rescinded a countervailing duty administrative review for the period December 7, 1992 to December 31, 1993. 4 In September 2006, Commerce published the preliminary results of a countervailing duty administrative review for the period January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004, and calculated a preliminary margin of 0.00 percent for Duferco.5 Germany Commerce initiated no antidumping or countervailing duty administrative reviews of subject merchandise from Germany. Commerce revoked Germany’s countervailing duty order in 2004.6 Japan Since the issuance of the antidumping duty order, three administrative reviews have been completed with regard to subject imports from Japan. Commerce rescinded reviews for the periods August 1, 1998 to July 31, 1999; August 1, 2002 to July 31, 2003; and August 1, 2003 to July 31, 2004. 7 The results of the completed administrative reviews are shown in the following table: Table CORE-I-4 Corrosion-resistant steel: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Japan Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin March 16, 1999 (64 FR 12951) 6/30/1996 - 7/01/1997 Nippon 12.51 All others 36.41 February 23, 2000 (65 FR 8935) 6/30/1997 - 7/01/1998 Nippon 2.47 Kawasaki 1.61 All others 36.41 July 17, 2006 (71 FR 40471)1 8/01/2004 - 7/31/2005 Nippon Steel 36.41 All others 36.41 1 Kawasaki included in the initial review, but rescinded due to no shipments of corrosion-resistant steel by Kawasaki during Commerce’s period of review. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. Korea Commerce completed nine antidumping duty order administrative reviews of producers/exporters from Korea and has published the preliminary results of another. Reviews for the periods August 1, 2000 8 66 FR 63521, December 7, 2001, and 67 FR 68832, November 13, 2002. CORE-I-8 to July 31, 2001 and August 1, 2001 to July 31, 2002 were rescinded.8 The results of the completed administrative reviews are shown in the following table: Table CORE-I-5 Corrosion-resistant steel: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Korea Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin April 26, 1996 (61 FR 18547) 2/04/1993 - 7/31/1994 Dongbu 1.50 Union 10.74 All others 17.70 April 15, 1997 (62 FR 18404)1 8/01/1994 - 7/31/1995 Dongbu 0.04 The POSCO Group 0.092 Union 1.41 All others 17.70 March 18, 1998 (63 FR 13170)3 8/01/1995 - 7/31/1996 Dongbu4 0.60 The POSCO Group4 1.46 Union4 0.392 All others 17.70 March 16, 1999 (64 FR 12927) 8/01/1996 - 7/31/1997 Dongbu 1.49 The POSCO Group 0.16 Union 0.14 All others 17.70 March 13, 2000 (65 FR 13359)5 8/01/1997 - 7/31/1998 Dongbu6 1.42 The POSCO Group6 0.68 Union 0.14 All others 17.70 January 16, 2001 (66 FR 3540)7 8/01/1998 - 7/31/1999 Dongbu 0.13 The POSCO Group 2.24 Union 0.29 All others 17.70 March 18, 2002 (67 FR 11976)8 8/01/1999 - 7/31/2000 Dongbu 0.26 SeAH 0 The POSCO Group 0.86 Union 0.27 All others 17.70 March 14, 2005 (70 FR 12443)9 8/01/2002 - 7/31/2003 Dongbu 0.332 Union 0.362 POSCO 2.34 HYSCO 0.00 Dongshin 17.70 All others 17.70 Table continued on next page. 9 63 FR 69045, December 15, 1998, and 65 FR 6162, February 8, 2000. CORE-I-9 Table CORE-I-5--Continued Corrosion-resistant steel: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Korea Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin February 13, 2006 (71 FR 7513)10, 11 8/01/2003 - 7/31/2004 Dongbu 2.26 Union 1.60 The POSCO Group 2.16 HYSCO 0.00 Dongshin 17.70 All others 17.70 September 11, 2006 (71 FR 53370)12 8/01/2004 - 7/31/2005 Dongbu 1.97 HYSCO 0.032 The POSCO Group 0.482 Union 1.69 All others 17.70 1 Results amended in accordance with court decision on June 11, 2002. 67 FR 39955. First amended on June 20, 1997. 62 FR 33587. 2 De minimis margin (i.e., margin is less than 0.5 percent), therefore no cash deposit was required to be paid to Customs. 3 Results amended on April 27, 1998, 63 FR 20572, and results amended in accordance with court decision on June 11, 2002. 67 FR 39956. 4 Duty absorption occurred during the period through respondents' U.S. affiliates: the percentage of U.S. affiliates' sales with dumping margins for Dongbu was 5.82 percent, for the POSCO Group was 14.64 percent, and for Union Steel was 8.99 percent. 63 FR 13170, March 18, 1998. 5 Results amended on April 25, 2000. 65 FR 24180. 6 Duty absorption occurred during the period through respondents' U.S. affiliates: the percentage of U.S. affiliates' sales with dumping margins was 20.68 percent for Dongbu and 6.85 percent for the POSCO Group. 65 FR 24180, April 25, 2000. 7 Results amended on March 14, 2001. 66 FR 14883. 8 Results amended on April 29, 2002. 67 FR 20956. 9 SeAH included in the initial review, but rescinded because it did not have exports or sales of the subject merchandise to the United States in the period of review. 69 FR 34646, June 22, 2004. 10 Results amended on March 20, 2006. 71 FR 13962. 11 SeAH included in initial review, but rescinded because it did not have exports or sales of the subject merchandise to the United States in the period of review. 70 FR 53153, September 7, 2005. 12 Preliminary results. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. Commerce initiated and then rescinded countervailing duty administrative reviews for Korea for the periods of January 1 to December 31, 1997 and January 1 to December 31, 19989 and, as presented in table CORE-I-6, has published the preliminary results of a countervailing duty administrative review. Table CORE-I-6 Corrosion-resistant steel: Administrative review of the countervailing duty order for Korea Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin September 11, 2006 (71 FR 53413)1 1/01/2004 - 12/31-2004 Dongbu 0.392 POSCO 0.072 1 Preliminary results. 2 De minimis margin (i.e., margin is less than 0.5 percent), therefore no cash deposit was required to be paid to Customs. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. 10 63 FR 12725, March 16, 1998. 11 65 FR 9243, February 24, 2000. 12 63 FR 13170, March 18, 1998. 13 65 FR 24180, April 25, 2000. CORE-I-10 Duty Absorption Findings Commerce made four duty absorption findings in its antidumping administrative reviews. For the August 1, 1995 to July 31, 1996 review period for Canadian producers, Commerce found that CCC absorbed duties on 2.72 percent of its U.S. sales, Dofasco absorbed duties on 16.05 percent of its U.S. sales, and Stelco absorbed duties on 16.50 percent of its sales.10 For the August 1, 1997 to July 31, 1998 review period for Canadian producers, CCC absorbed duties on 20.38 percent of its U.S. sales, and Stelco absorbed duties on 22.63 percent of its sales.11 For the August 1, 1995 to July 31, 1996 period for Korea, duty absorption occurred through respondents’ U.S. affiliates: the percentage of U.S. affiliates’ sales with dumping margins was 5.82 percent for Dongbu, 14.64 percent for the POSCO Group, and 8.99 percent for Union Steel.12 For the August 1, 1997 to July 31, 1998 period for Korea, Commerce found that duty absorption occurred through respondents’ U.S. affiliates: the percentage of U.S. affiliates’ sales with dumping margins was 20.68 percent for Dongbu and 6.85 percent for the POSCO Group. 13 Results of Expedited and Full Five-Year Reviews Commerce has issued final determinations with respect to all subject countries. Tables CORE-I-7 and CORE-I-8 present the margins calculated by Commerce in its original investigations, first reviews, and recent second reviews. Table CORE-I-7 Corrosion-resistant steel: Commerce’s original, first five-year, and second five-year antidumping duty margins for producers/exporters, by subject country Producer/exporter Original margin (percent) First five-year review margin (percent) Second five-year review margin (percent) Australia1 BHP 24.96 24.96 24.96 All others 24.96 24.96 24.96 Canada2 Dofasco3 11.714 11.71 11.71 Stelco 28.27 22.70 22.70 All others 22.29 18.71 18.71 France5 Usinor 29.41 29.41 29.41 All others 29.41 29.41 29.41 Table continued on next page. CORE-I-11 Table CORE-I-7--Continued Corrosion-resistant steel: Commerce’s original, first five-year, and second five-year antidumping duty margins for producers/exporters, by subject country Producer/exporter Original margin (percent) First five-year review margin (percent) Second five-year review margin (percent) Germany6 Thyssen 10.02 10.02 10.02 All others 10.02 10.02 10.02 Japan7 Nippon 36.41 36.41 36.41 Kawasaki 36.41 36.41 36.41 All others 36.41 36.41 36.41 Korea8 POSCO 17.70 17.70 17.70 All others 17.70 17.70 17.70 1 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44161, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18049, April 6, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 32508, June 6, 2006. 2 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44162, August 19, 1993; final results of first full sunset review, 65 FR 47379, August 2, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 32508, June 6, 2006. 3 Commerce collapsed Sorevco into Dofasco, which had a 50-percent ownership interest in Sorevco. 65 FR 18286, April 7, 2000. 4 Amended results, 60 FR 49582, September 26, 1995. 5 As the result of a determination by the U.S. Court of International Trade, Commerce recalculated the final margins that appeared in the original antidumping duty order (58 FR 44169, August 19, 1993), 61 FR 51274, October 1, 1996; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18050, April 6, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 32508, June 6, 2006. 6 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44170, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18051, April 6, 2000; amended final results of sales at less than fair value, 65 FR 58044, September 27, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 32508, June 6, 2006. 7 Antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44163, August 19, 1993; final results of first full sunset review, 65 FR 47380, August 2, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 32508, June 6, 2006. 8 Amended final determination of sales at LTFV, 58 FR 41083, August 2, 1993; antidumping duty order, 58 FR 44159, August 19, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18044, April 6, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 32508, June 6, 2006. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. 14 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)). 15 19 CFR 159.64 (g). CORE-I-12 Table CORE-I-8 Corrosion-resistant steel: Commerce’s original, first five-year, and second five-year countervailing duty margins for corrosion-resistant steel producers/exporters, by subject country Producer/exporter Original margin (percent) First five-year review margin (percent) Second five-year review margin (percent) France1 Usinor ( 2 ) 15.13 ( 2 ) Country-wide 15.13 15.13 0.16 Germany3 Country-wide 0.54 0.54 (4 ) Korea5 Country-wide 1.156 0.54 1.15 1 Countervailing duty order, 58 FR 37304, July 9, 1993, and countervailing duty order and amendment of final countervailing duty order, 58 FR 43759, August 17, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18063, April 6, 2000; final results of second full sunset review, 71 FR 58584, October 4, 2006. 2 No rate specified for Usinor. 3 Countervailing duty order, 58 FR 43756, August 17, 1993; final results of first full sunset review determination, 65 FR 47407, August 2, 2000. 4 Commerce revoked the countervailing duty order against corrosion-resistant steel from Germany in 2004. 69 FR 17131, April 1, 2004. 5 Countervailing duty order, 58 FR 37304, July 9, 1993; final results of first expedited sunset review, 65 FR 18973, April 10, 2000; final results of second expedited sunset review, 71 FR 32519, June 6, 2006. 6 Amended final affirmative countervailing duty determinations in accordance with decision upon remand, 66 FR 16656, March 27, 2001. Source: Cited Federal Register notices. DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these producers incur after the issuance of such orders. 14 During the review period, qualified U.S. producers of corrosion-resistant steel were eligible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) under CDSOA relating to three countervailing duty and six antidumping duty orders on the subject product beginning in Federal fiscal year 2001.15 Tables CORE-I-9 and CORE-I-10 present CDSOA disbursements and claims for Federal fiscal years (October 1-September 30) 2001-05 by source and by firm, respectively. CORE-I-13 Table CORE-I-9 Corrosion-resistant steel: CDSOA disbursements, by source, Federal fiscal years 2001-05 Item Federal fiscal year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Disbursements (1,000 dollars) Australia (AD) 0 0 13 0 20 Canada (AD) 2,025 103 8,364 6,423 226 France (AD) 280 1 1 7 658 France (CVD) 0 ( 1 ) 0 29 338 Germany (AD) 29 6 2,878 185 1,497 Germany (CVD)2 0 1 371 15 78 Japan (AD) 4,722 979 1,398 969 84 Korea (AD) 1 3,980 525 216 590 Korea (CVD) 0 0 1,169 (6) 124 Total 7,056 5,069 14,721 7,839 3,614 1 Less than $500. 2 Order revoked. Note.--Negative disbursement amounts are the result of refunds to importers as a result of liquidations or court cases. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved from www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd. Table CORE-I-10 Corrosion-resistant steel: CDSOA disbursements, by firm, and total claims, Federal fiscal years 2001-05 Item Federal fiscal year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Disbursements (1,000 dollars) AK Steel Corporation1 560 1,103 2,722 1,322 685 Bethlehem Steel 3,282 1,240 0 0 0 California Steel Industries 0 0 370 248 102 International Steel Group 0 0 4,620 2,622 0 Ispat Inland, Inc.2 411 779 1,756 994 492 LTV Steel 421 0 0 0 0 Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. 0 0 0 0 1,088 National Steel 242 457 0 0 0 Rouge Steel Company 0 0 614 0 0 Severstal North America Inc. 0 0 0 ( 3 ) 170 Thompson Steel Co. Inc. 0 0 0 61 0 U.S. Steel 1,765 1,069 0 0 0 United States Steel Corp. 4 0 0 3,923 2,444 1,023 United Steel, Paper...International Union 0 0 0 0 (3 ) WCI Steel 371 137 227 145 55 Weirton Steel 0 283 488 0 0 Total 7,056 5,069 14,721 7,839 3,614 Table continued on next page. 16 As a result of a scope ruling, steel coils having a thickness of 0.8 mm and a width of 2000 mm, electrolytically coated with zinc, were within the scope of the order (63 FR 29700, June 1, 1998). As a result of a scope ruling, annealed nickel plate is within the scope of the order (70 FR 55110, September 20, 2005). CORE-I-14 Table CORE-I-10–Continued Corrosion-resistant steel: CDSOA disbursements, by firm, and total claims, Federal fiscal years 2001-05 Claims (1,000 dollars) Total 395,375,820 360,987,710 256,421,963 501,720,126 758,432,126 1 AK Steel became the successor to Armco Steel after 2001. 2 Ispat Inland, Inc. became the successor to Inland Steel Industries after 2001. 3 Less than $500. 4 United States Steel Corp. became the successor to National Steel and U.S. Steel after 2002. Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved from www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/add_cvd. THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE Commerce’s Scope The scope definition for the imported product subject to the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders under review, as defined by Commerce, is as follows: Flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Included in these orders are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”)--for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from these reviews are: flat rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin-free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating; clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness; and certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat-rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.16 The subject orders have been partially revoked four times for product from Japan: (1) with regard to a three-layered product (a zinc alloy layer, followed by a layer of 17 62 FR 66848, December 12, 1997. 18 64 FR 14862, March 29, 1999. 19 64 FR 57032, October 22, 1999. 20 65 FR 53983, September 6, 2000. 21 Information in this section is drawn to a large degree from previous reviews on carbon steel products. In particular, see Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom (Review), Inv. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, and 348-350, and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, and 614-618, USITC Publication 3364, November 2000, pp. CORROSION-I-17 to I-18. CORE-I-15 chromate, and a final layer of silicate) having specific dimensions;17 (2) with regard to corrosion-resistant steel flat products with certain dimensions and coatings used by a domestic producer of rubber seals and metal inserts for ball bearings;18 (3) with regard to two products: (a) steel coil with an aluminum alloy lining and (b) steel coil with a polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE) lead-based lining;19 and (4) doctor blades. 20 Tariff Treatment The subject merchandise is imported under the following HTS statistical reporting numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090. General U.S. tariffs on corrosion-resistant steel, applicable to U.S. imports that are products of the subject countries (other than certain goods of Canada, as discussed below) and classified under these headings, ranged from 2.4 to 6.5 percent ad valorem at the time of the original investigations. These duties were subject to phased elimination beginning in 1995 and were eliminated as of January 1, 2004. Duties on eligible goods of Canada under the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement ranged from 1.2 to 3.2 percent ad valorem at the time of the original investigations, were subject to phased elimination, and were eliminated as of January 1, 1998. Further details regarding the relevant HTS statistical reporting numbers are presented in appendix D. THE DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT Description and Applications21 Corrosion-resistant steel is steel sheet that has been coated or plated with a corrosion- or heat- resistant, metal coating to prevent corrosion and thereby extend the service life of products produced from the steel. Galvanized steel (coated with zinc), aluminized steel (coated with aluminum), and steel coated with any of several zinc-aluminum alloys comprise almost all of the product at issue. Steel coated with other metals, however, including nickel and copper, as well as steel clad with aluminum or stainless steel sheet also are included within Commerce’s scope. Corrosion-resistant steel is used in the manufacture of automobiles and trucks, in appliances, industrial equipment, agricultural equipment and is widely used in such construction applications as roofing, siding, hardware, roof and bridge deck, guard rails, culverts and the like. The use of corrosion- resistant steel has been a key factor in extending the service life of automobiles; it is used for almost all automobile bodies, fenders, doors, and hood and deck lids. 22 Although not domestically-produced, TCC reported that its electrolytic nickel-plated corrosion-resistant steel is used for battery manufacture and automotive fuel lines, and its copper-plated corrosion-resistant steel is used for self-lubricating bearings manufacture. TCC’s prehearing brief, pp. 1-2. 23 The raw material input for cold-rolled steel is hot-rolled steel. Hot-rolled steel is cleaned, or pickled, in a bath of sulfuric or hydrochloric acid to remove surface oxide (scale) formed during hot rolling. The cleaned (pickled) steel is then processed through a cold-rolling mill, which is typically a continuous (or tandem) mill having four to six roll stands, and which reduces the thickness of the hot-rolled material by 30-90 percent. The cold-rolling process hardens steel so that it usually must be heated in an annealing furnace to make it more formable. 24 For particularly thick corrosion-resistant steel, hot-rolled steel is used as the primary input. CORE-I-16 Galvannealed steel is zinc-coated steel whose coating has been heated to allow the zinc to form an alloy with the base steel. Galvannealed steel is considered to be more suitable for painting than galvanized steel, however, the coating is more prone to flaking when fabrication involves extensive cold forming. Aluminized steel and zinc-aluminum alloy coated steel are considered to be more heat resistant, resisting corrosion at higher temperatures than galvanized steel. Corrosion-resistant steel with other metal coatings, including copper, nickel, nickel-zinc, and cobalt, is produced in much smaller quantities than galvanized and aluminized steel, and usually by smaller firms specializing in such coatings. Such products are used for specialized applications, often for automobile parts and in battery manufacture.22 Manufacturing Processes There are two widely used processes for producing corrosion-resistant steel: the hot-dip process, in which steel sheet is passed through a bath of molten zinc or aluminum, and the electrolytic process, in which steel sheet is passed though a series of electrolytic cells and zinc or other metal is electrolytically plated onto the surface of the steel. In either case, the starting material is cold-rolled sheet steel.23 24 Most hot-dip processing lines have in-line annealing, therefore, steel can be processed directly after cold rolling. The steel coil is set up on a decoiler and the leading end is welded onto the trailing end of the previously processed coil. The steel moves through an annealing furnace and then directly into a pot of molten metal (zinc, aluminum, or zinc-aluminum alloy). Upon emerging from the molten metal, excess metal is blown from the surface by gas jets, controlling the amount remaining on the surface (the coating weight). The coated steel continues through a cooling section and additional processing steps, including leveling and coating with any of several oil or chemical surface treatments. The steel is then recoiled, cut away from the succeeding coil, and removed from the processing line. Processing lines used to produce galvannealed steel have a special furnace through which the steel passes after leaving the gas jets and before entering the cooling section. Because processing lines for electrolytically galvanized steel do not normally include in-line annealing equipment, the starting material is cold-rolled steel that has been annealed and usually temper rolled prior to processing. The processing line includes a series of electrolytic cells rather than the annealing, metal pot, and cooling section of a hot-dip line. The coating metal is electrolytically plated from a sulfate or chloride solution onto the surface of the steel. Other metallic coatings, including nickel and copper, are produced by electrolytic coating. Marketing The largest share of U.S. sales of corrosion-resistant steel is to automotive end users. From 2000 to 2002, the largest share of U.S. imports of corrosion-resistant steel was to steel service centers and distributors; whereas from 2003 to 2005 the largest share was to automotive end users. Table CORE-I-11 presents information on U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ channels of distribution. 25 In the original investigations, the Commission did not consider the issue of whether to expand the domestic like product beyond carbon (non-alloy) steel. Although such an expansion was advocated belatedly by domestic producers in the first reviews, the Commission concluded that there was insufficient record evidence to support modification of the domestic like product. USITC Publication 3364, November 2000, pp. 6-7. No party initially advocated expansion of the domestic like product to include micro-alloy steel in these second reviews. Nonetheless, the Commission has considered micro-alloy steel to be part of the domestic like product (consistent with Commerce’s scope) in original investigations on plate, hot-rolled steel, and cold-rolled steel, and expanded the domestic like product to include micro-alloy steel in the 2003 five-year review Certain Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review). Accordingly, the Commission opted to collect data on micro-alloy steel. Data permitting evaluation of the resulting broader industries based on the inclusion of micro-alloy steel appear in appendix C of this report. During the hearing, counsel for U.S. Steel and AK Steel stated that they supported the inclusion of micro- alloy in the domestic like product definition. Hearing transcript, p. 261 (Hecht). However, in its posthearing brief, Nucor agreed with the like product definition from the first reviews (i.e. micro-alloy not included in the definition of the domestic like product). Nucor’s posthearing brief, answers to Commissioners’ questions, p. 27. Mittal stated in its prehearing brief (p. 7) that it supported the like product definition used in the first review which did not include micro-alloy product. CORE-I-17 Table CORE-I-11 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ channels of distribution, 2000-05, January- June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Share (percent) Share of U.S. producers’ shipments-- To automotive end users 37.0 35.7 36.2 34.9 32.3 35.6 37.0 33.3 To construction end users 24.8 25.2 23.6 23.3 24.4 24.0 23.1 26.2 To other end users 8.4 8.0 9.7 10.3 8.4 9.4 10.1 9.2 To steel service centers and distributors 29.8 31.2 30.4 31.6 35.0 31.0 29.8 31.3 Share of U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments-- To automotive end users 28.1 22.9 33.4 52.6 36.8 42.4 40.0 40.8 To construction end users 23.1 18.8 21.8 16.9 23.7 31.3 38.0 31.7 To other end users 9.7 7.6 6.4 8.5 7.0 4.4 4.6 2.8 To steel service centers and distributors 39.1 50.8 38.4 22.0 32.6 21.9 17.4 24.7 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES CONCERNING MICRO-ALLOY CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL In its original investigations on corrosion-resistant steel the Commission found a single domestic like product consisting of all corrosion-resistant steel (excluding clad plate). In the first reviews in 2000, the Commission did not include micro-alloy steel in the domestic like product.25 Physical Characteristics and Uses The HTSUS differentiates between three categories of steel: stainless steel, “other alloy steel” and “non-alloy steel.” Steel that is not stainless steel but that contains one or more alloying elements in an amount that exceeds a specified limit is defined as “other alloy steel.” Steel that is not stainless steel or 26 The HTSUS does not mention “carbon steel”; rather, it provides a definition of “other alloy steel” as steel, other than stainless steel, containing more than a specified amount of at least one of several elements. Steel that is not stainless steel or other alloy steel is referred to as “non-alloy steel.” HTSUS, Chapter 72 Note 1(f). 27 Lankford, William T., Jr., Ed., The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel, Tenth Edition, p. 1313. 28 Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-388-391 and 731-TA-816-821 (Review), USITC Publication 3816, November 2005. CORE-I-18 other alloy steel is referred to as “non-alloy steel.”26 The scope of these reviews includes only steel that is classified as “non-alloy” under the HTSUS, whereas a commonly used industry term “carbon steel” arguably includes some steel that must be classified under the HTSUS as alloy steel. In particular, the use of small amounts of such alloying elements as columbium, vanadium, and titanium to produce a class of steels known as high-strength, low-alloy (HSLA) steels is common, and these steel compositions are often considered within the industry to be carbon steel, regardless of whether the amounts of the alloying elements are sufficient to require that the steel be classified as alloy steel under the HTSUS definitions.27 For purposes of these reviews, this report uses the term “micro-alloy” in a narrow sense to refer to steel that contains one or more alloying elements in an amount that falls within the range specified in the tabulation below, and none of the elements in a quantity greater than that indicated. The definition for micro-alloy used in these reviews was based on the requirements specified in the most recent five-year reviews covering CTL plate. 28 As discussed above, the principal difference between non-alloy corrosion-resistant steel and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel is the level of alloying elements in the steel. Micro-alloy steel may have greater strength or toughness than non-alloy steel; however, the amounts of the micro-alloying elements in the micro-alloy steel are only slightly higher than may be present in non-alloy steel; therefore, major differences in mechanical properties should not be expected. Interchangeability According to ***, “In most of the end-uses . . . carbon and micro-alloy corrosion resistant would be interchangeable unless the customer spec restricted certain alloys for improved formability.” According to ***, however, “The automotive companies design the parts based on the knowledge of how the steel will form. Dies are designed to stamp the parts based on how the steel will form, and these dies are usually “tuned” to the steel of the company that worked on the part from the Early Vendor Involvement (EVI) stage. As a result of this process, alloy and subject corrosion resistant steels cannot be interchanged one with the other.” Channels of Distribution According to ***, “carbon and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant are sold in the same channels of distribution.” Seven U.S. importers likewise reported that carbon and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel are sold in the same channels of distribution. *** reported that virtually all such shipments were made to steel service centers/distributors. Common Manufacturing Facilities, Employees, and Processes The manufacture of micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel sheet utilizes the same manufacturing facilities, employees, and processes as the manufacture of carbon steel sheet. According to ***, “carbon and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant are made on the same equipment and with the same employees.” Nonetheless, only two U.S. producers of corrosion-resistant steel, Nucor and U.S. Steel, reported 29 Nucor and U.S. Steel’s questionnaire responses, questions II-20 and II-21. 30 ***. 31 Double G also responded to the Commission’s questionnaire. ***. 32 While some firms reported data for toll production, generally on behalf of U.S. mills, the quantity and value of such production were generally small and inconsistently reported. Therefore, these data are not presented separately in this section of the report. Toll production for ***, which provided complete and generally consistent data for its toll operations for companies other than U.S. mills, is presented in appendix C. CORE-I-19 production of micro-alloy forms of the product, and both indicated that their production of micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel was ***.29 Producer and Consumer Perceptions According to ***, “customers and producers see no differences in carbon and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant that is made for the same applications.” Six U.S. importers reported that micro-alloy is of a higher quality and preferred for certain end uses. Four U.S. purchasers said there is no interchangeability between micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel and carbon corrosion-resistant steel. Price According to ***, “the price of corrosion-resistant is based on the gauge range, coating weights and any extras whether the corrosion-resistant in question is carbon or micro-alloy.” Five U.S. importers and three U.S. purchasers reported that the price of micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel is generally higher than carbon corrosion-resistant steel. The tabulation below presents the average unit value of U.S. producers' U.S. shipments of carbon corrosion-resistant steel and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel, based on questionnaire data.30 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Unit value (per short ton) Carbon corrosion- resistant steel $547 $496 $522 $542 $687 $716 $739 $731 Micro-alloy corrosion- resistant steel *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS U.S. Producers Twenty-three U.S. producers of corrosion-resistant steel responded to the Commission’s questionnaire with usable data.31 Based on *** data these mills account for approximately 94 percent of U.S. capacity in 2005. Table CORE-I-12 presents information on U.S. producers, their ownership, their geographic locations, toll agreements, 32 and share of production. Table CORE-I-13 presents information on U.S. producers’ positions on the existing orders. CORE-I-20 Table CORE-I-12 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers, ownership, plant locations, toll agreements, and shares of U.S. production, 2005 Firm Ownership Plant location(s) Toll agreement Share of production (percent) AK AK (OH) (100%) Ashland, KY Middletown, OH Rockport, IN *** *** AK-ISG Steel Coating Co. (formerly L-S Electro- Galvanizing Company) AK Steel, Mittal Steel USA Cleveland, OH *** *** Apollo Corus Group (UK) (100%) Bethlehem, PA *** *** Arrow -- Wayne, NJ *** *** Canfield Handy & Harman (NY) (100%) Canfield, OH *** *** CSI JFE Shoji (Japan) (50%) Rio Doce (Brazil) (50%) Fontana, CA *** *** CSN CSN-SA (Brazil) (100%) Terre Haute, IN *** *** Double Eagle Steel Coating Co. U.S. Steel, Severstal North America Dearborn, MI *** *** Double G Coatings U.S. Steel (50%) Mittal Steel USA (50%) Jackson, MS *** *** Gregory Industries -- Canton, OH *** *** I/N Kote Mittal Steel USA, Nippon Steel New Carlisle, IN *** *** Mittal Mittal Steel Co. (Netherlands) (100%) Burns Harbor, IN Cleveland, OH Columbus, OH Hennepin, IL Indiana Harbor, IN Lackawanna, NY Sparrows Point, MD Weirton, WV *** *** National Galvanizing Heidtman Steel (***%) National Material (***%) Monroe, MI *** *** Nucor -- Armorel, AR Berkeley County, SC Charlotte, NC Crawfordsville, IN *** *** Pro-Tec U.S. Steel (PA) (50%) Kobe Steel (Japan) (50%) Leipsic, OH *** *** SDI -- Butler, IN *** *** Severstal Severstal (MI) (100%) Dearborn, MI *** *** Spartan Steel Coating Severstal North America, Worthington Monroe, MI *** *** Steelscape IMSA Acero (Mexico) (100%) Kalama, WA Rancho Cucamonga, CA *** *** Table continued on next page. CORE-I-21 Table CORE-I-12–Continued Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers, ownership, plant locations, toll agreements, and shares of U.S. production, 2005 Firm Ownership Plant location(s) Toll agreement Share of production (percent) The Techs The Techs (100%) Pittsburgh, PA Turtle Creek, PA *** *** Thomas Corus Group (UK) (100%) Warren, OH *** *** U.S. Steel U.S. Steel (PA) (100%) Ecorse, MI Granite City, IL Portage, IN Gary, IN Dravosburg, PA Fairfield, AL *** *** USS-POSCO Pitcal (PA) (50%), a direct wholly owned subsidiary of U.S. Steel (PA); POSCO- California (CA) (50%), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of POSCO (Korea) Pittsburg, CA *** *** WCI WCI (100%) Warren, OH *** *** Wheeling-Nisshin Nisshin (Japan) (***%) WPS (WV) (***%) Follansbee, WV *** *** Winner -- Sharon, PA *** *** WPS WPS (WV) (100%) Martins Ferry, OH Wheeling, WV *** *** Worthington Worthington (OH) (100%) Columbus, OH Delta, OH *** *** Total 100.0 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table CORE-I-13 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ positions on the orders * * * * * * * U.S. Importers For these reviews, the Commission sent importers’ questionnaires to all U.S. producers as well as to 42 firms believed to be importing corrosion-resistant steel. The Commission received U.S. importer responses from 27 firms, all of which provided usable data, while 10 firms indicated they did not import corrosion-resistant steel. Based on official Commerce statistics, firms providing usable questionnaire responses accounted for 82 percent of subject imports in 2005. Three U.S. producers imported subject or nonsubject corrosion-resistant steel. Table CORE-I-14 presents information on U.S. importers’ source of imports, U.S. headquarters, and parent company. CORE-I-22 Table CORE I-14 CORE: U.S. importers, source of imports, U.S. headquarters, and parent company Firm Source of imports Headquarters Parent company Arcelor *** New York, NY Arcelor S.A. Apollo *** Bethlehem, PA Corus Group Arrow *** Wayne, NJ Leonard Green & Partners Coilplus *** Philadelphia, PA Metal One Holding America Dofasco *** Hamilton, Ontario Arcelor Dongbu *** Torrance, CA Dongbu USA Dongkuk *** Torrance, CA Dongkuk Steel Mill ***, Union Steel ***, KISCO *** Duferco *** Matawan, NJ Nina Finance Hille & Mueller *** Warren, OH Corus Group Honda *** Marysville, OH Honda Trading Corp. ***, American Honda Motor Co. *** Hysco *** Greenville, AL Hyundai Hysco Hyundai *** Houston, TX Hyundai Hysco JFE *** Long Beach, CA JFE Shoji MAN *** Houston, TX MAN Capital Corp. Marubeni *** New York, NY MISI Metal One *** Rosemont, IL Metal One Holdings America Mitsui *** New York, NY Mitsui Polychem *** Mentor, OH -- POSCO *** Fort Lee, NJ POSCO ***, POSCO Canada *** Sorevco *** Coteau-du-Lac, Quebec Dofasco ***, Mittal Canada *** Stelco *** Hamilton, Ontario -- Taylor *** Lordstown, OH Taylor Steel TK Materials *** Southfield, MI ThyssenKrupp USA TK Steel Services *** Richburg, SC ThyssenKrupp Materials TK Steel NA *** Detroit, MI TKS AG Totem *** Portland, OR -- U.S. Steel *** Pittsburgh, PA -- Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. CORE-I-23 U.S. Purchasers In response to purchaser questionnaires issued by the Commission to 64 firms, 35 purchasers supplied usable data and six reported that they had not purchased the subject product during the period for which data were collected. U.S. purchasers, their headquarters, sources, and type of firm, are shown in table CORE-I-15. Table CORE-I-15 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. purchasers, their U.S. headquarters, their sources of purchases, and type of firm Company Headquarters Source of purchases Type of firm Allied Tube & Conduit 1 Harvey, IL *** *** Alpha Steel Sales, Inc. La Habra, CA *** *** Atlas Steel Products Co. Twinsburg, OH *** *** Block Steel Corp.2 Skokie, IL *** *** Cooper Standard Automotive3 Auburn Hills, MI *** *** Curtis Steel Company Ltd. Houston, TX *** *** Daimler Chrysler Auburn Hills, MI *** *** Delphi Corporation Troy, MI *** *** Dietrich Industries, Inc. 4 Pittsburgh, PA *** *** Drive Automotive Industries of America, Inc. 5 Piedmont, SC *** *** Ford Motor Company Dearborn, MI *** *** General Motors Corp. Detroit, MI *** *** Hanwha International Corp. 6 Cranbury, NJ *** *** Heidtman Steel Products, Inc.7 Toledo, OH *** *** Honda of America Mfg. Inc. 8 Marysville, OH *** *** Hysco America Co. 9 Greenville, AL *** *** Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama LLC10 Montgomery, AL *** *** LG International America, Inc.11 Cerritos, CA *** *** McElroy Metal Bossier City, LA *** *** Mitek Industries, Inc.12 Chesterfield, MO *** *** Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc.13 Normal, IL *** *** Mitsui Steel, Inc.14 New York, NY *** *** New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc.15 Fremont, CA *** *** Nissan North America, Inc. 16 Nashville, TN *** *** Table continued on next page. CORE-I-24 Table CORE-I-15–Continued Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. purchasers, their U.S. headquarters, their sources of purchases, and type of firm Company Headquarters Source of purchases Type of firm Procon Metals, Inc. Warren, OH *** *** Rigid Building Systems Houston, TX *** *** Samsung America, Inc.17 Ridgefield Park, NJ *** *** Taylor Steel, Inc.18 Lordstown, OH *** *** Thomas & Betts Corp. Memphis, TN *** *** ThyssenKrupp Steel Services 19 Richburg, SC *** *** Toyota Motor North America, Inc.20 Washington, DC *** *** United Steel Deck South Plainfield, NJ *** *** Viking Materials, Inc. 21 Minneapolis, MN *** *** Vulcan Steel, Inc. Gardena, CA *** *** Whirlpool Corp. Benton Harbor, MI *** *** 1 Owned by Tyco International. 2 Owned by Block Industries. 3 Owned by Cooper Standard Automotive. 4 Owned by Worthington Industries, Inc. 5 Owned by Cosma International of America, Inc. 6 Owned by Hanwha Chemical Corp. 7 Owned by Centaur Inc. 8 Owned by American Honda Motor Co. Inc. 9 Owned by Hyundai Hysco. 10 Owned by Hyundai Motor America. 11 Owned by LG International. 12 Owned by Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. 13 Owned by Mitsubishi Motors Corp. 14 Owned by Mitsui & Co. 15 Owned by General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motors Corp. 16 Owned by Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 17 Owned by Samsung Corp. 18 Owned by Taylor Steel, Inc. (Canada). 19 Owned by ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc. 20 Owned by Toyota Motor Corp. 21 Owned by Reliance Steel & Aluminum. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. CORE-I-25 APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES Table CORE-I-16 presents apparent U.S. consumption and table CORE-I-17 presents market shares. Table CORE-I-16 Corrosion-resistant steel: Apparent U.S. consumption, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) U.S. producers' U.S. shipments 20,317,353 18,927,836 20,517,801 20,030,450 21,807,155 20,065,664 9,999,264 11,159,578 Imports from-- Australia 220 176 275 297 119 16 16 3 Canada 380,490 331,774 530,248 552,434 524,711 547,326 281,944 291,356 France 3,608 9,302 15,753 6,530 4,613 1,778 1,728 190 Germany 46,453 23,557 53,479 34,530 31,191 75,941 48,977 20,939 Japan 27,543 17,338 24,304 18,570 19,628 16,762 8,693 11,012 Korea 253,528 235,041 212,413 113,810 201,002 330,858 181,205 272,592 Subtotal 711,842 617,188 836,473 726,171 781,264 972,681 522,563 596,092 Nonsubject countries 919,625 933,033 1,325,751 936,741 2,424,153 1,647,998 932,153 1,372,961 Total imports 1,631,467 1,550,221 2,162,224 1,662,911 3,205,416 2,620,679 1,454,716 1,969,053 Apparent U.S. consumption 21,948,820 20,478,057 22,680,025 21,693,361 25,012,571 22,686,343 11,453,980 13,128,631 Value (1,000 dollars) U.S. producers' U.S. shipments 11,114,660 9,387,030 10,706,618 10,849,835 14,976,525 14,374,559 7,388,310 8,155,795 Imports from--1 Australia 216 228 260 262 123 22 22 4 Canada 208,645 173,957 292,684 331,067 341,546 398,538 207,943 221,845 France 1,543 3,944 8,601 3,848 3,268 1,949 1,745 379 Germany 28,221 13,955 30,585 20,312 17,999 48,634 31,540 14,718 Japan 23,072 15,273 30,092 20,206 19,464 19,054 9,959 13,684 Korea 140,605 123,305 122,919 77,195 156,934 285,156 157,308 206,273 Subtotal 402,301 330,662 485,142 452,890 539,333 753,352 408,519 456,903 Nonsubject countries 481,017 420,783 647,862 515,137 1,808,700 1,286,429 763,351 926,215 Total imports 883,318 751,445 1,133,004 968,027 2,348,033 2,039,782 1,171,870 1,383,118 Apparent U.S. consumption 11,997,978 10,138,475 11,839,622 11,817,862 17,324,558 16,414,341 8,560,180 9,538,913 1 Import values are landed, duty paid. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, and official import statistics. CORE-I-26 Table CORE-I-17 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. market shares, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) Apparent U.S. consumption 21,948,820 20,478,057 22,680,025 21,693,361 25,012,571 22,686,343 11,453,980 13,128,631 Value (1,000 dollars) Apparent U.S. consumption 11,997,978 10,138,475 11,839,622 11,817,862 17,324,558 16,414,341 8,560,180 9,538,913 Share of quantity (percent) U.S. producers' U.S. shipments 92.6 92.4 90.5 92.3 87.2 88.4 87.3 85.0 Imports from-- Australia (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) Canada 1.7 1.6 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.2 France (1 ) (1 ) 0.1 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) Germany 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 Japan 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Korea 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.8 1.5 1.6 2.1 Subtotal 3.2 3.0 3.7 3.3 3.1 4.3 4.6 4.5 Nonsubject countries 4.2 4.6 5.8 4.3 9.7 7.3 8.1 10.5 Total imports 7.4 7.6 9.5 7.7 12.8 11.6 12.7 15.0 Share of value (percent) U.S. producers' U.S. shipments 92.6 92.6 90.4 91.8 86.4 87.6 86.3 85.5 Imports from-- Australia (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) Canada 1.7 1.7 2.5 2.8 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.3 France (1 ) (1 ) 0.1 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) Germany 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 Japan 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Korea 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.7 1.8 2.2 Subtotal 3.4 3.3 4.1 3.8 3.1 4.6 4.8 4.8 Nonsubject countries 4.0 4.2 5.5 4.4 10.4 7.8 8.9 9.7 Total imports 7.4 7.4 9.6 8.2 13.6 12.4 13.7 14.5 1 Less than 0.05 percent. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, and official Commerce import statistics. CORE-II-1 PART CORE-II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS As discussed in Part CORE-I, corrosion-resistant steel is widely used in automotive applications, including those where the final product is visible or exposed to weather or other corroding agents. In addition to improved aesthetics and enhanced downstream forming operations, corrosion-resistant steel prolongs the useful life of end products. Corrosion-resistant steel, however, is not only used in the automotive industry but also in industrial applications and in the appliance and construction industries. U.S. CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION U.S. producers and importers ship corrosion-resistant steel to automotive, construction, and other end users, as well as to distributors and service centers (see table CORE-II-1). U.S. producers shipped more than one-third of their corrosion-resistant steel to automotive end users, while shipping just under one-third to distributors during the review period. Just under one quarter of U.S. shipments were to construction end users, and smaller amounts went to other types of end users. Importers of corrosion- resistant steel from Canada shipped *** of their corrosion-resistant steel to automotive end users, while importers of corrosion-resistant steel from Germany and Japan shipped *** to automotive end users and other types of end users. Importers of corrosion-resistant steel from Korea, in contrast, shipped *** to construction end users and distributors. Table CORE-II-1 Corrosion-resistant steel: Channels of distribution for domestic product and imports1 sold in the U.S. market (as a percent of total) by year and by source, 2000-052 Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Share of quantity (percent) Domestic industry: Shipments to automotive end users 37.0 35.7 36.2 34.9 32.3 35.6 Shipments to construction end users 24.8 25.2 23.6 23.3 24.4 24.0 Shipments to other end users 8.4 8.0 9.7 10.3 8.4 9.4 Shipments to distributors/service centers 29.8 31.2 30.4 31.6 35.0 31.0 Imports from Canada: Shipments to automotive end users *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments to construction end users *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments to other end users *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments to distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued on next page. 1 One producer reported sales to Hawaii, and three importers reported sales in the Gulf Coast region. Six of the nine importers that reported nationwide sales imported corrosion-resistant steel from subject countries. CORE-II-2 Table CORE-II-1--Continued Corrosion-resistant steel: Channels of distribution for domestic product and imports1 sold in the U.S. market (as a percent of total) by year and by source, 2000-052 Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Share of quantity (percent) Imports from Germany: Shipments to automotive end users *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments to construction end users *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments to other end users *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments to distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** *** Imports from Japan: Shipments to automotive end users *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments to construction end users *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments to other end users *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments to distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** *** Imports from Korea: Shipments to automotive end users *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments to construction end users *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments to other end users *** *** *** *** *** *** Shipments to distributors/service centers *** *** *** *** *** *** 1 No data were reported for imports from Australia or France. 2 In the original investigations, U.S. producers shipped 78.0 percent of their corrosion-resistant steel to end users and 22.0 percent to distributors, service centers, and processors. U.S. importers shipped 69.6 percent of their corrosion-resistant steel to end users and 30.4 percent to distributors, service centers, and processors. In the first review investigations, U.S. producers shipped 61.5 percent of their corrosion-resistant steel to end users and 38.5 percent to distributors. For information on imports of corrosion-resistant steel from the first review investigations, see supplemental memorandum INV-X-229, October 30, 2000. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires; Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, 348-350, and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, 614-618 (Review), USITC Publication 3364 (November 2000); and Certain Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-319-332, 334, 336-342, 344, 347-353, and 731-TA-573-579, 581-592, 594-597, 599-609, 612-619 (Final), USITC Publication 2664 (August 1993). U.S. producers and importers, as a whole, reported nationwide sales, although many individual firms reported that their sales were concentrated in particular regions. Generally, producers and importers reported serving primarily the Midwest, Northeast, and Southeast regions, as well as the national market (see table CORE-II-2). 1 2 Additional information on the U.S. safeguard action on certain steel products appears in the Overview of this report. CORE-II-3 Table CORE-II-2 Corrosion-resistant steel: Geographic market areas in the United States served by domestic producers and importers of subject product1 Region Producers Importers Contiguous United States 7 9 Northeast 7 8 Midwest 10 9 Central Southwest 6 3 Southeast 7 11 Mountains 3 0 Pacific Coast 5 5 1 In the first reviews, six U.S. producers reported selling corrosion-resistant steel nationwide; nine reported selling in the East/Midwest; and one reported selling in the West, while three importers reported selling nationwide; seven reported selling in the East/Midwest (with one reporting also selling to the Southwest and Gulf Coast); and one reported selling in the West. In the original investigations, the staff report did not discuss geographic market area data reported by U.S. producers and importers but official statistics showed that imports from the subject countries entered all four regions of the United States. Note.–Eighteen producers and 26 importers responded to this question. Firms were not limited to the number of market areas that they could report. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires; Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, 348-350, and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, 614-618 (Review), USITC Publication 3364 (November 2000); and Certain Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-319-332, 334, 336-342, 344, 347-353, and 731-TA-573-579, 581-592, 594-597, 599-609, 612-619 (Final), USITC Publication 2664 (August 1993). Only one U.S. producer, ***, reported some sales of corrosion-resistant steel using the internet, generally less than 5 percent of sales. None of the 34 responding purchasers reported buying corrosion- resistant steel over the internet. SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS U.S. Supply Domestic Production Four importers reported that the U.S. safeguard action on steel, which included increased duties on corrosion-resistant steel from March 2002 until December 2003, affected the availability of corrosion- resistant steel in the U.S. market.2 Other producers and importers reported that increased raw material, energy, and transportation costs, increased production and demand in China and India, and additional 3 *** reported that U.S. capacity has been increased at CSN Heartland, Columbus Coatings, SDI, Winner, U.S. Steel, and Mittal since 2000. It also reported that there have been coating line closures since 2000. *** producer questionnaire, response to question IV-B-18. 4 Mittal opened a new processing line at its Cleveland plant that is designed to produce in excess of 700,000 tons of hot-dipped corrosion-resistant steel annually to meet demand from automakers and other customers. It is working to add galvannealing to the line to begin as early as the second quarter 2007. “Mittal Steel starts new galvanized sheet processing line in Cleveland,” American Metal Market, April 27, 2006 found at http://amm.com/2006-04-26__12-25-40.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. Nucor has announced it will construct a new sheet steel galvanizing facility at its Decatur, AL, plant with capacity to produce 500,000 tons per year of hot- dipped sheet and will be targeted toward the automotive market. “Nucor targets transplants with new galvanizing line,” American Metal Market, June 14, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-06-14__14-41-40.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. 5 Zinc and energy costs, as well as technological improvements, have reportedly been factors in the switch from electrogalvanizing to hot-dipped galvanizing. “Tried, true, and tweaked, hot dip just keeps getting hotter and hotter,” American Metal Market, August 18, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-08-18__11-06-11.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. Nucor reported that electrogalvanizing is a more costly process and that the less costly hot- dipped galvanized steel can be used for many of the same applications. Hearing transcript, pp. 142 and 217 (DiMicco). 6 CSN restarted its blast furnace in June 2006. “CSN resumes No. 3 furnace after five months,” American Metal Market, June 27, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-06-27__15-46-24.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. 7 *** increased spot market purchases due to shortages from U.S. suppliers. ***. Auto producers reported that there have been shortages on committed tons of corrosion-resistant steel and for additional tons at contract prices. Hearing transcript, p. 437 (Kelly) and p. 440 (King). Witness testimony suggested very different conditions through late 2003, when U.S. producers considered any incremental increase in volume from “premier accounts” such as the auto producers “a win.” Hearing transcript, p. 442 (Cover). CORE-II-4 U.S. capacity have affected supply since 2000.3 Twelve of the 17 responding producers and 7 of the 18 responding importers reported that they anticipate an increase in the availability of U.S.-produced corrosion-resistant steel in the U.S. market in the future. Most reported that there are expansions planned by Nucor, Mittal, and SeverCorr.4 Five producers and 13 importers do not anticipate any change in availability, and three importers anticipate a decrease in availability of corrosion-resistant steel due to new auto plants and the availability and pricing of raw materials. Purchasers were asked if there have been changes in any factors that affected the availability of corrosion-resistant steel in the U.S. market since 2000. Twenty-four of the 33 responding purchasers reported that there had been changes, such as raw material, energy, and transportation cost increases; a trend shift from electrogalvanized to hot-dipped galvanized steel,5 the U.S. safeguard action, and consolidation of the U.S. industry. *** reported that events at individual mills, such as a fire at USS- POSCO in May 2001, an outage at LTV in December 2001, and an AK Steel lock-out in March 2006 all affected the availability of corrosion-resistant steel in the U.S. market. *** also reported that a blast furnace accident at CSN in Brazil in January 2006 affected the availability of slabs, which ultimately impacted the availability of corrosion-resistant steel.6 Purchasers also were asked if any suppliers refused, declined, or were unable to supply corrosion- resistant steel since 2000. Twenty-three of the 33 responding purchasers reported that there had been problems with supply, with most reporting that domestic mills had placed them on allocation, or controlled order entry, from early 2004 to early-to-mid 2005, with some reporting that shortages have continued into 2006.7 Other purchasers reported that some foreign suppliers also have had tight supply situations during the review period. 8 With the exception of the results of the world-wide raw material shortage situation in 2004, U.S. producers who appeared at the hearing denied allegations of a supply shortage. Hearing transcript, p. 136 (Goodish), p. 144 (DiMicco), and pp. 151-152 (Gant). U.S. Steel reported that auto producers have sought additional tons, or more than what was stipulated in their contracts, at the contract price when the contract price was below the market price and were denied these additional tons. U.S. Steel’s posthearing brief, pp. 5-7. 9 A hydrogen plant shut down in New Orleans as a result of Hurricane Katrina may have caused some short-term supply disruptions. Hearing transcript, p. 189 (DiMicco). In addition, ***. 10 *** also reported that the lockout at AK Steel and the planned closure of Severstal’s hot-dipped galvanizing line in October 2006 have created conditions supporting high prices for corrosion-resistant steel. 11 In addition, *** reported that since 2000, galvanneal has higher strength, stretch flange, and dual-phase grades and that it expects continued improvements in the future. CORE-II-5 Eleven of the 17 responding producers and 8 of the 26 responding importers reported having refused, declined, or been unable to supply corrosion-resistant steel since 2000.8 Some producers reported placing customers on general allocation or controlled order entry, while others reported that they reserved space for long-term customers or did not pursue new customers.9 Two producers reported being unable to make timely shipments. Importers also reported being unable to make timely shipments and placing customers on allocation. These problems generally occurred in 2004 through early 2005, with eight producers and four importers reporting that there are continuing supply restrictions in 2006. Producers and importers reported that, generally, there have been no significant changes in the product range, product mix, or marketing of corrosion-resistant steel since 2000. However, *** reported that there has been increased demand for light-gauge material, and also that there has been a switch in preferences from electrogalvanized to hot-dipped galvanized steel. Two importers reported that there has been an increase in sales of aluminum-zinc alloy corrosion-resistant steel, in part due to the recent price increases of zinc. *** reported an increase in high-strength and ultra-high-strength corrosion-resistant steel for use in autos. Three producers and six importers reported anticipating changes in the future, including more high-strength, bake-hardenable, and dent-resistant corrosion-resistant steel; more hot- dipped galvanized products at the expense of electogalvanized products; and continued merger activity in the U.S. industry. *** reported that SDI is converting a coating line that only produced galvanized steel to one that will be able to produce both galvanized and galvalume products. Purchasers were asked to identify and discuss any improvements/changes in the U.S. corrosion- resistant steel industry since 2000 and any improvements/changes that they anticipate in the future, and 11 purchasers responded. *** reported that U.S. mills have gained competitiveness through bankruptcies and consolidation and that China has played a significant role in terms of causing a shortage in raw materials and increased production capacity. *** reported that consolidation of the industry has produced fewer and smaller companies. *** reported that consolidation in the U.S. industry has resulted in tightening of supply of corrosion-resistant steel and that the growth of the industry in China and India, along with increased prices for raw materials, has caused surcharges to be implemented and further reductions in supply. 10 *** reported that industry consolidation has resulted in improved financial performance of U.S. producers and that new market entrants, specifically SeverCorr and Nucor, are planning significant investments in the United States. *** reported expecting additional capacity to bring prices down but that prices are still high. *** reported that it has limited knowledge of the U.S. market, but that there have been no improvements or changes due to legacy costs and insufficient re-investment in U.S. facilities, thus causing a decline in competitiveness. *** reported that galvanneal suppliers have improved so that there has been a reduced and more consistent surface friction and better formability and that galvanneal coating lines have added prephosphatability to the lines.11 *** reported that U.S. producers of *** have not added capacity to support the growth in demand and that the U.S. has 12 In addition, *** reported that it expects continued growth in end-use markets and that without additional sources of supply, proliferation of products that use the material will be limited and production may eventually be moved outside of the United States. 13 *** also reported that there are several grade and width combinations that are not domestically available and will not be in the future due to the costs associated with upgrading existing equipment in the United States. 14 *** reported that there are opportunities to shift sales to the EU but that ***. *** reported that its production facilities are set only for U.S. standards. CORE-II-6 experienced a constrained supply situation.12 *** reported that U.S. mills have been developing more high-strength products and that it expects more high-strength and hot-dipped products to come from U.S. suppliers. 13 *** reported that relative to other countries, the improvements in U.S. capacity and quality have been minimal and that in the future, it expects an obsolescence of coating lines capable of supplying future grades for automotive applications. *** reported expecting increased galvannealed capacity. Based on available information, U.S. producers are likely to respond to changes in demand with small to moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced corrosion-resistant steel to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to the low to moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are moderate levels of capacity utilization, few export shipments, moderate levels of inventories, and few production alternatives. Industry capacity U.S. producers reported some excess capacity throughout the period for which data were collected in these reviews. U.S. producers’ capacity utilization for corrosion-resistant steel decreased irregularly from 80.6 percent in 2000 to 79.5 percent in 2005 and was higher in January-June 2006, at 85.0 percent, than it was in January-June 2005 (see table CORE-III-2). Alternative markets U.S. producers’ export shipments, as a percent of total shipments, increased from 3.6 percent in 2000 to 4.1 percent in 2005 (see table CORE-III-5). This relatively low level of exports during the period indicates that domestic producers may be somewhat constrained in their ability to shift shipments between the United States and other markets in response to price changes. Indeed, all 16 of the responding producers reported that they are unable or limited in their ability to shift sales of corrosion-resistant steel between the U.S. market and alternative country markets. Some producers reported that transportation costs and exchange rates make it difficult to shift sales to other markets, while others reported that export packaging and customs documentation are deterrents to shifting sales.14 Five responding producers reported that U.S. exports of corrosion-resistant steel are subject to tariff or non-tariff barriers in other countries, including a goods-and-services import duty in Canada; unfavorable exchange rates; and foreign government subsidies. Inventory levels U.S. producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, fell from 9.9 percent in 2000 to 8.1 percent in 2005 and were lower in January-June 2006 (at 6.6 percent of total shipments) than at any time during the review period (see table CORE-III-6). 15 According to domestic interested parties, the U.S. price of corrosion-resistant steel is higher than the prices of both cold-rolled and hot-rolled steel, thus providing incentive to shift production to sell more corrosion-resistant steel. Domestic producers’ response to the notice of institution, p. 33. 16 Seven foreign producers reported producing alloys and micro-alloys using the same equipment as corrosion- resistant steel, but only two reported that they were able to switch in response to a relative price change. 17 BlueScope reported that ***. It also reported that ***. 18 One Canadian producer reported that ***, while another reported that ***. Both reported that ***. Canadian producers reported that ***. CORE-II-7 Production alternatives Only 4 of 21 responding producers reported that they produce other products, such as hot- and cold-rolled sheet, aluminized stainless, and alloys, on the same equipment and machinery used in the production of corrosion-resistant steel.15 No producer reported that it is able to switch production to other products in response to relative price changes. 16 Subject Imports The sensitivity of supply of subject imported corrosion-resistant steel to changes in price depends upon such factors as the existence of excess capacity, the levels of inventories, and the existence of export markets. Relevant information for all six of the subject countries follows. Australia Based on available information, the Australian producer BlueScope is likely to respond to changes in demand with small to moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of corrosion-resistant steel to the U.S. market.17 The main contributing factors to the low to moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate markets, moderate levels of inventories, and high capacity utilization. Australian export shipments, as a share of total shipments, decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005 but were higher in January-June 2006 (*** percent) than during the same period in 2005 (*** percent) (see table CORE-IV-12). Australian inventories, as a share of total shipments, increased irregularly from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. The Australian producer’s capacity utilization for corrosion-resistant steel decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005 but was at its highest level during the review period in January to June 2006 at *** percent. BlueScope reported that ***. Canada Based on available information, Canadian producers are likely to respond to changes in demand with small to moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of corrosion-resistant steel to the U.S. market. 18 The main contributing factors to the low to moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate markets, moderate levels of inventories, and high capacity utilization. Canadian producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005 (see table CORE-IV-20). Canadian producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, decreased irregularly from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Canadian producers’ capacity utilization for corrosion-resistant steel decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization was *** percent in January-June 2006, up from *** percent during the same period in 2005. One Canadian producer reported that ***. 19 French producers reported that ***. 20 Duferco reported that inventory levels in the European market were lower in 2005 than in 2004 due to strong demand. Duferco’s response to the notice of institution, p. 4. 21 German producers reported that ***. 22 Two Japanese producers reported that ***. Japanese producers reported that a number of factors have affected supply, including the Japanese economic recovery, surging demand for corrosion-resistant steel in Asia, and increased demand from auto and appliance manufacturers in Japan and other Asian countries. Only one Japanese producer reported that ***. CORE-II-8 France Based on available information, French producers are likely to respond to changes in demand with small to moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of corrosion-resistant steel to the U.S. market. 19 The main contributing factors to the small to moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate markets, low levels of inventories, and high capacity utilization. French producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments, decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005 (see table CORE-IV-29). French producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, were reported to be *** percent throughout the period. 20 French producers’ capacity utilization for corrosion-resistant steel decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization was *** percent in January-June 2006, up from *** percent during the same period in 2005. French producers reported that ***. Germany Based on available information, German producers are likely to respond to changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of corrosion-resistant steel to the U.S. market.21 The main contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate markets, moderate levels of inventories, and high capacity utilization. German producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005, with most exports going to other national markets in the EU (see table CORE-IV-38). German producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, decreased irregularly from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. German producers’ capacity utilization for corrosion-resistant steel decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization was *** percent in January-June 2006, up from *** percent during the same period in 2005. Two German producers reported that ***. Japan Based on available information, Japanese producers are likely to respond to changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of corrosion-resistant steel to the U.S. market.22 The main contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate markets, low levels of inventories, few production alternatives, and high capacity utilization. Japanese producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005 (see table CORE-IV-47). Japanese producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, decreased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Japanese producers’ capacity utilization for corrosion-resistant steel increased from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization was *** percent in January-June 2006, down from *** percent during the same period in 2005. Japanese producers reported that ***. 23 Three Korean producers reported that ***, and two Korean producers reported that ***. ***. Only one Korean producer reported that ***. Four of the seven responding Korean producers reported that corrosion-resistant steel is not interchangeable due to such factors as differences in width and thickness and tighter control of specifications by some U.S. customers. 24 There is some evidence that activity in the residential housing sector has slowed in 2006, which may affect demand for appliances and HVAC products. “Housing construction plunges in October,” The Washington Post, November 17, 2006, found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111700396.html, retrieved November 20, 2006. The nonresidential construction market is expected to remain strong through the end of 2006 and into 2007. “Nonresidential Construction Market in 2007 to Match This Year’s Strong Performance,” Kermit Baker, (continued...) CORE-II-9 Korea Based on available information, Korean producers are likely to respond to changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of corrosion-resistant steel to the U.S. market.23 The main contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate markets, moderate levels of inventories, and some unused capacity. Korean producers’ export shipments, as a share of total shipments, increased from 32.6 percent in 2000 to 33.6 percent in 2005 (see table CORE-IV-56). Korean producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, increased from 3.3 percent in 2000 to 4.6 percent in 2005. Korean producers’ capacity utilization for corrosion-resistant steel decreased irregularly from 88.1 percent in 2000 to 87.0 percent in 2005. Reported capacity utilization was 86.0 percent in January-June 2006, down from 87.6 percent during the same period in 2005. None of the Korean producers reported that ***. Nonsubject Imports Imports from nonsubject countries increased from 2000 to 2005 (see table CORE-IV-1). Thirteen of the 16 responding producers and 6 of the 23 responding importers reported that the availability of nonsubject corrosion-resistant steel has changed since 2000. Most reported increased imports from countries such as China, India, Brazil, and Taiwan. *** reported that other countries have switched to lighter gauge galvanized products and increased volumes sold in the United States, *** reported that a company in the United Kingdom ceased production in 2006, and *** reported that CSN in Brazil significantly curtailed exports to the United States in the first half of 2006 due to a blast furnace outage. U.S. Demand Demand Characteristics Apparent U.S. consumption of corrosion-resistant steel showed some fluctuations from 2000 through 2005, but was higher in 2005, at 22.7 million short tons, than in 2000, at 21.9 million short tons. Nine producers, 20 importers, and 26 purchasers reported that demand increased since 2000, while 3 producers, 3 importers, and 5 purchasers reported that demand has been unchanged. Of those reporting that demand increased, factors cited included the improved economy, increased global consumption, increased non-residential construction activities and auto production, rebuilding activities from the hurricanes of 2005, changes in building codes, foreign auto companies opening plants in the United States, and the housing boom. Three producers and one purchaser reported that demand has fluctuated, with both increases and decreases during the review period. When asked if they anticipate future changes in corrosion-resistant steel demand in the United States and the rest of the world,24 12 producers, 25 13 importers, and 16 24 (...continued) Chief Economist of the American Institute of Architects, found at http://www.aia.org/aiaarchitect/thisweek06/0630/0630econ_consensus.cfm, retrieved October 30, 2006. North American auto production is expected to rebound in 2007 after hitting a trough in the 4th quarter of 2006 but is expected to be below historically high levels until the latter part of 2007. “Ward’s AutoForecasts Sees North American Output Rebounding after Q4 Slide” in U.S. Steel’s prehearing brief, exhibit 37. Longer-term data from the Automotive Market Research Council show that light vehicle production in North America is forecast to increase at approximately 1.1 percent per year from 2005 to 2010. Japanese respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, 2006 articles, exhibit 9, p. 6. In addition, U.S. light vehicle production data from CSM Worldwide show a decrease from 2005 to 2006, an increase from 2006 to 2007, a decrease from 2007 to 2008, and increases in 2009 and 2010. Auto producers’ posthearing brief, exhibit 3. North American heavy truck production, however, is projected to decline in 2007. Global Auto Report, Scotia Economics, October 30, 2006, found at http://www.scotiacapital.com/English/bns_econ/bns_auto.pdf, retrieved November 20, 2006. 25 U.S. mills expected demand for corrosion-resistant steel to remain strong through the end of 2006, but some buyers questioned whether demand would be as strong as predicted. “Flat-rolled demand seen holding firm to year- end,” American Metal Market, July 4, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-07-03__17-44-39.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. 26 *** reported that forecasts for automobile production predict growth of 2 to 3 percent annually in the United States and Germany between 2005 and 2010, with growth in developing regions at higher rates. *** producer questionnaire, response to question III-22 and appendix III-21(b) and German respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, responses to Commissioners’ questions, p. 20 and exhibit 10. *** reported that alkaline battery production will increase the demand for corrosion-resistant steel by 3 to 6 percent annually and that auto production (fuel lines) will increase the demand by 10 percent annually. 27 *** reported that the corrosion-resistant steel market is due to slow in the near future, resulting from a slowdown in new home construction and shifts from SUVs to smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. It also reported that the growth of foreign automakers will continue to lead to reductions in domestic steel content in autos. *** producer questionnaire, response to question IV-B-27. However, the automotive producers reported that they do not expect the amount of corrosion-resistant steel consumed to produce the average vehicle in the United States to decrease. Auto producers’ posthearing brief, appendix, pp. 12 and 19-23. 28 U.S. Department of Energy’s E85 Fleet Toolkit, found at http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/e85toolkit/, retrieved August 22, 2006. 29 Purchasers who distribute or resell corrosion-resistant steel listed stampers; fabricators; auto parts suppliers; and manufacturers of cookware, HVAC parts, building panels, steel doors, batteries, and bearings as consumers of their corrosion-resistant steel. Like other auto manufacturers, *** reported purchasing corrosion-resistant steel and reselling it to independent stampers of body panels and steel components. It also reported that this practice absorbs the price risk of purchasing corrosion-resistant steel and that it is considering restructuring this practice because of (continued...) CORE-II-10 purchasers responded yes, and many explained that China, India, and other developing countries will continue to be a factor in demand growth as well as increased demand for vehicles and for longer-lasting vehicles. 26 Some producers reported expecting continued demand growth but at a slower rate.27 Two purchasers reported that the E85 ethanol requirements (85 percent ethanol blended with 15 percent gasoline designed for use in flexible-fuel vehicles)28 in the U.S. market will increase the demand for corrosion-resistant steel for fuel lines. *** reported that automotive and other product sectors have cut back in the fourth quarter of 2006 but that large inventories at service centers should carry over until 2007. The overall demand for corrosion-resistant steel primarily depends upon the demand for a variety of end-use applications (see table CORE-II-3). Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to list the end uses of corrosion-resistant steel. The most commonly reported uses were for motor vehicle parts (body as well as fuel and brake lines), home appliances, HVAC components, metal decking, steel studs and posts, battery cans and components, and parts of metal buildings. 29 29 (...continued) increased steel costs. 30 *** reported that since 2003, it has specified prephose steel for use in vehicles and explained that prephose is a new type of corrosion-resistant steel that includes an oil coating for lubrication when making difficult-to-form stamped parts. CORE-II-11 Table CORE-II-3 Corrosion-resistant steel: Shipments by market, 20051 Market Hot-dipped galvanized Electro- galvanized Combined Share of quantity (percent) Automotive 40.0 91.2 47.6 Steel service centers and distributors2 29.2 6.5 25.8 Construction 21.8 1.2 18.8 Appliance, utensils, and cutlery 4.2 -- 3.6 Agricultural and electrical equipment 1.7 -- 1.4 Steel for converting and processing 1.3 1.0 1.3 Containers, packaging, and shipping material 0.8 -- 0.7 Other domestic and commercial equipment 0.6 -- 0.5 Other 0.5 0.1 0.3 1 Data are for calendar year 2005 and include only classified shipments as reported by AISI reporting companies. Data include only hot-dipped galvanized and electrolytic galvanized steel. 2 Data are not available from AISI on the end-use markets of shipments from service centers and distributors. Source: American Iron & Steel Institute, 16C Report, Shipments of Steel Products by Market Classification, Carbon Steel, Report AIS 16C, 2005. When asked if there had been any changes in the end uses of corrosion-resistant steel since 2000, two importers and seven purchasers reported that corrosion-resistant steel is now used for such things as steel studs and metal doors, as a replacement for cold-rolled steel, for automobile heat shields and roof panels, and is increasingly used for exposed auto body parts.30 *** reported that there has been increased use of corrosion-resistant steel as an alternative to higher priced alloys, and *** reported that there has been a switch to plastic. Seventeen of the 19 responding purchasers who are end users reported that the demand for their firms’ final products that use corrosion-resistant steel changed since 2000, with most citing increases in demand for these final products. In identifying the major factors that contributed to the demand changes, purchasers reported that factors included a growing U.S. economy, increased housing starts, increased auto production, the introduction of new products, and new facilities. Twenty-three purchasers reported that the specifications of corrosion-resistant steel vary depending on the end-use application, citing differences in coatings and coating weight, thickness, width, forming capabilities, and chemical treatment. *** reported that some exposed and unexposed automotive parts require an alloy steel; *** reported that some applications need a light-gauge material and that the auto industry has strict gauge requirements; *** reported that some specifications are based on formability and strength or dent resistance; and *** reported that U.S. producers cannot produce “440E” grades. 31 *** reported that availability of corrosion-resistant steel in the U.S. market did not meet its growing demand and that the U.S. industry does not have the capacity to satisfy domestic consumption levels. CORE-II-12 The majority of producers reported that the corrosion-resistant steel market is subject to business cycles or conditions of competition distinctive to corrosion-resistant steel, but the majority of importers reported that it is not subject to business cycles or distinct conditions of competition. Most producers and some importers reported that the corrosion-resistant steel market follows conditions in the auto and construction industries. One producer and five importers reported that the emergence of new markets has affected the business cycle or conditions of competition distinctive to corrosion-resistant steel. When asked if the corrosion-resistant steel market is subject to business cycles or conditions of competition distinctive to corrosion-resistant steel, 20 of the 31 responding purchasers reported that it is not. Of those who reported that the market is subject to business cycles or distinct conditions of competition, most reported that demand fluctuates with demand in end-use markets and based on weather conditions and raw material and energy pricing. Eleven purchasers reported that the emergence of new markets for corrosion-resistant steel since 2000 has affected the business cycle or conditions of competition distinctive to corrosion-resistant steel, with most citing growth in China, India, and other emerging markets as well as new auto plants as causes. Purchasers were asked whether their purchasing patterns for corrosion-resistant steel from domestic, subject, and nonsubject sources had changed since the orders under review became effective. Eight purchasers reported that there has been little change in their purchasing patterns; one reported increased U.S. purchases and one reported decreased U.S. purchases; one reported discontinuing its purchases from Japan and one reported increased purchases from Japan due to a joint venture and disruption in supply from U.S. sources; and two purchasers reported increased purchases from Germany. Twenty-one purchasers reported purchasing corrosion-resistant steel from one or more of the subject countries before the orders became effective; seven reported that their pattern of purchasing is essentially unchanged, seven reported that they reduced or discontinued their purchases from subject countries because of the orders; and seven reported that they changed their pattern of purchasing for other reasons, including price and availability. Fourteen purchasers reported that they did not purchase from nonsubject sources before or after the order; 11 reported that their purchasing pattern from nonsubject sources was essentially unchanged since the orders became effective; five increased their purchases from nonsubject countries because of the orders; and three changed their purchasing pattern for reasons other than the orders. 31 Substitute Products While there are reported substitutes for corrosion-resistant steel, the potential for substitution is often limited by the end use, as well as factors such as formability, strength, and price. Plastics, wood, aluminum, cement, stainless steel, cold-rolled steel, low-carbon steel, and composites were listed as substitutes for corrosion-resistant steel in certain applications, and most purchasers reported that the prices of these possible substitute products had either stayed the same or increased relative to the price of corrosion-resistant steel. One producer, three importers, and seven purchasers reported that there are no substitutes for corrosion-resistant steel. Two producers reported that there are now larger quantities of substitute products available, and four importers reported that plastics and wood are now more acceptable substitutes for corrosion-resistant steel. None of the responding purchasers reported that there have been any changes in the number or type of products that can be substituted for corrosion-resistant steel. Two producers and four importers reported that they expect changes in the substitutability of other products, namely potential increased use of aluminum and plastic. Two purchasers reported that they expect changes in the type of substitutes in the future, with one reporting that steel frame construction may lose market share to concrete. 32 The auto producers reported that there will be a significant increase in global vehicle production, according to ***, driven by developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil. Auto producers’ posthearing brief, appendix, pp. 12-13 and exhibit 3. Dofasco reported that Canadian auto production will increase through 2008 and that its shipments to the Canadian non-residential construction industry are expected to increase. Canadian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, pp. 8-9 and prehearing brief, pp. 24-28. 33 ***. CORE-II-13 Cost Share Corrosion-resistant steel often accounts for a relatively large percentage of the total cost of end- use products, although the cost share does vary widely, depending on the end use. Purchasers reported that corrosion-resistant steel accounts for between less than 2 percent and 100 percent of the total cost of the end products in which corrosion-resistant steel is used. In automobiles and light trucks, corrosion- resistant steel reportedly represents 1.4 to 5 percent of the total cost of the end product, whereas in individual vehicle parts, corrosion-resistant steel represents 50 to 85 percent. According to purchasers, corrosion-resistant steel represents 100 percent of the total cost of metal studs, 80 percent of the total cost of steel decks, 70 percent of the total cost of metal roof and wall cladding, 13 percent of the total cost of industrial and commercial heating products, and 4 to 7 percent of the total cost of home appliances. Producers and importers reported that corrosion-resistant steel accounts for between 40 and 80 percent of the cost of metal building components, 40 to 50 percent of the total cost of battery cans and components, and 60 percent of the total cost of HVAC components. Demand Outside the United States Producers, importers, and purchasers also were asked how demand for corrosion-resistant steel outside the United States has changed since 2000. Ten producers, 19 importers, and 24 purchasers reported that demand outside the United States increased, citing factors such as rapidly increasing demand in China and other industrializing countries in Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe; global economic growth; and increased auto production and construction activity worldwide.32 Two producers, two importers, and four purchasers reported that demand outside the United States was unchanged. One purchaser reported that demand outside the United States decreased, citing that other countries have accepted lower corrosion standards. SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES The degree of substitution between domestic and imported products depends upon such factors as relative prices, quality, and conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and delivery dates, payment terms, product services, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there may be some differences between domestic and imported corrosion-resistant steel, but overall, there is a moderate to high degree of substitution between corrosion-resistant steel produced in the United States and the subject countries and other import sources. This section is based primarily on the responses of 35 purchasers33 that accounted for approximately 64.9 percent of total consumption in 2005. Fourteen purchasers described themselves as 34 Purchasers who described themselves as distributors reported selling corrosion-resistant steel to metal building manufacturers, OEMs, stampers and fabricators, and firms in the construction and automotive industries. 35 Some of the auto companies also described themselves as resellers to their suppliers and stampers. 36 Purchasers who described themselves as other end users reported that they use corrosion-resistant steel to manufacture such items as steel buildings, steel decks, household appliances, sign posts, and industrial and commercial HVAC parts. 37 Dofasco reported that increased exports of corrosion-resistant steel to the United States are, in part, due to auto companies moving the manufacturing of some vehicles from plants in Canada or Mexico to plants in the United States. Hearing transcript, pp. 396-397 (Kenny) and Canadian respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, pp. 5- 7. 38 Seven purchasers, including five automotive end users, reported that prices are set using annual contracts but that they take delivery on a daily basis. CORE-II-14 distributors, 34 13 as automotive end users, 35 and 8 as other end users.36 These purchasers tended to purchase primarily from U.S., Canadian,37 German, Korean, and nonsubject sources, with none reporting purchases from Australia (see table CORE-II-4). Table CORE-II-4 Corrosion-resistant steel: Purchased quantities in short tons, by country and by year, 2000-05 and January- June 2006 Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Jan.-June 2006 United States 7,467,655 7,552,907 8,174,447 8,604,537 9,059,330 13,770,041 6,363,431 Canada *** *** *** *** *** *** *** France *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Germany *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Japan *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Korea *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject 51,085 33,021 68,668 89,938 196,864 125,550 125,900 Note.--Not all purchasers reported data for each year. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Ten purchasers reported buying pre-painted corrosion-resistant steel, with three reporting that it represented less than 5 percent of their total purchases of corrosion-resistant steel in 2005. Two purchasers reported that pre-painted materials represented 13 to 25 percent of their total purchases, and three firms reported that pre-painted materials represented 57 percent or more of their total purchases. Two purchasers did not give an estimate of the percent of total purchases represented by pre-painted materials. When asked if imported and domestically produced corrosion-resistant steel are used in the same applications, 29 purchasers reported that they are generally used in the same applications, as long as the corrosion-resistant steel conforms to the purchaser’s specifications or if the supplier has been approved. Purchasers of corrosion-resistant steel tend to buy frequently, and many have changed suppliers since 2000. Nineteen of the 33 responding purchasers reported that they purchase daily 38 or weekly, with nine purchasing monthly and two on an as-needed basis. Two purchasers reported that they purchase quarterly, and one reported purchasing annually. Only one purchaser reported that it expects this 39 *** reported that 50 percent of its 2005 purchases of corrosion-resistant steel required some form of certification or prequalification; *** reported that 40 percent of its 2005 purchases required certification; and *** reported that 30 percent of its 2005 purchases required certification. CORE-II-15 purchasing pattern to change in the next two years. Sixteen purchasers reported that the quantity of their purchases is consistent throughout the year, and thirteen reported that their purchases are seasonal in nature. Seventeen of the 34 responding purchasers reported changing suppliers since 2000; six of the changes resulted from mergers, consolidations, and bankruptcies within the industry. Four purchasers reported that their changes were a result of differences in pricing. Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions Purchasers were asked to identify the three major factors considered by their firm in deciding from whom to purchase corrosion-resistant steel (table CORE-II-5). Price and quality were the most commonly cited factors overall. Thirteen of the 34 responding purchasers reported that price was the most important factor, and 12 reported that quality was the most important factor. The next most commonly cited factors were availability, delivery and service, and reliability. Table CORE-II-5 Corrosion-resistant steel: Most important factors in selecting a supplier, as reported by purchasers Factor First Second Third Price 13 6 12 Quality 12 10 4 Availability 5 5 6 Reliability 1 2 1 Surface finish/appearance 1 1 0 Traditional supplier 1 0 1 Delivery/service 0 6 4 Consistency 0 2 0 Contracts 0 0 2 Product range 0 0 2 Other 1 2 1 Note.--Other category includes capability, long-term strategy, technical resources, and supply chain. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Purchasers were asked what factors determined the quality of corrosion-resistant steel. Factors cited included surface appearance, yield strength, tensile strength, formability, flatness, uniformity of the coating, metallurgical consistency, durability, weldability, and drawability. Eleven purchasers cited the necessity of meeting the firm’s specifications or meeting ASTM or another of the various industry standards. Twenty-seven of the 33 responding purchasers reported that they require suppliers to become certified or prequalified and that these requirements apply to all, or nearly all, of their 2005 purchases.39 Most of the requirements consist of standards set by independent organizations, such as the ASTM or ISO. Other purchasers perform audits or require mill certificates or samples for testing. Purchasers were asked if they always, usually, sometimes, or never purchased the lowest priced corrosion-resistant steel. Thirteen purchasers reported always or usually purchasing the lowest priced 40 *** reported that they source some products only from U.S. mills. CORE-II-16 product and 17 sometimes purchased the lowest priced corrosion-resistant steel. Four purchasers, ***, reported never purchasing the lowest priced corrosion-resistant steel. Of those who reported sometimes or never purchasing the lowest priced product, availability, reliability, quality, contract commitments, long-term relationship with the supplier, inventory control, management factors, and reputation were factors cited as to why price is not a controlling factor. Purchasers also were asked if they purchased corrosion-resistant steel from one country in particular. Ten purchasers responded, reporting reasons why they purchased from one country in particular. Reasons provided included domestic-only requirements or preferences, government work that requires a domestic supplier, logistics, technical support, and loyalty. Eight purchasers reported that certain grades, types, or sizes of corrosion-resistant steel are available only from a single source; with five reporting that certain products are only available from suppliers outside the United States and two citing AK Steel as the only U.S. source for aluminized steel. 40 In rating the importance of 20 factors in their purchasing decisions (table CORE-II-6), 31 of the 34 responding purchasers rated availability and price as very important; 30 reported that product consistency was very important; 28 reported that quality meeting industry standards and reliability were very important; 27 reported that delivery time and finish/appearance were very important; and 23 reported that delivery terms was very important. Purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison of the same 20 factors (table CORE- II-7). One purchaser completed this comparison for the United States and Australia, eight for the United States and Canada, seven for the United States and France, nine for the United States and Germany, eight for the United States and Japan, and 13 for the United States and Korea. The majority of purchasers reported that the domestic product was comparable or superior to the subject products in all categories. CORE-II-17 Table CORE-II-6 Corrosion-resistant steel: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by purchasers Factor Very important Somewhat important Not important Number of firms responding Availability 31 3 0 Contract with supplier 21 7 6 Delivery terms 23 10 1 Delivery time 27 5 1 Discounts offered 9 16 8 Extension of credit 8 14 11 Finish/appearance 27 6 1 Minimum quantity requirements 6 22 6 Packaging 12 18 4 Price1 31 2 1 Product consistency 30 3 1 Product range 16 14 4 Proximity of supplier 9 18 7 Qualification for certain applications 20 11 2 Quality meets industry standards 28 3 2 Quality exceeds industry standards 12 14 7 Reliability of supply 28 5 1 Technical support/service 21 9 4 Traditional supplier 5 20 9 U.S. transportation costs 22 10 2 1 *** reported that price was not an important factor in its purchasing decisions, yet it reported price as the second most important factor in deciding from whom to purchase corrosion-resistant steel. Note.--Not all purchasers responded for each factor. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. CORE-II-18 Table CORE-II-7 Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported by purchasers1 Factor U.S. vs Australia U.S. vs Canada U.S. vs France S C I S C I S C I Number of firms responding Availability *** *** *** 3 5 0 3 4 0 Contract with supplier *** *** *** 2 6 0 3 4 0 Delivery terms *** *** *** 1 7 0 3 4 0 Delivery time *** *** *** 0 8 0 4 3 0 Discounts offered *** *** *** 1 7 0 1 5 0 Extension of credit *** *** *** 2 6 0 3 4 0 Finish/appearance *** *** *** 1 6 1 1 4 2 Minimum quantity requirements *** *** *** 1 7 0 1 6 0 Packaging *** *** *** 0 8 0 1 6 0 Price2 *** *** *** 3 5 0 3 2 2 Product consistency *** *** *** 0 8 0 1 5 1 Product range *** *** *** 2 5 1 1 4 2 Proximity of supplier *** *** *** 5 3 0 6 1 0 Qualification for certain applications *** *** *** 1 7 0 0 6 1 Quality meets industry standards *** *** *** 0 8 0 0 6 1 Quality exceeds industry standards *** *** *** 0 8 0 1 5 1 Reliability of supply *** *** *** 2 6 0 3 4 0 Technical support/service *** *** *** 1 7 0 3 3 1 Traditional supplier *** *** *** 1 7 0 2 5 0 U.S. transportation costs2 *** *** *** 4 4 0 5 1 1 Table continued on next page. CORE-II-19 Table CORE-II-7--Continued Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported by purchasers1 Factor U.S. vs Germany U.S. vs Japan U.S. vs Korea S C I S C I S C I Number of firms responding Availability 3 6 0 5 3 0 4 7 2 Contract with supplier 3 6 0 4 4 0 6 6 1 Delivery terms 3 6 0 1 7 0 5 7 1 Delivery time 5 4 0 5 3 0 8 4 1 Discounts offered 1 7 0 0 7 0 0 10 2 Extension of credit 3 6 0 1 7 0 2 9 2 Finish/appearance 1 5 3 0 5 3 3 8 2 Minimum quantity requirements 2 7 0 1 7 0 1 11 1 Packaging 1 7 1 0 7 1 0 10 3 Price2 3 4 2 4 4 0 1 8 4 Product consistency 1 6 2 0 5 3 1 9 3 Product range 1 4 4 0 4 4 2 10 1 Proximity of supplier 8 1 0 7 1 0 11 2 0 Qualification for certain applications 0 7 2 0 5 3 0 11 2 Quality meets industry standards 0 9 0 0 8 0 1 10 2 Quality exceeds industry standards 1 6 2 0 5 3 3 8 2 Reliability of supply 2 7 0 3 5 0 4 8 1 Technical support/service 3 5 1 2 5 1 5 6 1 Traditional supplier 2 7 0 3 5 0 6 6 1 U.S. transportation costs2 6 2 1 4 3 1 7 5 1 1 Twelve purchasers completed the comparison for the United States and nonsubject countries or “all foreign countries” (see appendix K). 2 A rating of “S” on price and U.S. transportation costs indicates that this country has lower prices/costs than the other country. Note.--S=first-listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first-listed country’s product is inferior. Note.--Not all purchasers responded for every factor. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 41 General Motors reported that it takes “a fair amount of time” to be sure a supplier can make the qualities and structural requirements that it needs but that it can overcome those constraints given some time. Hearing transcript, p. 455 (Cover). CORE-II-20 Twenty-nine purchasers reported factors they considered in qualifying a new supplier. Factors considered included quality, price, availability, reliability, service, delivery, consistency, product range, lead times, and ability to meet specifications or industry standards. The time required to qualify a new supplier was reported by 18 purchasers and ranged from one week to two years.41 Purchasers were asked if any suppliers had failed to qualify their product or lost their approved status. Two purchasers reported that Nucor failed to qualify its products, with one reporting that it failed for the inability to meet weldability requirements and one reporting that its pre-painted material for a laundry application failed a life test. Two purchasers reported that ThyssenKrupp failed to qualify its products, with one reporting that its *** product failed and one reporting that its product failed in ***. Two purchasers reported that nonsubject Indian material failed for quality and flatness problems, one purchaser reported that Mittal had failed, and one reported that Worthington had failed. Another purchaser reported that some firms fail on the first time through the process but eventually resolve whatever problems were found and become qualified. Purchasers were asked how often they and their customers make purchasing decisions involving corrosion-resistant steel based on the producer of the product they purchase and based on the country of origin of the corrosion-resistant steel they purchase. Their responses are summarized in the following tabulation: Factor Always Usually Sometimes Rarely or never Firm purchases based on producer? 15 5 8 6 Customers purchase based on producer? 2 3 7 19 Firm purchases based on country of origin? 4 4 10 16 Customers purchase based on country of origin? 1 2 6 24 When asked how the firm or its customers determine the source, some purchasers reported that they buy direct from the mill, require suppliers to go through a lengthy approval or qualification process, or rely on the supplier’s reputation. When asked why the information is important, purchasers reported that such things as quality, availability, delivery, service, and price may vary by supplier. Some purchasers reported that they try to buy from U.S. sources for logistical reasons and because they or their customers may have preferences or requirements for U.S. products. *** reported that it has an overall company direction to localize corrosion-resistant steel sourcing; *** reported that it purchases from one supplier in order to increase its purchasing leverage with that supplier; *** reported that vehicle makers do not have a rigorous approval process but that validation and quality assessments do occur; and *** reported that it makes firm-specific, not country-specific supplier selections but that in some cases, it must evaluate the total U.S. or North American content of its products to qualify them for trade preference programs such as NAFTA or the U.S.-Australian Free Trade Agreement. Purchasers were asked if buying a product that is produced in the United States is an important factor in their purchases of corrosion-resistant steel. Twenty-one of the 34 responding purchasers reported that it was not an important factor. Of the 13 purchasers that reported buying a U.S.-produced product is important, most reported that their preferences are determined for other reasons, including availability, quality, price, inventory, localization of supply, and proximity of suppliers. Four purchasers reported that their purchases of domestic corrosion-resistant steel are required by law or regulation, and 42 *** reported lead times of 10 weeks for goods produced to order and goods sold from inventory. CORE-II-21 one reported that domestic purchases are required by its customers and this generally involved a range from 10 to 50 percent of their purchases of corrosion-resistant steel. Purchasers also were asked how often domestically produced, subject imports, and nonsubject imports of corrosion-resistant steel meet minimum quality specifications. Their responses are summarized in the following tabulation: Source Always Usually Sometimes Never Domestically produced 12 17 1 0 Subject imports 14 12 0 1 Nonsubject imports - China 4 3 0 1 Nonsubject imports - Taiwan 2 1 0 0 Nonsubject imports - India 1 1 1 0 Nonsubject imports - Brazil 1 1 0 0 Of the 16 purchasers who reported being aware of new suppliers in the market since 2000, six cited domestic mills having entered the market or being new as a result of consolidation; six cited entries from China; and others reported entries from India, Mexico, and Korea. Twelve of those 16 purchasers reported purchasing from one or more of the new suppliers. Nineteen purchasers expect new corrosion- resistant steel suppliers to enter the market in the future, with most reporting that SeverCorr will begin production in 2007 and that Nucor’s expansion will begin production in 2007-08. Other purchasers reported that they expect to see additional entries from China and India. Lead Times Twelve of the 17 responding producers reported selling at least 95 percent of their corrosion- resistant steel produced to order, with lead times ranging from 4 to 12 weeks. Four producers reported selling at least 50 percent of their corrosion-resistant steel from inventory, with lead times from one or two days to two weeks.42 Eighteen of the 20 responding importers reported selling at least 75 percent of their corrosion- resistant steel produced to order, with lead times ranging from one to six months. Two importers reported selling 100 percent of their corrosion-resistant steel from inventory, with lead times ranging from one week to four months. Fifteen producers reported offering just-in-time or similar inventory services for corrosion- resistant steel customers in the United States. Six producers reported offering consignment agreements, and five reported offering just-in-time services. Eight of the 24 responding importers reported offering these types of services. Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to assess how interchangeable corrosion- resistant steel from the United States is with corrosion-resistant steel from both subject and nonsubject countries. Their answers are summarized in table CORE-II-8. CORE-II-22 Table CORE-II-8 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’, importers’, and purchasers’ perceived degree of interchangeability of products produced in the United States and in other countries1 Country comparison U.S. producers U.S. importers U.S. purchasers A F S N 0 A F S N 0 A F S N 0 U.S. vs. Australia 9 0 2 0 4 1 2 0 1 18 4 2 1 0 16 U.S. vs. Canada 11 2 0 0 2 4 4 1 1 12 10 5 0 0 10 U.S. vs. France 10 2 0 0 3 3 3 1 1 14 11 5 1 0 10 U.S. vs. Germany 12 2 1 0 0 2 6 1 1 12 9 5 3 0 8 U.S. vs. Japan 13 1 1 0 0 5 4 1 1 11 10 7 2 0 8 U.S. vs. Korea 11 2 0 0 2 4 4 0 1 15 12 6 2 0 8 U.S. vs. other countries 6 3 0 0 4 1 4 3 1 11 6 4 1 0 9 Australia vs. Canada 8 0 1 0 5 0 0 1 1 19 4 2 0 0 17 Australia vs. France 8 1 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 19 4 2 0 0 17 Australia vs. Germany 8 1 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 19 4 2 0 0 17 Australia vs. Japan 9 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 1 20 4 2 1 0 17 Australia vs. Korea 8 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 21 5 3 0 0 16 Australia vs. other countries 5 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 19 2 1 0 0 14 Canada vs. France 9 1 0 0 4 1 3 1 1 15 7 5 0 0 13 Canada vs. Germany 11 0 0 0 3 0 3 2 1 15 7 5 0 0 12 Canada vs. Japan 11 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 17 7 5 1 0 12 Canada vs. Korea 9 1 0 0 4 0 2 1 1 18 7 4 0 0 14 Canada vs. other countries 5 2 0 0 6 0 1 1 1 17 3 2 1 0 12 France vs. Germany 10 0 0 0 4 1 2 0 1 17 8 5 0 0 12 France vs. Japan 9 2 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 17 7 6 1 0 12 France vs. Korea 8 1 0 0 5 0 2 0 1 19 8 5 0 0 13 France vs. other countries 5 2 0 0 6 0 1 2 1 16 2 3 1 0 12 Germany vs. Japan 10 2 0 0 2 1 3 0 1 16 8 6 1 0 11 Germany vs. Korea 8 2 0 0 4 0 2 0 1 19 8 5 0 0 13 Germany vs. other countries 5 2 0 0 6 0 1 2 1 16 2 3 1 0 12 Japan vs. Korea 9 1 0 0 4 1 3 0 1 17 10 4 0 0 12 Japan vs. other countries 5 2 0 0 6 0 2 0 1 17 3 3 1 0 11 Korea vs. other countries 5 1 0 0 7 1 2 0 1 16 3 4 1 0 10 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if corrosion-resistant steel produced in the United States and in other countries is used interchangeably. Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never, and “0” = No familiarity. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 43 A large number of importers and, to a lesser extent, purchasers reported being unfamiliar with products from all of the specified country pairs. CORE-II-23 Generally, producers, importers, and purchasers reported that corrosion-resistant steel from the United States and from other countries are always or frequently interchangeable. For those firms that reported that corrosion-resistant steel is sometimes or never used interchangeably, they were asked to explain the factors that preclude or limit interchangeable use. *** reported that there may be some strict auto applications for which producers from some countries would have trouble meeting the specifications. *** reported that China and India offer large quantities at low prices. Reported factors cited by importers included differences in quality, thickness, width, and strength; the limited capabilities of some mills; limited technical support; and the inability to upgrade outdated equipment.43 *** reported that customers in different countries demand different specifications, and thus corrosion-resistant steel is never used interchangeably. *** reported that corrosion-resistant steel from the various countries is only sometimes interchangeable for the construction market. *** reported that some material grades or finishes are not produced in the United States or Canada. Reported factors cited by purchasers included different levels of quality, performance, and chemistry. *** reported that it was unable to achieve the required formability from German bake- hardenable steel; *** reported that U.S. mills cannot produce certain types of high-strength steel; *** reported that interchangeability is limited by production to end-use specifications and product qualification standards; and *** reported that capability is dependent on the supplier, not the country of origin. Producers and importers were asked to assess how often differences other than price were significant in sales of corrosion-resistant steel from the United States, subject countries, and nonsubject countries (table CORE-II-9). Generally, producers and importers reported that differences other than price were sometimes or never significant. For those firms that reported that factors other than price are always or frequently a significant factor in their sales of corrosion-resistant steel, they were asked to explain the advantages or disadvantages imparted by such factors. *** reported that quality, lead times, and transportation are significant non-price factors, and *** reported that a large part of its corrosion- resistant steel sales is used for federal and state transportation projects that are subject to “Buy American” provisions. Importers cited factors such as availability, technical capability, logistics, formability, product ranges, and technical support as significant non-price factors. *** reported that some customers have the perception that foreign corrosion-resistant steel is of lower quality. *** reported that it has the only coating line in *** approved for ***. *** reported that *** and is able to provide prompt delivery and technical support. *** reported that some products are not produced or only produced in a limited scope. CORE-II-24 Table CORE-II-9 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than price in sales of product produced in the United States and in other countries1 Country comparison U.S. producers U.S. importers A F S N 0 A F S N 0 U.S. vs. Australia 1 2 1 7 4 1 0 2 0 18 U.S. vs. Canada 1 3 2 7 2 1 1 5 3 11 U.S. vs. France 2 2 1 7 3 1 1 5 2 12 U.S. vs. Germany 2 4 2 7 0 2 0 7 1 11 U.S. vs. Japan 2 4 1 8 0 2 1 5 2 11 U.S. vs. Korea 1 3 1 8 2 1 0 3 4 15 U.S. vs. other countries 1 2 1 5 3 1 2 6 0 12 Australia vs. Canada 0 1 1 7 5 1 1 2 0 17 Australia vs. France 0 1 1 7 5 1 0 2 0 18 Australia vs. Germany 0 1 1 7 5 1 0 2 0 18 Australia vs. Japan 1 1 1 7 4 1 0 2 0 18 Australia vs. Korea 0 1 1 7 5 1 0 2 0 19 Australia vs. other countries 0 1 1 4 6 1 0 2 0 18 Canada vs. France 0 1 1 7 5 1 1 3 2 14 Canada vs. Germany 0 2 1 7 4 2 1 3 1 14 Canada vs. Japan 1 2 1 7 3 1 1 2 1 16 Canada vs. Korea 0 2 1 7 4 1 1 2 2 15 Canada vs. other countries 0 1 1 4 6 1 1 2 1 16 France vs. Germany 0 1 1 7 5 1 0 2 2 16 France vs. Japan 1 1 1 7 4 1 0 3 1 16 France vs. Korea 0 1 1 7 5 1 0 3 1 17 France vs. other countries 0 1 1 4 6 1 1 4 0 15 Germany vs. Japan 1 2 1 7 3 1 0 3 1 16 Germany vs. Korea 0 2 1 7 4 1 0 3 1 17 Germany vs. other countries 0 1 1 4 6 1 0 4 0 16 Japan vs. Korea 0 2 1 7 4 1 0 3 2 16 Japan vs. other countries 0 1 1 4 6 1 0 4 0 16 Korea vs. other countries 0 1 1 4 6 1 0 4 0 16 1 Producers and importers were asked if differences other than price between corrosion-resistant steel produced in the United States and in other countries are a significant factor in their sales of the products. Note.--“A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never, and “0” = No familiarity. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 44 Joint respondent interested parties reported that the domestic supply elasticity should be nearer to 0 and not more than 1, despite the reported domestic capacity utilization data. Joint respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 21. 45 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change. 46 Canadian producers suggested a range of 1 to 2 for the elasticity of substitution for Canada because the Canadian industry is almost solely focused on the automotive end use segment. Canadian respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 20. Although Canada’s export shipments to the U.S. market are *** to the automotive end use segment, *** of Canadian producers’ total shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is for non-automotive applications (see table CORE-IV-21). CORE-II-25 ELASTICITY ESTIMATES U.S. Supply Elasticity The domestic supply elasticity for corrosion-resistant steel measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of corrosion-resistant steel. The elasticity of domestic supply depends on several factors including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which producers can alter capacity, producers’ ability to shift to and from production of other products, the existence of inventories, and the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced corrosion-resistant steel. Earlier analysis of these factors indicates that the U.S. industry has a small to moderate ability to increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market; an estimate in the range of 1 to 3 is suggested. 44 U.S. Demand Elasticity The U.S. demand elasticity for corrosion-resistant steel measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of corrosion-resistant steel. This estimate depends on factors discussed earlier such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as well as the component share of corrosion-resistant steel in the production of any downstream products. Based on the available information, the aggregate demand elasticity for corrosion- resistant steel is likely to be in a range of -0.3 to -0.7. Substitution Elasticity The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the domestic and imported products.45 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality and conditions of sale. Based on available information concerning product range, quality, availability, and degree of substitution, the elasticity of substitution between domestic and subject corrosion-resistant steel is likely to be in the range of 3 to 5 for all six subject countries.46 1 Data in this section of the report include operations by several joint-venture toll producers as reported by their parent companies. ***. 2 Three U.S. producers provided business plans and four provided internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze future market conditions or market conditions if the subject orders were revoked. CORE-III-1 PART CORE-III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY The information in this section of the report was compiled from responses to the Commission’s questionnaires. Twenty-three firms, which, as noted in Part CORE-I, accounted for the vast majority of U.S. production of corrosion-resistant steel during the period for which data were collected, supplied information on their operations.1 2 Table CORE-III-1 summarizes important industry events that have taken place since January 2000. Table CORE-III-1 Corrosion-resistant steel: Important industry events, January 2000 - June 2006 Year Company Description of event (merger, shutdown, bankruptcy, change in capacity) 2000 Gulf States Steel Closure: While in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, mill closes and company is liquidated. The new owner subsequently announces plans to develop the property into an industrial park and sell the equipment to companies in China. Columbus Coatings Start-up: Columbus Coatings, a joint venture of Bethlehem Steel and LTV Steel, was previously a joint venture of LTV and Sumitomo producing electrogalvanized steel. It had been shut down, was converted to produce hot-dip galvanized and galvannealed steel, and was restarted. LTV Bankruptcy: Files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. 2001 Bethlehem Steel Bankruptcy: Files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Bankruptcy: Files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Double Eagle Steel Coating Company Disruption due to fire: Operations were suspended in December due to a fire. Double Eagle, a joint venture of U.S. Steel and Rouge Steel, was the largest electrogalvanizing operation in the United States. GalvPro Shut down: Operations are suspended at this hot-dip galvanizing firm, a joint venture of Weirton Steel and CORUS (Netherlands). 2002 AK-ISG Steel Coating Company Ownership Change: AK Steel acquired a 60 percent interest (40 percent from Sumitomo and 20 percent from ISG; ISG retains 40 percent ownership) in this electrogalvanizing operation. CSN Start-up: CSN started production. Double Eagle Steel Coating Company Operations resumed: Repairs to the facility were completed and operations resumed in September, after a nine month shutdown. LTV Bought out: ISG purchases assets of LTV. National Steel Bankruptcy: Files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. 2003 Bethlehem Bought out: ISG purchases assets of Bethlehem Steel. Weirton Steel Bankruptcy: Files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Rouge Steel Bankruptcy: Files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Steel Dynamics Restart: Purchases and restarts operations of GalvPro, a hot-dip galvanized plant. U.S. Steel Bought out: Acquires the integrated steelmaking assets of National Steel. WCI Bankruptcy: Enters Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Pinole Point Steel Company Shut down: Materials Science Corp. sold this California operation to Imsa Acero (Mexico), which shut down the hot-dip galvanizing line. Table continued on next page. 3 None of the U.S. producers reported the ability to switch production between corrosion-resistant steel and other products in response to a relative change in the price of corrosion-resistant steel vis-a-vis the price of other products, using the same equipment and labor. 4 Firms generally reported capacity as based on 168 hours per week and 50-52 weeks per year. ***. CORE-III-2 Table CORE-III-1--Continued Corrosion-resistant steel: Important industry events, January 2000 - June 2006 Year Company Description of event (merger, shutdown, bankruptcy, change in capacity) 2004 Weirton Steel Bought out: ISG purchases assets of Weirton Steel. Rouge Steel Bought out: Severstal North America purchases the assets of Rouge Steel. 2005 ISG Bought out: Mittal Steel USA acquires ISG. Mittal’s corrosion- resistant steel properties in the United States now include those previously owned by LTV Steel, Bethlehem Steel, Weirton Steel, and Ispat-Inland. Winner Steel New line started: Winner Steel started up a new line to produce 600,000 - 700,000 tons per year of hot-dip galvanized and galvannealed steel. SeverCorr New company started: Newly-formed steel company, SeverCorr, began construction of a new, $880 million steel mill in Columbus, MS. The new mill is expected to start up in 2007 and reach full capacity in 2008 of 1.5 million tons of steel products, of which 400,000 tons will be hot-dip galvanized and galvannealed steel. 2006 Mittal Steel USA Merger: Mittal Steel USA, parent company, Mittal Steel, NV, the largest steel company in the world, merged with Arcelor, the second- largest, forming an alliance with corrosion-resistant steel operations in 12 countries. AK-ISG Steel Coating Company Shut down: AK Steel, the majority owner announced the indefinite idling of this producer of electrogalvanized steel. Steelscape New line started: Hot-dip galvanizing line being relocated from CA to Shreveport, LA. Forecast to be completed in first quarter 2007. Mittal New line added: Starting up new line in Cleveland, OH, with 700,000 tons of hot-dip galvanizing capacity at Cleveland hot-dip galvanized coating line. Line will be able to produce at full capacity by the end of the first quarter in 2007. Nucor New line added: Announced a new hot-dip galvanizing line to be installed at Nucor Steel Decatur. Annual capacity will be 500,000 tons and the facility will have the ability to produce a 72-inch wide sheet. Source: AMM, Steel News, company websites and annual reports, and other press articles. U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION Table CORE-III-2 presents data concerning capacity, production, and capacity utilization for domestic producers of corrosion-resistant steel,3 while table CORE-III-3 details U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization for hot-dip galvanizing, electrogalvanizing, and other coating operations. Overall capacity fluctuated during the period for which data were collected, reflecting mill openings and closures. 4 Declining capacity and production from 2000 to 2001 reflects consolidations at ***, ***, Double Eagle’s disruption due to fire, and GalvPro’s closure. The increase in capacity in January-June 2006 reflects ***. Declining production in 2005 and the subsequent increase in January- June 2006 was an industry-wide trend. The main reported constraint on production capacity is the capacity of the production equipment. CORE-III-3 Table CORE-III-2 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 1 2004 2005 2005 2006 Capacity (short tons) 26,321,105 25,698,401 26,161,576 25,663,099 26,283,125 26,280,223 13,109,626 13,615,055 Production (short tons) 21,213,322 19,537,128 21,289,304 20,455,321 22,392,513 20,889,145 10,373,291 11,573,948 Capacity utilization (percent) 80.6 76.0 81.4 79.7 85.2 79.5 79.1 85.0 1 ***. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table CORE-III-3 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Hot-dip galvanized corrosion-resistant steel Capacity (short tons) 19,130,611 19,512,257 20,539,014 19,689,006 19,915,088 20,141,700 10,087,953 10,446,834 Production (short tons) 15,502,716 15,051,728 16,826,975 15,701,535 17,183,467 16,162,452 7,995,476 9,076,421 Capacity utilization (percent) 81.0 77.1 81.9 79.7 86.3 80.2 79.3 86.9 Electrolytic galvanized corrosion-resistant steel Capacity (short tons) 4,374,194 3,432,685 2,799,122 3,337,607 3,399,513 3,438,700 1,718,600 1,781,000 Production (short tons) 3,405,509 2,564,631 1,991,769 2,697,326 2,622,153 2,573,642 1,345,587 1,306,639 Capacity utilization (percent) 77.9 74.7 71.2 80.8 77.1 74.8 78.3 73.4 Other corrosion-resistant steel1 Capacity (short tons) 2,882,300 2,786,459 2,823,440 2,636,486 2,968,524 2,699,823 1,303,073 1,387,221 Production (short tons) 2,368,789 1,941,950 2,471,560 2,057,460 2,586,893 2,153,051 1,032,228 1,191,793 Capacity utilization (percent) 82.2 69.7 87.5 78.0 87.1 79.7 79.2 85.9 Total corrosion-resistant steel Capacity (short tons) 26,387,105 25,731,401 26,161,576 25,663,099 26,283,125 26,280,223 13,109,626 13,615,055 Production (short tons) 21,277,014 19,558,309 21,290,304 20,456,321 22,392,513 20,889,145 10,373,291 11,574,853 Capacity utilization (percent) 80.6 76.0 81.4 79.7 85.2 79.5 79.1 85.0 1 Includes aluminum, zinc-aluminum, nickel, and copper. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to posthearing questions from the Commission. 5 Several firms reported no changes to their operations: ***. 6 International Herald Tribune, “Arcelor Mittal To Make ‘Best Efforts’ To Wrap Up Merger By June 2007,” retrieved at http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/14/business/EU_FIN_Luxembourg_Arcelor_Mittal.php, on November 15, 2006. 7 This line was closed in 2005. 8 SeverCorr web site, http://severcorr.com/products/lines/default.asp, retrieved September 12, 2006. 9 http://www.globalprincipal.com/projectfinance.htm, retrieved September 12, 2006. 10 American Metal Market, “Nucor targets transplants with new galvanizing line,” June 15, 2006. CORE-III-4 Several responding firms reported changes to their operations relating to the production of corrosion-resistant steel since 2000. 5 In April 2002, ISG acquired all of LTV Steel’s assets out of bankruptcy and restarted the idled Indiana Harbor and Hennepin facilities. In July 2002, CSN started production of corrosion-resistant steel. In May 2003, ISG acquired the assets of Bethlehem Steel, as well as some equity interests in certain joint ventures. In May 2003, ISG acquired out of bankruptcy all of the assets of Weirton Steel. In December 2004, Ispat International completed its acquisition of LNM Holdings and changed its name to Mittal Steel. Ispat Inland became a wholly owned subsidiary of Mittal. In April 2005, ISG merged with Park Acquisition, a wholly owned subsidiary of Mittal. This transaction resulted in a name change and change in ownership; however, each of ISG’s steelmaking facilities continued to produce. In December 2005, Ispat Inland merged with and into Mittal. In June 2006, Mittal announced that it reached an agreement with Arcelor to combine the two companies. The merger is undergoing review, and they hope to complete it by June 2007.6 In 2001, USS-POSCO experienced a fire in its cold reduction mill, which affected its production of corrosion-resistant steel. ***. In December 2001, the Rouge and U.S. Steel joint venture, Double Eagle, experienced a fire which shut it down until September 2002. In 2002, AK and ISG (now Mittal) formed the joint venture LSE, now named AK-ISG. This electrogalvanizing facility is currently idled. In 2003, U.S. Steel purchased the assets of National Steel. Steelscape acquired MSC’s Pinole Point paintline in Richmond, CA, in 2004 7 and acquired the Polymer paintline located in Fairfield, AL, in 2004. In 2003, Rouge filed for bankruptcy and its assets were acquired by Severstal in January 2004. Pro-Tec reported that during the period of review, it ***. Through the development and commercialization of ***. In October 2005, a newly-formed steel company, SeverCorr, began construction of a new, $880 million steel mill in Columbus, MS. The new mill is expected to start up in 2007 and reach full capacity in 2008 of 1.5 million tons of steel products, of which 400,000 tons will be hot-dip galvanized and galvannealed steel.8 Russian steelmaker OAO Severstal Group is the main equity investor in the project. Financing for the project comprises $220 million in equity, $36.5 million in government grants, and $625 million in debt, including a $60 million loan from the State of Mississippi.9 Anticipated Changes in Existing Operations In addition to the previously noted construction already underway by SeverCorr, in June 2006, Nucor announced that it would spend about $150 million to construct a new galvanizing facility to produce about 500,000 tons per year of hot-dip galvanized steel at its plant in Decatur, AL.10 In 2006, Mittal began bringing on line *** tons of hot-dip galvanizing capability at its Cleveland hot-dip galvanized coating line. The line will be able to produce at full capacity ***. In addition, by the end of 2006 Mittal will shut down ***, will shut down ***, and will convert ***. In August 2005, as part of an 11 American Metal Market, “After a rough ride, galvanized is ready to roll on West Coast,” August 22, 2005. 12 http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0611100224nov10,0,7996264.story?coll=chi-business-hed, retrieved November 13, 2006. 13 Testimony of Lou Schorsch, Chief Executive Officer of Flat Products Americas for Arcelor Mittal, hearing transcript, p. 128. See also American Metal Market, “AK Steel sets 100,000T steel output cut as demand wanes,” October 24, 2006, and “USS idling up to 4 furnaces to year-end,” November 1, 2006. 14 Testimony of Douglas Gant, Vice President, Sales and Customer Service, AK, hearing transcript, p. 152. 15 ThyssenKrupp Steel’s importer questionnaire, appendix I-5; hearing transcript, pp. 521-522 (Gruenbage). 16 American Metal Market, “A $2.9B surprise announcement sets off sirens across the heartland,” August 11, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-08-11__21-18-50.html, retrieved on November 15, 2006. See also American Metal Market, “ThyssenKrupp mulling Mobile as plant locale,” November 9, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-11-09__19-09-49.html, retrieved on November 15, 2006. American Metal Market noted the availability of Gulf Opportunity Zone financing available for a ThyssenKrupp plant in Alabama. Ibid. 17 ***. 18 ***. CORE-III-5 expansion backed by its Mexican parent company, IMSA Acero, Steelscape announced that it would move its idled Richmond, CA, to a new site in Shreveport, LA. 11 More recently, the directors of WPS have backed a friendly purchase offer from CSN, however steel service center Esmark has offered a competing proposal that is backed by the USWA.12 WPS’s annual shareholder meeting was held on November 17, 2006. Esmark’s slate of directors was voted in at the shareholder meeting; they will likely vote in favor of Esmark’s offer. Mittal reported that it has idled two of its ten blast furnaces, one of which is its Weirton facility, with additional output cuts reported by AK Steel and U.S. Steel.13 AK and Mittal have indefinitely idled their jointly-owned electrogalvanized facility in Cleveland.14 Finally, Thyssen is considering a “Greenfield-Option” (construction of new downstream facilities such as rolling and coating lines in the United States) or a “Brownfield-Option” (joint-venture/acquisition of downstream facilities from traditional U.S. producers). 15 Reportedly, Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana are being considered for a hot-strip mill, cold-rolling facilities, and hot-dip galvanizing operations, in addition to a proposed stainless steel mill. Of the three locations, Alabama (specifically Mobile) is believed to be a strong contender. 16 Alternative Products A majority of responding firms reported that they do not produce alternative products on the same equipment or using the same employees. 17 *** reported that it produces hot-rolled sheet and cold-rolled sheet on the same equipment. *** reported that it produces nonsubject alloy and stainless corrosion- resistant steel on the same equipment. *** reported that it produces aluminized stainless and TZ aluminized on the same equipment. As shown in table CORE-III-4, the majority of corrosion-resistant steel production by U.S. mills is subject merchandise, primarily hot-dip galvanized steel. Production of hot-dip galvanized steel was sharply higher in January-June 2006 compared to January-June 2005, while production of electrogalvanized steel was lower. The U.S. mills reported very minor production of micro-alloy steel, and to a slightly greater extent other forms of nonsubject merchandise on the same equipment used to produce subject corrosion-resistant steel.18 Further data including production of micro-alloy corrosion- resistant steel are presented in appendix C. 19 Additional details regarding U.S. shipments of corrosion-resistant steel appear in Part CORE-IV. CORE-III-6 Table CORE-III-4 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization for subject and nonsubject corrosion-resistant steel, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year 2005 Jan.-June 2005 Jan.-June 2006 Average production capacity for all subject and nonsubject corrosion-resistant steel (short tons) 26,396,301 13,174,515 13,662,015 Production of subject electrolytic galvanized corrosion-resistant steel (short tons)1 2,573,642 1,345,587 1,305,639 Production of subject hot-dip galvanized corrosion-resistant steel (short tons)2 16,162,107 7,995,005 9,076,144 Production of other subject corrosion- resistant steel (short tons) 3 2,153,051 1,032,228 1,191,793 Production of specifically excluded corrosion-resistant steel (short tons) *** *** *** Production of micro-alloy corrosion- resistant steel (short tons) *** *** *** Production of other nonsubject alloy and stainless steel corrosion-resistant steel (short tons)4 *** *** *** Total production of corrosion-resistant steel 20,888,800 10,372,820 11,573,576 Capacity utilization 79.5 79.0 84.9 1 Includes AK, Arrow, Canfield, Mittal, Severstal, U.S. Steel. 2 Includes AK, CSI, CSN, Gregory, Mittal, Nucor, Pro-Tec, Severstal, SDI, Steelscape, the Techs, U.S. Steel, USS-POSCO, WCI, Wheeling-Nisshin, Wheeling-Pittsburgh, Winner, Worthington. 3 Includes AK, Apollo, Mittal, Steelscape, Thomas, U.S. Steel, Wheeling-Nisshin. 4 Includes aluminum, zinc-aluminum, nickel, and copper. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. PRODUCERS’ DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS, COMPANY TRANSFERS, AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS Data on domestic producers’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel are presented in table CORE- III-5. Over the period for which data were collected, the quantity and value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments fluctuated, reflecting industry-wide trends. However, after decreasing in 2001, U.S. shipment average unit values increased steadily through 2005. A majority of U.S. shipments was of galvanized, unpainted, corrosion-resistant steel for the non-automotive market. 19 *** accounted for the majority of internal consumption/transfers to related companies. CORE-III-7 Table CORE-III-5 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January- June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) Commercial shipments 19,916,350 18,450,288 19,904,725 19,353,863 21,010,427 19,172,077 9,545,833 10,665,457 Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments 19,916,350 18,450,288 19,904,725 19,353,863 21,010,427 19,172,077 9,545,833 10,665,457 Export shipments 768,345 773,824 773,777 743,837 732,528 868,101 417,280 564,989 Total 20,684,695 19,224,112 20,678,502 20,097,700 21,742,955 20,040,178 9,963,113 11,230,446 Value (1,000 dollars) Commercial shipments 10,873,648 9,140,980 10,386,228 10,489,221 14,423,947 13,730,784 7,053,762 7,796,700 Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments 10,873,648 9,140,980 10,386,228 10,489,221 14,423,947 13,730,784 7,053,762 7,796,700 Export shipments 493,852 484,797 480,139 470,735 490,781 592,133 291,424 390,806 Total 11,367,500 9,625,777 10,866,367 10,959,956 14,914,728 14,322,917 7,345,186 8,187,506 Unit value (per short ton) Commercial shipments $546 $495 $522 $542 $687 $716 $739 $731 Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments 547 496 522 542 687 716 739 731 Export shipments 643 626 621 633 670 682 698 692 Average 551 501 525 545 686 715 737 729 Table continued on next page. 20 The following firms reported exports: ***. 21 *** reported that if imported material is less costly, customers will consider less costly comparable materials. *** reported that it competes against NAFTA countries producing corrosion-resistant flat steel and exporting it to the United States. *** reported that free trade agreements impact market conditions. 22 To provide public data, this tabulation is based on official export statistics of Commerce for the following HTS statistical reporting numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.90.5000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.0000, and 7212.50.0000. While these data are not an exact match with domestic producers’ reported exports, Staff believes that they accurately reflect the magnitude and trend in exports to primary markets. 23 In 2004, Canada rescinded antidumping orders on corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Shipments of corrosion-resistant steel to Canadian auto plants were excluded from the orders in the first sunset review. Canadian interested parties’ brief, exhibit 2, pp. 23-30. CORE-III-8 Table CORE-III-5--Continued Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January- June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Share of quantity (percent) Commercial shipments 94.5 93.6 93.5 93.2 93.2 91.6 91.6 91.0 Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments 96.4 96.1 96.4 96.4 96.8 95.9 96.0 95.2 Export shipments 3.6 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.2 4.1 4.0 4.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Share of value (percent) Commercial shipments 93.7 92.6 92.8 92.7 93.3 91.7 91.8 91.2 Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments 95.7 95.1 95.7 95.8 96.8 96.0 96.2 95.4 Export shipments 4.3 4.9 4.3 4.2 3.2 4.0 3.8 4.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. *** account for the majority of U.S. exports. 20 Exports as a share of total shipments ranged between 3.2 and 4.1 percent, based on quantity. Most U.S. producers reported that free trade agreements, such as NAFTA, do not affect the character of their operations.21 Nonetheless, as the following tabulation demonstrates, exports to Canada and Mexico ranged from between 88 and 98 percent of U.S. exports of corrosion-resistant steel.22 23 CORE-III-9 Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 January- June 2005 January- June 2006 Quantity (short tons) Canada 362,134 294,762 282,061 269,550 382,305 592,578 291,004 306,696 Mexico 329,700 348,474 312,799 223,188 227,155 276,911 119,861 214,396 All others 38,645 27,396 18,958 67,691 20,800 40,981 25,826 12,450 Total 730,479 670,632 613,818 560,429 630,260 910,470 436,691 533,542 U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES Table CORE-III-6 presents data on U.S. producers’ inventories of corrosion-resistant steel. U.S. producers maintained inventories equivalent to 7.7 to 9.9 percent of their total shipments over the period 2000-05, and 6.6 percent in January-June 2006. *** accounted for the majority of the decline in inventories from 2000 to 2005, and *** accounted for the majority of the decline in June 2006. Table CORE-III-6 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ inventories, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) Inventories 2,086,296 1,900,994 1,939,320 1,855,669 1,745,399 1,701,618 1,682,752 1,543,810 Ratio (percent) Ratio to production 9.8 9.7 9.1 9.1 7.8 8.1 8.1 6.7 Ratio to U.S. shipments 10.3 10.0 9.5 9.3 8.0 8.5 8.4 6.9 Ratio to total shipments 9.9 9.6 9.1 8.9 7.7 8.1 8.1 6.6 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Figure CORE-III-1 also provides information on steel sheet inventories held by U.S. service centers, by months. These data, however, are for all steel sheet and are not limited to corrosion-resistant steel. 24 ***. CORE-III-10 Figure CORE-III-1 Carbon steel sheet: Inventories held by U.S. service centers, by months, January 2000-October 20061 1 SSCI data include all sheet, not just corrosion-resistant steel. Also, these inventories include sheet from both domestic and foreign sources. Source: Business conditions, Steel Service Center Institute (Cleveland, OH), October 2006. U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES One U.S. producer of corrosion-resistant steel, ***, reported purchases of imported corrosion- resistant steel from subject sources. Two U.S. producers, ***, reported imports from subject sources.24 Overall, U.S. producers’ purchases and/or imports were equivalent to *** percent or less of their production in a given year. Table CORE-III-7 presents data on U.S. producers’ purchases and/or imports of corrosion-resistant steel. Table CORE-III-7 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ purchases and imports, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January- June 2006 * * * * * * * U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY Table CORE-III-8 presents data on U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity. Over the period for which data were collected, employment measured by PRWs dropped steadily from 2001 to 2005. *** accounted for a majority of the decline in employment in 2002, *** accounted for a majority 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 01-Jan-00 01-Apr-00 01-Jul-00 01-Oct-00 01-Jan-01 01-Apr-01 01-Jul-01 01-Oct-01 01-Jan-02 01-Apr-02 01-Jul-02 01-Oct-02 01-Jan-03 01-Apr-03 01-Jul-03 01-Oct-03 01-Jan-04 01-Apr-04 01-Jul-04 01-Oct-04 01-Jan-05 01-Apr-05 01-Jul-05 01-Oct-05 01-Jan-06 01-Apr-06 01-Jul-06 01-Oct-06 Month/Year 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Inventories (thousand tons) Shipments on Hand (number of months) 25 Employment data were substantially lower in 2003. This stems from the manner in which *** reported its data. The data *** reported for 2000-02, and the initial portion of 2003 are ***. As a result, the *** cannot reconcile. 26 USW’s response to Commission questions, p. 1. 27 See, e.g., AK Steel Holding Corporation, Form 10-Q, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006; American Metal Market, “AK Steel, union negotiators going back to bargaining table next week,” November 6, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-11-06__15-03-17.html, retrieved on November 7, 2006. 28 The firms (and their fiscal year ends if other than December 31) are: AK, Apollo, Canfield, CSI, Mittal, Nucor, Pro-Tec, SDI, Severstal, Steelscape, The Techs, Thomas, U.S. Steel, USS-POSCO, WCI, Wheeling-Nisshin, WPS, Winner, and Worthington (May 31). Commission staff verified the U.S. producers’ questionnaire response of ***, and the results of the verification are incorporated in this report. 29 ***, ***, and *** did not provide financial data. If these firms were included in the data, they would account for less than 2.0 percent of total net sales (quantity and value) in 2005. CORE-III-11 Table CORE-III-8 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Production and related workers (number) 24,546 24,568 20,868 15,211 13,999 13,348 13,248 12,765 Hours worked (1,000) 50,757 44,888 41,018 32,512 31,531 29,927 15,071 15,368 Wages paid ($1,000) 1,351,324 1,239,246 1,169,095 953,944 1,006,506 960,111 496,212 482,091 Hourly wages $26.50 $27.43 $28.27 $29.06 $31.56 $31.70 $32.54 $30.99 Productivity (short tons per 1,000 hours) 410.1 424.8 506.3 613.4 692.7 681.0 670.2 730.6 Unit labor costs (per short ton) $63.83 $63.55 $55.01 $46.72 $45.03 $46.06 $47.96 $41.74 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. of the decline in 2003, and *** accounted for a majority of the decrease in 2005.25 Productivity increased from 2000 to 2004, leveled off in 2005, and increased again in January-June 2006. Unit labor costs decreased from 2000 to 2004, leveled off in 2005, and decreased again in January-June 2006. ***. 26 The collective bargaining agreement between AK and its union expired on March 1, 2006. On that day AK locked out its union workers and began operating its Middletown Works using salaried and replacement workers. Negotiations are continuing at this time.27 FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCERS Background Nineteen U.S. producers provided usable financial data on their operations on corrosion-resistant steel. 28 29 These data are believed to account for the majority of U.S. production of corrosion-resistant steel in 2005. While some firms reported internal consumption and/or transfers, the quantity and value of these affiliated party transactions were small, accounting for less than 4.0 percent of total sales (quantity and value) in 2005. Accordingly, these data are not presented separately in this section of the report. In addition, some firms reported tolling operations; however, the quantity and value of such operations were 30 ***, reported only tolling operations. Data for ***, are included in appendix C, tables C-9 and C-10. CORE-III-12 small, accounting for less than 2.0 percent of total net sales (quantity and value) in 2005, and generally were reported inconsistently. These data also are not presented separately in this section of the report.30 Operations on Corrosion-Resistant Steel Income-and-loss data for U.S. producers on their operations on corrosion-resistant steel are presented in table CORE-III-9. Selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table CORE-III-10. The domestic industry experienced negative operating income in 2001 and 2002 before returning to profitability in 2003. Operating profits improved sharply in 2004, then declined in 2005 and were lower in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005; however, reported operating income for 2005 was still higher than that reported in 2000-03. Net sales quantities declined from 2000 to 2003 by 3.0 percent, increased from 2003 to 2005 by 5.8 percent, and were 12.2 percent higher in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005. Net sales values declined from 2000 to 2003 by 5.6 percent, increased from 2003 to 2005 by 40.5 percent, and were 10.8 percent higher in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005. Ten of the 18 producers operating continuously from 2000 to 2003 reported improved operating profitability while the other eight producers reported diminished operating profitability. As discussed in table CORE- III-10, data for 2003 are impacted by limited available information to *** regarding ***. Table CORE-III-9 Corrosion-resistant steel: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Fiscal year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) Total net sales 20,141,105 19,629,769 20,954,676 19,537,241 22,276,759 20,679,606 10,283,775 11,534,931 Value ($1,000) Total net sales 11,091,856 9,797,243 10,989,071 10,474,476 15,186,936 14,712,596 7,577,331 8,392,791 COGS 10,514,307 9,868,736 10,726,907 9,911,144 13,047,722 13,466,769 6,734,611 7,706,522 Gross profit (loss) 577,549 (71,493) 262,164 563,332 2,139,214 1,245,827 842,720 686,269 SG&A expenses 425,968 413,626 435,988 489,043 494,894 528,038 263,114 253,582 Operating income (loss) 151,581 (485,119) (173,824) 74,289 1,644,320 717,789 579,606 432,687 Interest expense 270,739 281,791 219,480 197,228 206,004 179,832 81,830 103,018 CDSOA income 0 8,240 5,125 14,416 17,235 6,593 0 0 Other income/(expense) 50,357 6,953 29,850 (23,794) (65,032) (102,396) (46,757) (48,824) Net income (loss) (68,801) (751,717) (358,329) (132,317) 1,390,519 442,154 451,019 280,845 Depreciation 629,990 633,098 557,124 441,823 421,944 404,494 208,758 218,493 Cash flow 561,189 (118,619) 198,795 309,506 1,812,463 846,648 659,777 499,338 Table continued on next page. CORE-III-13 Table CORE-III-9--Continued Corrosion-resistant steel: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Fiscal year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Ratio to net sales (percent) COGS: Raw materials 42.1 45.3 44.4 49.8 51.7 55.6 54.8 58.3 Direct labor 11.3 11.5 9.3 9.8 7.9 7.9 7.7 7.7 Other factory costs 41.4 43.9 43.9 35.0 26.3 28.0 26.4 25.8 Total COGS 94.8 100.7 97.6 94.7 85.9 91.5 88.9 91.8 Gross profit (loss) 5.2 (0.7) 2.4 5.3 14.1 8.5 11.1 8.2 SG&A expenses 3.8 4.2 4.0 4.7 3.3 3.6 3.5 3.0 Operating income (loss) 1.4 (5.0) (1.6) 0.7 10.8 4.9 7.6 5.2 Net income (loss) (0.6) (7.7) (3.3) (1.3) 9.2 3.0 6.0 3.3 Unit value (per short ton) Total net sales $551 $499 $524 $536 $682 $711 $737 $728 COGS: Raw materials 232 226 233 267 352 396 404 424 Direct labor 62 57 49 52 54 56 57 56 Other factory costs 228 219 230 188 179 200 194 188 Total COGS 522 503 512 507 586 651 655 668 Gross profit (loss) 29 (4) 13 29 96 60 82 59 SG&A expenses 21 21 21 25 22 26 26 22 Operating income (loss) 8 (25) (8) 4 74 35 56 38 Net income (loss) (3) (38) (17) (7) 62 21 44 24 Number of firms reporting Operating losses 5 10 7 6 1 5 2 6 Data 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. The industry-wide financial results improved sharply from 2003 to 2004. Per-unit operating income substantially improved as the increase in per-unit net sales values ($146 per short ton) was greater than the combined effects of an increase in unit cost of goods sold (“COGS”) ($78 per short ton) and a decline in selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses ($3 per short ton). The 2003 to 2004 improvement in operating income was reflected in 18 of 19 reporting firms’ financial data. The domestic industry’s total and per-unit operating income declined from 2004 to 2005 and was lower in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005; however, 2005 operating income was still higher than in 2000-03. In 2005, the increase in per-unit net sales values ($30 per short ton) was smaller than the increase in COGS ($66 per short ton) and SG&A expenses ($3 per short ton). The overall decline from 2004 to 2005 was experienced by the majority (17 of 19 producers) of the industry. 31 Integrated producers of corrosion-resistant steel and any related joint ventures that provided financial data were asked to confirm that inputs from related firms were appropriately accounted for in their reported cost data. All companies except *** confirmed that such costs were accounted for in the manner requested by the Commission. ***. ***. *** accounted for approximately *** percent of total sales during the period of review. CORE-III-14 Per-unit net sales values were lower ($9 per short ton) while per-unit costs and expenses were higher ($10 per short ton) in January-June 2006 as compared to January-June 2005. The overall decline in operating income for January-June 2006 as compared to January-June 2005 was reflected in about half (10 of 19 producers) of reporting firms’ financial data. From 2003 to 2005, the increase in COGS is due primarily to the increase in raw material costs. During this time, per-unit raw material costs increased by 48 percent, while per-unit direct labor and other factory costs combined increased by 6 percent.31 Table CORE-III-10 Corrosion-resistant steel: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * A variance analysis for corrosion-resistant steel is presented in table CORE-III-11. The information for this variance analysis is derived from table CORE-III-9. The variance analysis provides an assessment of changes in profitability as it relates to changes in pricing, cost, and volume. The analysis shows that the improvement in operating income from 2000 to 2005 is primarily attributable to the higher favorable price variance despite an increased unfavorable net cost/expense variance (prices rose higher than costs and expenses). The lower operating income in January-June 2006 as compared to January-June 2005 is attributable to an unfavorable net cost/expense variance coupled with an unfavorable price variance (prices declined and costs/expenses increased) despite a favorable volume variance. CORE-III-15 Table CORE-III-11 Corrosion-resistant steel: Variance analysis on operations of U.S. producers, 2000-05, and January-June 2005-06 Item Between fiscal years January- June 2000-05 1 2000-01 1 2001-02 2002-03 1 2003-04 1 2004-05 2005-06 Value ($1,000) Total net sales: Price variance 3,324,184 (1,013,016) 530,565 228,738 3,243,726 614,502 (106,422) Volume variance 296,556 (281,597) 661,263 (743,333) 1,468,734 (1,088,842) 921,882 Total net sales variance 3,620,740 (1,294,613) 1,191,828 (514,595) 4,712,460 (474,340) 815,460 Cost of sales: Cost variance (2,671,347) 378,637 (192,083) 90,164 (1,746,834) (1,354,516) (152,557) Volume variance (281,115) 266,934 (666,088) 725,599 (1,389,744) 935,469 (819,354) Total cost variance (2,952,462) 645,571 (858,171) 815,763 (3,136,578) (419,047) (971,911) Gross profit variance 668,278 (649,042) 333,657 301,168 1,575,882 (893,387) (156,451) SG&A expenses: Expense variance (90,681) 1,528 5,556 (82,546) 62,723 (68,626) 41,543 Volume variance (11,389) 10,814 (27,918) 29,491 (68,574) 35,482 (32,011) Total SG&A variance (102,070) 12,342 (22,362) (53,055) (5,851) (33,144) 9,532 Operating income variance 566,208 (636,700) 311,295 248,113 1,570,031 (926,531) (146,919) Summarized as: Price variance 3,324,184 (1,013,016) 530,565 228,738 3,243,726 614,502 (106,422) Net cost/expense variance (2,762,028) 380,165 (186,527) 7,617 (1,684,112) (1,423,141) (111,014) Net volume variance 4,053 (3,848) (32,743) 11,758 10,417 (117,891) 70,517 1 ***. Note.-- Unfavorable variances are shown in parentheses; all others are favorable. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses The responding firms’ aggregate data on capital expenditures and research and development (“R&D”) expenses are shown in table CORE-III-12. Aggregate capital expenditures and aggregate R&D expenses irregularly increased from 2000 to 2005 but were lower in January-June 2006 than in January- June 2005. No specific firms accounted for the vast majority of reported capital expenditures during the review period; however, *** and *** accounted for the majority of reported R&D expenses during the entire review period. In total, 19 firms reported capital expenditures and seven firms reported R&D expenses. Table CORE-III-12 Corrosion-resistant steel: Capital expenditures and research and development expenses of U.S. producers, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Fiscal year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Value ($1,000) Capital expenditures 295,331 147,966 123,107 256,994 243,622 428,147 175,737 153,316 R&D expenses 15,950 18,603 73,025 27,885 32,190 34,022 16,557 15,957 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. CORE-III-16 Assets and Return on Investment The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing, and sale of corrosion-resistant steel to compute return on investment (“ROI”). Although ROI can be computed in many different ways, a commonly used method is income divided by total assets. Therefore, ROI is calculated as operating income divided by total assets used in the production, warehousing, and sale of corrosion-resistant steel. Data on the U.S. corrosion-resistant producers’ total assets and their ROI are presented in table CORE-III-13. The total assets utilized in the production, warehousing, and sale of corrosion-resistant steel increased from $7.8 billion in 2000 to $10.3 billion in 2005, with the increase in current assets from 2003 to 2004 due mostly to the increases in the prices and costs for corrosion-resistant steel. The ROI was negative in 2001 and 2002, and 2.0 percent or less in 2000 and 2003. The ROI improved to 16.6 percent in 2004, but then decreased to 7.0 percent in 2005. Table CORE-III-13 Corrosion-resistant steel: Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, 2000-05 Item Fiscal year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Value of assets: Value ($1,000) Current assets: Cash and equivalents 124,297 177,744 249,393 177,238 513,659 744,524 Accounts receivable, net 825,578 793,277 852,422 1,068,696 1,388,324 1,287,543 Inventories 1,310,230 1,285,895 1,321,680 1,738,231 2,003,360 2,172,794 Other 230,382 204,319 182,237 184,548 341,481 343,691 Total current assets 2,490,487 2,461,235 2,605,732 3,168,713 4,246,824 4,548,552 Property, plant and equipment: Original cost 7,385,041 8,093,523 8,347,262 8,905,087 8,786,635 9,336,873 Less: accumulated depreciation 3,234,953 3,708,503 4,105,185 4,234,788 4,449,989 4,658,686 Equals: book value 4,150,088 4,385,020 4,242,077 4,670,299 4,336,646 4,678,187 Other non-current assets 1,159,795 1,202,419 1,185,199 1,098,834 1,317,525 1,067,123 Total assets 7,800,370 8,048,674 8,033,008 8,937,846 9,900,995 10,293,862 Operating income or (loss)1 153,790 (473,279) (172,333) 87,700 1,638,839 718,025 Share (percent) Return on investment 1 2.0 (5.9) (2.1) 1.0 16.6 7.0 1 ***. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 1 Ten firms indicated that they were not importing corrosion-resistant steel. 2 Consistent with data presented in the first reviews, data for corrosion-resistant steel are compiled from HTS statistical reporting numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, and 7212.50.0000. 3 India, Taiwan, and Mexico were the largest sources for U.S. imports from nonsubject countries. 4 Corrosion-resistant steel from Russia was subject to U.S. import restrictions (initially set at 55,000 metric tons) from July 1999 through July 2004. Presidential Proclamation 7210 of July 22, 1999, 64 FR 40723, July 27, 1999. CORE-IV-1 PART CORE-IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRIES U.S. IMPORTS Import data in this report are from official Commerce statistics for corrosion-resistant steel. The Commission sent importers’ questionnaires to all U.S. producers as well as to 42 firms believed to have imported corrosion-resistant steel between 2000 and 2005, and received usable data from 27 of the firms.1 Based on official Commerce statistics for imports of corrosion-resistant steel, firms providing usable responses accounted for 82 percent of subject imports from all sources in 2005. The Commission received responses from firms accounting for a substantial share of imports of corrosion-resistant steel from Canada, Germany, and Korea; partial responses with respect to imports from France and Japan; and no responses with respect to imports from Australia. Table CORE-IV-1 presents information on subject imports of corrosion-resistant steel from each of the subject countries and from all nonsubject countries for the period January 2000 to June 2006. 2 Combined imports of corrosion-resistant steel from the subject countries fluctuated but increased overall during the period for which data were collected. The United States also imported corrosion-resistant steel from other countries (table CORE-IV-2). Nonsubject countries accounted for 63 percent of the quantity and value of U.S. imports of corrosion-resistant steel in 2005.3 4 The quantity of corrosion-resistant imports from all sources fluctuated but increased overall from 2000 to 2005. As a share of total imports, subject imports decreased from 44 percent in 2000 to 37 percent in 2005. The average unit values of subject imports of corrosion-resistant steel fell between 2000 and 2001, then increased through 2005, but were lower in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005. CORE-IV-2 Table CORE-IV-1 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. Imports, by source, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Source Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) Australia 220 176 275 297 119 16 16 3 Canada 380,490 331,774 530,248 552,434 524,711 547,326 281,944 291,356 France 3,608 9,302 15,753 6,530 4,613 1,778 1,728 190 Germany 46,453 23,557 53,479 34,530 31,191 75,941 48,977 20,939 Japan 27,543 17,338 24,304 18,570 19,628 16,762 8,693 11,012 Korea 253,528 235,041 212,413 113,810 201,002 330,858 181,205 272,592 Subtotal, subject 711,842 617,188 836,473 726,171 781,264 972,681 522,563 596,092 All other sources 919,625 933,033 1,325,751 936,741 2,424,153 1,647,998 932,153 1,372,961 Total 1,631,467 1,550,221 2,162,224 1,662,911 3,205,416 2,620,679 1,454,716 1,969,053 Value (1,000 dollars)1 Australia 216 228 260 262 123 22 22 4 Canada 208,645 173,957 292,684 331,067 341,546 398,538 207,943 221,845 France 1,543 3,944 8,601 3,848 3,268 1,949 1,745 379 Germany 28,221 13,955 30,585 20,312 17,999 48,634 31,540 14,718 Japan 23,072 15,273 30,092 20,206 19,464 19,054 9,959 13,684 Korea 140,605 123,305 122,919 77,195 156,934 285,156 157,308 206,273 Subtotal, subject 402,301 330,662 485,142 452,890 539,333 753,352 408,519 456,903 All other sources 481,017 420,783 647,862 515,137 1,808,700 1,286,429 763,351 926,215 Total 883,318 751,445 1,133,004 968,027 2,348,033 2,039,782 1,171,870 1,383,118 Unit value (per short ton) Australia $981 $1,292 $945 $883 $1,039 $1,348 $1,348 $1,596 Canada 548 524 552 599 651 728 738 761 France 428 424 546 589 708 1,096 1,010 1,996 Germany 608 592 572 588 577 640 644 703 Japan 838 881 1,238 1,088 992 1,137 1,146 1,243 Korea 555 525 579 678 781 862 868 757 Subaverage, subject 565 536 580 624 690 775 782 766 All other sources 523 451 489 550 746 781 819 675 Average 541 485 524 582 733 778 806 702 Table continued on next page. CORE-IV-3 Table CORE-IV-1--Continued Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. Imports, by source, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Source Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Share of quantity (percent) Australia (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) Canada 23.3 21.4 24.5 33.2 16.4 20.9 19.4 14.8 France 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 (2 ) Germany 2.8 1.5 2.5 2.1 1.0 2.9 3.4 1.1 Japan 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Korea 15.5 15.2 9.8 6.8 6.3 12.6 12.5 13.8 Subtotal, subject 43.6 39.8 38.7 43.7 24.4 37.1 35.9 30.3 All other sources 56.4 60.2 61.3 56.3 75.6 62.9 64.1 69.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Share of value (percent) Australia (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) Canada 23.6 23.1 25.8 34.2 14.5 19.5 17.7 16.0 France 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 (2 ) Germany 3.2 1.9 2.7 2.1 0.8 2.4 2.7 1.1 Japan 2.6 2.0 2.7 2.1 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 Korea 15.9 16.4 10.8 8.0 6.7 14.0 13.4 14.9 Subtotal, subject 45.5 44.0 42.8 46.8 23.0 36.9 34.9 33.0 All other sources 54.5 56.0 57.2 53.2 77.0 63.1 65.1 67.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Ratio of import quantity to U.S. production (percent) Australia (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) Canada 1.8 1.7 2.5 2.9 2.4 2.7 2.8 2.6 France (2 ) (2 ) 0.1 (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) (2 ) Germany 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.2 Japan 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Korea 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.9 1.6 1.8 2.4 Subtotal, subject 3.4 3.2 4.0 3.8 3.6 4.8 5.2 5.3 All other sources 4.4 4.8 6.4 4.9 11.1 8.1 9.2 12.2 Total 7.7 8.0 10.4 8.6 14.7 12.8 14.4 17.4 1 Landed, duty paid. 2 Less than 0.05 percent. Source: Compiled from official statistics of Commerce. 5 Dofasco’s posthearing brief, response to Commission questions, pp. 21-22. CORE-IV-4 U.S. imports from Canada under HTS statistical reporting number 7210.70.6090 reportedly include imports of nonsubject lacquered tinplate.5 The following tabulation presents the quantity and value of imports from Canada of corrosion-resistant steel other than entries under this statistical reporting number. Source Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) Canada 320,658 280,905 453,871 455,775 424,776 464,303 232,960 259,622 Value ($1,000) Canada 155,625 127,199 224,428 248,948 260,249 305,620 153,466 185,635 Table CORE-IV-2 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. imports from nonsubject countries, by source, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Source Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) Argentina1 81,866 72,516 61,662 56,255 66,542 52,958 28,588 5,220 Brazil 22,105 21,375 79,935 49,355 243,659 181,539 115,995 136,867 China 17,280 50,899 15,262 134 175,860 147,794 102,280 292,426 India1 25,976 53,163 406,550 207,935 716,065 401,048 218,160 397,435 Mexico2 282,730 204,257 307,760 294,052 337,012 265,330 142,081 95,041 South Africa1 48,774 33,323 49,052 39,450 77,564 67,221 27,663 56,716 Taiwan 194,139 232,929 151,446 67,282 406,394 341,598 209,529 282,815 All others 246,755 264,571 254,085 222,277 401,056 190,510 87,857 106,441 Total 919,625 933,033 1,325,751 936,741 2,424,153 1,647,998 932,153 1,372,961 1 Country not subject to safeguard measures. 2 Member of free trade agreement; safeguard measures not applied. Note.--Highlighted years indicate the period of time during which increased tariffs were in effect pursuant to the U.S. safeguard measure on steel. Source: Compiled from official statistics of Commerce. Importers from Canada, Germany, Japan, and Korea reported arrangements for the importation of corrosion-resistant steel for delivery after June 30, 2006. These data are presented in table CORE-IV-3. Table CORE-IV-3 Corrosion-resistant steel: Arrangements for importation after June 30, 2006 * * * * * * * CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS In assessing whether subject imports are likely to compete with each other and with the domestic like product with respect to cumulation, the Commission generally has considered the following four factors: (1) fungibility, (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets, (3) common CORE-IV-5 or similar channels of distribution, and (4) simultaneous presence in the market. Fungibility considerations and channels of distribution are discussed in Parts CORE-I and CORE-II of this report; additional information regarding fungibility, geographic markets, and presence in the market is discussed below. Fungibility Tables CORE-IV-4, CORE-IV-5, and CORE-IV-6 examine U.S. shipments of domestically produced and imported corrosion-resistant steel. The tables present data regarding the intended application, nature of the coating, and paint status of the corrosion-resistant steel, by source. CORE-IV-4 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by application, 2005, January- June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item 2005 January-June 2005 January-June 2006 Quantity (short tons) U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments: Exposed (automotive) 2,904,896 1,503,425 1,519,830 Unexposed (automotive) 4,329,212 2,224,560 2,270,820 Other 12,831,555 6,271,278 7,368,930 Total 20,065,663 9,999,263 11,159,580 U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments: * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. CORE-IV-5 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by form, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item 2005 January-June 2005 January-June 2006 Quantity (short tons) U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments: Galvanized 14,258,622 7,054,651 8,005,746 Galvannealed 3,239,494 1,668,632 1,725,247 Other 2,567,637 1,272,341 1,428,586 Total 20,065,753 9,995,624 11,159,579 U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments: * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 6 Official Commerce statistics measure imports at the port of entry; material imported into one district, however, may be shipped to another geographic region. CORE-IV-6 CORE-IV-6 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by paint status, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item 2005 January-June 2005 January-June 2006 Quantity (short tons) U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments: Prepainted 564,225 258,916 305,500 Toll-painted 395,029 181,357 215,393 Sold unpainted1 19,106,410 9,559,172 10,638,686 Total1 20,065,664 9,999,445 11,159,579 U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments: * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Geographic Markets As noted previously, corrosion-resistant steel production occurs throughout the United States, and corrosion-resistant steel is shipped nationwide. Information summarizing national and regional markets and the shipment of corrosion-resistant steel is presented in Part CORE-II. Of the corrosion-resistant steel imported into the United States from the subject countries from January 2000 to June 2006, the top ten Customs districts accounted for nearly all entries. As illustrated in table CORE-IV-7, the Detroit, MI, Customs district accounted for nearly one-half of subject imports.6 CORE-IV-7 Table CORE-IV-7 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. imports from subject countries, by Customs district, January 2000-June 2006 Customs district Australia1 Canada France Germany Japan2 Korea Total Share of total Quantity (short tons) Detroit, MI 18 2,227,333 15,955 134,137 2,907 4,198 2,384,547 45.5 Buffalo, NY 0 907,663 16,212 150 20 106 924,150 17.6 Houston- Galveston, TX 65 14 1,923 3,251 2,688 306,684 314,625 6.0 Los Angeles, CA 52 0 185 601 25,292 271,229 297,360 5.7 New Orleans, LA 0 14 11 7 9,561 284,872 294,465 5.6 Philadelphia, PA 0 0 4,389 53,772 10,190 122,165 190,516 3.6 Mobile, AL 0 190 0 22,294 0 165,756 188,240 3.6 Savannah, GA 40 0 493 52,276 26,357 90,812 169,979 3.2 Charlotte, NC 0 0 2 2,051 1,087 102,368 105,508 2.0 Columbia- Snake, OR 0 0 6 0 214 91,549 91,768 1.8 All others 930 23,125 2,600 17,551 56,841 179,506 280,553 5.4 Total 1,106 3,158,339 41,774 286,090 135,157 1,619,244 5,241,710 100.0 1 The primary “other” ports of entry for corrosion-resistant steel from Australia were Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 2 The primary "other" ports of entry for corrosion-resistant steel from Japan were Cleveland, OH, and San Francisco, CA. Source: Compiled from official statistics from Commerce. Presence in the Market Table CORE-IV-8 presents information on the monthly presence of subject imports. Table CORE-IV-8 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. imports, monthly entries into the United States, by source, 2000-05 and January-June 2006 Quantity (short tons) Source Month TotalJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2000 Australia 3 0 0 0 0 9 0 36 0 170 2 0 220 Canada 31,793 32,820 37,015 34,912 41,673 34,810 27,124 30,538 25,398 30,957 30,085 23,365 380,490 France 90 33 19 150 85 328 397 301 433 644 172 958 3,608 Germany 5,098 4,422 3,305 6,842 2,907 3,722 1,589 5,607 2,330 5,435 2,494 2,703 46,453 Japan 3,562 1,811 1,064 3,112 2,822 4,081 2,192 1,182 3,697 2,171 1,171 680 27,543 Korea 30,790 20,132 21,856 26,714 15,393 19,618 17,169 18,174 22,341 19,978 18,824 22,539 253,528 2001 Australia 61 14 0 8 4 0 7 0 0 10 73 0 176 Canada 30,134 25,760 25,285 24,163 25,482 24,589 32,787 28,009 27,304 32,743 33,066 22,452 331,774 France 694 606 1,310 189 1,287 1,022 871 696 734 727 390 775 9,302 Germany 619 1,263 1,693 4,198 3,644 510 2,880 961 2,030 2,787 2,772 198 23,557 Japan 2,140 1,209 1,636 1,994 280 2,540 425 1,188 1,189 2,151 1,078 1,508 17,338 Korea 16,995 15,603 21,332 24,917 12,362 16,948 32,131 12,738 24,754 8,798 24,480 23,984 235,041 Table continued on next page. CORE-IV-8 Table CORE-IV-8--Continued Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. imports, monthly entries into the United States, by source, 2000-05 and January-June 2006 Quantity (short tons) Source Month TotalJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 Australia 2 0 0 0 0 272 1 0 0 0 0 0 275 Canada 36,848 31,132 38,390 41,441 41,069 44,348 46,724 51,938 53,976 52,979 47,404 44,000 530,248 France 332 1,485 1,941 747 823 856 2,446 2,519 1,129 1,147 841 1,488 15,753 Germany 6,414 3,330 1,814 2,745 138 4,814 3,057 3,570 9,205 4,936 7,892 5,565 53,479 Japan 1,058 859 1,386 1,243 1,235 1,457 4,255 6,384 1,067 2,107 1,254 2,000 24,304 Korea 36,057 39,152 6,121 3,337 7,682 6,230 14,794 20,293 19,848 18,846 18,124 21,930 212,413 2003 Australia 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 179 56 8 297 Canada 60,578 54,213 49,413 52,888 45,942 40,359 41,099 37,879 51,533 48,077 36,431 34,022 552,434 France 1,284 771 1,362 1,378 1,227 286 141 62 0 11 8 0 6,530 Germany 381 2,084 615 10,049 2,867 4,426 1,822 5,653 2,823 1,310 1,813 687 34,530 Japan 1,422 2,293 2,306 3,864 933 1,343 1,954 1,448 731 665 808 801 18,570 Korea 6,736 14,328 10,863 11,748 16,635 4,219 20,178 5,261 9,649 363 9,772 4,059 113,810 2004 Australia 0 0 15 0 14 15 0 0 27 0 47 0 119 Canada 38,323 43,805 50,978 50,256 44,843 45,899 42,070 44,858 44,472 37,207 40,618 41,383 524,711 France 871 51 23 10 249 371 2,977 20 0 22 8 11 4,613 Germany 848 2,658 2,007 878 2,423 2,400 2,406 3,858 4,602 1,209 3,520 4,382 31,191 Japan 1,206 1,333 999 1,565 705 4,313 798 1,349 306 2,720 2,738 1,598 19,628 Korea 882 2,513 4,026 6,130 7,460 20,138 19,552 18,153 30,408 22,050 26,514 43,175 201,002 2005 Australia 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Canada 45,730 45,629 49,010 47,159 46,713 47,703 37,711 51,243 44,766 45,922 48,056 37,684 547,326 France 3 1,231 476 6 8 4 18 17 0 4 7 4 1,778 Germany 3,936 6,096 6,487 8,240 7,367 16,852 3,153 6,177 9,303 4,087 901 3,343 75,941 Japan 2,751 1,129 1,087 1,216 1,609 901 915 1,646 344 2,720 684 1,760 16,762 Korea 27,901 33,061 21,420 52,716 18,569 27,538 17,419 19,589 22,119 36,275 33,791 20,460 330,858 2006 Australia 0 0 0 0 3 0 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 3 Canada 49,648 44,659 49,953 44,852 51,078 51,165 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 291,356 France 73 15 9 60 28 5 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 190 Germany 2,042 7,687 3,772 2,787 3,740 911 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 20,939 Japan 1,261 2,286 2,628 1,911 1,450 1,478 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 11,012 Korea 44,686 46,143 44,677 35,138 32,080 69,868 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 272,592 1 Data not presented for July-September and not available for October-December. Source: Compiled from official statistics of Commerce. U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES Table CORE-IV-9 presents information on U.S. importers’ inventories. Imports from Germany and Korea accounted for the largest share of subject imports. There were no reported inventories of corrosion-resistant steel from Australia or France. 7 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-96; USITC Publication 3364, p. CORROSION-IV-1. 8 ***. BlueScope’s posthearing brief, pp. 11-12. 9 Found at bluescopesteel.com, retrieved on September 1, 2006. 10 BlueScope’s prehearing brief, p. 1. BlueScope further reported that to the best of its knowledge, Palmer Tube never produced subject corrosion-resistant steel. Likewise, *** identifies BlueScope as the sole producer in Australia. ***. 11 BlueScope’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-10. 12 BlueScope’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-1. 13 BlueScope’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-2. 14 BlueScope’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-15 and II-16. BlueScope ***. CORE-IV-9 Table CORE-IV-9 Corrosion-resistant steel: U.S. importers’ inventories, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * THE INDUSTRY IN AUSTRALIA Overview The Commission identified one Australian producer of corrosion-resistant steel - BHP - in the original investigations and two such producers - BHP and Palmer Tube Mills (a subsidiary of Smorgon Steel Group) - in the first reviews. 7 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to two Australian firms believed to be producers of corrosion-resistant steel and received data from one - BlueScope Steel.8 In March 2001, BHP announced that BlueScope was to be spun out as a separate Australian publicly listed company.9 In July 2002, BlueScope was listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. BlueScope reported that it is the only producer of corrosion-resistant steel in Australia.10 In the most recent fiscal year, sales of corrosion-resistant steel represented *** percent of BlueScope’s total sales. 11 Table CORE-IV-10 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. Table CORE-IV-10 Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparison of select Australian industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005 * * * * * * * As noted above, the Australian industry producing corrosion-resistant steel continues to consist of a single dominant producer. BlueScope reported *** operational or organizational changes since January 1, 2000, 12 and reported ***.13 Corrosion-Resistant Steel Operations Table CORE-IV-11 presents the BlueScope’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, since 2000. BlueScope reported production of hot-dip galvanized corrosion-resistant steel only. Table CORE-IV-12 presents BlueScope’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of corrosion- resistant steel for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. BlueScope reported that the outstanding orders ***.14 While the specific data are confidential, in general Australian capacity was stable and production declined irregularly during 2000-05, but both were higher in January-June 2006 than in January-June 2005. Capacity utilization fluctuated over the period for which data were collected, 15 BlueScope reported that ***. 16 BlueScope’s posthearing brief, p. 5. 17 BlueScope’s operations include ***. 18 BlueScope’s posthearing brief, p. 3. 19 BlueScope reported that ***. BlueScope’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-11. 20 BlueScope ***. BlueScope’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-12. 21 As a result of the subject orders, BlueScope ***. BlueScope’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-14. 22 BlueScope’s posthearing brief, p. 7. 23 In April 2004, BlueScope acquired Butler Manufacturing Company. Butler is the market leader in both the United States and China for pre-engineered steel building systems. BlueScope’s posthearing brief, attachments 1 and 3. 24 BlueScope’s posthearing brief, p. 9. 25 BlueScope’s foreign producer questionnaire, section I-7. 26 ***. CORE-IV-10 but was highest in January-June 2006. 15 ***. 16 17 BlueScope reported that its production was adversely affected by a strike in 2002, an industrial dispute at its Westernport facility in late 2004 and early 2005, and a fire at Westernport in 2005 which resulted in a 12-week repair.18 As discussed in greater detail below, BlueScope reportedly ***.19 Table CORE-IV-11 Corrosion-resistant steel: Australia’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-IV-12 Corrosion-resistant steel: Australia’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January- June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * In general, BlueScope’s shipments of corrosion-resistant steel decreased in 2001, then increased from 2002 to 2004, before declining in 2005. January-June 2006 shipments were greater than those in January-June 2005. BlueScope’s inventories generally increased over the period.20 The majority of BlueScope’s shipments were home market sales, but a *** minority were exports.21 BlueScope reported that it largely produces premium building construction materials.22 23 Reported exports to the United States were ***; export markets other than the United States include ***. Australian exports of corrosion-resistant steel are subject to a 79 percent tariff in South Africa, and a 70 percent tariff in Argentina. The South African order is only on painted corrosion-resistant steel.24 Free trade agreements reportedly ***.25 Presented in the tabulation below are BlueScope’s exports of corrosion-resistant steel to Canada. 26 Canada’s dumping order on corrosion-resistant steel from Australia was lifted in 2004. * * * * * * * As shown in table CORE-IV-13, a *** majority of BlueScope’s shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is sold for non-automotive applications. In addition, as shown in table CORE-IV-14, a majority of BlueScope’s shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is neither galvanized nor galvannealed, although a *** 27 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-106; USITC Publication 3364, p. CORROSION-IV-5. CORE-IV-11 minority is galvanized. Finally, as shown in table CORE-IV-15, a majority of BlueScope’s shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is sold unpainted, with a minority sold pre-painted but with *** reported sales of toll-painted corrosion-resistant steel. CORE-IV-13 Corrosion-resistant steel: Australian producer’s total shipments, by application, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * CORE-IV-14 Corrosion-resistant steel: Australian producer’s total shipments, by form, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * CORE-IV-15 Corrosion-resistant steel: Australian producer’s total shipments, by paint status, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Alternative Products As shown in table CORE-IV-16, all of the corrosion-resistant steel production by BlueScope is subject merchandise. As noted previously, BlueScope produces only hot-dip galvanized steel. Table CORE-IV-16 Corrosion-resistant steel: Australian producer’s overall capacity and production, by type of steel, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * THE INDUSTRY IN CANADA Overview The Commission identified two Canadian producers of corrosion-resistant steel - Dofasco and Stelco - in the original investigations, and three such producers - Dofasco (including its joint-venture DNN), Sorevco, and Stelco - in the first reviews.27 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to four Canadian firms believed to be producers of corrosion-resistant steel and received 28 Arcelor purchased 100 percent of Dofasco on March 1, 2006. On July 26, 2006, Mittal announced that 92 percent of Arcelor’s shareholders had accepted Mittal’s offer to purchase Arcelor’s shares. Previously, Mittal had offered Dofasco to ThyssenKrupp if Mittal purchased Arcelor, but it is unknown at this time whether Dofasco will be sold or remain part of the Mittal group. The U.S. Department of Justice has required, as part of its antitrust review, that Arcelor-Mittal divest itself of Dofasco, or some other specified Mittal facility. Canadian interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 44. Dofasco imports subject corrosion-resistant steel into the United States, and Arcelor has a subsidiary that imports subject corrosion-resistant steel into the United States. 29 ***. 30 Sorevco began production of corrosion-resistant steel in 1991. Sorevco is a joint venture between Dofasco and Mittal. 31 Stelco’s questionnaire covers Stelco, Hamilton Steel, and Baycoat. Stelco imports subject corrosion-resistant steel into the United States. 32 ***. The remaining capacity is electrogalvanizing capacity operated by Metal Koting CCC, Ltd. Ibid. 33 Canadian foreign producer questionnaires, section II-1. 34 Canadian foreign producer questionnaires, section II-2. CORE-IV-12 data from three: Dofasco,28 29 Sorevco,30 and Stelco.31 According to ***, responding Canadian producers represent *** percent of the corrosion-resistant steel capacity in Canada.32 The responding firm’s share of 2005 Canadian production of corrosion-resistant steel and the share of their most recent fiscal year sales represented by corrosion-resistant steel are presented in table CORE-17. Table CORE-IV-18 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. Table CORE-IV-17 Corrosion-resistant steel: Canadian producers’ share of 2005 production and share of firms’ most recent fiscal year sales represented by corrosion-resistant steel. * * * * * * * Table CORE-IV-18 Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparison of select Canadian industry data: 1992, 1999, and 2005 * * * * * * * As noted above, the composition of the Canadian industry producing corrosion-resistant steel has changed over time. In addition, two producers reported several operational or organizational changes since January 1, 2000, 33 but reported anticipating no operational or organizational changes in the future. 34 Stelco was reorganized in March 2006. Dofasco ***, at its new joint venture DoSol Galva. This line was *** percent owned by Dofasco and *** percent by Arcelor. The line ***. Corrosion-Resistant Steel Operations Table CORE-IV-19 presents the Canadian industry’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, since 2000. The majority of Canadian producers’ capacity is hot-dip galvanized, with a small minority of “other” corrosion-resistant steel capacity. Table CORE-IV-20 presents the Canadian industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of corrosion-resistant steel for 2000-05 as 35 The Canadian producers’ data for 2000-03 do not include National’s 50-percent share of the DNN/DJG line. Dofasco believes National’s share of the capacity was *** short tons. Canadian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, Answer to Commissioners’ Questions, p. 36, fn. 62. 36 Canadian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, p. 28. 37 ***. Canadian respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 5. 38 Canadian interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 19. 39 Canadian interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 19-20 40 Canadian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, p. 9. 41 Sorevco and Stelco did not report having a business plan or any internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze future market conditions or market conditions if the subject orders were revoked. Dofasco provided a business plan for 2006-07. 42 Dofasco’s capacity constraint is ***. Sorevco’s capacity constraints are ***. 43 In some limited applications, ***. For prepainted applications, ***. Stelco’s constraints are ***. 44 Dofasco produces micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel. 45 *** maintained inventories of corrosion-resistant steel in the United States. Canadian foreign producer questionnaires, section II-12. CORE-IV-13 Table CORE-IV-19 Corrosion-resistant steel: Canada’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, 2000-05, January- June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-IV-20 Corrosion-resistant steel: Canada’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006.35 Dofasco is the major exporter of Canadian corrosion- resistant steel to the United States, and approximately *** of its U.S. exports are to the automotive sector. 36 Dofasco reported that ***.37 38 39 ***. However, because Toyota is opening a new factory in Ontario, near Dofasco’s mill, Dofasco’s business plan calls for a ***.40 *** of the Canadian producers reported that the outstanding orders had any significant impact on its capacity, production, shipments, export markets, or inventories, *** expect that the character of its operations would change if the orders were revoked.41 In general Canadian capacity and production fluctuated during the period for which data were collected but increased overall, while capacity utilization ranged from *** percent to *** percent. Dofasco reported that its capacity is determined at the start of each year and is based on ***.42 Stelco’s corrosion-resistant steel is made on ***. The major production input is ***. 43 As discussed in greater detail below, only Dofasco reported producing other products on the same equipment, or using the same production and related workers, used to produce corrosion- resistant steel.44 In general, the Canadian mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel increased during the period for which data were collected; total inventories also increased but declined as a share of total shipments. 45 The majority of the Canadian mills’ shipments were home market sales, but a small minority were 46 *** reported developing or increasing sales to non-U.S. export markets as a result of the subject orders. Canadian foreign producer questionnaires, section II-14. 47 ***. 48 Canadian foreign producer questionnaires, section I-13. 49 Duferco and Stelco’s foreign producer questionnaires, section I-7. 50 Canadian respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, pp. 55-59. CORE-IV-14 exports, primarily to the United States46 and secondarily to Mexico. Presented in the tabulation below are *** exports of corrosion-resistant steel to Mexico.47 * * * * * * * Canadian exports of corrosion-resistant steel are not subject to any tariff or nontariff barriers in any countries, nor are they subject to current investigations.48 Dofasco and Stelco reported that NAFTA had a “***” impact on their operations.49 The deep integration of the North American auto companies has significantly integrated the U.S.-Canada steel market.50 The majority of Canadian mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is sold for non-automotive applications. As shown in table CORE-IV-21, automotive sales are predominantly for unexposed automobile parts. In addition, as shown in table CORE-IV-22, a *** majority of the Canadian mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel are galvanized, rather than galvannealed or otherwise coated. Finally, as shown in table CORE-IV-23, a *** majority of Canadian mills’ shipments of corrosion- resistant steel is sold unpainted, with a minority sold pre-painted but with minimal reported sales of toll- painted corrosion-resistant steel. CORE-IV-21 Corrosion-resistant steel: Canadian producers’ total shipments, by application, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * CORE-IV-22 Corrosion-resistant steel: Canadian producers’ total shipments, by form, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * CORE-IV-23 Corrosion-resistant steel: Canadian producers’ total shipments, by paint status, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Alternative Products As shown in table CORE-IV-24, the majority of corrosion-resistant steel production by Canadian mills is subject merchandise, primarily hot-dip galvanized steel. Nonetheless, Dofasco reported production of micro-alloy steel and, to a lesser extent, other forms of nonsubject merchandise on the same equipment used to produce subject corrosion-resistant steel. With respect to micro-alloy corrosion- resistant steel, table CORE-IV-25 presents the Canadian industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of such corrosion-resistant steel for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. Except during 2001, total shipments remained relatively stable, as declining home market shipments were largely offset by exports to the United States. 51 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-106; USITC Publication 3364, p. CORROSION-IV-5. 52 Plants include Sollac Atlantique and Sollac Lorraine. Arcelor (France) has related firms that produce corrosion-resistant steel in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, and Turkey. Arcelor (France) has a related firm, Arcelor International America, which imports subject product into the United States. 53 Plants include Duferco Coating and Duferco Sorral. Duferco has a related company, Duferco Steel Processing, located in South Africa, which produces corrosion-resistant steel. Duferco has a related company Duferco Steel, located in New Jersey, which ***. 54 ***. 55 Arcelor’s and Duferco’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-1. 56 Arcelor’s and Duferco’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-2. CORE-IV-15 Table CORE-IV-24 Corrosion-resistant steel: Canadian producers’ overall capacity and production, by type of steel, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-IV-25 Corrosion-resistant micro-alloy steel: Canada’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05 January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * THE INDUSTRY IN FRANCE Overview The Commission identified two French producers of corrosion-resistant steel - Paturle Aciers and Usinor Sacilor - in the original investigations, and four such producers - Atlantique, Beautor, Haironville, and Lorraine - in the first reviews. 51 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to two French firms believed to be producers of corrosion-resistant steel and received data from both, Arcelor (France) 52 and Duferco.53 According to ***, responding French producers represent all of the corrosion-resistant steel capacity in France.54 The responding firms’ shares of 2005 French production of corrosion-resistant steel and the shares of their most recent fiscal year sales represented by corrosion- resistant steel are presented in table CORE-IV-26. Table CORE-IV-27 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. Table CORE-IV-26 Corrosion-resistant steel: French producers’ shares of 2005 production and shares of firms’ most recent fiscal year sales represented by corrosion-resistant steel * * * * * * * Table CORE-IV-27 Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparison of select French industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005 * * * * * * * As noted above, the composition of the French industry producing corrosion-resistant steel has changed over time. In addition, as described below, French producers reported several operational or organizational changes since January 1, 2000, 55 but reported anticipating no such changes in the future.56 Arcelor was created in February 2002 as a merger of three companies, formerly known as Arbed, 57 Neither firm reported having a business plan or any internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze future market conditions or market conditions if the subject orders were revoked. 58 Arcelor reported that its production capacity ***. 59 Most of Arcelor’s organic-coated products ***. 60 Duferco reported ***. 61 Duferco Coating has production facilities ***. Duferco Sorral has production facilities ***. Production inputs ***. 62 The firms reported ***. Arcelor’s and Duferco’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-11. 63 *** maintained inventories of corrosion-resistant steel in the United States. Arcelor’s and Duferco’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-12. CORE-IV-16 Aceralia, and Usinor. Usinor owned the French producers Atlantique, Beautor, Haironville, and Lorraine. As a result of the merger and guidelines set forth by the European Commission, Beautor and Strasbourg (owned by Lorraine) were sold. On April 9, 2003, Duferco Belgium, acting on behalf of Duferco Coating, purchased Beautor and Strasbourg (now Duferco Coating and Duferco Sorral). Since then, Oannaing, an organic coating facility, was closed in 2005. In February 2006, Arcelor acquired Dofasco. Finally, in June 2006, Arcelor announced a merger with Mittal Steel. Corrosion-Resistant Steel Operations Table CORE-IV-28 presents the French industry’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, since 2005. A majority of the French producers’ corrosion-resistant capacity is hot-dip galvanized, with a minority of electrogalvanized and “other” corrosion-resistant steel. Table CORE-IV-28 Corrosion-resistant steel: France’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, 2000-05, January- June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-IV-29 presents the French industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of corrosion-resistant steel for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. Table CORE-IV-29 Corrosion-resistant steel: France’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * *** reported that the outstanding orders had any significant impact on its capacity, production, shipments, export markets, or inventories, *** expect that the character of its operations would change if the orders were revoked.57 While the specific data are confidential, in general French capacity fluctuated modestly and production fluctuated and capacity utilization generally decreased between 2000 and 2005. Arcelor (France) reported ***.58 59 Duferco Sorral reported ***. Duferco reported that ***.60 61 As discussed in greater detail below, Arcelor (France) reportedly produces micro-alloy products on the same equipment, or using the same production and related workers, used to produce corrosion-resistant steel.62 In general the French mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel decreased during the period for which data were collected, while their inventories increased, but remained below *** percent of total shipments. 63 The majority of such shipments were home market sales, transfers, or internal consumption, 64 *** reported developing or increasing sales to non-U.S. export markets as a result of the subject orders. Arcelor’s and Duferco’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-14. 65 The “all other” markets are ***. Arecelor’s prehearing brief, p. 6, fn. 13. 66 Arcelor’s and Duferco’s foreign producer questionnaires, section I-13. 67 Arcelor’s and Duferco’s foreign producer questionnaires, section I-7. 68 Duferco’s response to the notice of institution, p. 3. 69 ***. CORE-IV-17 but a substantial minority were exports, primarily to other EU markets.64 65 Duferco’s primary customers are European automakers. Reported exports to the United States were ***; export markets other than the United States include ***. French exports of corrosion-resistant steel are not subject to any tariff or nontariff barriers in any countries, nor subject to current investigations.66 While free trade agreements ***, 67 the development of the European Union - in particular its expansion in 2004, as well as reportedly favorable pricing trends, delivery times, and reaction to customer demand - is a consideration.68 Presented in the tabulation below are *** exports of corrosion-resistant steel to Canada and Mexico. 69 * * * * * * * The majority of French mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is sold for automotive applications. As shown in table CORE-IV-30, such sales are predominantly for unexposed automobile parts. In addition, as shown in table CORE-IV-31, a *** majority of French mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is galvanized, rather than galvannealed or otherwise coated. Finally, as shown in table CORE-IV-32, a *** majority of French mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is sold unpainted, with a minority of sales toll-painted or mill-painted corrosion-resistant steel. CORE-IV-30 Corrosion-resistant steel: French producers’ total shipments, by application, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * CORE-IV-31 Corrosion-resistant steel: French producers’ total shipments, by form, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * CORE-IV-32 Corrosion-resistant steel: French producers’ total shipments, by paint status, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Alternative Products As shown in table CORE-IV-33, the majority of corrosion-resistant steel production by French mills is subject merchandise, primarily hot-dip galvanized steel. Nonetheless, French mills reported production of micro-alloy steel and, ***, other forms of nonsubject merchandise on the same equipment used to produce subject corrosion-resistant steel. With respect to micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel, table CORE-IV-34 presents the French industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of such corrosion-resistant steel for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. 70 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-106; USITC Publication 3364, p. CORROSION-IV-5. 71 Plants include Stahlwerke Bremen and EKO. Arcelor (Germany) has related firms that produce corrosion- resistant steel in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, and Turkey. Arcelor (Germany) has a related firm, Arcelor International America, which imports subject product into the United States. 72 Corus’ German plants include Hille & Mueller and Trierer Walzwerk. 73 Wupperman’s data were included in the prehearing report but have been removed from the final report because it does not produce corrosion-resistant steel in Germany. Instead, Wupperman Stahl GmbH (Germany) is the sales organization for corrosion-resistant steel produced by the Wupperman Group in Austria and the Netherlands. Freidrick Gustav Theis responded that it does not produce corrosion-resistant steel. 74 ***. CORE-IV-18 Table CORE-IV-33 Corrosion-resistant steel: French producers’ overall capacity and production, by type of steel, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-IV-34 Corrosion-resistant micro-alloy steel: France’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * THE INDUSTRY IN GERMANY Overview The Commission identified four German producers of corrosion-resistant steel - Hoesch, Krupp, Preussag, and Thyssen - in the original investigations, and four such producers - Bremen, EKO, Salzgitter, and Thyssen - in the first reviews.70 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to six German firms believed to be producers of corrosion-resistant steel and received data from Arcelor (Germany),71 Corus, 72 Salzgitter, and Thyssen.73 Hoesch and Krupp merged in 1993 to form Krupp Hoesch Stahl, which then merged with Thyssen in 1997, to form ThyssenKrupp. In 1998, Preussag was renamed Salzgitter. Corus was created in October 1999, as a merger of Hoogovens and British Steel. Hoogovens owned the Hille & Muller group (including Trierer Walzwerk). Arcelor was created in February 2002 as a merger of three companies, Arbed, Aceralia, and Usinor. Bremen was owned by Arbed, and EKO was owned by Usinor. In June 2006, Arcelor announced a merger with Mittal. According to ***, responding German producers represent all of the corrosion-resistant steel capacity in Germany. 74 The responding firms’ share of 2005 German production of corrosion-resistant steel and the share of their most recent fiscal year sales represented by corrosion-resistant steel are presented in table CORE-IV-35. Table CORE-IV-36 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. Table CORE-IV-35 Corrosion-resistant steel: German producers’ share of 2005 production and share of firms’ most recent fiscal year sales represented by corrosion-resistant steel * * * * * * * 75 Arcelor (Germany), Salzgitter, and Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-1. 76 No firm reported having a business plan or any internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze future market conditions or market conditions if the subject orders were revoked. 77 Arcelor (Germany), Salzgitter, and Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-13. 78 Arcelor (Germany), Salzgitter, and Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaires, section I-7. 79 Salzgitter reported that limits to mill capacity were set by ***. Salzgitter’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-9. 80 Arcelor (Germany) reported that ***. Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-9. 81 Salzgitter’s foreign producer questionnaire, section II-1. CORE-IV-19 Table CORE-IV-36 Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparison of select German industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005 * * * * * * * As noted above, the composition of the German industry producing corrosion-resistant steel has changed over time. In addition, as presented below, German producers reported several operational or organizational changes since January 1, 2000. 75 * * * * * * * Corrosion-Resistant Steel Operations Table CORE-IV-37 presents the German industry’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, since 2000. A majority of the German producers’ capacity is hot-dip galvanized, with a substantial minority of electrolytic and “other” corrosion-resistant steel. Table CORE-IV-38 presents the German industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of corrosion-resistant steel for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. Table CORE-IV-37 Corrosion-resistant steel: Germany’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, 2000-05, January- June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-IV-38 Corrosion-resistant steel: Germany’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January- June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * *** German producer reported that the outstanding orders had any significant impact on its capacity, production, shipments, export markets, or inventories, *** expect that the character of its operations would change if the orders were revoked.76 No German firm reported being subject to tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade, nor being subject to any current investigations.77 Additionally, no free trade agreements such as NAFTA affected the character of the German firms’ operations.78 German capacity and production increased between 2000 and 2005, while capacity utilization remained relatively stable. *** was responsible for *** in Germany.79 *** reported *** in production and capacity.80 Salzgitter reported targeting the *** industry with its ***, which resulted from ***.81 As discussed in greater detail below, *** reportedly produce other products on the same equipment, using the same production and related workers, used to produce corrosion-resistant steel, while *** reported that it 82 Arcelor (Germany), Salzgitter, and Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-13. 83 Salzgitter and Thyssen reported that ***. Arcelor (Germany), Salzgitter, and Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-11. 84 *** maintained inventories of corrosion-resistant steel in the United States. Arcelor (Germany), Salzgitter, and Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-12. 85 Thyssen reported that ***. Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaire, Appendix II-18a. 86 Thyssen reported that ***. Thyssen’s prehearing brief, p. 6, fn. 10. 87 Thyssen’s posthearing brief, p. 4. These shipments **. Thyssen’s prehearing brief, p. 23. 88 Thyssen’s prehearing brief, p. 37. 89 Thyssen’s posthearing brief, p. 8, fn. 32. 90 ***. Thyssen’s posthearing brief, pp. 8-9. 91 *** reported developing or increasing sales to non-U.S. export markets as a result of the subject orders. Arcelor (Germany), Salzgitter, and Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-14. CORE-IV-20 did not. 82 Additionally, *** reported being able to switch production between corrosion-resistant steel and other products in response to a relative price change. 83 In general, the German mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel increased during the period for which data were collected, while their inventories declined irregularly.84 The majority of shipments were home market sales, but exports grew more rapidly, approaching home market sales in quantity. The largest share of exports was to the European Union, increasing noticeably over the period for which data were collected, despite decreasing from 2004 to 2005.85 Thyssen and Corus both reported exports to the United States, which peaked in ***.86 Thyssen is the main exporter of German subject product to the United States, and the majority of its shipments consist of ***.87 Thyssen supplies the U.S. market from inventories maintained at warehouses located in Detroit, MI; Richburg, SC; and Southfield, MI, in order to deliver steel on a just in time basis.88 Thyssen’s facility in Detroit is also a processing center,89 and its facility in Richburg, SC, is a service center focused on the sale of flat rolled steel products, of which approximately ***. 90 Other export markets include ***. 91 Presented in the tabulation below are German exports of corrosion-resistant steel to Canada and Mexico. * * * * * * * The majority of German producers’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is for non-automotive applications. As shown in table CORE-IV-39, sales for automotive applications are predominantly for unexposed automobile parts. In addition, as shown in table CORE-IV-40, a majority of German mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel are galvanized, rather than galvannealed or otherwise coated. Finally, as shown in table CORE-IV-41, a large majority of German mills’ shipments of corrosion- resistant steel is sold unpainted, with a minority prepainted but with no reported sales of toll-painted corrosion-resistant steel. CORE-IV-39 Corrosion-resistant steel: German producers’ total shipments, by application, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * 92 ***. Corus’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-7. 93 Salzgitter and Thyssen’s foreign producer questionnaires, section II-6. 94 ***. 95 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-106; USITC Publication 3364, p. CORROSION-IV-5. 96 JFE resulted from the merger of NKK and Kawasaki and is related to the U.S. corrosion-resistant producer CSI, and to corrosion-resistant producers in Canada, China, and Thailand. 97 Kobe is related to the U.S. corrosion-resistant steel producer Pro-Tec. 98 As of December 31, 2005, Nippon owns *** percent of the U.S. joint venture I/N Kote, a U.S. producer of corrosion-resistant steel. As of March 31, 2006, Nippon wholly owns the Japanese corrosion-resistant producers (continued...) CORE-IV-21 CORE-IV-40 Corrosion-resistant steel: German producers’ total shipments, by form, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * CORE-IV-41 Corrosion-resistant steel: German producers’ total shipments, by paint status, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Alternative Products As shown in table CORE-IV-42, the majority of corrosion-resistant steel production by German mills is subject merchandise, primarily hot-dip galvanized steel. Nonetheless, German mills reported production of micro-alloy steel and, to a lesser extent, other forms of nonsubject merchandise on the same equipment used to produce subject corrosion-resistant steel.92 *** reported producing alloy steel as well as corrosion-resistant steel with dimensions and qualities that are not subject to the orders on the same equipment, and *** reported producing micro-alloy and alloy corrosion-resistant steel on the same equipment.93 With respect to micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel, table CORE-IV-43 presents the German industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of such corrosion-resistant steel for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. 94 Table CORE-IV-42 Corrosion-resistant steel: German producers’ overall capacity and production, by type of steel, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-IV-43 Corrosion-resistant micro-alloy steel: Germany’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * THE INDUSTRY IN JAPAN Overview The Commission identified six Japanese producers of corrosion-resistant steel - Kawasaki, Sumitomo, NKK, Nippon, Nisshin, and Kobe - in the original investigations and in the first reviews.95 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to nine Japanese firms believed to be producers of corrosion-resistant steel and received data from JFE,96 JFE Kouhan, Kobe, 97 Nippon, 98 98 (...continued) Nittetsu, Nippon Steel Metal, and Tokai Color; and *** percent of Hokkai Koki. 99 Nisshin owns *** percent of the U.S. corrosion-resistant producer Wheeling-Nisshin. 100 Plants include the Kashima Steel Works and the Wakayama Steel Works. 101 ***. The remaining capacity is operated by seven smaller producers, the largest of which is Yodogawa Steel Works. Ibid. 102 Japanese foreign producer questionnaires, section II-1. 103 Japanese foreign producer questionnaires, section II-2. CORE-IV-22 Nisshin, 99 Nittetsu, and Sumitomo.100 In April 2003, Kawasaki and NKK merged to form JFE. JFE Kouhan was established in April 2004 by consolidation of the operations of NKK Kouhan and Kawatetsu Kouhan, and Nittetsu was formed from the merger of Taiyo Steel and Daido Steel in 2002. According to ***, responding Japanese producers represent *** percent of the corrosion-resistant steel capacity in Japan. 101 The responding firms’ shares of 2005 Japanese production of corrosion-resistant steel and the shares of their most recent fiscal year sales represented by corrosion-resistant steel are presented in table CORE-IV-44. Table CORE-IV-45 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. Table CORE-IV-44 Corrosion-resistant steel: Japanese producers’ shares of 2005 production and shares of firms’ most recent fiscal year sales represented by corrosion-resistant steel * * * * * * * Table CORE-IV-45 Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparison of select Japanese industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005 Item 1992 1999 2005 Capacity (1,000 short tons) 12,037 *** *** Production (1,000 short tons) 10,335 *** *** Capacity utilization (percent) 85.9 *** *** Exports/shipments (percent) 23.2 *** *** Inventories/shipments (percent) 6.3 *** *** Note.--Data for 1992 and 1999 were provided by Kawasaki, Kobe, Nippon Steel, Nisshin, NKK, and Sumitomo. Data for 2005 were provided by JFE, JFE Kouhan, Kobe, Nippon, Nisshin, Nittetsu, and Sumitomo. Source: USITC Publication 2664, table 76; Confidential first review report (INV-X-221, October 18, 2000), table CORROSION-IV-6; and 2006 questionnaire responses identified above. As noted above, the composition of the Japanese industry producing corrosion-resistant steel has changed over time. In addition, as described below, Japanese producers reported several operational or organizational changes since January 1, 2000, 102 and reported anticipating several such changes in the future. 103 * * * * * * * 104 None of the firms reported having a business plan or any internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze future market conditions or market conditions if the subject orders were revoked. Sumitomo provided a medium term business plan for 2006-08. 105 *** plans to start up *** to meet the demand of ***. 106 The Japanese producers collectively listed the following constraints to capacity: hot-rolling process, capacity of continuous casting line, annealing line, blast furnace and steel making plant, galvanizing, and cold-rolling lines. 107 The Japanese producers reported that the production technology is hot-dip galvanizing and electrolytic galvanizing and that the corrosion-resistant steel inputs are hot-rolled and cold-rolled steel flat products and zinc. 108 However, *** reported that they are unable to switch production if a change in related price should occur. Japanese foreign producer questionnaires, section II-11. 109 *** maintained inventories of corrosion-resistant steel in the United States. Japanese foreign producer questionnaires, section II-12. 110 *** reported developing or increasing sales to non-U.S. export markets as a result of the subject orders. Japanese foreign producer questionnaires, section II-14. 111 Japanese respondent interested parties reported a corrosion-resistant supply shortage in their home market in late 2004 and early 2005, forcing Japanese automakers to suspend production and/or seek alternative sources. Japanese respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, pp. 29-32. CORE-IV-23 Corrosion-Resistant Steel Operations Table CORE-IV-46 presents the Japanese industry’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, since 2000. A majority of the Japanese producers’ corrosion-resistant capacity is hot-dip galvanized, followed by substantial minorities of electrogalvanized and “other.” Table CORE- IV-47 presents the Japanese industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of corrosion- resistant steel for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. Table CORE-IV-46 Corrosion-resistant steel: Japan’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-IV-47 Corrosion-resistant steel: Japan’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * *** of the Japanese producers reported that the outstanding orders had any significant impact on its capacity, production, shipments, export markets, or inventories, *** of the Japanese producers expect that the character of their operations would change if the orders were revoked.104 While company-specific data are confidential, in general Japanese capacity and production increased during the period for which data were collected, as did capacity utilization. *** to report plans to expand capacity.105 106 The Japanese producers reported no major production technology changes since 2000. 107 As discussed in greater detail below, the mills reported the ability to produce other products on the same equipment, or using the same production and related workers, used to produce corrosion-resistant steel.108 In general the Japanese mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel increased during the period for which data were collected, while their inventories decreased.109 The majority of such shipments were home market sales, but a substantial minority were exports, primarily to other Asian markets.110 111 Japanese producers of corrosion-resistant steel have had a long-term technical collaboration with the 112 Japanese respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 36. 113 Japanese respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 4. 114 Japanese respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 49-50. 115 Hearing transcript (Miki), pp. 414-415. 116 Japanese respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, Attachment K. ***. Japanese respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, Attachment I. 117 Japanese foreign producer questionnaires, section II-13. 118 Japanese foreign producer questionnaires, section I-7. 119 *** reported that these agreements make it more attractive for *** to export corrosion-resistant steel to those countries. 120 ***. Japanese respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, Attachment E. CORE-IV-24 Japanese automotive and electronics manufacturers that have established themselves in China and Asia.112 Japanese producers reported that they have adopted a strategy that emphasized production of high value- added corrosion-resistant products that are differentiated from corrosion-resistant steel available from low-cost Asian producers. 113 More than 70 percent of Japan’s exports of corrosion-resistant steel to China in 2004 were electrogalvanized for the production of electronic appliances.114 Reported exports to the United States were limited, and consist largely of specialty high-strength automotive grades, such as 780 MPa and 980 MPa. 115 ***. 116 ***. Export markets other than the United States include ***. Japanese exports of corrosion-resistant steel are not subject to any tariff or nontariff barriers in any countries, nor subject to current investigations.117 While free trade agreements reportedly do not affect the Japanese mills’ operations,118 Japan has entered into free trade agreements with Singapore (November 2002), Mexico (April 2005), and Malaysia (July 2006).119 Presented in the tabulation below are the Japanese industry’s exports of corrosion-resistant steel to Canada. 120 Canada’s dumping order on corrosion-resistant steel from Japan was lifted in 2004. * * * * * * * Slightly less than one-half of the Japanese mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is sold for automotive applications. As shown in table CORE-IV-48, such sales are predominantly for unexposed automobile parts. In addition, as shown in table CORE-IV-49, a substantial majority of Japanese mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel are galvannealed, rather than galvanized or otherwise coated. Finally, as shown in table CORE-IV-50, a large majority of Japanese mills’ shipments of corrosion- resistant steel is sold unpainted, with a minority toll-painted or mill-painted. CORE-IV-48 Corrosion-resistant steel: Japanese producers’ total shipments, by application, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * CORE-IV-49 Corrosion-resistant steel: Japanese producers’ total shipments, by form, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * CORE-IV-50 Corrosion-resistant steel: Japanese producers’ total shipments, by paint status, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * 121 The Japanese firms were unable to provide separate data for alloy and micro-alloy steel. 122 Counsel reported data on corrosion-resistant products for two companies related to POSCO: Pohang Steel Industries and Pohang Coated Steel, USITC Publication 2664, p. I-120. 123 USITC Publication 2664, p. I-121; USITC Publication 3364, p. CORROSION-IV-7. 124 Young Heung Iron and Steel Co. responded that it does not produce corrosion-resistant steel. 125 Dongbu is related to a U.S. importer of corrosion-resistant steel, Dongbu USA. 126 Hyundai is related to a U.S. importer of corrosion-resistant steel, Hyundai Hysco. 127 POCOS is related to two producers of corrosion-resistant steel, USS-POSCO (U.S.) and POSCO (Korea), and to U.S. importer POSCO America. 128 POSCO is related to two producers of corrosion-resistant steel, USS-POSCO (U.S.) and POCOS (Korea). POSCO has a related U.S. importer of corrosion-resistant steel, POSCO America. 129 TCC is related to Dong Yang, a U.S. importer of corrosion-resistant steel. 130 Union is related to Dongkuk, a U.S. importer of corrosion-resistant steel. 131 ***. The remaining capacity is operated by Jinbang Steel and by Seil. Ibid. CORE-IV-25 Alternative Products As shown in table CORE-IV-51, the majority of corrosion-resistant steel production by Japanese mills is subject merchandise, primarily hot-dip galvanized steel. Nonetheless, Japanese mills reported production of alloy and micro-alloy steel and, to a lesser extent, other forms of nonsubject merchandise on the same equipment used to produce subject corrosion-resistant steel. With respect to alloy and micro- alloy corrosion-resistant steel, table CORE-IV-52 presents the Japanese industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of such corrosion-resistant steel for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. 121 Table CORE-IV-51 Corrosion-resistant steel: Japanese producers’ overall capacity and production, by type of steel, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-IV-52 Corrosion-resistant alloy and micro-alloy steel: Japan’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * THE INDUSTRY IN KOREA Overview The Commission identified five Korean producers of corrosion-resistant steel 122 - Dongbu, POCOS, POSCO, PSI, and Union - in the original investigations, and six such producers - Dongbu, Hyundai, Pohang (PSI), POCOS, POSCO, and Union Steel - in the first reviews.123 In the current second reviews, the Commission issued questionnaires to eight Korean firms124 believed to be producers of corrosion-resistant steel and received data from Dongbu,125 Hyundai, 126 POCOS, 127 POSCO, 128 SeAH, TCC, 129 and Union.130 Hyundai began production of corrosion-resistant steel in 1999, Pohang (PSI) and POCOS merged in March 1999, SeAH began production of corrosion-resistant steel in 1999, and TCC began production of non-diffusion annealed nickel-plated corrosion-resistant steel in 2001 and diffusion- annealed nickel-plated corrosion-resistant steel in 2005. According to ***, responding Korean producers represent *** percent of the corrosion-resistant steel capacity in Korea.131 The responding firms’ shares of 2005 Korean production of corrosion-resistant steel and the shares of their most recent fiscal year sales 132 Korean foreign producer questionnaires, section II-1. 133 Korean foreign producer questionnaires, section II-2. 134 Korean respondent interested parties’ brief, exhibit 12. CORE-IV-26 represented by corrosion-resistant steel are presented in table CORE-53. Table CORE-IV-54 presents comparative information available from the original investigations, the first reviews, and these second reviews. Table CORE-IV-53 Corrosion-resistant steel: Korean producers’ shares of 2005 production and shares of firms’ most recent fiscal year sales represented by corrosion-resistant steel * * * * * * * Table CORE-IV-54 Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparison of select Korean industry data, 1992, 1999, and 2005 Item 1992 1999 2005 Capacity (1,000 short tons) 3,139 *** 8,441 Production (1,000 short tons) 2,944 *** 7,344 Capacity utilization (percent) 93.8 *** 87.0 Exports/shipments (percent) 46 *** 33.6 Inventories/shipments (percent) 5.2 *** 4.6 Note.--Data for 1992 were provided by Dongbu and Union, as well as POSCO and its related companies POCOS and PSI. Data for 1999 were provided by Dongbu, Hyundai, Pohang, Pohang-Coated, and Union Steel. Data for 2005 were provided by Dongbu, Hyundai, POCOS, POSCO, SeAH, TCC, and Union. Source: USITC Publication 2664, table 80; Confidential first review report (INV-X-221, October 18, 2000), table CORROSION-IV-7, as revised by memorandum INV-X-232 (November 1, 2000); and 2006 questionnaire responses identified above. As noted above, the composition of the Korean industry producing corrosion-resistant steel has changed over time. In addition, as described below, Korean producers reported several operational or organizational changes since January 1, 2000, 132 but reported anticipating no such changes in the future.133 *** has signed a memorandum of understanding to build a galvanized steel plant in Mexico with a capacity of *** tons.134 Construction of the $*** plant will begin in early 2008 and the production is scheduled to begin in 2009. * * * * * * * Corrosion-Resistant Steel Operations Table CORE-IV-55 presents the Korean industry’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, since 2000. A majority of the Korean producer’s corrosion-resistant capacity is hot-dip galavanized, followed by substantial minorities of electrogalvanized and “other.” Table CORE-IV-56 presents the Korean industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of corrosion-resistant steel for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006. Table CORE-IV-55 Corrosion-resistant steel: Korea’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, by type, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * CORE-IV-27 Table CORE-IV-56 Corrosion-resistant steel: Korea’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Quantity (short tons) Capacity 6,565,324 7,064,324 7,261,324 7,371,324 7,607,324 8,441,110 4,178,852 4,652,582 Production 5,781,692 5,924,794 6,262,403 6,693,087 6,906,075 7,344,345 3,661,775 4,002,240 End-of-period inventories 187,319 208,288 181,272 182,642 217,115 334,202 260,765 216,489 Shipments: Internal consumption / transfers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to-- United States 246,701 265,418 178,173 93,131 249,169 345,455 162,820 266,329 European Union 338,100 213,909 139,461 129,097 119,923 109,541 62,326 127,462 China 360,658 579,223 543,049 778,709 624,743 678,421 315,769 403,742 Other Asia 604,136 604,238 657,792 674,406 702,376 853,387 431,836 405,152 All other markets 318,502 302,189 317,640 338,729 433,267 444,319 201,641 327,582 Total exports 1,868,097 1,964,977 1,836,115 2,014,072 2,129,478 2,431,123 1,174,392 1,530,267 Total shipments 1,868,097 1,964,977 1,836,115 2,014,072 2,129,478 2,431,123 1,174,392 1,530,267 Ratios and shares (percent) Capacity utilization 88.1 83.9 86.2 90.8 90.8 87.0 87.6 86.0 Inventories/production 3.2 3.5 2.9 2.7 3.1 4.6 3.6 2.7 Inventories/shipments 3.3 3.5 2.9 2.7 3.2 4.6 3.6 2.6 Share of total shipment quantity: Internal consumption / transfers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to-- United States 4.3 4.5 2.8 1.4 3.6 4.8 4.5 6.5 European Union 5.9 3.6 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.7 3.1 China 6.3 9.8 8.6 11.6 9.1 9.4 8.7 9.8 Other Asia 10.6 10.2 10.5 10.1 10.2 11.8 11.9 9.8 All other markets 5.6 5.1 5.1 5.1 6.3 6.1 5.6 8.0 Total exports 32.6 33.3 29.2 30.1 31.0 33.6 32.5 37.2 Table continued on next page. 135 Union was excluded from the CVD order. None of the firms reported having a business plan or any internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze future market conditions or market conditions if the subject orders were revoked. CORE-IV-28 Table CORE-IV-56--Continued Corrosion-resistant steel: Korea’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item Calendar year January-June 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 Value (1,000 dollars) Commercial shipments: Home market *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to-- United States 138,213 138,009 86,492 51,752 199,011 303,009 147,765 208,426 European Union 161,621 90,878 59,586 79,813 94,011 96,738 61,185 92,340 China 189,975 255,658 257,600 437,942 420,776 541,091 267,183 269,171 Other Asia 297,133 246,165 273,973 360,569 468,426 668,941 351,712 334,562 All other markets 171,277 142,095 143,032 193,329 309,175 364,214 176,085 231,417 Total exports 958,219 872,805 820,683 1,123,405 1,491,399 1,973,993 1,003,930 1,135,916 Total commercial shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value (per short ton) Commercial shipments: Home market $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** $*** Exports to-- United States 560 520 485 556 799 877 908 783 European Union 478 425 427 618 784 883 982 724 China 527 441 474 562 674 798 846 667 Other Asia 492 407 417 535 667 784 814 826 All other markets 538 470 450 571 714 820 873 706 Total exports 513 444 447 558 700 812 855 742 Total commercial shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. *** of the Korean producers reported that the outstanding orders had any significant impact on its capacity, production, shipments, export markets, or inventories, *** Korean producer expects that the character of its operations would change if the orders were revoked.135 Korean capacity and production 136 The Korean producers collectively reported the following constraints to capacity: breakdown or repairs, shortage of raw materials or order receipts, capacity of production equipment and size of workforce, and the market situation. 137 The Korean producers reported no significant changes to production technology since 2000. The production inputs are cold-reducing raw materials (hot coils), galvanizing, and painting. 138 *** of the firms maintained inventories of corrosion-resistant steel in the United States. Korean foreign producer questionnaires, section II-12. 139 *** of the firms reported developing or increasing sales to non-U.S. export markets as a result of the subject orders. Korean foreign producer questionnaires, section II-14. 140 Korean respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, p. 7. 141 TCC exports largely diffusion-annealed nickel-plated steel product for the production of alkaline batteries. TCC reported there are no Chinese producers of such product. TCC’s posthearing brief, pp. 2-3. 142 Korean respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, pp. 7-9. 143 Korean respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 9. 144 Korean foreign producer questionnaires, section II-13. 145 Korean foreign producer questionnaires, section I-7. 146 Korean respondent interested parties’ posthearing brief, Responses to Questions from the Commission, p. 2. CORE-IV-29 increased during the period for which data were collected, while capacity utilization decreased.136 137 As discussed in greater detail below, the mills reportedly produce other products on the same equipment, and using the same production and related workers, used to produce corrosion-resistant steel. In general the Korean mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel steadily increased during the period for which data were collected, while their inventories fluctuated in a generally upward trend.138 The majority of such shipments were home market sales, but a substantial minority were exports, primarily to China and other Asian markets.139 Korean respondent interested parties reported that their exports are primarily electrogalvanized steel for electronic appliance production and high grade hot-dip for automotive production to Korean and Japanese transplants manufacturing in China. 140 141 Two of POSCO’s largest non-automotive clients are ***. 142 HYSCO’s exports to China are primarily to auto manufacuters. Dongbu’s exports to China are for construction and electronic appliances. Union sells *** to the personal computer, LCD, and PDP market segment. Reported exports to the United States fluctuated, and were noticeably lower in 2002-03. Korean respondent interested parties reported that imports from Korea to the United States increased in 2005 and the first half of 2006 because ***.143 ***. *** accounted for a majority of Korean imports during 2000- 05, which supplied the construction sector of the market. Export markets other than the United States include ***. Korean producers’ exports of corrosion-resistant steel are not subject to any tariff or nontariff barriers in any countries, nor subject to current investigations.144 Free trade agreements reportedly do not affect the Korean mills’ operations.145 Presented in the tabulation below are the Korean industry’s exports of corrosion-resistant steel to Canada and Mexico. Canada’s dumping order on corrosion-resistant steel from Korea was lifted in 2004 and did not include galvalume or prepainted products. ***.146 ***. * * * * * * * The majority of Korean mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is sold for nonautomotive applications. As shown in table CORE-IV-57, sales of corrosion-resistant steel for automotive applications are predominantly for unexposed automobile parts. In addition, as shown in table CORE-IV- 58, a substantial majority of Korean mills’ shipments of corrosion-resistant steel is not galvanized or galvannealed. Finally, as shown in table CORE-IV-59, a large majority of Korean mills’ shipments of CORE-IV-30 corrosion-resistant steel is sold unpainted, with a minority prepainted but with no reported sales of toll- painted corrosion-resistant steel. CORE-IV-57 Corrosion-resistant steel: Korean producers’ total shipments, by application, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item 2005 January-June 2005 January-June 2006 Quantity (short tons) Exposed (automotive) *** *** *** Unexposed (automotive) *** *** *** Other 5,743,242 2,887,923 3,246,568 Total 7,227,132 3,616,757 4,117,946 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. CORE-IV-58 Corrosion-resistant steel: Korean producers’ total shipments, by form, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item 2005 January-June 2005 January-June 2006 Quantity (short tons) Galvanized 1,983,638 981,483 1,199,927 Galvannealed 1,290,641 619,074 756,962 Other 3,952,853 2,016,198 2,161,056 Total 7,227,132 3,616,755 4,117,945 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. CORE-IV-59 Corrosion-resistant steel: Korean producers’ total shipments, by paint status, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item 2005 January-June 2005 January-June 2006 Quantity (short tons) Prepainted 1,437,869 739,998 838,978 Toll-painted 0 0 0 Sold unpainted 5,789,263 2,876,759 3,278,968 Total 7,227,132 3,616,757 4,117,946 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Alternative Products As shown in table CORE-IV-60, the majority of corrosion-resistant steel production by Korean mills is subject merchandise, the largest share of which is hot-dip galvanized steel. Nonetheless, Korean mills reported production of micro-alloy steel and, to a lesser extent, other forms of nonsubject 147 *** was the only Korean producer to report production of micro-alloy. The company did not provide capacity data. CORE-IV-31 merchandise on the same equipment used to produce subject corrosion-resistant steel. With respect to micro-alloy corrosion-resistant steel, table CORE-IV-61 presents the Korean industry’s capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of such corrosion-resistant steel for 2000-05 as well as interim (January-June) 2005 and 2006.147 Table CORE-IV-60 Corrosion-resistant steel: Korean producers’ overall capacity and production, by type of steel, 2005, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 Item 2005 Jan.-June 2005 Jan.-June 2006 Average production capacity for all subject and nonsubject corrosion-resistant steel (short tons) 8,922,997 4,352,174 5,040,824 Production of subject electrolytic galvanized corrosion-resistant steel (short tons) 1,585,867 795,567 844,321 Production of subject hot-dip galvanized corrosion-resistant steel (short tons) 4,966,135 2,457,359 2,771,482 Production of other subject corrosion- resistant steel (short tons) 792,343 408,855 385,745 Production of specifically excluded corrosion-resistant steel (short tons) 0 0 0 Production of micro-alloy corrosion resistant steel (short tons) *** *** *** Production of other nonsubject alloy and stainless steel corrosion-resistant steel (short tons) *** *** *** Total production of corrosion-resistant steel (short tons) 7,344,345 3,661,781 4,001,548 Capacity utilization (percent) 89.7 92.2 86.4 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table CORE-IV-61 Corrosion-resistant micro-alloy steel: Korea’s capacity, production, inventories, and shipments, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 * * * * * * * 148 ***. 149 Production data compiled by *** are for all coated steel sheet. *** data do not distinguish between carbon and non-carbon steel; accordingly, the production totals reported for coated steel sheet are somewhat overstated. 150 Consumption data compiled by *** are for all coated steel sheet. *** data do not distinguish between carbon and non-carbon steel; accordingly, the consumption totals reported for coated steel sheet are somewhat overstated. 151 See Part CORE-II of this report for the individual perspectives of U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers on demand in the United States and in other markets. CORE-IV-32 GLOBAL MARKET Production Global production of coated steel sheet products has grown considerably in recent years. According to one published source,148 global production of coated steel sheet increased by *** percent between 1994 and 1999, and by *** percent between 2000 and 2005. In terms of sheer volume, growth was relatively evenly distributed between North America, Europe, and East and Southeast Asia during 1994-99, but was most pronounced in the latter region during 2000-05. East and Southeast Asia is forecasted to lead global production in the coming years as well. Data compiled by *** on historical, current, and projected global production of coated steel sheet are presented in tables CORE-IV-62 through CORE-IV-64.149 Table CORE-IV-62 Coated steel sheet: Global and regional production of coated steel sheet, 1994-99 * * * * * * * Table CORE-IV-63 Coated steel sheet: Global and regional production of coated steel sheet, 2000-05 * * * * * * * Table CORE-IV-64 Coated steel sheet: Forecast of global and regional production of coated steel sheet, 2005-10 * * * * * * * Consumption Data compiled by *** on historical, current, and forecasted global consumption of coated steel sheet are presented in tables CORE-IV-65 through CORE-IV-67.150 Worldwide consumption of coated steel sheet increased by *** percent between 1994 and 1999, despite much lower growth in East and Southeast Asia, reflecting reduced levels of consumption in that region in 1998 and 1999 relative to 1997. Worldwide consumption increased by *** percent between 2000 and 2005, paced by substantial growth in consumption in East and Southeast Asia and despite much more modest growth in Europe and, especially, North America. Global consumption of coated steel sheet is forecasted to continue to grow in the coming years, with the growth relatively evenly distributed in all major markets.151 Table CORE-IV-65 Coated steel sheet: Global and regional consumption of coated steel sheet, 1994-99 * * * * * * * 152 ***. Domestic producers’ response to the notice of institution, exhibit 26. 153 *** reported that prices are not directly comparable but that its data show that for both hot-dip and electro- galvanized corrosion-resistant steel, ***. 154 MEPS prices are an arithmetic average of the low transaction values identified in the EU, Asia, and North America, converted into U.S. dollars. 155 Original data are published in metric tons, and were converted to short tons using the following conversion factor: 1 metric ton = 1.102311 short tons. MEPS, World Carbon Steel Product Prices, found at http://www.meps.co.uk, retrieved September 6, 2006 and updated on November 8, 2006 and December 1, 2006. (continued...) CORE-IV-33 Table CORE-IV-66 Coated steel sheet: Global and regional consumption of coated steel sheet, 2000-05 * * * * * * * Table CORE-IV-67 Coated steel sheet: Forecast of global and regional consumption of coated steel sheet, 2005-10 * * * * * * * Prices The Commission asked producers, importers, and purchasers to compare market prices of corrosion-resistant steel in U.S. and non-U.S. markets. Five producers reported that U.S. prices are generally higher than prices in other markets. 152 *** reported that U.S. prices are higher than prices in Europe but about the same as prices in China. Three importers reported that U.S. prices are generally the same as prices in other markets. *** reported that U.S. prices are *** per ton higher than prices in other markets. *** reported that U.S. prices used to be higher than prices in other markets but that the gap has narrowed almost completely recently. *** reported that U.S. prices are lower than prices in Europe and Japan but higher than prices in Korea. *** reported that June 2006 spot market prices were relatively the same in the United States, Canada, and Europe but that prices in Asia were lower. Most purchasers were unable to compare prices, but three purchasers reported that U.S. prices are comparable to prices in other markets. Five purchasers reported that U.S. prices tend to be higher than prices in other markets, and one purchaser reported that U.S. prices tend to be lower than prices in other markets. 153 *** reported that prices in the United States and Western Europe were similar until late 2003, when U.S. prices increased relative to prices in Western Europe. *** reported that in 2004 and late 2005 to the present, imports were priced lower than U.S.-produced corrosion-resistant steel, but that in the first half of 2005, imports were higher priced. Published price data are available from several reputable sources, although often such data are available by subscription only and cannot be reproduced without consent of their publisher. These data, however, are collected based on different product categories, timing, and commercial considerations, and so may not be directly comparable with each other. Moreover, such data are distinct from the pricing data presented in Part CORE-V of this report, which are collected directly from U.S. producers and U.S. importers according to precise product definitions. As reported by MEPS, world prices for hot-dip galvanized corrosion-resistant steel declined irregularly between January 2000 and January 2002, decreasing from $432 per short ton to $312 per short ton during that time. 154 Thereafter, prices recovered, slowly at first, then more rapidly, surpassing $400 per short ton in July 2002, $500 per short ton in February 2004, $600 per short ton in April 2004, and $700 per short ton in September 2004. World prices declined from $753 per short ton in December 2004 to $611 per short ton in July 2005, but have since recovered, reaching $789 per short ton in August 2006 before decreasing in September 2006.155 155 (...continued) This pricing series is available to the public and its use is unrestricted. 156 Ibid. 157 MEPS, International Steel Review, January 2005 - November 2006. CORE-IV-34 Similarly, world prices for electro-zinc corrosion-resistant steel declined irregularly between January 2000 and March 2002, decreasing from $456 per short ton to $358 per short ton during that time. Thereafter, prices recovered, slowly at first, then more rapidly, surpassing $400 per short ton in October 2003, $500 per short ton in March 2004, $600 per short ton in May 2004, and $700 per short ton in October 2004. World prices declined from a peak of $757 per short ton in March 2005 to $628 per short ton in February 2006, but have since recovered, reaching $733 per short ton in August 2006, before decreasing in September 2006.156 Country-specific monthly transaction prices for certain galvanized steel sheets are also compiled by MEPS, 157 and show monthly price fluctuations across major producing countries. Table CORE-IV-68 presents negotiated transaction prices for HDG corrosion-resistant steel (“hot-dip galvanized coils”) in select subject markets. According to data compiled by MEPS for January 2005 through November 2006, negotiated transaction prices fell beginning in January 2005, and, except for the United States and Canada (where prices began rising in the third quarter of 2005), did not begin to recover until March and April of 2006. By the summer or early fall of 2006, prices in the United States, the EU, Canada, and France had reached period highs, and Germany reached its period high price in November. In October 2006, however, prices in both the United States and in Canada dropped noticeably, a shift that continued in the United States in November. In the first and second quarters of 2005, U.S. prices were either lower than the prices in other countries, or decreasing relative to those prices. In 2006, prices in the United States decreased relative to European prices and began to fall below European prices but were consistently higher than prices in Japan and Korea. The United States began 2006 with prices lower than those in Canada, but by the summer U.S. prices were higher than Canadian prices. Table CORE-IV-69 presents negotiated transaction prices for corrosion-resistant steel (“electro- zinc coated coils”) in select subject markets. According to data compiled by MEPS for January 2005 through November 2006, negotiated transaction prices in the United States and the EU generally fell from January 2005 through the second half of 2005, at which point they stabilized, and then generally began increasing in the second and third quarters of 2006, though never reaching their initial levels. In October 2006, prices in both the United States and in the EU dropped noticeably, then stabilized in November. Prices in Japan and Korea rose in the first quarter of 2005. They trended downward from the third quarter of 2005 through the first quarter of 2006, before rising again in the second and third quarters of 2006. Even by the fall of 2006, however, none of the countries’ prices had regained the highest price levels they had achieved in 2005. Table CORE-IV-68 Hot-dip galvanized (HD Galv) coils: Negotiated transaction prices (ex mill) for prime hot-dip galvanized steel, by subject country and by month, January 2005-October 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-IV-69 Electro-zinc coated coils (E Zinc): Negotiated transaction prices (ex mill) for prime electro-galvanized steel, by subject country and by month, January 2005-October 2006 * * * * * * * In addition, *** compiles country- and region-specific monthly prices for galvanized steel, as presented in table CORE-IV-70. According to these data, U.S. prices were generally stable in the first 158 Compiled from data published in ***. 159 Ibid. 160 Information presented in this section is primarily derived from the following sources: MEPS International Steel Review, June-November 2006; ***; ***; and American Metal Market, “China’s Wuhan beginning trial run at first of 3 new galvanizing lines,” August 23, 2006; American Metal Market, “U.S. flat-roll import tags fall; downturn seen short-lived,” November 2, 2006; American Metal Market, “Duration of correction tied to imports, but execs say it’s likely short-lived,” October 20, 2006; and American Metal Market, “Arcelor Mittal to cut output of flat-rolled steel in Europe,” October 31, 2006. 161 ***. CORE-IV-35 half of 2000, before declining in the second half and throughout 2001. Reported U.S. prices recovered through much of 2002, but then decreased during much of 2003. Reported U.S. prices rose sharply over the course of 2004, retrenched in 2005, but then strengthened noticeably from late 2005 through mid- 2006, before decreasing moderately in the summer and early fall. German, UK, EU export, Japan export, and Far East prices exhibited similar trends during 2000-01, although Japan export prices did not begin to decline until later in 2000, and fell less markedly than prices in other markets. German, UK, EU export, and Far East prices, like U.S. prices, increased during 2002, while Japan export prices were stable. While trends diverged during the following year, prices in none of the other surveyed markets showed declines of the same magnitude as U.S. prices between late 2002 and late 2003. In 2004, however, prices in all surveyed markets reportedly moved higher; similarly, like U.S. prices, prices in other markets (including China) moderated during 2005 before moving sharply higher into the summer of 2006. 158 Based on ***’s published monthly prices for galvanized steel, U.S. prices were generally higher than non-U.S. prices. Over the 83-month period presented in table CORE-IV-70, U.S. prices were often higher than German, EU export, and Far East (and later China) prices. As well, U.S. prices were generally (though less frequently) higher than UK prices. Japan export prices, however, were more often than not higher than U.S. prices, although not during 2006.159 Table CORE-IV-70 Galvanized steel: Prices for galvanized steel, by country or by region, and by month, January 2000-October 2006 * * * * * * * Additional Global Supply and Demand Factors160 Worldwide, hot-dip galvanizing (“HDG”) capacity accounts for the large majority of sheet mills’ rated galvanizing capacity - *** percent, by ***’s estimate, compared to *** percent for electrogalvanizing (“EG”) capacity. Both HDG and EG capacity are largely located in three regions: East and South East Asia, Europe, and North America, in descending order of magnitude, although a not- insubstantial share of HDG is located outside of these regions. The following tabulation presents rated capacities of galvanizing facilities, by region (in metric tons). 161 * * * * * * * While there are currently no safeguard measures in place for corrosion-resistant steel, several countries implemented safeguard measures from 2002 to 2004. Table CORE-IV-71 summarizes the countries, products covered, safeguard type, and implementation and termination dates. Notwithstanding the impact of global safeguard actions on trade in corrosion-resistant steel, exports worldwide increased between 2000 and 2005. As shown in table CORE-IV-72, exports even increased in 2002 and 2003. CORE-IV-36 Table CORE-IV-71 Steel safeguards imposed by foreign trade partners, 2002–05 Country Products covered Safeguard type Implementation date Termination date China Subject products: Galvanized sheet and organic-coated sheet. Other products: Carbon steel slab, plate, and sheet; electrical steel sheets; tin mill products; stainless steel plates and sheets; carbon steel bars, rebars, and wire; carbon steel sections; and iron or steel seamless pipes. Provisional– Tariff rates ranging from 7% to 26% on imports exceeding quota levels. May 24, 2002 Nov. 19, 2002 China Carbon steel sheet, and organic- coated sheet. Electrical steel sheets. Stainless steel sheet. Definitive– Tariff quotas for the first half year set at the average of imports over the prior 3 years plus 3-15%, depending on product. Tariff quota for years 2 and 3 increased 3-15% over that of the prior year, depending on product. Tariff rates for above-quota imports to decline, from the second year, at the rate of 8% per year and the specific annual rate will be: 10.3-23.2% between Nov. 20, 2002, and May 23, 2003; 9.5- 21.3% between May 24, 2003, and May 23, 2004; and 8.7-19.6% between May 24, 2004 and May 23, 2005, depending on product. Nov. 20, 2002 December 26, 2003 European Union Carbon steel plate, sheet, strip, and quarto plate. Other products: Alloy steel flat- rolled products; electrical steel sheets; tin mill products; carbon and alloy steel bar and rebar; stainless steel wire; and alloy steel fittings and flanges. Provisional– Tariff rates for above-quota imports range from 14.9% to 26.0% depending on product. Mar. 29, 2002 Sept. 28, 2002 Hungary Carbon steel plate, sheet, bar, rod, sections, pipe, tube, hollow profiles, wire-cloth, grill netting, and fencing. Tariff rate quota increases by 2.5% in each successive 6- months period. Tariff rates for above-quota imports set between 15-25%, depending on product, and declines by 5% in each successive 6-months period. Provisional: June 3, 2002 Definitive: Apr. 2, 2003 May 1, 2004 1 Poland Carbon steel uncoated, galvanized, and organic-coated flat-rolled products. Carbon steel bar. Electric steel sheets. Iron or steel welded and seamless tubes. Definitive– Tariff rates on over- quota imports are 9-15% during Aug. 3, 2003 to Aug. 7, 2003; and drop to 8-13% during Aug. 3, 2004, to Aug. 7, 2005, depending on product. Mar. 8, 2003 May 1, 20041 Chile Carbon steel sheet, bar, and rod. Definitive– Tariff rate of 10% imposed on imports exceeding quota levels. July 2002 3 ( 2 ) 1 Safeguards terminated with country’s accession to the European Union. 2 No termination date specified. Source: World Trade Organization. 162 This growth in demand, however, reportedly was not shared by EG steel. CORE-IV-37 Table CORE-IV-72 Corrosion-resistant steel: Exports from subject countries, top 10 nonsubject countries, and all other countries, 2000-05 Exporting country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Quantity (short tons) Japan 3,658,784 3,362,340 4,299,832 4,465,937 4,740,787 4,423,171 Korea 2,358,554 2,390,511 2,429,481 2,732,612 2,927,076 3,126,184 Germany 3,030,482 2,985,656 3,727,173 3,842,676 4,270,117 3,736,272 France 2,493,209 2,345,592 2,212,343 2,274,787 2,244,523 2,166,447 Canada 470,094 425,784 637,440 719,140 653,587 777,377 Australia (see note) 294,178 335,729 276,563 250,101 206,005 97,073 Subtotal: Subject countries 12,305,302 11,845,611 13,582,832 14,285,254 15,042,095 14,326,523 Belgium 4,525,552 4,380,969 4,457,782 4,639,069 4,975,791 4,750,640 Taiwan 1,834,345 2,010,095 2,451,919 2,460,323 2,376,053 2,312,748 India 382,943 493,592 867,666 578,182 1,524,051 1,828,888 Austria 1,228,253 1,214,169 1,276,436 1,244,769 1,578,626 1,569,096 Netherlands 848,982 1,033,474 1,471,974 1,608,630 1,715,542 1,562,509 Italy 1,021,164 877,032 769,319 1,044,765 1,331,142 1,375,080 United States 849,902 807,549 705,012 664,590 740,255 1,061,327 Luxembourg 1,209,460 1,043,135 962,691 1,015,081 1,192,624 963,301 China 119,012 111,773 137,312 87,636 606,079 946,218 Hong Kong 708,154 620,263 792,229 842,223 824,995 708,992 Subtotal: Top 10 nonsubject countries 12,727,768 12,592,049 13,892,341 14,185,268 16,865,159 17,078,799 All other countries 6,098,166 5,569,294 6,326,573 6,398,311 6,066,508 5,733,147 World 31,131,236 30,006,955 33,801,745 34,868,833 37,973,762 37,138,469 Note.--Australia data are imports from Australia reported by partner countries because Australia export data are incomplete. Exports from Malaysia are excluded from this table because of data inconsistencies. HS codes included: 721030, 721041, 721049, 721061, 721069, 721070, 721220, 721230, 721240, and 721250. Source: Global Trade Atlas. According to published reports, U.S. mills entered the summer with backlogs stemming from unplanned outages and labor disputes. Demand for corrosion-resistant steel, especially by automakers, was reportedly somewhat less of a factor, while service centers reportedly began to re-stock inventories over the summer. After working through the effects of unplanned outages in the first half of 2006, views on supply availability going forward were more mixed, focusing on production cutbacks in response to inventory drawdowns by services centers (projected to continue into the first quarter of 2007), weakening demand in the auto sector, and slowing appliance sales. The European market for flat products generally, including corrosion-resistant steel, continued to experience relatively strong demand during the summer, albeit with an expected seasonal pause in August. 162 Market commentators also noted extended delivery times in Europe, reflecting both demand for corrosion-resistant steel and, according to ***, “tight” supply-side management by European mills, particularly Arcelor-Mittal offsetting a degree of caution by sheet buyers in the fall of 2006. 163 See also American Metal Market, “China’s Wuhan beginning trial run at first of 3 new galvanizing lines,” August 23, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-08-23__18-12-59.html, retrieved on September 24, 2006. 164 LME Monthly Average Prices, http://www.lme.co.uk/dataprices_monthlyaverages.asp. 165 Platt’s Metals Week, August 28, 2006, p. 6. 166 Ibid. CORE-IV-38 Demand in Asia is largely viewed as having rebounded since 2005, and over the course of the summer and fall underlying demand in Japan was observed to be strong, although demand in Korea (and Taiwan by the fall) was reportedly less so. Demand in the distribution chain, however, was viewed somewhat less optimistically, and with the seasonal slowdown in late summer, *** pointed to potential concerns in the sheet market generally (and market conditions in China more specifically) resulting from continued growth in capacity combined with somewhat diminished export prospects. 163 These concerns were somewhat mitigated, however, as a result of rising auto sector demand and maintenance outages in the fluctuating Chinese market. Consolidation Among Global Producers The trend of consolidation in the steel industry has encompassed U.S. firms (see Part CORE-III) and foreign firms involved in the manufacture of corrosion-resistant steel. In particular, the merger of Mittal Steel and Arcelor to create the largest steel company in the world has brought together two giant companies, each itself the result of previous mergers and consolidations, with production facilities for corrosion-resistant steel in the following countries: Algeria, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Kazakstan, Macedonia, Poland, South Africa, and the United States. The merger of Kawasaki Steel and NKK to form JFE Steel brought together the second and third largest steel companies in Japan, both of which were producers of corrosion-resistant steel. Global Raw Material Availability and Prices In the production of corrosion-resistant steel, the most important material inputs are the cold- rolled steel substrate and the zinc used as the coating material. The cold-rolled substrate is normally produced from internally produced semifinished steel, although some producers are converters and purchase the cold-rolled substrate from either domestic producers or importers. The availability of the cold-rolled substrate has not been noted as a problem, although the price of cold-rolled steel has increased due to increases in raw material prices, including those of iron ore, scrap, alloys, and energy. The world price of zinc, used to coat galvanized steel, has increased rapidly beginning in early 2005. The price of zinc fell gradually from around $1,200 per metric ton in 2000 to around $800 per metric ton in October 2003. The price was steady at that level through the first three quarters of 2003, after which it gradually increased to about $1,300 per metric ton in the summer of 2005. Since then, the price of zinc has increased rapidly, reaching $3,600 per metric ton in May of 2006, before easing to around $3,300 per metric ton in August 2006.164 The increase in price has followed a rapid decline in stocks of zinc. LME warehouse stocks have declined from nearly 800,000 metric tons in early 2004, to under 180,000 metric tons in August 2006, the lowest inventory level in many years. The global zinc market was in deficit by 40,000 metric tons in the first six months of 2006, as world demand increased more than world output.165 Most of the increases in demand were in Asia, where Chinese demand was estimated at 1.5 million tons, some 29 percent of the global total. 166 167 This section discusses the North American Free Trade Agreement. For information on the European Union and Mercosur, please refer to Part CTL-IV. 168 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, found at http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-73- 536/politics_economy/free_trade/. 169 Bilateral and Regional Negotiations, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, January 2006, www.ustr.gov. 170 The North America Free Trade Agreement, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, June 2006, found at http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/nafta-alena/questions-en.asp. 171 “NAFTA: A Strong Record of Success,” Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, March 2006, found at http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Fact_Sheets/2006/asset_upload_file242_9156.pdf, retrieved on September 23, 2006. CORE-IV-39 Regional Developments167 The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a free trade agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States, went into effect on January 1, 1994. This agreement was an expansion of the earlier Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1989, which included only the United States and Canada. 168 NAFTA called for the immediate elimination of duties on half of all U.S. goods shipped to Mexico and Canada, and the gradual phasing out of other tariffs over a period of about 14 years. NAFTA created the world’s largest free trade area, which now links 435 million people producing $13.8 trillion worth of goods and services.169 Each NAFTA country retains its external tariffs vis-à-vis non-members' goods and levies a lower tariff on goods "originating" from the other NAFTA members. Rules of origin provide the basis for customs officials to make determinations about which goods are entitled preferential tariff treatment under the NAFTA. 170 According to USTR, “From 1993 to 2005, trade among the NAFTA nations climbed 173 percent, from $297 billion to $810 billion.”171 1 Cold-rolled steel is the substrate for corrosion-resistant steel. 2 Rising iron ore costs in 2006 reportedly have pushed steel price forecasts for the second half of 2006 up by about 19 percent. “Steel prices are likely to jump, adding to manufacturers’ woes,” The Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2006. 3 U.S. producers have added surcharges, increased coating weight extras, or both due to rising zinc costs. “Buyers grumble as mills seek another sheet hike,” American Metal Market, June 28, 2006. Zinc prices are expected to remain high in 2007, in part due to strong demand for galvanized products in the United States, the EU, and China. “Price of zinc to stay high into ‘07,” American Metal Market, October 10, 2006. CORE-V-1 PART CORE-V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES Raw Materials The cost of raw materials, primarily iron ore, coal, and steel scrap that is used to produce cold- rolled steel,1 is an important component of the total cost of producing corrosion-resistant steel. Public data show that prices in the United States of iron ore and coal rose during the January 2000 to September 2006 period, with the increase for iron ore occurring primarily in 2005 and 2006 (figure CORE-V-1). 2 The price of steel scrap in the United States decreased in 2000 and 2001 and then increased markedly. After a decrease in early 2005, scrap prices then increased through mid-2006 and have only fallen slightly in recent months. Public data also show that the prices of zinc and aluminum, which are the primary coating materials used for corrosion-resistant steel, began to increase in 2004. These price increases then accelerated in late 2005 through 2006 (figure CORE-V-2).3 Energy costs are another important factor in the production of corrosion-resistant steel. Both natural gas prices and electricity prices were higher in January-July 2006 than in any of the full years between 2000 and 2005, as shown in the following tabulation: Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 3 U.S. natural gas industrial price1 $4.45 $5.24 $4.02 $5.81 $6.41 $7.09 $8.21 Electricity industrial price2 4.64 5.04 4.88 5.13 5.11 5.27 5.93 1 In dollars per thousand cubic feet. 2 In cents per kilowatt-hour. 3 Monthly average for January through July. Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov. CORE-V-2 Figure CORE-V-1 Raw material costs: Producer price indexes (January 2000=100) of iron ore, coal, and iron and steel scrap in the United States, by months, January 2000-September 2006 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 7, 2006. Figure CORE-V-2 Coating material costs: London Metal Exchange cash prices of zinc and aluminum, by months, January 2000-October 2006 Source: American Metal Market, November 7, 2006. 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 January 2000 = 100 Iron ore C oal Iron and steel scrap 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 cents per pound Zinc Aluminum 4 Rather than including zinc in raw material surcharges, U.S. producers reportedly use coating or galvanizing “extras,” which are calculated based on zinc prices and are dependent on the amount of zinc in the coatings. “Zinc’s new zoom,” American Metal Market, August 18, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-08-18__11-07-27.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. 5 *** reported that export taxes on scrap in Russia, Ukraine, and other countries have driven up world scrap prices. *** reported that it expects raw material prices, particularly for steel scrap, iron ore, and energy products, to remain high in the foreseeable future. 6 Nucor and SDI reported that they have had contracts that provide for price increases and decreases based on changes in some raw material costs. Due to increases in the price of zinc, the two companies reported that they have included provisions for zinc price adjustments in non-automotive contracts for 2007 but that automotive manufacturers have not accepted the new provisions in their contracts. Nucor and SDI’s posthearing brief, answers to Commissioners’ questions, p. 43. 7 ***. In addition, Mittal reported that domestic producers have not been able to fully pass along increased raw material costs to customers, particularly for large customers with contractual arrangements. Hearing transcript, p. 127 (Schorsch). However, auto producers reported that ***. In addition, auto producers reported that ***. Auto producers’ prehearing brief, pp. 28 and 30. 8 These estimates are based on a weighted average of HTS statistical reporting numbers 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, and 7212.50.0000. CORE-V-3 Producers and importers were asked to what extent changes in the prices of raw materials had affected the selling price of corrosion-resistant steel since 2000. Fifteen producers reported that raw material prices, including the prices of coal, iron ore, hot- and cold-rolled coil, steel scrap, coating materials, 4 and energy-related products, increased substantially in late 2003 or 2004 through 2005.5 Most importers reported that raw material price increases had a dramatic effect on corrosion-resistant steel prices, especially since 2004. Ten producers reported using raw material surcharges or price increases during the duration of long-term contracts. 6 Two producers reported implementing surcharges on a pass-through basis, and two producers reported that they were not able to pass through the full amount. 7 Three producers reported using surcharges tied to index values, and one producer reported using a fuel surcharge. *** reported using temporary surcharges that went as high as *** per ton beginning in 2004 but reported that it no longer uses surcharges, and *** reported that it has not used surcharges in 2005 or 2006. Three importers reported using surcharges or price increases during the duration of long-term contracts. Two importers reported that the raw material surcharge is tied to the zinc price on the London Metal Exchange. Transportation Costs to the United States Transportation costs for shipping corrosion-resistant steel to the United States (excluding U.S. inland costs) from the six subject countries are estimated for 2005 in the tabulation that follows. These estimates are derived from official import data for the HTS statistical reporting numbers for the subject product in 2005 and represent the transportation and other charges on imports valued on a c.i.f. basis, as compared with a customs value basis. 8 9 ***, however, reported that inland transportation costs accounted for 15 percent of the total cost of corrosion- resistant steel, and *** reported that inland transportation costs accounted for 20 percent. 10 Joint respondents reported that the substantial decline in the U.S. dollar limits the potential benefits to foreign producers of increasing shipments to the U.S. market. Joint respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 24 and exhibit 3. In addition, Dofasco reported that the appreciation of the Canadian dollar has made increased U.S. shipments less likely. Hearing transcript, pp. 401-402 (Davey). CORE-V-4 Country Estimated shipping cost in 2005 (in percent) Australia 13.06 Canada 1.74 France 7.20 Germany 6.93 Japan 9.05 Korea 7.33 U.S. Inland Transportation Costs U.S. inland transportation costs for delivery of corrosion-resistant steel vary widely. Fourteen responding producers estimated that U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from 3 to 8 percent of their costs of corrosion-resistant steel. Importers reported that U.S. inland transportation costs generally ranged from 1 to 8 percent of their costs of corrosion-resistant steel.9 Twenty of the 34 responding purchasers reported that inland transportation costs are a major factor in their firms’ consideration of which suppliers to source from, and most reported that inland transportation costs accounted for 1.5 to 10 percent of the total cost of the corrosion-resistant steel that they purchase. ***, however, reported that inland transportation costs accounted for as much as 12 to 15 percent of the total cost when sourcing from certain suppliers. Sixteen of the 17 responding producers reported that they arranged delivery, and ten shipped 70 percent or more of their corrosion-resistant steel between 101 and 1,000 miles. Three producers reported shipping 60 percent or more of their corrosion-resistant steel less than 100 miles. Among importers, 13 of the 25 responding firms reported that they arranged delivery, 11 reported that the purchaser arranged delivery, and one reported that both producer and purchaser arranged delivery. While eight importers (seven importing from subject countries) reported shipping 75 percent or more of their corrosion-resistant steel less than 100 miles, five importers (all importing from subject countries) shipped at least 70 percent of their corrosion-resistant steel between 101 and 1,000 miles, and three importers (two importing from subject countries) shipped at least 80 percent more than 1,000 miles. Exchange Rates10 Quarterly data reported by the International Monetary Fund indicate that both the real and nominal values of the Australian dollar appreciated and then depreciated relative to the U.S. dollar during the period for which data were collected (figure CORE-V-3), while the real and nominal values of the Canadian dollar, the euro (France and Germany), and the Korean won first depreciated and then appreciated relative to the U.S. dollar. The nominal value of the Japanese yen fluctuated but was CORE-V-5 approximately the same in early 2006 as it was in early 2000, while the real value of the currency depreciated relative to the U.S. dollar. Figure CORE-V-3 Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Australian, Canadian, French, German, Japanese, and Korean currencies relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 Figure continued on next page. Australia 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Nominal Real Jan-Mar 2000=100 Canada 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Nominal Real Jan-Mar 2000=100 CORE-V-6 Figure CORE-V-3--Continued Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Australian, Canadian, French, German, Japanese, and Korean currencies relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 Figure continued on next page. France 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Nominal Real Jan-Mar 2000=100 Germany 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Nominal Real Jan-Mar 2000=100 CORE-V-7 Figure CORE-V-3--Continued Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates of the Australian, Canadian, French, German, Japanese, and Korean currencies relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, retrieved from http://ifs.apdi.net/imf/about.asp on October 26, 2006. Japan 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Nominal Real Jan-Mar 2000=100 Korea 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Nominal Real Jan-Mar 2000=100 11 *** reported that base prices are adjusted to meet competitive market prices where commercially necessary. 12 *** reported that it contacts five suppliers; three U.S. producers and two importers. 13 *** reported that it issues a request for quotation annually to approximately 50 suppliers. 14 Auto producers reported that they generally have contracts with individual producers to supply steel for certain auto parts and that the life of the vehicles is multiple years. Hearing transcript, pp. 431-433 (Cover). Dofasco reported that auto companies typically source steel for auto parts from an individual producer on a multi-year basis and that changes in the level of Canadian exports have been a result of auto producers shifting production of certain vehicles between plants in Canada and plants in the United States and Mexico. Hearing transcript, pp. 394-397 (Kenny) and Canadian respondent interested parties’ prehearing brief, pp. 5-7. 15 U.S. Steel reported that automotive and appliance end users tend to favor longer-term contracts, whereas the construction industry is more short-term and project-based. Hearing transcript, pp. 231-232 (Goodish). Nucor (continued...) CORE-V-8 PRICING PRACTICES Pricing Methods Producers generally reported determining prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis, based on market conditions and raw material costs. Six responding producers reported having contracts for multiple shipments, four producers reported using base prices and published extras, and three producers reported using price lists.11 Importers also reported determining prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis based on market conditions. Four importers reported contract pricing, and none reported using price lists. *** reported using a pricing matrix, and *** reported using a computer model. Most purchasers reported contacting between two and six suppliers before making a purchase.12 Five purchasers reported only contacting one supplier, and three purchasers reported contacting up to nine suppliers. 13 Thirty of the 34 responding purchasers reported that purchases of corrosion-resistant steel usually involve negotiations between supplier and purchaser, with some explaining that prices are market driven, but that the base price and extras are part of the negotiations. Some purchasers reported that they give target prices, with four purchasers reporting that they quote competing prices and six reporting that they do not. Sixteen purchasers reported varying their purchases from a given supplier based on the price offered for a specified period, with the time period being monthly or quarterly. Four purchasers reported that they vary their purchases annually or based on the length of their contracts.14 Sixteen of the 34 responding purchasers reported that the price of corrosion-resistant steel changes monthly or quarterly, with nine reporting annually and five reporting that it varies based on set contracts. Purchasers reported that market conditions, raw material prices, inventory levels, capacity, and transportation costs are the main reasons for price changes. AK Steel (4), U.S. Steel (3), Nucor (2), and Corus (2) were named by purchasers as influencing the U.S. wholesale market price of corrosion-resistant steel since 2000, citing their initiation of raw material surcharges and extras and increases in those surcharges and extras. Sales Terms and Discounts Fourteen producers and seven importers reported that they normally quote f.o.b. prices; one producer and eight importers commonly quote on a delivered basis; and three producers and one importer reported doing both. Producers’ sales terms are generally 0.5/10 net 30 days, and importers’ are generally net 30 days. Three producers reported that sales terms are net 30 days, and three reported that sales terms are 0.75/10 net 30 days. Eight of 20 producers reported that 85 percent or more of their sales are on a spot basis. Six producers (***) reported that 60 percent or more of their sales are on a long-term contract basis, 15 three reported that 58 percent or more of their sales are on a short-term contract basis, and the 15 (...continued) reported that its contract business was generally with automotive, appliance, and HVAC end users. Hearing transcript, p. 232 (DiMicco). Steel Dynamics reported that its contract business covered all market segments. Hearing transcript, p. 232 (Nolan). 16 U.S. producers reported that some of their multi-year contracts did not allow for increased prices, despite increased raw material costs and that auto companies have been pushing for shorter-term contracts. Hearing transcript, pp. 167-168, 226, and 235-236 (Scherrbaum), pp. 224-225 and 235 (Schorsch), and pp. 248 and 295 (Goodish). However, some of the auto producers reported that in the past, U.S. producers valued high-volume, contract-based business but that since 2004, U.S. suppliers have been reluctant to enter into long-term contracts, which used to involve flat or declining prices but that now come at a price premium. In addition, some contracts now contain volume limitations. Hearing transcript, pp. 373-374 (DeSandre), pp. 377-378 (Mohatarem), and p. 434 (King) and auto producers’ posthearing brief, appendix, pp. 32-40. 17 *** reported long-term contracts of 6 to 12 months, and *** reported long-term contracts of three years. 18 Auto producers reported that it is common for long-term contracts between suppliers and auto companies to contain estimated volumes for each part number and that it requires flexibility to supply the volume of steel for the parts as production levels vary. Hearing transcript, pp. 431-433 (Cover). Toyota reported that in 2005, it approached suppliers with an increase in volume but that suppliers were not able to support it, which was a change from Toyota’s past experience with steel producers. Hearing transcript, p. 433 (Nielsen). 19 Products 1 through 7 are the same pricing items as specified in the first reviews. Product 8 was added as requested by the joint respondent interested parties. CORE-V-9 remaining producers reported a mix of long-term, short-term, and spot sales.16 Among importers, nine of the 23 responding firms reported that 75 percent or more of their sales are on a short-term contract basis, and eight reported that 95 percent or more of their sales are on a spot basis. Only four importers reported some sales on a long-term contract basis. Producers generally reported that long-term contracts are from one to two years,17 with either price only or both price and quantity fixed, and no meet-or-release provisions.18 The majority of producers reported that renegotiations are possible for long-term contracts. Short-term contracts are generally from one to six months, with either price only or both price and quantity fixed, and no renegotiations or meet-or-release provisions. Generally, importers reported that long-term contracts are from one to three years with both price and quantity fixed and no renegotiations or meet-or-release provisions. Importers also reported that short-term contracts are usually one to six months in duration, with both price and quantity fixed, no renegotiations, and no meet-or-release provisions. Ten of the 17 responding producers reported having a discount policy; five reporting volume discounts, two reporting discounts for early payment, and three not specifying a specific discount policy. Nineteen importers reported that they did not have a discount policy. Three importers reported offering volume discounts and one reported offering discounts for early payment. No producer reported offering financing to U.S. purchasers of corrosion-resistant steel, and two importers reported that they may offer extended terms up to 90 days. PRICE DATA The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of corrosion-resistant steel to provide quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of corrosion-resistant steel that was shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market. Data were requested for contract and non-contract sales for the period January 2000 to June 2006. The products for which pricing data were requested are as follows:19 20 *** reported that the only product it produced during the review period was *** but since it represented *** percent of its total production, it considered *** data as “negligible” and did not report any pricing data. *** reported that within the narrow gauge ranges specified for ***, there was only a remote possibility that it produced the products and so did not report any pricing data. *** reported annual pricing data. *** could not report data for 2000 or 2001. *** reported estimates of contract and non-contract sales based on whether customers were primarily contract or non-contract customers. *** reported that *** were the only pricing products for which it would have had shipments since 2000 but that it could not report any data due to its system setup and routine system purging. 21 *** reported that it does not track pricing data by coating weight or grade and so did not report any pricing data. *** reported some data for imports from Japan where the value included ***, and so these data are not included in the tables. *** only reported pricing data from nonsubject countries, specifically ***. CORE-V-10 Product 1.–Hot-dipped galvanized carbon steel sheet, in coils, ASTM A-653, DQSK, minimum spangle, G-40 to G-60 coating weight (Z120 to Z180 in metric coating weight), 40 inches through 70 inches in width, 0.018 inches to under 0.020 inches in thickness; Product 2.–Aluminum-zinc alloy coated carbon steel sheet, in coils, hot dipped, structural quality, ASTM A-792, Grade 50, AZ50, 40 inches through 49 inches in width, 0.019 inches through 0.0219 inches in thickness; this product has a coating of 55 percent aluminum, 43.5 percent zinc, and 1.5 percent silicon, and has a variety of product names worldwide, including “Galvalume,” “Zincalume,” “Aluzink,” “Zinkalit,” and “Zalutite”; Product 3.–Aluminized or aluminum-coated carbon steel sheet, in coils, ASTM A-463, Type 1, CS Type B, T-140 coating, 40 inches through 50 inches in width, 0.044 inches through 0.052 inches in thickness; this product is hot-dipped, with an aluminum-silicon coating consisting of 5 to 11 percent silicon and the balance aluminum; Product 4.–Hot-dipped galvanized carbon steel sheet, in coils, ASTM A-653, structural quality, Grade 80, <G60, regular or minimum spangle, not annealed, 40 inches through 70 inches in width, 0.018 inches to under 0.020 inches in thickness; Product 5.–Hot-dipped Zn-Iron (galvannealed) carbon steel sheet, in coils, ASTM A-653, A- 50 or lower coating weight, forming steel (DQSK), 40 inches through 70 inches in width, 0.022 inches to under 0.044 inches in thickness; Product 6.–Electrolytically zinc-coated carbon steel sheet, in coils, ASTM A-879, 50-90 grams/square meter per side coating, without organic coating, forming steel, 40 inches to under 60 inches in width, 0.022 to under 0.044 in thickness; Product 7.–Hot-dipped Zn-Iron (galvannealed) carbon steel sheet, in coils, coating weight 45A-45A, 24 inches to under 40 inches in width, 0.060 to under 0.085 in thickness; and Product 8.–Hot-dipped galvanized carbon steel sheet, in coils, bake hardenable, 40 inches through 70 inches in width, 0.020 inches through 0.035 inches in thickness, coating weight 60G-60G. Thirteen U.S. producers20 and 10 importers21 provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. Pricing data reported by these firms, shown in tables CORE-V-1 to CORE-V-16 and figures CORE-V-4 to CORE-V- 11, accounted for 3.3 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of corrosion-resistant steel, *** percent CORE-V-11 of U.S. imports from Canada, *** percent of U.S. imports from Germany, *** percent of U.S. imports from Japan, and *** percent of U.S. imports from Korea in 2005. Table CORE-V-1 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of contract sales as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 1, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-V-2 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of non-contract sales as reported by U.S. producers of product 1, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-V-3 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of contract sales as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 2, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-V-4 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of non-contract sales as reported by U.S. producers of product 2, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-V-5 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of contract sales as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 3, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-V-6 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of non-contract sales as reported by U.S. producers of product 3, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-V-7 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of contract sales as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 4, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-V-8 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of non-contract sales as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 4, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * CORE-V-12 Table CORE-V-9 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of contract sales as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 5, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-V-10 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of non-contract sales as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 5, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * CORE-V-13 Table CORE-V-11 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of contract sales as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 6,1 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 Period U.S. producers Imports from Germany,2 Japan, and Korea (supressed) Contract sales Quantity Price Quantity Price Margin Short tons Per short ton Short tons Per short ton Percent 2000: Jan.-Mar. 63,349 $659.05 *** *** *** Apr.-June 66,825 657.70 *** *** *** July-Sept. 59,579 648.22 *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 57,309 641.56 *** *** *** 2001: Jan.-Mar. 49,218 630.01 *** *** *** Apr.-June 60,923 629.91 *** *** *** July-Sept. 44,350 620.88 *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 45,393 611.92 *** *** *** 2002: Jan.-Mar. 47,189 623.58 *** *** *** Apr.-June 54,298 622.37 *** *** *** July-Sept. 45,434 628.12 *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 47,263 638.46 *** *** *** 2003: Jan.-Mar. 41,289 666.68 *** *** *** Apr.-June 40,353 658.77 *** *** *** July-Sept. 38,010 654.74 *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 38,001 645.44 *** *** *** 2004: Jan.-Mar. 36,863 674.32 *** *** *** Apr.-June 37,244 752.60 *** *** *** July-Sept. 30,145 791.92 *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 27,308 759.78 *** *** *** 2005: Jan.-Mar. 37,990 750.59 *** *** *** Apr.-June 40,591 763.81 *** *** *** July-Sept. 35,100 717.47 *** *** *** Oct.-Dec. 42,231 730.99 *** *** *** 2006: Jan.-Mar. 46,153 789.84 *** *** *** Apr.-June 45,062 797.95 *** *** *** 1 Product 6.–Electrolytically zinc-coated carbon steel sheet, in coils, ASTM A-879, 50-90 grams per square meter per side coating, without organic coating, forming steel, 40" to under 60" in width, 0.022" to under 0.044" in thickness. 2 Data for imports from Germany have been revised since the prehearing staff report. Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. CORE-V-14 Table CORE-V-12 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of non-contract sales as reported by U.S. producers of product 6,1 by quarters, January 2000-June 20062 Period U.S. producers Non-contract sales Quantity Price Short tons Per short ton 2000: Jan.-Mar. 12,801 $551.30 Apr.-June 13,154 587.92 July-Sept. 16,019 551.00 Oct.-Dec. 12,474 546.05 2001: Jan.-Mar. 10,766 518.84 Apr.-June 8,493 543.00 July-Sept. 6,698 527.94 Oct.-Dec. 8,460 470.34 2002: Jan.-Mar. 14,582 533.80 Apr.-June 11,759 541.82 July-Sept. 9,946 559.32 Oct.-Dec. 10,471 579.33 2003: Jan.-Mar. 8,811 535.17 Apr.-June 6,969 540.99 July-Sept. 6,468 608.21 Oct.-Dec. 6,868 537.29 2004: Jan.-Mar. 7,016 638.08 Apr.-June 10,139 780.83 July-Sept. 7,467 870.01 Oct.-Dec. 4,922 840.91 2005: Jan.-Mar. 7,249 775.45 Apr.-June 6,408 844.13 July-Sept. 5,795 746.34 Oct.-Dec. 5,850 772.31 2006: Jan.-Mar. 6,008 771.73 Apr.-June 7,673 804.67 1 Product 6.–Electrolytically zinc-coated carbon steel sheet, in coils, ASTM A-879, 50-90 grams per square meter per side coating, without organic coating, forming steel, 40" to under 60" in width, 0.022" to under 0.044" in thickness. 2 ***. Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. CORE-V-15 Table CORE-V-13 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of contract sales as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 7, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-V-14 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of non-contract sales as reported by U.S. producers of product 7, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-V-15 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of contract sales as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 8, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Table CORE-V-16 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of non-contract sales as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 8, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Figure CORE-V-4 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 1, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Figure CORE-V-5 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 2, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Figure CORE-V-6 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 3, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Figure CORE-V-7 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 4, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Figure CORE-V-8 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 5, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * 22 Mittal announced a $30 per ton increase on coated sheet products effective with July 2006 shipments. The move reportedly puts its prices more in line with other competitors. “Mittal reevaluates mart, ups sheet product tags,” American Metal Market, May 24, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-05-23__15-56-26.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. Nucor, Mittal, and U.S. Steel announced a $20 per ton increase on hot-dipped galvanized sheet products effective August 1, 2006. “Flat-rolled demand seen holding firm to year-end,” American Metal Market, July 4, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-07-03__17-44-39.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. California Steel Industries and USS-POSCO increased prices in both July and August 2006, in part due to rising zinc costs. “West Coast braces for next round of flat-rolled hikes,” American Metal Market, June 6, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-06-06__14-58-20.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. However, California Steel Industries announced a cut in galvanized prices for October 2006 and USS-POSCO cancelled a planned increase in price. “West Coast flat-roll prices on course for October drop,” American Metal Market, August 17, 2006, found at http://amm.com/2006-08-17__16-02-49.html, retrieved September 1, 2006. 23 Mittal reported that products 1 through 4 are typically for customers in non-automotive sectors, such as construction, and that products 5 though 8 are higher value-added products for the automotive sector. Mittal’s posthearing brief, answer to Commissioner Koplan’s question 1. Dofasco reported that product 8, a bake hardenable product, is a typical contractual-priced product and that contract pricing is still catching up to market pricing. Hearing transcript, pp. 511-512 (Kenny). 24 Mittal reported that recently negotiated contracts for 2007 will reflect price increases because long-term contract prices have recently lagged behind spot prices. Mittal’s posthearing brief, answer to Commissioner Hillman’s question 1. CORE-V-16 Figure CORE-V-9 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 6, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Figure CORE-V-10 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 7, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Figure CORE-V-11 Corrosion-resistant steel: Weighted-average f.o.b. selling prices per short ton as reported by U.S. producers and importers of product 8, by quarters, January 2000-June 2006 * * * * * * * Price Trends Among Commission pricing products 1, 3, 4, and 6, U.S. prices of corrosion-resistant steel showed relatively little change from 2000 through 2003. Price increases for those four products began in the first quarter of 2004, with some leveling off or small decreases in late 2004 or early 2005. Products 1 and 4 then showed price increases in the first half of 2006.22 Prices of product 2 increased beginning in 2004 as well but also showed more volatility in 2000 through 2003, especially for non-contract sales. The prices of products 5, 7, and 8 23 showed little change over the period for contract sales, while prices of non-contract sales increased over the period for products 5 and 7. With the exceptions of products 5, 7, and 8, contract and non-contract prices generally followed the same trend.24 Prices of imports of products 2 and 6 from Korea, product 6 from Germany, and products 7 and 8 from Canada followed the general U.S. price trend. For the other products imported from Germany, Korea, and Japan, there was too little data reported by importers to comment on the price trends. 25 One purchaser reported that the price of U.S. corrosion-resistant steel is now higher than the price of the product from all other countries, and four purchasers reported that the price of the U.S. product is now higher than the price of the product from various nonsubject countries, including Brazil, China, Mexico, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. CORE-V-17 Importers responding to Commission questionnaires did not report data for imports from Australia or France. Purchasers were asked if there had been a change in the price of corrosion-resistant steel since 2000 and, if so, how the price of domestic corrosion-resistant steel changed relative to the price of corrosion-resistant steel produced in the various subject countries. Three purchasers reported that there has been no change in price, and 17 purchasers reported that prices have changed by the same amount. The responses for how U.S. prices reportedly changed relative to the various subject countries is reported in the following tabulation:25 Country Price of U.S. product is now relatively higher than price of subject country product Price of U.S. product is now relatively lower than price of subject country product France 1 0 Germany 1 0 Japan 0 1 Korea 3 1 Price Comparisons As shown in table CORE-V-17, subject imports from Canada, Germany, Japan, and Korea undersold the comparable U.S. product in 57 of 161 comparisons. 26 Dofasco reported that for product 7, ***. For product 8, it reported that ***. Staff telephone interview with ***, September 19, 2006. CORE-V-18 Table CORE-V-17 Corrosion-resistant steel: Instances of underselling/(overselling) and the range and average margins for products 1-8, by source country,1 January 2000-June 20062 Country Underselling Overselling Number of instances Range (percent) Average margin (percent) Number of instances Range (percent) Average margin (percent) Canada 31 0.5 to 46.3 8.4 19 0.1 to 48.5 12.8 Germany3 8 0.0 to 24.3 6.8 30 1.0 to 108.8 16.3 Japan 5 4.3 to 15.8 8.4 15 11.2 to 111.0 32.9 Korea 13 0.9 to 26.7 12.2 40 1.6 to 128.7 35.4 1 Importers responding to Commission questionnaires did not report data for imports from Australia or France. 2 In the first reviews, there were 160 possible price comparisons between U.S.-produced corrosion-resistant steel and imports from Canada, Germany, Japan, and Korea. In 74 of those, subject imports undersold the domestic product; in the remaining 86 instances, subject product oversold the domestic product. For Canada, there were 13 instances of underselling and no instances of overselling, with an average margin of underselling of 7.5 percent. For Germany, there were no instances of underselling and 15 instances of overselling. For Japan, there were 14 instances of underselling and 9 instances of overselling, with an average margin of underselling of 13.5 percent. For Korea, there were 47 instances of underselling and 62 instances of overselling, with an average margin of underselling of 14.9 percent. In the original investigations, there were 142 possible price comparisons between U.S.-produced corrosion-resistant steel and imports from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea. In 47 of those comparisons, subject imports undersold the domestic product; in the remaining 95 instances, the subject product oversold the domestic product. For Australia, there were no instances of underselling and 2 instances of overselling. For Canada, there was 3 instances of underselling and 11 instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 6.6 to 24.5 percent. For France, there were 10 instances of underselling and 8 instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 2.6 to 16.0 percent. For Germany, there was 1 instance of underselling and 26 instances of overselling, with a margin of underselling of 3.9 percent. For Japan, there were 22 instances of underselling and 35 instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 1.5 to 25.1 percent. For Korea, there were 11 instances of underselling and 13 instances of overselling, with margins of underselling ranging from 5.0 to 30.2 percent. 3 Data for imports from Germany were revised following the prehearing staff report. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires; Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, 348-350, and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, 614-618 (Review), USITC Publication 3364 (November 2000); and Certain Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-319-332, 334, 336-342, 344, 347-353, and 731-TA-573-579, 581-592, 594-597, 599-609, 612-619 (Final), USITC Publication 2664 (August 1993). Canada Prices for contract sales of imports from Canada were below prices for contract sales of U.S. product 7 in 24 of 26 quarters where comparisons were possible, with margins of underselling ranging from 0.5 to 13.9 percent (table CORE-V-13).26 Prices for contract sales of imports from Canada were below prices for contract sales of U.S. product 8 in 7 of 24 quarters where comparisons were possible, with margins of underselling ranging from 1.2 to 46.3 percent (table CORE-V-15). In the 17 quarters of overselling, the margins ranged from 0.8 to 48.5 percent. 27 ***. 28 Data for imports from Germany of product 6 have been revised since the prehearing staff report. 29 ***. Staff telephone interview with ***, August 11, 2006. CORE-V-19 Germany Prices for contract sales of imports from Germany were below prices for contract sales of U.S. product 6 in 4 of 26 quarters where comparisons were possible, with margins of underselling ranging from 0.0 27 to 4.0 percent (table CORE-V-11).28 In the other 22 quarters, margins of overselling ranged from 1.0 to 33.2 percent. Prices for contract sales of imports from Germany were below prices for contract sales of U.S. products 1, 2, 3, and 8 in 4 of 12 quarters where comparisons were possible, with margins of underselling ranging from 2.2 to 24.3 percent (tables CORE-V-1, CORE-V-3, CORE-V-5, and CORE-V-15). In the other eight quarters, margins of overselling ranged from 3.1 to 108.8 percent. Japan Prices for contract sales of imports from Japan were below prices for contract sales of U.S. product 6 in 5 of the 17 quarters where comparisons were possible, with margins of underselling ranging from to 4.3 to 15.8 percent (table CORE-V-11). In the other 12 quarters, margins of overselling ranged from 11.2 to 40.4 percent. Prices for non-contract sales of imports from Japan were above prices for non- contract sales of U.S. products 4 and 5 in all three quarters where comparisons were possible (tables CORE-V-8 and CORE-V-10).29 Korea Prices for contract sales of imports from Korea were below prices for contract sales of U.S. products 2, 3, and 6 in 13 of 31 quarters where comparisons were possible, with margins of underselling ranging from 0.9 to 26.7 percent (tables CORE-V-3, CORE-V-5, and CORE-V-11). In the 18 quarters of overselling, margins ranged from 1.6 to 59.0 percent. Prices for contract sales of imports from Korea were above prices for contract sales of U.S. products 1, 4, 5, and 7 in all 22 quarters where comparisons were possible (tables CORE-V-1, CORE-V-7, CORE-V-9, and CORE-V-13). A-1 APPENDIX A FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY 62324 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Colorado River Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon, Arizona AGENCY : National Park Service, Department of the Interior. ACTION : Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Colorado River Management Plan, Grand Canyon National Park. SUMMARY : Pursuant to subsection 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. subsection 4332 (2)(C), the National Park Service announces the availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Colorado River Management Plan, Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon, Arizona. The FEIS describes and analyzes the environmental impacts of several alternatives, including a modified preferred alternative, for future management of public use of the Colorado River through Grand Canyon National Park, including the Lower Gorge. The analysis includes both commercial and non-commercial uses. The FEIS incorporates changes based on comments on the Draft EIS, and includes the responses to public comments. DATES : The National Park Service will execute a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days following publication by the Environmental Protection Agency of the Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. ADDRESSES : Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement are available online at www.nps.gov/grca/ crmp or from the office of the Superintendent, Grand Canyon National Park, P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023. The document is also available on the Internet at: http:// planning.nps.gov/plans.cfm. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Killeen, Special Assistant, Grand Canyon National Park, 928–638–7885. Dated: September 28, 2005. Michael D. Snyder, Acting Director, Intermountain Region, National Park Service. [FR Doc. 05–21595 Filed 10–28–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312–52–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Notice of Proposed Information Collection for 1029–0038 AGENCY : Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. ACTION : Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY : In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing its intention to request approval for the collection of information for 30 CFR PART 783, Underground Mining Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Information on Environmental Resources. DATES : Comments on the proposed information collection must be received by December 30, 2005, to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES : Comments may be mailed to John A. Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 202–SIB, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may also be submitted electronically to jtreleas@smre.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request a copy of the information collection request, explanatory information and related forms, contact John A. Trelease, at (202) 208–2783. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. This notice identifies an information collection activity that OSM will be submitting to OMB for extension. This collection is contained in 30 CFR part 783, Underground Mining Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Information on Environmental Resources. OSM has revised burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect current reporting levels or adjustments based on reestimates of burden or respondents. OSM will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity. Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency’s burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany OSM’s submission of the information collection request to OMB. This notice provides the public with 60 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity: Title: Underground Mining Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Information on Environmental Resources—30 CFR part 783. OMB Control Number: 1029–0038. Summary: Applicants for underground coal mining permits are required to provide adequate descriptions of the environmental resources that may be affected by proposed underground coal mining activities. Bureau Form Number: None. Frequency of Collection: Once, at time of application submission. Description of Respondents: Underground coal mining applicants and State regulatory authorities. Total Annual Responses: 64. Total Annual Burden Hours: 28,856 hours. Dated: October 24, 2005. John R. Craynon, Chief, Division of Regulatory Support. [FR Doc. 05–21577 Filed 10–28–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–05–M INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. AA1921–197 (Second Review); 701–TA–319, 320, 325–328, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731–TA–573, 574, 576, 578, 582–587, 612, and 614–618 (Second Review)] Certain Carbon Steel Products From Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and United Kingdom AGENCY : International Trade Commission. ACTION : Institution of five-year reviews concerning the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders on certain carbon steel products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and United Kingdom. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:29 Oct 28, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31OCN1.SGM 31OCN1 62325Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 1 No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 06–5–141, expiration date June 30, 2008. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 10 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders on certain carbon steel products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and United Kingdom would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission; 1 to be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is December 21, 2005. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by January 17, 2006. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). EFFECTIVE DATE : November 1, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background.—On the dates listed below, countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders on the subject imports were issued: Order date Product/Country Inv. No. FR cite 6/13/79 ............................................... Carbon steel plate/Taiwan ........................................................................... AA1921–197 44 FR 33877 8/17/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Belgium .................................................... 701–TA–319 58 FR 43749 8/17/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Brazil ........................................................ 701–TA–320 58 FR 43751 8/17/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Mexico ...................................................... 701–TA–325 58 FR 43755 8/17/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Spain ........................................................ 701–TA–326 58 FR 43761 8/17/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Sweden .................................................... 701–TA–327 58 FR 43758 8/17/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/United Kingdom ........................................ 701–TA–328 58 FR 43748 8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Belgium .................................................... 731–TA–573 58 FR 44164 8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Brazil ........................................................ 731–TA–574 58 FR 44164 8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Finland ...................................................... 731–TA–576 58 FR 44165 8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Germany ................................................... 731–TA–578 58 FR 44170 8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Mexico ...................................................... 731–TA–582 58 FR 44165 8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Poland ...................................................... 731–TA–583 58 FR 44166 8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Romania ................................................... 731–TA–584 58 FR 44167 8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Spain ........................................................ 731–TA–585 58 FR 44167 8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/Sweden .................................................... 731–TA–586 58 FR 44168 8/19/93 ............................................... Cut-to-length carbon steel plate/United Kingdom ........................................ 731–TA–587 58 FR 44168 8/17/93 ............................................... Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products/France ................................. 701–TA–348 58 FR 43759 8/17/93 ............................................... Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products/Korea .................................. 701–TA–350 58 FR 43752 8/19/93 ............................................... Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products/Australia .............................. 731–TA–612 58 FR 44161 8/19/93 ............................................... Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products/Canada ............................... 731–TA–614 58 FR 44162 8/19/93 ............................................... Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products/France ................................. 731–TA–615 58 FR 44169 8/19/93 ............................................... Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products/Germany ............................. 731–TA–616 58 FR 44170 8/19/93 ............................................... Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products/Japan .................................. 731–TA–617 58 FR 44163 8/19/93 ............................................... Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products/Korea .................................. 731–TA–618 58 FR 44159 Following five-year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective December 15, 2000, Commerce issued a continuation of the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders on certain carbon steel products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and United Kingdom (65 FR 78469). The Commission is now conducting second reviews to determine whether revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. It will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct full reviews or expedited reviews. The Commission’s determinations in any expedited reviews will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice. Definitions.—The following definitions apply to these reviews: (1) Subject Merchandise is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year reviews, as defined by the Department of Commerce. (2) The Subject Countries in these reviews are Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and United Kingdom. (3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original 1979 antidumping determination concerning carbon steel plate from Taiwan, the Commission found one Domestic Like Product consisting of carbon steel plate. Consistent with its VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:29 Oct 28, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31OCN1.SGM 31OCN1 62326 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices 1993 determinations, the Commission found in its full five-year review determinations issued in 2000 a Domestic Like Product consisting of cut- to-length plate and another Domestic Like Product consisting of corrosion- resistant steel (excluding clad plate). Microalloy products were not included in either of these Domestic Like Products in the original and full five- year review determinations. For purposes of this notice, you should report information separately on the following two Domestic Like Products: (1) Cut-to-length plate and (2) corrosion- resistant steel (excluding clad plate). (4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original 1979 antidumping determination concerning carbon steel plate from Taiwan, the Commission found one regional Domestic Industry, consisting of producers of carbon steel plate located in the west coast States of California, Washington, and Oregon. Certain Commissioners defined the Domestic Industry differently. In its full five-year review determinations, the Commission utilized a national industry analysis with respect to Taiwan, as with all the countries subject to the 1993 orders. The Commission did not address the issue of processors in the 1993 investigations concerning cut-to-length plate; however, in its full five-year review determinations concerning cut-to-length plate, the Commission found the Domestic Industry to consist of the domestic producers of the Domestic Like Product, including processors. The Commission defined the Domestic Industry with respect to corrosion- resistant steel as the domestic producers of the Domestic Like Product of all corrosion-resistant steel (excluding clad plate). For purposes of this notice, you should report information separately on the following two Domestic Industries: (1) All domestic producers of cut-to- length plate, including processors and (2) all domestic producers of corrosion- resistant steel (excluding clad plate). (5) An Importer is any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing the Subject Merchandise into the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent. Participation in the reviews and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the Subject Merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the reviews as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission’s rules, no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the reviews. Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are reminded that they are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, to seek Commission approval if the matter in which they are seeking to appear was pending in any manner or form during their Commission employment. The Commission is seeking guidance as to whether a second transition five-year review is the ‘‘same particular matter’’ as the underlying original investigation for purposes of 19 CFR 201.15 and 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees. Former employees may seek informal advice from Commission ethics officials with respect to this and the related issue of whether the employee’s participation was ‘‘personal and substantial.’’ However, any informal consultation will not relieve former employees of the obligation to seek approval to appear from the Commission under its rule 201.15. For ethics advice, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205–3088. Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and APO service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in these reviews available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the reviews, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the reviews. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. Certification.—Pursuant to section 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with these reviews must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will be deemed to consent, unless otherwise specified, for the Commission, its employees, and contract personnel to use the information provided in any other reviews or investigations of the same or comparable products which the Commission conducts under Title VII of the Act, or in internal audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Commission pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. Written submissions.—Pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses is December 21, 2005. Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct expedited or full reviews. The deadline for filing such comments is January 17, 2006. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules and any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the reviews you do not need to serve your response). Inability to provide requested information.—Pursuant to section 207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act in making its determinations in the reviews. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:29 Oct 28, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31OCN1.SGM 31OCN1 62327Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 209 / Monday, October 31, 2005 / Notices Information to be Provided in Response to This Notice of Institution: Please provide the requested information separately for each Domestic Like Product, as defined by the Commission in its review determinations, and for each of the products identified by Commerce as Subject Merchandise. If you are a domestic producer, union/worker group, or trade/business association; import/export Subject Merchandise from more than one Subject Country; or produce Subject Merchandise in more than one Subject Country, you may file a single response. If you do so, please ensure that your response to each question includes the information requested for each pertinent Subject Country. As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. (1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address if available) and name, telephone number, fax number, and E- mail address of the certifying official. (2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Products, a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of the Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or business association, or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association. (3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in these reviews by providing information requested by the Commission. (4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the countervailing and antidumping duty orders on the Domestic Industries in general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports of Subject Merchandise on the Domestic Industries. (5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the Domestic Like Products. Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)). (6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise and producers of the Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country that currently export or have exported Subject Merchandise to the United States or other countries after 1999. (7) If you are a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Products, provide the following information on your firm’s operations on that product during calendar year 2004 (report quantity data in short tons and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/ worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/ which are members of your association. (a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of each Domestic Like Product accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production; (b) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of each Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s); and (c) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of each Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s). (8) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise from the Subject Countries, provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2004 (report quantity data in short tons and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association. (a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) imports; (b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country; and (c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country. (9) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Countries, provide the following information on your firm’s(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 2004 (report quantity data in short tons and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping or countervailing duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association. (a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) production; and (b) the quantity and value of your firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from each Subject Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. (10) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Countries after 1999, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Products produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in the Subject Countries, and such merchandise from other countries. (11) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Products and Domestic Industries; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions. Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: October 24, 2005. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 05–21589 Filed 10–28–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:29 Oct 28, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31OCN1.SGM 31OCN1 8874 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2006 / Notices Dated: February 9, 2006. Craig G. Peterson, Manager, Infrastructure and Engineering Services, Great Plains Region, Bureau of Reclamation. [FR Doc. E6–2393 Filed 2–17–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. AA1921–197 (Second Review); 701–TA–319, 320, 325–328, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731–TA–573, 574, 576, 578, 582–587, 612, and 614–618 (Second Review)] Certain Carbon Steel Products From Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and The United Kingdom AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice of Commission determinations to conduct full five-year reviews concerning the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders on certain carbon steel products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders on certain carbon steel products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the reviews will be established and announced at a later date. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). DATES : Effective February 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : On February 6, 2006, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. With respect to corrosion- resistant carbon steel flat products, the Commission found that the domestic and respondent interested party group responses to its notice of institution (70 FR 62324, October 31, 2005) were adequate. With respect to cut-to-length carbon steel plate, the Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution was adequate and that the respondent interested party group responses with respect to Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, and the United Kingdom were adequate, but found that the respondent interested party group responses with respect to Romania, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan were inadequate. However, the Commission determined to conduct full reviews concerning cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan to promote administrative efficiency in light of its decision to conduct full reviews with respect to cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, and the United Kingdom. A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner’s statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission’s Web site. Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. Issued: February 14, 2006. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6–2359 Filed 2–17–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request February 14, 2006. The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public 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 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Department of Labor and contacting Ira Mills on 202–693–4122 (this is not a toll-free number) or by E- Mail: Mills.Ira@dol.gov. Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202– 395–7316 (this is not a toll free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the Federal Register. The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Agency: Employment and Training Administration (ETA). Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection. Title: Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund Activity. OMB Number: 1205–0154. Frequency: On occasion; Monthly. Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal govt. Type of Response: Reporting. Number of Respondents: 53. Annual Responses: 3,498. Average Response time: 1⁄2 hour. VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:48 Feb 17, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM 21FEN1 rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1 11577Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 2006 / Notices The Committee was first established in February 1985 to advise the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau on ways to reduce the differential undercount for all populations in the 1990 census with a particular emphasis and focus on the Hispanic population. Upon meeting the standards set forth in Executive Order 12838 in that its charter is of compelling national interest and that other methods of obtaining public participation have been considered, the Committee was rechartered in the following years to provide advice on subsequent decennial censuses: 1987, 1989, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. The Committee will consist of a Chair, Vice-Chair, and seven other members with a substantial interest in the conduct and outcome of the decennial census, the American Community Survey, and related programs. The Committee includes academicians, community leaders, and appropriate individuals from the public at large. The Committee will function solely as an advisory body, and in compliance with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Copies of the revised charter will be filed with the appropriate Committees of the Congress and with the Library of Congress. Dated: March 3, 2006. Charles Louis Kincannon, Director, Bureau of the Census. [FR Doc. E6–3257 Filed 3–7–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–07–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census Census Advisory Committee on the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Population AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of charter renewal. SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is giving notice that it has renewed the Census Advisory Committee on the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Population. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeri Green, Committee Liaison Officer, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 3627, Federal Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20233, telephone (301) 763–2070, TTY (301) 457–2540. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, and the General Services Administration (GSA) rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 101–6, and after consultation with GSA, the Secretary of Commerce has determined that the renewal of the Census Advisory Committee on the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Population is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed by law on the Department of Commerce. The Committee was first established in February 1985 to advise the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau on ways to reduce the differential undercount for all populations in the 1990 census with a particular emphasis and focus on the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population. Upon meeting the standards set forth in Executive Order 12838, in that its charter is of compelling national interest and that other methods of obtaining public participation have been considered, the Committee was rechartered in the following years to provide input on subsequent decennial censuses: 1987, 1989, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. The Committee will consist of a Chair, Vice-Chair, and seven other members with a substantial interest in the conduct and outcome of the decennial census, the American Community Survey, and related programs. The Committee includes academicians, community leaders, and appropriate individuals from the public at large. The Committee will function solely as an advisory body, and in compliance with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Copies of the revised charter will be filed with the appropriate Committees of the Congress and with the Library of Congress. Dated: March 3, 2006. Charles Louis Kincannon, Director, Bureau of the Census. [FR Doc. E6–3253 Filed 3–7–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–07–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–423–805, A–351–817, A–405–802, A–428– 816, A–201–809, A–455–802, A–485–803, A– 469–803, A–401–805, A–412–814, A–583– 080] Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom and Carbon Steel Plate From Taiwan; Second Five-year (Sunset) Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders and Antidumping Finding; Final Results AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on cut–to- length carbon steel plate (CTL Plate) from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom and the antidumping finding on carbon steel plate from Taiwan, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On the basis of the notices of intent to participate and adequate substantive responses filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and no response or inadequate responses from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted expedited sunset reviews of these antidumping duty orders and antidumping finding. As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on CTL Plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom and the antidumping finding on carbon steel plate from Taiwan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels listed below in the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of Sunset Reviews.’’ EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Mermelstein, Robert James, or Abdelali Elouaradia, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1391, (202) 482– 0649, or (202) 482–1374, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:53 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 erjones on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES 11578 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 2006 / Notices 1 In the case of the Belgian order, one respondent interested party also filed a waiver of participation. 2 See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Finland, Germany and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Reviews, and Revocation of Orders in Part, 64 FR 46343 (August 25, 1999). 3 See Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 26 CIT 1241 (October 17, 2002). Background On November 1, 2005, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on CTL Plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom and the antidumping finding on carbon steel plate from Taiwan pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 65844 (November 1, 2005). For each of these orders, the Department received a notice of intent to participate from Nucor Corporation (Nucor), Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. (Mittal), IPSCO, Inc. (IPSCO), Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. (Oregon Steel), and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers Union, AFL–CIO-CLC (USW) (collectively, domestic interested parties) within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). Domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under sections 771(9)(C) or (D) of the Act either as a U.S. producer of a domestic like product or as a certified union engaged in the manufacture of a domestic like product. With respect to the antidumping duty orders on CTL Plate from Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Romania, Spain, and Sweden and the antidumping finding on carbon steel plate from Taiwan, we did not receive any responses from respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted expedited sunset reviews of these antidumping duty orders and the antidumping finding. With respect to the antidumping duty orders on CTL Plate from Belgium, Poland, and the United Kingdom, the Department received substantive responses from respondent interested parties within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).1 However, on December 21, 2005, the Department determined that the substantive responses filed by respondent interested parties were inadequate. Specifically, for the Belgian, Polish, and British orders, the Department found that total exports of the subject merchandise to the United States by participating respondent interested parties were below the 50 percent threshold (by volume) that the Department normally will consider to be an adequate foreign response as provided for in 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A). Therefore, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department also conducted expedited sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on CTL Plate from Belgium, Poland, and the United Kingdom. Scope of the Antidumping Duty Orders (CTL Plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) The products covered by these antidumping duty orders include hot– rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat–rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat–rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the United States Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included are flat–rolled products of non–rectangular cross- section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’) -- for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded is grade X–70 plate. These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. As a result of a changed circumstances review with respect to Finland, Germany, and the United Kingdom,2 the order was partially revoked with respect to certain cut–to- length carbon steel plate with a maximum thickness of 80 mm in steel grades BS 7191, 355 EM and 355 EMZ, as amended by Sable Offshore Energy Project specification XB MOO Y 15 0001, types 1 and 2. As a result of a decision by the Court of International Trade,3 excluded from the scope of the antidumping duty order on CTL Plate from Belgium is cut-to- length floor plate imported by Duferco Steel, Inc. ‘‘with patterns in relief derived directly from the rolling process.’’ Scope of the Antidumping Finding (Carbon Steel Plate from Taiwan) The merchandise covered by this antidumping finding is hot–rolled carbon steel plate, 0.1875 inch or more in thickness, over 8 inches in width, not in coils, not pickled, not coated or plated with metal, not clad, other than black plate, and not pressed or stamped to nonrectangular shape. The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under items 7208.40.30.30, 7208.40.30.60, 7208.51.00.30, 7208.51.00.45, 7208.51.00.60, 7208.52.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.13.00.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7211.14.00.45, 7211.90.00.00, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. All issues raised in these sunset reviews are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’ from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations, Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated March 1, 2006 (Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the orders and finding were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these sunset reviews and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B–099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:53 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 erjones on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES 11579Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 2006 / Notices Final Results of Sunset Reviews We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on CTL Plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom and the antidumping finding on carbon steel plate from Taiwan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted–average margins: BELGIUM Manufacturers/Exporters Weighted– Average Margin (Percent) Forges de Clabecq, S.A.4 .......... 6.78 Fabrique de Fer Chaleroi, S.A. (FFC) ....................................... 13.315 All Other Belgian Manufacturers and Exporters .......................... 6.84 4 The Department has never conducted a changed circumstance review finding that Duferco Clabecq S.A. (Duferco) is the suc- cessor-in-interest to Forges de Clabecq, S.A. As a result, Duferco is subject to the all others rate. 5 For this sunset review, we have reported the rate calculated from the original investiga- tion for FFC. The Department notes that in the first sunset review it reported to the Inter- national Trade Commission (ITC) a margin of 27.5 percent for FFC. See Cut-to-Length Car- bon Steel Plate From Belgium; Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 65 FR 18292 (April 7, 2000) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memo- randum at Comment 2. This rate was based on the 13.75 percent margin found in the 1995-1996 administrative review, doubled to account for a 100 percent finding of duty ab- sorption. As stated in the final results of the first sunset review, the Department reported the 27.5 percent margin ‘‘[c]onsistent with our stated policy of providing the Commission the higher of the margin the Department otherwise would have reported to the Commission or the most recent margin for that company adjusted to account for the Department’s findings on duty absorption.’’ See id. However, on March 22, 2000, the CIT found that the Department lacked authority to conduct a duty absorption inquiry for an antidumping order issued prior to January 1, 1995. See SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 24 CIT 174 (CIT 2000). There- fore, we are reporting to the ITC the higher calculated rate from the original investigation and we find that there is no basis to provide to the ITC a more recently calculated margin. See Decision Memorandum at 25–26. BRAZIL Manufacturers/Exporters Weighted– Average Margin (Percent) Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais S.A. (USIMINAS)/ Companhia Siderurgica Paulista (COSIPA) .................. 42.686 BRAZIL—Continued Manufacturers/Exporters Weighted– Average Margin (Percent) All Other Brazilian Manufacturers and Exporters .......................... 75.54 6 In the first sunset review of CTL Plate from Brazil, the Department reported one margin for USIMINAS and COSIPA because the Depart- ment had collapsed these companies and treated them as a single entity in the most re- cently completed administrative review. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil: Amendment of Final Results of Anti- dumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 20570 (April 27, 1998). Thus, we are reporting a single margin to the ITC for the two entities as we did in the first sunset review. See Deci- sion Memorandum at 26. FINLAND Manufacturers/Exporters Weighted– Average Margin (Percent) Rautaruukki Oy ........................... 40.36 All Other Finnish Manufacturers and Exporters .......................... 40.36 GERMANY Manufacturers/Exporters Weighted– Average Margin (Percent) Dillenger Huttenwerke ................ 36.00 All Other German Manufacturers and Exporters .......................... 36.00 MEXICO Manufacturers/Exporters Weighted– Average Margin (Percent) Altos Hornos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. ......................................... 49.25 All Other Mexican Manufacturers and Exporters .......................... 49.25 POLAND Manufacturers/Exporters Weighted– Average Margin (Percent) All Polish Manufacturers and Ex- porters ..................................... 61.98 ROMANIA Manufacturers/Exporters Weighted– Average Margin (Percent) Metalexportimport SA ................. 75.04 All Other Romanian Manufactur- ers and Exporters ................... 75.04 SPAIN Manufacturers/Exporters Weighted– Average Margin (Percent) Ensidesa ..................................... 105.61 All Other Spanish Manufacturers and Exporters .......................... 105.61 SWEDEN Manufacturers/Exporters Weighted– Average Margin (Percent) Svenskt Staal ABC ..................... 24.23 All Other Swedish Manufacturers and Exporters .......................... 24.23 TAIWAN Manufacturers/Exporters Weighted– Average Margin (Percent) China Steel Corporation ............. 34.00 All Other Taiwanese Manufactur- ers and Exporters ................... 34.00 UNITED KINGDOM Manufacturers/Exporters Weighted– Average Margin (Percent) British Steel plc 7 ........................ 109.22 All Other British Manufacturers and Exporters .......................... 109.22 7 The Department has never conducted a changed circumstance review finding that Corus Group plc (Corus) is the successor-in- interest to British Steel plc. Therefore, Corus is subject to the ‘‘all others’’ rate. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department’s regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:23 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 erjones on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES 11580 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 2006 / Notices 1 Lianing Machinery Import and Export Corp (‘‘LMC’’), LIMAC, Huarong, Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Company (‘‘Jinma’’), SMC, Tianjin Machinery Import and Export Corporation (‘‘TMC’’), Changzhou Light Industrial Tools, Laoling Pangu Tools, Leiling Zhengtai Tools Co., Ltd, Jiangsu Sainty International Group Co., Ltd., Shanghai J.E. Tools, Shanxi Tianli Industries Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanxi Tianli’’), Jafsam Metal Products (‘‘Jafsam’’), Suqian Foreign Trade Corp., Suqian Telee Tools, and Laiwu Zhongtai Forging. regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: March 1, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–3297 Filed 3–7–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–803] Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Administrative Reviews and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) is conducting administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or without handles, from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). These reviews cover imports of subject merchandise from eighteen manufacturers and/or exporters. We preliminarily find that certain manufacturers and/or exporters sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (‘‘NV’’) during the period of review (‘‘POR’’). We are preliminarily rescinding the reviews for all four orders for Shanghai Xinike Trading Company (‘‘SXT’’), for the order on hammers/sledges for Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huarong’’) and Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘‘Iron Bull’’), and also for the order on picks/ mattocks for Huarong and Iron Bull. In addition, we are preliminarily rescinding the review for Iron Bull with respect to the axes/adzes order. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We will issue the final review results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Renkey (Respondents Huarong and Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corporation (‘‘TMC’’)), Cindy Robinson (Respondent Iron Bull), and Nicole Bankhead (Respondent Shandong Machinery Import & Export Company (‘‘SMC’’)), AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2312, (202) 482–3797 and (202) 482–9068, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Period of Review The POR is February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. Case History General On February 19, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register four antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools (‘‘HFHTs’’) from the PRC. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles From the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 6622 (February 19, 1991). Imports covered by these orders comprise the following classes or kinds of merchandise: (1) Hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) (hammers/sledges); (2) bars over 18 inches in length, track tools and wedges (bars/wedges); (3) picks/mattocks; and (4) axes/adzes. See the ‘‘Scope of the Antidumping Duty Orders’’ section below for the complete description of subject merchandise. On February 1, 2005, the Department published an opportunity to request a review on all four antidumping duty orders on HFHTs from the PRC. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 5136 (February 1, 2005). On February 25, 2005, the following companies requested an administrative review for certain orders: Huarong for the axes/ adzes and bars/wedges order, SMC for bars/wedges and hammers/sledges, TMC for axes/adzes, hammers/sledges, and picks/mattocks, SXT for all four orders, and Iron Bull for all four orders. On February 28, 2005, the Petitioner requested administrative reviews of 16 companies,1 covering all four antidumping duty orders. On March 23, 2005, the Department initiated the 14th administrative review of HFHTs from the PRC, for twenty-one companies in the axes/adzes and bars/wedges orders, and twenty companies in the hammers/ sledges and picks/mattocks orders. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part (‘‘Initiation’’), 70 FR 14643 (March 23, 2005). On June 9, 2005, the Department transferred certain documents from the 13th Administrative Review of HFHTs on to the record of this review. See Memo to the File from Hallie Noel Zink, Case Analyst: Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China— Document Transfer, dated June 9, 2005. On June 28, 2005, the Department placed TMC’s verification report from the 13th Administrative Review of HFHTs on to the record of the instant review. See Memo to the File from Hallie Noel Zink, Case Analyst: Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s Republic of China—Document Transfer, dated June 28, 2005. On October 21, 2005, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results of the instant review on HFHTs from the PRC. See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 62095 (October 28, 2005). Duty Absorption On April 5, 2005, the Petitioner requested that the Department conduct a duty absorption review to determine whether all initiated companies have absorbed antidumping duties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(j)(2004). On May 31, 2005, the Department issued a memo to the file stating that because the antidumping duty orders on HFHTs from the PRC have been in effect since 1991, they are ‘‘transition orders’’ in accordance with section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act, and therefore the Department cannot not make a duty absorption determination. See Memo to the File, from Hallie Zink, Case Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, re: Duty Absorption Request, dated May 18, 2005. Questionnaires and Responses On April 6, 2005, the Department issued Section A, C and D of the VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:53 Mar 07, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM 08MRN1 erjones on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES 16178 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 2006 / Notices Issued: March 27, 2006. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6–4640 Filed 3–29–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. AA1921–197 (Second Review); 701–TA–319, 320, 325–328, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731–TA–573, 574, 576, 578, 582–587, 612, and 614–618 (Second Review)] Certain Carbon Steel Products From Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Scheduling of full five-year reviews concerning the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders on certain carbon steel products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders on certain carbon steel products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B). For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). DATES : Effective Date: March 22, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Haines (202–205–3200), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background. On February 6, 2006, the Commission determined that responses to its notice of institution of the subject five-year reviews were such that full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed (71 FR 8874, February 21, 2006). A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner’s statements are available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission’s Web site. Participation in the reviews and public service list. Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in these reviews as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission’s rules, by 45 days after publication of this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance following publication of the Commission’s notice of institution of the reviews need not file an additional notice of appearance. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the reviews. Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list. Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these reviews available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the reviews, provided that the application is made by 45 days after publication of this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the reviews. A party granted access to BPI following publication of the Commission’s notice of institution of the reviews need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. Staff report. The prehearing staff report in the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on September 25, 2006, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of the Commission’s rules. Hearing. The Commission will hold hearings in connection with the reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on October 17 (corrosion-resistant steel) and October 19, 2006 (cut-to-length plate), at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before October 10, 2006. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission’s deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on October 13, 2006, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 207.66 of the Commission’s rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing. Written submissions. Each party to the reviews may submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.65 of the Commission’s rules; the deadline for filing is October 5, 2006. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission’s rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.67 of the Commission’s rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is October 30, 2006; witness testimony must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the reviews may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the reviews on or before October 30, 2006. On December 5, 2006, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before December 8, 2006, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.68 of the Commission’s VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:32 Mar 29, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM 30MRN1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES 16179Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 2006 / Notices rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even where electronic filing of a document is permitted, certain documents must also be filed in paper form, as specified in II (C) of the Commission’s Handbook on Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission’s rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. Issued: March 24, 2006. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6–4642 Filed 3–29–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 32508 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 1 Despite filing a notice of intent to participate, the USW neither filed its own nor joined the domestic interested parties in the substantive responses filed. issued on February 22, 2005, for certain activity involving loading equipment, components of offshore drilling rigs, log handling equipment, cranes, drive systems, and parts and components thereof. In its original application, LeTourneau had indicated that one of its foreign–sourced inputs would be a driver assembly, imported duty free under subheading 8483.90.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), to be used in the production of loaders. LeTourneau now seeks clarification whether its scope includes authority to import two subcomponents of the driver assembly and then assemble the drive assembly at LeTourneau’s Texas facility (rather than importing the completed driver assembly). The driver–assembly components would be a pre–machined hub (HTSUS 7326.90.8587 - 2.9% duty rate) and a spindle 7326.19.0000 (HTSUS 7326.19.0000 - 2.9% duty rate). Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board’s Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 6, 2006. A copy of the request is available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign–Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1115, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. Dated: May 31, 2006. Dennis Puccinelli, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6–8761 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A–602–803, A–122–822, A–427–808, A–428– 816, A–588–824, A–580–816) Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) initiated the sunset reviews of the antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) orders on certain corrosion–resistant carbon steel flat products (‘‘CORE’’) from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate, an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties, an inadequate response from Canadian and French interested parties, and no response from other respondent interested parties, the Department determined to conduct expedited sunset reviews of these orders pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department finds that revocation of these AD orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the margins indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Conniff, Darla Brown or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1009, (202) 482– 2849 or (202) 482–0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On November 1, 2005, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the AD orders on CORE from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005). The Department received notices of intent to participate from the following domestic interested parties: United States Steel Corporation (‘‘U.S. Steel’’); Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. (‘‘Mittal Steel’’); Nucor Corporation (‘‘Nucor’’); Ispat–Inland (‘‘Ispat’’); Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. (‘‘Oregon Steel’’) (hereinafter, collectively ‘‘domestic interested parties’’); and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO-CLC (‘‘USW’’), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S. producers of the domestic like product. USW claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(D) of the Act as a union representing the domestic CORE industry. We received complete substantive responses from the domestic interested parties1 within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did not receive a substantive response from any respondent in any of the sunset reviews of the AD orders on CORE from Australia, Germany, Japan, and South Korea. The Department received a substantive response from Stelco Inc. (‘‘Stelco’’), a producer and exporter of CORE from Canada, in the sunset review of the AD order on CORE from Canada. With respect to the sunset review of the AD order on CORE from France, the Department received a substantive response from Duferco Coating SA and Sorral SA (collectively, ‘‘Duferco Sorral’’) and a waiver of participation from Arcelor. The Department determined that it had received inadequate respondent participation in each of these sunset reviews. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted expedited reviews of these orders. On February 28, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for the final results of these reviews for 90 days, until May 30, 2006. See Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea: Extension of Time Limits for Final Results of Expedited Reviews, 71 FR 10006 (February 28, 2006). Scope of the Orders The products subject to these orders include flat–rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion– resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron– based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 mm, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness, or if of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more, are of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 32509Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, and 7217.90.5090. Included in these orders are flat– rolled products of nonrectangular cross- section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’) -- for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from the scope of these orders are flat–rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (‘‘terne plate’’), or both chromium and chromium oxides (‘‘tin– free steel’’), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Also excluded from the scope of these orders are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from the scope of the orders are certain clad stainless flat–rolled products, which are three– layered corrosion- resistant carbon steel flat–rolled products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat–rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%- 60%-20% ratio. Japan In addition to the above, the Department has issued the following rulings regarding the scope of the order on Japan: Excluded from the scope of this order are imports of certain corrosion– resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: widths ranging from 10 mm (0.394 inches) through 100 mm (3.94 inches); thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 mm (0.004 inches) through 0.60 mm (0.024 inches); and a coating that is from 0.003 mm (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 mm (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of chromate, and finally a layer consisting of silicate. See Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 62 FR 66848 (Dec. 22, 1997). Also excluded from the scope of this order are imports of subject merchandise meeting all of the following criteria: (1) Widths ranging from 10 mm (0.394 inches) through 100 mm (3.94 inches); (2) thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 mm (0.004 inches) through 0.60 mm (0.024 inches); and (3) a coating that is from 0.003 mm (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 mm (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of either two evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of chromate, or three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum followed by a layer consisting of chromate, and finally a layer consisting of silicate. See Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 64 FR 14862 (Mar. 29, 1999). Also excluded from the scope of this order are: (1) Carbon steel flat products measuring 1.84 mm in thickness and 43.6 mm or 16.1 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum, 20% tin, 1% copper, 0.3% silicon, 0.15% nickel, less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys; and (2) carbon steel flat products measuring 0.97 mm in thickness and 20 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a two–layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper–lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9% to 11% tin, 9% to 11% lead, less than 1% zinc, less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 45% to 55% lead, 38% to 50% polytetrafluorethylene (‘‘PTFE’’), 3% to 5% molybdenum disulfide and less than 2% other materials. See Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 64 FR 57032 (Oct. 22, 1999). Also excluded from the scope of the order are imports of doctor blades meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, plated with nickel phosphorous, having a thickness of 0.1524 mm (0.006 inches), a width between 31.75 mm (1.25 inches) and 50.80 mm (2.00 inches), a core hardness between 580 to 630 HV, a surface hardness between 900--990 HV; the carbon steel coil or strip consists of the following elements identified in percentage by weight: 0.90% to 1.05% carbon; 0.15% to 0.35% silicon; 0.30% to 0.50% manganese; less than or equal to 0.03% of phosphorous; less than or equal to 0.006% of sulfur; other elements representing 0.24%; and the remainder of iron. See Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 65 FR 53983 (Sept. 6, 2000). Also excluded from the scope of the order are imports of carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel flat products measuring 1.64 mm in thickness and 19.5 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a lining clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum; 10 to 15% tin; 1 to 3% lead; 0.7 to 1.3% copper; 1.8 to 3.5% silicon; 0.1 to 0.7% chromium; less than 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys. See Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 66 FR 8778 (Feb. 2, 2001). Also excluded from the scope of the order are carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: (1) Carbon steel flat products measuring 0.975 mm in thickness and 8.8 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1012) clad with a two–layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper– lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9%-11% tin, 9%-11% lead, maximum 1% other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 13%-17% carbon, 13%-17% aromatic polyester, with a balance (approx. 66%- 74%) of PTFE; and (2) carbon steel flat products measuring 1.02 mm in thickness and 10.7 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a two–layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper–lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9%-11% tin, 9%-11% lead, less than 0.35% iron, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, the second layer consisting of 45%-55% lead, 3%-5% molybdenum disulfide, with a balance (approx. 40%- 52%) of PTFE. See Certain Corrosion– Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 66 FR 15075 (Mar. 15, 2001). VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 32510 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices Also excluded from this order are carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: (1) carbon steel coil or strip, measuring 1.93 mm or 2.75 mm (0.076 inches or 0.108 inches) in thickness, 87.3 mm or 99 mm (3.437 inches or 3.900 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8%, manganese under 0.4%, phosphorous under 0.04%, and sulfur under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7% copper, 12% tin, 1.7% lead, 0.3% antimony, 2.5% silicon, 1% maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum; and (2) carbon steel coil or strip, clad with aluminum, measuring 1.75 mm (0.069 inches) in thickness, 89 mm or 94 mm (3.500 inches or 3.700 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8%, manganese under 0.4%, phosphorous under 0.04%, and sulfur under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7% copper, 12% tin, 1.7% lead, 2.5% silicon, 0.3% antimony, 1% maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum. See Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 66 FR 20967 (Apr. 26, 2001). Also excluded from this order are carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, measuring a minimum of and including 1.10 mm to a maximum of and including 4.90 mm in overall thickness, a minimum of and including 76.00 mm to a maximum of and including 250.00 mm in overall width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 0.10%, manganese under 0.40%, phosphorous under 0.04%, sulfur under 0.05%, and silicon under 0.05%; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: under 2.51% copper, under 15.10% tin, and remainder aluminum as listed on the mill specification sheet. See Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 67 FR 7356 (Feb. 19, 2002). Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: (1) Diffusion–annealed, non–alloy nickel–plated carbon products, with a substrate of cold–rolled battery grade sheet (‘‘CRBG’’) with both sides of the CRBG initially electrolytically plated with pure, unalloyed nickel and subsequently annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and iron substrate, with the nickel plated coating having a thickness of 0–5 microns per side with one side equaling at least 2 microns; and with the nickel carbon sheet having a thickness of from 0.004’’ (0.10 mm) to 0.030’’ (0.762 mm) and conforming to the following chemical specifications (%): C ≤ 0.08; Mn ≤ 0.45; P ≤ 0.02; S ≤ 0.02; Al ≤ 0.15; and Si ≤ 0.10; and the following physical specifications: Tensile = 65 KSI maximum; Yield = 32 - 55 KSI; Elongation = 18% minimum (aim 34%); Hardness = 85 - 150 Vickers; Grain Type = Equiaxed or Pancake; Grain Size (ASTM) = 7–12; Delta r value = aim less than 0.2; Lankford value ≥1.2.; and (2) next generation diffusion– annealed nickel plate meeting the following specifications: (a) Nickel– graphite plated, diffusion–annealed, tin–nickel plated carbon products, with a natural composition mixture of nickel and graphite electrolytically plated to the top side of diffusion–annealed tin– nickel plated carbon steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having both sides of the cold rolled substrate electrolytically plated with natural nickel, with the top side of the nickel plated strip electrolytically plated with tin and then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and tin layers in which a nickel–tin alloy is created, and an additional layer of mixture of natural nickel and graphite then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel–tin alloy; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel–graphite, tin–nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; tin layer only ≥ 0.05 micrometers, nickel–graphite layer only > 0.2 micrometers, and bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (b) nickel–graphite, diffusion–annealed, nickel plated carbon products, having a natural composition mixture of nickel and graphite electrolytically plated to the top side of diffusion–annealed nickel plated steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the cold rolled base metal initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the material then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and the iron substrate; with an additional layer of natural nickel– graphite then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel plated steel strip; with the nickel– graphite, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling, or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel–graphite, tin– nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; nickel– graphite layer ≥ 0.5 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (c) diffusion–annealed nickel–graphite plated products, which are cold–rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having the bottom side of the base metal first electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the top side of the strip then plated with a nickel–graphite composition; with the strip then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel–graphite and the iron substrate on the bottom side; with the nickel– graphite and nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling, or any other evidence of separation; having coating thickness: top side: nickel–graphite layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (d) nickel–phosphorous plated diffusion– annealed nickel plated carbon product, having a natural composition mixture of nickel and phosphorus electrolytically plated to the top side of a diffusion– annealed nickel plated steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the base metal initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the material then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel and iron substrate; another layer of the natural nickel–phosphorous then electrolytically plated on the top side of the nickel plated steel strip; with the nickel–phosphorous, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel–phosphorous, nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; nickel– phosphorous layer ≥ 0.1 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; (e) diffusion–annealed, tin–nickel plated products, electrolytically plated with natural nickel to the top side of a diffusion– annealed tin–nickel plated cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the cold rolled strip initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, with the top side of the nickel plated strip electrolytically plated with tin and then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and tin layers in which a nickel–tin VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 32511Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices alloy is created, and an additional layer of natural nickel then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel–tin alloy; sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having coating thickness: top side: nickel–tin-nickel combination layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; tin layer only ≥ 0.05 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥ 1.0 micrometers; and (f) tin mill products for battery containers, tin and nickel plated on a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having both sides of the cold rolled substrate electrolytically plated with natural nickel; then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel and iron substrate; then an additional layer of natural tin electrolytically plated on the top side; and again annealed to create a diffusion of the tin and nickel alloys; with the tin–nickel, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel–tin layer ≥1 micrometer; tin layer alone ≥0.05 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer ≥1.0 micrometer. See Certain Corrosion– Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 67 FR 47768 (Jul. 22, 2002). Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: (1) Widths ranging from 10 mm (0.394 inches) through 100 mm (3.94 inches); (2) thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 mm (0.004 inches) through 0.60 mm (0.024 inches); and (3) a coating that is from 0.003 mm (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 mm (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of either two evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of phosphate, or three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99% zinc, 0.5% cobalt, and 0.5% molybdenum followed by a layer consisting of phosphate, and finally a layer consisting of silicate. See Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 67 FR 57208 (Sept. 9, 2002). Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: (1) Flat–rolled products (provided for in HTSUS subheading 7210.49.00), other than of high–strength steel, known as ‘‘ASE Iron Flash’’ and either: (A) having a base layer of zinc– based zinc–iron alloy applied by hot– dipping and a surface layer of iron–zinc alloy applied by electrolytic process, the weight of the coating and plating not over 40% by weight of zinc; or (B) two– layer-coated corrosion–resistant steel with a coating composed of (a) a base coating layer of zinc–based zinc–iron alloy by hot–dip galvanizing process, and (b) a surface coating layer of iron– zinc alloy by electro–galvanizing process, having an effective amount of zinc up to 40% by weight, and (2) corrosion resistant continuously annealed flat–rolled products, continuous cast, the foregoing with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.06% by weight, manganese 0.20 or more but not over 0.40, phosphorus not over 0.02, sulfur not over 0.023, silicon not over 0.03, aluminum 0.03 or more but not over 0.08, arsenic not over 0.02, copper not over 0.08 and nitrogen 0.003 or more but not over 0.008; and meeting the characteristics described below: (A) Products with one side coated with a nickel–iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a two–layer coating composed of a base nickel–iron- diffused coating layer and a surface coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel, with total coating thickness for both layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA– microns) 0.18 or less; with scanning electron microscope (SEM) not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length; (B) products having one side coated with a nickel– iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a four–layer coating composed of a base nickel–iron-diffused coating layer; with an inner middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel, an outer middle surface coating layer of hard nickel and a topmost nickel–phosphorus-plated layer; with combined coating thickness for the four layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA– microns) 0.18 or less; with SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length; (C) products having one side coated with a nickel–iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a three–layer coating composed of a base nickel–iron- diffused coating layer, with a middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel and a surface coating layer of hard, luster–agent-added nickel which is not heat–treated; with combined coating thickness for all three layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA–microns) 0.18 or less; with SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length; or (D) products having one side coated with a nickel– iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a three–layer coating composed of a base nickel–iron-diffused coating layer, with a middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel and a surface coating layer of hard, pure nickel which is not heat– treated; with combined coating thickness for all three layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA–microns) 0.18 or less; SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length. See Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 68 FR 19970 (Apr. 23, 2003). Also excluded from the scope of this order is merchandise meeting the following specifications: (1) Base metal: Aluminum Killed, Continuous Cast, Carbon Steel SAE 1008, (2) Chemical Composition: Carbon 0.08% max, Silicon, 0.03% max., Manganese 0.40% max., Phosphorus, 0.020% max., Sulfur 0.020% max., (3) Nominal thickness of 0.054 mm, (4) Thickness tolerance minimum 0.0513 mm, maximum 0.0567 mm, (5) Width of 600 mm or greater, and (7) Nickel plate min. 2.45 microns per side. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation, In Part: Certain Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan, 70 FR 2608 (Jan. 14, 2005). Also excluded from the scope of this order are the following 24 separate corrosion–resistant carbon steel coil products meeting the following specifications: Product 1 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.625 mm to 1.655 mm in thickness and 19.3 mm to 19.7 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010) with a lining clad with an aluminum alloy containing by weight 10% or more but not more than 15% of tin, 1% or more but not more than 3% of lead, 0.7% or more but not more than 1.3% of copper, 1.8% or more but not more than 3.5% of silicon, 0.1% or more but not more than 0.7% of chromium VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 32512 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices and less than or equal to 1% of other materials, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 788 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys. Product 2 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.955 mm to 0.985 mm in thickness and 8.6 mm to 9.0 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1012) clad with a two–layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper– lead alloy powder that contains by weight 9% or more but not more than 11% of tin, 9% or more but not more than 11% of lead, less than 0.05% phosphorus, less than 0.35% iron and less than or equal to 1% other materials, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, with the second layer containing by weight 13% or more but not more than 17% of carbon, 13% or more but not more than 17% of aromatic polyester, and the remainder (approx. 66–74%) of PTFE. Product 3 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.01 mm to 1.03 mm in thickness and 10.5 mm to 10.9 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010) with a two–layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper–lead alloy powder that contains by weight 9% or more but not more than 11% of tin, 9% or more but not more than 11% of lead, less than 1% zinc and less than or equal to 1% other materials, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, with the second layer containing by weight 45% or more but not more than 55% of lead, 3% or more but not more than 5% of molybdenum disulfide, and the remainder made up of PTFE (approximately 38% to 52%) and less than 2% in the aggregate of other materials. Product 4 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.8 mm to 1.88 mm in thickness and 43.4 mm to 43.8 mm or 16.1 mm to 1.65 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010) clad with an aluminum alloy that contains by weight 19% to 20% tin, 1% to 1.2% copper, less than 0.3% silicon, 0.15% nickel and less than 1% in the aggregate other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys. Product 5 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.95 mm to 0.98 mm in thickness and 19.95 mm to 20 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010) with a two–layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper–lead alloy powder that contains by weight 9% or more but not more than 11% of tin, 9% or more but not more than 11% of lead, less than 1% of zinc and less than or equal to 1% in the aggregate of other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for Bearing and Bushing Alloys, with the second layer consisting by weight of 45% or more but not more than 55% of lead, 3% or more but not more than 5% of molybdenum disulfide and with the remainder made up of PTFE (approximately 38% to 52%) and up to 2% in the aggregate of other materials. Product 6 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.96 mm to 0.98 mm in thickness and 18.75 mm to 18.95 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a two–layer lining, the first layer consisting of copper–base alloy powder with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35, and other materials less than 1%; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of lead 33 to 37%, aromatic polyester 28 to 32%, and other materials less than 2% with a balance of PTFE. Product 7 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.21 mm to 1.25 mm in thickness and 19.4 mm to 19.6 mm in width; base of SAE 1012 steel with lining of copper base alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35 and other materials less than 1%; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys. Product 8 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.96 mm to 0.98 mm in thickness and 21.5 mm to 21.7 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a two–layer lining, the first layer consisting of copper–base alloy powder with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05%, ferrous group less than 0.35 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of (percent by weight) lead 33 to 37, aromatic polyester 28 to 32 and other materials less than 2 with a balance of PTFE. Product 9 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.96 mm to 0.99 mm in thickness and 7.65 mm to 7.85 mm in width; base of SAE 1012 steel with a two–layer lining, the first layer consisting of copper–based alloy powder with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of (percent by weight) carbon 13 to 17 and aromatic polyester 13 to 17, with a balance of PTFE. Product 10 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.955 mm to 0.985 mm in thickness and 13.6 mm to 14 mm in width; base of SAE 1012 steel with a two–layer lining, the first layer consisting of copper–based alloy powder with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of (percent by weight) carbon 13 to 17, aromatic polyester 13 to 17, with a balance (approximately 66 to 74) of PTFE. Product 11 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.2 mm to 1.24 mm in thickness; 20 mm to 20.4 mm in width; consisting of carbon steel coils (SAE 1012) with a lining of sintered phosphorus bronze alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 5.5 to 7; phosphorus 0.03 to 0.35; lead less than 1 and other non–copper materials less than 1. Product 12 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.8 mm to 1.88 mm in thickness and 43.3 mm to 43.7 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a lining of aluminum based alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight: tin 10 to 15, lead 1 to 3, copper 0.7 to 1.3, silicon 1.8 to 3.5, chromium 0.1 to 0.7 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 788 for bearing and bushing alloys. Product 13 Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.8 mm to 1.88 mm in thickness and 24.2 mm to 24.6 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a lining of aluminum alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 10 to 15, lead 1 to 3, copper 0.7 to 1.3, silicon 1.8 to 3.5, chromium 0.1 to 0.7 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 788 for bearing and bushing alloys. Product 14 Flat–rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils, with thickness not less than 0.915 mm but not over 0.965 mm, width not less than 19.75 mm or more but not over 20.35 mm; with a two–layer coating; the first layer VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 32513Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices consisting of tin 9 to 11%, lead 9 to 11%, zinc less than 1%, other materials (other than copper) not over 1% and balance copper; the second layer consisting of lead 45 to 55%, molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) 3 to 5%, other materials not over 2%, balance PTFE. Product 15 Flat–rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 0.915 mm or more but not over 0.965 mm; width not less than 18.65 mm or more but not over19.25 mm; with a two–layer coating; the first layer consisting of tin 9 to 11%, lead 9 to 11%, zinc less than 1%, other materials (other than copper) not over 1%, balance copper; the second layer consisting of lead 33 to 37%, aromatic polyester 13 to 17%, other materials other than PTFE less than 2%, balance PTFE. Product 16 Flat–rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 0.920 mm or more but not over 0.970 mm; width not less than 21.35 mm or more but not over 21.95 mm; with a two–layer coating; the first layer consisting of tin 9 to 11%, lead 9 to 11%, zinc less than 1%, other materials (other than copper) not over 1%, balance copper; the second layer consisting of lead 33 to 37%, aromatic polyester 13 to 17%, other materials (other than PTFE) less than 2%, balance PTFE. Product 17 Flat–rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 1.80 mm or more but not over 1.85 mm, width not less than 14.7 mm or more but not over 15.3 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.5 to 4.5%, lead 21.0 to 25.0%, zinc less than 3%, iron less than 0.35%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%, balance copper. Product 18 Flat–rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 14.5 mm or more but not over 15.1 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3 to 4.2%, lead 20 to 25%, iron 1.5 to 4.5%, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%, balance copper. Product 19 Flat–rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 1.75 mm or more but not over 1.8 mm; width not less than 18.0 mm or more but not over 18.6 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3 to 4.2%, lead 20 to 25%, iron 1.5 to 4.5%, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%, balance copper. Product 20 Flat–rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 13.6 mm or more but not over 14.2 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3 to 4.2%, lead 20 to 25%, iron 1.5 to 4.5%, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%, with a balance copper. Product 21 Flat–rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 11.5 mm or more but not over 12.1 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3 to 4.2%, lead 20 to 25%, iron 1.5 to 4.5%, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%, balance copper. Product 22 Flat–rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 11.2 mm or more but not over 11.8 mm, with a lining consisting of copper 0.7 to 1.3%, tin 17.5 to 22.5%, silicon less than 0.3%, nickel less than 0.15%, other materials less than 1%, balance aluminum. Product 23 Flat–rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 7.2 mm or more but not over 7.8 mm; with a lining consisting of copper 0.7 to 1.3%, tin 17.5 to 22.5%, silicon less than 0.3%, nickel less than 0.15%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%, balance copper. Product 24 Flat–rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.72 mm or more but not over 1.77 mm; width 7.7 mm or more but not over 8.3 mm; with a lining consisting of copper 0.7 to 1.3%, tin 17.5 to 22.5%, silicon less than 0.3%, nickel less than 0.15%, other materials (other than copper) less than 1%, balance copper. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation, in Part: Certain Corrosion– Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan, 70 FR 5137 (Feb. 1, 2005). Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 30, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit room B– 099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the AD orders on CORE from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted–average percentage margins: Australia. Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd. (‘‘BHP’’) .................................. 24.96% All Others .......................................... 24.96% Canada. Dofasco, Inc. ..................................... 11.71% Stelco, Inc. ........................................ 22.70% All Others .......................................... 18.71% France. Usinor Sacilor ................................... 29.41% All Others .......................................... 29.41% Germany. Thyssen Stahl AG (‘‘Thyssen’’) ........ 10.02% All Others .......................................... 10.02% Japan. Kawasaki Steel Corporation (‘‘KSC’’) 36.41% Nippon Steel Corporation (‘‘NSC’’) ... 36.41% All Others .......................................... 36.41% South Korea. Pohang Iron and Steel Company, Ltd. ................................................ 17.70% All Others .......................................... 17.70% Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 30, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–8760 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 32519Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 8 We note that Tenex did not file either a waiver of intent to participate in this sunset review pursuant to Section 351.218(d)(2) of the Department’s sunset regulations or a complete substantive response to the notice of initiation pursuant to Section 351.218(d) (3). ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/russia/E6– 4738–1.pdf. In our preliminary results, we found that revocation of the antidumping duty Suspension Agreement on uranium from Russia would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping at the weighted– average margin of 115.82 percent for all producers/exporters from Russia. On April 17, 2006, we received case briefs on behalf of Power Resources, Inc. (‘‘PRI’’) and Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (‘‘Crow Butte’’); USEC Inc. and United States Enrichment Corporation (collectively, ‘‘USEC’’); the Ad Hoc Utilities Group (‘‘AHUG’’); and AO Techsnabexport (‘‘Tenex’’).8 On April 24, 2006, we received rebuttal briefs on behalf of Power Resources and Crow Butte, USEC, and AHUG. On April 26, 2006, USEC requested that the Department reject AHUG’s rebuttal brief because it contained new information not permissible under the Department’s regulations. On May 24, 2006, the Department notified AHUG that it was returning AHUG’s rebuttal brief because it contained information not timely filed under the regulations and offered AHUG the opportunity to redact the new information and to re–submit the brief to the Department within two days. On May 26, 2006, AHUG re–submitted its rebuttal brief; however it failed to redact all references to the new information that appeared in its May 24, 2006 rebuttal brief. We requested again that AHUG re–submit its rebuttal brief without the references to the new information, by the close–of-business on May 30, 2006. On, May 30, 2006, AHUG filed its rebuttal brief and redacted all new information. Additionally, on May 26, 2006, AHUG submitted a letter to the Department which also contained new and untimely filed information. On May 30, 2006, the Department notified AHUG that it was returning this additional May 26, 2006 letter because it contained information not timely filed under the Department’s regulations. No interested party requested a hearing in this sunset review. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised by parties to this sunset review are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Sunset Review of the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation; Final Results’’ from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (May 30, 2006) (‘‘Final Results Decision Memorandum’’), which is adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Final Results Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping, scope of the subject merchandise, and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the Suspension Agreement to be terminated. Parties may find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B–099, of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Final Results Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Final Results Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review We determine that termination of the Suspension Agreement on uranium from Russia would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted– average margin: Exporter/manufacturer Weighted–average margin (percent) Russia–Wide ................. 115.82 This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department’s regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This sunset review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 30, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–8758 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–580–818] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Final Results of Expedited Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of the second five-year sunset review of the countervailing duty order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (CORE) from the Republic of Korea (‘‘Korea’’), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005) (‘‘Second Sunset Review’’). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties, and an inadequate response from respondent interested parties (in this case, no response), the Department has conducted an expedited sunset review of this order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the countervailing duty order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. DATES : Effective Date: June 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3692 or (202) 482– 5439, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background The countervailing duty order which covers CORE from Korea, was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 1993. See Countervailing Duty Orders and Amendments to Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain Steel Products from Korea, 58 FR 43752 (August 17, 1993). On November 1, 2005, the Department initiated the second sunset review of the VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 32520 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 1 See December 21, 2005 letter to ITC, Robert Carpenter, Director of Investigations, from Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration. countervailing duty order on CORE from Korea, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Second Sunset Review. The Department received notices of intent to participate from Nucor Corporation (‘‘Nucor’’), Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. (‘‘Mittal Steel USA’’) and Ispat-Inland (‘‘Ispat’’); United States Steel Corporation (‘‘U.S. Steel’’); (collectively, ‘‘domestic interested parties’’); and on behalf of United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO– CLC (‘‘USW’’), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). Domestic interested parties and the USW claimed interested party status under sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, as U.S. producers and a certified union engaged in the manufacture, production, or wholesale of CORE in the United States. On December 1, 2005, the Department received a substantive response from domestic interested parties within the deadline specified in section 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did not receive any responses from any respondent interested party to this proceeding. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department notified the International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) that respondent interested parties provided an inadequate response to the Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review. 1 The Department, therefore, is conducting an expedited sunset review of the countervailing duty order, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) and 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a review of a transition order (i.e., an order in effect on January 1, 1995, the effective date of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act), as is the case in this proceeding. As such, the Department determined that the sunset review of the countervailing duty order on CORE from Korea is extraordinarily complicated and required additional time for the completion of the final results of review. In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the final results of CORE from Korea until no later than May 30, 2006. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea: Extension of Time Limits for Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews, 71 FR 10006 (February 28, 2006). Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order includes flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion- resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron- based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7210.31.0000, 7210.39.0000, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.21.0000, 7212.29.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000, 7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000, 7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000, 7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000, 7217.32.5000, 7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, and 7217.39.5000. Included in this order are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross- section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (‘‘terne plate’’), or both chromium and chromium oxides (‘‘tin- free steel’’), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Excluded from this order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain clad stainless flat- rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat- rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in substantive responses by parties in this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Expedited Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea (‘‘Decision Memo’’), from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 30, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy rate likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in B–099, the Central Records Unit, of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Department’s Web page at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the countervailing duty order on CORE from Korea is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the following countervailing duty rate: VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 32521Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 2 Union Steel was excluded from the order on the basis of a de minimis net subsidy rate. See Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations in Accordance with Decision Upon Remand, 66 FR 16656 (March 27, 2001). Manufacturer/exporter Net subsidy margin (percent) All Producers/Exporters from Korea 2 .................................. 1.15 This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.303 of the Department’s regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 30, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–8754 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–201–810] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Mexico: Final Results of Expedited Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Mexico pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005). On the basis of notices of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties, and an inadequate response from respondent interested parties (in this case, no response), the Department is conducting an expedited sunset review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. DATES : Effective Date: June 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202–482–2209 or 202–482– 0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On November 1, 2005, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Mexico pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 65884. In November 2005, the Department received notices of intent to participate on behalf of Nucor Corporation (‘‘Nucor’’); IPSCO Steel Inc. (‘‘IPSCO’’); Oregon Steel Mills (‘‘Oregon Steel’’); Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. (‘‘Mittal Steel USA’’); and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO–CLC (‘‘USW’’) (collectively, ‘‘domestic interested parties’’). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, as domestic producers of a like product, or a union engaged in the production of subject merchandise in the United States. The Department received a complete substantive response from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not receive a substantive response or a rebuttal response from any foreign respondents. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department is conducting an expedited sunset review of this CVD order. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain cut-to-length carbon steel plates. These products include hot- rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot- rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included in this administrative review are flat-rolled products of non- rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this administrative review is grade X–70 plate. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico; Final Results’’ (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 30, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy rate likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 32521Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 2 Union Steel was excluded from the order on the basis of a de minimis net subsidy rate. See Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations in Accordance with Decision Upon Remand, 66 FR 16656 (March 27, 2001). Manufacturer/exporter Net subsidy margin (percent) All Producers/Exporters from Korea 2 .................................. 1.15 This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.303 of the Department’s regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 30, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–8754 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–201–810] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Mexico: Final Results of Expedited Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Mexico pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005). On the basis of notices of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties, and an inadequate response from respondent interested parties (in this case, no response), the Department is conducting an expedited sunset review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. DATES : Effective Date: June 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202–482–2209 or 202–482– 0182, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On November 1, 2005, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Mexico pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 65884. In November 2005, the Department received notices of intent to participate on behalf of Nucor Corporation (‘‘Nucor’’); IPSCO Steel Inc. (‘‘IPSCO’’); Oregon Steel Mills (‘‘Oregon Steel’’); Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. (‘‘Mittal Steel USA’’); and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO–CLC (‘‘USW’’) (collectively, ‘‘domestic interested parties’’). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, as domestic producers of a like product, or a union engaged in the production of subject merchandise in the United States. The Department received a complete substantive response from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not receive a substantive response or a rebuttal response from any foreign respondents. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department is conducting an expedited sunset review of this CVD order. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order are certain cut-to-length carbon steel plates. These products include hot- rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot- rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included in this administrative review are flat-rolled products of non- rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this administrative review is grade X–70 plate. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by this order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico; Final Results’’ (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 30, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy rate likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 32522 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 1 Domestic interested parties note that Mittal, IPSCO, and Oregon Steel Mills, were the petitioners or successors to petitioners in the original investigation and that they have participated in the first sunset review. 2 On December 1, 2005, the Department received a letter from domestic interested parties regarding an amendment to their November 30, 2005 substantive response to the Department’s initiation of the sunset review on CTL Plate from Brazil. In the letter, domestic interested parties included United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (‘‘USW’’) to the November 30, 2005 substantive response. 3 See December 21, 2005 letter to Robert Carpenter, Director of Investigations, ITC, from Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration. this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the CVD order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Mexico would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below: Manufacturer/exporter Net countervailable subsidy (percent) AHMSA ................................. 28.32 All Others .............................. 20.25 Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department’s regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 30, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 06–5144 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C–351–818) Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil: Final Results of Expedited Five- year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of the second five-year sunset review of the countervailing duty order on certain cut–to-length carbon steel plate (‘‘CTL Plate’’) from Brazil, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005)(‘‘Second Sunset Review’’). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties, and an inadequate response from respondent interested parties (in this case, no response), the Department has conducted an expedited sunset review of this order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) of the Department’s regulations. As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the countervailing duty order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Douthit or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2371 or (202) 482– 3964, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background The countervailing duty order which covers CTL Plate from Brazil was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 1993. See Countervailing Duty Order and Amendment to Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel Products From Brazil, 58 FR 43751 (August 17, 1993). On November 1, 2005, the Department initiated the second sunset review of the countervailing duty order on CTL Plate from Brazil, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Second Sunset Review. The Department received notices of intent to participate from IPSCO, Inc., Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc., Nucor Corporation, Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO- CLC (‘‘USW’’) (collectively, ‘‘domestic interested parties’’), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 1 Domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, as U.S. producers and a certified union engaged in the manufacture, production, or wholesale of CTL Plate in the United States. On November 30, 2005, the Department received a substantive response from domestic interested parties within deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 2 The Department did not receive any responses from any respondent interested party to this proceeding. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(1), the Department notified the International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) that respondent interested parties provided an inadequate response to the Notice of Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews. 3 The Department, therefore, has conducted an expedited sunset review of the countervailing duty order, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) and 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a review of a transition order (i.e., an order in effect on January 1, 1995, the effective date of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act), as is the case in this proceeding. As such, the Department determined that the sunset review of the countervailing duty order on CTL Plate from Brazil, is extraordinarily complicated and requires additional time for the completion of final results of review. In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the final results of CTL Plate from Brazil until no later than May 30, 2006. See Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil and Spain; Extension of Time Limits for Final Results of Expedited Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 32522 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 1 Domestic interested parties note that Mittal, IPSCO, and Oregon Steel Mills, were the petitioners or successors to petitioners in the original investigation and that they have participated in the first sunset review. 2 On December 1, 2005, the Department received a letter from domestic interested parties regarding an amendment to their November 30, 2005 substantive response to the Department’s initiation of the sunset review on CTL Plate from Brazil. In the letter, domestic interested parties included United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (‘‘USW’’) to the November 30, 2005 substantive response. 3 See December 21, 2005 letter to Robert Carpenter, Director of Investigations, ITC, from Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration. this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the CVD order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Mexico would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below: Manufacturer/exporter Net countervailable subsidy (percent) AHMSA ................................. 28.32 All Others .............................. 20.25 Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department’s regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 30, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 06–5144 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C–351–818) Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil: Final Results of Expedited Five- year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of the second five-year sunset review of the countervailing duty order on certain cut–to-length carbon steel plate (‘‘CTL Plate’’) from Brazil, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005)(‘‘Second Sunset Review’’). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties, and an inadequate response from respondent interested parties (in this case, no response), the Department has conducted an expedited sunset review of this order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) of the Department’s regulations. As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the countervailing duty order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Douthit or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2371 or (202) 482– 3964, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background The countervailing duty order which covers CTL Plate from Brazil was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 1993. See Countervailing Duty Order and Amendment to Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel Products From Brazil, 58 FR 43751 (August 17, 1993). On November 1, 2005, the Department initiated the second sunset review of the countervailing duty order on CTL Plate from Brazil, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Second Sunset Review. The Department received notices of intent to participate from IPSCO, Inc., Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc., Nucor Corporation, Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO- CLC (‘‘USW’’) (collectively, ‘‘domestic interested parties’’), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). 1 Domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, as U.S. producers and a certified union engaged in the manufacture, production, or wholesale of CTL Plate in the United States. On November 30, 2005, the Department received a substantive response from domestic interested parties within deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 2 The Department did not receive any responses from any respondent interested party to this proceeding. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(1), the Department notified the International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) that respondent interested parties provided an inadequate response to the Notice of Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews. 3 The Department, therefore, has conducted an expedited sunset review of the countervailing duty order, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) and 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a review of a transition order (i.e., an order in effect on January 1, 1995, the effective date of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act), as is the case in this proceeding. As such, the Department determined that the sunset review of the countervailing duty order on CTL Plate from Brazil, is extraordinarily complicated and requires additional time for the completion of final results of review. In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the final results of CTL Plate from Brazil until no later than May 30, 2006. See Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil and Spain; Extension of Time Limits for Final Results of Expedited Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 32523Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices of Countervailing Duty Orders; 71 FR 7018 (February 10, 2006). Since the publication of its results in the first sunset review (see Cut–to- Length Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil; Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Countervailing Duty Order, 65 FR 18065 (April 6, 2000) (‘‘First Sunset Review’’)), there have been no administrative reviews of this order. Scope of the Order The products covered by this countervailing duty order include hot– rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat–rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat–rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included within the scope are flat– rolled products of non–rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’); for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded is grade X–70 plate. These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The Department’s written description remains dispositive. Since the completion of the first sunset review, the Department has determined that continuous cast steel slab is outside the scope of this order. See Notice of Scope Rulings and Anti– circumvention Inquiries, 68 FR 36770 (June 19, 2003). Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in substantive responses by parties to this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Expedited Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Cut–to-Length Steel Plate from Brazil, (‘‘Decision Memo’’) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 30, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy rate likely to prevail if the order were the order revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in B–099, the Central Records Unit, of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Department’s Web page at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the countervailing duty order on CTL Plate from Brazil would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the following net countervailing duty rates: Manufacturer/Exporter Net Subsidy Rate (percent) Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais S.A. (‘‘USIMINAS’’) ........... 5.44 Companhia Siderurgica Paulista (‘‘COSIPA’’) 48.64 All others ....................... 23.10 This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department’s regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 30, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–8756 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C–469–804) Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Spain: Final Results of Expedited Five- year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of the second five-year sunset review of the countervailing duty order on certain cut–to-length carbon steel plate (‘‘CTL Plate’’) from Spain, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005) (‘‘Second Sunset Review’’). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties, and an inadequate response from respondent interested parties (in this case, no response), the Department has conducted an expedited sunset review of this order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) of the Department’s regulations. As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the countervailing duty order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myrna Lobo or Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2371 or (202) 482– 3964, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 32523Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices of Countervailing Duty Orders; 71 FR 7018 (February 10, 2006). Since the publication of its results in the first sunset review (see Cut–to- Length Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil; Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Countervailing Duty Order, 65 FR 18065 (April 6, 2000) (‘‘First Sunset Review’’)), there have been no administrative reviews of this order. Scope of the Order The products covered by this countervailing duty order include hot– rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat–rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat–rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included within the scope are flat– rolled products of non–rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’); for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded is grade X–70 plate. These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The Department’s written description remains dispositive. Since the completion of the first sunset review, the Department has determined that continuous cast steel slab is outside the scope of this order. See Notice of Scope Rulings and Anti– circumvention Inquiries, 68 FR 36770 (June 19, 2003). Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in substantive responses by parties to this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Expedited Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Cut–to-Length Steel Plate from Brazil, (‘‘Decision Memo’’) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 30, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy rate likely to prevail if the order were the order revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in B–099, the Central Records Unit, of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Department’s Web page at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the countervailing duty order on CTL Plate from Brazil would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the following net countervailing duty rates: Manufacturer/Exporter Net Subsidy Rate (percent) Companhia Siderurgica Paulista (‘‘COSIPA’’) 48.64 All others ....................... 23.10 This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department’s regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 30, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–8756 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (C–469–804) Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Spain: Final Results of Expedited Five- year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of the second five-year sunset review of the countervailing duty order on certain cut–to-length carbon steel plate (‘‘CTL Plate’’) from Spain, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005) (‘‘Second Sunset Review’’). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties, and an inadequate response from respondent interested parties (in this case, no response), the Department has conducted an expedited sunset review of this order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) of the Department’s regulations. As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the countervailing duty order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myrna Lobo or Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2371 or (202) 482– 3964, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 32524 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices 1 Domestic interested parties note that Mittal, IPSCO, and Oregon Steel Mills, were the petitioners or successors to petitioners in the original investigation and that they have participated in subsequent reviews. 2 On December 1, 2005, the Department received a letter from domestic interested parties amending their November 30, 2005 substantive response to the Department’s initiation of the sunset review on CTL Plate from Spain, to include United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (‘‘USW’’). 3 See December 21, 2005 letter to ITC, Robert Carpenter, Director of Investigations, from Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration. Background The countervailing duty order which covers CTL Plate from Spain, was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 1993. See Countervailing Duty Order: Certain Steel Products from Spain, 58 FR 43761 (August 17, 1993). On November 1, 2005, the Department initiated the second sunset review of the countervailing duty order on CTL Plate from Spain, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Second Sunset Review. The Department received notices of intent to participate from IPSCO, Inc., Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc., Nucor Corporation, Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO-CLC (‘‘USW’’) (collectively ‘‘domestic interested parties’’), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).1 Domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, as U.S. producers and a certified union engaged in the manufacture, production, or wholesale of CTL Plate in the United States. On November 30, 2005, the Department received a substantive response from domestic interested parties within the deadline specified in section 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 2 The Department did not receive any responses from any respondent interested party to this proceeding. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department notified the International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) that respondent interested parties provided inadequate response to the Notice of Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review. 3 The Department, therefore, is conducting an expedited sunset review of the countervailing duty order, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) and 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a review of a transition order (i.e, an order in effect on January 1, 1995, the effective date of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act), as is the case in this proceeding. As such, the Department determined that the sunset review of the countervailing duty order on CTL Plate from Spain is extraordinarily complicated and required additional time for the completion of the final results of review. In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the final results of CTL Plate from Spain until no later than May 30, 2006. See Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Brazil and Spain; Extension of Time Limits for Final Results of Expedited Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Countervailing Duty Orders; 71 FR 7018 (February 10, 2006). Since the publication of its results in the first sunset review, see Cut–to- Length Carbon Steel Plate from Spain; Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Countervailing Duty Order, 65 FR 18307 (April 7, 2000) (‘‘First Sunset Review’’), the Department has conducted two proceedings pursuant to Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). See Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Spain (‘‘First Section 129 Review’’), from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated October 24, 2003; and Second Section 129 Determination on the Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Spain (‘‘Second Section 129 Review’’), from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 26, 2006. The First Section 129 Review was conducted pursuant to a WTO ruling that found the Department must modify its privatization methodology and apply that revised methodology to the First Sunset Review. The Department modified its methodology but determined it unnecessary to reach the privatization issue in the First Section 129 Review in view of its conclusion on recurring, non–allocable subsidies. The WTO, however, disagreed and directed the Department to conduct a second 129 proceeding to apply its modified privatization methodology. In the Second Section 129 Review, the Department determined that the privatization of Aceralia did not extinguish the non–recurring, allocable subsidies provided to Aceralia prior to its privatization. The Department further determined that it had been provided substantial evidence that demonstrated the termination of programs under Royal Decree 878/81 that were originally found countervailable in the investigation. However, because countervailable programs continued to exist, the Department determined that revocation of the countervailing duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. Scope of the Order The products covered by this countervailing duty order, include hot– rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat–rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat–rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included within the scope are flat– rolled products of non–rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’); for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded is grade X–70 plate. These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The Department’s written description remains dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in substantive responses by parties in this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 32525Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Expedited Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Cut–to-Length Steel Plate from Spain (‘‘Decision Memo’’), from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 30, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy rate likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in B–099, the Central Records Unit, of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Department’s Web page at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the countervailing duty order on CTL Plate from Spain is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the following countervailing duty rate: Manufacturer/Exporter Net Subsidy Margin (percent) All Producers/Exporters from Spain ................. 33.68 This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.303 of the Department’s regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: May 30, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–8757 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Advanced Technology Program Business Reporting System ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Department of Commerce (DOC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the continuing and proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES : Written comments must be submitted on or before August 7, 2006. ADDRESSES : Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at dHynek@doc.gov). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instruments and instructions should be directed to the attention of Barbara Lambis/Advanced Technology Program Senior Policy and Operations Advisor/ 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 4700, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–4700/301– 975–4447/barbara.lambis@nist.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : I. Abstract This submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act represents a request for extension of a currently approved collection by the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology. The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) provides cost-shared multi-year funding to single companies and to industry-led joint ventures to accelerate the development of challenging, high-risk technologies that promise significant commercial payoffs and widespread benefits for the nation. This government-industry partnership aids companies in accelerating the development of emerging or enabling technologies that lead to revolutionary new products and industrial processes and services that can compete in rapidly changing world markets. ATP challenges the research and development community to take on higher technical risk with commensurately higher potential payoffs for the nation than they would otherwise pursue. This request is for the information collection requirements associated with completing project surveys once an award is granted. The intent of the collection is to meet statutory requirements for ATP, as well as compliance with 15 CFR part 14 and the Government Performance and Results Act. II. Method of Collection The baseline, quarterly, anniversary, and closeout business reports are submitted in a Web-based survey instrument. The post-project survey report is conducted as a telephone survey interview and supplemented with a Web-based survey instrument. III. Data OMB Number: 0693–0009. Form Numbers: None. Type of Review: Regular submission. Affected Public: Business or other for- profit organizations; and not-for-profit institutions. Estimated Number of Respondents: 425. Estimated Time per Response: 5 Hours. Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 2,125. Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden: $212,500. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: June 1, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. 06–5140 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–13–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:06 Jun 05, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 58431Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 3, 2006 / Notices 1 Correspondence of September 5, 2006, from Wiley Rein & Fielding, Schagrin Associates, and Stewart and Stewart. meter proving, well testing, or sampling frequency ($1,200 per application)) or to submit requests for approval of complex applications (creation of new facility measurement points (FMPs); association of leases or units with existing FMPs; inclusion of production from additional structures; meter updates which add buyback gas meters or pigging meters; other applications which request deviations from the approved allocation procedures ($3,550 per application)). Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond. Comments: Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) requires each agency ‘‘* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *’’. Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Agencies must also estimate the ‘‘non- hour cost’’ burdens to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. Therefore, if you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting information, monitoring, and record storage facilities. You should not include estimates for equipment or services purchased: (a) Before October 1, 1995; (b) to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection; (c) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or (d) as part of customary and usual business or private practices. We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our submission for OMB approval. As a result of your comments, we will make any necessary adjustments to the burden in our submission to OMB. Public Comment Policy: MMS’s practice is to make comments, including the names and addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent’s identity, as allowable by the law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. In addition, you must present a rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must demonstrate that disclosure ‘‘would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.’’ Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this information will be released. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. Except for proprietary information, we will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. MMS Federal Register Liaison Officer: Arlene Bajusz, (202) 208–7744. Dated: September 26, 2006. E.P. Danenberger, Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs. [FR Doc. E6–16305 Filed 10–2–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. AA1921–197 (Second Review); 701–TA–319, 320, 325–328, 348, and 350 (Second Review); and 731–TA–573, 574, 576, 578, 582–587, 612, and 614–618 (Second Review)] Certain Carbon Steel Products From Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and The United Kingdom AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Revised schedule for the subject reviews. DATES : Effective Date: September 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Szustakowski (202–205–3188) or Douglas Corkran (202–205–3057), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Effective March 22, 2006, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject full reviews (71 FR 16178, March 30, 2006). Subsequently, counsel on behalf of domestic interested parties, IPSCO Steel, Inc., Mittal Steel, Nucor, and Oregon Steel Mills, requested that the Commission postpone its deadline for the filing of prehearing briefs for the cut-to-length plate portion of the reviews by one day. Counsel cited the burden of filing prehearing briefs on cut-to-length plate and corrosion- resistant steel on the same day.1 No party to the reviews objected to the requested postponement. The Commission, therefore, is revising its schedule to incorporate this change to the schedule of the reviews. The Commission’s new schedule for the reviews is as follows: The deadline for filing prehearing briefs for the CTL steel plate portion of the reviews is October 6, 2006. For further information concerning these reviews see the Commission’s notice cited above and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:59 Oct 02, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 58432 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 3, 2006 / Notices Issued: September 26, 2006. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6–16230 Filed 10–2–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for ‘‘sixty days’’ until December 4, 2006. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact M. Pressley at 202–353–8643 or 1–866–859–2687, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice, 810 7th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility. (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of this information: (1) Type of information collection: Revision of currently approved collection. (2) The title of the form/collection: Bulletproof Vest Partnership. (3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Form Number: None, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract. Primary: State, Local, or Tribal Governments. Other: None. Abstract: The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) collects this information as part of the application for federal assistance process under the Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) Program. The purpose of this program is to help protect the lives of law enforcement officers by helping states and units of local and tribal governments equip their officers with armor vests. An applicant may request funds to help purchase one vest per officer per fiscal year. Federal payment covers up to 50 percent of each jurisdiction’s total costs. BJA uses the information collected to review, approve, and make awards to jurisdictions in accordance with programmatic and statutory requirements. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond/reply: There are approximately 5,000 respondents who will respond approximately once per year, for a total of 5,000 responses. Each response will require approximately 1 hour to complete. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual public burden hours for this information collection is estimated to be 5,000 hours: 5,000 × 60 minutes per application = 300,000 minutes / by 60 minutes per hour = 5,000 hours. If additional information is required, please contact, Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: September 27, 2006. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E6–16269 Filed 10–2–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 58584 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices 69 FR 47409 (August 5, 2004) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’)) and the Final Results, and applied a by–product offset to reflect Guangdong’s sale of fatty acid and glycerine made in the production process. Before the Court, Guangdong challenged the Department’s selection of Indian import statistics as the surrogate to value sebacic acid, and its determination to apply the by–product offset after the application of the surrogate financial ratio to manufacturing costs in the Final Results. On January 25, 2006, the Court issued a remand in Guangdong Chemicals Import & Export Corporation v. United States, Ct. No. 05–00023 Slip Op. 06–13 (January 25, 2006). The Court stated that the Department did not justify its decision to abandon a more product–specific data source. See id. at 19. The Court specifically pointed out that a remand was necessary because the Department did not address the data Guangdong used to corroborate its ChemImpEx data, and the Department did not explain why the Department’s use of the Indian import statistics was not aberrational given that the data was comprised of a basket category. See id. at 19 and 20. The Court concluded that the Department failed to present substantial evidence supporting its surrogate value for sebacic acid. See id. at 22. Additionally, the Court granted the Department’s request for a voluntary remand to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on the application of the by–product offset which was changed between the Preliminary Results and the Final Results without allowing parties the opportunity to comment on this change. See id. at 22. In order to comply with the Court’s remand order, the Department reviewed its choice of surrogate value for sebacic acid and made changes to the Indian import statistics to eliminate a value that the Department determined to be aberrational. Also, the Department provided additional explanation of its by–product methodology and provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on its methodology for the redetermination on remand. On May 3, 2006, the Department issued its Final Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (‘‘Final Redetermination’’). Guangdong continued to challenge the Department’s determination in the Final Redetermination. On September 18, 2006, the Court found that the Department duly complied with the Court’s remand order and sustained the Final Redetermination. See Guangdong II, Slip Op. 06–142 (September 18, 2006). The Court found that the Department’s elimination of aberrational values constituted a reasonable step to compensate for some weaknesses in the Indian import statistics. See id. at 10. Therefore, the Court found that the Department’s selection of surrogate value for sebacic acid is supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 12. Also, the Court found that the Department’s analysis of the reliability of the Indian import statistics in view of the corroborating evidence submitted by Guangdong was reasonable. See id. at 15. Additionally, the Court upheld the Department’s decision to account for separable costs associated with by– product sales by applying a by–product credit after the application of financial ratios to manufacturing costs. See id. at 21. Therefore, the Department’s Final Redetermination was sustained in its entirety by the Court. Consequently, the antidumping duty rate for Guangdong will be 19.82 percent. Timken Notice In its decision in Timken Co., v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (‘‘Timken’’), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act of 1930, the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The Court’s decision in Guangdong II on September 18, 2006, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department’s final results of administrative review. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or, if appealed, upon a final and conclusive court decision. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 28, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–16395 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–427–810] Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From France; Final Results of Full Sunset Review AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from France, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested party, an adequate response from respondent interested parties, and respondent interested parties’ arguments regarding post-investigation privatization of Usinor, the Department determined to conduct a full sunset review of this CVD order pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. Therefore, the Department is not revoking this CVD order. DATES : Effective Date: October 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–3692 or (202) 482– 4136, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On November 1, 2005, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD order on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from France pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005). On May 31, 2006, the Department published the preliminary results of the full sunset review of the instant order. See Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France, 71 FR 30875 (May 31, 2006). Interested parties were invited to comment on our preliminary results. On July 11, 2006, VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:45 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 58585Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices we received a case brief from Duferco Coating SA and Sorral SA (collectively, ‘‘Duferco Sorral’’). We also received comments from the European Commission and from Sollac Atlantique, Sollac, Lorraine, Arcelor FCS Commercial, and Arcelor International America, LLC (‘‘respondent interested parties’’). On July 17, 2006, we received a rebuttal brief from United States Steel Corporation (‘‘domestic interested party’’). Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order includes flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion- resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) item numbers 7210.31.000, 7210.39.0000, 7210.41.000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.21.0000, 7212.29.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000, 7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000, 7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000, 7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000, 7217.32.5000, 7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, 7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, and 7217.39.5000. Included in this order are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross- section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (‘‘terne plate’’), or both chromium and chromium oxides (‘‘tin- free steel’’), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Excluded from this order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain clad stainless flat- rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat- rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. The HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issued raised in this review are addressed in the Issue and Decision Memorandum (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Adminstration, to James C. Leonard, III, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated September 27, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the CVD order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from France is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of counteravailable subsidies at the following countervailing duty rate: Manufacturer/exporter Net subsidy margin (percent) Country-Wide Rate ............... 0.16 Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 27, 2006. James C. Leonard, III, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 06–8485 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–05–M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration C–423–806 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium: Final Results of Full Sunset Review AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on cut–to-length carbon steel plate (CTL plate) from Belgium, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties and adequate responses from respondent interested parties, the Department determined to conduct a full sunset review of this CVD order pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2). On July 21, 2006, the Department published the preliminary results in this review and invited interested parties to comment on those results. See Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Belgium, 71 FR 41424 (Preliminary Results). As a result of our analysis, the Department finds that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:45 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 58585Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices we received a case brief from Duferco Coating SA and Sorral SA (collectively, ‘‘Duferco Sorral’’). We also received comments from the European Commission and from Sollac Atlantique, Sollac, Lorraine, Arcelor FCS Commercial, and Arcelor International America, LLC (‘‘respondent interested parties’’). On July 17, 2006, we received a rebuttal brief from United States Steel Corporation (‘‘domestic interested party’’). Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order includes flat-rolled carbon steel products, of rectangular shape, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion- resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) and of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, or in straight lengths which, if of a thickness less than 4.75 millimeters, are of a width of 0.5 inch or greater and which measures at least 10 times the thickness or if of a thickness of 4.75 millimeters or more are of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) item numbers 7210.31.000, 7210.39.0000, 7210.41.000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0090, 7210.60.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.1000, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.21.0000, 7212.29.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7212.60.0000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.12.1000, 7217.13.1000, 7217.19.1000, 7217.19.5000, 7217.22.5000, 7217.23.5000, 7217.29.1000, 7217.29.5000, 7217.32.5000, 7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, 7217.33.5000, 7217.39.1000, and 7217.39.5000. Included in this order are flat-rolled products of non-rectangular cross- section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order are flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (‘‘terne plate’’), or both chromium and chromium oxides (‘‘tin- free steel’’), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. Excluded from this order are clad products in straight lengths of 0.1875 inch or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness. Also excluded from this order are certain clad stainless flat- rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat- rolled products less than 4.75 millimeters in composite thickness that consist of a carbon steel flat-rolled product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio. The HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issued raised in this review are addressed in the Issue and Decision Memorandum (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Adminstration, to James C. Leonard, III, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated September 27, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review The Department determines that revocation of the CVD order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from France is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of counteravailable subsidies at the following countervailing duty rate: Manufacturer/exporter Net subsidy margin (percent) Country-Wide Rate ............... 0.16 Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 27, 2006. James C. Leonard, III, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 06–8485 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–05–M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration C–423–806 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium: Final Results of Full Sunset Review AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on cut–to-length carbon steel plate (CTL plate) from Belgium, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties and adequate responses from respondent interested parties, the Department determined to conduct a full sunset review of this CVD order pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2). On July 21, 2006, the Department published the preliminary results in this review and invited interested parties to comment on those results. See Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Belgium, 71 FR 41424 (Preliminary Results). As a result of our analysis, the Department finds that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:45 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 58586 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices 1 In other proceedings under this order, Fafer has at times been referred to as ‘‘Fabfer.’’ 2 Although Duferco reported that it purchased Clabecq, and Arcelor claims to be successor-in- interest to the other two original respondent companies, the Department has not made a determination in the past that Duferco and Arcelor are the successors-in-interest to the respective respondent companies and is not making such a determination in this sunset review. However, we have considered in this sunset review the historical information provided with respect to Duferco and Arcelor for purposes of our privatization and change-in-ownership analyses. See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, Re: Sunset Review of Countervailing Duty Order on Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium; Analysis of Changes in Ownership, dated July 14, 2006, incorporated in the Preliminary Results and on file in the CRU. of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3964. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On November 1, 2005, the Department initiated the second sunset review of the CVD order on CTL plate from Belgium, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005). On December 21, 2005, the Department determined that the participation of the respondent interested parties was adequate, and that it was appropriate to conduct a full sunset review. See Memorandum to Steven J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, Re: Adequacy Determination; Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium dated December 21, 2005, and on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of the Department of Commerce building (CRU). On February 10, 2006, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary and final results of the sunset review of the CVD order on CTL plate from Belgium. See Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary and Final Results of Full Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Countervailing Duty Orders, 71 FR 7017. On July 21, 2006, the Department published its Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium, 71 FR 41424 (Preliminary Results). In our Preliminary Results, we found that revocation of the order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies on the subject merchandise. Interested parties were invited to comment on our Preliminary Results. On August 4, 2006, we received a timely case brief from the Government of Belgium (GOB). On August 7, 2006, we received timely case briefs from Duferco Clabecq S.A. (Duferco), which purchased Forges de Clabecq S.A.(Clabecq), and Arcelor S.A. (Arcelor), claiming to be the successor– in-interest to both Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi (Fafer) 1 and Cockerill Sambre (Cockerill). 2 We received no comments from domestic interested parties. Scope Of The Order The product subject to this CVD order includes hot–rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat–rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat– rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the United States Harmonized Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTS’’) under item numbers: 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.5000. Included in this CVD order are flat– rolled products of non–rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’)--for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this order is grade X–70 plate. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found, in Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (July 12, 2002), that imported floor plate is excluded from this CVD order on steel plate. Analysis Of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Full Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Cut–to-length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium from Steven J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to James C. Leonard III, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (Final Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice and which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Final Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence a countervailable subsidy; the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail; privatization of Cockerill; and, nature of the subsidy. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Final Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper and electronic versions of the Final Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results Of Review The Department determines that revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. As discussed more fully in the Final Decision Memorandum, we find that certain countervailable subsidies continue to be in existence. Accordingly, we find the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order were revoked to be: Producers/exporters Net Countervailable Subsidy (percent) Cockerill ........................ 2.82 Fafer ............................. 0.56 All others (including Clabecq) .................... 0.50 International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification In accordance with section 752(b)(3) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final results of this full sunset review. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department’s regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:45 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 58587Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: September 27, 2006. James C. Leonard III, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–16390 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–401–804] Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Sweden AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On July 19, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the full sunset review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Sweden, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a result of our analysis, the Department preliminarily found that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. We provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. However, we received no comments from interested parties. As a result, the final results remain the same as the preliminary results of this review. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Gene Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5255 or (202) 482– 3586, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : On July 19, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the full sunset review of the CVD order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Sweden. See Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Cut-to- Length Carbon Steel Plate From Sweden, 71 FR 40992 (July 19, 2006) (Preliminary Results). No interested parties filed case briefs in response to the Department’s invitation to comment on the Preliminary Results. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to the CVD order is certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate. These products include hot- rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters, and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot- rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the United States Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included are flat-rolled products of non- rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for example, products which have been bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is grade X– 70 plate. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Final Results of Review As stated in the Preliminary Results, the Department determined that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. In addition, we preliminarily determined that the rate likely to prevail is de minimis. As we did not receive any comments from any interested parties regarding the Preliminary Results, we have no reason to reconsider our preliminary decision. International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification In accordance with section 752(b)(3) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final results of this full sunset review. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice of sunset review in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 27, 2006. James C. Leonard, III, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–16392 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration C–412–815 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the United Kingdom: Final Results of Full Sunset Review AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (Department) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on cut– to-length carbon steel plate (CTL plate) from the United Kingdom, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties and an adequate response from respondent interested parties, the Department determined to conduct a full sunset review of this CVD order pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2). On July 19, 2006, the Department published the preliminary results of this review and invited interested parties to comment on those results. See Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the United VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:45 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 58587Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: September 27, 2006. James C. Leonard III, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–16390 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–401–804] Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Sweden AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On July 19, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the full sunset review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Sweden, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a result of our analysis, the Department preliminarily found that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. We provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. However, we received no comments from interested parties. As a result, the final results remain the same as the preliminary results of this review. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Gene Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5255 or (202) 482– 3586, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : On July 19, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the full sunset review of the CVD order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Sweden. See Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Cut-to- Length Carbon Steel Plate From Sweden, 71 FR 40992 (July 19, 2006) (Preliminary Results). No interested parties filed case briefs in response to the Department’s invitation to comment on the Preliminary Results. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to the CVD order is certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate. These products include hot- rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters, and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot- rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the United States Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included are flat-rolled products of non- rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for example, products which have been bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is grade X– 70 plate. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Final Results of Review As stated in the Preliminary Results, the Department determined that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. In addition, we preliminarily determined that the rate likely to prevail is de minimis. As we did not receive any comments from any interested parties regarding the Preliminary Results, we have no reason to reconsider our preliminary decision. International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification In accordance with section 752(b)(3) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final results of this full sunset review. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice of sunset review in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 27, 2006. James C. Leonard, III, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–16392 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration C–412–815 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the United Kingdom: Final Results of Full Sunset Review AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (Department) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on cut– to-length carbon steel plate (CTL plate) from the United Kingdom, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties and an adequate response from respondent interested parties, the Department determined to conduct a full sunset review of this CVD order pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2). On July 19, 2006, the Department published the preliminary results of this review and invited interested parties to comment on those results. See Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the United VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:45 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 58587Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: September 27, 2006. James C. Leonard III, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–16390 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–401–804] Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Sweden AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On July 19, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the full sunset review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Sweden, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a result of our analysis, the Department preliminarily found that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. We provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. However, we received no comments from interested parties. As a result, the final results remain the same as the preliminary results of this review. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Gene Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5255 or (202) 482– 3586, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : On July 19, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the full sunset review of the CVD order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Sweden. See Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Cut-to- Length Carbon Steel Plate From Sweden, 71 FR 40992 (July 19, 2006) (Preliminary Results). No interested parties filed case briefs in response to the Department’s invitation to comment on the Preliminary Results. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to the CVD order is certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate. These products include hot- rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters, and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot- rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the United States Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included are flat-rolled products of non- rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’)—for example, products which have been bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is grade X– 70 plate. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. Final Results of Review As stated in the Preliminary Results, the Department determined that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. In addition, we preliminarily determined that the rate likely to prevail is de minimis. As we did not receive any comments from any interested parties regarding the Preliminary Results, we have no reason to reconsider our preliminary decision. International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification In accordance with section 752(b)(3) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final results of this full sunset review. Administrative Protective Orders This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice of sunset review in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 27, 2006. James C. Leonard, III, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–16392 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration C–412–815 Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the United Kingdom: Final Results of Full Sunset Review AGENCY : Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY : On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (Department) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on cut– to-length carbon steel plate (CTL plate) from the United Kingdom, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties and an adequate response from respondent interested parties, the Department determined to conduct a full sunset review of this CVD order pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(2). On July 19, 2006, the Department published the preliminary results of this review and invited interested parties to comment on those results. See Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the United VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:45 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 58588 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices 1 In the Preliminary Results, with respect to the change in ownership of Glynwed Steel Limited (Glynwed), the Department concluded that the sale of Glynwed was an arm’s-length transaction negotiated between unrelated private parties. Thus, the Department concluded that, because it was a private-to-private sale at arm’s length and, absent evidence to the contrary, the transaction was for fair market value and the countervailable benefits attributed to Glynwed in the original investigation were extinguished by the change in ownership. See ‘‘Final Decision in the Second 129 Proceeding – First Sunset review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the United Kingdom’’ dated May 26, 2006 (Second 129) at 15. 2 Corus/BS plc relationship: See footnote 2. 3 Glynwed Steel Limited (Glynwed)/Niagara relationship: See footnote 1. Kingdom, 71 FR 40993 (Preliminary Results). Based on our analysis of the comments and the record, the Department finds that revocation of the CVD order on CTL plate from the United Kingdom would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. Therefore, the Department is revoking this CVD order in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act. EFFECTIVE DATE : October 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Kimberley Hunt or Mark Hoadley, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1272 or (202) 482– 3148, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background On November 1, 2005, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD order on cut–to-length carbon steel plate from the United Kingdom pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005) (Notice of Initiation). On December 21, 2005, the Department determined that the participation of the respondent interested parties was adequate, and that it was appropriate to conduct a full sunset review. See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, Re: Adequacy Determination; Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the United Kingdom, on file in CRU. On February 10, 2006, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary and final results of the sunset review of the CVD order on CTL plate from the United Kingdom (UK) to no later than July 14 and September 27, 2006, respectively. See Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary and Final Results of Full Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Countervailing Duty Orders, 71 FR 7017 (February 10, 2006). On July 19, 2006, the Department published the preliminary results of the full sunset review, finding that revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and requested case and rebuttal briefs from interested parties. See Preliminary Results.1 Corus Group plc (Corus)2 requested, and the Department granted, an extension of time for the submission of case briefs, hearing requests and rebuttal briefs. See Memorandum to All Interested Parties from Barbara E. Tillman, Office Director, Office of AD/ CVD Operations 6, Re: Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Orders on Cut– to-length carbon steel plate from the United Kingdom; Extension of time to file case and rebuttal briefs dated July 31, 2006 and on file in CRU. On August 4, 2006, the European Union Delegation of the European Commission (EC) submitted its brief on the Department’s Preliminary Results. The Department noted that the case reference was incorrect and asked the EC to resubmit its brief with the proper case reference which it did on August 7, 2006. Additionally on August 7, 2006, the Government of the United Kingdom (UKG) and Corus submitted their briefs. These briefs were rebutted by Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. (Mittal), Nucor Corporation, IPSCO Steel Inc., and Oregon Steel Mills (collectively, petitioners) on August 14, 2006. Niagara LaSalle (UK) Limited (Niagara) 3 did not submit comments on the Preliminary Results. On August 24, 2006, representatives from the EC and UKG met with representatives from the Department to discuss petitioners’ rebuttal brief. A memorandum recording this meeting was placed on the file August 25, 2006. See Memorandum to The File, Re: August 24, 2006 Meeting with the Government of the United Kingdom and the European Commission, dated August 30, 2006. On September 5 and 7, 2006, pursuant to section 351.104(a)(2) of the Department’s regulations, the Department rejected the briefs of the UKG, the EC and Corus because they contained new factual information submitted after the time limit for submitting new factual information had expired. The Department removed the submissions from the record, and requested each party to refile its briefs without the new factual information. See Letters from Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement 6 to James Hughes, First Secretary of Trade for the Embassy of the United Kingdom dated September 5, 2006; to Nikolaos Zaimis, Counselor - Head of Trade Section for the Delegation of the European Commission dated September 7, 2006; and to Gregory McCue, Esq., Representative of Corus Group plc. dated September 7, 2006, on file in CRU. On September 8 and September 13, 2006, the EC and the UKG submitted letters to the Department declining the Department’s invitation to resubmit their briefs. Because neither the EC’s nor the UKG’s August 7, 2006 submissions are on the record, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.104, we have not addressed any comments raised in those briefs in making our determination in these final results; we have, however, addressed the arguments made in their September 8 and 13, 2006 letters. For a full discussion of these arguments, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to James C. Leonard III, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated concurrently with this notice (Final Decision Memorandum); see also Memorandum to the File Re: Rejection of Submissions from the United Kingdom Government, the European Union Delegation of the European Commission and Corus Group plc from the Record of the Final Results of the Full Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Cut–to- Length Carbon Steel Plate from the United Kingdom, dated September 27, 2006. Corus submitted an amended brief on September 11, 2006. Scope Of The Order The products covered by this countervailing duty order are certain cut–to-length carbon steel plates from the United Kingdom, including hot– rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat–rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat–rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:45 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 58589Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Notices 4 See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Finland, Germany and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Reviews, and Revocation of Orders in Part, 64 FR 46343 (August 25, 1999) clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the United States Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included are flat–rolled products of non–rectangular cross- section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been ‘‘worked after rolling’’) – for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. Excluded is grade X–70 plate. These HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. As a result of a changed circumstances review 4, the order excludes certain cut– to-length carbon steel plate with a maximum thickness of 80 mm in steel grades BS 7191, 355 EM and 355 EMZ, as amended by Sable Offshore Energy Project specification XB MOO Y 15 0001, types 1 and 2. Analysis Of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Final Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with this notice and which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Final Decision Memorandum include the rejection of untimely submitted new factual information, the likelihood of continuation or recurrence a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Final Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Final Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Final Results Of Review The Department determines that revocation of the CVD order would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. As we recognized in the Preliminary Results, three of the six programs previously found to be countervailable have been terminated. For one of the remaining programs, the UK Regional Development Grants (RDG) program, the Department now determines that there is no likelihood that subsidization will continue or recur. In light of the change in our likelihood determination for the RDG program, we have re–examined our preliminary findings for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Aid and the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) Article 54 Loans/ Interest Rebates programs, the only remaining subsidies that provide a basis for our likelihood determination. As we noted in the Preliminary Results, the combined benefits from those programs have never been above zero. Therefore, we find that there would be no likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy were the order to be revoked. See e.g., Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Brass Sheet and Strip from France, 71 FR 10651 (March 2, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum. Our full analysis is included in the Final Decision Memorandum. As a result, we are revoking this order effective December 15, 2005, the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of continuation of the CVD order on CTL plate from the UK. See Notice of Continuation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, 65 FR 78469 (December 15, 2000). We will notify the International Trade Commission of these results. Furthermore, within 15 days of the publication of this notice, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate suspension of liquidation, effective December 15, 2005. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department’s regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: September 27, 2006. James C. Leonard III, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–16393 Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Approval Decision on New York Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program AGENCY : National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce, and the Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION : Notice of intent to approve the New York Coastal Nonpoint Program. SUMMARY : Notice is hereby given of the intent to fully approve the New York Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (coastal nonpoint program) and of the availability of the draft Approval Decisions on conditions for the New York coastal nonpoint program. Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA), 16 U.S.C. 1455b, requires States and Territories with coastal zone management programs that have received approval under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act to develop and implement coastal nonpoint programs. Coastal States and Territories were required to submit their coastal nonpoint programs to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval in July 1995. NOAA and EPA conditionally approved the New York coastal nonpoint program on November 18, 1997. NOAA and EPA have drafted approval decisions describing how New York has satisfied the conditions placed on its program VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:45 Oct 03, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 62121Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 204 / Monday, October 23, 2006 / Notices Description of Respondents: Individuals, small businesses, large corporations. Estimated Completion Time: 10 minutes for 3000–2 and 2 hours for 3200–9. Annual Responses: 2,128 (2,116 for form 3000–2 and 12 for form 3200–9). Filing Fee Per Response: 0. Annual Burden Hours: 377. Bureau Clearance Officer: Ted Hudson, (202) 452–5033. Dated: October 18, 2006. Ted R. Hudson, Bureau of Land Management, Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 06–8826 Filed 10–20–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–84–M INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 701–TA–328 (Second Review)] Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the United Kingdom AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Termination of review. SUMMARY : On October 4, 2006, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) published notice in the Federal Register of its determination that revocation of the countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) order on cut-to-length (‘‘CTL’’) carbon steel plate from the United Kingdom would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. Commerce further stated that it was revoking the CVD order on CTL carbon steel plate from the United Kingdom (71 FR 58587). Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the five-year review of the countervailing duty order concerning CTL carbon steel plate from the United Kingdom (investigation No. 701–TA–328 (Second Review)) is terminated. DATES : Effective Date: October 4, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Szustakowski (202–205–3188), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Authority: This five-year review is being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.69 of the Commission’s rules (19 CFR 207.69). Issued: October 16, 2006. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6–17621 Filed 10–20–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P SUMMARY : Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 7) of the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) granting motion of Acclaim Innovations, LLC (‘‘Acclaim’’) to intervene as co- complainant in the above-captioned investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., telephone 202–708– 2310, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Copies of all nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on the matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The Commission instituted this investigation on May 16, 2006, based on a complaint filed on April 11, 2006, by Lexar Media, Inc. (‘‘Lexar’’) of Fremont, California. 71 FR 28387. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain flash memory chips, flash memory systems, and products containing same by reason of infringement of claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,801,979; claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent No. 6,397,314; and claims 1–13, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,342. The complaint named three respondents: Toshiba Corporation of Japan; Toshiba America, Inc. of New York, New York; and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. of Irvine, California (collectively the ‘‘respondents’’). The complaint further alleged that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. On July 31, 2006, Acclaim moved to intervene as co-complainant on the basis of assignment of the three identified patents-at-issue from Lexar to Acclaim on June 20, 2006. No party opposed having Acclaim intervene as co-complainant. The ALJ issued the subject ID on August 15, 2006, granting the motion to intervene. No party petitioned for review of the ID pursuant to 19 CFR 210.43(a), and the Commission found no basis for ordering a review on its own initiative pursuant to 19 CFR 210.44. The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections 210.19 and 210.42(h)(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Issued: August 31, 2006, (F.R.: October 17, 2006). By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6–17721 Filed 10–20–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:50 Oct 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23OCN1.SGM 23OCN1 mstockstill on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES 1 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)(D); 63 Fed. Reg. 29372, 29374 (May 29, 1998). 2 These producers are Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc., Nucor Corp., ISPAT Inland, Inc., and United States Steel Corp. EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATIONS ON ADEQUACY in Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197 (Second Review), 701-TA-319, 320, 325-328, 348 and 350 (Second Review), 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review) On February 6, 2006, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)). The Commission, in consultation with the Department of Commerce, grouped these reviews because they involve similar domestic like products.1 Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-348, 350, 731-TA-612, 614-618 (Second Review) With respect to the reviews on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (“corrosion-resistant steel”), the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution was adequate. The Commission received a consolidated response from four domestic producers of corrosion-resistant steel.2 The Commission found the individual response of each of the four domestic corrosion-resistant steel producers, which contained company-specific data, adequate. The Commission found that the respondent interested party group responses were adequate with respect to the orders on corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea because respondents from each of these countries accounted for a significant share of the production of subject merchandise in their respective countries. The Commission received an adequate individual response from BlueScope Steel, an Australian producer and exporter of subject merchandise. It also received separate adequate individual responses from Dofasco Inc. and Sorevco Inc., and Stelco Inc., Canadian producers and exporters of subject merchandise. With respect to the reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from France, the Commission received an adequate joint response from Duferco Coating SA and Sorral SA, French producers and exporters of subject merchandise, and Duferco Steel, Inc., a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, and adequate responses from French producers Sollac Atlantique and Sollac Lorraine, and exporter Arcelor FCS Commercial, as well as from Arcelor International America, LLC, an importer of French subject merchandise. The Commission also received an adequate joint response regarding the order on corrosion-resistant steel from Germany from Salzgitter Flachstahl and ThyssenKrupp Steel AG, producers of the subject merchandise in Germany, and ThyssenKrupp Steel N.A. Inc., and ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A. Inc., U.S. importers of subject merchandise, as well as an adequate joint response from German producers Stahlwerke Bremen and Eko Stahl Gmbh and exporter Arcelor FCS Commercial, and an adequate individual response from importer Arcelor International America, LLC. The Commission found adequate a joint response concerning the order on corrosion-resistant steel from Japan, filed by JFE Steel Corporation, Kobe Steel, Ltd., Nippon Steel Corporation, Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd., and Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd., Japanese producers of corrosion-resistant steel. Finally, with respect to the reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty 3 These producers are Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc., Nucor Corp., Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., and IPSCO Inc. orders on corrosion-resistant steel from Korea, the Commission received an adequate joint response from Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., HYSCO, Pohang Coated Steel Co., and Union Steel Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Korean producers and exporters of corrosion-resistant steel. Because the group and individual responses from both domestic interested parties and respondent interested parties were adequate in the reviews of the orders concerning corrosion-resistant steel from all subject countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea), the Commission determined to conduct full reviews in these proceedings. Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos., AA1921-197 (Second Review), 701-TA-319, 320, 325-328, 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587 (Second Review) With respect to the orders concerning cut-to-length carbon steel plate (“CTL plate”) from Taiwan, Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate. The Commission received a consolidated response from four domestic producers that account for a significant percentage of domestic production of CTL plate.3 The Commission found the individual response of each of the four domestic CTL plate producers, which contained company-specific data, adequate. The Commission found that the respondent interested party group responses were adequate with respect to the orders on CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, and the United Kingdom because respondents from each of these countries accounted for a significant share of the production of subject merchandise in their respective countries. The Commission received an adequate joint response concerning the orders on CTL plate from Belgium filed by Duferco Clabecq S.A., a Belgian producer and exporter of CTL plate, and Duferco Steel, Inc., a U.S. importer. With respect to the reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Brazil, the Commission received an adequate joint response filed by Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais SA and Companhia Siderurgica Paulista, each of which is a Brazilian producer and exporter of subject merchandise. An adequate individual response concerning the order on CTL plate from Finland was filed by RAUTARUUKKI OYJ, a Finnish producer and exporter of subject merchandise. An adequate joint response concerning the order on CTL plate from Germany was filed by AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke, Salzgitter AG Stahl und Technologie, and ThyssenKrupp Steel AG, each of which is a German producer and exporter of subject merchandise. With respect to the reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from Mexico, the Commission received an adequate individual response filed by Altos Hornos de Mexico S.A. de C.V., a Mexican producer and exporter of subject merchandise. An adequate joint response concerning the order on CTL plate from Poland was filed by Huta Stali Czestochowa Sp. z.o.o., a Polish producer and exporter of subject merchandise, and Duferco Steel Inc., a U.S. importer. Finally, with respect to the reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on CTL plate from the United Kingdom, the Commission received three individual adequate responses, the first filed by Corus Group plc., a British producer and exporter of subject merchandise, the second filed by Niagara LaSalle (UK) Limited, a British producer 4 UK Steel is a foreign trade association whose member companies include Spartan UK Ltd., Celsa Steel UK Ltd, Niagara LaSalle (UK) Limited, and Corus Group plc. and exporter of subject merchandise, and the third filed by UK Steel4 on behalf of Spartan UK Ltd., and Celsa Steel UK Ltd., both British producers and exporters of the subject merchandise. Because the group and individual responses from both domestic interested parties and respondent interested parties were adequate in the reviews of the orders concerning CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, and the United Kingdom, the Commission determined to conduct full reviews in these proceedings. The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties in the reviews concerning subject imports from Taiwan, Romania, Spain, and Sweden, and therefore determined that the respondent interested party group responses for these countries were not adequate. The Commission nevertheless voted to conduct full reviews concerning subject imports from Taiwan, Romania, Spain, and Sweden to promote administrative efficiency in light of the Commission’s determination to conduct full reviews of the majority of orders in these grouped reviews. Moreover, changes in conditions of competition – such as modifications to the composition of the domestic industry – also supported conducting full reviews. A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and on the Commission’s website (http://www.usitc.gov). B-1 APPENDIX B HEARING WITNESSES B-3 CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s hearing: Subject: Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom (Corrosion-Resistant Steel) Inv. Nos.: AA1921-197; 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348, and 350; and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review) Date and Time: October 17, 2006 - 9:30 a.m. Sessions were held in connection with these reviews in the Main Hearing Room (room 101), 500 E Street, SW, Washington, D.C. CONGRESSIONAL APPEARANCES: The Honorable Arlen Specter, United State Senator, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV, United States Senator, State of West Virginia The Honorable John P. Murtha, U.S. Representative, 12 th District, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan, U.S. Representative, 1st District, State of West Virginia The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky, U.S. Representative, 1 st District, State of Indiana The Honorable Joseph “Joe” Knollenberg, U.S. Representative, 9th District, State of Michigan The Honorable Phil English, U.S. Representative, 3rd District, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania The Honorable Mike Doyle, U.S. Representative, 14th District, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania The Honorable Mike Rogers, U.S. Representative, 8th District, State of Michigan B-4 CONGRESSIONAL APPEARANCES (continued): The Honorable Henry E. Brown, Jr., U.S. Representative, 1st District, State of South Carolina The Honorable G.K. Butterfield, U.S. Representative, 1 st District, State of North Carolina STATE GOVERNMENT APPEARANCES: The Honorable Bill H. Stovall, III, Speaker of the House, State of Arkansas House of Representatives The Honorable Walter H. Dalton, State Senator, 46th District, State of North Carolina The Honorable Ed Clemente, State Representative, 14th District, State of Michigan, House of Representatives The Honorable Chuck Blasdel, Speaker Pro Tempore, 1st House District, The Ohio House of Representatives The Honorable Sandy Layman, Commissioner, Iron Range Resources, State of Minnesota OPENING REMARKS: In Support of Continuation of Orders (Terence P. Stewart, Stewart and Stewart) In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (William Silverman, Hunton & Williams LLP) B-5 In Support of the Continuation of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”) AK Steel Corporation (“AK Steel”) John H. Goodish, Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President, U.S. Steel Joseph R. Scherrbaum, Jr., Vice President, Sales, U.S. Steel Peter J. Alvarado, General Manager, Automotive, U.S. Steel Michael N. Meyers, Director, Industry Marketing, U.S. Steel Douglas W. Gant, Vice President, Sales & Customer Service, AK Steel David Riker, Principal, CRA International, Inc. Robert A. Korajczyk, Principal, Chicago Partners, LLC Robert E. Lighthizer ) James C. Hecht ) ) – OF COUNSEL Stephen P. Vaughn ) Stephen J. Narkin ) B-6 In Support of the Continuation of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders (continued): Stewart and Stewart Washington, D.C. on behalf of Mittal Steel USA Inc. (“Mittal Steel USA”) United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (“USW”) Leo W. Gerard, International President, USW Louis L. Schorsch, CEO, Flat Products, Americas, Arcelor Mittal Roy Platz, Director of Marketing, Sales and Marketing, Mittal Steel USA Elizabeth Drake, Trade Consultant, Stewart and Stewart Terence P. Stewart ) Patrick J. McDonough )– OF COUNSEL Sarah V. Stewart ) Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”) Steel Dynamics, Inc. (“SDI”) Daniel R. DiMicco, Chairman, President, and CEO, Nucor Rick Blume, National Sales and Marketing Manager, Sheet Mill Group, Nucor B-7 In Support of the Continuation of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders (continued): John W. Nolan, Vice President and Manager, Sales and Marketing, SDI John Bates, Sr., Chief Executive Officer and Owner, Heidtman Steel Products Peter Morici, Professor of Economics, University of Maryland Alan H. Price ) ) – OF COUNSEL M. William Schisa ) In Opposition to the Continuation of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders: Hogan & Hartson LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of DaimlerChrysler Corporation Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. Ford Motor Company General Motors Corporation Honda of America Mfg., Inc. Honda Trading America Corporation Nissan North America, Inc. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (collectively “Auto Producers”) Allan M. Huss, Senior Counsel, Antitrust/Regulatory Affairs, DaimlerChrysler Corporation B-8 In Opposition to the Continuation of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders (continued): Daniel K. Kelly, Supplier Quality Manager, DaimlerChrysler Corporation Susan DeSandre, Director of Body & Chassis Purchasing North America, Ford Motor Company Lisa King, Manager, Steel, Paints, Sealers Purchasing, Ford Motor Company Richard Cover, Commodity Manager, Steel, General Motors Corporation G. Mustafa Mohatarem, Chief Economist, General Motors Corporation Larry Jutte, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Purchasing, Honda of America Mfg. Inc. Randall P. Luther, Assistant Manager, North American Purchasing, Honda of America Mfg. Inc. Cal Vickers, Senior Director, Purchasing, Nissan North America Johnny Brown, Buyer, Purchasing, Production Materials, Nissan North America Chris Nielsen, General Manager, Purchasing, Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc. Steve Cochran, Specialist, Purchasing, Vehicle Parts & Materials: Electrical & Body, Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc. Mark S. McConnell ) Lewis E. Leibowitz, ) – OF COUNSEL T. Clark Weymouth ) B-9 In Opposition to the Continuation of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders (continued): Hunton & Williams LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of Dofasco Inc. Sorevco Inc. Bradley L. Davey, General Manager, Marketing, Dofasco Inc. W. Donald Kenny, Director, Automotive Business, Dofasco Inc. Christy C. Towers, Corporate Account Manager, Ford, Dofasco Inc. Henry T. Wegiel, Manager, Government and Trade Relations, Dofasco Inc. Bruce Malashevich, President, Economic Consulting Services, Inc. William Silverman ) Douglas J. Heffner ) – OF COUNSEL Richard P. Ferrin ) Kaye Scholer LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. Hyundai HYSCO Pohang Coated Steel Co. Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. Union Manufacturing Co., Ltd. POSCO America Corp. Steven Kim, Manager, Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. B-10 In Opposition to the Continuation of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders (continued): Se-Yong Chun, Manager, Marketing, POSCO America Corp. Donald B. Cameron ) ) – OF COUNSEL Julie C. Mendoza ) Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of JFE Steel Corp. Kobe Steel, Ltd. Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. Nippon Steel Corp. Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd. Yoichi Furuta, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Nippon Steel U.S.A., Inc. Heiki Miki, Vice President, Marketing, JFE Steel America, Inc. J. Christopher Wood ) – OF COUNSEL Sharretts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt, P.C. Washington, D.C. on behalf of ThyssenKrupp Steel AG Saltzgitter AG Stahl und Technologie ThyssenKrupp Steel N.A. Inc. ThyssenKrupp Steel Services ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A. Inc. Stefan Gruenhage, Senior Manager, Corporate Planning/Systems Order Management, ThyssenKrupp Steel AG B-11 In Opposition to the Continuation of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders (continued): Johan Wesslen, Senior Manager, Customs & Trade Affairs, ThyssenKrupp Steel N.A. Inc. Gail T. Cumins ) Beatrice A. Brickell ) – OF COUNSEL Sara Nordin ) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of Australian Respondents Leonard Shambon ) – OF COUNSEL Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of TCC Steel Henry Chang, Managing Director, Marketing Division, TCC Steel Lisa W. Ross ) – OF COUNSEL B-12 In Opposition to the Continuation of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders (continued): Shearman & Sterling LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of Sollac Atlantique Sollac Lorraine Arcelor FCS Commercial Arcelor International America, LLC Robert S. LaRussa ) ) – OF COUNSEL Ryan A.T. Trapani ) REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS: In Support of Continuation of Orders (James C. Hecht, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP) In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (Mark S. McConnell, Hogan & Hartson LLP) B-13 CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s hearing: Subject: Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom (Cut-to-Length Plate) Inv. Nos.: AA1921-197; 701-TA-319, 320, 325-327, 348, and 350; and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612, and 614-618 (Second Review) Date and Time: October 19, 2006 - 9:30 a.m. Sessions were held in connection with these reviews in the Main Hearing Room (room 101), 500 E Street, SW, Washington, D.C. CONGRESSIONAL APPEARANCES: The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky, U.S. Representative, 1 st District, State of Indiana The Honorable Jo Bonner, U.S. Representative, 1st District, State of Alabama STATE GOVERNMENT APPEARANCE: Office of the Governor of Oregon Salem, OR Sarah Bittleman, Director, Washington, D.C. Office of the Governor of Oregon, on behalf of the Honorable Theodore Kulongoski, Governor of Oregon EMBASSY APPEARANCES: The Embassy of Mexico Washington, D.C. Kenneth Smith Ramos, Director General for International Trade Negotiations, Undersecretary for International Trade Negotiations, Secretary of the Economy Adriana Diaz Ortiz, Director of International Assistance for Mexican Exporters, Unit for International Commercial Practices, Secretary of the Economy B-14 OPENING REMARKS: In Support of Continuation of Orders (Roger B. Schagrin, Schagrin Associates) In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (Kenneth J. Pierce, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP) In Support of the Continuation of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders: Stewart & Stewart Washington, D.C. on behalf of Mittal Steel USA Inc. (“Mittal Steel USA”) United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (“USW”) Thomas Conway, International Vice President (Administration), USW Robert W. Insetta, Director, Plate Products, Sales and Markets, Mittal Steel USA Lawrence F. Fabina, Manager, Continuous Improvement, Burns Harbor Plant, Mittal Steel USA Matthew Habenicht, Plate Commercial Product Manager, Mittal Steel USA Terence P. Stewart ) Sarah V. Stewart ) – OF COUNSEL Elizabeth A. Argenti ) B-15 In Support of the Continuation of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders (continued): Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”) Patrick J. McFadden, National Sales and Marketing Manager, Plate Products, Nucor Frank Ruane, Director, Corporate Purchasing, Olympic Steel David A. Riker, Principal, CRA International, Inc. Alan H. Price ) ) – OF COUNSEL Timothy C. Brightbill ) Schagrin Associates Washington, D.C. on behalf of IPSCO Steel Inc. Oregon Steel Mills John Tulloch, Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer, IPSCO Steel Inc. Glenn Gilmore, Trade Supervisor, IPSCO Steel Inc. Scott Montross, Vice President, Sales and Marketing, Oregon Steel Mills Kent Thies, National Marketing Director, Oregon Steel Mills Tom Ballou, Director, Plate and Flat-Rolled Products, O’Neal Steel Robert Heltzel, Jr., President, Kenilworth Steel B-16 In Support of the Continuation of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders (continued): Robert Scott, Economist, Schagrin Associates and the Economic Policy Institute Roger B. Schagrin ) – OF COUNSEL In Opposition to the Continuation of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders: deKieffer & Horgan Washington, D.C. on behalf of AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke Salzgitter AG Stahl und Technologie ThyssenKrupp Steel AG Marc E. Montalbine ) – OF COUNSEL Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of Companhia Siderurgica Paulista (“COSIPA”) Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais SA (“USIMINAS”) Christopher Dunn ) – OF COUNSEL Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of Altos Hornos de Mexico S.A. de C.V. (“AHMSA”) Juan Castillo Ramirez, Director, Government Relations, AHMSA Luis A. Landois Garza, Director, Sales, AHMSA B-17 In Opposition to the Continuation of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders (continued): Federico J. Reyes Villarreal, Manager, Corporate Finance, AHMSA Luis Guillermo Valdes Portales, Assistant Manager, Corporate, AHMSA Thomas J. Prusa, Professor of Economics, Rutgers University Bruce Malashevich, President, Economic Consulting Services, LLC Jim Dougan, Economist, Economic Consulting Services, LLC Mark David Davis, Counsel, Davis & Leiman P.C. Alexander W. Sierck, Counsel, Cameron & Hornbostel, LLP Kenneth J. Pierce ) Matthew P. McCullough ) – OF COUNSEL David T. Hardin ) Steptoe & Johnson LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of Corus Group plc Richard White, General Manager, Sales and Marketing, Sections & Plates, Corus U.K. Ltd. Paul Parkins, Sales Manager, Energy International, Corus U.K. Ltd. Peter J. Joyce, Sales Manager, Americas, Corus America Inc. B-18 In Opposition to the Continuation of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders (continued): Patrick J. Boyle, President of the Houston Office, Murray International Metals, a division of Edgen Carbon Products Group LLC Bruce Malashevich, President, Economic Consulting Services LLC Jim Dougan, Economist, Economic Consulting Services LLC Richard O. Cunningham ) Gregory S. McCue ) ) – OF COUNSEL William G. Isasi ) Michael Pass ) Sidley Austin LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of Caterpillar Inc. (“Caterpillar”) Dennis Kunka, Steel Plate Commodity Manager, Global Purchasing, Caterpillar Johna Purcell, Corporate Attorney, Caterpillar Cheryl D. Ivey, Senior Legal Assistant, Caterpillar Maria DiGiulian ) – OF COUNSEL B-19 In Opposition to the Continuation of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders (continued): White & Case LLP Washington, D.C. on behalf of Duferco Clabecq S.A. Duferco Steel, Inc. Jay C. Campbell ) ) – OF COUNSEL Emily Lawson ) REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS: In Support of Continuation of Orders (Timothy C. Brightbill, Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP; Roger B. Schagrin, Schagrin Associates; and David A. Riker, CRA International, Inc.) In Opposition to Continuation of Orders (Richard O. Cunningham, Steptoe & Johnson LLP) C-1 APPENDIX C SUMMARY DATA Table C-1 CTL plate: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,814,613 6,234,474 6,539,570 6,354,810 6,978,552 7,281,971 3,646,154 4,434,283 6.9 -8.5 4.9 -2.8 9.8 4.3 21.6 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 89.7 89.7 91.6 95.1 92.3 90.9 90.6 87.2 1.1 -0.0 1.8 3.5 -2.8 -1.4 -3.4 Importers' share (1): Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.0 0.1 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 0.6 -0.6 0.3 -0.3 0.3 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.1 1.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.5 -0.9 -0.1 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.4 1.5 1.2 2.1 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.1 -0.3 0.9 -1.2 0.3 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 9.8 9.8 6.9 3.7 5.6 8.2 9.1 12.3 -1.6 -0.0 -2.9 -3.2 1.9 2.6 3.2 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 10.3 8.4 4.9 7.7 9.1 9.4 12.8 -1.1 0.0 -1.8 -3.5 2.8 1.4 3.4 U.S. consumption value: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,454,787 2,101,040 2,229,060 2,268,951 4,347,057 5,131,625 2,688,288 3,091,851 109.0 -14.4 6.1 1.8 91.6 18.0 15.0 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 91.3 90.9 92.0 95.4 93.1 91.3 91.2 88.8 -0.0 -0.4 1.1 3.4 -2.3 -1.8 -2.5 Importers' share (1): Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 -0.1 -0.2 0.8 -0.7 0.2 -0.2 0.5 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.9 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.4 -0.7 -0.1 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.5 1.6 1.1 1.8 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.0 1.1 -0.5 0.7 -0.9 0.4 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 8.6 6.4 3.5 5.1 7.8 8.5 10.5 -0.3 0.4 -2.1 -3.0 1.6 2.7 2.1 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 9.1 8.0 4.6 6.9 8.7 8.8 11.2 0.0 0.4 -1.1 -3.4 2.3 1.8 2.5 U.S. imports from: Belgium: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,614 16,575 11,615 6,226 10,271 10,388 2,767 6,853 -33.5 6.1 -29.9 -46.4 65.0 1.1 147.6 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,458 6,511 4,951 3,086 7,023 8,923 1,976 5,904 38.2 0.8 -24.0 -37.7 127.6 27.0 198.7 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $414 $393 $426 $496 $684 $859 $714 $862 107.7 -5.0 8.5 16.3 37.9 25.6 20.6 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Brazil: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,243 2,978 1,477 0 18 2,460 1,961 420 -24.1 -8.2 -50.4 -100.0 (2) 13,360.3 -78.6 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,546 1,386 288 0 7 3,138 2,714 323 103.0 -10.3 -79.2 -100.0 (2) 46,865.1 -88.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $477 $465 $195 (2) $366 $1,276 $1,384 $769 167.6 -2.4 -58.0 (2) (2) 248.9 -44.4 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Finland: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 19 0 0 1,290 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 10 0 0 1,112 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) $537 (2) (2) $862 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Germany: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,783 129 40,536 2,647 23,413 2,078 1,491 15,671 -76.3 -98.5 31,358.2 -93.5 784.6 -91.1 950.7 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,030 92 17,028 1,688 10,641 1,440 980 15,574 -64.3 -97.7 18,505.1 -90.1 530.6 -86.5 1,489.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $459 $710 $420 $638 $454 $693 $657 $994 51.0 54.8 -40.9 51.8 -28.7 52.5 51.3 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Mexico: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 271 273 308 1,083 440 379 168 188.1 77.5 0.8 12.8 251.7 -59.4 -55.5 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 141 81 123 570 271 244 79 314.1 116.1 -42.4 51.7 362.1 -52.5 -67.5 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $428 $521 $298 $400 $526 $615 $645 $472 43.8 21.7 -42.9 34.5 31.4 16.9 -26.9 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Poland: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 386 0 0 45 61 61 0 1,774.3 11,718.8 -100.0 (2) (2) 36.7 -100.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 95 0 0 23 36 36 0 778.4 2,199.4 -100.0 (2) (2) 61.2 -100.0 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,270 $247 (2) (2) $505 $595 $595 (2) -53.1 -80.5 (2) (2) (2) 17.9 (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Romania: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5,981 44,339 69,552 109,969 49,813 3,014 0 803,561.0 96,393.7 641.3 56.9 58.1 -54.7 -100.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1,433 12,627 20,706 58,584 31,292 2,084 0 567,087.1 25,871.5 781.2 64.0 182.9 -46.6 -100.0 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $890 $240 $285 $298 $533 $628 $691 (2) -29.4 -73.1 18.9 4.5 78.9 17.9 (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 *** *** 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** (2) Spain: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -100.0 (2) (2) (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -100.0 (2) (2) (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444 (2) $358 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Sweden: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 1,312 198 0 280 182 182 50 -48.7 270.9 -84.9 -100.0 (2) -35.1 -72.4 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 1,095 192 0 131 108 108 33 -45.4 453.6 -82.4 -100.0 (2) -17.9 -69.3 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $559 $835 $970 (2) $470 $595 $595 $663 6.4 49.3 16.3 (2) (2) 26.6 11.5 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Taiwan: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 66 226 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -11.1 240.8 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 20 270 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -22.2 1216.5 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $353 $309 $1,194 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) -12.5 286.4 (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) United Kingdom: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847 125 79 23 8 17 0 19 -97.9 -85.3 -37.1 -71.0 -64.5 115.2 (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 88 49 7 3 6 0 6 -97.6 -64.1 -44.6 -85.8 -56.5 97.0 (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $291 $708 $624 $305 $374 $342 (2) $338 17.8 143.6 -11.9 -51.0 22.5 -8.5 (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Subtotal: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,083 27,842 98,749 78,755 146,377 65,439 9,856 23,181 125.0 -4.3 254.7 -20.2 85.9 -55.3 135.2 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,581 10,873 35,489 25,610 78,094 45,214 8,143 21,920 259.4 -13.6 226.4 -27.8 204.9 -42.1 169.2 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $433 $391 $359 $325 $534 $691 $826 $946 59.7 -9.7 -8.0 -9.5 64.1 29.5 14.4 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 *** *** 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** (2) C-3 Table C-1--Continued CTL plate: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. imports from: All other sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669,666 611,424 452,321 234,670 390,123 598,444 331,866 545,050 -10.6 -8.7 -26.0 -48.1 66.2 53.4 64.2 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199,956 180,362 143,493 78,892 221,897 400,852 227,169 325,305 100.5 -9.8 -20.4 -45.0 181.3 80.6 43.2 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $299 $295 $317 $336 $569 $670 $685 $597 124.3 -1.2 7.5 6.0 69.2 17.8 -12.8 Ending inventory quantity . . . 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 *** *** 2,663 2,758 *** -37.4 -31.0 -41.9 *** *** 3.6 All sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698,749 639,266 551,069 313,425 536,500 663,883 341,722 568,231 -5.0 -8.5 -13.8 -43.1 71.2 23.7 66.3 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212,537 191,235 178,982 104,501 299,990 446,065 235,312 347,225 109.9 -10.0 -6.4 -41.6 187.1 48.7 47.6 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $304 $299 $325 $333 $559 $672 $689 $611 120.9 -1.7 8.6 2.7 67.7 20.2 -11.3 Ending inventory quantity . . . 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 20,148 7,756 2,663 2,758 115.1 -37.4 -31.0 -41.9 2,126.3 -61.5 3.6 U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity . . . . 10,086,195 10,382,440 10,600,470 11,138,353 10,629,073 10,793,425 5,370,412 5,524,993 7.0 2.9 2.1 5.1 -4.6 1.5 2.9 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 6,322,806 5,676,017 6,089,710 6,286,468 6,883,546 7,119,199 3,453,719 4,184,481 12.6 -10.2 7.3 3.2 9.5 3.4 21.2 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . 62.7 54.7 57.4 56.4 64.7 65.7 64.1 75.5 3.0 -8.0 2.8 -1.0 8.3 1.0 11.5 U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,115,864 5,595,208 5,988,501 6,041,385 6,442,052 6,618,088 3,304,432 3,866,052 8.2 -8.5 7.0 0.9 6.6 2.7 17.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,242,250 1,909,806 2,050,077 2,164,450 4,047,066 4,685,560 2,452,976 2,744,626 109.0 -14.8 7.3 5.6 87.0 15.8 11.9 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $367 $341 $342 $358 $628 $708 $742 $710 93.1 -6.9 0.3 4.7 75.3 12.7 -4.4 Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233,283 146,677 197,405 306,342 425,436 435,382 154,323 298,047 86.6 -37.1 34.6 55.2 38.9 2.3 93.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86,689 49,835 65,408 107,006 279,701 314,340 115,086 210,273 262.6 -42.5 31.2 63.6 161.4 12.4 82.7 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $372 $340 $331 $349 $657 $722 $746 $706 94.3 -8.6 -2.5 5.4 88.2 9.8 -5.4 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 698,145 609,687 564,800 573,515 546,697 526,917 481,010 521,320 -24.5 -12.7 -7.4 1.5 -4.7 -3.6 8.4 Inventories/total shipments (1) 11.0 10.6 9.1 9.0 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.3 -3.5 -0.4 -1.5 -0.1 -1.1 -0.5 -0.7 Production workers . . . . . . . . . 5,547 4,869 4,477 4,317 3,973 3,928 3,802 4,212 -29.2 -12.2 -8.1 -3.6 -8.0 -1.1 10.8 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 12,515 10,928 10,241 9,762 9,191 9,192 4,702 5,402 -26.6 -12.7 -6.3 -4.7 -5.9 0.0 14.9 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . 268,471 233,945 218,022 213,011 201,105 208,286 103,535 124,368 -22.4 -12.9 -6.8 -2.3 -5.6 3.6 20.1 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . $21.45 $21.41 $21.29 $21.82 $21.88 $22.66 $22.02 $23.02 5.6 -0.2 -0.5 2.5 0.3 3.6 4.6 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) 456.6 469.8 536.6 581.8 673.6 700.8 658.6 708.1 53.5 2.9 14.2 8.4 15.8 4.0 7.5 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $46.98 $45.57 $39.68 $37.51 $32.48 $32.34 $33.43 $32.52 -31.2 -3.0 -12.9 -5.5 -13.4 -0.5 -2.7 Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,830,187 4,367,368 4,745,921 5,297,394 5,638,486 5,672,541 2,802,305 3,379,555 17.4 -9.6 8.7 11.6 6.4 0.6 20.6 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,758,271 1,477,637 1,609,886 1,915,063 3,530,933 4,070,019 2,119,953 2,437,411 131.5 -16.0 9.0 19.0 84.4 15.3 15.0 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $364 $338 $339 $362 $626 $717 $757 $721 97.1 -7.1 0.3 6.6 73.2 14.6 -4.7 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . 1,800,011 1,572,475 1,628,547 1,908,344 2,692,538 2,967,611 1,517,442 1,769,847 64.9 -12.6 3.6 17.2 41.1 10.2 16.6 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . (41,740) (94,838) (18,661) 6,719 838,395 1,102,408 602,511 667,564 (3) -127.2 80.3 (3) 12,378.0 31.5 10.8 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 111,600 105,252 96,529 137,155 104,222 120,100 56,963 69,429 7.6 -5.7 -8.3 42.1 -24.0 15.2 21.9 Operating income or (loss) . . . (153,340) (200,090) (115,190) (130,436) 734,173 982,308 545,548 598,136 (3) -30.5 42.4 -13.2 (3) 33.8 9.6 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** 38,505 20,630 23,063 86,056 20,612 43,030 *** *** *** -46.4 11.8 273.1 108.8 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $373 $360 $343 $360 $478 $523 $541 $524 40.4 -3.4 -4.7 5.0 32.6 9.6 -3.3 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . $23 $24 $20 $26 $18 $21 $20 $21 -8.4 4.3 -15.6 27.3 -28.6 14.5 1.1 Unit operating income or (loss) ($32) ($46) ($24) ($25) $130 $173 $195 $177 (3) -44.3 47.0 -1.4 (3) 33.0 -9.1 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.4 106.4 101.2 99.6 76.3 72.9 71.6 72.6 -29.5 4.0 -5.3 -1.5 -23.4 -3.3 1.0 Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.7) (13.5) (7.2) (6.8) 20.8 24.1 25.7 24.5 32.9 -4.8 6.4 0.3 27.6 3.3 -1.2 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Not applicable. (3) Undefined. Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics. C-4 Table C-1a CTL plate: Summary data concerning U.S. mills, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. mills': Average capacity quantity . . . . 6,774,534 7,060,778 7,345,648 7,655,505 6,965,258 7,010,214 3,486,757 3,614,334 3.5 4.2 4.0 4.2 -9.0 0.6 3.7 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 4,773,196 4,258,879 4,659,396 4,792,977 5,223,946 5,303,735 2,579,213 3,164,204 11.1 -10.8 9.4 2.9 9.0 1.5 22.7 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . 70.5 60.3 63.4 62.6 75.0 75.6 74.0 87.5 5.2 -10.2 3.1 -0.8 12.4 0.6 13.6 U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,523,603 4,116,122 4,525,293 4,553,612 4,802,967 4,835,809 2,439,606 2,881,544 6.9 -9.0 9.9 0.6 5.5 0.7 18.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,650,282 1,393,840 1,518,214 1,613,308 2,957,378 3,488,723 1,855,163 2,080,370 111.4 -15.5 8.9 6.3 83.3 18.0 12.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $365 $339 $335 $354 $616 $721 $760 $722 97.8 -7.2 -0.9 5.6 73.8 17.2 -5.1 Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . . 390,589 345,891 283,241 283,975 253,668 287,549 239,469 270,957 -26.4 -11.4 -18.1 0.3 -10.7 13.4 13.1 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production workers . . . . . . . . . 4,775 4,141 3,759 3,547 3,148 3,054 2,930 3,286 -36.0 -13.3 -9.2 -5.6 -11.2 -3.0 12.2 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 10,864 9,415 8,729 8,245 7,520 7,364 3,806 4,396 -32.2 -13.3 -7.3 -5.5 -8.8 -2.1 15.5 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . 243,504 211,192 194,416 188,440 173,295 177,086 88,387 106,928 -27.3 -13.3 -7.9 -3.1 -8.0 2.2 21.0 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . $22.41 $22.43 $22.27 $22.86 $23.04 $24.05 $23.22 $24.33 7.3 0.1 -0.7 2.6 0.8 4.4 4.7 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) 437.9 451.2 532.9 580.9 693.7 719.8 677.7 719.8 64.4 3.1 18.1 9.0 19.4 3.8 6.2 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $51.19 $49.71 $41.79 $39.34 $33.22 $33.41 $34.27 $33.79 -34.7 -2.9 -15.9 -5.9 -15.6 0.6 -1.4 Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,452,976 4,020,355 4,438,109 4,760,308 5,034,023 4,944,371 2,461,385 2,955,954 11.0 -9.7 10.4 7.3 5.7 -1.8 20.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,635,844 1,374,725 1,498,332 1,680,868 3,089,599 3,547,505 1,857,218 2,128,474 116.9 -16.0 9.0 12.2 83.8 14.8 14.6 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $367 $342 $338 $353 $614 $717 $755 $720 95.3 -6.9 -1.3 4.6 73.8 16.9 -4.6 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . 1,683,451 1,479,179 1,524,786 1,701,983 2,307,283 2,488,925 1,270,233 1,490,106 47.8 -12.1 3.1 11.6 35.6 7.9 17.3 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . (47,607) (104,454) (26,454) (21,115) 782,316 1,058,580 586,985 638,368 (2) -119.4 74.7 20.2 (2) 35.3 8.8 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 108,073 101,438 92,150 126,779 91,553 106,366 50,986 61,072 -1.6 -6.1 -9.2 37.6 -27.8 16.2 19.8 Operating income or (loss) . . . (155,680) (205,892) (118,604) (147,894) 690,763 952,214 535,999 577,297 (2) -32.3 42.4 -24.7 (2) 37.8 7.7 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $378 $368 $344 $358 $458 $503 $516 $504 33.2 -2.7 -6.6 4.1 28.2 9.8 -2.3 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . $24 $25 $21 $27 $18 $22 $21 $21 -11.4 4.0 -17.7 28.3 -31.7 18.3 -0.3 Unit operating income or (loss) ($35) ($51) ($27) ($31) $137 $193 $218 $195 (2) -46.5 47.8 -16.3 (2) 40.3 -10.3 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.9 107.6 101.8 101.3 74.7 70.2 68.4 70.0 -32.8 4.7 -5.8 -0.5 -26.6 -4.5 1.6 Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9.5) (15.0) (7.9) (8.8) 22.4 26.8 28.9 27.1 36.4 -5.5 7.1 -0.9 31.2 4.5 -1.7 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Undefined. Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. C-5 Table C-1b CTL plate: Summary data concerning U.S. processors, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. processors': Average capacity quantity . . . . 3,311,661 3,321,662 3,254,822 3,482,848 3,663,815 3,783,211 1,883,655 1,910,659 14.2 0.3 -2.0 7.0 5.2 3.3 1.4 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 1,549,610 1,417,138 1,430,314 1,493,491 1,659,600 1,815,464 874,506 1,020,277 17.2 -8.5 0.9 4.4 11.1 9.4 16.7 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . 46.8 42.7 43.9 42.9 45.3 47.4 45.8 52.9 0.6 -4.1 1.3 -1.1 2.4 2.1 7.1 U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,592,261 1,479,086 1,463,208 1,487,773 1,639,085 1,782,279 864,826 984,508 11.9 -7.1 -1.1 1.7 10.2 8.7 13.8 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591,968 515,966 531,863 551,142 1,089,688 1,196,837 597,813 664,257 102.2 -12.8 3.1 3.6 97.7 9.8 11.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $372 $349 $363 $370 $665 $672 $691 $675 80.6 -6.2 4.2 1.9 79.5 1.0 -2.4 Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . . 307,556 263,796 281,559 289,540 293,029 239,368 241,541 250,363 -22.2 -14.2 6.7 2.8 1.2 -18.3 3.7 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production workers . . . . . . . . . 772 728 718 770 825 874 872 926 13.2 -5.7 -1.4 7.2 7.1 5.9 6.2 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 1,651 1,513 1,512 1,517 1,671 1,828 896 1,006 10.7 -8.4 -0.1 0.4 10.1 9.4 12.3 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . 24,967 22,753 23,606 24,571 27,810 31,200 15,148 17,440 25.0 -8.9 3.8 4.1 13.2 12.2 15.1 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15.12 $15.04 $15.62 $16.19 $16.64 $17.07 $16.91 $17.34 12.9 -0.6 3.9 3.7 2.8 2.6 2.5 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) 579.8 585.2 557.4 586.5 583.2 624.0 577.5 656.6 7.6 0.9 -4.7 5.2 -0.6 7.0 13.7 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $26.08 $25.70 $28.02 $27.61 $28.54 $27.36 $29.27 $26.40 4.9 -1.5 9.0 -1.5 3.4 -4.1 -9.8 Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377,211 347,013 307,812 537,086 604,463 728,170 340,920 423,601 93.0 -8.0 -11.3 74.5 12.5 20.5 24.3 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122,427 102,912 111,554 234,195 441,334 522,514 262,735 308,937 326.8 -15.9 8.4 109.9 88.4 18.4 17.6 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $325 $297 $362 $436 $730 $718 $771 $729 121.1 -8.6 22.2 20.3 67.4 -1.7 -5.4 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . 116,560 93,296 103,761 206,361 385,255 478,686 247,209 279,741 310.7 -20.0 11.2 98.9 86.7 24.3 13.2 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . 5,867 9,616 7,793 27,834 56,079 43,828 15,526 29,196 647.0 63.9 -19.0 257.2 101.5 -21.8 88.0 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 3,527 3,814 4,379 10,376 12,669 13,734 5,977 8,357 289.4 8.1 14.8 136.9 22.1 8.4 39.8 Operating income or (loss) . . . 2,340 5,802 3,414 17,458 43,410 30,094 9,549 20,839 1,186.1 147.9 -41.2 411.4 148.7 -30.7 118.2 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $309 $269 $337 $384 $637 $657 $725 $660 112.7 -13.0 25.4 14.0 65.9 3.1 -8.9 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . $9 $11 $14 $19 $21 $19 $18 $20 101.7 17.5 29.4 35.8 8.5 -10.0 12.5 Unit operating income or (loss) $6 $17 $11 $33 $72 $41 $28 $49 566.2 169.5 -33.7 193.1 120.9 -42.5 75.6 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.2 90.7 93.0 88.1 87.3 91.6 94.1 90.5 -3.6 -4.6 2.4 -4.9 -0.8 4.3 -3.5 Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 5.6 3.1 7.5 9.8 5.8 3.6 6.7 3.8 3.7 -2.6 4.4 2.4 -4.1 3.1 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Not applicable. Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. C-6 Table C-2 Carbon and micro-alloy CTL plate: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,726,898 7,119,402 7,466,684 7,267,857 8,273,182 8,589,875 4,309,826 5,184,837 11.2 -7.9 4.9 -2.7 13.8 3.8 20.3 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 90.3 90.5 92.2 95.3 92.9 91.1 91.2 88.3 0.7 0.2 1.7 3.0 -2.4 -1.8 -2.9 Importers' share (1): Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.0 0.1 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 -0.1 -0.1 0.5 -0.5 0.2 -0.3 0.3 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.4 -0.7 -0.1 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.4 1.3 1.1 1.8 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.9 -0.2 0.7 -1.0 0.2 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 9.1 6.5 3.7 5.4 8.1 8.6 11.2 -1.1 -0.2 -2.6 -2.8 1.7 2.8 2.6 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7 9.5 7.8 4.7 7.1 8.9 8.8 11.7 -0.7 -0.2 -1.7 -3.0 2.4 1.8 2.9 U.S. consumption value: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,879,948 2,514,333 2,623,071 2,659,110 5,219,653 6,304,256 3,276,085 3,753,311 118.9 -12.7 4.3 1.4 96.3 20.8 14.6 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 91.9 91.7 92.7 95.6 93.5 91.2 91.6 89.7 -0.6 -0.2 1.0 2.9 -2.1 -2.3 -1.9 Importers' share (1): Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 0.6 -0.6 0.1 -0.2 0.4 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.8 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 -0.6 -0.1 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.4 1.4 1.0 1.5 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.3 -0.0 0.9 -0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.3 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 7.9 6.0 3.5 5.0 8.0 8.1 9.7 0.3 0.2 -1.9 -2.5 1.5 3.0 1.6 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 8.3 7.3 4.4 6.5 8.8 8.4 10.3 0.6 0.2 -1.0 -2.9 2.1 2.3 1.9 U.S. imports from: Belgium: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,614 16,575 11,615 6,226 10,271 10,388 2,767 6,853 -33.5 6.1 -29.9 -46.4 65.0 1.1 147.6 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,458 6,511 4,951 3,086 7,023 8,923 1,976 5,904 38.2 0.8 -24.0 -37.7 127.6 27.0 198.7 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $414 $393 $426 $496 $684 $859 $714 $862 107.7 -5.0 8.5 16.3 37.9 25.6 20.6 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Brazil: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,243 2,978 1,477 0 18 2,460 1,961 420 -24.1 -8.2 -50.4 -100.0 (2) 13,360.3 -78.6 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,546 1,386 288 0 7 3,138 2,714 323 103.0 -10.3 -79.2 -100.0 (2) 46,865.1 -88.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $477 $465 $195 (2) $366 $1,276 $1,384 $769 167.6 -2.4 -58.0 (2) (2) 248.9 -44.4 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Finland: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 19 0 0 1,290 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 10 0 0 1,112 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) $537 (2) (2) $862 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Germany: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,783 129 40,536 2,647 23,413 2,078 1,491 15,671 -76.3 -98.5 31,358.2 -93.5 784.6 -91.1 950.7 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,030 92 17,028 1,688 10,641 1,440 980 15,574 -64.3 -97.7 18,505.1 -90.1 530.6 -86.5 1,489.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $459 $710 $420 $638 $454 $693 $657 $994 51.0 54.8 -40.9 51.8 -28.7 52.5 51.3 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Mexico: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 271 273 308 1,083 440 379 168 188.1 77.5 0.8 12.8 251.7 -59.4 -55.5 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 141 81 123 570 271 244 79 314.1 116.1 -42.4 51.7 362.1 -52.5 -67.5 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $428 $521 $298 $400 $526 $615 $645 $472 43.8 21.7 -42.9 34.5 31.4 16.9 -26.9 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Poland: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 386 0 0 45 61 61 0 1,774.3 11,718.8 -100.0 (2) (2) 36.7 -100.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 95 0 0 23 36 36 0 778.4 2199.4 -100.0 (2) (2) 61.2 -100.0 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,270 $247 (2) (2) $505 $595 $595 (2) -53.1 -80.5 (2) (2) (2) 17.9 (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Romania: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5,981 44,339 69,552 109,969 49,813 3,014 0 803,561.0 96,393.7 641.3 56.9 58.1 -54.7 -100.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1,433 12,627 20,706 58,584 31,292 2,084 0 567,087.1 25,871.5 781.2 64.0 182.9 -46.6 -100.0 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $890 $240 $285 $298 $533 $628 $691 (2) -29.4 -73.1 18.9 4.5 78.9 17.9 (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 *** *** 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** (2) Spain: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -100.0 (2) (2) (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -100.0 (2) (2) (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444 (2) $358 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Sweden: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 1,312 198 0 280 182 182 50 -48.7 270.9 -84.9 -100.0 (2) -35.1 -72.4 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 1,095 192 0 131 108 108 33 -45.4 453.6 -82.4 -100.0 (2) -17.9 -69.3 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $559 $835 $970 (2) $470 $595 $595 $663 6.4 49.3 16.3 (2) (2) 26.6 11.5 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Taiwan: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 66 226 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -11.1 240.8 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 20 270 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -22.2 1216.5 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $353 $309 $1,194 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) -12.5 286.4 (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) United Kingdom: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847 125 79 23 8 17 0 19 -97.9 -85.3 -37.1 -71.0 -64.5 115.2 (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 88 49 7 3 6 0 6 -97.6 -64.1 -44.6 -85.8 -56.5 97.0 (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $291 $708 $624 $305 $374 $342 (2) $338 17.8 143.6 -11.9 -51.0 22.5 -8.5 (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Subtotal: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,083 27,842 98,749 78,755 146,377 65,439 9,856 23,181 125.0 -4.3 254.7 -20.2 85.9 -55.3 135.2 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,581 10,873 35,489 25,610 78,094 45,214 8,143 21,920 259.4 -13.6 226.4 -27.8 204.9 -42.1 169.2 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $433 $391 $359 $325 $534 $691 $826 $946 59.7 -9.7 -8.0 -9.5 64.1 29.5 14.4 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 *** *** 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** (2) C-7 Table C-2--Continued Carbon and micro-alloy CTL plate: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. imports from: All other sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 717,087 646,703 481,859 266,359 443,279 699,830 371,267 583,090 -2.4 -9.8 -25.5 -44.7 66.4 57.9 57.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221,888 197,774 156,735 92,251 261,397 507,408 265,948 363,167 128.7 -10.9 -20.8 -41.1 183.4 94.1 36.6 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $309 $306 $325 $346 $590 $725 $716 $623 134.3 -1.2 6.4 6.5 70.3 23.0 -13.1 Ending inventory quantity . . . 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 *** *** 2,663 2,758 *** -37.4 -31.0 -41.9 *** *** 3.6 All sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 746,170 674,545 580,607 345,114 589,656 765,269 381,123 606,271 2.6 -9.6 -13.9 -40.6 70.9 29.8 59.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234,469 208,647 192,224 117,860 339,490 552,621 274,091 385,087 135.7 -11.0 -7.9 -38.7 188.0 62.8 40.5 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $314 $309 $331 $342 $576 $722 $719 $635 129.8 -1.6 7.0 3.2 68.6 25.4 -11.7 Ending inventory quantity . . . 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 20,148 7,756 2,663 2,758 115.1 -37.4 -31.0 -41.9 2126.3 -61.5 3.6 U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity . . . . 11,339,998 11,738,263 12,135,197 12,529,308 12,241,278 12,499,426 6,234,411 6,448,141 10.2 3.5 3.4 3.2 -2.3 2.1 3.4 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 7,224,280 6,572,641 7,042,099 7,232,492 8,201,826 8,370,365 4,099,001 4,920,022 15.9 -9.0 7.1 2.7 13.4 2.1 20.0 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . 63.7 56.0 58.0 57.7 67.0 67.0 65.7 76.3 3.3 -7.7 2.0 -0.3 9.3 -0.0 10.6 U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,980,728 6,444,857 6,886,077 6,922,743 7,683,526 7,824,606 3,928,703 4,578,566 12.1 -7.7 6.8 0.5 11.0 1.8 16.5 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,645,479 2,305,687 2,430,846 2,541,250 4,880,162 5,751,635 3,001,994 3,368,224 117.4 -12.8 5.4 4.5 92.0 17.9 12.2 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $379 $358 $353 $367 $635 $735 $764 $736 94.0 -5.6 -1.3 4.0 73.0 15.7 -3.7 Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270,078 183,343 240,603 327,192 459,436 464,353 167,024 313,815 71.9 -32.1 31.2 36.0 40.4 1.1 87.9 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103,316 69,401 85,462 116,670 310,026 347,563 129,812 227,775 236.4 -32.8 23.1 36.5 165.7 12.1 75.5 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $383 $379 $355 $357 $675 $748 $777 $726 95.7 -1.0 -6.2 0.4 89.2 10.9 -6.6 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 758,262 680,113 646,841 681,424 668,377 583,788 541,806 578,472 -23.0 -10.3 -4.9 5.3 -1.9 -12.7 6.8 Inventories/total shipments (1) 10.5 10.3 9.1 9.4 8.2 7.0 6.6 5.9 -3.4 -0.2 -1.2 0.3 -1.2 -1.2 -0.7 Production workers . . . . . . . . . 6,618 6,341 5,979 5,565 5,484 5,535 5,426 5,777 -16.4 -4.2 -5.7 -6.9 -1.5 0.9 6.5 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 15,006 13,582 12,899 11,652 11,791 12,235 6,189 7,056 -18.5 -9.5 -5.0 -9.7 1.2 3.8 14.0 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . 327,335 298,700 285,101 257,170 262,698 273,818 138,741 164,346 -16.3 -8.7 -4.6 -9.8 2.1 4.2 18.5 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . $21.81 $21.99 $22.10 $22.07 $22.28 $22.38 $22.42 $23.29 2.6 0.8 0.5 -0.2 1.0 0.5 3.9 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) 481.4 483.9 546.0 620.7 695.6 684.2 662.3 697.3 42.1 0.5 12.8 13.7 12.1 -1.6 5.3 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $45.31 $45.45 $40.49 $35.56 $32.03 $32.71 $33.85 $33.40 -27.8 0.3 -10.9 -12.2 -9.9 2.1 -1.3 Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,731,845 5,257,684 5,586,697 6,199,509 6,913,384 6,994,327 3,481,322 4,178,568 22.0 -8.3 6.3 11.0 11.5 1.2 20.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,178,126 1,873,085 2,010,708 2,301,527 4,384,354 5,199,792 2,699,698 3,087,073 138.7 -14.0 7.3 14.5 90.5 18.6 14.3 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $380 $356 $360 $371 $634 $743 $775 $739 95.6 -6.2 1.0 3.1 70.8 17.2 -4.7 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . 2,178,264 1,931,241 1,994,298 2,254,945 3,350,935 3,768,555 1,925,424 2,207,745 73.0 -11.3 3.3 13.1 48.6 12.5 14.7 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . (138) (58,156) 16,410 46,582 1,033,419 1,431,237 774,274 879,328 (3) -42042.0 (3) 183.9 2,118.5 38.5 13.6 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 135,143 128,179 117,287 161,165 131,976 154,532 75,850 85,268 14.3 -5.2 -8.5 37.4 -18.1 17.1 12.4 Operating income or (loss) . . . (135,281) (186,335) (100,877) (114,583) 901,443 1,276,705 698,424 794,061 (3) -37.7 45.9 -13.6 (3) 41.6 13.7 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $380 $367 $357 $364 $485 $539 $553 $528 41.8 -3.3 -2.8 1.9 33.3 11.2 -4.5 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . $24 $24 $21 $26 $19 $22 $22 $20 -6.3 3.4 -13.9 23.8 -26.6 15.7 -6.3 Unit operating income or (loss) ($24) ($35) ($18) ($18) $130 $183 $201 $190 (3) -50.2 49.1 -2.4 (3) 40.0 -5.3 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 103.1 99.2 98.0 76.4 72.5 71.3 71.5 -27.5 3.1 -3.9 -1.2 -21.5 -4.0 0.2 Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.2) (9.9) (5.0) (5.0) 20.6 24.6 25.9 25.7 30.8 -3.7 4.9 0.0 25.5 4.0 -0.1 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Not applicable. (3) Undefined. Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics. C-8 Table C-2a Carbon and micro-alloy CTL plate: Summary data concerning U.S. mills, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Undefined. Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. C-9 Table C-2b Carbon and micro-alloy CTL plate: Summary data concerning U.S. processors, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Not applicable. (3) Undefined. Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. C-10 Table C-3 CTL plate other than wide flat bar: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,511,204 5,934,095 6,125,552 5,864,742 6,413,199 6,672,671 3,367,744 4,101,220 2.5 -8.9 3.2 -4.3 9.4 4.0 21.8 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 89.3 89.3 91.0 94.7 91.7 90.1 89.9 86.2 0.8 0.0 1.7 3.7 -3.1 -1.6 -3.7 Importers' share (1): Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.0 0.1 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 -0.1 -0.1 0.7 -0.6 0.3 -0.3 0.3 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.2 1.7 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.5 -1.0 -0.1 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.5 1.6 1.3 2.3 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.0 1.1 -0.3 0.9 -1.3 0.3 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 10.2 7.3 3.9 6.1 8.9 9.8 13.3 -1.3 -0.0 -2.9 -3.4 2.2 2.9 3.4 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 10.7 9.0 5.3 8.3 9.9 10.1 13.8 -0.8 -0.0 -1.7 -3.7 3.1 1.6 3.7 U.S. consumption value: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,341,847 2,005,920 2,104,471 2,096,824 4,052,633 4,790,575 2,535,869 2,891,827 104.6 -14.3 4.9 -0.4 93.3 18.2 14.0 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 91.0 90.6 91.5 95.1 92.6 90.7 90.8 88.0 -0.3 -0.4 1.0 3.5 -2.5 -1.9 -2.7 Importers' share (1): Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 -0.1 -0.2 0.8 -0.7 0.2 -0.2 0.5 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.4 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.5 -0.8 -0.1 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.5 1.7 1.2 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.0 1.1 -0.5 0.7 -1.0 0.4 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 8.9 6.8 3.7 5.5 8.3 8.9 11.2 -0.1 0.4 -2.1 -3.1 1.8 2.9 2.3 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 9.4 8.5 4.9 7.4 9.3 9.2 12.0 0.3 0.4 -1.0 -3.5 2.5 1.9 2.7 U.S. imports from: Belgium: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,614 16,575 11,615 6,226 10,271 10,388 2,767 6,853 -33.5 6.1 -29.9 -46.4 65.0 1.1 147.6 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,458 6,511 4,951 3,086 7,023 8,923 1,976 5,904 38.2 0.8 -24.0 -37.7 127.6 27.0 198.7 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $414 $393 $426 $496 $684 $859 $714 $862 107.7 -5.0 8.5 16.3 37.9 25.6 20.6 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Brazil: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,243 2,978 1,477 0 18 2,460 1,961 420 -24.1 -8.2 -50.4 -100.0 (2) 13,360.3 -78.6 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,546 1,386 288 0 7 3,138 2,714 323 103.0 -10.3 -79.2 -100.0 (2) 46,865.1 -88.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $477 $465 $195 (2) $366 $1,276 $1,384 $769 167.6 -2.4 -58.0 (2) (2) 248.9 -44.4 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Finland: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 19 0 0 1,290 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 10 0 0 1,112 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) $537 (2) (2) $862 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Germany: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,783 125 40,536 2,647 23,226 2,078 1,491 15,671 -76.3 -98.6 32,242.5 -93.5 777.5 -91.1 950.7 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,030 89 17,028 1,688 10,546 1,440 980 15,574 -64.3 -97.8 18,984.0 -90.1 524.9 -86.3 1,489.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $459 $712 $420 $638 $454 $693 $657 $994 51.0 55.1 -41.0 51.8 -28.8 52.7 51.3 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Mexico: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 271 273 308 1,005 440 379 168 223.4 99.2 0.8 12.8 226.2 -56.2 -55.5 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 141 81 123 534 271 244 79 367.1 143.7 -42.4 51.7 333.1 -49.3 -67.5 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $426 $521 $298 $400 $532 $615 $645 $472 44.4 22.3 -42.9 34.5 32.8 15.7 -26.9 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Poland: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 386 0 0 45 61 61 0 1,774.3 11,718.8 -100.0 (2) (2) 36.7 -100.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 95 0 0 23 36 36 0 778.4 2199.4 -100.0 (2) (2) 61.2 -100.0 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,270 $247 (2) (2) $505 $595 $595 (2) -53.1 -80.5 (2) (2) (2) 17.9 (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Romania: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5,981 44,339 69,552 109,969 49,813 3,014 0 803,561.0 96,393.7 641.3 56.9 58.1 -54.7 -100.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1,433 12,627 20,706 58,584 31,292 2,084 0 567,087.1 25,871.5 781.2 64.0 182.9 -46.6 -100.0 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $890 $240 $285 $298 $533 $628 $691 (2) -29.4 -73.1 18.9 4.5 78.9 17.9 (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 *** *** 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** (2) Spain: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -100.0 (2) (2) (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -100.0 (2) (2) (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444 (2) $358 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Sweden: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 1,312 198 0 280 182 182 50 -45.5 294.3 -84.9 -100.0 (2) -35.1 -72.4 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 1,095 192 0 131 108 108 33 -42.7 480.9 -82.4 -100.0 (2) -17.9 -69.3 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $566 $835 $970 (2) $470 $595 $595 $663 5.0 47.3 16.3 (2) (2) 26.6 11.5 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Taiwan: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 66 226 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -11.1 240.8 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 20 270 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -22.2 1216.5 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $353 $309 $1,194 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) -12.5 286.4 (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) United Kingdom: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847 125 79 23 8 17 0 19 -97.9 -85.3 -37.1 -71.0 -64.5 115.2 (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 88 49 7 3 6 0 6 -97.6 -64.1 -44.6 -85.8 -56.5 97.0 (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $291 $708 $624 $305 $374 $342 (2) $338 17.8 143.6 -11.9 -51.0 22.5 -8.5 (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Subtotal: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,045 27,838 98,749 78,755 146,112 65,439 9,856 23,181 125.3 -4.2 254.7 -20.2 85.5 -55.2 135.2 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,565 10,870 35,489 25,610 77,962 45,214 8,143 21,920 259.8 -13.5 226.5 -27.8 204.4 -42.0 169.2 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $433 $390 $359 $325 $534 $691 $826 $946 59.7 -9.7 -8.0 -9.5 64.1 29.5 14.4 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 *** *** 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** (2) C-11 Table C-3--Continued CTL plate other than wide flat bar: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. imports from: All other sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666,605 606,083 450,109 229,770 389,385 597,036 331,000 543,826 -10.4 -9.1 -25.7 -49.0 69.5 53.3 64.3 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198,740 178,523 142,588 77,496 221,448 399,731 226,424 324,630 101.1 -10.2 -20.1 -45.7 185.8 80.5 43.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $298 $295 $317 $337 $569 $670 $684 $597 124.6 -1.2 7.5 6.5 68.6 17.7 -12.7 Ending inventory quantity . . . 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 *** *** 2,663 2,758 *** -37.4 -31.0 -41.9 *** *** 3.6 All sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695,650 633,921 548,858 308,525 535,497 662,475 340,856 567,008 -4.8 -8.9 -13.4 -43.8 73.6 23.7 66.3 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211,304 189,393 178,077 103,105 299,410 444,944 234,567 346,550 110.6 -10.4 -6.0 -42.1 190.4 48.6 47.7 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $304 $299 $324 $334 $559 $672 $688 $611 121.1 -1.6 8.6 3.0 67.3 20.1 -11.2 Ending inventory quantity . . . 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 20,148 7,756 2,663 2,758 115.1 -37.4 -31.0 -41.9 2126.3 -61.5 3.6 U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity . . . . 9,417,685 9,681,335 9,772,444 10,272,203 9,560,857 9,679,509 4,824,805 4,958,083 2.8 2.8 0.9 5.1 -6.9 1.2 2.8 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 6,002,281 5,388,829 5,654,499 5,785,238 6,298,458 6,500,286 3,182,764 3,850,369 8.3 -10.2 4.9 2.3 8.9 3.2 21.0 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . 63.7 55.7 57.9 56.3 65.9 67.2 66.0 77.7 3.4 -8.1 2.2 -1.5 9.6 1.3 11.7 U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,815,554 5,300,174 5,576,694 5,556,217 5,877,702 6,010,196 3,026,888 3,534,212 3.3 -8.9 5.2 -0.4 5.8 2.3 16.8 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,130,543 1,816,527 1,926,394 1,993,719 3,753,222 4,345,631 2,301,302 2,545,277 104.0 -14.7 6.0 3.5 88.3 15.8 10.6 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $366 $343 $345 $359 $639 $723 $760 $720 97.4 -6.4 0.8 3.9 78.0 13.2 -5.3 Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . . 634,924 570,547 519,685 523,442 491,418 483,171 441,129 489,559 -23.9 -10.1 -8.9 0.7 -6.1 -1.7 11.0 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production workers . . . . . . . . . 5,208 4,567 4,089 3,920 3,380 3,381 3,253 3,666 -35.1 -12.3 -10.5 -4.1 -13.8 0.0 12.7 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 11,809 10,307 9,398 8,759 7,856 7,980 4,100 4,753 -32.4 -12.7 -8.8 -6.8 -10.3 1.6 15.9 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . 250,669 217,864 197,950 191,396 172,374 177,747 88,448 107,992 -29.1 -13.1 -9.1 -3.3 -9.9 3.1 22.1 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . $21.23 $21.14 $21.06 $21.85 $21.94 $22.27 $21.57 $22.72 4.9 -0.4 -0.4 3.7 0.4 1.5 5.3 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) 508.3 522.9 601.7 660.5 801.7 814.6 776.2 810.1 60.3 2.9 15.1 9.8 21.4 1.6 4.4 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $41.76 $40.43 $35.01 $33.08 $27.37 $27.34 $27.79 $28.05 -34.5 -3.2 -13.4 -5.5 -17.3 -0.1 0.9 Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,585,235 4,149,421 4,425,972 4,922,641 5,222,184 5,219,720 2,597,690 3,126,176 13.8 -9.5 6.7 11.2 6.1 -0.0 20.3 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,664,811 1,406,324 1,512,659 1,782,211 3,316,741 3,819,106 2,009,427 2,285,829 129.4 -15.5 7.6 17.8 86.1 15.1 13.8 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $363 $339 $342 $362 $635 $732 $774 $731 101.5 -6.7 0.8 5.9 75.4 15.2 -5.5 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . 1,725,769 1,509,602 1,540,350 1,794,110 2,513,703 2,770,950 1,429,768 1,653,719 60.6 -12.5 2.0 16.5 40.1 10.2 15.7 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . (60,958) (103,278) (27,691) (11,900) 803,038 1,048,156 579,659 632,109 (3) -69.4 73.2 57.0 (3) 30.5 9.0 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 107,151 101,336 92,235 132,328 97,994 112,993 53,554 65,383 5.5 -5.4 -9.0 43.5 -25.9 15.3 22.1 Operating income or (loss) . . . (168,109) (204,614) (119,926) (144,227) 705,044 935,163 526,105 566,726 (3) -21.7 41.4 -20.3 (3) 32.6 7.7 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $376 $364 $348 $364 $481 $531 $550 $529 41.0 -3.3 -4.3 4.7 32.1 10.3 -3.9 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . $23 $24 $21 $27 $19 $22 $21 $21 -7.4 4.5 -14.7 29.0 -30.2 15.4 1.4 Unit operating income or (loss) ($37) ($49) ($27) ($29) $135 $179 $203 $181 (3) -34.5 45.1 -8.1 (3) 32.7 -10.5 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.7 107.3 101.8 100.7 75.8 72.6 71.2 72.3 -31.1 3.7 -5.5 -1.2 -24.9 -3.2 1.2 Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10.1) (14.5) (7.9) (8.1) 21.3 24.5 26.2 24.8 34.6 -4.5 6.6 -0.2 29.3 3.2 -1.4 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Not applicable. (3) Undefined. Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics. C-12 Table C-4 Carbon and micro-alloy CTL plate other than wide flat bar: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importers' share (1): Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. consumption value: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importers' share (1): Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. imports from: Belgium: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,614 16,575 11,615 6,226 10,271 10,388 2,767 6,853 -33.5 6.1 -29.9 -46.4 65.0 1.1 147.6 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,458 6,511 4,951 3,086 7,023 8,923 1,976 5,904 38.2 0.8 -24.0 -37.7 127.6 27.0 198.7 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 393 426 496 684 859 714 862 107.7 -5.0 8.5 16.3 37.9 25.6 20.6 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Brazil: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,243 2,978 1,477 0 18 2,460 1,961 420 -24.1 -8.2 -50.4 -100.0 (2) 13,360.3 -78.6 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,546 1,386 288 0 7 3,138 2,714 323 103.0 -10.3 -79.2 -100.0 (2) 46,865.1 -88.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477 465 195 (2) 366 1,276 1,384 769 167.6 -2.4 -58.0 (2) (2) 248.9 -44.4 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Finland: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 19 0 0 1,290 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 10 0 0 1,112 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) 537 (2) (2) 862 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Germany: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,783 125 40,536 2,647 23,226 2,078 1,491 15,671 -76.3 -98.6 32,242.5 -93.5 777.5 -91.1 950.7 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,030 89 17,028 1,688 10,546 1,440 980 15,574 -64.3 -97.8 18,984.0 -90.1 524.9 -86.3 1,489.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $459 $712 $420 $638 $454 $693 $657 $994 51.0 55.1 -41.0 51.8 -28.8 52.7 51.3 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Mexico: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 271 273 308 1,005 440 379 168 223.4 99.2 0.8 12.8 226.2 -56.2 -55.5 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 141 81 123 534 271 244 79 367.1 143.7 -42.4 51.7 333.1 -49.3 -67.5 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $426 $521 $298 $400 $532 $615 $645 $472 44.4 22.3 -42.9 34.5 32.8 15.7 -26.9 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Poland: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 386 0 0 45 61 61 0 1774.3 11718.8 -100.0 (2) (2) 36.7 -100.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 95 0 0 23 36 36 0 778.4 2199.4 -100.0 (2) (2) 61.2 -100.0 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,270 247 (2) (2) 505 595 595 (2) -53.1 -80.5 (2) (2) (2) 17.9 (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Romania: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5,981 44,339 69,552 109,969 49,813 3,014 0 803,561.0 96,393.7 641.3 56.9 58.1 -54.7 -100.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1,433 12,627 20,706 58,584 31,292 2,084 0 567,087.1 25,871.5 781.2 64.0 182.9 -46.6 -100.0 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 890 240 285 298 533 628 691 (2) -29.4 -73.1 18.9 4.5 78.9 17.9 (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 *** *** 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** (2) Spain: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -100.0 (2) (2) (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) -100.0 (2) (2) (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 (2) 358 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Sweden: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 1,312 198 0 280 182 182 50 -45.5 294.3 -84.9 -100.0 (2) -35.1 -72.4 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 1,095 192 0 131 108 108 33 -42.7 480.9 -82.4 -100.0 (2) -17.9 -69.3 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $566 $835 $970 (2) $470 $595 $595 $663 5.0 47.3 16.3 (2) (2) 26.6 11.5 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Taiwan: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 66 226 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -11.1 240.8 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 20 270 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -22.2 1216.5 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 309 1,194 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) -12.5 286.4 (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) United Kingdom: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847 125 79 23 8 17 0 19 -97.9 -85.3 -37.1 -71.0 -64.5 115.2 (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 88 49 7 3 6 0 6 -97.6 -64.1 -44.6 -85.8 -56.5 97.0 (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 708 624 305 374 342 (2) 338 17.8 143.6 -11.9 -51.0 22.5 -8.5 (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Subtotal: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,045 27,838 98,749 78,755 146,112 65,439 9,856 23,181 125.3 -4.2 254.7 -20.2 85.5 -55.2 135.2 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,565 10,870 35,489 25,610 77,962 45,214 8,143 21,920 259.8 -13.5 226.5 -27.8 204.4 -42.0 169.2 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $433 $390 $359 $325 $534 $691 $826 $946 59.7 -9.7 -8.0 -9.5 64.1 29.5 14.4 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 *** *** 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) *** (2) C-13 Table C-4--Continued Carbon and micro-alloy CTL plate other than wide flat bar: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. imports from: All other sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 714,026 641,362 479,647 261,459 442,541 698,422 370,401 581,866 -2.2 -10.2 -25.2 -45.5 69.3 57.8 57.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220,672 195,935 155,830 90,855 260,948 506,287 265,203 362,492 129.4 -11.2 -20.5 -41.7 187.2 94.0 36.7 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $309 $305 $325 $347 $590 $725 $716 $623 134.6 -1.2 6.3 7.0 69.7 22.9 -13.0 Ending inventory quantity . . . 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 *** *** 2,663 2,758 *** -37.4 -31.0 -41.9 *** *** 3.6 All sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743,071 669,200 578,396 340,214 588,653 763,861 380,257 605,048 2.8 -9.9 -13.6 -41.2 73.0 29.8 59.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233,236 206,805 191,319 116,464 338,910 551,500 273,346 384,412 136.5 -11.3 -7.5 -39.1 191.0 62.7 40.6 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $314 $309 $331 $342 $576 $722 $719 $635 130.0 -1.5 7.0 3.5 68.2 25.4 -11.6 Ending inventory quantity . . . 3,605 2,257 1,557 905 20,148 7,756 2,663 2,758 115.1 -37.4 -31.0 -41.9 2,126.3 -61.5 3.6 U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Not applicable. (3) Undefined. Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics. C-14 Table C-5 Wide flat bar: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303,409 300,379 414,019 490,068 565,353 609,300 278,410 333,064 100.8 -1.0 37.8 18.4 15.4 7.8 19.6 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 99.0 98.2 99.5 99.0 99.8 99.8 99.7 99.6 0.8 -0.8 1.2 -0.5 0.8 -0.1 -0.1 Importers' share (1): Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 1.8 0.5 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.8 0.8 -1.2 0.5 -0.9 0.1 0.1 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 1.8 0.5 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.8 0.8 -1.2 0.5 -0.8 0.1 0.1 U.S. consumption value: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112,940 95,120 124,588 172,127 294,424 341,050 152,419 200,024 202.0 -15.8 31.0 38.2 71.1 15.8 31.2 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 98.9 98.1 99.3 99.2 99.8 99.7 99.5 99.7 0.8 -0.8 1.2 -0.1 0.6 -0.1 0.2 Importers' share (1): Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 1.9 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 -0.7 0.9 -1.2 0.1 -0.7 0.2 -0.2 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 1.9 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 -0.8 0.8 -1.2 0.1 -0.6 0.1 -0.2 U.S. imports from: Germany: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 4 0 0 187 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2 0 0 95 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) $652 (2) (2) $510 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Mexico: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444 (2) (2) (2) $455 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Sweden: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) United Kingdom: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Subtotal: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4 0 0 265 0 0 0 -100.0 -90.6 -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2 0 0 131 0 0 0 -100.0 -86.3 -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444 $652 (2) (2) $494 (2) (2) (2) (2) 46.9 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) All other sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,061 5,341 2,212 4,900 738 1,408 866 1,224 -54.0 74.5 -58.6 121.6 -84.9 90.8 41.3 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,216 1,839 905 1,396 449 1,121 745 675 -7.8 51.2 -50.8 54.2 -67.8 149.6 -9.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $397 $344 $409 $285 $609 $796 $861 $552 100.5 -13.3 18.9 -30.4 113.7 30.8 -35.9 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) All sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,099 5,345 2,212 4,900 1,003 1,408 866 1,224 -54.6 72.5 -58.6 121.6 -79.5 40.4 41.3 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,233 1,842 905 1,396 580 1,121 745 675 -9.1 49.4 -50.8 54.2 -58.4 93.2 -9.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $398 $345 $409 $285 $578 $796 $861 $552 100.2 -13.4 18.8 -30.4 103.0 37.7 -35.9 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity . . . . 668,510 701,105 828,026 866,150 1,068,216 1,113,916 545,607 566,910 66.6 4.9 18.1 4.6 23.3 4.3 3.9 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 320,525 287,188 435,211 501,230 585,088 618,913 270,955 334,112 93.1 -10.4 51.5 15.2 16.7 5.8 23.3 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . 47.9 40.8 52.5 57.8 54.5 55.3 49.7 58.9 7.4 -7.1 11.7 5.3 -3.2 0.7 9.3 U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,310 295,034 411,807 485,168 564,350 607,892 277,544 331,840 102.4 -1.8 39.6 17.8 16.3 7.7 19.6 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111,708 93,278 123,683 170,731 293,844 339,929 151,674 199,349 204.3 -16.5 32.6 38.0 72.1 15.7 31.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372 316 300 352 521 559 546 601 50.3 -15.0 -5.0 17.2 48.0 7.4 9.9 Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . . 63,221 39,140 45,115 50,073 55,279 43,746 39,881 31,761 -30.8 -38.1 15.3 11.0 10.4 -20.9 -20.4 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production workers . . . . . . . . . 339 302 388 397 593 547 549 546 61.4 -10.9 28.5 2.3 49.4 -7.8 -0.5 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 706 622 843 1,004 1,335 1,211 602 649 71.6 -11.9 35.6 19.1 33.0 -9.2 7.9 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . 17,802 16,081 20,073 21,615 28,732 30,539 15,087 16,376 71.6 -9.7 24.8 7.7 32.9 6.3 8.5 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25.22 $25.87 $23.82 $21.54 $21.53 $25.21 $25.08 $25.23 -0.0 2.6 -7.9 -9.6 -0.1 17.1 0.6 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) 454.0 460.0 516.0 498.7 436.5 508.4 450.4 514.8 12.0 1.3 12.2 -3.4 -12.5 16.5 14.3 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $55.55 $56.23 $46.15 $43.19 $49.32 $49.59 $55.68 $49.01 -10.7 1.2 -17.9 -6.4 14.2 0.5 -12.0 Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244,952 217,947 319,949 374,753 416,302 452,821 204,615 253,379 84.9 -11.0 46.8 17.1 11.1 8.8 23.8 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,460 71,313 97,227 132,852 214,192 250,913 110,526 151,583 168.5 -23.7 36.3 36.6 61.2 17.1 37.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $382 $327 $304 $355 $515 $554 $540 $598 45.2 -14.2 -7.1 16.7 45.1 7.7 10.8 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . 74,242 62,873 88,197 114,234 178,835 196,662 87,674 116,128 164.9 -15.3 40.3 29.5 56.6 10.0 32.5 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . 19,218 8,440 9,030 18,619 35,357 54,251 22,852 35,455 182.3 -56.1 7.0 106.2 89.9 53.4 55.1 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 4,449 3,916 4,294 4,827 6,229 7,107 3,409 4,045 59.7 -12.0 9.6 12.4 29.0 14.1 18.7 Operating income or (loss) . . . 14,769 4,524 4,736 13,791 29,129 47,145 19,444 31,410 219.2 -69.4 4.7 191.2 111.2 61.8 61.5 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $303 $288 $276 $305 $430 $434 $428 $458 43.3 -4.8 -4.4 10.6 40.9 1.1 7.0 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . $18 $18 $13 $13 $15 $16 $17 $16 -13.6 -1.1 -25.3 -4.0 16.2 4.9 -4.2 Unit operating income or (loss) $60 $21 $15 $37 $70 $104 $95 $124 72.7 -65.6 -28.7 148.6 90.1 48.8 30.5 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.4 88.2 90.7 86.0 83.5 78.4 79.3 76.6 -1.1 8.7 2.5 -4.7 -2.5 -5.1 -2.7 Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.8 6.3 4.9 10.4 13.6 18.8 17.6 20.7 3.0 -9.5 -1.5 5.5 3.2 5.2 3.1 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Not applicable. Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics. C-15 Table C-6 Carbon and micro-alloy wide flat bar: Summary data concerning the U.S. market for flat bar, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importers' share (1): Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. consumption value: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importers' share (1): Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. imports from: Germany: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 4 0 0 187 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2 0 0 95 0 0 0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) $652 (2) (2) $510 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Mexico: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444 (2) (2) (2) $455 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Sweden: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) United Kingdom: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Subtotal: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4 0 0 265 0 0 0 -100.0 -90.6 -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2 0 0 131 0 0 0 -100.0 -86.3 -100.0 (2) (2) -100.0 (2) Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $444 $652 (2) (2) $494 (2) (2) (2) (2) 46.9 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) All other sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,061 5,341 2,212 4,900 738 1,408 866 1,224 -54.0 74.5 -58.6 121.6 -84.9 90.8 41.3 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,216 1,839 905 1,396 449 1,121 745 675 -7.8 51.2 -50.8 54.2 -67.8 149.6 -9.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $397 $344 $409 $285 $609 $796 $861 $552 100.5 -13.3 18.9 -30.4 113.7 30.8 -35.9 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) All sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,099 5,345 2,212 4,900 1,003 1,408 866 1,224 -54.6 72.5 -58.6 121.6 -79.5 40.4 41.3 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,233 1,842 905 1,396 580 1,121 745 675 -9.1 49.4 -50.8 54.2 -58.4 93.2 -9.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $398 $345 $409 $285 $578 $796 $861 $552 100.2 -13.4 18.8 -30.4 103.0 37.7 -35.9 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Not applicable. Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics. C-16 Table C-7 Corrosion-resistant steel: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,948,820 20,478,057 22,680,025 21,693,361 25,012,571 22,686,343 11,453,980 13,128,631 3.4 -6.7 10.8 -4.4 15.3 -9.3 14.6 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 92.6 92.4 90.5 92.3 87.2 88.4 87.3 85.0 -4.1 -0.1 -2.0 1.9 -5.1 1.3 -2.3 Importers' share (1): Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 1.6 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.2 0.7 -0.1 0.7 0.2 -0.4 0.3 -0.2 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.0 0.2 -0.3 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.8 1.5 1.6 2.1 0.3 -0.0 -0.2 -0.4 0.3 0.7 0.5 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 3.0 3.7 3.3 3.1 4.3 4.6 4.5 1.0 -0.2 0.7 -0.3 -0.2 1.2 -0.0 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 4.6 5.8 4.3 9.7 7.3 8.1 10.5 3.1 0.4 1.3 -1.5 5.4 -2.4 2.3 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 7.6 9.5 7.7 12.8 11.6 12.7 15.0 4.1 0.1 2.0 -1.9 5.1 -1.3 2.3 U.S. consumption value: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,997,978 10,138,475 11,839,622 11,817,862 17,324,558 16,414,341 8,560,180 9,538,913 36.8 -15.5 16.8 -0.2 46.6 -5.3 11.4 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 92.6 92.6 90.4 91.8 86.4 87.6 86.3 85.5 -5.1 -0.0 -2.2 1.4 -5.4 1.1 -0.8 Importers' share (1): Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 1.7 2.5 2.8 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.3 0.7 -0.0 0.8 0.3 -0.8 0.5 -0.1 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.2 -0.2 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.0 0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.7 1.8 2.2 0.6 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 0.3 0.8 0.3 Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 3.3 4.1 3.8 3.1 4.6 4.8 4.8 1.2 -0.1 0.8 -0.3 -0.7 1.5 0.0 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 4.2 5.5 4.4 10.4 7.8 8.9 9.7 3.8 0.1 1.3 -1.1 6.1 -2.6 0.8 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 7.4 9.6 8.2 13.6 12.4 13.7 14.5 5.1 0.0 2.2 -1.4 5.4 -1.1 0.8 U.S. imports from: Australia: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 176 275 297 119 16 16 3 -92.6 -20.0 56.1 7.8 -60.1 -86.3 -82.8 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 228 260 262 123 22 22 4 -89.9 5.5 14.1 0.7 -53.0 -82.3 -79.7 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $981 $1,292 $945 $883 $1,039 $1,348 $1,348 $1,596 37.5 31.8 -26.9 -6.6 17.7 29.8 18.4 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Canada: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380,490 331,774 530,248 552,434 524,711 547,326 281,944 291,356 43.8 -12.8 59.8 4.2 -5.0 4.3 3.3 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208,645 173,957 292,684 331,067 341,546 398,538 207,943 221,845 91.0 -16.6 68.3 13.1 3.2 16.7 6.7 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $548 $524 $552 $599 $651 $728 $738 $761 32.8 -4.4 5.3 8.6 8.6 11.9 3.2 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** France: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,608 9,302 15,753 6,530 4,613 1,778 1,728 190 -50.7 157.8 69.4 -58.5 -29.4 -61.5 -89.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,543 3,944 8,601 3,848 3,268 1,949 1,745 379 26.3 155.5 118.1 -55.3 -15.1 -40.4 -78.3 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $428 $424 $546 $589 $708 $1,096 $1,010 $1,996 156.3 -0.9 28.8 7.9 20.3 54.7 97.6 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Germany: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,453 23,557 53,479 34,530 31,191 75,941 48,977 20,939 63.5 -49.3 127.0 -35.4 -9.7 143.5 -57.2 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,221 13,955 30,585 20,312 17,999 48,634 31,540 14,718 72.3 -50.6 119.2 -33.6 -11.4 170.2 -53.3 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $608 $592 $572 $588 $577 $640 $644 $703 5.4 -2.5 -3.5 2.9 -1.9 11.0 9.2 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Japan: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,543 17,338 24,304 18,570 19,628 16,762 8,693 11,012 -39.1 -37.1 40.2 -23.6 5.7 -14.6 26.7 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,072 15,273 30,092 20,206 19,464 19,054 9,959 13,684 -17.4 -33.8 97.0 -32.9 -3.7 -2.1 37.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $838 $881 $1,238 $1,088 $992 $1,137 $1,146 $1,243 35.7 5.2 40.6 -12.1 -8.9 14.6 8.5 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Korea: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253,528 235,041 212,413 113,810 201,002 330,858 181,205 272,592 30.5 -7.3 -9.6 -46.4 76.6 64.6 50.4 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,605 123,305 122,919 77,195 156,934 285,156 157,308 206,273 102.8 -12.3 -0.3 -37.2 103.3 81.7 31.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $555 $525 $579 $678 $781 $862 $868 $757 55.4 -5.4 10.3 17.2 15.1 10.4 -12.8 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711,842 617,188 836,473 726,171 781,264 972,681 522,563 596,092 36.6 -13.3 35.5 -13.2 7.6 24.5 14.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402,301 330,662 485,142 452,890 539,333 753,352 408,519 456,903 87.3 -17.8 46.7 -6.6 19.1 39.7 11.8 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $565 $536 $580 $624 $690 $775 $782 $766 37.0 -5.2 8.3 7.5 10.7 12.2 -2.0 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919,625 933,033 1,325,751 936,741 2,424,153 1,647,998 932,153 1,372,961 79.2 1.5 42.1 -29.3 158.8 -32.0 47.3 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481,017 420,783 647,862 515,137 1,808,700 1,286,429 763,351 926,215 167.4 -12.5 54.0 -20.5 251.1 -28.9 21.3 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $523 $451 $489 $550 $746 $781 $819 $675 49.2 -13.8 8.4 12.5 35.7 4.6 -17.6 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,631,467 1,550,221 2,162,224 1,662,911 3,205,416 2,620,679 1,454,716 1,969,053 60.6 -5.0 39.5 -23.1 92.8 -18.2 35.4 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883,318 751,445 1,133,004 968,027 2,348,033 2,039,782 1,171,870 1,383,118 130.9 -14.9 50.8 -14.6 142.6 -13.1 18.0 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $541 $485 $524 $582 $733 $778 $806 $702 43.8 -10.5 8.1 11.1 25.8 6.3 -12.8 Ending inventory quantity . . . 59,018 56,126 85,214 50,224 95,595 111,759 104,022 112,265 89.4 -4.9 51.8 -41.1 90.3 16.9 7.9 C-17 Contains Business Proprietary Information Table C-7--Continued Corrosion-resistant steel: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity . . . . 26,321,105 25,698,401 26,161,576 25,663,099 26,283,125 26,280,223 13,109,626 13,615,055 -0.2 -2.4 1.8 -1.9 2.4 -0.0 3.9 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 21,213,322 19,537,128 21,289,304 20,455,321 22,392,513 20,889,145 10,373,291 11,573,948 -1.5 -7.9 9.0 -3.9 9.5 -6.7 11.6 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . 80.6 76.0 81.4 79.7 85.2 79.5 79.1 85.0 -1.1 -4.6 5.4 -1.7 5.5 -5.7 5.9 U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,317,353 18,927,836 20,517,801 20,030,450 21,807,155 20,065,664 9,999,264 11,159,578 -1.2 -6.8 8.4 -2.4 8.9 -8.0 11.6 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,114,660 9,387,030 10,706,618 10,849,835 14,976,525 14,374,559 7,388,310 8,155,795 29.3 -15.5 14.1 1.3 38.0 -4.0 10.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $547 $496 $522 $542 $687 $716 $739 $731 31.0 -9.3 5.2 3.8 26.8 4.3 -1.1 Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768,345 773,824 773,777 743,837 732,528 868,101 417,280 564,989 13.0 0.7 -0.0 -3.9 -1.5 18.5 35.4 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493,852 484,797 480,139 470,735 490,781 592,133 291,424 390,806 19.9 -1.8 -1.0 -2.0 4.3 20.7 34.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $643 $626 $621 $633 $670 $682 $698 $692 6.1 -2.5 -1.0 2.0 5.9 1.8 -1.0 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 2,086,296 1,900,994 1,939,320 1,855,669 1,745,399 1,701,618 1,682,752 1,543,810 -18.4 -8.9 2.0 -4.3 -5.9 -2.5 -8.3 Inventories/total shipments (1) 9.9 9.6 9.1 8.9 7.7 8.1 8.1 6.6 -1.8 -0.2 -0.5 -0.2 -1.2 0.4 -1.5 Production workers . . . . . . . . . 24,546 24,568 20,868 15,211 13,999 13,348 13,248 12,765 -45.6 0.1 -15.1 -27.1 -8.0 -4.7 -3.6 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 50,757 44,888 41,018 32,512 31,531 29,927 15,071 15,368 -41.0 -11.6 -8.6 -20.7 -3.0 -5.1 2.0 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . 1,351,324 1,239,246 1,169,095 953,944 1,006,506 960,111 496,212 482,091 -29.0 -8.3 -5.7 -18.4 5.5 -4.6 -2.8 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $26.50 $27.43 $28.27 $29.06 $31.56 $31.70 $32.54 $30.99 19.7 3.5 3.1 2.8 8.6 0.4 -4.8 Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) 410.1 424.8 506.3 613.4 692.7 681.0 670.2 730.6 66.1 3.6 19.2 21.2 12.9 -1.7 9.0 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $63.83 $63.55 $55.01 $46.72 $45.03 $46.06 $47.96 $41.74 -27.9 -0.4 -13.4 -15.1 -3.6 2.3 -13.0 Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,141,105 19,629,769 20,954,676 19,537,241 22,276,759 20,679,606 10,283,775 11,534,931 2.7 -2.5 6.7 -6.8 14.0 -7.2 12.2 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,091,856 9,797,243 10,989,071 10,474,476 15,186,936 14,712,596 7,577,331 8,392,791 32.6 -11.7 12.2 -4.7 45.0 -3.1 10.8 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $551 $499 $524 $536 $682 $711 $737 $728 29.2 -9.4 5.1 2.2 27.2 4.4 -1.3 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . 10,514,307 9,868,736 10,726,907 9,911,144 13,047,722 13,466,769 6,734,611 7,706,522 28.1 -6.1 8.7 -7.6 31.6 3.2 14.4 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . 577,549 (71,493) 262,164 563,332 2,139,214 1,245,827 842,720 686,269 115.7 (3) (3) 114.9 279.7 -41.8 -18.6 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . 425,968 413,626 435,988 489,043 494,894 528,038 263,114 253,582 24.0 -2.9 5.4 12.2 1.2 6.7 -3.6 Operating income or (loss) . . . 151,581 (485,119) (173,824) 74,289 1,644,320 717,789 579,606 432,687 373.5 (3) 64.2 (3) 2,113.4 -56.3 -25.3 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . 295,331 147,966 123,107 256,994 243,622 428,147 175,737 153,316 45.0 -49.9 -16.8 108.8 -5.2 75.7 -12.8 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $522 $503 $512 $507 $586 $651 $655 $668 24.7 -3.7 1.8 -0.9 15.5 11.2 2.0 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . $21 $21 $21 $25 $22 $26 $26 $22 20.7 -0.4 -1.3 20.3 -11.2 14.9 -14.1 Unit operating income or (loss) $8 ($25) ($8) $4 $74 $35 $56 $38 361.2 (3) 66.4 (3) 1,841.2 -53.0 -33.4 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.8 100.7 97.6 94.6 85.9 91.5 88.9 91.8 -3.3 5.9 -3.1 -3.0 -8.7 5.6 2.9 Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 (5.0) (1.6) 0.7 10.8 4.9 7.6 5.2 3.5 -6.3 3.4 2.3 10.1 -5.9 -2.5 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Not applicable. (3) Undefined. Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics. C-18 Table C-8 Corrosion-resistant (including micro-alloy) steel: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importers' share (1): Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. consumption value: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importers' share (1): Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. imports from: Australia: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 176 275 297 119 16 16 3 -92.6 -20.0 56.1 7.8 -60.1 -86.3 -82.8 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 228 260 262 123 22 22 4 -89.9 5.5 14.1 0.7 -53.0 -82.3 -79.7 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $981 $1,292 $945 $883 $1,039 $1,348 $1,348 $1,596 37.5 31.8 -26.9 -6.6 17.7 29.8 18.4 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Canada: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380,490 331,774 530,248 552,434 524,711 547,326 281,944 291,356 43.8 -12.8 59.8 4.2 -5.0 4.3 3.3 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208,645 173,957 292,684 331,067 341,546 398,538 207,943 221,845 91.0 -16.6 68.3 13.1 3.2 16.7 6.7 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $548 $524 $552 $599 $651 $728 $738 $761 32.8 -4.4 5.3 8.6 8.6 11.9 3.2 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** France: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,608 9,302 15,753 6,530 4,613 1,778 1,728 190 -50.7 157.8 69.4 -58.5 -29.4 -61.5 -89.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,543 3,944 8,601 3,848 3,268 1,949 1,745 379 26.3 155.5 118.1 -55.3 -15.1 -40.4 -78.3 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $428 $424 $546 $589 $708 $1,096 $1,010 $1,996 156.3 -0.9 28.8 7.9 20.3 54.7 97.6 Ending inventory quantity . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Germany: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,453 23,557 53,479 34,530 31,191 75,941 48,977 20,939 63.5 -49.3 127.0 -35.4 -9.7 143.5 -57.2 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,221 13,955 30,585 20,312 17,999 48,634 31,540 14,718 72.3 -50.6 119.2 -33.6 -11.4 170.2 -53.3 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $608 $592 $572 $588 $577 $640 $644 $703 5.4 -2.5 -3.5 2.9 -1.9 11.0 9.2 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Japan: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,543 17,338 24,304 18,570 19,628 16,762 8,693 11,012 -39.1 -37.1 40.2 -23.6 5.7 -14.6 26.7 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,072 15,273 30,092 20,206 19,464 19,054 9,959 13,684 -17.4 -33.8 97.0 -32.9 -3.7 -2.1 37.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $838 $881 $1,238 $1,088 $992 $1,137 $1,146 $1,243 35.7 5.2 40.6 -12.1 -8.9 14.6 8.5 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Korea: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253,528 235,041 212,413 113,810 201,002 330,858 181,205 272,592 30.5 -7.3 -9.6 -46.4 76.6 64.6 50.4 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,605 123,305 122,919 77,195 156,934 285,156 157,308 206,273 102.8 -12.3 -0.3 -37.2 103.3 81.7 31.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $555 $525 $579 $678 $781 $862 $868 $757 55.4 -5.4 10.3 17.2 15.1 10.4 -12.8 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711,842 617,188 836,473 726,171 781,264 972,681 522,563 596,092 36.6 -13.3 35.5 -13.2 7.6 24.5 14.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402,301 330,662 485,142 452,890 539,333 753,352 408,519 456,903 87.3 -17.8 46.7 -6.6 19.1 39.7 11.8 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $565 $536 $580 $624 $690 $775 $782 $766 37.0 -5.2 8.3 7.5 10.7 12.2 -2.0 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,338,019 1,111,926 1,670,274 1,208,461 2,691,600 1,967,511 1,100,135 1,548,218 47.0 -16.9 50.2 -27.6 122.7 -26.9 40.7 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 709,640 511,795 820,429 650,772 1,954,047 1,499,762 874,308 1,049,709 111.3 -27.9 60.3 -20.7 200.3 -23.2 20.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $530 $460 $491 $539 $726 $762 $795 $678 43.7 -13.2 6.7 9.6 34.8 5.0 -14.7 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,049,861 1,729,114 2,506,747 1,934,631 3,472,863 2,940,192 1,622,698 2,144,310 43.4 -15.6 45.0 -22.8 79.5 -15.3 32.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,111,941 842,457 1,305,571 1,103,662 2,493,380 2,253,115 1,282,827 1,506,612 102.6 -24.2 55.0 -15.5 125.9 -9.6 17.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $542 $487 $521 $570 $718 $766 $791 $703 41.3 -10.2 6.9 9.5 25.9 6.7 -11.1 Ending inventory quantity . . . 193,053 134,946 153,321 105,416 144,771 167,208 169,435 146,115 -13.4 -30.1 13.6 -31.2 37.3 15.5 -13.8 C-19 Table C-8--Continued Corrosion-resistant (including micro-alloy) steel: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Not applicable. (3) Undefined. Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics. C-20 Table C-9 Corrosion-resistant steel (including nonrelated tolling): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importers' share (1): Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. consumption value: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importers' share (1): Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. imports from: Australia: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 176 275 297 119 16 16 3 -92.6 -20.0 56.1 7.8 -60.1 -86.3 -82.8 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 228 260 262 123 22 22 4 -89.9 5.5 14.1 0.7 -53.0 -82.3 -79.7 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $981 $1,292 $945 $883 $1,039 $1,348 $1,348 $1,596 37.5 31.8 -26.9 -6.6 17.7 29.8 18.4 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Canada: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380,490 331,774 530,248 552,434 524,711 547,326 281,944 291,356 43.8 -12.8 59.8 4.2 -5.0 4.3 3.3 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208,645 173,957 292,684 331,067 341,546 398,538 207,943 221,845 91.0 -16.6 68.3 13.1 3.2 16.7 6.7 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $548 $524 $552 $599 $651 $728 $738 $761 32.8 -4.4 5.3 8.6 8.6 11.9 3.2 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** France: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,608 9,302 15,753 6,530 4,613 1,778 1,728 190 -50.7 157.8 69.4 -58.5 -29.4 -61.5 -89.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,543 3,944 8,601 3,848 3,268 1,949 1,745 379 26.3 155.5 118.1 -55.3 -15.1 -40.4 -78.3 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $428 $424 $546 $589 $708 $1,096 $1,010 $1,996 156.3 -0.9 28.8 7.9 20.3 54.7 97.6 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Germany: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,453 23,557 53,479 34,530 31,191 75,941 48,977 20,939 63.5 -49.3 127.0 -35.4 -9.7 143.5 -57.2 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,221 13,955 30,585 20,312 17,999 48,634 31,540 14,718 72.3 -50.6 119.2 -33.6 -11.4 170.2 -53.3 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $608 $592 $572 $588 $577 $640 $644 $703 5.4 -2.5 -3.5 2.9 -1.9 11.0 9.2 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Japan: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,543 17,338 24,304 18,570 19,628 16,762 8,693 11,012 -39.1 -37.1 40.2 -23.6 5.7 -14.6 26.7 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,072 15,273 30,092 20,206 19,464 19,054 9,959 13,684 -17.4 -33.8 97.0 -32.9 -3.7 -2.1 37.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $838 $881 $1,238 $1,088 $992 $1,137 $1,146 $1,243 35.7 5.2 40.6 -12.1 -8.9 14.6 8.5 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Korea: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253,528 235,041 212,413 113,810 201,002 330,858 181,205 272,592 30.5 -7.3 -9.6 -46.4 76.6 64.6 50.4 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,605 123,305 122,919 77,195 156,934 285,156 157,308 206,273 102.8 -12.3 -0.3 -37.2 103.3 81.7 31.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $555 $525 $579 $678 $781 $862 $868 $757 55.4 -5.4 10.3 17.2 15.1 10.4 -12.8 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711,842 617,188 836,473 726,171 781,264 972,681 522,563 596,092 36.6 -13.3 35.5 -13.2 7.6 24.5 14.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402,301 330,662 485,142 452,890 539,333 753,352 408,519 456,903 87.3 -17.8 46.7 -6.6 19.1 39.7 11.8 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $565 $536 $580 $624 $690 $775 $782 $766 37.0 -5.2 8.3 7.5 10.7 12.2 -2.0 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919,625 933,033 1,325,751 936,741 2,424,153 1,647,998 932,153 1,372,961 79.2 1.5 42.1 -29.3 158.8 -32.0 47.3 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481,017 420,783 647,862 515,137 1,808,700 1,286,429 763,351 926,215 167.4 -12.5 54.0 -20.5 251.1 -28.9 21.3 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $523 $451 $489 $550 $746 $781 $819 $675 49.2 -13.8 8.4 12.5 35.7 4.6 -17.6 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,631,467 1,550,221 2,162,224 1,662,911 3,205,416 2,620,679 1,454,716 1,969,053 60.6 -5.0 39.5 -23.1 92.8 -18.2 35.4 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883,318 751,445 1,133,004 968,027 2,348,033 2,039,782 1,171,870 1,383,118 130.9 -14.9 50.8 -14.6 142.6 -13.1 18.0 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $541 $485 $524 $582 $733 $778 $806 $702 43.8 -10.5 8.1 11.1 25.8 6.3 -12.8 Ending inventory quantity . . . 59,018 56,126 85,214 50,224 95,595 111,759 104,022 112,265 89.4 -4.9 51.8 -41.1 90.3 16.9 7.9 C-21 Table C-9--Continued Corrosion-resistant steel (including nonrelated tolling): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Not applicable. (3) Undefined. Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. National Galvanizing was the only nonrelated (not jointly owned) toll producer to provide consistent data. Data for joint venture tolling operations that tolled for related U.S. mills are already included in tables C-7 and C-8. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics. C-22 Table C-10 Corrosion-resistant steel (including micro-alloy and nonrelated tolling): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. consumption quantity: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importers' share (1): Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. consumption value: Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Importers' share (1): Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. imports from: Australia: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 176 275 297 119 16 16 3 -92.6 -20.0 56.1 7.8 -60.1 -86.3 -82.8 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 228 260 262 123 22 22 4 -89.9 5.5 14.1 0.7 -53.0 -82.3 -79.7 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $981 $1,292 $945 $883 $1,039 $1,348 $1,348 $1,596 37.5 31.8 -26.9 -6.6 17.7 29.8 18.4 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Canada: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380,490 331,774 530,248 552,434 524,711 547,326 281,944 291,356 43.8 -12.8 59.8 4.2 -5.0 4.3 3.3 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208,645 173,957 292,684 331,067 341,546 398,538 207,943 221,845 91.0 -16.6 68.3 13.1 3.2 16.7 6.7 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $548 $524 $552 $599 $651 $728 $738 $761 32.8 -4.4 5.3 8.6 8.6 11.9 3.2 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** France: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,608 9,302 15,753 6,530 4,613 1,778 1,728 190 -50.7 157.8 69.4 -58.5 -29.4 -61.5 -89.0 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,543 3,944 8,601 3,848 3,268 1,949 1,745 379 26.3 155.5 118.1 -55.3 -15.1 -40.4 -78.3 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $428 $424 $546 $589 $708 $1,096 $1,010 $1,996 156.3 -0.9 28.8 7.9 20.3 54.7 97.6 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Germany: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,453 23,557 53,479 34,530 31,191 75,941 48,977 20,939 63.5 -49.3 127.0 -35.4 -9.7 143.5 -57.2 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,221 13,955 30,585 20,312 17,999 48,634 31,540 14,718 72.3 -50.6 119.2 -33.6 -11.4 170.2 -53.3 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $608 $592 $572 $588 $577 $640 $644 $703 5.4 -2.5 -3.5 2.9 -1.9 11.0 9.2 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Japan: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,543 17,338 24,304 18,570 19,628 16,762 8,693 11,012 -39.1 -37.1 40.2 -23.6 5.7 -14.6 26.7 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,072 15,273 30,092 20,206 19,464 19,054 9,959 13,684 -17.4 -33.8 97.0 -32.9 -3.7 -2.1 37.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $838 $881 $1,238 $1,088 $992 $1,137 $1,146 $1,243 35.7 5.2 40.6 -12.1 -8.9 14.6 8.5 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Korea: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253,528 235,041 212,413 113,810 201,002 330,858 181,205 272,592 30.5 -7.3 -9.6 -46.4 76.6 64.6 50.4 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,605 123,305 122,919 77,195 156,934 285,156 157,308 206,273 102.8 -12.3 -0.3 -37.2 103.3 81.7 31.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $555 $525 $579 $678 $781 $862 $868 $757 55.4 -5.4 10.3 17.2 15.1 10.4 -12.8 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Subtotal: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711,842 617,188 836,473 726,171 781,264 972,681 522,563 596,092 36.6 -13.3 35.5 -13.2 7.6 24.5 14.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402,301 330,662 485,142 452,890 539,333 753,352 408,519 456,903 87.3 -17.8 46.7 -6.6 19.1 39.7 11.8 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $565 $536 $580 $624 $690 $775 $782 $766 37.0 -5.2 8.3 7.5 10.7 12.2 -2.0 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All other sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,338,019 1,111,926 1,670,274 1,208,461 2,691,600 1,967,511 1,100,135 1,548,218 47.0 -16.9 50.2 -27.6 122.7 -26.9 40.7 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 709,640 511,795 820,429 650,772 1,954,047 1,499,762 874,308 1,049,709 111.3 -27.9 60.3 -20.7 200.3 -23.2 20.1 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $530 $460 $491 $539 $726 $762 $795 $678 43.7 -13.2 6.7 9.6 34.8 5.0 -14.7 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All sources: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,049,861 1,729,114 2,506,747 1,934,631 3,472,863 2,940,192 1,622,698 2,144,310 43.4 -15.6 45.0 -22.8 79.5 -15.3 32.1 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,111,941 842,457 1,305,571 1,103,662 2,493,380 2,253,115 1,282,827 1,506,612 102.6 -24.2 55.0 -15.5 125.9 -9.6 17.4 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $542 $487 $521 $570 $718 $766 $791 $703 41.3 -10.2 6.9 9.5 25.9 6.7 -11.1 Ending inventory quantity . . . 193,053 134,946 153,321 105,416 144,771 167,208 169,435 146,115 -13.4 -30.1 13.6 -31.2 37.3 15.5 -13.8 C-23 Table C-10--Continued Corrosion-resistant steel (including micro-alloy and nonrelated tolling): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-05, January-June 2005, and January-June 2006 (Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; period changes=percent, except where noted) Reported data Period changes January-June Jan.-June Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2000-05 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 U.S. producers': Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Productivity (tons/1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Net sales: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss)/ sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points. (2) Not applicable. (3) Undefined. Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures. National Galvanizing was the only nonrelated (not jointly owned) toll producer to provide consistent data. Data for joint venture tolling operations that tolled for related U.S. mills are already included in tables C-7 and C-8. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from official Commerce statistics. C-24 D-1 APPENDIX D TREATMENT OF CTL PLATE AND CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL IN THE HTSUS Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1) Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes XV 72-13 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2 fix Quantity General Special 7208 Flat-rolled products of iron or nonalloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, hot-rolled, not clad, plated or coated: 7208.10 In coils, not further worked than hot-rolled, with patterns in relief: 7208.10.15 00 Pickled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg + 20% Other: 7208.10.30 00 Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20% 7208.10.60 00 Of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20% Other, in coils, not further worked than hot-rolled, pickled: 7208.25 Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more: 7208.25.30 00 Of high-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20% 7208.25.60 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg + 20% 7208.26.00 Of a thickness of 3 mm or more but less than 4.75 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg + 20% 30 High-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7208.27.00 Of a thickness of less than 3 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg + 20% 30 High-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Other, in coils, not further worked than hot-rolled: 7208.36.00 Of a thickness exceeding 10 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20% 30 High-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7208.37.00 Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more but not exceeding 10 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20% 30 High-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7208.38.00 Of a thickness of 3 mm or more but less than 4.75 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20% 15 High-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Other: 30 With untrimmed edges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7208.39.00 Of a thickness of less than 3 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20% 15 High-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Other: 30 With untrimmed edges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7208.40 Not in coils, not further worked than hot-rolled, with patterns in relief: 7208.40.30 Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20% 30 Of a thickness exceeding 10 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7208.40.60 Of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20% 30 Of a thickness less than 3 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Other, not in coils, not further worked than hot-rolled: 7208.51.00 Of a thickness exceeding 10 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20% 30 Universal mill plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Other: 45 Of high-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7208.52.00 00 Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more but not exceeding 10 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20% 7208.53.00 00 Of a thickness of 3 mm or more but less than 4.75 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20% 7208.54.00 00 Of a thickness of less than 3 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20% 7208.90.00 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20% Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1) Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes XV 72-15 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2 fix Quantity General Special 7210 Flat-rolled products of iron or nonalloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, clad, plated or coated: Plated or coated with tin: 7210.11.00 00 Of a thickness of 0.5 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 6% 7210.12.00 00 Of a thickness of less than 0.5 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 6% 7210.20.00 00 Plated or coated with lead, including terne-plate . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 6% 7210.30.00 Electrolytically plated or coated with zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 21.5% 30 Of high-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Otherwise plated or coated with zinc: 7210.41.00 00 Corrugated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 21.5% 7210.49.00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 21.5% 30 Of high-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7210.50.00 00 Plated or coated with chromium oxides or with chromium and chromium oxides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 45% Plated or coated with aluminum: 7210.61.00 00 Plated or coated with aluminum-zinc alloys . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 21.5% 7210.69.00 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 21.5% 7210.70 Painted, varnished or coated with plastics: 7210.70.30 00 Not coated or plated with metal and not clad . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg + 20% 7210.70.60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 21.5% Zinc coated or plated: 30 Electrolytically coated or plated . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7210.90 Other: 7210.90.10 00 Clad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 30% Other: 7210.90.60 00 Electrolytically coated or plated with base metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 45% 7210.90.90 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 21.5% Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1) Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes XV 72-16 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2 fix Quantity General Special 7211 Flat-rolled products of iron or nonalloy steel, of a width of less than 600 mm, not clad, plated or coated: Not further worked than hot-rolled: 7211.13.00 00 Universal mill plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20% 7211.14.00 Other, of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20% 30 Of high-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Other: 45 Not in coils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7211.19 Other: Of a width of less than 300 mm: 7211.19.15 00 Of high-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25% Other: 7211.19.20 00 Of a thickness exceeding 1.25 mm . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25% 7211.19.30 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25% Other: 7211.19.45 00 Of high-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20% Other: 7211.19.60 00 Pickled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg + 20% 7211.19.75 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20% In coils: 30 With untrimmed edges . . . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced): 7211.23 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of carbon: Of a width of less than 300 mm: Of a thickness exceeding 1.25 mm: 7211.23.15 00 Of high-strength steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25% 7211.23.20 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25% 7211.23.30 00 Of a thickness exceeding 0.25 mm but not exceeding 1.25 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25% 7211.23.45 00 Of a thickness not exceeding 0.25 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25% 7211.23.60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg + 20% 30 Of a thickness exceeding 1.25 mm . . . . . . . . kg 60 Of a thickness exceeding 0.25 mm but not exceeding 1.25 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Of a thickness not exceeding 0.25 mm: 75 Of a kind for use in making aperture masks for cathode-ray tube video displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 85 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7211.29 Other: Of a width of less than 300 mm: 7211.29.20 Of a thickness exceeding 0.25 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 25% 30 Of a width less than 51 mm, in coils . . . . kg 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7211.29.45 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25% 7211.29.60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg + 20% 30 Of a thickness exceeding 1.25 mm . . . . . . . . kg 80 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7211.90.00 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20% Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1) Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes XV 72-17 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2 fix Quantity General Special 7212 Flat-rolled products of iron or nonalloy steel, of a width of less than 600 mm, clad, plated or coated: 7212.10.00 00 Plated or coated with tin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 6% 7212.20.00 00 Electrolytically plated or coated with zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 21.5% 7212.30 Otherwise plated or coated with zinc: Of a width of less than 300 mm: 7212.30.10 Of a thickness exceeding 0.25 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 25% 30 Of a width less than 51 mm, in coils . . . . . . . kg 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7212.30.30 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25% 7212.30.50 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 21.5% 7212.40 Painted, varnished or coated with plastics: 7212.40.10 00 Of a width of less than 300 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25% 7212.40.50 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg + 20% 7212.50.00 00 Otherwise plated or coated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 21.5% 7212.60.00 00 Clad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 30% Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1) Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes XV 72-19 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2 fix Quantity General Special 7214 Other bars and rods of iron or nonalloy steel, not further worked than forged, hot-rolled, hot-drawn or hot-extruded, but including those twisted after rolling: 7214.10.00 00 Forged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20% 7214.20.00 00 Concrete reinforcing bars and rods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 20% 7214.30.00 Other, of free-cutting steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20% 10 Containing by weight 0.1% or more of lead . . . . . . . kg 80 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Other: 7214.91.00 Of rectangular (other than square) cross-section . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20% 15 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Containing by weight 0.25 percent or more but less than 0.6 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 90 Containing by weight more than 0.6 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7214.99.00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 20% Rounds: 15 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 30 Containing by weight 0.25 percent or more but less than 0.6 percent of carbon . . . . . . . kg 45 Containing by weight more than 0.6 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Other: 60 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 75 Containing by weight 0.25 percent or more but less than 0.6 percent of carbon . . . . . . . kg 90 Containing by weight more than 0.6 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7215 Other bars and rods of iron or nonalloy steel: 7215.10.00 Of free-cutting steel, not further worked than cold- formed or cold-finished . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 0.3¢/kg + 20% 10 Containing by weight 0.1% or more of lead . . . . . . . kg 80 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7215.50.00 Other, not further worked than cold-formed or cold- finished . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 0.3¢/kg + 20% 15 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Containing by weight 0.25 percent or more but less than 0.6 percent of carbon kg 90 Containing by weight more than 0.6 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7215.90 Other: Plated or coated with metal: 7215.90.10 00 Not cold-formed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg + 20% 7215.90.30 00 Cold-formed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 0.3¢/kg + 20% 7215.90.50 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 0.3¢/kg + 20% Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1) Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes XV 72-22 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2 fix Quantity General Special 7217 (con.) Wire of iron or nonalloy steel (con.): 7217.20 Plated or coated with zinc: 7217.20.15 00 Flat wire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 26% Round wire: 7217.20.30 00 With a diameter of 1.5 mm or more and con- taining by weight less than 0.25 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 7% 7217.20.45 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 25% With a diameter of less than 1.0 mm: 10 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 20 Containing by weight 0.25 percent or more but less than 0.6 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 30 Containing by weight 0.6 percent or more of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg With a diameter of 1.0 mm or more but less than 1.5 mm: 40 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 50 Containing by weight 0.25 percent or more but less than 0.6 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Containing by weight 0.6 percent or more of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg With a diameter of 1.5 mm or more: 70 Containing by weight 0.25 percent or more but less than 0.6 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 80 Containing by weight 0.6 percent or more of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Other: 7217.20.60 00 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25% 7217.20.75 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 26% Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1) Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes XV 72-23 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2 fix Quantity General Special 7217 (con.) Wire of iron or nonalloy steel (con.): 7217.30 Plated or coated with other base metals: 7217.30.15 Flat wire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 26% 30 Containing by weight 0.6 percent or more of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Round wire: 7217.30.30 00 With a diameter of 1.5 mm or more and con- taining by weight less than 0.25 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 7% 7217.30.45 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 25% 04 Containing by weight less than 0.20 percent of carbon, and suitable for electric arc welding . . . . . . . . kg Other: With a diameter of less than 1.0 mm: 11 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 20 Containing by weight 0.25 percent or more but less than 0.6 percent or carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 30 Containing by weight 0.6 percent or more of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg With a diameter of 1.0 mm or more but less than 1.5 mm: 41 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 50 Containing by weight 0.25 percent or more but less than 0.6 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Containing by weight 0.6 percent or more of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 90 With a diameter of 1.5 mm or more . . . . kg Other: 7217.30.60 00 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 25% 7217.30.75 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 26% 7217.90 Other: 7217.90.10 00 Coated with plastics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 2% 7217.90.50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 35% 30 Containing by weight less than 0.25 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Containing by weight 0.25 percent or more but less than 0.6 percent of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 90 Containing by weight 0.6 percent or more of carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1) Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes XV 72-33 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2 fix Quantity General Special IV. OTHER ALLOY STEEL; HOLLOW DRILL BARS AND RODS, OF ALLOY OR NONALLOY STEEL 7224 Other alloy steel in ingots or other primary forms; semi- finished products of other alloy steel: 7224.10.00 Ingots and other primary forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 28% 05 Of high-nickel alloy steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Other: 45 Of tool steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 75 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7224.90.00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 28% 05 Of high-nickel alloy steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Other: Of tool steel: Of rectangular (including square) cross section: 15 Having a width less than four times the thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 25 Having a width at least four times the thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 35 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Other: Of rectangular (including square) cross section: 45 Having a width less than four times the thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 55 Having a width at least four times the thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 65 Of circular cross section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 75 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7225 Flat-rolled products of other alloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more: Of silicon electrical steel: 7225.11.00 00 Grain-oriented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% 7225.19.00 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% 7225.20.00 00 Of high-speed steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 32% 7225.30 Other, not further worked than hot-rolled, in coils: Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more: 7225.30.10 00 Of tool steel (other than high-speed steel) . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 29% 7225.30.30 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 28% 05 Of high-nickel alloy steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm: 7225.30.50 Of tool steel (other than high-speed steel) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 29% 30 Of ball-bearing steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7225.30.70 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1) Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes XV 72-34 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2 fix Quantity General Special 7225 (con.) Flat-rolled products of other alloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more (con.): 7225.40 Other, not further worked than hot-rolled, not in coils: Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more: 7225.40.10 Of tool steel (other than high-speed steel) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 29% 15 Of ball-bearing steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7225.40.30 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 28% 05 Of high-nickel alloy steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm: 7225.40.50 Of tool steel (other than high-speed steel) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 29% 30 Of ball-bearing steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7225.40.70 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% 7225.50 Other, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold- reduced): 7225.50.10 Of tool steel (other than high-speed steel) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 29% 30 Of ball-bearing steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Other: 7225.50.60 00 Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% Of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm: 7225.50.70 00 Heat-resisting steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 29% 7225.50.80 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 28% 10 Of high-nickel alloy steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Other: 15 Of a kind for use in making aperture masks for cathode-ray tube video displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 85 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Other: 7225.91.00 00 Electrolytically plated or coated with zinc . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% 7225.92.00 00 Otherwise plated or coated with zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% 7225.99.00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 28% 10 Of high-nickel alloy steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 90 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2006) – Supplement 1 (Rev. 1) Annotated for Statistical Reporting Purposes XV 72-35 Heading/ Stat. Unit Rates of Duty Subheading Suf- Article Description of 1 2 fix Quantity General Special 7226 Flat-rolled products of other alloy steel, of a width of less than 600 mm: Of silicon electrical steel: 7226.11 Grain-oriented: 7226.11.10 00 Of a width of 300 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% 7226.11.90 Of a width of less than 300 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 33% 30 Of thickness not exceeding 0.25 mm . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7226.19 Other: 7226.19.10 00 Of a width of 300 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% 7226.19.90 00 Of a width of less than 300 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 33% 7226.20.00 00 Of high-speed steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 37% Other: 7226.91 Not further worked than hot-rolled: Of tool steel (other than high-speed steel): 7226.91.05 00 Of chipper knife steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 34% Other: 7226.91.15 Of a width of 300 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 29% 30 Of ball-bearing steel . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7226.91.25 Of a width of less than 300 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 34% 30 Of ball-bearing steel . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Other: 7226.91.50 00 Of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% Of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm: 7226.91.70 00 Of a width of 300 mm or more . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 28% 7226.91.80 00 Of a width of less than 300 mm . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 33% 7226.92 Not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced): Of tool steel (other than high-speed steel): 7226.92.10 Of a width of 300 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg + 29% 30 Of ball-bearing steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7226.92.30 Of a width of less than 300 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 34% 30 Of ball-bearing steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 60 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg Other: 7226.92.50 00 Of a width of 300 mm or more . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 0.4¢/kg + 28% Of a width of less than 300 mm: 7226.92.70 Of a thickness not exceeding 0.25 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 33% 05 Of high-nickel alloy steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7226.92.80 Of a thickness exceeding 0.25 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free 33% 05 Of high-nickel alloy steel . . . . . . . . . kg 50 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg 7226.93.00 00 Electrolytically plated or coated with zinc . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 33% 7226.94.00 00 Otherwise plated or coated with zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 33% 7226.99.00 00 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg . . . . . . Free 33% E-1 APPENDIX E EXCLUDED FORMS OF CARBON STEEL PRODUCTS 1 See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Finland, Germany, and United Kingdom: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Reviews, and Revocation of Orders in Part, 64 FR 46343 (August 25, 1999). 2 See Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Reviews and Revocation of Orders in Part: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Germany, 64 FR 51292 (September 22, 1999). E-3 EXCLUDED FORMS OF CARBON STEEL PRODUCTS Cut-to-Length Plate Belgium As a result of a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade (discussed in the Overview section of this report), cut-to-length floor plate “with patterns in relief derived directly from the rolling process” (floor plate) from Belgium is excluded from the scope of the antidumping duty order. Finland, Germany, and the United Kingdom As a result of a changed circumstance review, the order was revoked with respect to carbon cut- to-length steel plate with a maximum thickness of 80mm in steel grades BS 7191, 355 EM and 355 EMZ, as amended by Sable Offshore Energy Project Specification XB MOO Y 15 0001, types 1 and 2.1 Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Germany Commerce issued a partial revocation that applies to certain corrosion-resistant deep-drawing carbon steel strip, roll-clad on both sides with aluminum (AlSi) foils in accordance with St3 LG as to EN 10139/10140. The merchandise's chemical composition encompasses a core material of U St 23 (continuous casting) in which carbon is less than 0.08 by weight; manganese is less than 0.30; phosphorous is less than 0.20; sulfur is less than 0.015; aluminum is less than 0.01; and the cladding material is a minimum of 99 percent aluminum with silicon/copper/iron of less than 1 percent. The products are in strips with thicknesses of 0.07mm to 4.0mm (inclusive) and widths of 5mm to 800mm (inclusive). The thickness ratio of aluminum on either side of steel may range from 3%/94%/3% to 10%/80%/10%.2 Japan Excluded are certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: (1) Widths ranging from 10 millimeters (0.394 inches) through 100 millimeters (3.94 inches); (2) thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 millimeters (0.004 inches) through 0.60 millimeters (0.024 inches); and (3) a coating that is from 0.003 millimeters (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 millimeters (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of either two evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99 percent zinc, 0.5 percent cobalt, and 0.5 percent molybdenum followed by a layer consisting of chromate, and finally, a layer consisting of silicate. Also excluded are certain electrolytic zinc-coated steel coiled rolls meeting the following specifications: widths ranging from 10 millimeters (0.394 inches) through 100 millimeters (3.94 inches); thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 millimeters (0.004 inches) through 0.60 millimeters (0.024 inches); and a coating that 3 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 62 FR 66848 (December 22, 1997). 4 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 64 FR 14861 (March 29, 1999). 5 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 64 FR 57032 (October 22, 1999). E-4 is from 0.003 millimeters (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 millimeters (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99 percent zinc, 0.5 percent cobalt, and 0.5 percent molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of chromate, and finally a layer consisting of silicate.3 Also excluded are certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: (1) widths ranging from 10 millimeters (0.394 inches) through 100 millimeters (3.94 inches); (2) thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 millimeters (0.004 inches) through 0.60 millimeters (0.024 inches); and (3) a coating that is from 0.003 millimeters (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 millimeters (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of either two evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99 percent zinc, 0.5 percent cobalt, and 0.5 percent molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of chromate, or three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99 percent zinc, 0.5 percent cobalt, and 0.5 percent molybdenum followed by a layer consisting of chromate, and finally a layer consisting of silicate. This steel has been used in the manufacture of rubber seals and metal inserts for ball bearings.4 Also excluded are (1) certain products meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for bearing and bushing alloys, and (2) certain products meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for bearing and bushing alloys. This merchandise covers: C (1) carbon steel flat products measuring 1.84 mm in thickness and 43.6 mm or 16.1 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum, 20 percent tin, 1 percent copper, 0.3 percent silicon, 0.15 percent nickel, less than 1 percent other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for bearing and bushing alloys; and C (2) carbon steel flat products measuring 0.97 mm in thickness and 20 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9 percent to 11 percent tin, 9 percent to 11 percent lead, less than 1 percent zinc, less than 1 percent other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for bearing and bushing alloys, the second layer consisting of 45 percent to 55 percent lead, 38 percent to 50 percent PTFE, 3 percent to 5 percent molybdenum disulfide and less than 2 percent other materials. The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under subheading 7212.50.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 5 Also excluded from the scope of the order are imports of doctor blades meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, plated with nickel phosphorous, having a thickness of 0.1524 mm (0.006 inches), a width between 31.75 mm (1.25 inches) and 50.80 mm (2.00 inches), a core hardness between 580 to 630 HV; the carbon steel coil or strip consists of the following elements identified in percentage by weight: 0.90 percent to 1.05 percent carbon; 0.15 percent to 0.35 percent silicon; 0.30 6 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 65 FR 53983 (September 6, 2000). 7 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 66 FR 8778 (February 2, 2001). 8 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 66 FR 15075 (March 15, 2001). 9 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 66 FR 20967 (April 26, 2001). E-5 percent to 0.50 percent manganese; less than or equal to 0.03 percent of phosphorous; less than or equal to 0.006 percent of sulfur; other elements representing 0.24 percent; and the remainder of iron.6 Also excluded from the scope of the order are imports of carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel flat products measuring 1.64 mm in thickness and 19.5 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a lining clad with an aluminum alloy that is balance aluminum; 10 to 15 percent tin; 1 to 3 percent lead; 0.7 to 1.3 percent copper; 1.8 to 3.5 percent silicon; 0.1 to 0.7 percent chromium, less than 1 percent other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for bearing and bushing alloys.7 Also excluded from the scope of the order are carbon steel flat products meeting the following specifications: C (1) carbon steel flat products measuring 0.975 mm in thickness and 8.8 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1012) clad with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper- lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9 percent-11 percent tin, 9 percent-11 percent lead, maximum 1 percent other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for bearing and bushing alloys, the second layer consisting of 13 percent-17 percent carbon, 13 percent-17 percent aromatic polyester, with a balance (approx. 66 percent-74 percent) of polytetrafluorethylene (“PTFE”); and C (2) carbon steel flat products measuring 1.02 mm in thickness and 10.7 mm in width consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1008) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that is balance copper, 9 percent-11 percent tin, 9 percent-11 percent lead, less than 0.35 percent iron, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 792 for bearing and bushing alloys, the second layer consisting of 45 percent-55 percent lead, 3 percent-5 percent molybdenum disulfide, with a balance (approx. 40 percent-52 percent) of PTFE.8 Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, measuring 1.93 mm or 2.75 mm (0.076 inches or 0.108 inches) in thickness, 87.3 mm or 99 mm (3.437 inches or 3.900 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8 percent, manganese under 0.4 percent, phosphorous under 0.04 percent, and sulfur under 0.05 percent; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7 percent copper, 12 percent tin, 1.7 percent lead, 0.3 percent antimony, 2.5 percent silicon, 1 percent maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum. Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, clad with aluminum, measuring 1.75 mm (0.069 inches) in thickness, 89 mm or 94 mm (3.500 inches or 3.700 inches) in width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 8 percent, manganese under 0.4 percent, phosphorous under 0.04 percent, and sulfur under 0.05 percent; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: 0.7 percent copper, 12 percent tin, 1.7 percent lead, 2.5 percent silicon, 0.3 percent antimony, 1 percent maximum total other (including iron), and remainder aluminum.9 Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: carbon steel coil or strip, measuring a minimum of and including 1.10 mm to a maximum of and including 4.90 mm in overall thickness, a minimum of and including 76.00 mm to a maximum of and including 250.00 mm in 10 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 67 FR 7356 (February 19, 2002). E-6 overall width, with a low carbon steel back comprised of: carbon under 0.10 percent, manganese under 0.40 percent, phosphorous under 0.04 percent, sulfur under 0.05 percent, and silicon under 0.05 percent; clad with aluminum alloy comprised of: under 2.51 percent copper, under 15.10 percent tin, and remainder aluminum as listed on the mill specification sheet.10 Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: (1) Diffusion annealed, non-alloy nickel-plated carbon products, with a substrate of cold-rolled battery grade sheet (“CRBG”) with both sides of the CRBG initially electrolytically plated with pure, unalloyed nickel and subsequently annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and iron substrate, with the nickel plated coating having a thickness of 0-5 microns per side with one side equaling at least 2 microns; and with the nickel carbon sheet having a thickness of from 0.004'' (0.10 mm) to 0.030'' (0.762 mm) and conforming to the following chemical specifications (in percent): C <= 0.08; Mn <= 0.45; P <= 0.02; S <= 0.02; Al <= 0.15; and Si <= 0.10; and the following physical specifications: Tensile = 65 KSI maximum; Yield = 32 - 55 KSI; Elongation = 18 percent minimum (aim 34 percent); Hardness = 85 - 150 Vickers; Grain Type = Equiaxed or Pancake; Grain Size (ASTM) = 7-12; Delta r value = aim less than +/- 0.2; Lankford value <= 1.2.; and (2) next generation diffusion-annealed nickel plate meeting the following specifications: C (a) nickel-graphite plated, diffusion annealed, tin-nickel plated carbon products, with a natural composition mixture of nickel and graphite electrolytically plated to the top side of diffusion annealed tin-nickel plated carbon steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having both sides of the cold rolled substrate electrolytically plated with natural nickel, with the top side of the nickel plated strip electrolytically plated with tin and then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and tin layers in which a nickel-tin alloy is created, and an additional layer of mixture of natural nickel and graphite then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel-tin alloy; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite, tin-nickel layer <= 1.0 micrometers; tin layer only <= 0.05 micrometers, nickel-graphite layer only <= 0.2 micrometers, and bottom side: nickel layer <= 1.0 micrometers; C (b) nickel-graphite, diffusion annealed, nickel plated carbon products, having a natural composition mixture of nickel and graphite electrolytically plated to the top side of diffusion annealed nickel plated steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the cold rolled base metal initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the material then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and the iron substrate; with an additional layer of natural nickel- graphite then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel plated steel strip; with the nickel-graphite, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling, or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite, tin-nickel layer <= 1.0 micrometers; nickel-graphite layer <= 0.5 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer <= 1.0 micrometers; C (c) diffusion annealed nickel-graphite plated products, which are cold-rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having the bottom side of the base metal first electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the top side of the strip then plated with a nickel-graphite composition; with the strip then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel-graphite and the iron substrate on the bottom side; with the nickel-graphite and nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without 11 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 67 FR 47768 (July 22, 2002). 12 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 67 FR 57208 (September 9, 2002). E-7 cracking, flaking, peeling, or any other evidence of separation; having coating thickness: top side: nickel-graphite layer <= 1.0 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer <= 1.0 micrometers; C (d) nickel-phosphorous plated diffusion annealed nickel plated carbon product, having a natural composition mixture of nickel and phosphorus electrolytically plated to the top side of a diffusion annealed nickel plated steel strip with a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the base metal initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, and the material then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel and iron substrate; another layer of the natural nickel-phosphorous then electrolytically plated on the top side of the nickel plated steel strip; with the nickel-phosphorous, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel- phosphorous, nickel layer <= 1.0 micrometers; nickel-phosphorous layer <= 0.1 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer <= 1.0 micrometers; C (e) diffusion annealed, tin-nickel plated products, electrolytically plated with natural nickel to the top side of a diffusion annealed tin-nickel plated cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to the chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; with both sides of the cold rolled strip initially electrolytically plated with natural nickel, with the top side of the nickel plated strip electrolytically plated with tin and then annealed to create a diffusion between the nickel and tin layers in which a nickel-tin alloy is created, and an additional layer of natural nickel then electrolytically plated on the top side of the strip of the nickel-tin alloy; sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having coating thickness: top side: nickel-tin-nickel combination layer <= 1.0 micrometers; tin layer only <= 0.05 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer <= 1.0 micrometers; and C (f) tin mill products for battery containers, tin and nickel plated on a cold rolled or tin mill black plate base metal conforming to chemical requirements based on AISI 1006; having both sides of the cold rolled substrate electrolytically plated with natural nickel; then annealed to create a diffusion of the nickel and iron substrate; then an additional layer of natural tin electrolytically plated on the top side; and again annealed to create a diffusion of the tin and nickel alloys; with the tin-nickel, nickel plated material sufficiently ductile and adherent to the substrate to permit forming without cracking, flaking, peeling or any other evidence of separation; having a coating thickness: top side: nickel-tin layer <= 1 micrometer; tin layer alone <= 0.05 micrometers; bottom side: nickel layer <= 1.0 micrometer.11 Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: (1) Widths ranging from 10 mm (0.394 inches) through 100 mm (3.94 inches); (2) thicknesses, including coatings, ranging from 0.11 mm (0.004 inches) through 0.60 mm (0.024 inches); and (3) a coating that is from 0.003 mm (0.00012 inches) through 0.005 mm (0.000196 inches) in thickness and that is comprised of either two evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99 percent zinc, 0.5 percent cobalt, and 0.5 percent molybdenum, followed by a layer consisting of phosphate, or three evenly applied layers, the first layer consisting of 99 percent zinc, 0.5 percent cobalt, and 0.5 percent molybdenum followed by a layer consisting of phosphate, and finally a layer consisting of silicate.12 13 See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 68 FR 19970 (April 23, 2003). E-8 Also excluded from this order are products meeting the following specifications: (1) Flat-rolled products (provided for in HTSUS subheading 7210.49.00), other than of high-strength steel, known as “ASE Iron Flash” and either: C (A) having a base layer of zinc-based zinc-iron alloy applied by hot-dipping and a surface layer of iron-zinc alloy applied by electrolytic process, the weight of the coating and plating not over 40 percent by weight of zinc; or C (B) two-layer-coated corrosion-resistant steel with a coating composed of (a) a base coating layer of zinc-based zinc-iron alloy by hot-dip galvanizing process, and (b) a surface coating layer of iron-zinc alloy by electro-galvanizing process, having an effective amount of zinc up to 40 percent by weight, and (2) corrosion resistant continuously annealed flat-rolled products, continuous cast, the foregoing with chemical composition (percent by weight): carbon not over 0.06 percent by weight, manganese 0.20 or more but not over 0.40, phosphorus not over 0.02, sulfur not over 0.023, silicon not over 0.03, aluminum 0.03 or more but not over 0.08, arsenic not over 0.02, copper not over 0.08 and nitrogen 0.003 or more but not over 0.008; and meeting the characteristics described below: C (A) Products with one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a two-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer and a surface coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel, with total coating thickness for both layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; with scanning electron microscope (SEM) not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length; C (B) products having one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a four-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer; with an inner middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel, an outer middle surface coating layer of hard nickel and a topmost nickel- phosphorus-plated layer; with combined coating thickness for the four layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; with SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length; C (C) products having one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a three-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer, with a middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel and a surface coating layer of hard, luster-agent-added nickel which is not heat-treated; with combined coating thickness for all three layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA-microns) 0.18 or less; with SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length; or C (D) products having one side coated with a nickel-iron-diffused layer which is less than 1 micrometer in thickness and the other side coated with a three-layer coating composed of a base nickel-iron-diffused coating layer, with a middle coating layer of annealed and softened pure nickel and a surface coating layer of hard, pure nickel which is not heat-treated; with combined coating thickness for all three layers of more than 2 micrometers; surface roughness (RA- microns) 0.18 or less; SEM not revealing oxides greater than 1 micron; and inclusion groups or clusters shall not exceed 5 microns in length.13 14 See Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation, in Part: Certain Corrosion- Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan, 70 FR 2608 (January 14, 2005). E-9 Also excluded from the scope of this order is merchandise meeting the following specifications: (1) Base metal: Aluminum Killed, Continuous Cast, Carbon Steel SAE 1008, (2) Chemical composition: Carbon 0.08 percent max., Silicon 0.03 percent max., Manganese 0.40 percent max., Phosphorus 0.02 percent max., Sulfur 0.02 percent max., (3) Nominal thickness of 0.054 mm, (4) Thickness tolerance minimum 0.0513 mm, maximum 0.0567 mm, (5) Width of 600 mm or greater, and (7) Nickel plate min. 2.45 microns per side.14 Also excluded from the scope of this order are the following 24 separate corrosion-resistant carbon steel coil products meeting the following specifications: C product 1 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.625 mm to 1.655 mm in thickness and 19.3 mm to 19.7 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010) with a lining clad with an aluminum alloy containing by weight 10 percent or more but not more than 15 percent of tin, 1 percent or more but not more than 3 percent of lead, 0.7 percent or more but not more than 1.3 percent of copper, 1.8 percent or more but not more than 3.5 percent of silicon, 0.1 percent or more but not more than 0.7 percent of chromium and less than or equal to 1 percent of other materials, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 788 for bearing and bushing alloys. C product 2 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.955 mm to 0.985 mm in thickness and 8.6 mm to 9.0 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1012) clad with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that contains by weight 9 percent or more but not more than 11 percent of tin, 9 percent or more but not more than 11 percent of lead, less than 0.05 percent phosphorus, less than 0.35 percent iron and less than or equal to 1 percent other materials, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys, with the second layer containing by weight 13 percent or more but not more than 17 percent of carbon, 13 percent or more but not more than 17 percent of aromatic polyester, and the remainder (approx. 66-74 percent) of PTFE. C product 3 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.01 mm to 1.03 mm in thickness and 10.5 mm to 10.9 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that contains by weight 9 percent or more but not more than 11 percent of tin, 9 percent or more but not more than 11 percent of lead, less than 1 percent zinc and less than or equal to 1 percent other materials, and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys, with the second layer containing by weight 45 percent or more but not more than 55 percent of lead, 3 percent or more but not more than 5 percent of molybdenum disulfide, and the remainder made up of PTFE (approximately 38 percent to 52 percent) and less than 2 percent in the aggregate of other materials. C product 4 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.8 mm to 1.88 mm in thickness and 43.4 mm to 43.8 mm or 16.1 mm to 1.65 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010) clad with an aluminum alloy that contains by weight 19 percent to 20 percent tin, 1 percent to 1.2 percent copper, less than 0.3 percent silicon, 0.15 percent nickel and less than 1 percent in the aggregate other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 783 for bearing and bushing alloys. C product 5 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.95 mm to 0.98 mm in thickness and 19.95 mm to 20 mm in width, consisting of carbon steel coil (SAE 1010) with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of a copper-lead alloy powder that contains by weight 9 percent or more but not more than 11 percent of tin, 9 percent or more but not more than E-10 11 percent of lead, less than 1 percent of zinc and less than or equal to 1 percent in the aggregate of other materials and meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys, with the second layer consisting by weight of 45 percent or more but not more than 55 percent of lead, 3 percent or more but not more than 5 percent of molybdenum disulfide and with the remainder made up of PTFE (approximately 38 percent to 52 percent) and up to 2 percent in the aggregate of other materials. C product 6 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.96 mm to 0.98 mm in thickness and 18.75 mm to 18.95 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of copper-base alloy powder with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35, and other materials less than 1 percent; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of lead 33 to 37 percent, aromatic polyester 28 to 32 percent, and other materials less than 2 percent with a balance of PTFE. C product 7 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.21 mm to 1.25 mm in thickness and 19.4 mm to 19.6 mm in width; base of SAE 1012 steel with lining of copper base alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35 and other materials less than 1 percent; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys. C product 8 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.96 mm to 0.98 mm in thickness and 21.5 mm to 21.7 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of copper-base alloy powder with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05 percent, ferrous group less than 0.35 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of (percent by weight) lead 33 to 37, aromatic polyester 28 to 32 and other materials less than 2 with a balance of PTFE. C product 9 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.96 mm to 0.99 mm in thickness and 7.65 mm to 7.85 mm in width; base of SAE 1012 steel with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of copper-based alloy powder with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of (percent by weight) carbon 13 to 17 and aromatic polyester 13 to 17, with a balance of PTFE C product 10 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 0.955 mm to 0.985 mm in thickness and 13.6 mm to 14 mm in width; base of SAE 1012 steel with a two-layer lining, the first layer consisting of copper-based alloy powder with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 9 to 11, lead 9 to 11, phosphorus less than 0.05, ferrous group less than 0.35 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 797 for bearing and bushing alloys; the second layer consisting of (percent by weight) carbon 13 to 17, aromatic polyester 13 to 17, with a balance (approximately 66 to 74) of PTFE. C product 11 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.2 mm to 1.24 mm in thickness; 20 mm to 20.4 mm in width; consisting of carbon steel coils (SAE 1012) with a lining of sintered phosphorus bronze alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 5.5 to 7; phosphorus 0.03 to 0.35; lead less than 1 and other non- copper materials less than 1. C product 12 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.8 mm to 1.88 mm in thickness and 43.3 mm to 43.7 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a lining of aluminum based alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight: tin 10 to 15, lead 1 to 3, copper 0.7 to 1.3, silicon 1.8 to 3.5, chromium 0.1 to 0.7 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 788 for bearing and bushing alloys. C product 13 - Products described in industry usage as of carbon steel, measuring 1.8 mm to 1.88 mm in thickness and 24.2 mm to 24.6 mm in width; base of SAE 1010 steel with a lining of E-11 aluminum alloy with chemical composition (percent by weight): tin 10 to 15, lead 1 to 3, copper 0.7 to 1.3, silicon 1.8 to 3.5, chromium 0.1 to 0.7 and other materials less than 1; meeting the requirements of SAE standard 788 for bearing and bushing alloys. C product 14 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils, with thickness not less than 0.915 mm but not over 0.965 mm, width not less than 19.75 mm or more but not over 20.35 mm; with a two- layer coating; the first layer consisting of tin 9 to 11 percent, lead 9 to 11 percent, zinc less than 1 percent, other materials (other than copper) not over 1 percent and balance copper; the second layer consisting of lead 45 to 55 percent, molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) 3 to 5 percent, other materials not over 2 percent, balance PTFE. C product 15 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 0.915 mm or more but not over 0.965 mm; width not less than 18.65 mm or more but not over19.25 mm; with a two-layer coating; the first layer consisting of tin 9 to 11 percent, lead 9 to 11 percent, zinc less than 1 percent, other materials (other than copper) not over 1 percent, balance copper; the second layer consisting of lead 33 to 37 percent, aromatic polyester 13 to 17 percent, other materials other than PTFE less than 2 percent, balance PTFE. C product 16 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 0.920 mm or more but not over 0.970 mm; width not less than 21.35 mm or more but not over 21.95 mm; with a two-layer coating; the first layer consisting of tin 9 to 11 percent, lead 9 to 11 percent, zinc less than 1 percent, other materials (other than copper) not over 1 percent, balance copper; the second layer consisting of lead 33 to 37 percent, aromatic polyester 13 to 17 percent, other materials (other than PTFE) less than 2 percent, balance PTFE. C product 17 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 1.80 mm or more but not over 1.85 mm, width not less than 14.7 mm or more but not over 15.3 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.5 to 4.5 percent, lead 21.0 to 25.0 percent, zinc less than 3 percent, iron less than 0.35 percent, other materials (other than copper) less than 1 percent, balance copper. C product 18 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 14.5 mm or more but not over 15.1 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3 to 4.2 percent, lead 20 to 25 percent, iron 1.5 to 4.5 percent, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0 percent, other materials (other than copper) less than 1 percent, balance copper. C product 19 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness not less than 1.75 mm or more but not over 1.8 mm; width not less than 18.0 mm or more but not over 18.6 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3 to 4.2 percent, lead 20 to 25 percent, iron 1.5 to 4.5 percent, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0 percent, other materials (other than copper) less than 1 percent, balance copper. C product 20 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 13.6 mm or more but not over14.2 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3 to 4.2 percent, lead 20 to 25 percent, iron 1.5 to 4.5 percent, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0 percent, other materials (other than copper) less than 1 percent, with a balance copper. C product 21 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 11.5 mm or more but not over 12.1 mm; with a lining consisting of tin 2.3 to 4.2 percent, lead 20 to 25 percent, iron 1.5 to 4.5 percent, phosphorus 0.2 to 2.0 percent, other materials (other than copper) less than 1 percent, balance copper. C product 22 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 11.2 mm or more but not over 11.8 mm, with a lining consisting of copper 0.7 to 1.3 percent, tin 17.5 to 22.5 percent, silicon less than 0.3 percent, nickel less than 0.15 percent, other materials less than 1 percent, balance aluminum. C product 23 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.59 mm or more but not over 1.64 mm; width 7.2 mm or more but not over 7.8 mm; with a lining consisting of copper 0.7 to 1.3 percent, tin 17.5 to 22.5 percent, silicon less than 0.3 percent, nickel less than 0.15 percent, other materials (other than copper) less than 1 percent, balance copper. 15 See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation, In Part: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan, 70 FR 5137 (February 1, 2005). E-12 C product 24 - Flat-rolled coated SAE 1009 steel in coils with thickness 1.72 mm or more but not over 1.77 mm; width 7.7 mm or more but not over 8.3 mm; with a lining consisting of copper 0.7 to 1.3 percent, tin 17.5 to 22.5 percent, silicon less than 0.3 percent, nickel less than 0.15 percent, other materials (other than copper) less than 1 percent, balance copper. 15 F-1 APPENDIX F COMMENTS BY U.S. PRODUCERS, IMPORTERS, PURCHASERS, AND FOREIGN PRODUCERS REGARDING FLAT BAR AND OTHER FORMS OF CTL PLATE F-3 U.S. PRODUCERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE Characteristics and Uses *** “Used as stiffeners, base plates, joiners, liners, caps, and produced in a number of different yield, tensile, hardness, toughness physical characteristics and chemical characteristics for use in bridges, containers, trailers, buildings, equipment, etc.” *** “No differences are significant.” *** “Parts are machined directly from wide flat bar, but parts are made from plate by either: 1) plate could be cut into bars and then machined, or 2) plate could be plasma cut to a near part configuration, then machine finished.” *** “Wide bar flats are rolled on both the width and thickness dimensions. Cut-to-length plates are not; Cut-to-length plates are only rolled on the width dimension. Both products can have the same width and thickness with similar tolerances. Wide bar flats can be cold drawn, cut-to-length plates cannot. Cut-to-length plates can be machined by grinding and/or milling to make a product that can compete with a cold drawn bar made from wide bar flats.” *** “General characteristics are the same as compared to comparable CTL plate - end uses can be similar as well.” Interchangeability *** “Very interchangeable unless edge quality is critical. Driver/decider if all else is equal is generally price and availability.” *** “No differences are significant.” *** “In certain aerospace or high temperature applications, the preferred product would be wide flat bar. Otherwise, the products are readily interchangeable.” *** “Wide bar products can be used in all end applications, but cut-to-length plates cannot be cold drawn. However, cut-to-length plates can be machined, milled or ground, on all sides such that they can be sold in direct competition with cold drawn wide bar flats.” *** “Interchangeability is dependent on specific customer end uses.” F-4 Manufacturing Processes *** “Melting process essentially the same. Hot rolled to either exact width needed (bar mill) or rolled in wide plates, strip and slit or burned to required width.” *** “BOF-based has lower residuals than EAF-based; minor differences.” *** “Both products are usually hot rolled. Wide flat bar may be drawn after annealing to reduce machining costs and achieve higher hardness.” *** “Wide bar flats are produced with vertical and horizontal rolls to produce the width and thickness dimensions, or in a closed or box pass (all four dimensions are shaped) that controls the width and thickness dimensions. Cut-to-length plates are rolled with horizontal rolls and the width and length are burned or sheared to size. The skilled labor is similar, but the equipment designed is different. Both products are shaped in rolling mills; but the equipment is not interchangeable.” *** — Channels of Distribution *** “Same.” *** “No significant differences.” *** “Service centers or OEMs.” *** “Both wide bar flats and cut-to-length plate can be forged, rolled, welded and machined in many different end manufacturing and/or fabricating applications, however, cut-to-length plates cannot be cold drawn. Both products can and are sold directly to forgers, fabricators, ship building, railroad car building, heavy original equipment manufacturers, bridge builders, and service centers.” *** “Construction and agricultural are some of the possible end uses. Material is available mill direct or thru service centers.” Customer and Producer Perception *** “Edge quality is far better on bar mill rolled product. However, customer/producer will opt for best price/delivery unless edge quality critical.” F-5 *** “No significant differences.” *** “Unknown.” *** “Cut-to-length plates cannot be used for cold drawing of the width and thickness. Wide bar flats also have very narrow width and thickness tolerances along with superior straightness tolerances that cannot be maintained sustained with cut-to-length plate, however, machined plate can compete favorably with cold drawn bars made from wide bar flats.” *** “Based upon end use, we do not believe customers perceive a difference.” Price *** “None.” *** “No significant differences.” *** “Unknown.” *** “Wide bar flats can be up to $***/NT more expensive than cut-to-length plate that has not been further machined.” *** “Wide flat bar is normally sold at a discount to CTL plate.” IMPORTERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE Characteristics and Uses *** “Flats can be substituted in certain applications where plate would have to be cut to narrow widths (e.g., abrasion-resistant parts for mining equipment).” *** “Flats can be substituted in certain applications where plate would have to be cut to narrow width (e.g. abrasion-resistant parts for mining equipment).” *** “None of our business could use wide flat bar versus plate.” F-6 *** “General characteristics are the same as compared to a comparable CTL plate - end uses can be similar as well.” Interchangeability *** “Only for a limited range of applications, and then only if the price differential is significant (with flats underselling plates).” *** “Only for a limited range of applications.” *** “Not at all.” *** “Interchangeability is dependent on specific customer end use.” Channels of Distribution *** “Some plate distributors–not all of them–also carry flats.” *** “Some plate distributors–very few–also carry flats.” *** “We sell to plate burners and distribution customers. The distribution customers may also sell flat bar.” *** “Construction and agricultural are some of the possible end uses. Material is available mill direct or through service centers.” Customer and Producer Perception *** “Plate is generally preferred for quality.” *** “Plate is generally preferred for quality.” *** “No idea.” *** “Based upon end use, we do not believe customers perceive a difference.” F-7 Price *** “Flats are much cheaper.” *** “Flats are less expensive than plates.” *** “No idea - not active in flat bar.” *** “Wide flat bar is normally sold at a discount to CTL plate.” PURCHASERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE Characteristics and Uses *** -- *** “Characteristics are the same. Uses differ. CTL plate for us is a minimum 48" wide. Wide flat bar (U.M. Plate) maximum is 12" wide.” *** “Characteristics and uses are similar.” *** “Bars in some cases have better edges and flatter.” *** “ASTM standards.” *** “Metric dimensions. U.S. flat bar mills do not produce flat bar to metric dimensions.” *** “Wide flat bars are produced on a non-continuous bar mill and are rolled sequentially on all four faces. Wide flat bars are not similar to CTL plate but are a different product with different specifications and different end uses. Wide flat bars could never be interchanged with standard CTL plate. Wide flat bar have superior surface finish, dimensional precision, and precise and clean edges and corners produced by rolling on a bar mill rather than cutting from plate produced on a plate mill.” *** “Our wide flat bars are up to 12"wide - CTL plate is 48" min to 96" max.” *** “As far as I can determine your definition of CTL plate includes most wide flat bar sizes.” F-8 *** “Same physical characteristics, yield and tensile strength.” *** “General characteristics are the same as compared to comparable CTL plate - end uses can be similar as well.” Interchangeability *** “Customers prefer flat bar - don’t have to pay for cutting out of plate.” *** “None.” *** “CTL plate and wide flat bars are interchangeable and can be substituted for each other easily. Some applications cannot use the slit CTL plate in place of wide flat bar.” *** “Cannot always be interchanged.” *** “For us, it is not interchangeable due to cost inefficiency and quality issues.” *** “None.” *** “CTL plate cannot be interchanged with wide flat bar required for cold drawing.” *** — *** “Most uses very interchangeable.” *** “Depends upon application of use if rolling or extruding.” *** “Interchangeability is dependent on specific customer end use.” Channels of Distribution *** “Most would use it interchangeably.” F-9 *** “Do not know end use. CTL plate is bought from mills, importers, and coil processors who inventory the product. Wide flat bar is bought from U.S. mini mills. We sell both to our customers.” *** “Wide flats have a variety of end use primarily in construction (ex. base plates for columns, lintels, etc.). Wide flats are usually sold through wholesale distribution or metal service centers.” *** “Unknown.” *** “They are not interchangeable so this does not apply.” *** “The product becomes part of a ship.” *** “*** purchases wide flat bar for consumption in its processing facilities. All wide flat bar is processed into cold drawn bar.” *** “Same as for CTL plate.” *** — *** “Similar channels of distribution.” *** “Construction and agricultural are some of the possible end uses; material is available mill direct or through service centers.” Customer and Producer Perception *** “Most would use it interchangeably.” *** “For *** they are two distinct products and we sell both to our customers. CTL is up to ½" thick, min 48" wide. Wide flat bar can be 2" thick, maximum 12" wide.” *** “The only perceived difference between wide flat bars and CTL plate is the edge condition. Wide flat bars have a universal rolled mill edge. CTL plate must be slit to the customer’s width.” *** “Unknown.” F-10 *** “They are not interchangeable so this does not apply.” *** “None.” *** “Wide flat bar is used for cold drawing and is not compatible with CTL plate.” *** — *** “Customers assume price lower.” *** “Unknown.” *** “Based upon end use, we do not believe customers perceive a difference.” Price *** “UM plate tends to be cheaper because you don’t pay for cutting.” *** “*** sells U.M. plate and CTL plate to the same end user - fabricators and some manufacturers. The cost for ½ x 10 U.M. plate x 20 is $*** delivered. *** cost for ½ . 48 . 120 CTL plate is $*** delivered ***.” *** “Wide flats are produced by a number of bar mills in the US. As a result of the increased supply of wide flats in the US, they are more competitively priced. CTL plate prices are dependent on the current flat roll coil prices. Currently, there are fewer US producers (and no import) and consequently carry a higher price than wide flat bars.” *** “Unknown.” *** “Not interchangeable for us.” *** “Prices trend in a similar manner.” *** “Pricing for wide flat bar rolled on bar mill is priced considerable higher than CTL plate and would not be considered as a substitute.” F-11 *** — *** — *** “Pricing is similar on a per CWT basis.” *** “Wide flat bar is normally sold at a discount to CTL plate.” FOREIGN PRODUCERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE Characteristics and Uses *** “The wide flat bar *** produces is far more narrow than its CTL plate, which is produced in a range of 56 inches to 120 inches. (The maximum width of ***’s wide flat bar is 6 inches.) ***’s CTL plate product is also produced up to two inches thick, while the bar mill is limited to a thickness of 1 inch or less. Typically, ***’s wide flat bar production is utilized in applications such as leaf springs for the automotive industry or other commercial uses where a narrow flat product is required for mechanical or structural applications. In addition, any wide flat bar *** produces is strictly generic commercial grade product, while an overwhelming majority of *** CTL plate is more specialized. ***’s CTL plate product is used for a much wider range of applications for which wide flat bar is incapable of serving due to differences in dimension and grade.” *** “By definition, cut-to-length plate has edges and corners which have been damaged by a cutting operation (for example, by cold shearing or flame cutting) to cut the piece of steel down to a narrower size than its original wide plate form. This damage makes cut-to-length plate unsuitable for cold finishing or cold drawing. Wide flat bars can be rolled with round, radiused edges and corners, for use in the manufacture of off-highway wheels, whereas cut-to-length plate cannot. Similarly, wide flat bars can be rolled with chamfered or bevelled edges, on either one edge or both, for use in the manufacture of earthmover wearparts, whereas cut-to-length plate cannot.” Interchangeability *** “CTL plate and wide flat bar are not interchangeable. As stated above, most CTL plate applications are incapable of utilizing wide flat bar due to differences in dimension and grade. It would make no commercial sense to purchase CTL plate and further process that product for a wide flat bar application.” *** “In applications where the edge condition does not matter, e.g. structural fabrication, both wide flat bar and cut-to-length plate could be used. Where the edge condition is important, e.g. for cold finishing (cold drawing) cut-to-length plate is not suitable. Given the price premium charged by ***’s wide flat bar for cold finishing, its products would never be used for structural fabrication, where less expensive standard cut-to-length plate would suffice.” F-12 Manufacturing Processes *** “CTL plate and wide flat bar are produced on completely different rolling mills. Typically, a mill will also utilize a special caster for its bar mill. *** lacks this casting equipment. Any wide flat bar produced at the mill is made from slab scraps that are further processed so they will fit on the bar mill.” *** “Wide flat bars are rolled in bar mills which are always smaller than plate mills. Bar mills have a number of mill stands which sequentially roll the wide flat bars on all four faces. This enables very close control of thickness and width tolerances. Bars can be rolled with a variety of edge shapes - round, radiused, chamfered or bevelled. Plate is rolled in large plate mills, typically, but not always on a reversing mill. The rolling process is therefore geared to roll top and bottom surfaces predominantly, with minimal rolling of the edges. While there can be a reasonable control of thickness tolerance, the control of width tolerance is poor. Plate is typically produced in widths of 1500 mm or wider, and therefore has to be cut down by cold shearing, or flame cutting to provide customers with narrower sizes.” Channels of Distribution *** “The majority of ***’s CTL plate production is sold directly to end-users. ***’s flat bar production is sold almost exclusively to service centers in ***.” *** “Plate is typically produced in large volumes, and can be regarded to a great degree as a semi-finished product since it predominantly has to be cut down in width, and cut-to-length before being used. Because of this, most plate is mostly sold by its producers to stockholders or service centres who carry out this cutting, or distribute the plates to plate profiling companies. Because wide flat bars are produced in much smaller volumes, especially for industries such as cold finishing (cold drawing), they are much more often shipped directly to the final user of the steel.” Customer and Producer Perception *** “*** consider CTL plate and wide flat bar to be completely different products, as do ***’s customers.” *** “***’s experience is that: Cold finishing (cold drawing) customers cannot use the sharp and damaged corners that are a feature of cut-to-length plate. Many customers do not like the sharp corners that cut-to-length plate displays, and prefer instead the safer and smoother corners that are a fundamental feature of wide flat bars. There are very obvious F-13 health and safety hazards from sharp corners in situations where cut-to-length plate has to be manually handled, or where those edges are exposed in finished products. Fabricators making steel framed buildings prefer to saw cut square or rectangular base plates in bundles from wide flat bar, because it is more convenient than cutting them from plate by saw cutting. In other words, fabricators’ large and expensive plate profiling machines are much more profitably employed profiling larger and more complex profiles than simple square or rectangular ones which can more easily be cut from wide flat bars. Manufacturers of off highway wheels, who initially roll steel into hoops before welding, prefer the cross sectional symmetry inherent in wide flat bars. Cut-to-length plate often does not display that symmetry because it has, by definition, been cut down from a larger piece of plate, which can result in thickness variance across the width. Also, the sharp corners on cut-to-length plate damages tooling, and can ‘burr’ over in the manufacturing process, unlike when the smooth corners that wide flat bars have are used.” Price *** “Given the nature of ***’s production, the price of its wide flat bar is substantially lower than CTL plate prices.” *** “Wide flat bars that are sold for specialist applications such as for cold finishing (cold drawing), are always sold at a premium over equivalent cut-to-length plate products. This is because the cold finishing industry recognises the superior quality and properties of wide flat bars.” The following companies either did not respond, responded with an N/A, or responded by saying that they did not have the knowledge to answer the questions: Producers: ***. Importers: ***. Purchasers: ***. Foreign Producers: ***. Source: Compiled from Commission questionnaires. G-1 APPENDIX G COMMENTS BY U.S. PRODUCERS, IMPORTERS, AND PURCHASERS REGARDING CARBON AND MICRO-ALLOY STEEL CTL PLATE 1 The company noted that alloy products produced to AISI 4140 and 4340 are specified for use in applications requiring high hardenability characteristics such as the tool and die industry. G-3 U.S. PRODUCERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE Characteristics and Uses *** “Used in bridges, cranes, trailers, cold weather applications where charpy toughness values are critical, abrasive applications where hardness is critical, and any high strength application requiring high tensile loading.” *** “Micro-alloy steels generally have higher strength characteristics than run-of-the-mill grades. Some have special resistance to weathering elements. They are used for high strength applications in general.” *** “Micro-alloy steel (MAS) and cut-to-length plate (CTL) are both structural materials; however, MAS is used primarily in bridge fabrication. MAS has higher mechanical properties than CTL.” *** “When compared to carbon grade CTL plate, micro-alloy steel plates have higher strength and toughness characteristics. These attributes are specific to the grade of steel required by the end use customer, but are not discernible in the as-rolled condition of the plate. Only when the plates are metallurgically tested through either destructive or non-destructive methods are these differences apparent. The end use of these plates may be the same as for carbon plate applications. However, micro-alloy steels are usually priced higher than carbon grades due to the costs for the additional alloying elements. To achieve even greater strength and toughness characteristics, one would need to specify an alloy grade of CTL plate, which has significantly higher alloying elements than micro-alloy steels and is usually heat treated to provide additional characteristics such as formability and ductility. These products are typically priced higher than carbon and micro-alloy CTL plates due to the additional heat treat operations plus alloying and testing requirements involved.” *** “Following the definitions of micro-alloy steel pertaining to this review information, *** produces a few grades on a regular basis – A588, 4140, 4130. Grade A588 items are high strength low alloy items specified for use in atmospheric corrosion resistant applications such as steel bridge component parts.”1 *** “As defined (page 9 of instructions) micro-alloy steel is typically higher strength steel than carbon (A36) and HSLA (A572-50) steels, with elevated tensile strength, improved toughness and higher hardness. End uses are often for specific applications, such as; construction and earth-moving/mining equipment, rail cars, line pipe, poles and towers, armored vehicles, and machine parts and bridges.” *** “As we resell this product, grade is specified by our customers.” G-4 *** “Microalloy plate can have the same characteristics and end uses to comparable CTL plate.” *** “Flatness and thickness identical. Micro-alloy steel more weldable at a given strength level, and offers significantly higher strength levels. End uses: highway truck and trailer frames and components, crane booms, roll-over protective structures, air tanks.” *** “In most of the end uses described in response to Question IV-B-II, carbon and micro-alloy plate would be interchangeable unless the customer specification restricted certain alloys for improved weldability.” Interchangeability *** “Very interchangeable unless edge quality is critical. Driver/decider if all else is equal is generally price and availability. Also, torchcut can be a negative due to the potential of heat affected zone (HAZ) where original physical properties are lost.” *** “M-A steels are interchangeable with ordinary steels although they generally command a higher price and would not be used when a less expensive “garden variety” steel would suffice. The opposite is not true however. Lower strength steels will not be placed in high strength applications. M-A steels are good substitutes where strength is required along with less weight.” *** “Both products can be used in structural applications; MAS can be a substitute for CTL, but not necessarily the reverse.” *** “Micro-alloy steels may be interchanged with regular carbon grades. However, in addition to the cost issue discussed above, micro-alloy steels provide a weight savings advantage due to the gage reduction realized from the increased strength levels achieved from the alloy additions.” *** “Grade A588 can be used in high strength low alloy applications not requiring atmospheric corrosion resistance characteristics.” *** “Micro-alloy steel is typically not interchangeable with carbon steel due to the higher strength exceeding design criteria and higher cost exceeding budget criteria.” *** “As we resell this product, grade is specified by our customers.” *** “Interchangeability is dependent on specific end use.” G-5 *** “Thinner micro-alloy steel can be substituted for other cut-to-length plate with no loss of strength, but micro-alloy is preferred.” *** “In most of the end uses described in response to Question IV-B-II, carbon and micro-alloy plate would be interchangeable unless the customer specification restricted certain alloys for improved weldability.” Manufacturing Processes *** “Melting process essentially the same. Hot rolled to either exact width needed (bar mill) or rolled in wide plates, strip and slit or burned to required width. Heat treating is required for many applications but is the same on wide flats and CTL plate.” *** “Manufacturing processes are the same, but larger amounts of alloying elements are used in MAS. MAS plate may also have some type of heat treatment.” *** “Micro-alloy steels are produced on the same equipment utilizing the same labor force as carbon and alloy grades. The difference between the grades is achieved in the steelmaking process or melt practice The micro-alloy and alloy grades employ higher chemical and alloy additions at the steel making process than are utilized in the production of standard carbon grades of steel. Additionally, varying refining, rolling, and heat treating methods are employed for micro-alloy and alloy plates versus carbon grades.” *** “*** uses the same production practices and manufacturing processes for all grades produced.” *** “Micro-alloy steel is often control-temperature rolled (TMCP) or heat treated to achieve properties.” *** “Some additional testing is required of micro-alloy product to confirm mechanical properties.” *** — *** “Our vendors control via melting and rolling practice, but at our facility, Micro-Alloy is more difficult to level.” *** “Carbon and micro-alloy plate are made on the same equipment and with the same employees.” Channels of Distribution *** “Same.” G-6 *** “Same.” *** “Both products are sold to fabricators and service centers.” *** “The carbon, micro-alloy, and alloy plate grades are marketed and sold through the same distribution channels.” *** “Steel service centers, steel bridge and other steel fabricators.” *** “Micro-alloy steel is sold to both OEM's (end users) and to steel distributors.” *** “No difference.” *** “Material is used where corrosion resistance, internal soundness and/or mechanical properties are important criteria.” *** “OEM as shown in (a).” *** “Carbon and micro-alloy plate are sold in the same channels of distribution.” Customer and Producer Perception *** “Edge quality is far better on bar mill rolled product. However, customer/producer will opt for best price/delivery unless edge quality critical.” *** — *** “MAS is considered to be a higher quality product than CTL. There is no difference in sales and marketing practices.” *** “Typically, it is at the discretion of the customer to specify the grade of steel they require for an end use application. Customers generally know to order a higher strength grade based upon the application.” *** “Micro-alloy steel items produced by *** are marketed the same way as all other products.” G-7 *** “Micro-alloy steels are often specified for specific end use applications with properties tailored to design criteria - whereas carbon steal is used in more generic applications. Also, direct engineering contacts between the producer and end user is common.” *** “Grade extras for micro-alloy product are passed on to the customers.” *** “We do not believe there is a perceived difference in comparable grades.” *** “OEM as shown in (a).” *** “Customers and producers see no differences in carbon and micro-alloy plate that is made for the same application.” Price *** “None.” *** “M-A steels command a premium.” *** “MAS usually carries an extra of *** per cwt over CTL. Heat treatment and special requirements (CVN, UT, etc.) are extra and can run *** per cwt.” *** “Certain premiums are charged for micro-alloy and alloy plates versus carbon plates due to the manufacturing process and alloy additions or richer chemistries. These grades are recognized as higher value products in the marketplace. However, at times, some competitors may moderate the premium charged in order to secure an attractive segment of business or to fill their mills.” *** “Base prices for the few micro-alloy grades produced by *** are generally $*** to $*** per ton higher than base prices for basic CTL plate items.” *** “Depending on the strength level and processing required (heat treating for example) micro-alloy steels can demand a price *** higher than carbon (A36) steel.” *** “Similar by grade.” *** “Net price is more expensive, but features make it a viable competitive option.” G-8 *** “The price of plate is based on the gauge range and any extras regardless of whether the plate in question is carbon or micro-alloy.” IMPORTERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE Characteristics and Uses *** “Load bearing high strength applications.” *** “Micro-alloys are used for more demanding applications requiring, for example, higher wear resistance, strength or tensile properties, with less weight.” *** “Micro-alloys are used for more demanding applications requiring, for example, greater wear resistance, strength or tensile properties, with less weight.” *** “Micro-alloy steels generally have higher strength characteristics than run-of-the-mill grades. Some have special resistance to weathering elements. They are used for high strength applications in general.” *** “Alloy plate is used for armor, abrasion resistant, wear sensitive and high strength. Carbon plate is used for weight, area coverage and some critical parts.” *** “Micro-alloy steel has higher strength.” *** “Not comparable.” *** “As we resell this product, grade is specified by our customers.” *** “Microalloy plate can have the same characteristics and end uses to comparable CTL plate.” Interchangeability *** — *** “Micro-alloys can be downgraded, although price differentials generally make this unappealing. Carbon generally cannot be used for micro-alloy applications.” G-9 *** “Micro-alloys can be downgraded, although price differentials generally make this unappealing. Generally carbon cannot be substituted for micro-alloy applications.” *** “M-A steels are interchangeable with ordinary steels although they generally command a higher price and would not be used when a less expensive “garden variety” steel would suffice. The opposite is not true however. Lower strength steels will not be placed in high strength applications. M-A steels are good substitutes where strength is required along with less weight.” *** “In my view they are not interchangeable.” *** “End usages do not differ, but microalloy is used for more higher quality material.” *** “Not comparable.” *** “As we resell this product, grade is specified by our customers.” *** “Interchangeability is dependent on specific end use.” Channels of Distribution *** “Resale, OEM, heavy equipment manufacturers.” *** “Micro-alloys are usually purchased by OEMs or for specific jobs. Carbon is typically purchased in standard grades for inventory.” *** “Micro-alloys are usually purchased by OEMs or for specific jobs. Carbon is typically purchased in standard grades for inventory.” *** “Same.” *** “Same.” *** — *** “Not comparable.” G-10 *** “Same for all products.” *** “Material is used where corrosion resistance, internal soundness and/or mechanical properties are important criteria.” Customer and Producer Perception *** “Greater longevity, wear resistance, and strength.” *** “Micro-alloys are perceived as suitable for demanding applications. Micro-alloys are perceived as significantly more expensive.” *** “Micro-alloys are perceived as suitable for demanding applications. Micro-alloys are perceived as significantly more expensive.” *** — *** “Alloy plates are much more expensive.” *** “If in need of high quality material, some customers require microalloy.” *** “Not comparable.” *** “No differences.” *** “We do not believe there is a perceived difference in comparable grades.” Price *** “Varies. Micro-alloy steel ***% greater.” *** “Micro-alloys are significantly more expensive.” *** “Micro-alloys are significantly more expensive.” G-11 *** “M-A steels command a premium.” *** “In some grades alloys can be $*** a ton more expensive.” *** — *** “Not comparable.” *** “Grade extras for micro-alloy products are passed on to the customers.” *** “Similar by grade.” PURCHASERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE Characteristics and Uses *** “Using the definition of micro-alloy CTL plate to include Q&T (heat treated alloy) CTL plate, the differences include: higher alloy content and higher strength. This steel is used for welded structural components requiring a higher strength than that of carbon steels. They are also used for abrasion resistant parts, such as dump truck bodies, and tractor blades and buckets.” *** “Customers have different welding and fabricating practices.” *** “Higher strength and formability.” *** “Microalloy plate can have the same characteristics and end uses to comparable CTL plate.” Interchangeability *** “Typically, carbon steel plate and micro-alloy (including Q&T) plate are not interchangeable due to the chemistry and strength differences.” *** “This is at the discretion of the customer.” *** “Not interchangeable due to customer needs (requirements).” G-12 *** “Interchangeability is dependent on specific end use.” Channels of Distribution *** “Product is purchased directly for manufacture of parts used for tractors and for parts sales.” *** “End use is in general fabrication and O.E.M. work. Distribution through normal service channels.” *** — *** “Material is used where corrosion resistance, internal soundness and/or mechanical properties are important criteria.” Customer and Producer Perception *** “New high strength (non heat treated) steels are starting to compete with traditional alloy Q&T steel plate. However, Q&T alloy plate does not usually compete with carbon plate.” *** “None.” *** “Actual product and price differences due to nature of product.” *** “We do not believe there is a perceived difference in comparable grades.” Price *** “The price of the alloy and Q&T plate is higher than carbon CTL plate due to the richer chemistries and extra processing in the case of Q&T plate.” *** “Normally extracts premium over other carbon grades.” *** — *** “Similar by grade.” G-13 The following companies either did not respond, responded with an N/A, or responded by saying that they did not have the knowledge to answer the questions: Producers: ***. Importers: ***. Purchasers: ***. Source: Compiled from Commission questionnaires. H-1 APPENDIX H COMMENTS BY U.S. PRODUCERS, IMPORTERS, AND PURCHASERS REGARDING CARBON AND MICRO-ALLOY CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL H-3 U.S. PRODUCERS OF CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL Characteristics and Uses *** “In most of the end uses described in our response to Question IV-V-11, carbon and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant would be interchangeable unless the customer spec restricted certain alloys for improved formability.” Interchangeability *** “In most of the end users described in our response to Question IV-V-11, carbon and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant would be interchangeable unless the customer spec restricted certain alloys for improved formability.” Manufacturing Processes *** “Carbon and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant are made on the same equipment and with the same employees.” Channels of Distribution *** “Carbon and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant are sold in the same channels of distribution.” Customer and Producer Perception *** “Customers and producers see no differences in carbon and micro-alloy corrosion-resistant that is made for the same applications.” Price *** “The price of corrosion-resistant is based on the gauge range, coating weights and any extras whether the corrosion-resistant in question is carbon or micro-alloy.” H-4 IMPORTERS OF CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL Characteristics and Uses *** “Microalloy (IFS titanium bearing) steels are used for deep drawing applications such as heat shields, baking pans, etc.” *** “In order to meet increasing requirements for both crash safety and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) regulations in the automotive industry, corrosion-resistant steel producers have developed grades of steels with higher strength and/or better formability. These steels allow automakers to design parts with more intricate shapes, or parts with higher component strength at lighter thicknesses. The development of these new grades has generated a significant increase in the use of these corrosion-resistant steels by the automakers, which in turn drives more development of steels with higher and better combinations of strength and formability. Steels designed in response to the auto industry include Interstitial Free (IF grades like Extra Deep Drawing Steel (EDDS), Enhanced Extra Deep Drawing Steel (EEDDS) and Bake Hardenable (BH), High Strength Low Alloy (HSLA) grades, and Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS) like Dual Phase (DP). Additionally, corrosion resistance has become increasingly important as warranties against perforation corrosion have increased to 10 - 12 years on automotive body panels. The most formable grades of steel are generally called “interstitial free”, or IF grades. On an atomic scale, interstitials are spaces where small atoms like carbon and nitrogen can squeeze in between regularly spaced larger iron atoms. Interstitial elements make the final steel product harder and much less formable. Thus “interstitial free” steels are steels that do not have elements such as carbon and nitrogen in the interstitial sites. Trace amounts of carbon and nitrogen will always exist in commercially produced steel as it would be prohibitively expensive to remove 100% of these elements in liquid steel prior to solidification. Fortunately, carbon and nitrogen atoms can be prevented from going to those interstitial sites by tying them up with alloying elements such as titanium (Ti) or columbium (Cb, also known as niobium, Nb), or less often, vanadium (V). The levels of these alloying elements are carefully controlled to be certain to tie up (“precipitate”) all potential interstitial elements. Excessive amounts of alloying elements harden the steel, making it less formable. IF grades of steel are generally used on deeply drawn outer body panels (e.g. body sides), or inner panels that have a high degree of forming required (e.g. floor pans or dash panels). Many of these parts are extremely large with demanding formability requirements, making the control of alloy elements critical. Development of this type of steel with improved formability has allowed automotive companies to produce larger panels - for instance, in the past they may have required three separate pieces to produce the front floor pan whereas now most front floor pans can be produced from a single sheet of highly formable IF steel. This, in turn, has driven a significant growth in the use of this type of steel grade. “Bake hardenable” (BH) is a particularly specialized form of IF steel that has been developed for auto body panels requiring good formability during manufacture, yet good dent/ding resistance while in service (e.g. outer doors, fenders) - that is, the steel is almost as formable as, but harder than, regular IF steels. BH steel has almost all of the carbon and nitrogen tied up with Ti or Cb alloying elements. Thus the steel is very formable. However a small, controlled amount of carbon and nitrogen is not tied up with Ti or Cb so that when the formed door is painted then baked to cure and harden the paint, the remaining unalloyed C and N settle in interstitial sites and harden the steel. These steels have such a good H-5 combination of improved formability and finished strength that their use is expanding to underbody applications. Advanced High Strength Steels, or AHSS grades, are now being developed to meet increasing needs for higher strength and formability at lighter thicknesses. Because of their unique work hardening characteristics, these grades of steel are being used for structural and safety components where crash management protects occupants. Dual phase steels are one particular type of AHSS where, due to a combination of alloying elements and specialized processing, the steel is comprised of two different phases allowing a combination of toughness and formability. Because Dual phase steels are difficult to produce and complex to use, they have been developed by only a few specialized, high quality mills and specified for use only on vehicles developed in North America in the past few years. Design engineers for *** specifically targeted the use of this type of steel to introduce a vehicle with the highest North American percentage of advanced high strength steels for advanced crash management and occupant safety. The use of this type of steel for structural parts will continue to grow as more mills develop the capability to produce it. Changing patterns in the use of steel will continue in the automotive industry as government safety regulations increase, as CAFE requirements increase, as gas prices increase, and as the steel supply industry itself develops new more formable grades of steel. Subject corrosion resistant steel are used for many uses in the automotive and construction market segments. Substantial shipments are made through service centers to end users as well. Service centers perform several functions - holding inventory for small and large manufacturers for JIT delivery, selling steel to smaller buyers that do not consume enough steel to qualify as mill accounts, and specialized finishing that they are generally able to do more economically than mills.” *** “Micro alloys may affect the formability of the steel as it pertains to a certain specific end use such as pipe formation. It also can affect the weldability.” *** “Microalloy is used as a substitute for carbon steel to gain improved properties. Microalloy steels have higher strength, finer grain, improved surface appearance, improved fracture properties, which allow for weight reductions, better formability, better weldability, and better structural integrity.” *** “Characteristics – Excellent heat resistance, formability weldability. Usage – Exhaust system, heat exchanger.” *** “It might be necessary to micro-alloy in order to achieve higher strength levels than normally available in ‘other corrosion resistant steel.'” *** “Alloy steel is used in more demanding applications where carbon grades cannot yield the necessary results for the manufacturing of the finished project.” H-6 *** “Alloy grades of corrosion resistant steel provide more suitable properties for robust and continuous stamping performance. Customer specifications are considered guidelines, as in the end the supplier has to guarantee the performance. To meet the stringent requirements both in terms of quality but also in terms of stamping productivity alloy grades are often used for complex deep drawn or stretched formed parts.” *** “Micro alloy steel contains alloying elements which improve the performance of the steel.” *** “*** has not purchased any micro-alloyed steel that we are aware of. This material is generally intended for high strength and highly formability applications.” Interchangeability *** “Microalloys can be substituted for carbon steels in limited cases, for specific applications and markets. However, carbon steel can rarely if ever be substituted for microalloys.” *** “The automotive companies design the parts based on the knowledge of how the steel will form. Dies are designed to stamp the parts based on how the steel will form, and these dies are usually “tuned” to the steel of the company that worked on the part from the Early Vendor Involvement (EVI) stage. As a result of this process, alloy and subject corrosion resistant steels cannot be interchanged one with the other.” *** “Depending on the final end use, the materials may be interchangeable.” *** “Microalloy and carbon steels are generally interchangeable with allowances for weight and strength.” *** “We don't have any idea because we supply this product by requests of the customer.” *** “The end-uses might be similar but a customer would not specify a higher strength level than needed since it would cost more.” *** “None that we are aware of.” *** “With the very different end uses in sheet steel for automotive production, from high formability to very high strength applications, products are not considered interchangeable.” *** “Other corrosion resistant steels and micro alloy steels are not interchangeable.” H-7 *** “We understand that micro-alloyed steel can be used for simpler applications that do not necessarily require the micro-alloying.” Channels of Distribution *** “Same as for corrosion resistant.” *** “Alloy steels are sold almost exclusively to the automotive industry. Subject corrosion resistant steel also are sold directly to the automotive industry. For the construction market segment, subject corrosion resistant steel can be sold directly to the end user or through service centers.” *** “Mainly steel service centers. Some end users/OEM's.” *** “The channels of distribution are generally the same for both carbon and microalloy steels.” *** “This product has not that specific channels of distribution. The volume of the sales is quite small compared to other CORE.” *** “The channels of distribution are usually the same: either direct to an end-user or to a service centre for eventual shipment to an end-user or a construction company.” *** “Alloy material is normally more end-use specific and requires a close cooperation between the mill and the end user even if the product is distributed and processed by a third party. Normal carbon grades for general warehouse and distribution used in construction and less demanding applications would require minimal technical support and would be interchangeable between most producers.” *** “In view of the very complex applications and demanding production performance, a very close working relationship between the producer and the end user is a necessity, and technical transparency is maintained should on occasion a third party participate in processing. The material supply to the automotive customer is always done with the supervision and oversight of the mills representatives or their designates.” *** “End-users, mainly automotive.” *** “We believe such to be the same.” H-8 Customer and Producer Perception *** “Microalloy steels are much more formable, with better yields, but are more difficult and expensive to produce. Microalloys are therefore priced higher than carbon steels.” *** “Alloy steels are sold almost exclusively to the automotive industry. Subject corrosion resistant steel also are sold directly to the automotive industry. For the construction market segment, subject corrosion resistant steel can be sold directly to the end user or through service centers.” *** “Customers perceive specific micro alloy contents will produce a better product. Or, engineers may have specified certain chemistries.” *** “Microalloy steels are preferred by some customers for some applications.” *** “We supply “Mill Test Certificate” showing every contents of chemical compositions.” *** “Micro-alloy steel is more costly and used in more specialized applications.” *** “Alloy material is normally more end-use specific and requires a close cooperation between the mill and the end user even if the product is distributed and processed by a third party. Normal carbon grades for general warehouse and distribution used in construction and less demanding applications would require minimal technical support and would be interchangeable between most producers.” *** “As described in answer (c) above, this is a highly specialized business environment and each application needs to be viewed independently and is perceived by both parties accordingly.” *** “Due to high alloy elements, higher production costs and higher prices.” *** “Micro-alloyed steel is of higher quality.” Price *** “Prices for these products are market-driven.” *** “Pricing is generally higher for alloy steel. For example, two very similar *** items, one subject goods, and one alloy sell for $***/nt and $***/nt, respectively.” H-9 *** “Price extras depend upon customers' specific micro alloying requirements.” *** “Prices of microalloy steels are generally slightly higher than for carbon steels.” *** “The market for the product is not that fluctuate compared to other CORE products because the supply and demand is very limited.” *** “The price of micro-alloy steel is higher than ‘corrosion resistant steel.’ ” *** “Alloy grades by the specific end use would fluctuate less over a period of time since those grades tend to be contracted firm for a specific quantity or for a specific time frame and over time would provide for higher returns. Carbon grades which may be readily interchangeable by producers and have broader availability tend to follow a commodity pricing pattern with frequent price changes.” *** “Price is individually formulated as to the specific end use and parts, as well as the cost of production taking into account the customer's ultimate requirements in quality and productivity.” *** “Due to high alloy elements, higher production costs and higher prices.” *** “Micro-alloyed steel costs more.” PURCHASERS OF CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL Characteristics and Uses *** “Physical characteristics are the same, but uses are concentrated into critical structural application.” *** “Yield, tensile and carbon are higher and aluminum or titanium content is lower than other products.” *** “Microalloys corrosion resistant steels have higher portions of columbium, titanium and chromium to stabilize the steel and make it more formable than corrosion resistant steel.” *** “Current purchases of sheet steel are not specified as Microalloy by the *** used in stampings. In the process of making some grades alloys are used to stabilize the chemistry to make a steel that is easier to form and produce parts. Alloys in the amounts specified by the Microalloy definition in the instructions to this questionnaire are mainly used for certain higher strength grades to create a more formable corrosion resistant material.” H-10 *** “We do not know about physical characteristics other than descriptions. End usage = Fireplace, Burner, Muffler, etc.” *** “Alloyed corrosion resistant steel is superior to carbon steel for severe end users.” Interchangeability *** “No interchangeability.” *** “Microalloy material is used mainly for structural automotive end use applications. Material is specified by end user.” *** “None.” *** “Sheet steel for vehicles is designed by specific grades and not by the chemistry makeup. Mills determine the chemistry to meet the physical properties specified by ***.” *** “Not really interchangeable. For example, Galvanized/Galvalume products are utilized in panel/HVAC ducts where aluminizeds are used in fireplace, burner, cookware, etc.” *** “Not.” Channels of Distribution *** “Channels of distribution are the same.” *** “Automotive end use and market.” *** — *** “Direct purchases from major mill supply sources.” *** “We sold to tubing manufacturer and service centers.” *** “Automotive.” H-11 Customer and Producer Perception *** “Microalloy corrosion-resistant carbon steels are seen as a value add product.” *** “None.” *** “Not perceptible by our customers.” *** “None.” *** “None.” *** — Price *** “In general the prices for microalloy corrosion-resistant carbon steels are higher.” *** “Microalloy steel pricing is higher than some product and lower than some product.” *** “Requires a longer process to make and value added increases price ***%.” *** “Pricing is negotiated for each grade and currently this type material would be furnished by the steel supplier only when necessary to meet specifications.” *** “Generally prices are comparable to those carbon corrosion resistant flat products.” *** — H-12 The following companies either did not respond, responded with an N/A, or responded by saying that they did not have the knowledge to answer the questions: Producers: ***. Importers: ***. Purchasers: ***. Source: Compiled from Commission questionnaires. I-1 APPENDIX I COMMENTS BY U.S. PRODUCERS, IMPORTERS, PURCHASERS, AND FOREIGN PRODUCERS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS ON CTL PLATE AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION I-3 U.S. PRODUCERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE II-4. Would your firm anticipate any changes in the character of your operations or organization (as noted above) relating to the production of cut-to-length plate in the future if the countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders on cut-to-length plate from the subject countries were to be revoked? If your response differs for any country, please indicate. * * * * * * * II-17. Describe the significance of the existing countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders covering imports of cut-to-length plate from subject countries in terms of its effect on your firm's production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, and asset values. You may wish to compare your firm's operations before and after the imposition of the order. Please indicate it your response differs by country. * * * * * * * II-18. Would your firm anticipate any changes in its production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, or asset values relating to the production of cut-to-length plate in the future if the countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders on cut-to-length plate from subject countries were to be revoked? Please indicate it your response differs by country. * * * * * * * U.S. IMPORTERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE II-4. Would your firm anticipate any changes in the character of your operations or organization (as noted above) relating to the importation of cut-to-length plate in the future if the countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders on cut-to-length plate from the subject countries were to be revoked? If your response differs for any country, please indicate. * * * * * * * II-14. Describe the significance of the existing countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders covering imports of cut-to-length plate from subject countries in terms of its effect on your firm's imports, U.S. shipments of imports, and inventories. You may wish to compare your firm's operations before and after the imposition of the order. * * * * * * * II-15. Would your firm anticipate any changes in its imports, U.S. shipments of imports, or inventories of cut-to-length plate in the future if the countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders on cut-to-length plate from the subject countries were to be revoked? * * * * * * * I-4 U.S. PURCHASERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE The Commission requested U.S. purchasers to describe any potential effects on (1) the future activities of your firm and (2) the U.S. market as a whole if the antidumping/countervailing duty orders covering imports of CTL plate from Belgium, Brazil, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom were revoked. (Question III-35). The following are quotations from the responses of purchasers. * * * * * * * FOREIGN PRODUCERS OF CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE II-3. Would your firm anticipate any changes in the character of your operations or organization (as noted above) relating to the production of cut-to-length plate in the future if the countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders on cut-to-length plate from subject countries were to be revoked? * * * * * * * II-15. Describe the significance of the existing countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders covering imports of cut-to-length plate from the subject countries in terms of their effect on your firm's production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other markets, and inventories. You may wish to compare your firm's operations before and after the imposition of the order. * * * * * * * II-16. Would your firm anticipate any changes in its production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other markets, or inventories relating to the production of cut-to-length in the future if the countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders on cut-to-length plate from the subject countries were to be revoked? * * * * * * * J-1 APPENDIX J COMMENTS BY U.S. PRODUCERS, IMPORTERS, PURCHASERS, AND FOREIGN PRODUCERS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE ORDERS ON CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION J-3 U.S. PRODUCERS OF CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL II-4. Would your firm anticipate any changes in the character of your operations or organization (as noted above) relating to the production of corrosion-resistant steel in the future if the countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from the subject countries were to be revoked? * * * * * * * II-18. Describe the significance of the existing countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders covering imports of corrosion-resistant steel from subject countries in terms of its effect on your firm's production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, and asset values. You may wish to compare your firm's operations before and after the imposition of the order. Please indicate if your response differs by country. * * * * * * * II-19. Would your firm anticipate any changes in its production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, or asset values relating to the production of corrosion-resistant steel in the future if the countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from subject countries were to be revoked? Please indicate if your response differs by country. * * * * * * * IMPORTERS OF CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL II-4. Would your firm anticipate any changes in the character of your operations or organization (as noted above) relating to the production of corrosion-resistant steel in the future if the countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from the subject countries were to be revoked? * * * * * * * II-13. Describe the significance of the existing countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders covering imports of corrosion-resistant steel from subject countries in terms of its effect on your firm's imports, U.S. shipments of imports, and inventories. You may wish to compare your firm's operations before and after the imposition of the orders. * * * * * * * II-14. Would your firm anticipate any changes in its imports, U.S. shipments of imports, or inventories of corrosion-resistant steel in the future if the countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from the subject countries were to be revoked? * * * * * * * J-4 U.S. PURCHASERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION The Commission requested U.S. purchasers to describe any potential effects on (1) the future activities of your firm and (2) the U.S. market as a whole if the antidumping/countervailing duty orders covering imports of corrosion-resistant steel from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Korea were revoked. (Question III-35). The following are quotations from the responses of purchasers. * * * * * * * FOREIGN PRODUCERS OF CORROSION-RESISTANT STEEL II-3. Would your firm anticipate any changes in the character of your operations or organization (as noted above) relating to the production of corrosion-resistant steel in the future if the countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from the subject countries were to be revoked? * * * * * * * II-15. Describe the significance of the existing countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders covering imports of corrosion-resistant steel from the subject countries in terms of their effect on your firm's production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other markets, and inventories. You may wish to compare your firm's operations before and after the imposition of the order. * * * * * * * II-16. Would your firm anticipate any changes in its production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other markets, or inventories relating to the production of corrosion-resistant steel in the future if the countervailing duty and/or antidumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel from the subject countries were to be revoked? * * * * * * * K-1 APPENDIX K ADDITIONAL PURCHASING FACTOR COMPARISONS K-3 Table K-1 Corrosion-resistant steel: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported by purchasers Factor U.S. vs nonsubject1 U.S. vs all others/all foreign2 S C I S C I Number of firms responding Availability 3 5 0 1 2 1 Contract with supplier 3 5 0 0 4 0 Delivery terms 5 3 0 0 4 0 Delivery time 5 3 0 2 2 0 Discounts offered 1 7 0 0 3 0 Extension of credit 2 6 0 1 2 0 Finish/appearance 2 5 1 0 4 0 Minimum quantity requirements 2 6 0 1 3 0 Packaging 1 6 1 0 4 0 Price3 1 2 5 0 2 1 Product consistency 3 4 1 0 4 0 Product range 2 6 0 1 3 0 Proximity of supplier 7 1 0 4 0 0 Qualification for certain applications 2 5 1 1 3 0 Quality meets industry standards 1 7 0 0 3 0 Quality exceeds industry standards 3 5 0 0 3 0 Reliability of supply 4 4 0 1 3 0 Technical support/service 5 2 1 1 3 0 Traditional supplier 4 4 0 1 3 0 U.S. transportation costs3 6 1 1 0 3 0 1 Eight purchasers responded to the question by comparing the U.S. product with product from a nonsubject country; the countries include Brazil, China, India, Italy, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. 2 Four purchasers responded to the question by comparing the U.S. product with “all others” or “all foreign,” without specifying subject or nonsubject countries. 3 A rating of “S” on price and U.S. transportation costs indicates that this country has lower prices/costs than the other country. Note.--S=first-listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first-listed country’s product is inferior. Note.--Not all purchasers responded for every factor. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. K-4 Table K-2 CTL plate: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported by purchasers1 Factor U.S. vs all others/all foreign S C I Number of firms responding Availability 3 1 1 Contract with supplier 2 3 0 Delivery terms 2 3 0 Delivery time 4 1 0 Discounts offered 0 4 1 Extension of credit 1 3 1 Finish/appearance 2 2 0 Minimum quantity requirements 2 2 1 Packaging 1 4 0 Price2 0 0 5 Product consistency 1 4 0 Product range 3 2 0 Proximity of supplier 5 0 0 Qualification for certain applications 1 4 0 Quality meets industry standards 0 5 0 Quality exceeds industry standards 1 4 0 Reliability of supply 3 1 1 Technical support/service 4 1 0 Traditional supplier 3 2 0 U.S. transportation costs2 4 1 0 1 Five purchasers responded to the question by comparing the U.S. product with “all others” or “all foreign,” without specifying subject or nonsubject countries. 2 A rating of “S” on price and U.S. transportation costs indicates that this country has lower prices/costs than the other country. Note.--S=first-listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first-listed country’s product is inferior. Note.--Not all purchasers responded for every factor. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
Active order issued from this investigation
Investigation 1921-TA-197 is a U.S. International Trade Commission antidumping (AD) proceeding on Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. AA1921-197, 701-TA-319-320, 325-328, 348-350; and 731-TA-573, 574, 576, 578, 582-587, 612 and 614-618 (Second Review) from Sweden, Belgium, United Kingdom, Poland, Brazil, Canada, Taiwan, Mexico, Finland, Germany, Romania, Australia, Spain, South Korea, Japan, France. The ITC determines whether U.S. industry is materially injured (or threatened) by imports under investigation; Commerce determines whether dumping or subsidization is occurring. Both findings are required for an AD/CVD order to be issued.
1921-TA-197 is in the review phase, with status completed. Review phase — typically a sunset review (every 5 years) to determine whether revoking the order would lead to recurrence of dumping/injury. Affirmative findings keep the order in force; negative findings revoke it.
Yes — investigation 1921-TA-197 resulted in AD/CVD case A-122-822. The linked order page on this catalog has the active deposit rate, scope text, and Federal Register citation.
The USITC publishes investigation determinations and milestones on its Investigations Data Service (IDS) at ids.usitc.gov. Tandom's catalog re-syncs from IDS daily; new phases, votes, and determinations appear here within 24 hours of USITC publication.
Tandom guides relevant to AD/CVD investigations
Where trade compliance APIs fit in a broker's filing pipeline: HTS classification, duty calculation, AD/CVD scope match, and post-summary corrections.
Open resource
Cash deposit cascade, separate rates, all-others, and PRC-wide rates. Worked example on case A-570-910 (galvanized welded steel pipe from China) with three exporter-specific rates.
Open resource
Scope text is authoritative; the HTS list is illustrative. Read scope, find past rulings, and file a 19 CFR 351.225 inquiry. Worked example on case A-570-106 (wooden cabinets from China).
Open resource
A practical workflow for checking antidumping and countervailing duty exposure on a US entry. For brokers and ops teams who need the answer before filing.
Open resource
Drop the Tandom Duty Calculator API into a TMS, broker software, or in-house ERP. Code samples, the response shape, and ACE reporting order, in 2026.
Open resource
Run thousands of product descriptions through HTS classification, score the confidence, and triage borderline rows. Public search endpoint plus the closed-beta three-layer Classifier.
Open resource