Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains from China; Inv. No. 701-TA-750 and 731-TA-1728 (Final)

=== A–570–190 - China AD === Federal Register :: Request Access { "imports": { "application": "/assets/application-cc464116.js", "@hotwired/turbo-rails": "/assets/turbo.min-86bf8853.js", "@hotwired/stimulus": "/assets/stimulus.min-7ea3d58b.js", "@hotwired/stimulus-loading": "/assets/stimulus-loading-25917588.js", "controllers/application": "/assets/controllers/application-e5a449db.js", "controllers/site_feedback_controller": "/assets/controllers/site_feedback_controller-a99fc93f.js", "controllers/unblock_controller": "/assets/controllers/unblock_controller-9520f896.js" } } import "application" Request Access Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs. Please visit FederalRegister.gov API documentation or eCFR.gov API documentation to learn more about how to access the API. Your request has been flagged as potentially automated. If you are human user receiving this message, please complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". You may occassionally be asked to complete the CAPTCHA again, this is normal and part of our security measures. unblock#handleSubmit"> Request Access An official website of the United States government. If you experiencing issues with the CAPTCHA or want to request a wider IP range, you can use the "Site Help" button found in the lower, right of this page to make a request. × IP Access Help This contact form is only for IP Access help. Please do not provide confidential information or personal data. * Your Name * Email * How can we help you? Upload Attachment * I am requesting technical help. site-feedback#openModal" aria-label="Open site help form"> Site Help ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === D-Grids Spec Sheet === D-GRIDs references (i.e., for use with the D-GRIDs tool) for: Sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains from China (CN) Inv. Nos. 701-TA-750 and 731-TA-1728 Final D-GRIDs spec sheet, p. 1 Question D-GRID number Columns Rows PRO Question II-3a (Overall machinery capacity) 112 5 3 PRO Question II-8 (Production, shipment, and inventory data) 169 5 12 PRO Question II-9 (US shipments by channel) 232 5 2 PRO Question II-10 (Captive production use: IC/TR) 244 5 4 PRO Question II-12 (Employment) 271 5 3 PRO Question II-14 (Purchases) 291 5 4 PRO Question II-15 (Subject purchases by importer) see note 314 6 15 PRO Question III-9a (Profitability data: Total market) 496 5 14 PRO Question III-9f (Profitability data: Open market) 585 5 8 PRO Question III-9i (Depreciation expense) 628 5 2 PRO Question III-10a (Nonrecurring items) 640 5 14 PRO Question III-12a (Assets) 740 3 1 PRO Question III-13a (CapEx and R&D) 744 5 2 PRO Question IV-2b (Pricing products US) 798 4 13 Note: In relation to the tables on purchases of imports from subject sources by importer in the U.S. producers’ questionnaire (PRO II-15), the data begins on the 2nd column of data entry fields and any text information from the first column (importer of record) within MS Word has to be included in the D-GRIDS interaction with that data table (thus 6 columns not just the 5 relating to the numeric data) but the text information in the first column will not be overwritten when data are pushed into Word using the D-GRIDs tool. Question D-GRID number Columns Rows IMP Question I-8b (FTZ and bonded warehousing) 162 1 4 IMP Question I-8c (TIB entries) 170 1 2 IMP Question II-3a (Arranged imports) 184 4 2 IMP Question II-3b (Negligibility period imports) 194 2 2 IMP Question II-5a (Imports, shipments and inventories CN) 199 5 14 IMP Question II-5b (US shipments by channel CN) 273 5 2 IMP Question II-5c (US imports already attached CN) 283 5 2 IMP Question II-6a (Imports, shipments and inventories US) 293 5 14 IMP Question II-6b (US shipments by channel US) 367 5 2 IMP Question II-6c (US imports already attached US) 377 5 2 IMP Question II-7a (Imports, shipments and inventories AOS) 388 5 14 IMP Question II-7b (US shipments by channel AOS) 462 5 2 IMP Question II-7c (US imports already attached AOS) 472 5 2 IMP Question II-8a (Out-of-scope imports during full period) 482 5 4 IMP Question II-3c (*8b) (Out-of-scope imports during neg period) 504 1 2 D-GRIDs references (i.e., for use with the D-GRIDs tool) for: Sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains from China (CN) Inv. Nos. 701-TA-750 and 731-TA-1728 Final D-GRIDs spec sheet, p. 2 Question D-GRID number Columns Rows IMP Question III-2b (Pricing data CN) 516 4 13 IMP Question III-3b (Purchase cost data CN) 579 4 13 PUR Question 1 (purchases and imports) 42 4 6 FOR Question II-3a (Overall capacity) 100 5 3 FOR Question II-9 (Trade data) 150 7 8 FOR Question II-10 (Resales exported to the United States) 209 7 1 General note: Columns and Rows numbers relate to data entry fields only. D-GRIDs does not work with rows containing calculated fields. Legend PRO = U.S. producers' questionnaire IMP = U.S. importers' questionnaire PUR = U.S. purchasers' questionnaire FOR = Foreign producers' /exporters' questionnaire The D-GRIDs tool is a custom MS Excel application that allows USITC questionnaire respondents (and/or their APO counsel) to extract numeric data from the standard USITC questionnaire forms in MS Word as well as populate numeric data into the standard USITC questionnaire in MS Word. This document provides the inputs needed for the D-GRIDs tool in relation to the above referenced antidumping and/or countervailing duty investigation(s). ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === C–570–191 - China CVD === Federal Register :: Request Access { "imports": { "application": "/assets/application-cc464116.js", "@hotwired/turbo-rails": "/assets/turbo.min-86bf8853.js", "@hotwired/stimulus": "/assets/stimulus.min-7ea3d58b.js", "@hotwired/stimulus-loading": "/assets/stimulus-loading-25917588.js", "controllers/application": "/assets/controllers/application-e5a449db.js", "controllers/site_feedback_controller": "/assets/controllers/site_feedback_controller-a99fc93f.js", "controllers/unblock_controller": "/assets/controllers/unblock_controller-9520f896.js" } } import "application" Request Access Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs. Please visit FederalRegister.gov API documentation or eCFR.gov API documentation to learn more about how to access the API. Your request has been flagged as potentially automated. If you are human user receiving this message, please complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". You may occassionally be asked to complete the CAPTCHA again, this is normal and part of our security measures. unblock#handleSubmit"> Request Access An official website of the United States government. If you experiencing issues with the CAPTCHA or want to request a wider IP range, you can use the "Site Help" button found in the lower, right of this page to make a request. × IP Access Help This contact form is only for IP Access help. Please do not provide confidential information or personal data. * Your Name * Email * How can we help you? Upload Attachment * I am requesting technical help. site-feedback#openModal" aria-label="Open site help form"> Site Help ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Scheduling === 23359Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 104 / Monday, June 2, 2025 / Notices significance of properties nominated before May 10, 2025, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. DATES : Comments should be submitted electronically by June 17, 2025. ADDRESSES : Comments are encouraged to be submitted electronically to National_Register_Submissions@ nps.gov with the subject line ‘‘Public Comment on <property or proposed district name, (County) State>. If you have no access to email, you may send them via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, MS 2013, Washington, DC 20240. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Sherry A. Frear, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program, 1849 C Street NW, MS 2013, Washington, DC 20240, sherry_frear@nps.gov, 202–913–3763. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before May 10, 2025. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers Key: State, County, Property Name, Multiple Name (if applicable), Address/ Boundary, City, Vicinity, Reference Number. ALABAMA Calhoun County Oxford Railway Depot, 50 Spring Street, Oxford, SG100011947 Shelby County Wallace House, 35184 Highway 25, Harpersville, SG100011941 CALIFORNIA Humboldt County Karuk Trail Home Ridge Cultural Landscape, Address Restricted, Somes Bar vicinity, SG100011940 KENTUCKY Jefferson County Fifth and Market Streets Historic District, 201–235 S Fifth Street (east side only) and 426–440 W Market, Louisville, 90001487 MAINE Androscoggin County Araxine Wilkins Sawyer Memorial, 371 Sawyer Road, Greene, SG100011942 Penobscot County Johonnot, Co. Gabriel, House, 588 Kennebec Road, Hampden, SG100011943 MISSISSIPPI Benton County J.W. Crawford & Co. General Store, 1187 Spruce St., Hickory Flat, SG100011933 OREGON Marion County Mill Place House Site, (Oregon Country Methodist Mission Sites: 1834–1847 MPS), Address Restricted, Salem, MP100011951 VIRGINIA Frederick, Shenandoah, and Warren Counties Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, 8693 Valley Pike, Middletown vicinity, 04000273 WISCONSIN Kewaunee County MARGARET A. MUIR Shipwreck (Schooner), (Great Lakes Shipwreck Sites of Wisconsin MPS), Address Restricted, Algoma vicinity, MP100011949 A request for removal has been made for the following resource(s): OREGON Baker County Oregon Commercial Company Building, 40– 50 E Washington St., Huntington, OT92000666 An additional documentation has been received for the following resource(s): DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA District of Columbia Mount Pleasant Historic District (Additional Documentation), Roughly bounded by Sixteenth & Harvard Sts., Rock Creek Church Rd., & Adams Mill Rd., Washington, AD87001726 Nomination(s) submitted by Federal Preservation Officers: The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nomination(s) and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination(s) and supports listing the properties in the National Register of Historic Places. CALIFORNIA San Bernardino County Kelso Depot, Restaurant and Employees Hotel (Boundary Increase II), Kelbaker Rd., jct. of Kelbaker and Cima Rds. at Union Pacific Railroad crossing, Kelso, BC100011934 NEW MEXICO Eddy County Dark Canyon Fire Lookout Complex, (National Forest Fire Lookouts in the Southwestern Region TR), Tower is 0.4 mile east of the junction of Forest Service (FS) road 69A and FS 201. Tower is on FS 201at 32.081667, –104.739601. Carlsbad vicinity, MP100011945 Lincoln County Mesa Ranger Station Barn, Lincoln County, New Mexico, National Forest Road 131/ Ranger Road, Lincoln National Forest, Nogal vicinity, SG100011946 Authority: Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60. Sherry A. Frear, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/ National Historic Landmarks Program. [FR Doc. 2025–09836 Filed 5–30–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312–52–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–750 and 731– TA–1728 (Final)] Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From China; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701–TA–750 and 731–TA–1728 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains from China, provided for in subheading 2818.10.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) to be subsidized. DATES : May 22, 2025. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Keysha Martinez (202–205–2136), Office VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 May 30, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02JNN1.SGM 02JNN1 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 23360 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 104 / Monday, June 2, 2025 / Notices of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Scope.—For purposes of these investigations, Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as ‘‘sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains which are comprised of minimum 94% aluminum oxide (Al2O3), and may contain other compounds, including, but not limited to, titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, calcium oxide, sodium superoxide, ferric oxide, magnesium oxide, di-aluminum magnesium tetroxide, lanthanum oxide, lanthanum magnesium oxide, zirconium dioxide, or zirconium carbonate. Grain sizes of sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains range from 0.85 mm to 0.0395 mm (which corresponds to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) grit sizes from 20 to 280). Shapes include but are not limited to angular, sharp, extra sharp, blocky, splintery, round stripped, triangular or shaped like extruded rods or stars. Ceramic abrasive grains have unique crystalline structures that impart certain advanced properties, such as their extreme hardness and strength ranging between 16 and 22 gigapascals by the Vickers Diamond Indent Method, high melting point (2050°C), and a single- or multi-phase microstructure, which may contain multiple phases, having crystalline sizes ranging from 0.05 to 30 mm. These ceramic abrasive grains include but are not limited to blue, white, white-translucent, or off-white opaque colors. Sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains are covered by the scope of these investigations, whether or not incorporated into downstream articles, including but not limited to, abrasive papers, grinding wheels, grinding cylinders, and grinding discs. When incorporated into downstream articles, only the sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains component of such articles is covered by the product scope, and not the downstream product as a whole.’’ Background.—The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled pursuant to sections 705(b) and 731(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)), as a result of an affirmative preliminary determination by Commerce that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b) are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in China of sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains. The investigations were requested in petitions filed on November 25, 2024, by Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., Malvern, Pennsylvania. For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of these investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in § 201.11 of the Commission’s rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigations need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations. Please note the Secretary’s Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS, https:// edis.usitc.gov). No in-person paper- based filings or paper copies of any electronic filings will be accepted until further notice. Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to § 207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in the final phase of these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the investigations. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on July 24, 2025, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to § 207.22 of the Commission’s rules. Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on August 7, 2025. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before August 1, 2025. Any requests to appear as a witness via videoconference must be included with your request to appear. Requests to appear via videoconference must include a statement explaining why the witness cannot appear in person; the Chairman, or other person designated to conduct the investigation, may in their discretion for good cause shown, grant such a request. Requests to appear as remote witness due to illness or a positive COVID–19 test result may be submitted by 3pm the business day prior to the hearing. Further information about participation in the hearing will be posted on the Commission’s website at https://www.usitc.gov/calendarpad/ calendar.html. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission’s deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference, if deemed necessary, to be held at 9:30 a.m. on August 4, 2025. Parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than noon on August 6, 2025. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission’s rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing. Written submissions.—Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of § 207.23 of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 May 30, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02JNN1.SGM 02JNN1 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 23361Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 104 / Monday, June 2, 2025 / Notices Commission’s rules; the deadline for filing is July 31, 2025. Parties shall also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of § 207.25 of the Commission’s rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is August 14, 2025. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations, including statements of support or opposition to the petition, on or before August 14, 2025. On August 27, 2025, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before August 29, 2025, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with § 207.30 of the Commission’s rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of § 201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The Commission’s Handbook on Filing Procedures, available on the Commission’s website at https:// www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_ on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates upon the Commission’s procedures with respect to filings. Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to § 201.12 of the Commission’s rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff. In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: May 27, 2025. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2025–09863 Filed 5–30–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–510 and 731– TA–1245 (Second Review)] Calcium Hypochlorite From China; Institution of Five-Year Reviews AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on calcium hypochlorite from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission. DATES : Instituted June 2, 2025. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is July 2, 2025. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by August 13, 2025. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Jesse Sanchez (202–205–2402), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this proceeding may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background.—On January 30, 2015, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of calcium hypochlorite from China (80 FR 5082 and 5085). Following the first five- year reviews by Commerce and the Commission, effective July 1, 2020, Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of calcium hypochlorite from China (85 FR 39522). The Commission is now conducting second reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), 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. Provisions concerning the conduct of this proceeding may be found in the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure at 19 CFR part 201, subparts A and B, and 19 CFR part 207, subparts A and F. The Commission will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct full 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 Commerce. (2) The Subject Country in these reviews is China. (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 determinations and its expedited first five-year review determinations, the Commission defined a single Domestic Like Product consisting of all calcium hypochlorite coextensive with Commerce’s scope. (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 determinations and its expedited first five-year review determinations, the Commission defined the Domestic Industry to include all domestic producers of calcium hypochlorite. In its original determinations, the Commission also determined that domestic firms that did not produce calcium hypochlorite but solely converted it to tablet form did not engage in sufficient production-related activities and therefore were not included in the Domestic Industry definition. (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 proceeding and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the Subject VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 May 30, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02JNN1.SGM 02JNN1 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Hearing Cancellation === 38501Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 151 / Friday, August 8, 2025 / Notices (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) How might the agency 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 response. Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Abstract: The regulations at 30 CFR part 250, subpart E, pertain to oil and gas well-completion operations and are the subject of this collection. This request also covers the related Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) that BSEE issues to clarify, supplement, or provide additional guidance on some aspects of our regulations. The BSEE uses the information collected under subpart E to ensure that planned well-completion operations will protect personnel and natural resources. They use the analysis and evaluation results in the decision to approve, disapprove, or require modification to the proposed well- completion operations. Specifically, BSEE uses the information to ensure: • compliance with personnel safety training requirements; • crown block safety device is operating and can be expected to function to avoid accidents; • proposed operation of the annular preventer is technically correct and provides adequate protection for personnel, property, and natural resources; • blowout prevention equipment complies with the most recent WCR and API Standard 53; • well-completion operations are conducted on well casings that are structurally competent; and • sustained casing pressures are within acceptable limits. Title of Collection: 30 CFR part 250, subpart E, ‘‘Oil and Gas Well- Completion Operations.’’ OMB Control Number: 1014–0004. Form Number: None. Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection. Respondents/Affected Public: Potential respondents include Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulfur lessees and/or operators and holders of pipeline rights- of-way. Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: Currently there are approximately 550 Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulfur lessees and holders of pipeline rights-of-way. Not all the potential respondents will submit information in any given year, and some may submit multiple times. Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 5,898. Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 1.5 hours to 13 hours, depending on activity. Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 17,985. Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. Frequency of Collection: Generally submitted weekly, biennially, and on occasion, depending on the requirement. Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: We have identified no non-hour cost burdens associated with this collection of information. An agency may not conduct, or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Kenneth C. Stevens, Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authorities of the Director Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. [FR Doc. 2025–15086 Filed 8–7–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–VH–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–750 and 731– TA–1728 (Final)] Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From China; Cancellation of Hearing for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. DATES : August 5, 2025. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Keysha Martinez (202–205–2136), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : On May 22, 2025, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject investigations (90 FR 23359, June 2, 2025). On July 28, 2025, counsel for Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. filed a request that the Commission cancel the scheduled hearing for these investigations and indicated a willingness to respond to any Commission questions in lieu of an actual hearing. On August 1, 2025, counsel for Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. filed a request to appear at the hearing. No other parties submitted a request to appear at the hearing. Consequently, the public hearing in connection with these investigations, scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, August 7, 2025, is cancelled. Parties to these investigations should respond to any written questions posed by the Commission in their posthearing briefs, which are due to be filed on August 14, 2025. For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission’s notice cited above and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). Authority: This investigation is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: August 5, 2025. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2025–15064 Filed 8–7–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:29 Aug 07, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM 08AUN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === Publication 5669 === Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains from China Investigation Nos. 701-TA-750 and 731-TA-1728 (Final) Publication 5669 September 2025 U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 COMMISSIONERS Amy A. Karpel, Chair David S. Johanson Jason E. Kearns Catherine DeFilippo Director of Operations Staff assigned Keysha Martinez, Investigator Cheng Yen, Industry Analyst Lauren McLemore, Economist Joanna Lo, Accountant Mara Alexander, Statistician Lena Raxter, Attorney Elizabeth Haines, Supervisory Investigator U.S. International Trade Commission Address all communications to Secretary to the Commission United States International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 Washington, DC 20436 www.usitc.gov Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains from China Investigation Nos. 701-TA-750 and 731-TA-1728 (Final) U.S. International Trade Commission Publication 5669 September 2025 CONTENTS Page i Determinations ............................................................................................................................... 1 Views of the Commission ............................................................................................................... 3 Separate Views of Commissioner Johanson ................................................................................ 43 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1.1 Background............................................................................................................................... 1.1 Statutory criteria ...................................................................................................................... 1.2 Organization of report.............................................................................................................. 1.3 Market summary ...................................................................................................................... 1.3 Summary data and data sources .............................................................................................. 1.4 Previous and related investigations ......................................................................................... 1.5 Nature and extent of subsidies and sales at LTFV ................................................................... 1.5 Subsidies ............................................................................................................................... 1.5 Sales at LTFV ......................................................................................................................... 1.6 The subject merchandise ......................................................................................................... 1.7 Commerce’s scope ............................................................................................................... 1.7 Tariff treatment .................................................................................................................... 1.8 The product .............................................................................................................................. 1.9 Description and applications ................................................................................................ 1.9 Manufacturing processes ................................................................................................... 1.13 Domestic like product issues.................................................................................................. 1.18 CONTENTS Page ii Part 2: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market ....................................................... 2.1 U.S. market characteristics....................................................................................................... 2.1 U.S. purchasers......................................................................................................................... 2.2 Impact of section 301 tariffs and new and modified tariffs .................................................... 2.2 Channels of distribution ........................................................................................................... 2.3 Geographic distribution ........................................................................................................... 2.4 Supply and demand considerations ......................................................................................... 2.5 U.S. supply ............................................................................................................................ 2.5 U.S. demand ......................................................................................................................... 2.7 Substitutability issues............................................................................................................... 2.9 Factors affecting purchasing decisions................................................................................. 2.9 Purchase factor comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports ............................................................................................................................... 2.13 Comparison of U.S.-produced and imported ceramic abrasive grains .............................. 2.15 Elasticity estimates ................................................................................................................. 2.17 U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................................................................... 2.17 U.S. demand elasticity ........................................................................................................ 2.18 Substitution elasticity ......................................................................................................... 2.18 CONTENTS Page iii Part 3: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment .................................... 3.1 U.S. producers .......................................................................................................................... 3.1 U.S. production, capacity, and capacity utilization .................................................................. 3.3 Alternative products ............................................................................................................. 3.5 Constraints on capacity ........................................................................................................ 3.5 U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and exports ............................................................................ 3.6 Captive consumption ............................................................................................................. 3.10 Transfers and sales ............................................................................................................. 3.10 First statutory criterion in captive production ................................................................... 3.10 Second statutory criterion in captive production .............................................................. 3.12 U.S. producers’ inventories .................................................................................................... 3.12 U.S. producers’ imports from subject sources ....................................................................... 3.13 U.S. producers' purchases of imports from subject sources ................................................. 3.14 U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ........................................................................... 3.15 Part 4: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares .............................. 4.1 U.S. importers........................................................................................................................... 4.1 U.S. imports .............................................................................................................................. 4.3 Negligibility ............................................................................................................................... 4.9 Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares .................................................................... 4.10 Quantity .............................................................................................................................. 4.10 Value ................................................................................................................................... 4.13 U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and U.S. imports by product form ................................... 4.16 CONTENTS Page iv Part 5: Pricing data ......................................................................................................... 5.1 Factors affecting prices ............................................................................................................ 5.1 Raw material costs ............................................................................................................... 5.1 Transportation costs to the U.S. market .............................................................................. 5.1 U.S. inland transportation costs ........................................................................................... 5.1 Pricing practices ....................................................................................................................... 5.1 Pricing methods .................................................................................................................... 5.1 Sales terms and discounts .................................................................................................... 5.3 Price leadership .................................................................................................................... 5.3 Price and purchase cost data ................................................................................................... 5.4 Import purchase cost data ................................................................................................... 5.9 Price and purchase cost trends .......................................................................................... 5.10 Price and purchase cost comparisons ................................................................................ 5.12 Lost sales and lost revenue .................................................................................................... 5.14 Part 6: Financial experience of U.S. producers ................................................................. 6.1 Background............................................................................................................................... 6.1 Operations on ceramic abrasive grains .................................................................................... 6.4 Net sales ............................................................................................................................. 6.15 Cost of goods sold and gross profit or loss......................................................................... 6.16 SG&A expenses and operating income or loss................................................................... 6.19 All other expenses and net income or loss ........................................................................ 6.20 Capital expenditures and research and development expenses ........................................... 6.21 Assets and return on assets ................................................................................................... 6.22 Capital and investment .......................................................................................................... 6.23 CONTENTS Page v Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries .......................... 7.1 The industry in China................................................................................................................ 7.3 Changes in operations .......................................................................................................... 7.4 Operations on ceramic abrasive grains ................................................................................ 7.5 Alternative products ............................................................................................................. 7.7 Constraints on capacity ........................................................................................................ 7.7 Exports .................................................................................................................................. 7.8 U.S. inventories of imported merchandise ............................................................................ 7.10 U.S. importers’ outstanding orders........................................................................................ 7.11 Third-country trade actions ................................................................................................... 7.12 Information on nonsubject countries .................................................................................... 7.12 Appendixes A. Federal Register notices .................................................................................................. A.1 B. Cancellation of hearing ................................................................................................... B.1 C. Summary data ................................................................................................................. C.1 Note.—Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual firms may not be published. Such information is identified by brackets ([ ]) in confidential reports and is deleted and replaced with asterisks (***) in public reports. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as em dashes (—) in tables. If using a screen reader, we recommend increasing the verbosity setting. 1 UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Investigation Nos. 701-TA-750 and 731-TA-1728 (Final) Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains from China DETERMINATIONS On the basis of the record1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains from China, provided for in subheading 2818.10.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) and subsidized by the government of China.2 3 BACKGROUND The Commission instituted these investigations effective November 25, 2024, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., Malvern, Pennsylvania. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains from China were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on June 2, 2025 (90 FR 23359). The public hearing in connection with the investigations, originally scheduled for August 7, 2025, was cancelled.4 1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 2 90 FR 39366 and 39367 (August 15, 2025). 3 Commissioner Johanson determined that a U.S. industry is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains from China. 4 90 FR 38501, August 8, 2025. 3 Views of the Commission Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we determine that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains (“ceramic abrasive grains”) from China found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) and subsidized by the government of China. Background Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. (“Petitioner”), a domestic producer of ceramic abrasive grains, filed the petitions in these investigations on November 25, 2024.1 Petitioner submitted a prehearing brief and a posthearing brief in which it responded to the Commission’s questions in lieu of a hearing.2 No respondent entity participated in the final phase of these investigations. U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire responses from two domestic producers that accounted for all known domestic production of ceramic abrasive grains in 2024.3 U.S. import data are based on the questionnaire responses of 21 U.S. importers accounting for *** percent of subject imports, *** percent of nonsubject imports, and *** percent of total U.S. 1 Confidential Staff Report, INV-XX-110 (Aug. 22, 2025) (“CR”); Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-750 and 731-TA-1728 (Final), USITC Pub. 5669 (Sept. 2025) at 1.1. 2 See generally Petitioner’s Prehearing Br.; Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. On July 28, 2025, Petitioner requested that the Commission cancel the hearing scheduled for August 7, 2025. No other party requested to appear at the hearing. As a result, the Commission cancelled its hearing for the final phase of these investigations on August 4, 2025. Withdrawal of Request to Appear at Hearing, EDIS Doc. 857843 (July 28, 2025); Granting Request to Cancel Hearing, EDIS Doc. 858591 (Aug. 4, 2025); Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains from China; Cancellation of Hearing for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 90 Fed. Reg. 38501 (Aug. 8, 2025). 3 CR/PR at 3.1. 4 imports under statistical reporting numbers 2818.10.2010 and 2818.10.2090 in 2024.4 The Commission received two responses to its questionnaires from producers and/or exporters of subject merchandise from China, accounting for an estimated *** percent of production of ceramic abrasive grains in China in 2024. Their exports accounted for an estimated *** percent of subject imports from China in 2024.5 Domestic Like Product A. In General In determining whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”6 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”7 In turn, the Tariff Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation.”8 By statute, the Commission’s “domestic like product” analysis begins with the “article subject to an investigation,” i.e., the subject merchandise as determined by Commerce.9 4 CR/PR at 4.1. As these statistical reporting numbers contain merchandise not covered by the scope of the investigation, these subject import coverage figures are likely understated. See id. at n.3. 5 CR/PR at Table 7.1. 6 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 7 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 8 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). 9 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10). The Commission must accept Commerce’s determination as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is subsidized and/or sold at less than fair value. See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 34 Fed. App’x 725, 730 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The ITC may not modify the class or kind of (Continued...) 5 Therefore, Commerce’s determination as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is subsidized and/or sold at less than fair value is “necessarily the starting point of the Commission’s like product analysis.”10 The Commission then defines the domestic like product in light of the imported articles Commerce has identified.11 The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product in an investigation is a factual determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.12 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.13 The Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 10 Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Hitachi Metals, Ltd. v. United States, Case No. 19-1289, slip op. at 8-9 (Fed. Circ. Feb. 7, 2020) (the statute requires the Commission to start with Commerce’s subject merchandise in reaching its own like product determination). 11 Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298 n.1 (“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s {like product} determination.”); Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the Commission may find a single like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748–52 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (affirming the Commission’s determination defining six like products in investigations where Commerce found five classes or kinds). 12 See, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of factors, including the following: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). 13 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979). 6 variations.14 B. Product Description Commerce has defined the imported merchandise within the scope of these investigations as follows: The merchandise covered by this investigation is sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains which are comprised of minimum 94% aluminum oxide (Al 2 O3 ), and may contain other compounds, including, but not limited to, titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, calcium oxide, sodium superoxide, ferric oxide, magnesium oxide, di-aluminum magnesium tetroxide, lanthanum oxide, lanthanum magnesium oxide, zirconium dioxide, or zirconium carbonate. Grain sizes of sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains range from 0.85 mm to 0.0395 mm (which corresponds to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) grit sizes from 20 to 280). Shapes include but are not limited to angular, sharp, extra sharp, blocky, splintery, round stripped, triangular or shaped like extruded rods or stars. Ceramic abrasive grains have unique crystalline structures that impart certain advanced properties, such as their extreme hardness and strength ranging between 16 and 22 gigapascals by the Vickers Diamond Indent Method, high melting point (2050°C), and a single- or multi-phase microstructure, which may contain multiple phases, having crystalline sizes ranging from 0.05 to 30μm. These ceramic abrasive grains include but are not limited to blue, white, white-translucent, or off-white opaque colors. Sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains are covered by the scope of this investigation, whether or not incorporated into downstream articles, including but not limited to, abrasive papers, grinding wheels, grinding cylinders, and grinding discs. When incorporated into downstream articles, only the sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains 14 Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49; see also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion as to permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article are not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”). 7 component of such articles is covered by the product scope, and not the downstream product as a whole. The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheadings 2818.10.20{10} and 2818.10.2090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Other merchandise subject to the current scope, including when incorporated into the abovementioned downstream articles, may be classified under HTSUS subheadings 2818.10.1000, 2818.20.0000, 2818.30.0000, 3824.99.1100, 3824.99.1900, 6805.10.0000, 6805.20.0000, 6805.30.1000, 6805.30.5000, 6804.22.1000, 6804.22.4000, 6804.22.6000, 8204.12.0000, 8474.90.0010, 8474.90.0020, 8474.90.0050, and 8474.90.0090. Although the HTSUS statistical reporting numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.15 Subject ceramic abrasive grains are composed of at least 94 percent aluminum oxide (Al 2 O3 ), derived from bauxite, and may contain trace compounds such as titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, calcium oxide, sodium superoxide, ferric oxide, magnesium oxide, di-aluminum magnesium tetroxide, zirconium dioxide, or zirconium carbonate.16 These ceramic abrasive grains are typically white translucent to off-white opaque in color, although domestic producer 3M Company (“3M”) produces a blue ceramic abrasive grain by introducing cobalt during the manufacturing process.17 Ceramic abrasive grains are produced via the sol gel method, which 15 Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 90 Fed. Reg. 39366, 39367 (Aug. 15, 2025); Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 90 Fed. Reg. 39367, 39369 (Aug. 15, 2025). Commerce’s notices of initiation included “2818.10.2020” in the list of relevant HTS numbers, but there is no such statistical reporting number. Correspondence between Petitioner and Commerce confirms that this reference was a clerical error, and the scope should have referred instead to statistical reporting number 2818.10.2010. See Saint-Gobain’s General Issues Supplement Response at 1, 4 (Dec. 9, 2024). This number includes “Artificial corundum, whether or not chemically defined: In grains, or ground, pulverized or refined – White, pink or ruby, containing more than 97.5 percent by weight of aluminum oxide,” but Petitioner confirmed at the preliminary conference that its proposed scope in the petitions did not encompass any abrasive grains with a pink or ruby color. See Conf. Tr. at 37 (Leonard). 16 CR/PR at 1.9 n.20, 1.11. 17 CR/PR at 1.9 & n.20. 8 includes six steps: (1) solution preparation, (2) sol formation, (3) gelation, (4) drying, (5) calcination, and (6) crushing or shaping and sintering.18 The sol gel production method imparts unique characteristics to these ceramic abrasive grains, such as extreme hardness and strength, resistance to abrasion and chemicals, a high melting point, high thermal conductivity, a high degree of refractoriness, high dielectric strength, and high electrical resistivity at elevated temperatures when compared to out-of-scope aluminum oxide grains.19 Most ceramic abrasive grains are incorporated into downstream abrasive products, such as grinding wheels, sanding pads, blast media, and deburring and cutting tools, through bonding or coating.20 Once incorporated into the downstream product, these ceramic abrasive grains are used for grinding, dressing, and deburring applications in industries such as automotive, aerospace, foundry, woodworking, electronics and semiconductors, and metal fabrication.21 C. Arguments Petitioner argues that, under the Commission’s traditional six-factor analysis, there should be a single domestic like product consisting of all ceramic abrasive grains, coterminous with the scope of subject merchandise as defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce.22 Focusing on alleged similarities between the present scope and that of past investigations of small vertical shaft engines and aluminum extrusions, Petitioner also argues that the Commission should define a single domestic like product that includes ceramic abrasive grains 18 CR/PR at 1.13 to 1.17 & Figures 1.1, 1.2. 19 CR/PR at 1.9-1.12. 20 CR/PR at 1.11. 21 CR/PR at 1.11-1.12. 22 Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 4-12. 9 that have been incorporated into downstream products.23 No respondent party participated in these proceedings. D. Domestic Like Product Analysis In its preliminary determinations, the Commission defined a single domestic like product consisting of all ceramic abrasive grains, coextensive with the scope.24 The Commission found that all ceramic abrasive grains covered by the scope shared the same physical characteristics and uses; were manufactured using the same facilities, processes, and employees; are generally sold through the same channels of distribution; could be used interchangeably; were perceived by producers and customers to be the same product; and are generally priced similarly to each other and differently than out-of-scope products.25 Based on the record, and absent any argument to the contrary, we again define a single domestic like product consisting of all sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains, coextensive with Commerce’s scope. Physical Characteristics and Uses. All sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains share physical characteristics and uses, although they may differ slightly in characteristics such as color, shape, and hardness, depending on their exact chemical composition and specific end use.26 These ceramic abrasive grains are composed of at least 94 percent aluminum oxide and may contain other trace compounds.27 Ceramic abrasive grains are characterized by their 23 Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 10-12. 24 Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-750 and 731-TA- 1728 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 5581 at 10-13 (Feb. 2025) (“Preliminary Determinations”). 25 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 5581 at 10-13. In the preliminary determinations, the Commission noted that Petitioner had argued that the Commission should define a single domestic like product that included ceramic abrasive grains that have been incorporated into downstream products. Noting the limited information on the record, the Commission stated that it had not analyzed this issue. Id. at 13 n.40. 26 CR/PR at 1.9-1.12; Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 4-6. 27 CR/PR at 1.9 n.20, 1.11; Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 4-5. 10 extreme hardness, self-sharpening ability, and unique crystalline microstructure.28 Most of these ceramic abrasive grains are incorporated into downstream abrasive products to be used for grinding, dressing, and deburring applications in industries such as metal fabrication, automotive, aerospace, and semiconductor.29 As incorporated into a downstream product, they appear to have essentially the same physical characteristics and uses as loose ceramic abrasive grains. Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes, and Production Employees. The evidence on the record indicates that ceramic abrasive grains, regardless of source, are produced via the sol gel method in the same manufacturing facilities, using the same production processes and employees.30 Although incorporation of ceramic abrasive grains into a grinding product may occur at a different production facility, the incorporated grains themselves are produced in the same facilities, using the same processes, and by the same employees as loose ceramic abrasive grains. Channels of Distribution. During the January 2022 to March 2025 period of investigation (“POI”), domestic producers sold ceramic abrasive grains primarily to end users.31 The record contains no information regarding channels of distribution for ceramic abrasive grains incorporated into grinding products. 28 CR/PR at 1.9; Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 5-6. 29 CR/PR at 1.12; Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 6. 30 CR/PR at 1.13-1.17; Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 9. 31 Throughout the POI, domestic producers sold between *** and *** percent of their U.S. shipments to end users and between *** and *** percent to distributors. CR/PR at Table 2.2. 11 Interchangeability. The record indicates that ceramic abrasive grains are generally interchangeable.32 Although ceramic abrasive grains may differ in their specific end use, all have the same basic chemical composition, and most are incorporated into downstream articles to be used for grinding, dressing, and deburring of difficult materials in various industries.33 It appears that ceramic abrasive grains incorporated into a grinding product would be interchangeable with ceramic abrasive grains incorporated into the same type of grinding product. Producer and Customer Perceptions. The available evidence indicates that producers and customers perceive that all ceramic abrasive grains can be used for the same end use applications.34 Price. The available evidence indicates that prices of ceramic abrasive grains are determined by market conditions and production characteristics and vary within the same range.35 The record does not indicate that ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in a grinding product are priced separately from the grinding product itself. 32 CR/PR at 2.9. 33 CR/PR at 1.9-1.12. 34 Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 8. 35 Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 9-10. The U.S. producer and importer questionnaires requested pricing data for the following products: Product 1.—Sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains, Form: blue or white translucent to off-white/opaque, with a predominant chemical composition of Al 2O 3 ≥ 95%, possessing a weak and splintery shape Product 2.—Sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains, Form: blue or white translucent to off-white/opaque, with a predominant chemical composition of Al 2O 3 ≥ 94%, possessing an extruded rod shape CR/PR at 5.4, Tables 5.3-5.4. Pricing data indicate that prices for product 1 produced domestically fluctuated between $*** and $*** per pound and remained around $*** per pound for product 2. Id. at Table 5.5. 12 Conclusion. Given the above, and the absence of any contrary argument, we define a single domestic like product consisting of all ceramic abrasive grains, including ceramic abrasive grains that have been incorporated into downstream products, coextensive with the scope. Domestic Industry The domestic industry is defined as the domestic “producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”36 In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market. We must determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from the domestic industry pursuant to Section 771(4)(B) of the Tariff Act. This provision allows the Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers.37 Exclusion of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each investigation.38 36 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). 37 See Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161, 1168 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1322, 1331-32 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989), aff’d mem., 904 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Empire Plow Co. v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 1348, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1987). 38 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude a related party include the following: (1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer; (2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation (whether the firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue production and compete in the U.S. market); (Continued...) 13 Petitioner argues that the Commission should define a single domestic industry, in which Saint-Gobain and 3M constitute the sole producers of ceramic abrasive grains in the United States.39 No respondent party participated in this proceeding. In the preliminary determinations, the Commission defined the domestic industry as all domestic producers of ceramic abrasive grains, namely Saint-Gobain and 3M.40 The Commission found that *** was related to an importer that imported subject merchandise and to a Chinese producer and exporter of subject merchandise, and that *** was thus subject to possible exclusion from the domestic industry under the related party provision. However, the Commission found that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry under the related party provision.41 The record in the final phase of these investigations does not contain any new information that would warrant reconsideration of the Commission’s finding in the preliminary phase. Moreover, no party has argued that the Commission should reconsider its finding from the preliminary determinations. Accordingly, consistent with our definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry as all domestic producers of ceramic abrasive grains, namely Saint-Gobain and 3M. (3) whether inclusion or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry; (4) the ratio of import shipments to U.S. production for the imported product; and (5) whether the primary interest of the importing producer lies in domestic production or importation. Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. USITC, 100 F. Supp.3d 1314, 1326-31 (Ct. Int’l. Trade 2015); see also Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. at 1168. 39 Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 13. 40 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 5581 at 17. 41 Preliminary Determinations, USITC Pub. 5581 at 14-17. 14 Negligibility Pursuant to Section 771(24) of the Tariff Act, imports from a subject country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic like product shall be deemed negligible if they account for less than three percent (or four percent in the case of a developing country in a countervailing duty investigation) of all such merchandise imported into the United States during the most recent 12 months for which data are available preceding the filing of the petitions.42 During the 12-month period preceding filing of the petitions (November 2023 to October 2024), subject imports from China accounted for *** percent of total imports of ceramic abrasive grains.43 Because subject imports from China clearly exceeded the 3 percent negligibility threshold, we find that imports of ceramic abrasive grains from China subject to the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations are not negligible. Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we find that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of ceramic abrasive grains from China that Commerce has found to be sold at LTFV and subsidized by the government of China. A. Legal Standards In the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the Commission determines whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with 42 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b), 1677(24)(A)(i), 1677(24)(B); see also 15 C.F.R. § 2013.1 (developing countries for purposes of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(36)). 43 CR/PR at Table 4.8. 15 material injury by reason of the imports under investigation.44 In making these determinations, the Commission must consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices for the domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in the context of U.S. production operations.45 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”46 In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports, we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.47 No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”48 Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether the domestic industry is “materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of” unfairly traded imports,49 it does not define the phrase “by reason of,” indicating that this aspect of the injury analysis is left to the Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion.50 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject imports and material injury to the domestic industry, the Commission examines the facts of record that relate to the significance of the volume and price effects of the subject imports and any impact of those imports on the condition of the domestic 44 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b). 45 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the determination” but shall “identify each {such} factor ... and explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). 46 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A). 47 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 48 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 49 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b). 50 Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484-85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he statute does not ‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’d, 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). 16 industry. This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard must ensure that subject imports are more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a sufficient causal, not merely a temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.51 In many investigations, there are other economic factors at work, some or all of which may also be having adverse effects on the domestic industry. Such economic factors might include nonsubject imports; changes in technology, demand, or consumer tastes; competition among domestic producers; or management decisions by domestic producers. The legislative history explains that the Commission must examine factors other than subject imports to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other factors to the subject imports, thereby inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the statutory material injury threshold.52 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not isolate the injury 51 The Federal Circuit, in addressing the causation standard of the statute, observed that “{a}s long as its effects are not merely incidental, tangential, or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than fair value meets the causation requirement.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This was further ratified in Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the Federal Circuit, quoting Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997), stated that “this court requires evidence in the record ‘to show that the harm occurred “by reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a minimal or tangential contribution to material harm caused by LTFV goods.’” See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 52 Uruguay Round Agreements Act Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”), H.R. Rep. 103- 316, vol. I. at 851-52 (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (1979) (the Commission “will consider information which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than less-than-fair-value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47 (1979) (“in examining the overall injury being experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take into account evidence presented to it which demonstrates that the harm attributed by the petitioner to the subsidized or dumped imports is attributable to such other factors;” those factors include “the volume and prices of nonsubsidized imports or imports sold at fair value, contraction in demand or changes in patterns of consumption, trade restrictive practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the export performance and productivity of the domestic industry”); accord Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877. 17 caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.53 Nor does the “by reason of” standard require that unfairly traded imports be the “principal” cause of injury or contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors, such as nonsubject imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.54 It is clear that the existence of injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.55 Assessment of whether material injury to the domestic industry is “by reason of” subject imports “does not require the Commission to address the causation issue in any particular way” as long as “the injury to the domestic industry can reasonably be attributed to the subject imports.”56 The Commission ensures that it has “evidence in the record” to “show that the harm 53 SAA at 851-52 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports.”); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n, 266 F.3d at 1345 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports ... . Rather, the Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha de Chile AG v. United States, 180 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“{t}he Commission is not required to isolate the effects of subject imports from other factors contributing to injury” or make “bright-line distinctions” between the effects of subject imports and other causes.); see also Softwood Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928 (Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 100-01 (Dec. 2003) (Commission recognized that “{i}f an alleged other factor is found not to have or threaten to have injurious effects to the domestic industry, i.e., it is not an ‘other causal factor,’ then there is nothing to further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722 (the statute “does not suggest that an importer of LTFV goods can escape countervailing duties by finding some tangential or minor cause unrelated to the LTFV goods that contributed to the harmful effects on domestic market prices.”). 54 S. Rep. 96-249 at 74-75; H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47. 55 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1381 (“an affirmative material-injury determination under the statute requires no more than a substantial-factor showing. That is, the ‘dumping’ need not be the sole or principal cause of injury.”). 56 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 876 & 78; see also id. at 873 (“While the Commission may not enter an affirmative determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of’ subject imports, the Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that determination ... {and has} broad discretion with respect to its choice of methodology.”) citing United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d 1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and S. Rep. 96-249 at 75. In its decision in Swiff-Train v. United States, 793 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s causation analysis as comporting with the Court’s guidance in Mittal. 18 occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,” and that it is “not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.” 57 The Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid adherence to a specific formula.”58 The question of whether the material injury threshold for subject imports is satisfied notwithstanding any injury from other factors is factual, subject to review under the substantial evidence standard.59 Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.60 B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is material injury by reason of subject imports. 1. Captive Production The domestic industry captively consumes a portion of its production of ceramic abrasive grains in the manufacture of downstream articles.61 We therefore consider the applicability of 57 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 877-79. We note that one relevant “other factor” may involve the presence of significant volumes of price-competitive nonsubject imports in the U.S. market, particularly when a commodity product is at issue. In appropriate cases, the Commission collects information regarding nonsubject imports and producers in nonsubject countries in order to conduct its analysis. 58 Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 879 (“Bratsk did not read into the antidumping statute a Procrustean formula for determining whether a domestic injury was ‘by reason’ of subject imports.”). 59 We provide in our discussion below a full analysis of other factors alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry. 60 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873; Nippon Steel Corp., 458 F.3d at 1350, citing U.S. Steel Group, 96 F.3d at 1357; S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (“The determination of the ITC with respect to causation is ... complex and difficult, and is a matter for the judgment of the ITC.”). 61 CR/PR at 3.10, Table 3.8. 19 the statutory captive production provision.62 A. Arguments Petitioner argues that the captive production provision does not apply in these investigations, but asks the Commission to consider captive consumption as a condition of competition.63 Regarding the threshold condition, Petitioner argues that internal consumption is significant, but that *** are functionally equivalent to sales to any unaffiliated party because they are at an arm’s length and are driven by prevailing market conditions, most notably price.64 Petitioner argues that the first statutory criterion is not met because ceramic abrasive grains incorporated into grinding products are within the scope of investigation, and that its affiliate’s merchant market sales of grinding products constitute merchant market sales of the incorporated abrasive grains.65 Petitioner argues that the second statutory criterion is not met, 62 The captive production provision, 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iv), as amended by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (“TPEA”), provides: (iv) CAPTIVE PRODUCTION – If domestic producers internally transfer significant production of the domestic like product for the production of a downstream article and sell significant production of the domestic like product in the merchant market, and the Commission finds that- (I) the domestic like product produced that is internally transferred for processing into that downstream article does not enter the merchant market for the domestic like product, and (II) the domestic like product is the predominant material input in the production of that downstream article; then the Commission, in determining market share and the factors affecting financial performance set forth in clause (iii), shall focus primarily on the merchant market for the domestic like product. The SAA indicates that where a domestic like product is transferred internally for the production of another article coming within the definition of the domestic like product, such transfers do not constitute internal transfers for the production of a “downstream article” for purposes of the captive production provision. SAA at 853. 63 Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 16-17. 64 Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 16; Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 8. 65 Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 17. 20 because ceramic abrasive grains reportedly comprise *** percent of the finished cost of a downstream product.66 No respondent party participated in these investigations. B. Analysis The captive production provision can be applied only if, as a threshold matter, significant production of the domestic like product is internally transferred and significant production is sold in the merchant market.67 During the POI, between *** and *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of ceramic abrasive grains were internally consumed, and between *** and *** percent were transferred to related firms.68 The domestic industry also sold between *** percent and *** percent of its ceramic abrasive grain production on the merchant market in this period.69 These shares do not indicate that a significant portion of domestic production of ceramic abrasive grains is sold on the merchant market.70 Moreover, we observe that the second statutory criterion likewise does not appear to be met. In that regard, the Commission generally considers whether the domestic like product is the predominant material input into a downstream product by referring to its share of the raw material cost of the downstream product.71 In previous investigations, the Commission construed “predominant” material input to mean the main or strongest element, and not necessarily a majority of the inputs by value.72 66 Petitioner’s Prehearing Br. at 17. 67 See Memorandum GC-WW-129 at V-18 to V-20. 68 CR/PR at 3.10, Table 3.8. 69 CR/PR at Table 3.8. The Statement of Administrative Action to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act states that for purposes of the captive production provision, “{s}elling in the merchant market refers to sales of the domestic like product to unrelated customers” H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I at 852 (1994). 70 We also take note of Petitioner’s uncontested assertion that its sales to its related purchaser are functionally equivalent to sales to any unaffiliated party because they are at an arm’s length and are driven by prevailing market conditions, most notably price. 71 See Memorandum GC-WW-129 at V-23 to V-25. 72 See Memorandum GC-WW-129 at V-25 n.69. 21 In these investigations, the record indicates that ceramic abrasive grains account for *** percent of the value of the material inputs for the finished downstream product.73 Thus, this criterion is not satisfied. Because the threshold criterion is not satisfied, we decline to apply the captive production provision in these investigations and will focus on the overall ceramic abrasive grains market in analyzing the market share and financial performance of the domestic industry. However, we consider that the domestic industry’s internal consumption of significant volumes of ceramic abrasive grains is a relevant condition of competition.74 2. Demand Conditions U.S. demand for ceramic abrasive grains is driven by demand for U.S.-produced downstream products.75 Reported end uses include coated abrasives, bonded abrasives, grinding wheels, and nonwoven abrasives.76 Overall demand for ceramic abrasive grains is likely to experience small changes in response to changes in price.77 The main contributing factors are the lack of substitute products, the small to moderate cost share of ceramic abrasive grains in most of its end-use products, and the small share of the manufacturing costs that the end-use products represent.78 *** responding U.S. producers reported that foreign and domestic demand had *** since January 1, 2022.79 Responding importers and purchasers reported varied 73 CR/PR at 3.12, Table 3.12. 74 Where we reference data for the merchant market, we use the values reported in Table C.2, which exclude both internal consumption and transfers to related firms. 75 CR/PR at 2.7. 76 CR/PR at 2.7; Petitioner Prehearing Br. at 8. 77 CR/PR at 2.7. 78 CR/PR at 2.7. 79 CR/PR at 2.8. 22 experiences—increases, decreases, and steady trends—for both domestic and foreign demand.80 Apparent U.S. consumption of ceramic abrasive grains decreased irregularly by *** percent between 2022 and 2024, declining from *** pounds in 2022 to *** pounds in 2023 and 2024.81 Apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent higher in January-March (“interim”) 2025 (*** pounds) than in interim 2024 (*** pounds).82 3. Supply Conditions The domestic industry was the largest source of supply to the U.S. market throughout the POI. The domestic industry’s overall share of apparent U.S. consumption based on quantity declined by *** percentage points, from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2023 and *** percent in 2024.83 Its market share was *** percentage points lower, at *** percent, in interim 2025 (i.e., the first quarter of 2025), compared with *** percent in interim 2024.84 Nonsubject imports were the second-largest source of supply to the U.S. market during the POI. Their share of apparent U.S. consumption based on quantity decreased irregularly by *** percentage points over the POI, from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2023 before 80 CR/PR at 2.8. 81 CR/PR at 4.9 and Table C.1. The apparent U.S. consumption for the merchant market decreased irregularly by *** percent between 2022 and 2024, from *** pounds in 2022 to *** pounds in 2023 and *** pounds in 2024. Id. at Table C.2. 82 CR/PR at Table C.1. The apparent U.S. consumption for the merchant market increased by *** percent between interim 2024 and interim 2025, from *** pounds to *** pounds. Id. at Table C.2. 83 CR/PR at Tables 4.9, C.1. The domestic industry’s overall share of apparent U.S. consumption based on quantity for the merchant market decreased by *** percentage points between 2022 and 2024, from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2023 and *** percent in 2024. Id. at Table C.2. 84 CR/PR at Tables 4.9, C.1. The domestic industry’s overall share of apparent U.S. consumption based on quantity for the merchant market was *** percentage points lower, at *** percent, in interim 2025, compared with *** percent in interim 2024. Id. at Table C.2. 23 increasing to *** percent in 2024.85 It was *** percentage points higher in interim 2025, at *** percent, compared with interim 2024, at *** percent.86 The largest sources of nonsubject imports during the POI were Austria, Japan, and Brazil, which accounted for 84.8 percent of nonsubject imports in 2024.87 Subject imports were the smallest source of supply to the U.S. market during the POI. Their share of apparent U.S. consumption based on quantity increased by *** percentage points over the POI, from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2023 and *** percent in 2024.88 Their market share was *** higher, at *** percent, in interim 2025, compared with *** percent in interim 2024.89 *** U.S. producers and the vast majority of responding importers (16 of 17) and purchasers (five of six) reported that they had not experienced supply constraints since January 1, 2022.90 *** reported that there were supply constraints in every year of the POI, as well as long lead times on specific products and grit sizes during the second and third quarters every year.91 85 CR/PR at Tables 4.9, C.1. Nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption for the merchant market remained relatively stable over the POI, at *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, and *** percent in 2024. Id. at Table C.2. 86 CR/PR at Tables 4.9, C.1. Nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption for the merchant market was *** percentage points higher, at *** percent, in interim 2025, compared with *** percent in interim 2024. Id. at Table C.2. 87 CR/PR at 2.6. 88 CR/PR at Tables 4.9, C.1. Subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption for the merchant market increased by *** percentage points over the POI, from *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, and *** percent in 2024. Id. at Table C.2. 89 CR/PR at Tables 4.9, C.1. Subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption for the merchant market was *** percentage points higher, at *** percent, in interim 2025, compared with *** percent in interim 2024. Id. at Table C.2. 90 CR/PR at 2.6. 91 CR/PR at 2.7. 24 4. Substitutability and Other Conditions Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we find that there is a high degree of substitutability between domestically produced ceramic abrasive grains and subject imports.92 The responding U.S. producers reported that ceramic abrasive grains from all sources were *** interchangeable, while the responding importers and purchasers indicated the domestically produced ceramic abrasive grains and subject imports were at least sometimes interchangeable.93 When asked for a country-by-country comparison with respect to 15 factors that influence purchasing decisions, a plurality of responding purchasers reported that domestically produced ceramic abrasive grains and ceramic abrasive grains from China were comparable on delivery terms, discounts offered, minimum quantity requirements, packaging, payment terms, product range, reliability of supply, and U.S. transportation costs.94 We find that price is an important factor in purchasing decisions for ceramic abrasive grains, although other considerations are important as well. The three most important factors that firms considered in their purchasing decisions for ceramic abrasive grains were price (three firms), quality (three firms), and availability (two firms).95 Price was also cited by four of six purchasers as being very important to their purchasing decisions.96 Most domestic producers indicated that differences other than price were *** significant in sales of the domestic like 92 CR/PR at 2.9. 93 CR/PR at Tables 2.12, 2.13. 94 CR/PR at 2.13, Table 2.11. 95 CR/PR at Table 2.7. 96 CR/PR at Table 2.8. 25 product and subject imports, while majorities of importers and purchasers reported that nonprice differences were sometimes significant.97 U.S. producers reported selling ceramic abrasive grains primarily produced to order, while importers reported selling ceramic abrasive grains primarily from inventory.98 U.S. producers reported that *** percent of their commercial shipments of ceramic abrasive grains were produced to order, with lead times averaging *** days.99 U.S. importers reported that *** percent of their commercial shipments were sold from U.S. inventories, with lead times averaging five days; *** percent of their commercial shipments were produced to order, with lead times of 29 days; and *** percent of their commercial shipments were sourced from foreign inventories, with lead times averaging 29 days.100 U.S. producers reported selling a plurality (***) percent of their U.S. commercial shipments of ceramic abrasive grains under annual contracts, *** percent under long-term contracts, and *** percent under short-term contracts.101 Subject U.S. importers made a majority of their sales pursuant to short-term contracts (*** percent), with *** percent of the remaining share sold under annual contracts, *** percent under spot sales, and *** percent under long-term contracts.102 Producer 3M reported *** contracts and *** contracts, with *** 97 CR/PR at Tables 2.15-2.17. One firm reported that nonprice differences were sometimes significant between the domestic like product and subject imports, and one firm reported that nonprice differences were never significant between the domestic like product and subject imports. Id. at Table 2.15. 98 CR/PR at 2.11. 99 CR/PR at 2.11. 100 CR/PR at 2.11. 101 CR/PR at Table 5.2. 102 CR/PR at Table 5.2. 26 that were ***.103 Producer Saint-Gobain reported *** and *** with *** that were ***.104 According to Petitioner, *** and ***.105 Abrasive grains are primarily composed of aluminum oxide (Al2 O3 ).106 There is no publicly available data on the cost of aluminum oxide.107 Raw material costs accounted for the second largest share of the domestic industry’s cost of goods sold (“COGS”) throughout the POI, with the share decreasing from *** percent of the total cost of goods sold in 2022 to *** percent in 2024; the share of raw materials costs in COGS was *** percentage points lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024, falling from *** percent to *** percent.108 During the POI, ceramic abrasive grains from China were subject to duties under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Specifically, effective September 1, 2019, ceramic abrasive grains originating in China were subject to an additional 15 percent ad valorem duty.109 Effective February 14, 2020, the section 301 duty for ceramic abrasive grains originating in China was reduced to 7.5 percent ad valorem.110 C. Volume of Subject Imports Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”111 103 CR/PR at 5.2. 104 CR/PR at 5.2. 105 Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. at 9. 106 CR/PR at 5.1. 107 CR/PR at 5.1. 108 CR/PR at Table 6.1. 109 CR/PR at 1.8. 110 CR/PR at 1.8. 111 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i). 27 The volume of subject imports increased by 37.7 percent between 2022 and 2024, from 609,000 pounds in 2022 to 752,000 pounds in 2023 and 839,000 pounds in 2024.112 Subject import volume was slightly higher in interim 2025, at 141,000 pounds, compared with interim 2024, at 140,000 pounds.113 U.S. shipments of subject imports as a share of apparent U.S. total market consumption increased by *** percentage points over the POI, from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2023 and *** percent in 2024.114 Subject import market share was *** higher in interim 2025, at *** percent, compared with interim 2024, at *** percent.115 Accordingly, we find that the volume of subject imports and the increase in that volume are significant, in absolute terms and relative to apparent U.S. consumption. D. Price Effects of the Subject Imports Section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of the subject imports, the Commission shall consider whether (I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and 112 CR/PR at Tables 4.2, C.1. 113 CR/PR at Tables 4.2, C.1. 114 CR/PR at Tables 4.9, C.1. Subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption for the merchant market increased by *** percentage points over the POI, from *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, and *** percent in 2024. Id. at Table C.2. 115 CR/PR at Tables 4.9, C.1. Subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption for the merchant market was *** percentage points higher in interim 2025, at *** percent, compared with interim 2024, at *** percent. Id. at Table C.2. 28 (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.116 As discussed above in Section V.B.3, we have found that there is a high degree of substitutability between the domestic like product and subject imports and that price is an important factor in purchasing decisions, among other important factors. We have examined several sources of data in our underselling analysis, including pricing data, import purchase cost data, and information concerning lost sales. The Commission requested that U.S. producers and importers provide quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of two ceramic abrasive grain products shipped to unrelated U.S. customers during the POI.117 Both U.S. producers and five importers118 provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested pricing products, although not all firms reported data for all products for all quarters.119 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. producers’ total U.S. shipments of ceramic abrasive grains and *** of U.S. producers’ U.S. commercial shipments (excluding internal transfers and sales to related parties). The pricing 116 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii). 117 The two pricing products are as follows: Product 1.—Sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains, Form: blue or white translucent to off-white/opaque, with a predominant chemical composition of Al 2O 3 ≥ 95%, possessing a weak and splintery shape Product 2.—Sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains, Form: blue or white translucent to off-white/opaque, with a predominant chemical composition of Al 2O 3 ≥ 94%, possessing an extruded rod shape. CR/PR at 5.4. 118 Importer *** did not submit a questionnaire response during the final phase but reported price data for pricing product *** in the fourth quarter of 2024 during the preliminary phase of these investigations. As pricing product definitions have not changed, we were able to incorporate these data into the pricing analysis for the final phase. 119 Per-unit pricing data are calculated from total quantity and total value data provided by U.S. producers and importers. The precision and variation of these figures may be affected by rounding, limited quantities, and producer or importer estimates. 29 data also accounted for approximately *** percent of total U.S. shipments of subject imports from China in 2024 and *** percent of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from China in 2024.120 The pricing data show that subject imports undersold the domestic like product in all 14 quarterly comparisons involving *** pounds of subject merchandise.121 Underselling margins ranged from *** percent to *** percent, and averaged *** percent.122 There were no reported instances where prices for subject imports were above prices for the domestic like product.123 The Commission also collected import purchase cost data for the same two pricing products from firms that imported these products from China. Four importers provided usable purchase cost data, although not all firms reported data for all products for all quarters.124 Purchase cost data reported by these firms accounted for *** percent of imports from China in 2024.125 The import purchase cost data show that the landed duty-paid (“LDP”) costs for subject imports were less than the sales price for the domestic like product in all 13 quarterly comparisons, at price-cost differentials ranging from *** percent to *** percent, and averaging *** percent,126 covering *** pounds of subject imports.127 Thus, LDP costs for subject imports were lower than the domestic sales prices in all quarterly comparisons, corresponding to 100.0 percent of reported subject import purchases.128 120 CR/PR at 5.4. 121 CR/PR at Table 5.7. 122 CR/PR at Table 5.7. 123 CR/PR at Table 5.7. 124 CR/PR at 5.4, Tables 5.3-5.4. 125 CR/PR at 5.4. 126 CR/PR at Table 5.9. 127 CR/PR at Table 5.9. 128 CR/PR at Table 5.9. 30 We recognize that the import purchase cost data may not reflect the total cost of importing and therefore requested that direct importers provide information regarding the additional costs and benefits of directly importing ceramic abrasive grains. Three of the four importers that provided purchase cost data reported that they did not incur additional costs by importing themselves.129 Importer *** reported that it incurred additional costs beyond LDP costs by importing ceramic abrasive grains itself rather than purchasing from a U.S. producer or U.S. importer.130 U.S. importers were also asked whether the cost of ceramic abrasive grains that they imported was lower than the price of purchasing ceramic abrasive grains from a U.S. producer or importer. Three of four importers reported lower import costs, relative to the price of U.S. product, even including additional costs.131 Reported savings from importing ceramic abrasive grains instead of purchasing from a U.S. producer ranged from *** to *** percent, while reported savings of importing directly ranged from *** to *** percent.132 We have also considered lost sales information. Of six responding purchasers, two reported that they purchased subject imports rather than domestically produced 129 CR/PR at 5.9. 130 CR/PR at 5.9. These reported additional costs resulted from the need to “carry additional inventory” due to “longer lead times”, with estimated additional costs of *** percent compared to LDP value. Id. We do not find it credible that the additional inventory costs would be substantially more than *** the import purchase costs. At this level of inventory costs, it would not be financially advantageous for *** to directly import instead of purchasing from an importer. See CR/PR at Table 5.3. 131 CR/PR at 5.9. In determining whether to directly import ceramic abrasive grains, two of the four responding importers reported that they compare costs of importing to both the cost of purchasing from a U.S. producer and the cost of purchasing from another importer, one compares costs to purchasing from a U.S. importer, and one importer reported that it does not compare costs of purchasing from either. Id. 132 Three firms reported that they based their estimates on previous company transactions, and one reported basing its estimates on market research. CR/PR at 5.9. 31 ceramic abrasive grains since 2022, with one of these purchasers reporting that subject import prices were lower than domestic prices.133 None of the responding purchasers reported that price was a primary reason for the decision to purchase subject imports instead of the domestic like product.134 They reported that their purchases of domestically produced ceramic abrasive grains decreased as a share of their total purchases by *** percent over the POI, their purchases of subject imports decreased as a share of their total purchases by *** percent over the same period, and their purchases of nonsubject imports increased as a share of their total purchases by *** percent over the same period.135 Based on the record, including the high degree of substitutability between the domestic like product and subject imports, the importance of price in purchasing decisions, pricing data showing universal underselling, and purchase cost data showing subject import costs were universally lower than the price of the domestic like product, we find that subject import underselling was significant.136 The underselling allowed subject imports to gain market share at the expense of the domestic industry. As subject import volume increased and subject imports undersold the domestic like product from 2022 to 2024, subject imports gained *** percentage points of market share from 2022 to 2024, *** percentage points of which came directly at the 133 CR/PR at 5.14, Table 5.12. 134 CR/PR at 5.14, Table 5.12. Purchaser *** reported that “there are not domestic manufacturers that make the finished goods” the firm requires as a non-price reason for purchasing imported rather than U.S.-produced product. Id. 135 CR/PR at Table 5.11. 136 Id. at 4.9, Table C.1. Subject imports gained *** percentage points in market share in the merchant market between 2022 and 2024, and *** percentage points in market share in interim 2025 compared to interim 2024, at the domestic industry’s expense. Id. at Table C.2. 32 expense of the domestic industry and *** in interim 2025 compared to interim 2024, *** of which came at the direct expense of the domestic industry.137 We have also considered whether subject imports depressed or suppressed domestic industry prices during the POI, although pricing product trends may be affected by relatively low coverage of total shipments. While the domestic industry’s sales prices for ceramic abrasive grains increased overall between the first and last quarters of the POI,138 its prices remained relatively stable throughout the POI.139 Prices for domestically produced product 1 fluctuated, generally increasing through mid-2023, decreasing through mid-2024 and ultimately increasing by *** percent over the period.140 For pricing product 2, available data show that domestic prices began at $*** per pound in the first quarter of 2022 before increasing to $*** per pound in the second quarter of 2022, where they remained for the remainder of the POI.141 Meanwhile, subject import prices declined significantly—although these trends are also based on data with low coverage of total shipments.142 The trends for pricing product 1, the only pricing product for which data is available, showed a decrease in price of almost *** percent from 2022 to 2023, before increasing in 2024 then decreasing in interim 2025, resulting in subject import prices decreasing by *** percent from the beginning to the end of the POI.143 144 137 CR/PR at Tables 4.9, C.1. 138 The domestic industry’s sales increased over the POI by *** percent for Pricing Product 1. CR/PR at Table 5.5. There is no data for Pricing Product 2. Id. 139 CR/PR at Tables 5.3-5.4. 140 CR/PR at Table 5.6. 141 CR/PR at Table 5.4. 142 CR/PR at Tables 5.3-5.4. 143 CR/PR at Table 5.6. 144 Of the six responding purchasers, none confirmed lost revenues. CR/PR at 5.14. 33 The domestic industry’s ratio of COGS to net sales increased irregularly by *** percentage points between 2022 and 2024, from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2023 and *** percent in 2024.145 Between 2022 and 2024, the domestic industry’s COGS per pound increased by $*** per pound, or *** percent,146 driven by increases in raw material costs of $***, or *** percent, per pound147 and other factory costs increases of $***, or *** percent, per pound, both of which accounted for substantial portions of the industry’s COGS.148 149 Direct labor costs, which accounted for the smallest portion of COGS, also experienced increases of $***, or *** percent, per pound.150 151 At the same time, the domestic industry’s net sales average unit values (“AUVs”) decreased by $***, or *** percent, per pound.152 The domestic industry’s ratio of COGS to net sales was *** percentage points higher in interim 2025, at *** percent, compared to interim 2024, at *** percent.153 The domestic 145 CR/PR at Tables 6.1, 6.5, C.1. The domestic industry’s ratio of COGS to net sales for the merchant market increased irregularly by *** percentage points between 2022 and 2024, from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2023 and *** percent in 2024. Id. at Table C.2. 146 Calculated from CR/PR at Tables 6.1, 6.5, C.1. The domestic industry’s COGS per pound increased irregularly from $*** in 2022 to $*** in 2023 and $*** in 2024. Id. The domestic industry’s COGS per pound for the merchant market increased irregularly by *** percent, from $*** in 2022 to $*** in 2023 and $*** in 2024. Id. at Table C.2. 147 Calculated from CR/PR at Tables 6.1, 6.5. The domestic industry’s raw material costs per pound increased irregularly from $*** in 2022 to $*** in 2023 and $*** in 2024. Id. 148 Calculated from CR/PR at Tables 6.1, 6.5. The domestic industry’s other factory costs per pound increased from $*** in 2022 to $*** in 2023 and $*** in 2024. Id. 149 Other factory costs comprised the largest portion of COGS in 2024, at *** percent, followed by raw material costs, which accounted for *** percent. Calculated from CR/PR at Table 6.1. 150 Calculated from CR/PR at Tables 6.1, 6.5. The domestic industry’s direct labor costs per pound increased irregularly from $*** in 2022 to $*** in 2023 and $*** in 2024. Id. 151 Direct labor costs accounted for *** percent of COGS in 2024. Calculated from CR/PR at Table 6.1. 152 CR/PR at Tables 6.1, 6.5, C.1. The domestic industry’s net sales AUVs per pound increased from $*** in 2021 to $*** in 2023 and then decreased to $*** in 2024. Id. 153 CR/PR at Tables 6.1, C.1. The domestic industry’s ratio of COGS to net sales for the merchant market was *** percentage points higher in interim 2025, at *** percent, compared to interim 2024, at *** percent. Id. at Table C.2. 34 industry’s COGS per pound was higher by $***, or *** percent,154 while its net sales value per metric ton was lower by $***, or *** percent.155 Raw material costs per metric ton were lower by $***, or *** percent; direct labor costs per metric ton were higher by $***, or *** percent; and other factory costs per metric ton were higher by $***, or *** percent.156 As the domestic industry’s COGS to net sales ratio increased, it’s operating income margin declined from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024.157 We find that subject imports undersold the domestic like product to a significant degree, which enabled subject imports to gain market share at the expense of the domestic industry. We therefore find that subject imports had significant price effects. E. Impact of the Subject Imports158 Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that examining the impact of subject 154 CR/PR at Tables 6.1, 6.5, C.1. The domestic industry’s COGS per pound was *** percent higher in interim 2025, at $***, than in interim 2024, at $***. Id. The domestic industry’s COGS per pound for the merchant market was *** percent higher in interim 2025, at $***, than in interim 2024, at $***. Id. at Table C.2. 155 CR/PR at Tables 6.1, 6.5, C.1. The domestic industry’s net sales value per pound was *** percent lower in interim 2025, at $***, than in interim 2024, at $***. Id. 156 CR/PR at Tables 6.1, 6.5. The domestic industry’s raw material costs per pound were lower at $*** in interim 2025, compared with $*** in interim 2024; their direct labor costs per pound were higher at $*** in interim 2025, compared with $*** in interim 2024; their other factory costs per pound were higher at $*** in interim 2025, compared with $*** in interim 2024. Id. 157 Based on the available data, Commissioner Kearns finds that subject imports suppressed and depressed prices of the domestic like product during the POI. As the domestic industry’s unit COGS increased *** percent over 2022-24 and *** percent over the interim periods, its unit net sales value not only failed to keep up with the increase in unit COGS, but declined by *** percent from 2022 to 2024 and then by *** percent over the interim periods. CR/PR at Table 6.2. As a result, the domestic industry’s COGS/net sales ratio increased from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024 and then to *** percent in interim 2025. Id. at Table 6.1. Because of the low coverage of total U.S. shipments in pricing product data, he finds the U.S. price trends from the pricing product data to be of less probative value than AUV data. 158 In its final determination of sales at less than fair value, Commerce found dumping margins of 152.38 to 269.02 percent for imports from China. Certain Alkyl Phosphate Esters from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 90 Fed. Reg. 17404, (Continued...) 35 imports, the Commission “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the industry.”159 These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, gross profits, net profits, operating profits, cash flow, return on investment, return on capital, ability to raise capital, ability to service debts, research and development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”160 During the POI, the domestic industry’s production, capacity utilization, and financial indicators weakened between 2022 and 2024, and were lower in interim 2025 compared to interim 2024.161 U.S. shipments remained steady, while employment largely decreased.162 Subject imports increased and gained *** percentage points of market share at the expense of the domestic industry from 2022 to 2024, and *** at the domestic industry’s expense between interim periods.163 The domestic industry’s trade-related indicators declined between 2022 and 2024, and 17405 (Apr. 25, 2025). We take into account in our analysis the fact that Commerce has made a final finding that all subject producers in China are selling subject imports in the United States at less than fair value. 159 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”). 160 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). This provision was amended by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-27. 161 CR/PR at Table C.1. 162 CR/PR at Table C.1. 163 CR/PR at Table C.1. Subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption for the merchant market increased by *** percentage points from 2022 to 2024, and *** percentage points between the interim periods. Id. at Table C.2. 36 were lower in interim 2025, compared with interim 2024. Its production decreased by *** percent from 2022 to 2024,164 and the industry’s capacity decreased by *** percent during the same period.165 The industry’s capacity utilization decreased by *** percentage points,166 as did the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments, which decreased by *** percent from 2022 to 2024.167 While apparent U.S. consumption decreased from 2022 to 2024 by *** percent, the domestic industry’s share increased by *** percent over the same period.168 Although apparent U.S. consumption was higher in interim 2025 compared with interim 2024, the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments decreased, and as a result, the domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.169 The domestic 164 The industry’s production fell from *** pounds in 2022 to *** pounds in 2023 and *** pounds in 2024; it was *** percent lower, at *** pounds, in interim 2025, compared with *** pounds in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables 3.5, C.1. 165 The industry’s capacity fell from *** pounds in 2022 to *** pounds in 2023 and *** pounds in 2024; it was *** percent lower, at *** pounds, in interim 2025, compared with *** pounds in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables 3.5, C.1. 166 The industry’s capacity utilization fell from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2023 and *** percent in 2024; it was *** percentage points lower, at *** percent, in interim 2025, compared with *** percent in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables 3.5, C.1. 167 The industry’s U.S. shipments fell slightly from *** pounds in 2022 to *** pounds in 2023, then increased slightly to *** pounds in 2024; they were *** percent higher, at *** pounds, in interim 2025, compared with *** pounds in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables 3.7, C.1. The industry’s U.S. shipments into the merchant market decreased irregularly by *** percent from 2022 to 2024, falling from *** pounds in 2022 to *** pounds in 2023, and then increasing to *** pounds in 2024; they were *** percent lower, at *** pounds, in interim 2025, compared with *** pounds in interim 2024. Id. at Table C.2. 168 The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption of *** percent in 2022, remained essentially unchanged in 2023, at *** percent, and increased to *** percent in 2024. CR/PR at Tables 4.9, C.1. The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption for the merchant market decreased irregularly by *** percentage points, falling from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2023, and raising to *** percent in 2024. Id. at Table C.2. 169 The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent in interim 2025, compared with *** percent in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables 4.9, C.1. The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption in the merchant market, at *** percent in interim 2025, was *** percentage points less than its *** percent share in interim 2024. Id. at Table C.2. 37 industry’s end-of-period inventories decreased irregularly by *** percent from 2022 to 2024.170 As a share of total shipments, the domestic industry’s end-of-period inventories initially increased in 2023, before decreasing in 2024 to a level *** percentage points lower than in 2022.171 The domestic industry’s employment-related indicators generally declined from 2022 to 2024 and were mixed when comparing interim 2025 to interim 2024. The number of production and related workers (“PRWs”) decreased by *** percent from 2022 to 2024,172 and hours worked by *** percent.173 Wages paid decreased by *** percent,174 and productivity by *** percent.175 The domestic industry’s financial indicators also deteriorated over the POI and sharply deteriorated in interim 2025 compared to interim 2024. The industry’s net sales revenue 170 The domestic industry’s end-of-period inventories were *** pounds in 2022, increased slightly to *** pounds in 2023, and decreased to *** pounds in 2024; they were *** percent lower, at *** pounds, in interim 2025, compared with *** pounds in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables 3.13, C.1. 171 As a share of total shipments, the domestic industry’s end-of-period inventories were *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, and *** percent in 2024; they were *** percentage points lower, at *** percent, in interim 2025, compared with at *** percent in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables 3.13, C.1. 172 The number of PRWs decreased from *** in 2022 to *** in 2023 and *** in 2024; it was *** percent higher in interim 2025, at *** PRWs, as compared to *** PRWs in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables 3.16, C.1. 173 Hours worked totaled *** hours in 2022, fell to *** hours in 2023, and rose slightly to *** hours in 2024; they were *** percent higher, at *** hours, in interim 2025, compare with *** hours in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables 3.16, C.1. 174 Wages paid totaled $*** in 2022, fell to $*** in 2023, and rose slightly to $*** in 2024; they were *** percent higher, at $***, in interim 2025, compared with $*** in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables 3.16, C.1. 175 Productivity was *** pounds per hour in 2022, rose to *** pounds per hour in 2023, and fell to *** pounds per hour in 2024; it was *** percent lower, at *** pounds per hour, in interim 2025, compared with *** pounds per hour in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables 3.16, C.1. 38 decreased by *** percent from 2022 to 2024.176 The industry’s gross profits decreased irregularly by *** percent from 2022 to 2024,177 as did its operating income, which decreased irregularly by *** percent.178 As a ratio to net sales, the industry’s operating income declined irregularly by *** percentage points.179 Its capital expenditures increased irregularly by *** percent,180 while total net assets decreased by *** percent181 and return on assets increased by *** percent.182 R&D expenses decreased irregularly by *** percent.183 As discussed above, we find that the significant volume of subject imports undersold the 176 The industry’s net sales revenue fell from $*** in 2022 to $*** in 2023 and $*** in 2024; it was *** percent lower, at $***, in interim 2025, compared with $*** in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables 6.1, C.1.177 The industry’s gross profits fell from $*** in 2022 to $*** in 2023 and $*** in 2024; they were *** percent lower, at $***, in interim 2025, compared with $*** in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables 6.1, C.1. The industry’s gross profits for sales in the merchant market decreased by *** percent, from $*** in 2022 to $*** in 2023 and $*** in 2024; they were *** percent lower, at $***, in interim 2025, compared with $*** in interim 2024. Id. at Table C.2. 178 The industry’s operating income increased from $*** in 2022 to $*** in 2023, and decreased to $*** in 2024; it was *** percent lower, at $***, in interim 2025, compared with $*** interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables 6.1, C.1. The industry’s operating income for sales in the merchant market decreased by *** percent, from $*** in 2022 to $*** in 2023 and $*** in 2024; it was *** percent lower, at $***, in interim 2025, compared with $*** interim 2024. Id. at Table C.2. 179 Operating income as a ratio to net sales increased from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2023 and decreased to *** percent in 2024; it was *** percentage points lower, at *** percent, in interim 2025, compared with *** percent in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables 6.1, C.1. The industry’s net income and net income ratios were identical or essentially identical to its operating income and operating income ratios for each year and the interim periods. Id. Operating income as a ratio to net sales for sales in the merchant market decreased by *** percentage points, increasing from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2023 and decreasing to *** percent in 2024; it was *** percentage points lower, at *** percent, in interim 2025, compared with *** percent in interim 2024. Id. at Table C.2. 180 The industry’s capital expenditures grew from $*** in 2022 to $*** in 2023 and fell to $*** in 2024; they were *** percent lower, at $***, in interim 2025, compared with $*** in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables 6.6, C.1. 181 U.S. producers’ total net assets were valued at $*** in 2022, $*** in 2023, and $*** in 2024. CR/PR at Tables 6.10, C.1. 182 The industry’s return on assets grew from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2023, and *** percent in 2024. CR/PR at Table 6.11. 183 R&D expenditures were $*** in 2022, $*** in 2023, and $*** in 2024; they were *** percent lower, at $***, in interim 2025, compared with $*** in interim 2024. CR/PR at Tables 6.8, C.1. 39 domestic like product to a significant degree throughout the POI, in all quarterly comparisons. As a result of this underselling, the domestic industry lost market share to subject imports from 2022 to 2024, and its capacity, production, capacity utilization, U.S. shipments, and net sales quantity all declined. The domestic industry’s net sales value, gross profit, operating income, net income, and operating and net income margins also declined over the POI.184 185 We have considered whether there are other factors that may have had an impact on the domestic industry to ensure that we are not attributing injury from other factors to subject imports. We find that nonsubject imports do not explain the domestic industry’s deteriorating performance. Although nonsubject imports were the second-largest source of supply to the U.S. market during the POI, their share of apparent U.S. consumption based on quantity remained relatively steady, decreasing from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2023 and *** percent in 2024.186 The record also indicates that the AUVs of U.S. shipments of nonsubject imports were 184 As noted in Section D, Commissioner Kearns finds subject imports suppressed and depressed U.S. prices. This price effect contributed to the significant declines in the domestic industry’s net sales revenue, gross profits, operating and net income and operating and net margins. For example, accounting only for the decline in the domestic industry’s net sales quantity without factoring in the decline in unit net sales value, the net sales revenue would have been $*** in 2024, a decline of *** percent from $*** in 2022. Instead, as noted above, net sales revenue fell to $*** in 2024, a decrease of *** percent. Apparent consumption declined by only *** percent from 2022 to 2024, meaning softening demand is unlikely to explain the full decline in the unit net sales value. Apparent consumption did not decrease over the interim periods, when similar price effects occurred with corresponding impacts on the domestic industry’s financial condition. Calculated from CR/PR at Table C.1. 185 We note that the entirety of the market share shift toward subject imports was related to declines in U.S. producers’ shipments of re-imports. CR/PR at Table C.1. In this process, U.S. exports of loose grains are subsequently attached to downstream products such as grinding wheels or sandpaper and then re-imported. Although the decline in the volume of U.S. exports was greater than the decline in U.S. re-imports of U.S.-origin grain between 2002 and 2024, and thus may have had negative effects on the domestic industry beyond the effects of the market share shift, this does not negate the impact of the market share shift on the domestic industry. 186 CR/PR at Tables 4.9, C.1. Nonsubject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption for the merchant market remained relatively stable over the POI as well, at *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, and *** percent in 2024. Id. at Table C.2. 40 higher than the AUVs of U.S. shipments of subject imports and increased throughout the POI, while AUVs of subject imports decreased in 2024 and were lower in interim 2025 than interim 2024.187 Therefore, nonsubject imports cannot explain the shift in market share from the domestic industry to subject imports. We consider whether changes in demand were responsible for the domestic industry’s deteriorating condition. Although apparent U.S. consumption declined by *** percent between 2022 and 2024, it was *** percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.188 As discussed in section V.B.1 above, the questionnaire responses of U.S. producers and responding importers and purchasers report that demand either increased steadily, fluctuated up, or did not change during the POI.189 Thus, it does not appear that most market participants perceived a decline in demand, and the apparent consumption data suggest a *** decline. Furthermore, the decline in apparent consumption does not explain the shift in market share from domestic producers to subject imports, nor the significant underselling by subject imports. In sum, based on the record of the final phase of these investigations, we find that subject imports had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we determine that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subject imports of ceramic abrasive grains from China that have 187 CR/PR at Table C.1. We recognize that AUV comparisons may be influenced by differences in product mix and changes in product mix over time. 188 CR/PR at 4.9 and Table C.1. Apparent U.S. consumption in the merchant market decreased by *** percent between 2022 and 2024, decreasing from *** pounds in 2022 to *** pounds in 2023 and remaining at *** pounds in 2024; it was *** percent lower in interim 2025, at *** pounds, compared with interim 2024, at *** pounds. Id. at Table C.2. 189 CR/PR at 2.8. 41 been found by Commerce to be sold in the United States at LTFV and subsidized by the government of China. 43 Separate Views of Commissioner Johanson I join Sections I to V.B. of the Commission’s opinion, unless otherwise indicated below. I write separately because I do not determine that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of sol-gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains from China found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) and subsidized by the government of China. Instead, I find that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of such imports. No Material Injury No respondent party has participated in this investigation, so I do not find it necessary to explain fully the reasons that I do not find that a domestic industry was not materially injured by subject imports. Yet, principal reasons include the following. Based on U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments in the total market, the domestic industry’s U.S. market share increased slightly from 2022 through 2024, rising *** percentage points from *** percent to *** percent, as increases in subject imports came entirely at the expense of nonsubject imports in this period.1 To be sure, such market share figures do not account for declines in U.S. producers’ shipments of reimports. Some of the domestic industry’s exports were reimported into the United States after they were exported and attached abroad to downstream products such as grinding wheels or sandpaper. These are reported in the Staff report as U.S. shipments of imports of U.S. produced grains.2 From 2022 to 2024, these declined by *** pounds, a 1 CR/PR at Table C.1. 2 E.g., CR/PR at Table C.1. 44 reduction of *** percent.3 If these are counted as part of the domestic industry’s market share, then U.S. producers’ U.S. market share decreased slightly, falling *** percentage points from *** percent to *** percent.4 Petitioner argues that this reduction resulted from price-based competition with subject imports in the U.S. market.5 Yet, any such competition based on the price of ceramic abrasive grains would have been significantly attenuated for two reasons. First, ceramic abrasive grains comprise only *** percent of the finished cost of downstream products resulting from captive production, on average, so the cost of other components in the downstream products likely would have played a much larger role in any price-based competition between them, along with the role of other factors that could influence the price of downstream products such as the supply of those products.6 Similarly, ceramic abrasive grains comprised only *** percent of the volume of downstream products, on average,7 so the non-price characteristics of other materials in those products likely would have had a much larger influence on non-price competitive factors such as the quality of grinding wheels or sandpaper. Accordingly, I find that the slight decrease in U.S. producers’ U.S. market share from 2022 to 2024 inclusive of reimports is not significant for purposes of my present injury analysis. 3 CR/PR at Table C.1. 4 CR/PR at Table C.1. 5 Petitioner’s Posthearing Br. 1-2. 6 CR/PR at 3.12. 7 CR/PR at Table 3.12. 45 Additionally, the domestic industry was highly profitable from 2022 through 2024. For example, its net income margin in the total market was *** percent in 2022, *** percent in 2023, and *** percent in 2024.8 To the extent the U.S. industry’s financial performance did decline from 2022 to 2024, much if not all of that decline resulted from decreases in U.S. exports of ceramic abrasive grains. Decreases in exports accounted for *** of the decreases in the U.S. industry’s total shipments in this period: the industry’s annual U.S. shipments decreased by *** pounds from 2022 to 2024 while its annual export shipments decreased by *** pounds.9 In dollar terms, the industry’s annual U.S. shipments decreased $*** while its annual export shipments decreased $***.10 It is difficult to separate clearly the relative effect of decreases in domestic and export shipments upon the domestic industry’s employment and financial performance. Yet, decreases in exports would have reduced the industry’s employment relatively more than the much smaller decreases in domestic shipments. Decreases in exports would have greatly influenced profit and financial indicators such as the industry’s COGS-to-net-sales ratio through many mechanisms, including the need to allocate more fixed costs and semi-fixed costs to the much more robust domestic shipments. Furthermore, other factors unrelated to subject imports likely explained at least part of the deterioration in domestic industry financial performance. One was nonsubject imports, 8 CR/PR at Table C.1. 9 CR/PR at Table C.1. 10 CR/PR at Table C.1. 46 which consistently had a greater market share than subject imports throughout the POI.11 Another was weak demand. From 2022 to 2024, apparent consumption decreased *** percent.12 This decrease was small but many prices decreased, which would have been expected to support consumption,13 and *** reported that U.S. demand was steadily decreasing.14 The domestic industry’s increased prices in the commercial market and its excellent financial performance were particularly notable given the weakness in demand. I recognize that the domestic industry’s trade and financial performance weakened in many respects in the first quarter of 2025. The domestic industry’s market share (based on U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments exclusive of reimports) was *** percentage points lower in the first quarter of 2025, at *** percent, than it had been in the first quarter of 2024 when it was *** percent, while the market share of both subject and nonsubject imports was larger.15 Similarly, the domestic industry’s financial performance worsened distinctly in the first quarter of 2025 although it remained strong. For example, the domestic industry’s net income margin was *** percent in the first quarter of 2024 and *** percent in the first quarter of 2025.16 Yet, I place 11 CR/PR at Table C.1. 12 CR/PR at Table C.1. 13 Domestic prices of pricing products increased *** percent over the POI, but domestic producers’ AUVs of U.S. shipments (which represented a much larger volume) decreased *** percent, and subject import purchase costs decreased *** percent. CR/PR at 5.4, 5.10 & Tables 5.10 & C.1. Pricing product data covered *** U.S. producers’ U.S. commercial shipments of ceramic abrasive grains but only *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. commercial shipments, and less than *** percent of subject imports, reflecting that the *** of U.S. producers’ shipments were captively consumed while the *** of subject imports were directly imported. CR/PR at 5.4. 14 CR/PR at Table 2.5. In posthearing responses to Commission questions, Saint-Gobain asserted that demand for ceramic abrasive grains is “either consistent or increasing across all sources but *** have a distortive effect on the aggregate data.” Petitioner Posthearing Br. 5-6. Yet, its explanation seems to suggest that the Commission should place more weight on merchant market trends, which saw a greater decrease in apparent consumption from 2022 to 2024. CR/PR at Tables C.2 & C.3. 15 CR/PR at Table C.1. 16 CR/PR at Table C.1. 47 relatively little weight on data from a single-quarter interim period for purposes of a present injury analysis. For these reasons -- among others -- I do not find that a domestic industry has been materially injured by reason of subject imports of ceramic abrasive grains from China. Threat of Injury For the following reasons, however, I find that a domestic industry is threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of ceramic abrasive grains from China. A. Legal Standards Section 771(7)(F) of the Tariff Act directs the Commission to determine whether the domestic industry is threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing whether “further dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted.”17 The Commission may not make such a determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition” and considers the threat factors “as a whole” in making its determination whether dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of subject imports would occur unless an order issues.18 In considering the existence of threat of material injury, I consider all factors set forth as relevant in the statute.19 17 19 USC 1677(7)(F)(ii). 18 19 USC 1677(7)(F)(ii). 19 See 19 USC 1677(F)(i). These factors are as follows: (I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement), and whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase, (II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject (Continued...) 48 B. Likely Volume The volume of cumulated subject imports was significant both absolutely and relative to U.S. consumption during the POI. As discussed above, from 2022 to 2024, the increase in subject imports’ relative to U.S. consumption came entirely at the expense of nonsubject imports or as a result of reductions in U.S. producers’ reimports, with which subject imports’ competition was attenuated. Thus, I do not consider the increase in subject imports to have been significant. Yet, as also discussed above, data from the first quarter of 2025 suggest the potential beginning of an increase in subject imports that would have come at the expense of the domestic industry’s U.S. market share even without consideration of reimports. merchandise into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports, (III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports, (IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices and are likely to increase demand for further imports, (V) inventories of the subject merchandise, (VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products, ... (VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product, and (IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability that there is likely to be material injury by reason of imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually being imported at the time). 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i). To organize my analysis, I discuss the applicable statutory threat factors using the same volume/price/impact framework that applies to our material injury analysis. Thus, I discuss factors (I), (II), (III), (V), and (VI) in the analysis of subject import volume; factor (IV) in the analysis of import price effects; and factors (VIII) and (IX) in the analysis of impact. Factor (VII) concerning agricultural products does not apply in this investigation. 49 The available questionnaire data also suggest that Chinese producers have large and increasing excess capacity. The two responding Chinese producers reported that their capacity increased by *** pounds from *** pounds in 2022 to *** pounds in 2024, while their production increased only *** pounds.20 They project further increases in capacity to *** pounds in 2025 and *** pounds in 2026, while their production is expected to increase considerably less, to *** pounds in 2025 and *** pounds in 2026.21 In 2026, they project that their capacity will exceed their production by *** pounds, which is equivalent to *** percent of the volume of subject imports in 2024.22 Moreover, these producers represent only *** percent of estimated Chinese production of ceramic abrasive grains and only *** percent of subject exports to the United States.23 To the extent these producers represent the industry in China as a whole, they suggest that Chinese producers of ceramic abrasive grains will have both incentive and ability to substantially increase exports of subject merchandise to the United States in the imminent future. Additionally, the Chinese industry is quite export oriented. Responding Chinese producers exported or project exporting between *** percent of their shipments.24 China accounts for almost three-fourths of global exports of artificial corundum, the HTS category that includes ceramic abrasive grains, and its share of global exports has been growing.25 The EU commenced an antidumping investigation of fused alumina including ceramic abrasive 20 CR/PR at Table 7.5. 21 CR/PR at Table 7.5. 22 Calculated from CR/PR at Tables 7.5 and C.1. 23 CR/PR at Table 7.1. 24 CR/PR at Table 7.5. 25 CR/PR at Table 710. 50 grains from China in November 2024, which will encourage Chinese exporters to divert exports to the United States if it reaches an affirmative determination in the imminent future.26 Thus, Chinese producers will have both ability and incentive to significantly increase production and export ceramic abrasive grains to the United States in the imminent future. C. Likely Price Effects Subject imports undersold domestic like product or sold at lower cost than domestic products in all available comparisons.27 Moreover, both underselling margins and average purchase cost-price differentials increased late in the POI.28 Thus, even though subject imports did not gain significant market share at the expense of the domestic industry as a result of price effects, pricing competition from subject imports is likely to intensify in the imminent future. This in turn would lead to additional shifts in market share from domestic products to subject imports in the imminent future as the result of pricing as Chinese producers increase their exports to the U.S. market. D. Likely Impact In the imminent future, I would expect that continued decreases in apparent consumption combined with increased imports of highly substitutable products that increasingly undersell domestic products would result in accelerated shifts in market share away from domestic producers and toward subject imports. While such shifts were not significant during the POI, they are likely to become significant in the imminent future. As discussed above, the domestic industry’s trade and financial performance was excellent during 26 CR/PR at 7.12. 27 CR/PR at Tables 5.8 & 5.9. 28 CR/PR at 5.10 & Tables 5.5, 5.6, and 5.10. 51 the POI and was largely unaffected by subject import pricing. Still, at the start of 2025 that performance had begun to deteriorate. Moreover, even though the domestic industry as a whole was still quite profitable in the first quarter of 2025, ***.29 Further losses of market share would reduce profitability even further to the point that would have a significant adverse impact on the industry as a whole and result in material injury. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, I determine that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of ceramic abrasive grains from China. 29 CR/PR at Table 6.5. *** CR/PR at Table 6.5. 1.1 Introduction Background These investigations result from petitions filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. (“Saint-Gobain Ceramics”), Malvern, Pennsylvania, on November 25, 2024, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized and less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains (“ceramic abrasive grains”)1 from China. Table 1.1 presents information relating to the background of these investigations.2 3 Table 1.1 Ceramic abrasive grains: Information relating to the background and schedule of this proceeding Effective date Action November 25, 2024 Petitions filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of the Commission's investigations (89 FR 95235, December 2, 2024) December 6, 2024 Commerce’s notice of extended deadline for its initiation determination; (89 FR 100465, December 12, 2024) December 13, 2024 Commission’s notice of revised schedule (89 FR 102953, December 18, 2024) January 6, 2025 Commerce’s notices of countervailing duty (CVD) and antidumping duty (AD) initiation (90 FR 3175 and 3179, January 14, 2025) January 29, 2025 Commission’s preliminary determinations (90 FR 8810, February 3, 2025) May 22, 2025 Commerce’s preliminary CVD determination (90 FR 21893, May 22, 2025); scheduling of final phase of Commission investigations (90 FR 23359, June 2, 2025) May 29, 2025 Commerce’s alignment of final CVD determination with final AD determination (90 FR 22698, May 29, 2025) June 2, 2025 Commerce’s preliminary AD determination (90 FR 23319, June 2, 2025) August 5, 2025 Commission’s hearing cancelled (90 FR 38501, August 8, 2025) August 15, 2025 Commerce’s final CVD and AD determinations (90 FR 39366 and 39367, August 15, 2025) September 3, 2025 Commission’s vote September 19, 2025 Commission’s views 1 See the section entitled “The subject merchandise” in Part 1 of this report for a complete description of the merchandise subject in this proceeding. 2 Pertinent Federal Register notices are referenced in appendix A and may be found at the Commission’s website (www.usitc.gov). 3 Appendix B presents the Federal Register notice of the cancellation of the Commission’s hearing. 1.2 Statutory criteria Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission— shall consider (Ⅰ) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (Ⅱ) the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States for domestic like products, and (Ⅲ) the impact of imports of such merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only in the context of production operations within the United States; and. . . may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of imports. Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that—4 In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States is significant.. . .In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the Commission shall consider whether. . .(Ⅰ) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and (Ⅱ) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.. . . In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph (B)(ⅰ)(Ⅲ), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to. . . (Ⅰ) actual and potential decline in output, sales, market share, gross profits, operating profits, net profits, ability to service debt, productivity, return on investments, return on assets, and utilization of capacity, (Ⅱ) factors affecting domestic prices, (Ⅲ) actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, (Ⅳ) actual and potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including efforts to develop a derivative 4 Amended by PL 114—27 (as signed, June 29, 2015), Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. 1.3 or more advanced version of the domestic like product, and (Ⅴ) in {an antidumping investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping. In addition, Section 771(7)(J) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(J)) provides that—5 (J) EFFECT OF PROFITABILITY.—The Commission may not determine that there is no material injury or threat of material injury to an industry in the United States merely because that industry is profitable or because the performance of that industry has recently improved. Organization of report Part 1 of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, subsidy rates/dumping margins, and domestic like product. Part 2 of this report presents information on conditions of competition and other relevant economic factors. Part 3 presents information on the condition of the U.S. industry, including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Parts 4 and 5 present the volume of subject imports and pricing of domestic and imported products, respectively. Part 6 presents information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. Part 7 presents the statutory requirements and information obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat of material injury as well as information regarding nonsubject countries. Market summary Ceramic abrasive grains are generally used in applications where extremely hard abrasives for the grinding or dressing of difficult materials are required.6 The U.S. producers of ceramic abrasive grains are Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. (“Saint-Gobain Ceramics”) and 3M Company (“3M”), while leading producers of ceramic abrasive grains outside the United States include Imerys Mount Tai Co., Ltd. (“Imerys”) and Saint-Gobain Ceramic Materials (Zhengzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Saint-Gobain (Zhengzhou)”) of China. 5 Amended by PL 114—27 (as signed, June 29, 2015), Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. 6 Petition, p. 1.8. 1.4 The leading U.S. importers of ceramic abrasive grains from China are ***. The leading importers of ceramic abrasive grains from nonsubject sources (primarily Europe) include ***. The responding purchasers were firms in a variety of domestic industries; many responding purchasers are involved in the production of grinding materials. Large purchasers of ceramic abrasive grains include ***. Apparent U.S. consumption of ceramic abrasive grains totaled approximately *** pounds ($***) in 2024. Currently, two firms are known to produce ceramic abrasive grains in the United States. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of ceramic abrasive grains totaled *** pounds ($***) in 2024, and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value.7 U.S. shipments of imports from China totaled *** pounds ($***) in 2024 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. shipments of imports from nonsubject sources totaled *** pounds ($***) in 2024 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. Summary data and data sources A summary of data collected in these investigations is presented in appendix C. The Commission’s questionnaires collected data for the years 2022 to 2024 and interim periods January through March of 2024 (“interim 2024”) and January through March of 2025 (“interim 2025”). Except as noted, U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of two firms that accounted for all known U.S. production of ceramic abrasive grains during 2024. U.S. imports are based on the importer questionnaires of 21 firms.8 Foreign industry data are based on the questionnaire responses of two firms. 7 For purposes of apparent U.S. consumption, U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments include U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated into downstream products. For a detailed discussion of such U.S. shipments of imports, please see Part 3. 8 For a detailed discussion of importer questionnaire coverage, please see Part 4. 1.5 Previous and related investigations Ceramic abrasive grains have not been the subject of any prior countervailing or antidumping duty investigations in the United States. However, in November 2002, the Commission instituted an antidumping duty investigation regarding imports of out-of-scope refined brown aluminum oxide (“RBAO”) from China; Investigation No. 731-TA-1022. On November 10, 2003, the Commission found that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of less than fair value imports of RBAO from China. On November 19, 2003, Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on imports of RBAO from China.9 Following an expedited fourth five-year review, Commerce continued the antidumping duty order, effective July 8, 2025.10 Nature and extent of subsidies and sales at LTFV Subsidies On August 15, 2025, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final determination of countervailable subsidies for producers and exporters of ceramic abrasive grains from China.11 Table 1.2 presents Commerce’s findings of subsidization of ceramic abrasive grains in China. 9 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Third Review), USITC Publication 5020, February 2020, p. 3. 10 90 FR 33919, July 18, 2025. 11 90 FR 39367, August 15, 2025. 1.6 Table 1.2 Ceramic abrasive grains: Commerce’s final subsidy determination with respect to imports from China Entity Final countervailable subsidy rate (percent) Qingdao SISA Abrasives Co., Ltd. 165.05 Shandong Imerys Mount Tai Co., Ltd. 165.05 Futong Industry Co., Ltd. 165.05 Guangzhou Qianyang Metals & Machine 165.05 Kumthai Abrasives Co., Ltd. 165.05 Luoyang Runbao Super Abrasives Co. 165.05 More Superhard Products Co., Ltd. 165.05 Qingdao Roy Grinding Material Co. 165.05 Reckel Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. 165.05 Zhengshou Haixu Abrasives Co. 165.05 All others 165.05 Source: 90 FR 39367, August 15, 2025. Note: Company-specific subsidy rates are based on facts available with adverse inferences. For further information on programs determined to be countervailable, see Commerce’s associated Issues and Decision Memorandum. Sales at LTFV On August 15, 2025, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final determination of sales at LTFV with respect to imports from China.12 Table 1.3 presents Commerce’s dumping margins with respect to imports of ceramic abrasive grains from China. Table 1.3 Ceramic abrasive grains: Commerce’s final weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from China Entity Final dumping margin (percent) China-wide Entity 88.32 Source: 90 FR 39366, August 15, 2025. Note: The dumping margin is based on facts available with adverse inferences. 12 90 FR 39366, August 15, 2025. 1.7 The subject merchandise Commerce’s scope In the current proceeding, Commerce has defined the scope as follows:13 The merchandise covered by this investigation is sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains which are comprised of minimum 94% aluminum oxide (Al2O3), and may contain other compounds, including, but not limited to, titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, calcium oxide, sodium superoxide, ferric oxide, magnesium oxide, di-aluminum magnesium tetroxide, lanthanum oxide, lanthanum magnesium oxide, zirconium dioxide, or zirconium carbonate. Grain sizes of sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains range from 0.85 mm to 0.0395 mm (which corresponds to American National Standards Institute (ANSI) grit sizes from 20 to 280). Shapes include but are not limited to angular, sharp, extra sharp, blocky, splintery, round stripped, triangular or shaped like extruded rods or stars. Ceramic abrasive grains have unique crystalline structures that impart certain advanced properties, such as their extreme hardness and strength ranging between 16 and 22 gigapascals by the Vickers Diamond Indent Method, high melting point (2050 °C), and a single- or multi-phase microstructure, which may contain multiple phases, having crystalline sizes ranging from 0.05 to 30μm. These ceramic abrasive grains include but are not limited to blue, white, white-translucent, or off-white opaque colors. Sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains are covered by the scope of this investigation, whether or not incorporated into downstream articles, including but not limited to, abrasive papers, grinding wheels, grinding cylinders, and grinding discs. When incorporated into downstream articles, only the sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains component of such articles is covered by the product scope, and not the downstream product as a whole. 13 90 FR 39366 and 39367, August 15, 2025. 1.8 Tariff treatment Ceramic abrasive grains are currently imported under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) statistical reporting numbers 2818.10.2010 and 2818.10.2090.14 The general rate of duty is 1.3 percent ad valorem for HTS subheading 2818.10.20.15 Decisions on the tariff classification and treatment of imported goods are within the authority of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Effective September 1, 2019, ceramic abrasive grains originating in China were subject to an additional 15 percent ad valorem duty under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Effective February 14, 2020, the section 301 duty for ceramic abrasive grains was reduced to 7.5 percent ad valorem duty.16 Ceramic abrasive grains originating in China are not subject to reciprocal tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”).17 14 USITC, HTS (2025), Publication 5659, August 2025, p. 28.10. As denoted in the scope, only white sol-gel ceramic abrasive grains containing more than 97.5 percent by weight entering under 2818.10.2010 are subject to the proceedings of this investigation. Conference transcript, p. 37 (Leonard). 15 The subject merchandise in these investigations may be incorporated into downstream articles provided under HTS statistical reporting numbers 2818.10.1000, 2818.20.0000, 2818.30.0000, 3824.99.1100, 3824.99.1900, 6804.22.1000, 6804.22.4000, 6804.22.6000, 8204.12.0000, 8474.90.0010, 8474.90.0020, 8474.90.0050, and 8474.90.0090. Petitioner states that for classifications 2818.10.1000, 2818.20.0000, 2818.30.0000, 3824.99.1100, 3824.99.1900 subject goods, if classified correctly would not enter under these statistical reporting numbers. Conference transcript, pp. 38 to 39 (Schaefer). For subject product entering under HTS statistical reporting numbers 6804.22.1000, 6804.22.4000, 6804.22.6000, 8204.12.0000, 8474.90.0010, 8474.90.0020, 8474.90.0050, and 8474.90.0090 there is no material change to the subject goods (i.e., ceramic abrasive grains produced via the sol-gel method) when they are included in the downstream products as described. Conference transcript, p. 41 (Leonard). USITC, HTS (2025), Publication 5659, August 2025, pp. 28.10, 68.5, 82.5, and 84.102. 16 84 FR 45821, August 30, 2019; 85 FR 3741, January 22, 2020. See also HTS heading 9903.88.15 and U.S. notes 20(r) and 20(s) to subchapter III of chapter 99 and related tariff provisions for this duty treatment. USITC, HTS (2025), Publication 5659, August 2025, pp. 99.3.7, 99.3.125, 99.3.295. 17 Ceramic abrasive grains are included in the list of products that are not subject to reciprocal tariffs. Subheadings listed in Annex II of 90 FR 15041, April 7, 2025, and in U.S. note 2(v)(iii) to subchapter III of chapter 99. 90 FR 15041, April 7, 2025. See also HTS headings 9903.01.25 and 9903.01.32 and U.S. note 2(v) to subchapter III of chapter 99 and related tariff provisions for this duty treatment. USITC, HTS (2025), Publication 5659, August 2025, pp. 99.3.4 to 99.3.14, 99.3.304 to 99.3.307. 1.9 The product Description and applications18 Ceramic abrasive grains are a solid inorganic chemical produced via the sol-gel method.19 This chemical is a processed form of aluminum oxide (Al 2 O3 ), often referred to as corundum, isolated from mined bauxites.20 Ceramic abrasive grains produced via the sol-gel method have extreme hardness and strength, resistance to abrasion and chemicals, a high melting point, high thermal conductivity, a high degree of refractoriness, high dielectric strength, and high electrical resistivity at elevated temperatures when compared to traditional aluminum oxide grains (i.e., conventional fused grains, such as white fused alumina) (table 1.2).21 The color may range from white translucent to off-white opaque.22 18 Unless otherwise noted, this information is based on Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-750 and 731-TA-1728 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 5581, February 2025, pp. 1.7 to 1.10. 19 This product may be described in shorthand or otherwise referred to by the industry as “Seeded Gel Abrasive,” “Non-Seeded Sol-gel Abrasive,” “Sol-gel Abrasive, ”Sol-gel,” “BCA for Coated Abrasives,” “BCA Ceramic Abrasive,” “Blue Ceramic Abrasive,” “Ceramic Abrasive Grains,” “Ceramic Grains,” as well as, in some instances by “Ceramic Abrasive,” or “Ceramic Alumina Abrasive,” though the latter two descriptors more aptly describe the end-product abrasives that the subject merchandise is used with, such as grinding wheels or sandpaper belts. Petition, vol. 1, p. 9. 20 According to the petitioner the in-scope ceramic abrasive grains are largely slightly opaque to white, although 3M produces in-scope ceramic abrasive grains that are blue when cobalt is introduced during the manufacturing process. Petitioner uses magnesium oxide (MgO) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO 2, zirconia) as dopants. Pink and “other colors” (e.g., red) come from the conventional (i.e., fused) process. Conference transcript, pp. 46 to 47 (Mydlarz); Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 7. The grains may include the presence of other compounds such as titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, calcium oxide, sodium superoxide, ferric oxide, magnesium oxide, di-aluminum magnesium tetroxide, zirconium dioxide, or zirconium carbonate. The presence of these compounds may impact the color of the ceramic abrasive grains and contribute to the underlying chemistries/properties of the ceramic abrasive grains in question. Conference transcript, pp. 46 to 47 (Schaeffer). As described in the scope, covered products in the petition contain a minimum of 94 percent aluminum oxide. Petition, vol. 1, p. 9. 21 In industry the term “CTQ” (Critical to Quality) is term that is used to describe and identify parameters that allow the product to function. Conference transcript, p. 36 (Leonard). The differences in properties between sol-gel and conventional grains are attributed to the differences in the crystalline structures of the grains produced via the different methods. Petition, vol. 1, p. 9. 22 Petition, vol. 1, p. 23. 1.10 Table 1.2 Comparison of Properties of Ceramic Abrasive Grains and White Fused Alumina g/cc = grams per cubic centimeter; μm = micrometer; GPa = gigapascal Parameter Ceramic Abrasive Grains (in scope) White Fused Alumina (out of scope) Primary Process Sintering in kiln at ~1100–1500°C Fusion in electric arc furnace at ~2000°C Typical Specific Gravity 3.8–4.0 g/cc 3.9‒4.1 g/cc Typical Hardness 16–22 GPa ~16 GPa Typical Purity 95.0–99.5% Al2O 3 ≥99.0% Al2O 3 Microstructure/ Crystalline size 0.1–30 μm 2500 μm Commercially Available Sizes 4.0–1850 μm ~1.0–1850 μm Melting Point 2050°C 2050°C Dielectric Strength High Moderate Refractoriness Higher High Source: Adapted from petition, vol.1, pp. 10 to 11; Huang, et al., “Advances in Fabrication Of Ceramic Corundum Abrasives Based on Sol–Gel Process,” Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 34(6), June 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.07.004; Satyendra, “Refractories and Classification of Refractories,” April 30, 2017, https://www.ispatguru.com/refractories-and-classification-of-refractories/; Bhatia, “Overview of Refractory Materials,” 2020, pp. 6, 14, https://www.pdhonline.com/courses/m158/m158content.pdf. Note: Parameters here are noted to be “typical,” ranges are provided, or general descriptors are given (e.g., higher). Hardness of other common “hard” abrasives are as follows: cubic boron nitride (CBN)=42- 54 GPa; diamond=70-80 GPa; silicon carbide (SiC)=24-30 GPa. Refractoriness is the ability of a material to withstand the action of heat without appreciable deformation. The softening of a refractory's multiphase to reach a specific softening degree at high temperature without load is measured with a pyrometric cone equivalent (PCE) test. The 99 percent alumina class of refractories is called corundum—these refractories comprise single phase, polycrystalline, and alpha-alumina (α-Al2O 3). The description of higher and high were supplied by the petitioner. 1.11 The performance distinction between ceramic abrasive grains and conventional fused grains is due to the ceramic’s unique crystalline structure, which makes ceramic abrasive grains more durable and less prone to cracks during grinding compared with conventional fused grains.23 All of the ceramic abrasive grains covered by the scope of these investigations share similar physical characteristics and uses. They are composed of a minimum of 94 percent aluminum oxide (Al 2 O3 ) by weight, with other trace chemical constituents present.24 Ceramic abrasive grains are predominantly used in industrial applications, as well as consumer products; examples include grinding, dressing, and deburring applications in the automotive, aerospace, foundry, woodworking, electronics and semiconductor, and metal and metal-matrix composite fabrication industries.25 Additionally, ceramic abrasive grains have consumer applications for construction and home improvement projects.26 Ceramic abrasive grains can be used in a variety of products, such as bonded abrasives (e.g., grinding wheels for high tensile materials), coated abrasives (e.g., paper, discs, and belts for wood and metalworking), and surface preparation products (e.g., blast media, ceramic deburring tools, and cutting tools to roughen, shape, buff, polish, or finish a work piece) produced for bonded or coated consumer applications.27 28 23 The crystalline structure of ceramic abrasive grains limits large fracturing of the grain, preventing potential metal damage that would result if large fracturing were to occur during abrasive operations. Petition, vol. 1, p. 9. 24 Grain sizes of ceramic abrasive grains generally range from 0.85–0.0395 mm (which corresponds to ANSI grit sizes from 20 to 280) and have a crystalline size of 0.1–30 μm. They have a generally irregular shape, including angular, sharp, extra sharp, or extruded rods, as well as other useful shapes. The hardness generally ranges between 16–22 gigapascals by the Vickers Diamond Indent Method. Petition, vol. 3, p. 23. Petitioner states that the most popular grain size is ***, representing *** percent of its ceramic grain sales. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 2. 25 Petition, vol. 1, pp. 9 to 10. 26 Petition, vol. 1, pp. 9 to 10. 27 When incorporated into downstream articles, only the sol-gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains component of such articles is covered by the scope and not the downstream product as a whole. 28 Bonded abrasive applications (and corresponding markets) include: outside diameter (OD)/cylindrical grinding (automotive/metal working), inside diameter (ID) grinding (bearing/automotive), mounted wheels (primary metals/do-it yourself (DIY)), surface grinding (overall maintenance repair/metalworking), double disc (automotive components/foundry), tool grinding/re- grinding (overall maintenance repair/metalworking), bearing OD (bearing/automotive), gear grinding (automotive/wind/heavy equipment), creepfeed high metal removal (aerospace/ land-based turbine). Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 8 1.12 Ceramic abrasive grains manufactured via the sol-gel method are used primarily by bonded and coated abrasive manufacturers.29 These grains are commonly incorporated through bonding (such as vitrified or resinoid)30 or coating to grinding media (i.e., sandpapers, grinding wheels, grinding cylinders, and grinding discs), which are used primarily in industrial (but also in consumer) applications that require extremely hard abrasives for the grinding or dressing of difficult materials.31 Bonded abrasives contain grains that are held tightly together by agents such as binders, fillers, or other forming agents into defined forms, typically a wheel, stone, or grinding segment to perform a grinding operation.32 These can, for example, be mounted on a tool for cutting or grinding operations or used in segments by hand to sharpen knives. Coated abrasives contain ceramic abrasive grains bound, via adhesives, to a flexible substrate base material that is either cloth- or paper-based, often taking the form of flexible grinding belts or sheets for use in sanding or die grinding operations.33 29 Petition, vol. 1, p. 13. 30 Vitrified bonds are fired in a kiln to create a hard, porous structure and are made from a mixture of clay, feldspar and quartz. Resinoid bonds are cured to form a solid bond, made from synthetic resins (e.g., phenolic or polyester). Action Superabrasive, “Vitrified Bond vs. Resinoid Bond Grinding Wheels,” accessed December 18, 2024, https://actionsuper.com/vitrified-bond-vs-resinoid-bond-grinding- wheels/. 31 Petition, vol. 1, p. 10. 32 Bonded abrasives are made by combining premium grains with functional filler materials and bonding agents. This mixture is compressed into a final shape (e.g., grinding wheels/discs or sharpening stone). Customers of bonded abrasives incorporate the grain into glass/vitrified or resinoid bonds. Petition, vol. 1, pp. 9, 13; Saint-Gobain, “Bonded Abrasives: A Brief Selection Guide,” February 11, 2021, https://www.abrasivematerials.saint-gobain.com/articles/bonded-abrasives-brief-selection-guide. Bonded ceramic abrasive grains sizes range from 20 to 200 and follow ANSI or Fepa F sizing (both results in the same values/sizes). Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 8. 33 Coated abrasives are engineered by depositing one or more layers of abrasive on a flexible substrate like a sheet or a belt (i.e., sandpaper). Customers of coated abrasives apply various organic coatings to the grain. Petition, vol. 1, p. 13; Saint-Gobain, “Bonded Abrasives: A Brief Selection Guide,” February 11, 2021, https://www.abrasivematerials.saint-gobain.com/articles/bonded-abrasives-brief- selection-guide. Coated ceramic abrasive grains sizes range from 24 to 220 and follow Fepa P sizing. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 8. 1.13 Manufacturing processes34 The sol-gel process35 has been adopted commercially over the past couple of decades in order to produce materials that possess both mechanical and thermal properties that exceed the properties of ceramic abrasive grains produced via traditional methods.36 Generally the sol- gel method allows for more precision and uniformity for composition, microstructure, and purity.37 According to petitioner, minor variations in the production process to produce ceramic abrasive grains may occur; these variations do not impact the fundamental properties or applications of the product.38 The sol-gel process involves the following steps: 1) solution preparation, 2) sol formation, 3) gelation, 4) drying, 5) calcination, and 6) crushing or shaping and sintering (figure 1.1). After sintering, the ceramic abrasive grains are screened to size and specifications (sizing and grading), and packed into supersacks, drums, or small bags.39 34 Unless otherwise noted, this information is based on Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-750 and 731-TA-1728 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 5581, February 2025, pp. 1.11 to 1.15. 35 Petitioner states that both U.S. and Chinese ceramic abrasive grains are produced using virtually identical processes. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 4. 36 Sol-gel manufacturing was first developed in the 1950s with the purpose of producing ceramics and glass advance properties, both mechanical and thermal. USITC, “Industry, Trade, and Technology Review,” p. 13, https://www.usitc.gov/publications/ittr/ittr2942.pdf. The core innovations that were established in the commercialization of ceramic abrasive grains produced via the sol-gel method expired in 2005. Current innovations covered under intellectual property are more specific and build upon the earlier initial patent. This includes innovations ranging from the microstructure to the macrostructure and the shape of the ceramic abrasive grains—all of Petitioner’s ceramic abrasive grain products that are protected by IP are used in bonded and sandpaper applications. Conference transcript, pp. 55 to 56 (Mydlarz); Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 3, 6. 37 Compared to traditional methods, the sol-gel process often utilizes lower temperatures and reduced energy costs. Production of conventional grains involves smelting calcined bauxite and alumina in electric arc furnaces by electrothermal fusion at temperatures of around 2000°C. USITC, “Industry, Trade, and Technology Review,” p. 13, https://www.usitc.gov/publications/ittr/ittr2942.pdf; Petition, vol. 1, p. 11. 38 Petitioner reaffirmed postconference that the difference between ceramic abrasive grains and conventional grains is the unique crystalline microstructure and crystalline size. Conventional grains may have tens of crystals, while ceramic abrasive grains have billions of crystals, which in turn creates exponentially more self-sharpening points. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 3. 39 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 7. 1.14 Figure 1.1 General steps for production of ceramic abrasive grain via the sol-gel method Source: Compiled by staff based on information provided in Petition, vol. 1, p. 9, Science Direct, “Sol-Gel Processing,” https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/sol-gel-processing#definition; Science Direct, “Sol-gel,” https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/sol-gel#definition; Marques, “Sol- gel Process: An Overview Gel Process,” June 22, 2007, https://www.lehigh.edu/imi/teched/LecBasic/Marques_Sol_gel.pdf; Conference transcript, pp. 57 to 58 (Mydlarz); Petitioner’s postconference brief, 6. Note: Calcination temperatures are usually anywhere between 400–800°C; the dried gel is kept at this temperature until both free water and more than 90 percent, by weight, of bound water is removed. Calcined material is sintered to temperatures of approximately 1200–1650°C (on average around 1300°C). Shaping is reportedly more costly, but customers may require specific shapes (i.e., not crushed) depending on end-use application for the ceramic abrasive grain in question. 1.15 The production of ceramic abrasive grains differs in both scale and time when compared to the production of conventional fused grains.40 Ceramic abrasive grain batches on the scale of 2,000 kilograms (kg) and are produced and packaged over approximately three weeks, while traditional fused grains are produced on a scale that is an order of magnitude large (20,000 kg) and are produced and packaged in a little over a week.41 Specifically, the production of ceramic abrasive grains usually follows this timeline:42 1. Mixing and reacting (2,000 kg/batch): 2 days 2. Drying: 2 days 3. Shaping (through crushing, molding or forming): 1 week 4. Sintering (through high temperature kilns) and Quality Control Checks: 1 week 5. Sizing and grading (screening to size and specifications): 3 days 6. Packaging (supersacks, drums, and small bags): 1 day More specifically, the sol-gel process for the production of in scope ceramic abrasive grains involves forming a gel43 from an aluminum oxide monohydrate (AlOOH, “boehmite”)44 solution, which is subsequently extruded, dried, sintered, then crushed.45 This process forms a grain with a unique nano-structure, made up of unvarying sub-micron crystals which continuously microfracture and create new cutting edges when stressed.46 In nature, aluminum 40 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 7. 41 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 7. 42 By comparison the timing for the production of conventional fused is as follows: 1) Fusion (20,000 kg/batch): 2 days; 2) Crushing: 1 day; 3) Sizing and grading (screening to size and specifications): 3 days; 4) Packaging (supersacks, drums, and small bags): 1 day. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 7. 43 Gel: a colloid in which a liquid contains a solid arranged in fine network extending throughout the system to produce a viscous, jelly-like product. Colloid: a state in which small particles of solid, liquid, or gas are distributed in a gas, liquid, or solid. The dispersed particles are small and do not form an obviously separate phase, but they are not so small that they can be said to be in true solution. USITC, “Industry, Trade, and Technology Review,” p. 26, https://www.usitc.gov/publications/ittr/ittr2942.pdf. 44 Conversely, the production of out-of-scope conventional fused grains are produced via electrothermal fusion from the smelting of bauxite and alumina in electric arc furnace at high temperature. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 5. See also, table 1.2 above. 45 Sintering is a heat treatment process where loose material is subjected to high temperature and pressure in order to compact it into a solid piece. TWI Global, “What is Sintering,” accessed December 17, 2024, https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/what-is- sintering#:~:text=Sintering%2C%20which%20is%20also%20called,fusing%20together%20into%20one%2 0piece; USITC, “Industry, Trade, and Technology Review,” p. 13, https://www.usitc.gov/publications/ittr/ittr2942.pdf. See e.g., U.S. Patent No. 5,453,104 (Sep. 26, 1995), Petition, vol. 1, Exhibit 3. 46 Saint-Gobain, “Understanding Seeded Gel Micro Abrasive Technology,” June 11, 2021, https://www.abrasivematerials.saint-gobain.com/articles/understanding-seeded-gel-micro-abrasive- technology. 1.16 is primarily found in the form of one of the following types of compounds: boehmite (AlOOH), alumina trihydrate (Al(OH)3 ), and alumina (Al 2 O3 ).47 When heated, these compounds will ultimately form α-Al2 O3 , a stable thermodynamic state, the controlled heating of boehmite, produces transition alumina phases as a function of temperature.48 Eventually the sequential controlled heating transforms boehmite into α-Al2 O3 (figure 1.2).49 Figure 1.2 Phase changes that boehmite undergoes to yield ceramic alumina abrasive grains Source: Adapted from Petition, vol. 1, 12 and Kaunsito, et al. “Evolution of Alumina Phase Structure in Thermal Plasma Processing,” Ceramics International, 49(13), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2023.03.263 . Note: Alumina transformation depends on the heating rate and precursors used in the synthesis, so only temperature range for each transition can be provided. Sintering, referring to figure 1.1, is what yields the stable, desired α-Al2O 3. 47 Chemical abstract services numbers (CAS No.) are as follows: AlOOH CAS No. 24623-77-6; Al(OH) 3 CAS No. 8064-00-4; Al 2O 3 CAS No. 1344-28-1. Other materials used in the production of ceramic abrasive grains via the sol-gel method are deionized water, “seeds,” and nitric acid. Additionally, dopants or metal oxide salts may be introduced during the process to yield certain desired properties. Petition, vol. 1, p. 12. During the staff conference petitioner indicated that its manufacturing process starts with boehmite, not further upstream, in the production of in scope ceramic abrasive grains. It is not aware if the other domestic producer, 3M, starts the manufacturing process further upstream (e.g., manufacturing boehmite). Conference transcript, pp. 31 to 33 (Mydlarz). 48 The metastable transition phases, such as γ (gamma), δ (delta), and θ (theta) are typically utilized, for example, as catalysts and catalysis support materials due to their lower surface energy and high specific surface area, respectively. Kaunsito, et al., “Evolution of Alumina Phase Structure in Thermal Plasma Processing,” Ceramics International, 49(13), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2023.03.263. 49 Alumina ceramics have a variety of crystal phases, in addition to the α-phase of thermodynamic stability; more than a dozen transition crystal phases have thermodynamic instability (e.g., γ-, δ-, and θ- phase). Huang, et al., “Advances in Fabrication of Ceramic Corundum Abrasives Based on Sol–Gel Process,” Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 34(6), June 2021, p. 3, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.07.004; Petition, vol. 1, p. 12. 1.17 The standard production method for ceramic abrasive grains after sintering involves “crushing methods” which yield sharp, blocky, or splintery shapes. Ceramic abrasive grains that are produced via the crushing method typically yield in coarser sizes (20–40 grits) for ceramic abrasive grains.50 At times, multiple crushing processes are required to produce the finer grit sizes.51 Petitioner states that certain customers request “shape-to-size” ceramic abrasive grains such as rod-shaped or other shaped grains (e.g., Cerpass TGE)52 that require the application of shaping methods (e.g., extrusion method).53 Petitioner states that customers generally have a cost-benefit analysis for using shape-to-size ceramic abrasive grains.54 In Petitioner’s opinion any application requiring high metal removal with difficult to grind materials is an ideal choice for shape-to-size ceramic abrasive grains.55 Ultimately, raw materials and production methods can be and are adjusted to alter the microstructure of the ceramic abrasive grain. Very fine crystal sizes require high purity raw materials and processing, which may include high temperature sintering to achieve the final microstructure properties.56 Finally, the microstructure of the ceramic abrasive grain can be controlled during production through the conditions applied during the mixing and sintering steps.57 Specifically, the uniformity of the mixture and the final time and temperature of sintering impact the ceramic abrasive grain’s microstructure.58 50 Yield decreases significantly however as grit sizes move finer toward 80, 100, and 120 grits. Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 5 to 6. 51 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 6. 52 See, Saint-Gobain “Cerpass TGE,” accessed December 20, 2024, https://www.abrasivematerials.saint-gobain.com/products/cerpass-ceramic-grains/cerpass-tge-seeded- gel-abrasive-grains. 53 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 6. 54 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 6. 55 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 6. 56 Microstructure is influenced by the boehmite (crystallite size, dispersibility, and dispersion size), seeds (size and amount), impurities (e.g., silicon dioxide (SiO 2) can cause sintering issues, overfiring leads to larger microstructure), and dopants (e.g., magnesium oxide (MgO) is a sintering aid and zirconium dioxide (ZrO 2, zirconia) “pins” the microstructure). Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 6. 57 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 6. 58 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 6. 1.18 Domestic like product issues No issues with respect to domestic like product have been raised in these investigations. In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the Commission defined a single domestic like product, coextensive with the scope.59 In the final phase of these investigations, no parties requested data or other information necessary for the analysis of the domestic like product. Petitioner maintained that the domestic like product should be defined as a single domestic like product, coextensive with the scope.60 No other party commented on the domestic like product definition. 59 Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-750 and 731-TA-1728 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 5581, February 2025, pp. 11 to 12. 60 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, pp. 4 to 12. 2.1 Part 2: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market U.S. market characteristics Sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains (ceramic abrasive grains)1 are predominantly used in industrial applications, with some uses in consumer products.2 They are commonly incorporated through bonding or coating to grinding media into end use products (i.e., sandpapers, grinding wheels, grinding cylinders, and grinding discs). Ceramic abrasive grains are composed of a minimum 94 percent aluminum oxide (Al 2 O3 ) and may contain other compounds with colors that may range from white translucent to off-white opaque.3 Grain sizes range from 0.85–0.0395 mm4 and come in and are sold as a variety of shapes, including irregular, angular, sharp, extra sharp, blocky, rods, splintery, round strip, triangles, and star. The hardness of ceramic abrasive grains ranges between 16 and 22 gigapascals.5 The end use products that include ceramic abrasive grains in their composition are used in a variety of industrial manufacturing processes including automotive, aerospace, foundry, woodworking, electronics and semiconductors.6 In the consumer market, ceramic abrasive grains are contained in products used in construction and home improvement.7 1 This product may be described in shorthand or otherwise referred to by the industry as “Seeded Gel Abrasive,” “Non-Seeded Sol-gel Abrasive,” “Sol-gel Abrasive, ”Sol-gel,” “BCA for Coated Abrasives,” “BCA Ceramic Abrasive,” “Blue Ceramic Abrasive,” “Ceramic abrasive grains,” “Ceramic Grains,” as well as, in some instances by “Ceramic Abrasive,” or “Ceramic Alumina Abrasive,” though the latter two descriptors more aptly describe the end-product abrasives that the subject merchandise is used with, such as grinding wheels or sandpaper belts. Petition, vol. 1, p. 9. 2 Petitioner prehearing brief, p. 13. 3 Petition, vol. 1, p. 9. According to the petitioner, the in-scope ceramic abrasive grains are largely slightly opaque to white, although 3M produces in-scope ceramic abrasive grains that are blue by introducing cobalt during the manufacturing process. Conference transcript, pp. 46 to 47 (Mydlarz). The grains may include the presence of other compounds, such as titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, calcium oxide, sodium superoxide, ferric oxide, magnesium oxide, di-aluminum magnesium tetroxide, zirconium dioxide, or zirconium carbonate. The presence of these compounds may impact the color of the ceramic abrasive grains and contribute to the underlying chemistries/properties of the ceramic abrasive grains in question. Conference transcript, pp. 46 to 47 (Schaeffer). 4 Corresponds to ANSI grit sizes from 20 to 280. The crystalline size of ceramic abrasive grains generally ranges from 0.1–30 μm. Petition, vol. 3, p. 23. 5 Per the Vickers Diamond Indent Method. Petition, vol. 3, p. 23. 6 Conference transcript, p. 9; Petitioner prehearing brief, p. 6. 7 Conference transcript, p. 9; Petitioner prehearing brief, p. 6. 2.2 U.S. producer *** and the majority of responding importers (10 of 15) indicated that the market was *** to distinctive conditions of competition. U.S. producer *** reported that the ceramic abrasive grains market was subject to distinctive conditions of competition because Chinese suppliers sell at prices below its variable costs. Importer *** reported that the *** market is highly dynamic and new products from domestic and foreign sources are continuously added to the offer of coated abrasives. Apparent U.S. consumption (by quantity) of ceramic abrasive grains decreased by *** percent from 2022 to 2024. Apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent higher in interim 2025 compared to interim 2024. U.S. purchasers The Commission received six usable questionnaire responses from firms that had purchased ceramic abrasive grains during January 2022 to March 2025.8 9 10 Three responding purchasers are distributors and three are end users. In general, responding U.S. purchasers were located in the Midwest and the Northeast. The responding purchasers represented firms in a variety of domestic industries; many responding purchasers are involved in the production of grinding materials. Large purchasers of ceramic abrasive grains include ***. Impact of section 301 tariffs and new and modified tariffs11 U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to report the impact of section 301 tariffs and new and modified tariffs since January 1, 2025 (table 2.1). *** responding U.S. producers reported that section 301 tariffs *** on the U.S. market for ceramic abrasive grains, and *** U.S. producers reported that new or modified tariffs (e.g., IEEPA, reciprocal, etc.) ***. Five of eight responding importers and two of three responding purchasers reported that section 301 tariffs had an impact on the market, mostly by raising the cost to import.12 8 The following firms provided purchaser questionnaire responses: ***. 9 Of the six responding purchasers, five purchased the domestic ceramic abrasive grains, three purchased imports of the subject merchandise from China, and four purchased imports of ceramic abrasive grains from other sources. 10 Five purchasers indicated they had marketing/pricing knowledge of domestic product, five of Chinese product, and five of nonsubject countries. 11 See Part 1, “Tariff treatment” for additional information. 12 The remaining nine importers and three purchasers reported that they did not know if section 301 tariffs had an impact. 2.3 Ten of 11 responding importers and 3 of 5 responding purchasers reported that new and modified tariffs had an impact on the ceramic abrasive grains market, primarily leading to price increases across raw materials for ceramic abrasive grains.13 Importer *** reported that, so far, these tariffs have had a limited impact on supply and demand. Purchaser *** reported that price has increased by 4 to 8 percent for most suppliers, that supply has not been impacted, and that while demand has slowed over the period, this slowing began prior to January 1, 2025. Table 2.1 Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of firms' responses regarding if there was any impact of the section 301 tariffs and new or modified tariffs Count in number of firms reporting Impact of market from Firm type No Yes Don't know 301 tariffs U.S. producers *** *** *** 301 tariffs Importers 3 5 9 301 tariffs Purchasers 2 1 3 New or modified tariffs U.S. producers *** *** *** New or modified tariffs Importers 1 10 6 New or modified tariffs Purchasers 2 3 1 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Channels of distribution U.S. producers sold mainly to *** throughout the period and, while importers sold mainly to end users during 2022 and 2023, the share of shipments to distributors increased over the period and accounted for the majority of U.S. shipments of Chinese ceramic abrasive grains in 2024, as shown in table 2.2. Importers of nonsubject ceramic abrasive grains sold primarily to distributors throughout the period. 13 Six importers and one purchaser reported that they did not know the impact. 2.4 Table 2.2 Ceramic abrasive grains: Share of U.S. shipments by source, channel of distribution, and period Shares in percent; interim is January through March Source Channel 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 United States Distributors *** *** *** *** *** United States End users *** *** *** *** *** China Distributors *** *** *** *** *** China End users *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject Distributors *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject End users *** *** *** *** *** All imports Distributors *** *** *** *** *** All imports End users *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Geographic distribution U.S. producers reported selling ceramic abrasive grains to the *** regions of the United States (table 2.3). Importers reported selling to all regions of the United States. For U.S. producers, *** percent of sales were between 101 and 1,000 miles, and *** percent were over 1,000 miles. Importers sold *** percent between 101 and 1,000 miles, and *** percent over 1,000 miles.14 Table 2.3 Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ geographic markets Count in number of firms reporting Region U.S. producers China Northeast *** 5 Midwest *** 6 Southeast *** 5 Central Southwest *** 4 Mountains *** 4 Pacific Coast *** 5 Other *** 3 All regions (except Other) *** 4 Reporting firms 2 9 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Other U.S. markets include AK, HI, PR, and VI. 14 The remaining *** percent of importers’ sales were between zero and 100 miles. 2.5 Supply and demand considerations U.S. supply Table 2.4 provides a summary of the supply factors regarding ceramic abrasive grains from U.S. producers and from subject countries. Table 2.4: Ceramic abrasive grains: Supply factors that affect the ability to increase shipments to the U.S. market, by country Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratios and shares in percent; count in number of firms reporting Factor Measure United States China Capacity 2022 Quantity *** *** Capacity 2024 Quantity *** *** Capacity utilization 2022 Ratio *** *** Capacity utilization 2024 Ratio *** *** Inventories to total shipments 2022 Ratio *** *** Inventories to total shipments 2024 Ratio *** *** Home market shipments 2024 Share *** *** Non-US export market shipments 2024 Share *** *** Ability to shift production Count *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Responding U.S. producers accounted for all known U.S. production of ceramic abrasive grains in 2024. Responding foreign producer/exporter firms accounted for less than 25 percent of U.S. imports of ceramic abrasive grains from China during 2024. For additional data on the number of responding firms and their share of U.S. production and of U.S. imports from each subject country, please refer to Parts 3 and 7. Domestic production Based on available information, U.S. producers of ceramic abrasive grains have the ability to respond to changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused capacity, the availability of inventories, and the ability to shift products from alternate markets. Factors mitigating the responsiveness of supply include the inability to shift production to or from alternate products. U.S. producers reported decreased production and production capacity from 2022 to 2024. Production decreased more than production capacity, leading to a decrease in capacity utilization over the period. U.S. producers’ inventories decreased from 2022 to 2024 but remained substantial. U.S. producers’ export shipments decreased from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024. *** responding U.S. producers reported that they were *** to produce other products on the same equipment used to produce ceramic abrasive grains. 2.6 Subject imports from China Based on available information, producers of ceramic abrasive grains from China have the ability to respond to changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of ceramic abrasive grains to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to this degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused capacity, the availability of inventories, and the ability to shift products from alternate markets. Factors mitigating the responsiveness of supply include the inability to shift production to or from alternate products. Chinese producers reported that production capacity increased from 2022 to 2024 while capacity utilization decreased over the same period. Chinese producers’ inventories increased over the period from *** percent of total shipments in 2022 to *** percent in 2024. Chinese producers reported selling *** percent of total shipments to markets other than the United States in 2024. Chinese producers reported that they were unable to produce other products on the same equipment used to produce ceramic abrasive grains. Imports from nonsubject sources Nonsubject imports accounted for *** percent of the total value of U.S. imports in 2024. Based on official import statistics, the largest sources of nonsubject imports in 2024 were Austria, Japan, and Brazil. Combined, these countries accounted for 84.8 percent of nonsubject imports in 2024. Supply constraints *** U.S. producers and the vast majority of responding importers (16 of 17) and purchasers (5 of 6) reported that they had not experienced supply constraints since January 1, 2022. One purchaser reported that producer 3M began phasing out a specific product line in 2024 and continued into 2025. 2.7 *** reported that there were supply constraints in every year in the period, as well as long lead times on specific products and grit sizes during the second and third quarters every year. U.S. producers reported that the production process produces a variety of abrasive grain sizes but yields smaller quantities of the smallest and largest sized ceramic abrasive grains, relative to medium sized ceramic abrasive grains. Producers can take steps to alter the sizes of ceramic abrasive grains produced during the process but cannot dramatically impact the distribution of the sizes of ceramic abrasive grains created.15 Producers can directly shape the size of the ceramic abrasive grains, but this process is a much more costly way to process ceramic abrasive grains.16 New suppliers Three of six purchasers indicated that new suppliers entered the U.S. market since January 1, 2022. Purchasers cited Imerys (China), Reckel (China), Roy (China), and VSM Abrasives (Germany). U.S. demand Based on available information, the overall demand for ceramic abrasive grains is likely to experience small changes in response to changes in price. The main contributing factors are the lack of substitute products, the small to moderate cost share of ceramic abrasive grains in most of its end-use products, and the small share of the manufacturing costs that the end-use products represent. End uses and cost share U.S. demand for ceramic abrasive grains typically depends on the demand for U.S.- produced downstream products. Reported end uses include coated abrasives, bonded abrasives, grinding wheels, and nonwoven abrasives.17 Ceramic abrasive grains can also be used in sandblasting to smooth or clean surfaces. The cost share of ceramic abrasive grains of end use products ranges from 5 percent for nonwoven abrasives to 60 percent for grinding wheels. Therefore, ceramic abrasive grains vary from a small to moderate share of the costs of end-use products. Ceramic abrasive grains make up a very large share (90 to 100 percent) of the costs of sandblasting operations. 15 Conference transcript, p. 29 (Mydlarz). 16 Conference transcript, p. 29 (Mydlarz). 17 Petitioner prehearing brief, p. 8. 2.8 Business cycles *** U.S. producers, most importers (10 of 15), and most purchasers (4 of 6) indicated that the market was not subject to business cycles. Of the firms that did report business cycles, *** reported that demand is typically slower in the fourth quarter of each year and stronger in the first quarter, which aligns with the production cycles of the major end users. Importer *** reported that the business cycles follow the demand for end uses with metal as a raw material (namely foundries and aerospace related industries). Importer *** also reported that business cycles tend to repeat every three years. Demand trends *** responding U.S. producers reported domestic demand for ceramic abrasive grains had *** while foreign demand had *** since January 1, 2022 (table 2.5). Responding importers and purchasers reported varied experiences of both domestic and foreign demand, including steady increases, steady decreases, constant, and fluctuating demand. Table 2.5 Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of firms’ responses regarding overall domestic and foreign demand, by firm type Count in number of firms reporting Market Firm type Steadily Increase Fluctuate Up No change Fluctuate Down Steadily Decrease Domestic demand U.S. producers *** *** *** *** *** Domestic demand Importers 4 2 4 2 3 Domestic demand Purchasers 0 1 2 2 0 Foreign demand U.S. producers *** *** *** *** *** Foreign demand Importers 2 2 2 3 1 Foreign demand Purchasers 0 0 3 1 0 Demand for end use products Purchasers 0 1 1 2 0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Substitute products Virtually all responding U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers reported that there are no substitutes for ceramic abrasive grains. Importer *** reported that fused alumina can be used instead of ceramic abrasive grains in bonded and coated abrasive applications. 2.9 Substitutability issues This section assesses the degree to which U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains and imports of ceramic abrasive grains from subject countries can be substituted for one another by examining the importance of certain purchasing factors and the comparability of ceramic abrasive grains from domestic and imported sources based on those factors. Based on available data, staff believes that there is a high degree of substitutability between domestically produced ceramic abrasive grains and ceramic abrasive grains imported from China.18 Factors contributing to this level of substitutability include similar quality, availability, and lead times for ceramic abrasive grains, little preference for particular country of origin or producers, limited differences between domestically produced ceramic abrasive grains and ceramic abrasive grains imported from subject countries across multiple purchase factors, interchangeability between domestic and subject sources, and limited significant factors other than price. Although U.S. producers reported that they can adjust the shape and properties of ceramic abrasive grains for different applications, there is limited customization of ceramic abrasive grains.19 Factors affecting purchasing decisions Purchaser decisions based on source As shown in table 2.6, purchasers reported varied preferences for specific producers, but purchasers and their customers only sometimes or never make purchasing decisions based on the country of origin. Two purchasers reported that they always make decisions based on the manufacturer, with one citing a preference for 3M and the other reporting that it partners with known brands and suppliers that have been vetted for quality and support. 18 The degree of substitution between domestic and imported ceramic abrasive grains depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the domestic and imported products and reflects how easily purchasers can switch from domestically produced ceramic abrasive grains to the ceramic abrasive grains imported from subject countries (or vice versa) when prices change. The degree of substitution may include such factors as quality differences (e.g., grade standards, defect rates, etc.), and differences in sales conditions (e.g., lead times between order and delivery dates, reliability of supply, product services, etc.). 19 Conference transcript, p. 30 (Leonard). 2.10 Table 2.6 Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of purchasers’ responses regarding frequency of purchasing decisions based on producer and country of origin Count in number of firms reporting Firm making decision Decision based on Always Usually Sometimes Never Purchaser Producer 2 1 1 1 Customer Producer 0 1 2 2 Purchaser Country 0 0 4 1 Customer Country 0 0 2 3 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Importance of purchasing domestic product Four of five responding purchasers reported that the vast majority or all of their purchases did not require purchasing U.S.-produced product.20 Purchaser *** reported that *** percent of its purchases of domestic product was required by law. While the vast majority of its purchases had no domestic requirement, purchaser *** reported that *** percent of its purchases were only available domestically. Most important purchase factors The most often cited top three factors that firms consider in their purchasing decisions for ceramic abrasive grains were price (3 firms), quality (3 firms), and availability (2 firms) as shown in table 2.7. Price and quality were the most frequently cited first-most important factor (cited by one firm each); price was the most frequently reported second-most important factor (2 firms); and availability was the most frequently reported third-most important factor (2 firms). Table 2.7 Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions as reported by purchasers, by factor Count in number of firms reporting Factor First Second Third Total Price / Cost 1 2 0 3 Quality 1 1 1 3 Availability / Supply 0 0 2 2 All other factors 3 2 2 NA Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Other factors include performance and product lines (reported by 2 firms each), laboratory testing, known and reliable suppliers, brand, technical support, and consistency (1 firm each). 20 Three purchasers reported that 100 percent of their purchases had no domestic requirements. 2.11 The majority of purchasers (4 of 6) reported that they only sometimes purchase the lowest-priced product. Importance of specified purchase factors Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 15 factors in their purchasing decisions (table 2.8). The factors rated as very important by more than half of responding purchasers were product consistency (reported by 6 firms), reliability of supply (6), quality meets industry standards (6), availability (5), quality exceeds industry standards (5), and price (4). Table 2.8 Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of purchasers’ responses regarding importance of purchase factors, by factor Count in number of firms reporting Factor Very important Somewhat important Not important Availability 5 1 0 Delivery terms 3 3 0 Delivery time 3 3 0 Discounts offered 3 3 0 Minimum quantity requirements 2 4 0 Packaging 3 2 1 Payment terms 2 4 0 Price 4 2 0 Product consistency 6 0 0 Product range 3 3 0 Quality meets industry standards 6 0 0 Quality exceeds industry standards 5 1 0 Reliability of supply 6 0 0 Technical support/service 3 2 1 U.S. transportation costs 2 2 1 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Lead times U.S. producers reported that *** percent of their commercial shipments of ceramic abrasive grains were produced-to-order, with lead times averaging *** days. Importers reported that *** percent of their commercial shipments were sold from U.S. inventories, with lead times averaging *** days; and *** percent of their commercial shipments of ceramic abrasive grains were produced-to-order, with lead times of *** days. Importers reported that only *** percent of their commercial shipments of ceramic abrasive grains were sourced from foreign inventories, with lead times averaging *** days. 2.12 Supplier certification Four of six responding purchasers require their suppliers to become certified or qualified to sell ceramic abrasive grains to their firm. Purchasers reported that the time to qualify a new supplier ranged from 14 to 120 days. Certification processes include size, bulk density, and laboratory tests, background checks, and supply chain evaluation. One purchaser (***) reported that a supplier had failed in its attempt to qualify ***. Minimum quality specifications As can be seen from table 2.9, two responding purchasers reported that domestically produced product always met minimum quality specifications, and four reported that they did not know. Two responding purchasers reported that the ceramic abrasive grains imported from China always met minimum quality specifications and two reported they rarely or never met minimum quality specifications. Table 2.9 Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of purchasers’ responses regarding suppliers’ ability to meet minimum quality specifications, by source Count in number of firms reporting Source of purchases Always Usually Sometimes Rarely or never Don't Know United States 2 0 0 0 4 China 2 0 0 2 1 Nonsubject sources 2 0 0 1 2 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Purchasers were asked how often domestically produced or imported ceramic abrasive grains meet minimum quality specifications for their own or their customers’ uses. All six responding purchasers reported factors that determined quality, including bulk density specifications; grain shape, size, and color; performance; the ability to pass laboratory testing; hardness, toughness, friability, heat resistance, bonding agent material compatibility, and minimal “dusting.” 2.13 Changes in purchasing patterns Most purchasers reported that they had not changed suppliers since January 1, 2022. One purchaser (***) reported that it had changed its supplier for ***. Purchasers were also asked about changes in their purchasing patterns from different countries since January 1, 2022 (table 2.10). Most purchasers of U.S.-produced product remained constant and the remaining two purchasers reported that they had increased their purchases of domestic product because of increased sales volume (***) and because of overall demand (***). Purchasers reported increased purchases of product from China; *** reported it was because of new finished goods from various sources. Table 2.10 Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of purchasers’ responses regarding changes in purchase patterns from U.S., subject, and nonsubject countries Count in number of firms reporting Source of purchases Steadily Increase Fluctuate Up No change Fluctuate Down Steadily Decrease Did not purchase United States 1 1 3 0 0 0 China 1 1 1 0 0 0 All other sources 0 1 2 1 0 0 Sources unknown 0 0 2 0 0 0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Purchase factor comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports Purchasers were asked a number of questions comparing ceramic abrasive grains produced in the United States, subject countries, and nonsubject countries. First, purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison on the same 15 factors (table 2.11) for which they were asked to rate the importance. A plurality of purchasers reported that U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains and ceramic abrasive grains imported from China were comparable on delivery terms, discounts offered, minimum quantity requirements, packaging, payment terms, product range, reliability of supply, and U.S. transportation costs. All four responding purchasers rated domestically produced ceramic abrasive grains as superior or comparable to ceramic abrasive grains produced in China for all factors that were ranked as very important by more than half of purchasers. 2.14 Table 2.11 Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of purchasers’ responses comparing U.S.-produced and imported product, by factor and country pair Count in number of firms reporting Factor Country pair Superior Comparable Inferior Availability U.S. vs China 2 2 0 Delivery terms U.S. vs China 1 3 0 Delivery time U.S. vs China 2 2 0 Discounts offered U.S. vs China 0 3 0 Minimum quantity requirements U.S. vs China 1 3 0 Packaging U.S. vs China 1 3 0 Payment terms U.S. vs China 1 2 1 Price U.S. vs China 0 2 2 Product consistency U.S. vs China 2 2 0 Product range U.S. vs China 1 3 0 Quality meets industry standards U.S. vs China 2 2 0 Quality exceeds industry standards U.S. vs China 2 2 0 Reliability of supply U.S. vs China 1 3 0 Technical support/service U.S. vs China 3 1 0 U.S. transportation costs U.S. vs China 1 3 0 Table continued. Table 2.11 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of purchasers’ responses comparing U.S.- produced and imported product, by factor and country pair Factor Country pair Superior Comparable Inferior Availability U.S. vs Nonsubject 1 2 0 Delivery terms U.S. vs Nonsubject 1 2 0 Delivery time U.S. vs Nonsubject 2 1 0 Discounts offered U.S. vs Nonsubject 0 3 0 Minimum quantity requirements U.S. vs Nonsubject 1 2 0 Packaging U.S. vs Nonsubject 1 2 0 Payment terms U.S. vs Nonsubject 1 2 0 Price U.S. vs Nonsubject 0 2 1 Product consistency U.S. vs Nonsubject 1 2 0 Product range U.S. vs Nonsubject 0 3 0 Quality meets industry standards U.S. vs Nonsubject 1 2 0 Quality exceeds industry standards U.S. vs Nonsubject 1 2 0 Reliability of supply U.S. vs Nonsubject 0 3 0 Technical support/service U.S. vs Nonsubject 1 2 0 U.S. transportation costs U.S. vs Nonsubject 0 3 0 Table continued. 2.15 Table 2.11 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of purchasers’ responses comparing U.S.- produced and imported product, by factor and country pair Factor Country pair Superior Comparable Inferior Availability China vs. Nonsubject 0 2 0 Delivery terms China vs. Nonsubject 0 2 0 Delivery time China vs. Nonsubject 0 2 0 Discounts offered China vs. Nonsubject 0 2 0 Minimum quantity requirements China vs. Nonsubject 0 2 0 Packaging China vs. Nonsubject 0 2 0 Payment terms China vs. Nonsubject 0 2 0 Price China vs. Nonsubject 1 1 0 Product consistency China vs. Nonsubject 0 2 0 Product range China vs. Nonsubject 0 2 0 Quality meets industry standards China vs. Nonsubject 0 2 0 Quality exceeds industry standards China vs. Nonsubject 0 2 0 Reliability of supply China vs. Nonsubject 0 2 0 Technical support/service China vs. Nonsubject 0 2 0 U.S. transportation costs China vs. Nonsubject 0 2 0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: With respect to cost/price factors, a rating of superior means that the cost/price for the first source in the country pair is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported “U.S. superior,” it meant that the U.S. product was generally priced lower than the imported product. Comparison of U.S.-produced and imported ceramic abrasive grains In order to determine whether U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains can generally be used in the same applications as imports from China, U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked whether the products can always, frequently, sometimes, or never be used interchangeably. As shown in tables 2.12 to 2.14, U.S. producers reported that they *** could, while most U.S. importers and a plurality of purchasers reported that they sometimes could. Two U.S. importers *** reported issues with ceramic abrasive grains produced in China. Importer/purchaser *** reported interchangeability issues in regard to bulk density specifications, grain shape and color, and performance. Petitioner added that “the majority of Chinese ceramic grains are effective clones (i.e., completely reliant on the original patents)” of U.S. producers.21 21 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 7. 2.16 Table 2.12 Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of U.S. producers reporting the interchangeability between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Count in number of firms reporting Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never United States vs. China *** *** *** *** United States vs. Other *** *** *** *** China vs. Other *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 2.13 Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of importers reporting the interchangeability between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Count in number of firms reporting Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never United States vs. China 4 1 6 0 United States vs. Other 2 2 5 0 China vs. Other 2 2 4 0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 2.14 Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of purchasers reporting the interchangeability between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Count in number of firms reporting Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never United States vs. China 1 0 3 0 United States vs. Other 1 1 3 0 China vs. Other 0 0 1 0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. In addition, U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to assess how often differences other than price were significant in sales of ceramic abrasive grains from the United States, subject, or nonsubject countries. As seen in tables 2.15 to 2.17, U.S. producers reported that they *** were significant, while most U.S. importers and pluralities of U.S. purchasers reported that they sometimes were significant. U.S. producer *** cited the lower price point of Chinese-produced ceramic abrasive grains as the driving factor. U.S. importers cited product- specific factors such as particle size, crystalline phase, hardness, morphology, availability, controlled quality, high performance, and standardization. U.S. purchaser *** cited quality, while importer/purchaser *** cited bulk density specifications, grain shape and color, and product performance. 2.17 Table 2.15 Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of U.S. producers reporting the significance of differences other than price between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Count in number of firms reporting Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never United States vs. China *** *** *** *** United States vs. Other *** *** *** *** China vs. Other *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 2.16 Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of importers reporting the significance of differences between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Count in number of firms reporting Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never United States vs. China 2 2 6 2 United States vs. Other 2 0 6 1 China vs. Other 2 0 4 2 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 2.17 Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of purchasers reporting the significance of differences between product produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pair Count in number of firms reporting Country pair Always Frequently Sometimes Never United States vs. China 1 0 2 0 United States vs. Other 1 0 3 0 China vs. Other 0 0 1 0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Elasticity estimates This section discusses elasticity estimates; parties were encouraged to comment on these estimates but none did so.22 U.S. supply elasticity The domestic supply elasticity for ceramic abrasive grains measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of ceramic abrasive grains. The elasticity of domestic supply depends on several factors including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which producers can alter capacity, producers’ ability to shift to production of other products, the existence of inventories, and the availability of alternate 22 In its prehearing brief, Saint-Gobain Ceramics stated that Chinese imports and U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains are highly substitutable and interchangeable. Petitioner’s prehearing brief, pp. 7, 14. 2.18 markets for U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains. Analysis of these factors above indicates that the U.S. industry has the ability to greatly increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market; an estimate in the range of 6 to 10 is suggested. U.S. demand elasticity The U.S. demand elasticity for ceramic abrasive grains measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of ceramic abrasive grains. This estimate depends on factors discussed above such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as well as the component share of the ceramic abrasive grains in the production of any downstream products. Based on the available information, the aggregate demand for ceramic abrasive grains is likely to be very inelastic; a range of -0.25 to -0.5 is suggested. Substitution elasticity The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the domestic and imported products.23 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality (e.g., chemistry, appearance, etc.) and conditions of sale (e.g., availability, sales terms/discounts/promotions, etc.). Based on available information, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains and imported ceramic abrasive grains is likely to be in the range of 4 to 7. Factors contributing to this level of substitutability include similar quality, availability, and lead times for ceramic abrasive grains, little preference for a particular country of origin or producers, limited differences between domestically produced ceramic abrasive grains and ceramic abrasive grains imported from China across multiple purchase factors, interchangeability between domestic and subject sources, and limited significant factors other than price. Although U.S. producers reported that they can adjust the shape and properties of ceramic abrasive grains for different applications, there is limited customization of ceramic abrasive grains.24 23 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject imports and the domestic like product 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. 24 Conference transcript, p. 30 (Leonard). 3.1 Part 3: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the subsidies and dumping margins was presented in Part 1 of this report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Part 4 and Part 5. Information on the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or Part 6 and (except as noted) is based on the questionnaire responses of two firms that accounted for all known U.S. production of ceramic abrasive grains during 2024. U.S. producers The Commission issued a U.S. producer questionnaire to two firms based on information contained in the petitions. Both firms provided usable data on their operations. Table 3.1 lists U.S. producers of ceramic abrasive grains, their production locations, positions on the petitions, and shares of total production. Table 3.1 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers, their positions on the petition, production locations, and shares of reported production, 2024 Share in percent Firm Position on petition Production location(s) Share of production 3M *** Cottage Grove, MN *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics Petitioner Niagara Falls, NY *** All firms Various Various 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 3.2 presents information on U.S. producers’ ownership, related and/or affiliated firms. As indicated in table 3.2 and discussed in greater detail below, U.S. producer *** directly imports the subject merchandise and is related to a U.S. importer of the subject merchandise (***). *** is also related to a foreign producer and exporter of the subject merchandise (***). No U.S. producer purchases the subject merchandise from U.S. importers. 3.2 Table 3.2 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ ownership, related and/or affiliated firms Reporting firm Relationship type and related firm Details of relationship *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 3.3 presents events in the U.S. industry since January 1, 2022. Table 3.3 Ceramic abrasive grains: Important industry events since January 1, 2022 Item Firm Event Expansions 3M On August 24, 2023, 3M announced the $13.6 million expansion of its facility in Ames, IA, to create space for its new abrasive equipment (estimated at more than $10 million). Expansions Saint-Gobain Ceramics On October 23, 2023, Saint-Gobain Ceramics announced that it is expanding its existing campus in Worcester, MA, to build a new 35,000 square-foot warehouse. Expansions Saint-Gobain Ceramics On February 10, 2025, Saint-Gobain Ceramics announced the start of a $41.5 million expansion that will add a new 125,000 square-foot plant in Niagara County, NY. A second expansion is also planned to add another 175,000 square feet at the same site. Source: Ames Tribune, “Local 3M Warehouse to Fund Expansion with Help from $500,000 IEDA tax Credits,” August 24, 2023, https://www.amestrib.com/story/news/local/2023/08/24/3ms-13-million- expansion-will-add-25-jobs/70610636007/; Worcester Business Journal, “Saint-Gobain seeks to build new warehouse at Worcester campus,” October 23, 2023, https://www.wbjournal.com/article/saint-gobain- seeks-to-build-new-warehouse-at-worcester-campus; Buffalo Toronto Public Media, February 10, 2025, https://www.btpm.org/local/2025-02-10/saint-gobain-to-invest-41-million-in-niagara-falls-expansion. Producers in the United States were asked to report any change in the character of their operations or organization relating to the production of ceramic abrasive grains since January 1, 2022. Both producers indicated in their questionnaires that they had experienced such changes. Table 3.4 presents the changes identified by these producers. 3.3 Table 3.4 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ reported changes in operations, since January 1, 2022 Item Firm name and narrative response on changes in operations Prolonged shutdowns *** Production curtailments *** Production curtailments *** Other *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. production, capacity, and capacity utilization Table 3.5 and figure 3.1 present U.S. producers’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization. Ceramic abrasive grains capacity and production decreased between 2022 and 2024, by *** percent and *** percent respectively. Capacity and production were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024, by *** percent and *** percent respectively.1 Capacity utilization decreased by *** percentage points during 2022 to 2024, from *** percent to *** percent, and was *** percentage points lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. U.S. producer Saint- Gobain Ceramics reported that many operations in ceramic abrasive grains production are continuous due to the high temperature processing of ceramics and that lower production volumes result in higher maintenance costs and decrease the life of high-temperature equipment.2 1 Saint-Gobain Ceramics reported ***. Staff correspondence with ***, July 18, 2025. 2 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 5; and conference transcript, p. 28 (Mydlarz). U.S. producers reported installed capacity of *** pounds in 2022 and 2023, *** pounds in 2024, *** pounds in interim 2024, and *** pounds in interim 2025. U.S. producers’ questionnaire responses, 2.3a. 3.4 Table 3.5 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ output, by firm and period Practical capacity Capacity in 1,000 pounds; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 3.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ output, by firm and period Production Production in 1,000 pounds; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 3.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ output, by firm and period Capacity utilization Capacity utilization in percent; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Note: Capacity utilization ratio represents the ratio of the U.S. producer’s production to its production capacity. Table continued. Table 3.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ output, by firm and period Share of production Share in percent; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 3.5 Figure 3.1 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ output, by period * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Alternative products No U.S. producers reported producing alternative products using the same equipment, machinery, or employees as used to produce ceramic abrasive grains. Both U.S. producers reported that they are unable to switch production of ceramic abrasive grains to alternative products. Saint-Gobain Ceramics reported that ***.3 Constraints on capacity Table 3.6 presents U.S. producers’ reported narratives regarding practical capacity constraints. U.S. producers generally cite product mix, equipment maintenance, and availability of skilled labor as constraints on production capacity. 3 U.S. producers’ questionnaire responses, 2.4. 3.6 Table 3.6 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ reported capacity constraints since January 1, 2022 Item Firm name and narrative response Production bottlenecks *** Production bottlenecks *** Existing labor force *** Existing labor force *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and exports Table 3.7 presents U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, export shipments, and total shipments. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments decreased irregularly between 2022 and 2024, by *** percent, but were *** percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Export shipments decreased by *** percent between 2022 and 2024 and were *** percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.4 The average unit values (“AUV”) per pound of U.S. shipments and exports decreased irregularly during 2022 to 2024, by *** percent and *** percent respectively, and were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. U.S. shipments as a share of total shipments increased by *** percentage points during 2022 to 2024, from *** percent to *** percent and were *** percentage points higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 (*** percent compared to *** percent). 4 U.S. producers reported exporting to ***. 3M reported that ***. The firm also reported that ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, 2.8; and staff correspondence with ***, January 2, 2025. Saint-Gobain Ceramics reported that ***. The firm also attributed ***. Staff correspondence with ***, July 18, 2025. 3.7 Table 3.7 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ shipments, by destination and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound; share in percent; interim is January through March Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 U.S. shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 3.8 presents U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments by type. The vast majority of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments consisted of internal consumption and transfers to related firms (over *** percent combined in each period). U.S. producers’ ceramic abrasive grains production, whether internally consumed or sold to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, is incorporated in various downstream products, primarily for industrial applications as well as some consumer products.5 Specifically, U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments were internally consumed in the production of out-of-scope downstream products by ***. 5 Conference transcript, pp. 8 to 9 (Mydlarz). After production, ceramic abrasive grains are typically bonded or coated to grinding media or “backings” (i.e., sandpapers, grinding wheels, grinding cylinders, grinding discs, etc.) for end use in high-precision manufacturing tools across a variety of industries. Petition, p. 1.4. 3.8 Table 3.8 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, by type and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound; share in percent; interim is January through March Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Commercial U.S. shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Commercial U.S. shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption Value *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** Commercial U.S. shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Unit value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Commercial U.S. shipments Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Commercial U.S. shipments Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Share of value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Tables 3.9 and 3.10 present U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments for use in total and merchant market apparent U.S. consumption, respectively, including ***. Four firms, *** reported such U.S. shipments of imports, with *** accounting for the vast majority (over *** percent in each period.6 6 ***. Similarly, U.S. importer *** reported U.S. shipments of imports of ceramic abrasive grains produced by *** in the United States that are incorporated in downstream products in ***. U.S. importers *** and *** reported U.S. shipments of ceramic abrasive grains produced by *** in the United States that are incorporated into downstream products in ***. Various U.S. importer questionnaire responses, 2.6a. 3.9 Table 3.9 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers' U.S. shipments for use in total market apparent consumption, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound; shares in percent; interim is January through March Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments for use in total market consumption Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. shipments for use in total market consumption Value *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Four firms reported imports of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated into downstream products. To avoid double counting, such imports from these firms are not included in the import data presented in this report. However, the U.S. shipments of such imports are treated as U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments for purposes of apparent U.S. consumption. Table 3.10 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers' U.S. shipments for use in merchant market apparent consumption, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound; shares in percent; interim is January through March Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. producers’ commercial U.S. shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of U.S.- produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Commercial U.S. shipments for use in merchant market consumption Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers’ commercial U.S. shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of U.S.- produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products Value *** *** *** *** *** Commercial U.S. shipments for use in merchant market consumption Value *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Four firms reported imports of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated into downstream products. To avoid double counting, such imports from these firms are not included in the import data presented in this report. However, the U.S. shipments of such imports are treated as U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments for purposes of apparent U.S. consumption. 3.10 Captive consumption Section 771(7)(C)(ⅳ) of the Act states that–7 If domestic producers internally transfer significant production of the domestic like product for the production of a downstream article and sell significant production of the domestic like product in the merchant market, and the Commission finds that– (I) the domestic like product produced that is internally transferred for processing into that downstream article does not enter the merchant market for the domestic like product, (II) the domestic like product is the predominant material input in the production of that downstream article, and (III) then the Commission, in determining market share and the factors affecting financial performance . . ., shall focus primarily on the merchant market for the domestic like product. Transfers and sales As reported in table 3.8, internal consumption accounted for between *** and *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of ceramic abrasive grains from 2022 to March 2025, while transfers to related firms accounted for between *** and *** percent during the same period. First statutory criterion in captive production The first requirement for application of the captive production provision is that the domestic like product that is internally transferred for processing into that downstream article not enter the merchant market for the domestic like product. Table 3.11 presents U.S. producers’ production used in downstream products by type of consumption. U.S. producer *** reported internal consumption of ceramic abrasive grains for the production of downstream ***.8 7 Amended by PL 114–27 (as signed, June 29, 2015), Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. 8 *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, 2.10. 3.11 U.S. producer *** reported transfers to its affiliate ***, which internally consumes the ceramic abrasive grains in the production of downstream ***.9 No U.S. producer, however, reported diverting ceramic abrasive grains intended for internal consumption to the merchant market. Table 3.11 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ production used in downstream products, by type of consumption and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; interim is January to March Shipment and consumption type 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Internal consumption: ***'s sold as is *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption: ***'s processed into downstream products *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption: ***’s total internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** Transfers: ***'s sold as is *** *** *** *** *** Transfers: ***'s processed into downstream products *** *** *** *** *** Transfers: ***’s total transfers *** *** *** *** *** All internal consumption and transfers: Sold as is *** *** *** *** *** All internal consumption and transfers: Processed into downstream products *** *** *** *** *** All internal consumption and transfers *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. 9 *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, 2.10. Regarding its transfers to related firms, *** reported: ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, 2.13. 3.12 Second statutory criterion in captive production The second criterion of the captive production provision concerns whether the domestic like product is the predominant material input in the production of the downstream article that is captively produced. Table 3.12 presents U.S. producers’ ceramic abrasive grains contribution to downstream products in 2024. With respect to the downstream articles resulting from captive production, ceramic abrasive grains reportedly comprise *** percent of the finished cost of a downstream product.10 Table 3.12 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ ceramic abrasive grains contribution to downstream product Share in percent Item Share of value Share of quantity Ceramic abrasive grains *** *** All other material inputs *** *** All material inputs 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. producers’ inventories Table 3.13 presents U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories and the ratio of these inventories to U.S. producers’ production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments. U.S. producers’ ending inventories decreased by *** percent between 2022 and 2024 and were *** percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. The ratio of inventories to U.S. production fluctuated and decreased overall by *** percentage points between 2022 and 2024, from *** percent to *** percent, and was *** percentage points lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. The ratio of inventories to U.S. shipments also fluctuated and decreased overall by *** percentage points during 2022 to 2024, ranging between *** percent in 2024 and *** percent in 2023, and was *** percentage points lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. The ratio of inventories to total shipments similarly fluctuated and decreased by *** percentage points during 2022 to 2024, from *** percent to *** percent, and was *** percentage points lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. 10 Specifically, *** reported that ceramic abrasive grains accounted for *** percent of its downstream products by quantity and *** percent by value. *** reported that ceramic abrasive grains accounted for *** percent of its downstream products by quantity and *** percent by value. *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, 2.11; and staff correspondence with ***, June 30, 2025. 3.13 Table 3.13 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ inventories and their ratio to select items, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratio in percent; interim is January through March Item 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 End-of-period inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to U.S. production *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to U.S. shipments *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to total shipments *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. producers’ imports from subject sources U.S. producer *** as well as its affiliate *** reported importing ceramic abrasive grains from China. Table 3.14 presents U.S. producer *** U.S. production, each firm’s U.S. imports from China, and ratio of subject imports to production. Table 3.15 presents each firm’s reasons for importing. Table 3.14 Ceramic abrasive grains: *** U.S. production, *** and affiliated importer ***’s U.S. imports from China, and ratio of subject imports to production, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratio in percent; interim is January through March Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. production Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China by *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China by *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China by *** Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China by *** to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China by *** to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Imports from China by *** to U.S. production Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. 3.14 Table 3.15 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ reasons for importing Item Narrative response on reasons for importing ***'s reason for importing *** ***'s reason for importing *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. producers' purchases of imports from subject sources No responding U.S. producer reported purchases of ceramic abrasive grains from 2022 to 2024 and both interim periods. 3.15 U.S. employment, wages, and productivity Table 3.16 shows U.S. producers’ employment-related data. All employment-related indicators declined overall between 2022 and 2024, except hours worked per worker, hourly wages, and unit labor costs. All employment-related indicators were higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024, except productivity. The number of production and related workers (“PRWs”) decreased by *** percent during 2022 to 2024 but was *** percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.11 Total hours worked decreased by *** percent during 2022 to 2024 but were *** percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.12 Similarly, wages paid decreased by *** percent during 2022 to 2024 but were *** percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.13 Productivity decreased by *** percent during 2022 to 2024 and was *** percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.14 Conversely, unit labor costs increased by *** percent between 2022 and 2024 and were *** percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. 11 3M reported that ***. Saint-Gobain Ceramics similarly reported that ***. Saint-Gobain Ceramics also reported that ***. U.S. producers’ questionnaire responses, 2.12. 12 3M reported that ***. 13 During 2022 to March 2025, 3M reported hourly wages per hour ranging between $*** and $***, while Saint-Gobain Ceramics reported hourly wages ranging between $*** and $***. 14 ***. ***. *** reported lower productivity in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Saint-Gobain Ceramics’ productivity was *** percent *** in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 (*** pounds per hour compared to *** pounds per hour), while 3M’s productivity was *** percent *** in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 (*** pounds per hour compared to *** pounds per hour). 3.16 Table 3.16 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ employment related information, by period Interim is January through March Item 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Production and related workers (PRWs) (number) *** *** *** *** *** Total hours worked (1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** Hours worked per PRW (hours) *** *** *** *** *** Wages paid ($1,000) *** *** *** *** *** Hourly wages (dollars per hour) *** *** *** *** *** Productivity (pounds per hour) *** *** *** *** *** Unit labor costs (dollars per pound) *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 4.1 Part 4: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares U.S. importers The Commission issued importer questionnaires to 235 firms believed to be importers of subject ceramic abrasive grains, whether or not incorporated into out-of-scope downstream products, as well as to all U.S. producers of ceramic abrasive grains.1 Usable questionnaire responses were received from 21 companies, representing *** percent of U.S. imports from China, *** percent of U.S. imports from nonsubject sources, and *** percent of total U.S. imports in 2024 under the primary HTS statistical reporting numbers 2818.10.2010 and 2818.10.2090, “basket” categories.2 3 1 The Commission issued questionnaires to those firms identified in the petitions; staff research; and proprietary, Census-edited Customs’ import records for primary HTS statistical reporting numbers 2818.10.2010 and 2818.10.2090 and for non-primary HTS statistical reporting numbers under which ceramic abrasive grains incorporated into downstream products may enter, all of which are “basket” categories—2818.10.1000, 2818.20.0000, 2818.30.0000, 3824.99.1100, 3824.99.1900, 6805.10.0000, 6805.20.0000, 6805.30.1000, 6805.30.5000, 6804.22.1000, 6804.22.4000, 6804.22.6000, 8204.12.0000, 8474.90.0010, 8474.90.0020, 8474.90.0050, and 8474.90.0090. 2 U.S. importer *** did not provide a questionnaire response in these final phase investigations but did so during the preliminary phase. That questionnaire response is incorporated into this report. The firm indicated that its import operations had not changed since the preliminary phase investigations. Staff correspondence with ***, July 9, 2025. *** provided an incomplete U.S. importer questionnaire response and indicated that its imports may be out-of-scope merchandise. That questionnaire response is not incorporated into this report. Staff correspondence with ***, July 8, 2025. In addition, 63 firms certified that they had not imported ceramic abrasive grains from any source since January 1, 2022. An additional firm, ***, certified that it did not import ceramic abrasive grains during the preliminary phase of the investigations and *** indicated that it was not a U.S. importer of record. Staff correspondence with ***, July 17, 2025. Firms importing out-of-scope products under the primary HTS statistical reporting numbers reported importing brown fused aluminum oxide, traditional white fused alumina, and black emery with an aluminum oxide content of less than 94 percent. 3 These firms also represented approximately *** percent of U.S. imports from China, *** percent of U.S. imports from nonsubject sources, and *** percent of total U.S. imports in 2024 under the non- primary HTS statistical reporting numbers, “basket” categories (see footnote 1). The coverage estimates presented were calculated based on proprietary Customs records (quantity of imports accounted by firms that responded to the Commission’s questionnaire, including firms that certified that they did not import ceramic abrasive grains, divided by total quantity of imports). (continued...) 4.2 Table 4.1 lists all responding U.S. importers of ceramic abrasive grains from China and other sources, their locations, and their shares of U.S. imports in 2024. Unless stated otherwise, imports presented in this report are based on questionnaire data. Table 4.1 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. importers, their headquarters, and share of imports within each source, 2024 Share in percent Firm Headquarters China Nonsubject sources All import sources Ashine New York, NY *** *** *** CUMI Florence, KY *** *** *** Fandeli Houston, TX *** *** *** Forte Monterey Park, CA *** *** *** Genesis Davenport, IA *** *** *** GNPGrayStar Bluffton, SC *** *** *** Hermes Virginia Beach, VA *** *** *** Imerys Villach Villach, AT *** *** *** Klingspor Hickory, NC *** *** *** PPG Pittsburgh, PA *** *** *** Pureon Monroe, NC *** *** *** Radiac Oswego, IL *** *** *** Reishauer Elgin, IL *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Abrasives Worcester, MA *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics Worcester, MA *** *** *** Sandvik Mebane, NC *** *** *** Snap-on Kenosha, WI *** *** *** Starcke Charlotte, NC *** *** *** Superior Vandalia, OH *** *** *** VSM O'Fallon, MO *** *** *** Walter Windsor, CT *** *** *** All firms Various 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. Subject import coverage is likely understated. According to proprietary Customs records, *** was the second largest importer of record from China during 2022 to March 2025 under the primary HTS statistical reporting numbers. Despite multiple attempts by staff, the firm did not provide a U.S. importer questionnaire response. Staff believes that imports from *** consist primarily of out-of-scope products, as the firm did not list subject ceramic abrasive grains on its website. ***, accessed July 16, 2025. 4.3 U.S. imports4 Tables 4.2 and 4.3 and figure 4.1 present data for U.S. imports of ceramic abrasive grains from China and all other sources. During 2022 to 2024, subject imports increased by 37.7 percent and were 0.7 percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Nonsubject imports decreased irregularly by 21.0 percent between 2022 and 2024 but were 32.1 percent higher in interim 2025 than interim 2024.5 Subject average unit values fluctuated and decreased by 12.1 percent overall between 2022 and 2024, from $5.68 per pound to $5.00 per pound, and were 20.0 percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 ($4.63 per pound compared to $5.78 per pound). Nonsubject average unit values fluctuated and increased by 2.5 percent overall between 2022 and 2024, from $11.06 per pound to $11.34 per pound, and were 2.5 percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 ($11.73 per pound compared to $11.44 per pound). Subject average unit values were approximately 50 percent lower than nonsubject average unit values in each period. As a share of total imports, subject imports increased by 13.1 percentage points from 32.3 percent in 2022 to 45.4 percent in 2024 but were 6.1 percentage points lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. The ratio of subject imports to U.S. production increased by 3.6 percentage points from 2022 to 2024 to 8.4 percent and was 0.6 percentage points higher in interim 2025 (6.2 percent) compared to interim 2024 (5.6 percent). 4 *** and three of the 21 responding U.S. importers reported imports of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated into downstream products (***). To avoid double counting, such imports from these four firms are not included in the import data presented in this report. However, the U.S. shipments of such imports are treated as U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments for purposes of apparent U.S. consumption. 5 Responding firms reported nonsubject imports from several European countries, including Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Netherlands, and Sweden, and from Brazil, Canada, India, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and Turkey. 4.4 Table 4.2 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. imports by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound; share and ratio in percent; interim is January through March Source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 China Quantity 609 752 839 140 141 Nonsubject sources Quantity 1,279 939 1,011 236 312 All import sources Quantity 1,889 1,691 1,850 376 453 China Value 3,463 4,453 4,192 810 653 Nonsubject sources Value 14,151 10,903 11,461 2,701 3,657 All import sources Value 17,614 15,356 15,653 3,511 4,310 China Unit value 5.68 5.92 5.00 5.78 4.63 Nonsubject sources Unit value 11.06 11.61 11.34 11.44 11.73 All import sources Unit value 9.33 9.08 8.46 9.34 9.52 China Share of quantity 32.3 44.5 45.4 37.2 31.1 Nonsubject sources Share of quantity 67.7 55.5 54.6 62.8 68.9 All import sources Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 China Share of value 19.7 29.0 26.8 23.1 15.1 Nonsubject sources Share of value 80.3 71.0 73.2 76.9 84.9 All import sources Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 China Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Share of quantity is the share of U.S. imports by quantity; share of value is the share of U.S. imports by value; ratio is U.S. imports to production. 4.5 Table 4.3 Ceramic abrasive grains: Changes in U.S. imports, by source and period Changes (Δ) in percent (%) or percentage point (ppt) Source Measure 2022 to 2024 2022 to 2023 2023 to 2024 Interim 2024 to 2025 China %Δ Quantity ▲37.7 ▲23.4 ▲11.5 ▲0.7 Nonsubject sources %Δ Quantity ▼(21.0) ▼(26.6) ▲7.6 ▲32.1 All import sources %Δ Quantity ▼(2.1) ▼(10.4) ▲9.4 ▲20.4 China %Δ Value ▲21.1 ▲28.6 ▼(5.9) ▼(19.4) Nonsubject sources %Δ Value ▼(19.0) ▼(23.0) ▲5.1 ▲35.4 All import sources %Δ Value ▼(11.1) ▼(12.8) ▲1.9 ▲22.8 China %Δ Unit value ▼(12.1) ▲4.2 ▼(15.6) ▼(20.0) Nonsubject sources %Δ Unit value ▲2.5 ▲4.9 ▼(2.3) ▲2.5 All import sources %Δ Unit value ▼(9.3) ▼(2.6) ▼(6.8) ▲1.9 China ppt Δ Quantity ▲13.1 ▲12.2 ▲0.9 ▼(6.1) Nonsubject sources ppt Δ Quantity ▼(13.1) ▼(12.2) ▼(0.9) ▲6.1 All import sources ppt Δ Quantity — — — — China ppt Δ Value ▲7.1 ▲9.3 ▼(2.2) ▼(7.9) Nonsubject sources ppt Δ Value ▼(7.1) ▼(9.3) ▲2.2 ▲7.9 All import sources ppt Δ Value — — — — China ppt Δ Ratio ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources ppt Δ Ratio ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** All import sources ppt Δ Ratio ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” percent represent non-zero values less than “0.05” percent (if positive) and greater than “(0.05)” percent (if negative). Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. Period changes preceded by a “▲” represent an increase, while period changes preceded by a “▼” represent a decrease. 4.6 Figure 4.1 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. import quantities and average unit values, by source and period Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 4.4 presents U.S. producers and their affiliates’ U.S. imports. Table 4.4 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers' and affiliates’ imports, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; share and ratio in percent; interim period is January through March Source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 China Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** China Share *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Share *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 China Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Quantity represents the quantity of imports either directly imported by U.S. producers or imported by affiliated firms to U.S. producers. Ratios are to imports by labeled source presented in table 4.2. 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 Calendar year Interim Average unit value (dollars per pound) Quantity (1,000 pounds) Subject quantities (left-axis) Nonsubject quantities (left-axis) Subject AUVs (right-axis) Nonsubject AUVs (right-axis) 4.7 Tables 4.5 through 4.7 present U.S. imports by product form, whether free flowing or incorporated in downstream products, from China, nonsubject sources, and from all sources, respectively. The majority of U.S. imports from China consisted of free flowing (or loose) ceramic abrasive grains (more than *** percent in each period), while the majority of U.S. imports from nonsubject sources consisted of ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products (more than *** percent in each period).6 The average unit values of free flowing ceramic abrasive grains from China and nonsubject sources were generally lower than the average unit value of ceramic abrasive grains attached to out-of-scope merchandise.7 Table 4.5 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. imports from China by product form Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound; share in percent; interim period is January through March Product form Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Free flowing Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Incorporated in downstream products Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All product forms Quantity 609 752 839 140 141 Free flowing Value *** *** *** *** *** Incorporated in downstream products Value *** *** *** *** *** All product forms Value 3,463 4,453 4,192 810 653 Free flowing Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Incorporated in downstream products Unit value *** *** *** *** *** All product forms Unit value 5.68 5.92 5.00 5.78 4.63 Free flowing Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Incorporated in downstream products Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All product forms Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Free flowing Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Incorporated in downstream products Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All product forms Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 6 This is consistent with petitioner Saint-Gobain Ceramics’ assertion that the majority of subject merchandise from China is of loose/free-flowing ceramic abrasive grains rather than ceramic abrasive grains incorporated into downstream, out-of-scope products. Conference transcript, pp. 18 to 19 (Schaefer). 7 Responding firms estimated the quantity and value of the ceramic abrasive grains incorporated into the downstream products that they imported. 4.8 Table 4.6 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. imports from nonsubject sources by product form Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound; share in percent; interim period is January through March Product form Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Free flowing Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Incorporated in downstream products Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All product forms Quantity 1,279 939 1,011 236 312 Free flowing Value *** *** *** *** *** Incorporated in downstream products Value *** *** *** *** *** All product forms Value 14,151 10,903 11,461 2,701 3,657 Free flowing Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Incorporated in downstream products Unit value *** *** *** *** *** All product forms Unit value 11.06 11.61 11.34 11.44 11.73 Free flowing Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** Incorporated in downstream products Share of quantity *** *** *** *** *** All product forms Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Free flowing Share of value *** *** *** *** *** Incorporated in downstream products Share of value *** *** *** *** *** All product forms Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 4.7 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. imports from all sources by product form Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; unit value in dollars per pound; share in percent; interim period is January through March Product form Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Free flowing Quantity 871 856 963 181 210 Incorporated in downstream products Quantity 1,018 835 887 195 243 All product forms Quantity 1,889 1,691 1,850 376 453 Free flowing Value 6,360 5,492 5,322 1,153 1,240 Incorporated in downstream products Value 11,254 9,864 10,331 2,357 3,070 All product forms Value 17,614 15,356 15,653 3,511 4,310 Free flowing Unit value 7.30 6.42 5.53 6.36 5.90 Incorporated in downstream products Unit value 11.06 11.81 11.65 12.10 12.65 All product forms Unit value 9.33 9.08 8.46 9.34 9.52 Free flowing Share of quantity 46.1 50.6 52.1 48.2 46.4 Incorporated in downstream products Share of quantity 53.9 49.4 47.9 51.8 53.6 All product forms Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Free flowing Share of value 36.1 35.8 34.0 32.9 28.8 Incorporated in downstream products Share of value 63.9 64.2 66.0 67.1 71.2 All product forms Share of value 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 4.9 Negligibility The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.8 Negligible imports are generally defined in the Act, as amended, as imports from a country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic like product where such imports account for less than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States in the most recent 12-month period for which data are available that precedes the filing of the petition or the initiation of the investigation. However, if there are imports of such merchandise from a number of countries subject to investigations initiated on the same day that individually account for less than 3 percent of the total volume of the subject merchandise, and if the imports from those countries collectively account for more than 7 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States during the applicable 12-month period, then imports from such countries are deemed not to be negligible.9 Table 4.8 presents the individual shares of total imports by source during November 2023 to October 2024. Table 4.8 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. imports in the twelve-month period preceding the filing of the petition, November 2023 through October 2024 Quantity in 1,000 pounds; share in percent Source of imports Quantity Share of quantity China *** *** Nonsubject sources *** *** All import sources 1,910 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 8 Sections 703(a)(1), 705(b)(1), 733(a)(1), and 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1), 1671d(b)(1), 1673b(a)(1), and 1673d(b)(1)). 9 Section 771 (24) of the Act (19 U.S.C § 1677(24)). 4.10 Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares10 Quantity Total market Table 4.9 and figure 4.2 present data on apparent U.S. total market consumption and U.S. market shares by quantity for ceramic abrasive grains. The quantity of apparent U.S. total market consumption decreased by *** percent during 2022 to 2024 but was *** percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. U.S. producers’ market share decreased by *** percentage points from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024. U.S. producers’ market share was *** percentage points lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 (*** percent compared to *** percent). Subject import market share increased by *** percentage points from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024 and was *** percentage points higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Nonsubject import market share decreased by *** percentage points from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024 and was *** percentage points higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. 10 As mentioned previously, *** and three of the 21 responding U.S. importers reported imports of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated into downstream products (***). To avoid double counting, such imports from these four firms are not included in the import data presented in this report. However, the U.S. shipments of such imports are treated as U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments for purposes of apparent U.S. consumption. 4.11 Table 4.9 Ceramic abrasive grains: Apparent U.S. total market consumption and market shares based on quantity, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; share in percent; interim is January through March Source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. producers: U.S. shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: Overall Quantity *** *** *** *** *** China Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: U.S. shipments Share *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products Share *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: Overall Share *** *** *** *** *** China Share *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Share *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Share *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Figure 4.2 Ceramic abrasive grains: Apparent U.S. total market consumption based on quantity, by source and period * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires 4.12 Merchant market Table 4.10 and figure 4.3 present data on apparent U.S. merchant market consumption and U.S. market shares by quantity for ceramic abrasive grains. The quantity of apparent U.S. merchant market consumption decreased by *** percent from 2022 to 2024 but was *** percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. U.S. producers’ share of the merchant market decreased by *** percentage points from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024 and was *** percentage points lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Subject imports’ share of the merchant market increased by *** percentage points from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024 and was *** percentage points higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. The share of the merchant market held by nonsubject imports decreased *** by *** percentage points from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024 and was *** percentage points higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Table 4.10 Ceramic abrasive grains: Apparent U.S. merchant market consumption and market shares based on quantity, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; share in percent; interim is January through March Source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. producers: Commercial U.S. shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: Overall Quantity *** *** *** *** *** China Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: Commercial U.S. shipments Share *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products Share *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: Overall Share *** *** *** *** *** China Share *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Share *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Share *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 4.13 Figure 4.3 Ceramic abrasive grains: Apparent U.S. merchant market consumption based on quantity, by source and period * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires Value Total market Table 4.11 and figure 4.4 present data on apparent U.S. total market consumption and U.S. market shares by value for ceramic abrasive grains. The value of apparent U.S. total market consumption decreased by *** percent during 2022 to 2024 but was *** percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. U.S. producers’ market share decreased by *** percentage points from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024. U.S. producers’ market share was *** percentage points lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Subject import market share increased by *** percentage points from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024 and was *** percentage points higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Nonsubject import market share fluctuated and increased overall by *** percentage points from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024 and was *** percentage points higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. 4.14 Table 4.11 Ceramic abrasive grains: Apparent U.S. total market consumption and market shares based on value, by source and period Value in 1,000 dollars; share in percent; interim is January through March Source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. producers: U.S. shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: Overall Value *** *** *** *** *** China Value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Value *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: U.S. shipments Share *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products Share *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: Overall Share *** *** *** *** *** China Share *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Share *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Share *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Figure 4.4 Ceramic abrasive grains: Apparent U.S. total market consumption based on value, by source and period * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 4.15 Merchant market Table 4.12 and figure 4.5 present data on apparent U.S. merchant market consumption and U.S. market shares by value for ceramic abrasive grains. The value of apparent U.S. merchant market consumption decreased by *** percent from 2022 to 2024 but was *** percent higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. U.S. producers’ share of the merchant market decreased by *** percentage points from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024 and was *** percentage points lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Subject imports’ share of the merchant market increased by *** percentage points from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024 and was *** percentage points lower in interim 2025 compared to interim 2024. The share of the merchant market held by nonsubject imports increased by *** percentage points from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024 and was *** percentage points higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Table 4.12 Ceramic abrasive grains: Apparent U.S. merchant market consumption and market shares based on value, by source and period Value in 1,000 dollars; share in percent; interim is January through March Source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. producers: Commercial U.S. shipments Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: Overall Value *** *** *** *** *** China Value *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Value *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Value *** *** *** *** *** All sources Value *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: Commercial U.S. shipments Share *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products Share *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: Overall Share *** *** *** *** *** China Share *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Share *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Share *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 4.16 Figure 4.5 Ceramic abrasive grains: Apparent U.S. merchant market consumption based on value, by source and period * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and U.S. imports by product form Table 4.13 presents U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and U.S. imports of free flowing ceramic abrasive grains, while table 4.14 presents U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and U.S. imports of ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products. 4.17 Table 4.13 Free flowing ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers' U.S. shipments and U.S. imports, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; share and ratio in percent; interim period is January through March Source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. producers: U.S. shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: Overall Quantity *** *** *** *** *** China Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Quantity 871 856 963 181 210 All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: U.S. shipments Share *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products Share *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: Overall Share *** *** *** *** *** China Share *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Share *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Share *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 U.S. producers: U.S. shipments Ratio *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products Ratio *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: Overall Ratio *** *** *** *** *** China Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** All sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. Ratio is to total market apparent consumption quantity. The "all sources" totals presented will not sum exactly to 100.0 percent due to slight differences in timing and ultimate destination of U.S. importers' U.S. imports relative to their U.S. shipments of imports. 4.18 Table 4.14 Ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products: U.S. producers' U.S. shipments and U.S. importers' U.S. imports, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; share and ratio in percent; interim period is January through March Source Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 U.S. producers: U.S. shipments Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: Overall Quantity *** *** *** *** *** China Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Quantity 1,018 835 887 195 243 All sources Quantity *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: U.S. shipments Share *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products Share *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: Overall Share *** *** *** *** *** China Share *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Share *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Share *** *** *** *** *** All sources Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 U.S. producers: U.S. shipments Ratio *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains incorporated in downstream products Ratio *** *** *** *** *** U.S. producers: Overall Ratio *** *** *** *** *** China Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Nonsubject sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** All import sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** All sources Ratio *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. Ratio is to total market apparent consumption quantity. The "all sources" totals presented will not sum exactly to 100.0 percent due to slight differences in timing and ultimate destination of U.S. importers' U.S. imports relative to their U.S. shipments of imports. 5.1 Part 5: Pricing data Factors affecting prices Raw material costs Ceramic abrasive grains are primarily composed of aluminum oxide (Al 2 O3 ). There is no publicly available data on the cost of aluminum oxide. U.S. producers reported that their raw material costs decreased from *** percent of the total cost of goods sold in 2022 to *** percent in 2024 in the total market; raw materials costs as a share of cost of goods sold were *** percentage points lower in January through March 2025 than in the same period in 2024 in the total market. Transportation costs to the U.S. market Transportation costs for ceramic abrasive grains shipped from China to the United States averaged 5.1 percent of landed duty paid value during 2024. These estimates were derived from official import statistics and represent the transportation and other charges on imports.1 U.S. inland transportation costs *** responding U.S. producers reported that purchasers typically arrange transportation. All responding importers reported that they typically arrange transportation to their customers. Importers reported transportation costs of 3.0 to 6.5 percent of the cost of ceramic abrasive grains. Pricing practices Pricing methods U.S. producers reported setting prices using *** and importers reported setting prices primarily through price lists (table 5.1). 1 The estimated transportation costs were obtained by taking the share of international insurance and freight value of the landed duty paid value based on the HTS statistical reporting number 2818.10.2010 and 2818.10.2090. 5.2 Table 5.1 Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of U.S. producers’ and importers’ reported price setting methods Method U.S. producers U.S. importers Transaction-by-transaction *** 3 Contract *** 4 Set price list *** 12 Other *** 1 Responding firms 2 14 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: The sum of responses down may not add up to the total number of responding firms as each firm was instructed to check all applicable price setting methods employed. U.S. producers reported selling ceramic abrasive grains primarily through *** in 2024, and *** (table 5.2). Importers reported that most of their ceramic abrasive grains were sold through short-term contracts. Table 5.2 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ and subject importers’ shares of commercial U.S. shipments by type of sale, 2024 Share in percent Sale type U.S. producers Subject U.S. importers Long-term contracts *** *** Annual contract *** *** Short-term contracts *** *** Spot sales *** *** All sales types 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Producer 3M reported *** and *** with *** that are ***. Producer Saint-Gobain Ceramics has *** and *** with *** and ***. Similarly, most responding importers reported they do not allow for price renegotiation, and fix both price and quantity in their short-term contracts and annual contracts, and do not index to raw material costs. 5.3 Producer Saint-Gobain Ceramics stated that its ***.2 Out of six responding purchasers, two reported that they purchase product daily, none purchase weekly, two purchase monthly, and two purchase every quarter. All responding purchasers reported that their purchasing frequency had not changed since 2022. A majority (3 of 5) of responding purchasers contact one to three suppliers before making a purchase. Purchaser *** contacts five to eight suppliers. Sales terms and discounts U.S. producers reported quoting prices on a *** basis. Importers reported quoting prices on both f.o.b. and delivered bases.3 Importers reported offering discounts based on quantities (8 firms), total volume (6 firms), or other factors such as *** and “account potential” or “competitive situation.” Four importers reported having no discount policy. Price leadership Two out of six responding purchasers reported that there were no price leaders in the ceramic abrasive grains market, while *** reported that 3M was a price leader, *** reported Saint-Gobain Ceramics, and *** reported that Barton Mines was a price leader. Purchaser *** reported Reckel and Tyrolit as price leaders, both of which the firm identified as producers in China, adding that “Chinese competition has been the price leader, driving prices down and causing U.S. and European producers of abrasive grain to reduce their prices accordingly.” Purchasers reporting 3M as a price leader indicated that 3M led by having “the best performing product on the market” and by being first to “send notification of an API to distributors.” 2 Petitioner’s posthearing brief, p. 9. 3 Reported ***. 5.4 Price and purchase cost data The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers to provide quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. value of the following ceramic abrasive grains products shipped to unrelated U.S. customers during January 2022 to March 2025. Firms that imported these products from China for internal use were requested to provide import purchase cost data. Product 1.-- Sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains, Form: blue or white translucent to off-white/opaque, with a predominant chemical composition of Al2O3 ≥ 95%, possessing a weak and splintery shape Product 2.-- Sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains, Form: blue or white translucent to off-white/opaque, with a predominant chemical composition of Al2O3 ≥ 94%, possessing an extruded rod shape Both U.S. producers and five importers4 provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing data for all products for all quarters.5 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of ceramic abrasive grains, and *** of U.S. shipments of subject imports from China in 2024.6 Pricing product coverage data reported by these firms accounted for *** of U.S. producers’ U.S. commercial shipments and *** percent of U.S. commercial shipments of subject imports from China in 2024. Four importers reported usable import purchase cost data for products 1 and 2. Purchase cost data reported by these firms accounted for *** percent of imports from China in 2024. Price data and landed duty-paid (“LDP”) purchase cost data for imports from China are presented in tables 5.3 to 5.4, along with U.S. producers’ sales prices.7 4 Importer *** did not submit a questionnaire during the final phase but reported price data for pricing product *** in Q4 2024 during the preliminary phase of these investigations. Its price data were incorporated into the pricing analysis for the final phase. 5 Per-unit pricing data are calculated from total quantity and total value data provided by U.S. producers and importers. The precision and variation of these figures may be affected by rounding, limited quantities, and producer or importer estimates. 6 Pricing coverage is based on U.S. shipments reported in questionnaires. 7 LDP import value does not include any potential additional costs that a purchaser may incur by importing rather than purchasing from another importer or U.S. producer. Price-cost differences are based on LDP import values, whereas margins of underselling/overselling are based on importer sales prices. 5.5 Table 5.3 Ceramic abrasive grains: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices, unit LDP values and quantities of domestic and imported product 1, and margins of underselling/(overselling) and price-cost differentials, by source and quarter Price and unit LDP value in dollars per pound, quantity in pounds, margin and differential in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China price China price quantity China margin China unit LDP value China cost quantity China differential 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 1: Sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains, Form: blue or white translucent to off-white /opaque, with a predominant chemical composition of Al2O3 ≥ 95%, possessing a weak and splintery shape. 5.6 Figure 5.1 Ceramic abrasive grains: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices, unit LDP values and quantities of domestic and imported product 1, and margins of underselling/(overselling) and price-cost differentials, by source and quarter Prices of product 1 * * * * * * * Volume of product 1 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 1: Sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains, Form: blue or white translucent to off- white/opaque, with a predominant chemical composition of Al2O3 ≥ 95%, possessing a weak and splintery shape. 5.7 Table 5.4 Ceramic abrasive grains: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices, unit LDP values and quantities of domestic and imported product 2, and margins of underselling/(overselling) and price-cost differentials, by source and quarter Price and unit LDP value in dollars per pound, quantity in pounds, margin and differentials in percent Period U.S. price U.S. quantity China price China price quantity China margin China unit LDP value China cost quantity China differential 2022 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 2: Sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains, Form: blue or white translucent to off- white/opaque, with a predominant chemical composition of Al2O3 ≥ 94%, possessing an extruded rod shape. 5.8 Figure 5.2 Ceramic abrasive grains: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by source and quarter Price of product 2 * * * * * * * Volume of product 2 * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Product 2: Sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains, Form: blue or white translucent to off- white/opaque, with a predominant chemical composition of Al2O3 ≥ 94%, possessing an extruded rod shape. 5.9 Import purchase cost data Importers reporting import purchase cost data were asked to provide additional information regarding the costs and benefits of importing ceramic abrasive grains themselves. Three of the four importers that provided purchase cost data reported that they did not incur additional costs by importing themselves. Importer *** reported that it incurred additional costs beyond landed duty-paid costs by importing ceramic abrasive grains itself rather than purchasing from a U.S. producer or U.S. importer. This importer reported that the additional cost results from needing to “carry additional inventory” due to “longer lead times.” The estimated total additional cost compared to landed paid duty value was reported as *** percent. Firms were also asked to describe how these additional costs incurred by importing ceramic abrasive grains themselves compare with additional costs incurred when purchasing from a U.S. producer or U.S. importer. However, no information comparing additional costs was provided. When comparing costs between various sources, two of the four importers reported that they compare costs of importing to both the cost of purchasing from a U.S. producer and the cost of purchasing from another importer, one compares costs to purchasing from a U.S. importer, and one importer reported that it does not compare costs of purchasing from either. Importers *** reported importing from China due to lower costs and “optimized quality products.” *** reported that U.S. producers are *** of the firm. Firms were also asked whether the import cost (both excluding and including additional costs) of ceramic abrasive grains they imported is lower than the price of purchasing ceramic abrasive grains from a U.S. producer or importer. Three of four importers reported lower import costs, relative to the price of U.S. product, even including additional costs. Reported savings from importing ceramic grains instead of purchasing from a U.S. producer ranged from *** to *** percent, while reported savings of importing directly ranged from *** to *** percent. Three firms reported that they based their estimates on previous company transactions and one reported basing its estimates on market research. 5.10 Price and purchase cost trends As shown in tables 5.5 and 5.6, the domestic price increased approximately *** percent during January 2022 to March 2025 while import prices decreased by *** percent and purchase costs decreased by *** percent. Table 5.6 shows product 1 indexed U.S. producer and subject importer prices and purchase costs from January 2022 to March 2025. Table 5.5 Ceramic abrasive grains: Summary of price data, by product and source, January 2022 to March 2025 Quantity in pounds, price and LDP value in dollars per pound, change in percent Product Source Number of quarters Quantity Low price/ unit LDP value High price/ unit LDP value First quarter price/ unit LDP value Last quarter price/ unit LDP value Change over period Product 1 United States 13 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 China price 13 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 1 China cost 13 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 United States 7 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 China price 1 *** *** *** *** *** *** Product 2 China cost — *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Percent change column is percentage change from the first quarter 2022 to the last quarter in 2025. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Percent change is the change from the first quarter to the last quarter of the data collection period. 5.11 Table 5.6 Ceramic abrasive grains: Indexed U.S. producer and subject importer prices and subject importer purchase costs, by quarter Index in percent, 2022 Q1= 100.0 percent Period U.S. producers: Product 1 price Subject importers: Product 1 price Subject importers: Product 1 cost 2022 Q1 100.0 100.0 100.0 2022 Q2 *** *** *** 2022 Q3 *** *** *** 2022 Q4 *** *** *** 2023 Q1 *** *** *** 2023 Q2 *** *** *** 2023 Q3 *** *** *** 2023 Q4 *** *** *** 2024 Q1 *** *** *** 2024 Q2 *** *** *** 2024 Q3 *** *** *** 2024 Q4 *** *** *** 2025 Q1 *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Figure 5.3 Ceramic abrasive grains: Indexed U.S. producer and subject importer prices and subject importer purchase costs, by quarter * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 5.12 Price and purchase cost comparisons Price comparisons As shown in table 5.7, prices for product imported from China were below those for U.S.-produced product in all 14 instances (*** pounds); margins of underselling ranged from *** to *** percent. There were no reported instances where prices for subject imports were above prices for domestically produced ceramic abrasive grains. Table 5.7 Ceramic abrasive grains: Instances of underselling and overselling and the range and average of margins, by product Quantity in pounds; margin in percent Products Type Number of instances Quantity Average margin Min margin Max margin Product 1 Underselling 13 *** *** *** *** Product 2 Underselling 1 *** *** *** *** All products Underselling 14 *** *** *** *** Product 1 Overselling — — — — — Product 2 Overselling — — — — — All products Overselling — — — — — Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. Table 5.8 Ceramic abrasive grains: Instances of underselling and overselling and the range and average of margins, by period Quantity in pounds; margin in percent Period Type Number of instances Quantity Average margin Min margin Max margin 2022 Underselling 4 *** *** *** *** 2023 Underselling 4 *** *** *** *** 2024 Underselling 5 *** *** *** *** January through March 2025 Underselling 1 *** *** *** *** All periods Underselling 14 *** *** *** *** 2022 Overselling — — — — — 2023 Overselling — — — — — 2024 Overselling — — — — — January through March 2025 Overselling — — — — — All periods Overselling — — — — — Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. 5.13 Price-cost comparisons As shown in table 5.9, landed duty-paid costs for ceramic abrasive grains imported from China were below the sales price for U.S.-produced product in all 13 instances (*** pounds); price-cost differentials ranged from *** to *** percent. Table 5.9 Ceramic abrasive grains: Instances of lower and higher import purchase costs and the range and average of price-cost differentials, by product Quantity in pounds; price-cost differential in percent Products Type Number of instances Quantity Average differential Min differential Max differential Product 1 Lower than US 13 *** *** *** *** Product 2 Lower than US — *** *** *** *** All products Lower than US 13 *** *** *** *** Product 1 Higher than US — — — — — Product 2 Higher than US — — — — — All products Higher than US — — — — — Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. Table 5.10 Ceramic abrasive grains: Instances of lower and higher import purchase costs and the range and average of price-cost differentials, by year Quantity in pounds; price-cost differential in percent Period Type Number of instances Quantity Average differential Min differential Max differential 2021 Lower than US 4 *** *** *** *** 2022 Lower than US 4 *** *** *** *** 2023 Lower than US 4 *** *** *** *** January through March 2025 Lower than US 1 *** *** *** *** All periods Lower than US 13 *** *** *** *** 2021 Higher than US — — — — — 2022 Higher than US — — — — — 2023 Higher than US — — — — — January through March 2025 Higher than US — — — — — All periods Higher than US — — — — — Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: These data include only quarters in which there is a comparison between the U.S. and subject product. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. 5.14 Lost sales and lost revenue In the preliminary phase of the investigations, the Commission requested that U.S. producers of ceramic abrasive grains report purchasers with which they experienced instances of lost sales or revenue due to competition from imports of ceramic abrasive grains from China during January 2021 through September 2024. One U.S. producer (***) submitted lost sales and lost revenue allegations. The responding U.S. producer identified six firms with which they lost sales and revenue. In the final phase of the investigations, of the two responding U.S. producers, *** reported that they had to reduce prices and roll back announced price increases. Staff contacted 24 purchasers and received responses from 6 purchasers.8 Responding purchasers reported purchasing *** pounds of ceramic abrasive grains during January 2022 to March 2025 (table 5.11).9 Of the six responding purchasers, two reported that, since 2022, they had purchased imported ceramic abrasive grains from China instead of U.S.-produced product (table 5.12). One of these purchasers reported that subject import prices were lower than U.S.-produced product; however, neither of these purchasers reported that price was a primary reason for the decision to purchase imported product rather than U.S.-produced product. Purchaser *** reported that domestic producers do not produce the “finished goods” (downstream products) that it needs. Of the six responding purchasers, five reported that U.S. producers had not reduced prices in order to compete with lower-priced imports from China; one reported that they did not know (table 5.13). 8 Both purchasers that submitted lost sales lost revenue survey responses in the preliminary phase submitted purchaser questionnaire responses in the final phase. 9 The quantity of purchases reported by ***. See table C.1. Staff have followed up with the firms. 5.15 Table 5.11 Ceramic abrasive grains: Purchasers’ reported purchases and imports, by firm and source Quantity in 1,000 pounds, share in percent Firm Domestic quantity Subject quantity All other quantity Change in domestic share Change in subject share Change in all other share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: All other includes all other sources and unknown sources. Change is the percentage point change in the share of the firm’s total purchases of domestic and/or subject country imports between first and last years. Table 5.12 Ceramic abrasive grains: Purchasers’ responses to purchasing subject imports instead of domestic product, by firm Quantity in 1,000 pounds Firm Purchased subject imports instead of domestic Imports priced lower Choice based on price Quantity Narrative on reasons for purchasing imports *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms Yes: 2; No: 4 Yes: 1; No: 1 Yes: 0; No: 2 *** NA Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 5.16 Table 5.13 Ceramic abrasive grains: Purchasers’ responses to U.S. producer price reductions, by firm Firm Producers lowered prices Price reduction Narrative on producer price reductions *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** All firms Yes: 0; No: 5 *** NA Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 6.1 Part 6: Financial experience of U.S. producers Background1 Two U.S. producers, 3M and Saint-Gobain Ceramics, provided usable financial results on their ceramic abrasive grains operations. Both U.S. producers reported financial data for a fiscal year ending December 31. *** provided its financial data on the basis of GAAP while *** used IFRS to report its financial data.2 Figures 6.1 and 6.2 present each responding firm’s share of net sales quantity in 2024 for the total market which includes commercial sales, internal consumption, and transfers to related firms (“transfers”) and for commercial sales, respectively. Internal consumption and transfers to related firms accounted for the majority of net sales throughout the period 1 The following abbreviations are used in the tables and/or text of this section: fiscal year (“FY”), generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”), January 2022 to March 2025 (“period examined”), January to March 2024 (“interim 2024”), January to March 2025 (“interim 2025”), net sales (“NS”), commercial sales (“CS”), SKUs (“stock keeping units”), cost of goods sold (“COGS”), selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A expenses”), average unit values (“AUVs”), fair market value (“FMV”), research and development expenses (“R&D expenses”), return on assets (“ROA”), Saint-Gobain Ceramics (“SGC,” or “Saint-Gobain,” or “petitioner”), Saint- Gobain Abrasives, Inc. (“SGA”) 2 Staff verified the financial results of 3M with its corporate records, and all adjustments were incorporated into this report. 3M’s U.S. producer questionnaire response was revised as follows: ***. Email from ***, August 15, 2025, and staff verification report, 3M, August 2025. 6.2 examined.3 Commercial sales were the smallest share of net sales for U.S. producers.4 The reported data are believed to account for all known sales by U.S. producers of ceramic abrasive grains.5 3 Within their internal books and records, ***. Email from ***, December 23, 2024, and emails from ***, December 23 and 26, 2024 and January 6, 2025. As requested by Commission staff, ***. As a result, the classification of internal consumption (domestic transfers only) and transfers to related firms (export transfers only) reported in both U.S. producer questionnaires use the same methodology in the final phase of these proceedings. U.S. producer questionnaires, III-9a, III-9b, and III-9c. 4 3M’s commercial sales quantities ranged from a low of *** percent of its net sales quantity in interim 2025 to a high of *** percent in 2022. Saint-Gobain Ceramics’ commercial sales quantities ranged from a low of *** percent in interim 2025 to a high of *** percent in 2022 of its net sales quantity during the period examined. Calculated from *** U.S. producer questionnaire, III-9a. 5 Petitioning firm Saint-Gobain testified that only two companies currently produce ceramic abrasive grains using the sol-gel technology in the United States. Conference transcript, p. 5 (Schaefer). 6.3 Figure 6.1 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ share of total market net sales quantity in 2024, by firm * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Figure 6.2 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ share of commercial sales quantity in 2024, by firm * * * * * * * Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 6.4 Operations on ceramic abrasive grains Tables 6.1 and 6.3 present aggregated data on U.S. producers’ ceramic abrasive grains operations in the total market and for commercial sales, respectively. Tables 6.2 and 6.4 present corresponding changes in AUVs for U.S. producers’ total market and commercial sales, respectively. Table 6.5 presents selected company-specific financial data in the total market. Table 6.1 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ results of total market operations, by item and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; ratio to NS in percent; interim is January through March Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Commercial sales Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Commercial sales Value *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption Value *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Value *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Boehmite costs Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other raw materials Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: All raw materials Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Direct labor Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other factory Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Total Value *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses Value *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** All other expenses / (income), net Value *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** Depreciation/amortization Value *** *** *** *** *** Cash flow Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Boehmite costs Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other raw materials Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** COGS: All raw materials Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Direct labor Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other factory Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Total Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expense Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Ratio to NS *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. 6.5 Table 6.1 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ results of total market operations, by item and period Share in percent; unit value in dollars per pound; count in number of firms reporting; interim is January through March Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 COGS: Boehmite costs Share *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other raw materials Share *** *** *** *** *** COGS: All raw materials Share *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Direct labor Share *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other factory Share *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Total Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Commercial sales Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Transfers to related firms Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Total net sales Unit value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Boehmite costs Unit value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other raw materials Unit value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: All Raw materials Unit value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Direct labor Unit value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other factory Unit value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Total Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) Unit value *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Operating losses Count *** *** *** *** *** Net losses Count *** *** *** *** *** Data Count 2 2 2 2 2 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares represent the share of COGS. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—”. 6.6 Table 6.2 Ceramic abrasive grains: Changes in AUVs between comparison periods of the total market Change in percent; interim is January through March Item 2022 to 2024 2022 to 2023 2023 to 2024 Interim 2024 to 2025 Commercial sales ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Internal consumption ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Transfers to related firms ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Total net sales ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** COGS: Boehmite costs ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** COGS: Other raw materials ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** COGS: All raw materials ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** COGS: Direct labor ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** COGS: Other factory ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** COGS: Total ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Table continued. Table 6.2 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: Changes in AUVs between comparison periods of the total market Change in dollars per pound; interim is January through March Item 2022 to 2024 2022 to 2023 2023 to 2024 Interim 2024 to 2025 Commercial sales ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Internal consumption ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Transfers to related firms ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Total net sales ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** COGS: Boehmite costs ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** COGS: Other raw materials ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** COGS: All raw materials ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** COGS: Direct labor ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** COGS: Other factory ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** COGS: Total ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Gross profit or (loss) ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** SG&A expense ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Operating income or (loss) ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Net income or (loss) ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Percentages and unit values shown as “0.0” or “0.00” represent values greater than zero, but less than “0.05” or “0.005,” respectively. Period changes preceded by a “▲” represent an increase, while period changes preceded by a “▼” represent a decrease. 6.7 Table 6.3 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ results for commercial sales operations, by item and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars; ratio to CS in percent; interim is January to March Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Commercial sales Quantity *** *** *** *** *** Commercial sales Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Boehmite costs Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other raw materials Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: All raw materials Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Direct labor Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other factory Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Total Value *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses Value *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** All other expenses / (income), net Value *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Value *** *** *** *** *** Depreciation/amortization Value *** *** *** *** *** Cash flow Value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Boehmite costs Ratio to CS *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other raw materials Ratio to CS *** *** *** *** *** COGS: All raw materials Ratio to CS *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Direct labor Ratio to CS *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other factory Ratio to CS *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Total Ratio to CS *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit Ratio to CS *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expense Ratio to CS *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Ratio to CS *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Ratio to CS *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. 6.8 Table 6.3 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ results of commerical sales operations, by item and period Share in percent; unit value in dollars per pound; count in number of firms reporting; interim is January to March Item Measure 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 COGS: Boehmite costs Share *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other raw materials Share *** *** *** *** *** COGS: All raw materials Share *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Direct labor Share *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other factory Share *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Total Share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Commercial sales Unit value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Boehmite costs Unit value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other raw materials Unit value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: All raw materials Unit value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Direct labor Unit value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Other factory Unit value *** *** *** *** *** COGS: Total Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Gross profit or (loss) Unit value *** *** *** *** *** SG&A expenses Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Operating income or (loss) Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Net income or (loss) Unit value *** *** *** *** *** Operating losses Count *** *** *** *** *** Net losses Count *** *** *** *** *** Data Count 2 2 2 2 2 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares represent the share of COGS. 6.9 Table 6.4 Ceramic abrasive grains: Changes in AUVs between comparison periods for commercial sales Change in percent; interim is January to March Item 2022 to 2024 2022 to 2023 2023 to 2024 Interim 2024 to 2025 Commercial sales ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Total net sales ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** COGS: Boehmite costs ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** COGS: Other raw materials ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** COGS: All raw materials ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** COGS: Direct labor ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** COGS: Other factory ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** COGS: Total ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Table continued. Table 6.4 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: Changes in AUVs between comparison periods for commercial sales Change in dollars per pound; interim is January to March Item 2022 to 2024 2022 to 2023 2023 to 2024 Interim 2024 to 2025 Commercial sales ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** COGS: Boehmite costs ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** COGS: Other raw materials ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** COGS: All raw materials ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** COGS: Direct labor ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** COGS: Other factory ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** COGS: Total ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Gross profit or (loss) ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** SG&A expense ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Operating income or (loss) ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Net income or (loss) ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Period changes preceded by a “▲” represent an increase, while period changes preceded by a “▼” represent a decrease. 6.10 Table 6.5 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Net sales quantity Quantity in 1,000 pounds; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Net sales value Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period COGS Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Gross profit or (loss) Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. 6.11 Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period SG&A expenses Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Operating income or (loss) Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Net income or (loss) Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period COGS to net sales ratio Ratio in percent; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. 6.12 Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Gross profit or (loss) to net sales ratio Ratio in percent; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period SG&A expenses to net sales ratio Ratio in percent; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Operating income or (loss) to net sales ratio Ratio in percent; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Net income or (loss) to net sales ratio Ratio in percent; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. 6.13 Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit net sales value Unit value in dollars per pound; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit all raw material costs Unit value in dollars per pound; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit direct labor costs Unit value in dollars per pound; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit other factory costs Unit value in dollars per pound; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. 6.14 Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit COGS Unit value in dollars per pound; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit gross profit or (loss) Unit value in dollars per pound; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit SG&A expenses Unit value in dollars per pound; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit operating income or (loss) Unit value in dollars per pound; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. 6.15 Table 6.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total market sales, costs/expenses, and profitability, by firm and period Unit net income or (loss) Unit value in dollars per pound; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” represent values greater than zero, but less than “0.05” percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—”. Net sales6 As presented in table 6.1, total net sales include commercial sales (including exports), internal consumption, and transfers to related firms. Ceramic abrasive grains net sales quantity and value in the total market (table 6.1) and for commercial sales (table 6.3) consistently declined from 2022 to 2024. Net sales quantity and value in the total market (table 6.1) and commercial sales quantity and value (table 6.3) were all lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Table 6.1 shows that internal consumption quantities consistently increased but values irregularly declined from 2022 to 2024; internal consumption quantities were higher while its values were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 (table 6.1). Transfers quantities and values consistently declined from 2022 to 2024 and were both lower between the interim periods. Table 6.1 shows that non-commercial sales (internal consumption and transfers to related firms) accounted for the largest and increasing majority of net sales from 2022 to March 2025.7 8 6 As noted earlier, both U.S. producers reported commercial sales, internal consumption, and transfers. From 2022 to 2024, aggregated commercial sales quantity consistently declined from *** percent of the U.S. producers’ total net sales quantity, internal consumption consistently increased from *** percent, and transfers irregularly declined from *** percent. Calculated from U.S. producer questionnaires, III-9a. 7 *** U.S. producers, commercial sales quantity and value were the smallest category of net sales. *** commercial sales quantity and value consistently declined from *** percent of its total net sales from 2022 to 2024. *** commercial sales irregularly declined from *** percent by quantity and *** percent by value of its total net sales during the same period. Ibid. 8 These two firms’ commercial sales patterns varied somewhat; *** from 2022 to 2024. *** commercial sales quantity and value in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. U.S. producer questionnaires, III-9f. 6.16 Per-pound sales values in net sales irregularly decreased in the total market (table 6.1) and for commercial sales (table 6.3) from 2022 to 2024 (resulting from the U.S. industry selling less ceramic abrasive grains at lower prices from 2022 to 2024). Net sales AUVs in the total market (table 6.1) and for commercial sales (table 6.3) were both lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. On a company-specific basis, 3M’s net sales AUVs irregularly decreased while Saint-Gobain’s net sales AUVs irregularly increased from 2022 to 2024; 3M reported lower net sales per-pound while Saint-Gobain reported higher net sales per-pound in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Table 6.5 shows that *** reported higher net sales values per-pound than *** in all five data periods examined.9 Both U.S. producers noted that product mix is the primary driver for differences in AUVs for each category of sales and the reason for the variations in net sales AUVs from 2022 to March 2025.10 Cost of goods sold and gross profit or loss Tables 6.1 and 6.3 show that other factory costs account for the largest share of total COGS in four out of five periods examined (other factory costs were second to all raw material costs as a share of total COGS in interim 2024 only). Other factory costs as a share of total COGS ranged from *** to *** percent from 2022 to interim 2025 in the total market (table 6.1) and for commercial sales (table 6.3). In absolute values, other factory costs irregularly decreased in the total market (table 6.1) but consistently decreased for commercial sales (table 6.3) from 2022 to 2024; other factory costs were higher in the total market (table 6.1) but lower 9 3M initially used ***. During verification, 3M’s internal consumption and transfers values were adjusted using its commercial sales AUVs to approximate FMVs. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, III-9b and III-9c and staff verification report, 3M, August 2025. Saint-Gobain’s ***. Saint-Gobain valued internal consumption using ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, III-9a, III-9b, and III-9c. 10 3M explained that ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, III-9b and email from ***, December 23, 2024. Saint-Gobain stated that ***. Emails from ***, December 23 and 26, 2024. 6.17 for commercial sales (table 6.3) in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.11 As a ratio to net sales in the total market (table 6.1), other factory costs irregularly increased from 2022 to 2024 and were higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Other factory costs as a ratio to commercial sales indicated the same trends (table 6.3). Tables 6.1 and 6.3 show that other factory costs per unit consistently increased from 2022 to 2024 and were higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 in the total market (table 6.1) and for commercial sales (table 6.3), primarily reflecting other factory costs spread over lower sales volumes.12 Raw material costs were the second largest share of total COGS, ranging from *** to *** percent in the total market (table 6.1). Raw material costs as a share of total COGS were similar for commercial sales (table 6.3), ranging from *** percent to *** percent. Raw material costs irregularly decreased from 2022 to 2024 in the total market (table 6.1) and consistently decreased for commercial sales (table 6.3). Raw material costs were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 in the total market (table 6.1) and for commercial sales (table 6.3). Raw material costs as a ratio to net sales irregularly increased in the total market (table 6.1) and as a ratio to commercial sales (table 6.3) from 2022 to 2024. All raw material costs as a ratio to net sales in the total market (table 6.1) and as a ratio to commercial sales (table 6.3) were both lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.13 On a per unit basis, raw material costs irregularly increased in the total market (table 6.1) and for commercial sales (table 6.3) from 2022 to 2024 but were lower per unit in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 in the total market (table 6.1) and for commercial sales (table 6.3). Boehmite accounted for the vast majority of raw material cost for *** in the total market (table 6.1) and for commercial 11 Saint-Gobain reported ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, III-10. 12 Saint-Gobain explained ***. U.S. producer questionnaires, III-9b and emails from ***, December 23 and 26, 2024. 13 ***. Differences in raw material costs per unit between these two producers were driven partially by ***. U.S. producer questionnaires, III-9a and III-9b. 6.18 sales (table 6.3).14 Other raw material inputs include chemical dopants, pH adjuster, and other chemical additives such as aluminum trihydrate. In the total market, direct labor costs ranged from *** percent to *** percent as a share of total COGS from 2022 to interim 2025 (table 6.1). Direct labor costs for commercial sales ranged from *** percent to *** percent as a share of total COGS for the same period (table 6.3). In absolute values, direct labor costs irregularly decreased in the total market (table 6.1) while they consistently decreased for commercial sales (table 6.3) from 2022 to 2024; direct labor costs were higher in the total market in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 (table 6.1) yet lower for commercial sales between interim periods (table 6.3). From 2022 to 2024, direct labor costs as a ratio to net sales irregularly increased in the total market (table 6.1) and also irregularly increased as a ratio to commercial sales (table 6.3); direct labor ratios were higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 in the total market (table 6.1) and for commercial sales (table 6.3).15 On a per-pound basis, direct labor costs irregularly increased from 2022 to 2024 and were higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 in the total market (table 6.1) and for commercial sales (table 6.3). Total COGS decreased from 2022 to 2024 (irregularly in the total market (table 6.1) but consistently for commercial sales (table 6.3)). Total COGS was higher in the total market (table 6.1) in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 yet lower for commercial sales (table 6.3) between the interim periods. As a ratio to net sales in the total market (table 6.1), total COGS irregularly increased from 2022 to 2024 and was higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024; table 6.3 shows the same trends for commercial sales. On a per-pound basis, total COGS irregularly increased from 2022 to 2024in the total market (table 6.1) and for commercial sales (table 6.3). Unit COGS for the total market (table 6.1) and commercial sales (table 6.3) were higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Gross profits irregularly declined from 2022 to 2024 and were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024, irregularly in the total market (table 6.1) and consistently for commercial 14 The petition ***. At the staff conference, industry witnesses stated that boehmite is the primary and starting input ***. Conference transcript, p. 29 (Mydlarz) and email from ***, January 2, 2025. 15 *** U.S. producers explained that direct labor AUV fluctuations followed ***. U.S. producer questionnaire, III-9b. 6.19 sales (table 6.3). Gross margins (total gross profit divided by total net sales) irregularly declined from 2022 to 2024 and were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 in the total market (table 6.1) and for commercial sales (table 6.3). SG&A expenses and operating income or loss From 2022 to 2024, total SG&A expenses consistently decreased in both the total market (table 6.1) and for commercial sales (table 6.3); SG&A expenses were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 in the total market and for commercial sales. SG&A expense ratios (i.e., total SG&A expenses divided by net sales in the total market or divided by commercial sales) consistently decreased from 2022 to 2024 in the total market (table 6.1) while staying about the same for commercial sales (table 6.3). SG&A expense ratios were lower in the total market in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 (table 6.1) but higher for commercial sales between the two interim periods (table 6.3). On a company-specific basis (table 6.5), *** reported much higher SG&A expense ratios than ***.16 U.S. producers’ operating income irregularly declined in the total market (table 6.1) while it consistently declined for commercial sales (table 6.3) from 2022 to 2024. Operating income was lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 in the total market (table 6.1) and for commercial sales (table 6.3) (operating income’s downward trend resulted in ***).17 Operating margins (i.e., operating income divided by net sales for the total market or divided by commercial sales) irregularly declined from 2022 to 2024 in the total market (table 6.1) and for commercial sales (table 6.3). Operating margins were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 in the total market (table 6.1) and for commercial sales (table 6.3). The patterns of operating results primarily reflect the factors impacting financial results at the gross levels (i.e., reduced sales volume and declining gross profit ratios) in both the total market and for commercial sales (tables 6.1 and 6.3, respectively). 16 Saint-Gobain reported ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire, III-9b. 17 *** accounted for the vast majority *** of operating income in the total market from 2022 to 2024; its operating income irregularly declined from 2022 to 2024 and was lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 (table 6.5). For commercial sales, *** operating income also accounted for vast majority *** but consistently declined from 2022 to 2024 and was lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. ***. Calculated from U.S. producer questionnaires, III-9a and III-9f. 6.20 All other expenses and net income or loss Classified below the operating income level are interest expenses, all other expenses, and all other income. In tables 6.1 and 6.3, these items are aggregated with the net amount shown. In the total market (table 6.1), the net “all other expenses/income, net” stayed *** (i.e., net income was *** than net expenses) but net all other income *** from 2022 to 2024 and were lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. For commercial sales, “all other expenses/income, net” *** (from a net *** to a net *** from 2022 to 2024) but were *** in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 (table 6.3).18 As presented in table 6.1, U.S. producers combined net income in the total market irregularly declined (from $*** in 2022 to $*** in 2023 before decreasing to $*** in 2024); net income was lower in interim 2025 ($***) than in interim 2024 ($***). Table 6.3 shows that the full year trend for commercial sales consistently declined from $*** in 2022 to $*** in 2023, then to $*** in 2024); net income from commercial sales was lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.19 18 *** reported all other expenses and income from corporate allocations that included interest expenses. ***. Email from ***, December 23, 2024, and staff verification report, 3M, August 2025. 19 A variance analysis is not shown, mostly due to large differences in product mix and the different cost structures between the two U.S. producers. 6.21 Capital expenditures and research and development expenses Table 6.6 presents capital expenditures, by firm, and table 6.8 presents R&D expenses, by firm. Tables 6.7 and 6.9 present the firms’ narrative explanations of the nature, focus, and significance of their capital expenditures and R&D expenses, respectively. Table 6.6 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ capital expenditures, by firm and period Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 6.7 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ narrative descriptions of their capital expenditures, by firm Firm Narrative on capital expenditures 3M *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 6.8 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ R&D expenses, by firm and period Value in 1,000 dollars; interim is January through March Firm 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 3M *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 6.9 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ narrative descriptions of their R&D expenses, by firm Firm Narrative on R&D expenses 3M *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 6.22 Assets and return on assets Table 6.10 presents data on the U.S. producers’ total assets while table 6.11 presents their operating ROA.20 Table 6.12 presents U.S. producers’ narrative responses explaining their major asset categories and any significant changes in asset levels over time. Table 6.10 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ total net assets, by firm and period Value in 1,000 dollars Firm 2022 2023 2024 3M *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 6.11 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ ROA, by firm and period Ratio in percent Firm 2022 2023 2024 3M *** *** *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** *** *** All firms *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Table 6.12 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ narrative descriptions of their total net assets, by firm Firm Narrative on assets 3M *** Saint-Gobain Ceramics *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 20 The operating ROA is calculated as operating income divided by total assets. With respect to a firm’s overall operations, the total asset value reflects an aggregation of a number of assets which are generally not product specific. Thus, high-level allocations are generally required in order to report a total asset value on a product-specific basis. 6.23 Capital and investment The Commission requested U.S. producers of ceramic abrasive grains to describe any actual or potential negative effects of imports of ceramic abrasive grains from China on their firms’ growth, investment, ability to raise capital, development and production efforts, or the scale of capital investments. Table 6.13 presents the number of firms reporting an impact in each category and table 6.14 provides the U.S. producers’ narrative responses. Table 6.13 Ceramic abrasive grains: Count of firms indicating actual and anticipated negative effects of imports from subject sources on investment, growth, and development since January 1, 2022, by effect Number of firms reporting Effect Category Count Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects Investment *** Denial or rejection of investment proposal Investment *** Reduction in the size of capital investments Investment *** Return on specific investments negatively impacted Investment *** Other investment effects Investment *** Any negative effects on investment Investment *** Rejection of bank loans Growth *** Lowering of credit rating Growth *** Problem related to the issue of stocks or bonds Growth *** Ability to service debt Growth *** Other growth and development effects Growth *** Any negative effects on growth and development Growth *** Anticipated negative effects of imports Future *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 6.24 Table 6.14 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. producers’ narratives relating to actual and anticipated negative effects of imports on investment, growth, and development, since January 1, 2022, by firm and effect Item Firm name and narrative on impact of imports Cancellation, postponement, or rejection of expansion projects *** Denial or rejection of investment proposal *** Reduction in the size of capital investments *** Return on specific investments negatively impacted *** Return on specific investments negatively impacted *** Other effects on growth and development *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Anticipated effects of imports *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 7.1 Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries Section 771(7)(F)(ⅰ) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ⅰ)) provides that— In determining whether an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of the subject merchandise, the Commission shall consider, among other relevant economic factors1-- (I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement), and whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase, (II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional exports, (III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports, (IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for further imports, (V) inventories of the subject merchandise, 1 Section 771(7)(F)(ⅱ) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ⅱ)) provides that “The Commission shall consider {these factors} . . . as a whole in making a determination of whether further dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted under this title. The presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to consider . . . shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the determination. Such a determination may not be made on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition.” 7.2 (VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products, (VII) in any investigation under this title which involves imports of both a raw agricultural product (within the meaning of paragraph (4)(E)(ⅳ)) and any product processed from such raw agricultural product, the likelihood that there will be increased imports, by reason of product shifting, if there is an affirmative determination by the Commission under section 705(b)(1) or 735(b)(1) with respect to either the raw agricultural product or the processed agricultural product (but not both), (VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product, and (IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability that there is likely to be material injury by reason of imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually being imported at the time).2 Information on the nature of the subsidies was presented earlier in this report; information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts 4 and 5; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing development and production efforts is presented in Part 6. Information on inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any other threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in third- country markets, follows. Also presented in this section of the report is information obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries. 2 Section 771(7)(F)(ⅲ) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ⅲ)) further provides that, in antidumping investigations, “. . . the Commission shall consider whether dumping in the markets of foreign countries (as evidenced by dumping findings or antidumping remedies in other WTO member markets against the same class or kind of merchandise manufactured or exported by the same party as under investigation) suggests a threat of material injury to the domestic industry.” 7.3 The industry in China The Commission issued foreign producers’ or exporters’ questionnaires to 85 firms believed to produce and/or export ceramic abrasive grains from China.3 Usable responses to the Commission’s questionnaire were received from two firms. Table 7.1 presents the number of producers/exporters in China that responded to the Commission’s questionnaire, their exports to the United States as a share of U.S. imports by China in 2024, and their estimated share of total production of ceramic abrasive grains in China during 2024. Table 7.1 Ceramic abrasive grains: Number of responding producers/exporters, approximate share of production, and exports to the United States as a share of U.S. imports from China, 2024 Subject foreign industry Number of responding firms Approximate share of production (percent) Exports as a share of U.S. imports from subject country (percent) China 2 *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: “Approximate share of production” reflects the responding firms’ estimates of their production as a share of total China production of ceramic abrasive grains in 2024. Since not all firms have perfect knowledge of the industry in their home market, different firms might use different denominators in estimating their firm's share of the total requested. Note: “Exports as a share of U.S. imports” reflects the responding firms’ estimate of their 2024 exports to the United States as a share of total exports to the United States of ceramic abrasive grains from China. Table 7.2 presents information on the ceramic abrasive grains operations of the responding producers and exporters in China. Table 7.2 Ceramic abrasive grains: Summary data for producers in China in 2024 Producer) Production (1,000 pounds) Share of reported production (percent) Exports to the United States (1,000 pounds) Share of reported exports to the United States (percent) Total shipments (1,000 pounds) Share of firm's total shipments exported to the United States (percent) Imerys *** *** *** *** *** *** Saint-Gobain (Zhengzhou) *** *** *** *** *** *** All individual producers *** 100.0 *** 100.0 *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 3 These firms were identified through a review of information submitted in the petition and presented in third-party sources. 7.4 Table 7.3 presents events in the industry in China since January 1, 2022. Table 7.3 Ceramic abrasive grains: Important industry events in China since January 1, 2022 Item Firm: Event Expansions Qingdao Reckel Advanced Materials Co. Ltd (“Reckel Advanced Materials”): Announced expansion of RECERAMAX series ceramic abrasives in 2022, when completed, production will be 6,000 tons/month. Expansions Qingdao Reckel Advanced Materials Co. Ltd (“Reckel Advanced Materials”): Doubled its capacity from 200,000kg per month to 400,000kg per month in 2020. In 2022, Reckel Advanced Materials announced that it had secured funding to build a new factory, further expanding capacity. Expansions Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc.: Celebrated the 20 th anniversary of the Saint-Gobain Ceramic Materials Zhengzhou plant and launched a new production line for ceramic grains on April 3, 2025. Announced entry Roy Material Technology: Announced intent to “join hands with foreign capital to build an international top three base of ceramic corundum new materials” by 2023. Source: Petition, vol.1, p. 31, vol.1, exh. I.10 to I.11; Conference transcript, p. 10 (Mydlarz); Saint-Gobain, “Celebrating 20 Years in Zhengzhou,” April 3, 2025, https://www.abrasivematerials.saint- gobain.com/blog-and-events/ceramic-materials-zhengzhou-20-years-anniversary. Note: The Government of China has placed policy weight on the development of new materials, categorizing the new or advanced materials a key in national high-tech industries, strategic emerging industries, and other key objectives. However direct reference to ceramic abrasive grains produced via sol-gel method as one of those advanced or new materials does not exist in the materials provided by petitioner. Petition, vol.3, p. 10; and conference transcript, p. 44 (DeCarlo and Mydlarz). Changes in operations Producers in China were asked to report any change in the character of their operations or organization relating to the production of ceramic abrasive grains since January 1, 2022. Both responding producers indicated in their questionnaires that they had experienced such changes. Table 7.4 presents the changes identified by these producers.4 4 The firms also reported that they do not anticipate any changes in in the character of their operations or organization relating to the production of ceramic abrasive grains in the future. Foreign producers’ questionnaire responses, 2.2c. 7.5 Table 7.4 Ceramic abrasive grains: Reported changes in operations in China since January 1, 2022, by firm Item Firm name (subject foreign industry) and accompanying narrative response regarding changes in operations Relocations *** Expansions *** Acquisitions *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Operations on ceramic abrasive grains Table 7.5 presents information on the ceramic abrasive grains operations of the responding producers and exporters in China. Practical capacity and production of ceramic abrasive grains increased during 2022 to 2024, by *** percent and *** percent, respectively.5 Capacity did not change in interim 2025 compared to interim 2024, while production was *** percent lower during the same period. Capacity and production are projected to increase in 2025 and 2026 when compared to 2024.6 Capacity utilization decreased by *** percentage points between 2022 and 2024, from *** percent to *** percent, and was *** percentage points lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 (*** percent compared to *** percent).7 5 The subject producers reported installed capacity of *** pounds in 2022, *** pounds in 2023, *** pounds in 2024, and *** pounds in interim 2024 and interim 2025. Foreign producers’ questionnaire responses, 2.3a. 6 The capacity and production trends are primarily driven by ***. Saint-Gobain (Zhengzhou) reported ***. The firm indicated its production trends are due to ***. Imerys reported ***. The firm indicated that its production trends are ***. 7 Imerys reported *** capacity utilization, from *** percent in 2022 to *** percent in 2024, and Saint-Gobain (Zhengzhou) reported *** capacity utilization, from *** percent to *** percent during the same period. Both firms reported *** capacity utilization in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Imerys’ capacity utilization was *** percentage points *** in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 (*** percent compared to *** percent). Saint-Gobain (Zhengzhou)’s capacity utilization was *** percentage points *** in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 (*** percent compared to *** percent). 7.6 Exports to the United States accounted for less than *** percent of total shipments in each period. Exports to the United States increased by *** percent from 2022 to 2024 and were *** percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024.8 The majority of total shipments were exported, primarily to markets other than the United States (***). Exports to the United States are projected to decrease in 2025 and 2026 compared to 2024.9 Ending inventories increased by *** percent between 2022 and 2024 and were higher in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. Ending inventories as a share of production and total shipments in 2024 accounted for *** percent and *** percent, respectively. Ending inventories are projected to be lower in 2025 and 2026 compared to 2024, by *** percent and *** percent respectively. Table 7.5 Ceramic abrasive grains: Data on industry in China, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratio and share in percent; interim is January through March Item 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Projected 2025 Projected 2026 Capacity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** End-of-period inventories *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Commercial home market shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to the United States *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to all other markets *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Table continued. 8 Both firms reported that *** was the only U.S. importer of their ceramic abrasive grains since January 1, 2022. Foreign producers’ questionnaire responses, 1.7. 9 Imerys projected *** exports to the United States in 2025 and 2026, while Saint-Gobain (Zhengzhou) projected exports to the United States that were *** compared to 2024. Imerys reported that the basis for its 2025 and 2026 projections is primarily based on ***. Saint-Gobain (Zhengzhou)’s basis for its 2025 and 2026 projections, including ***. Foreign producers’ questionnaire responses, 2.9; and staff correspondence with ***, July 14, 2025, and with ***, July 15, 2025. 7.7 Table 7.5 (Continued) Ceramic abrasive grains: Data on industry in China, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratio and share in percent; interim is January through March Item 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Projected 2025 Projected 2026 Capacity utilization ratio *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Inventory ratio to total shipments *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Internal consumption share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Commercial home market shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Home market shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to the United States share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Exports to all other markets share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Export shipments share *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Total shipments share 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Shares and ratios shown as "0.0" represent values greater than zero, but less than "0.05" percent. Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. Alternative products Responding producers in China do not produce alternative products using the same equipment, machinery, or employees as ceramic abrasive grains. Both firms reported that ***.10 Constraints on capacity Table 7.6 presents producers’ reported capacity constraints in China since January 1, 2022. Table 7.6 Ceramic abrasive grains: Producers’ reported constraints to practical overall capacity in China since January 1, 2022, by constraint and firm Type of constraint Firm name and narrative response Other constraints *** Other constraints *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 10 Foreign producers’ questionnaire responses, 2.4. 7.8 Exports According to Global Trade Atlas (“GTA”), the leading export markets for artificial corundum, a category that includes ceramic abrasive grains and out-of-scope products, from China are the United States, Japan, and India (table 7.7). During 2024, the United States was the largest export market for artificial corundum from China, accounting for 14.4 percent, followed by Japan and India, accounting for 12.9 percent and 10.3 percent respectively. Table 7.7 Artificial corundum: Exports from China, by period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars Destination market Measure 2022 2023 2024 United States Quantity 379,768 247,388 292,949 Japan Quantity 271,590 241,722 261,410 India Quantity 181,231 223,275 208,501 South Korea Quantity 140,141 155,994 192,121 Netherlands Quantity 168,398 100,866 171,983 Turkey Quantity 77,804 91,637 93,715 Taiwan Quantity 72,538 69,025 86,529 Thailand Quantity 60,766 56,571 66,373 Italy Quantity 47,130 39,539 59,380 All other destination markets Quantity 523,407 630,236 594,820 Non-U.S. destination markets Quantity 1,543,004 1,608,865 1,734,833 All destination markets Quantity 1,922,772 1,856,253 2,027,782 United States Value 156,389 79,330 82,516 Japan Value 212,392 120,136 98,109 India Value 114,527 87,145 67,386 South Korea Value 120,103 84,585 74,051 Netherlands Value 83,530 39,884 55,020 Turkey Value 43,911 37,762 32,922 Taiwan Value 84,354 36,831 27,877 Thailand Value 43,296 31,787 25,893 Italy Value 29,393 20,572 22,940 All other destination markets Value 406,085 302,961 224,434 Non-U.S. destination markets Value 1,137,590 761,662 628,632 All destination markets Value 1,293,979 840,992 711,148 Table continued. 7.9 Table 7.7 Artificial corundum: Exports from China, by period Unit value in dollars per pound; share in percent Destination market Measure 2022 2023 2024 United States Unit value 0.41 0.32 0.28 Japan Unit value 0.78 0.50 0.38 India Unit value 0.63 0.39 0.32 South Korea Unit value 0.86 0.54 0.39 Netherlands Unit value 0.50 0.40 0.32 Turkey Unit value 0.56 0.41 0.35 Taiwan Unit value 1.16 0.53 0.32 Thailand Unit value 0.71 0.56 0.39 Italy Unit value 0.62 0.52 0.39 All other destination markets Unit value 0.78 0.48 0.38 Non-U.S. destination markets Unit value 0.74 0.47 0.36 All destination markets Unit value 0.67 0.45 0.35 United States Share of quantity 19.8 13.3 14.4 Japan Share of quantity 14.1 13.0 12.9 India Share of quantity 9.4 12.0 10.3 South Korea Share of quantity 7.3 8.4 9.5 Netherlands Share of quantity 8.8 5.4 8.5 Turkey Share of quantity 4.0 4.9 4.6 Taiwan Share of quantity 3.8 3.7 4.3 Thailand Share of quantity 3.2 3.0 3.3 Italy Share of quantity 2.5 2.1 2.9 All other destination markets Share of quantity 27.2 34.0 29.3 Non-U.S. destination markets Share of quantity 80.2 86.7 85.6 All destination markets Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheading 2818.10 as reported by China Customs in the Global Trade Atlas Suite database, accessed July 2, 2025. Note: United States is shown at the top. All remaining top export destinations are shown in descending order of 2024 data. 7.10 U.S. inventories of imported merchandise Table 7.8 presents data on U.S. importers’ reported inventories of ceramic abrasive grains. Twelve of 21 firms reported such inventories, with *** accounting for the majority in each period. Eight firms reported inventories from China and nine firms reported inventories from nonsubject sources. *** accounted for the vast majority of inventories from China (more than *** percent in each period), while *** accounted for the majority of inventories from nonsubject sources (between *** percent and *** percent in each period). U.S. importers’ inventories from China increased by *** percent between 2022 and 2024 but were *** percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. The ratio of subject inventories to total shipments decreased by *** percentage points during 2022 to 2024, from *** percent to *** percent and was *** percentage points lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 (*** percent compared to *** percent). The ratio of subject inventories to imports similarly decreased by *** percentage points between 2022 and 2024, from *** percent to *** percent, and was *** percentage points lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 (*** percent compared to *** percent). U.S. importers’ inventories from nonsubject sources decreased by *** percent from 2022 to 2024 and were *** percent lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024. The ratio of nonsubject inventories to total shipments decreased by *** percentage points, from *** percent to *** percent, and was *** percentage points lower in interim 2025 than in interim 2024 (*** percent compared to *** percent). The ratios of nonsubject inventories to imports and U.S. shipments followed a similar trend. 7.11 Table 7.8 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. importers’ inventories and their ratio to select items, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; ratio in percent; interim is January through March Measure Source 2022 2023 2024 Interim 2024 Interim 2025 Inventories quantity China *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports China *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports China *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports China *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to imports Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** Ratio to total shipments of imports Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** *** Inventories quantity All import sources 582 529 515 529 483 Ratio to imports All import sources 30.8 31.2 27.8 35.2 26.7 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports All import sources 36.6 31.4 28.5 36.0 25.6 Ratio to total shipments of imports All import sources *** *** *** *** *** Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. U.S. importers’ outstanding orders The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the importation of ceramic abrasive grains from China and nonsubject sources after March 31, 2025. Twelve of 21 responding firms indicated that they had arranged such imports. Six firms reported arranged imports from China, with *** accounting for the majority (*** percent). Eight firms reported arranged imports from nonsubject sources, with *** accounting for the majority (*** percent combined). U.S. importers’ arranged imports are presented in table 7.9. Table 7.9 Ceramic abrasive grains: U.S. importers’ arranged imports, by source and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds Source Q2 2025 Q3 2025 Q4 2025 Q1 2026 Total China *** *** *** *** 222 Nonsubject sources *** *** *** *** 481 All import sources *** *** *** *** 703 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Note: Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. 7.12 Third-country trade actions Based on available information, alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains from China have not been subject to other antidumping or countervailing duty investigations outside the United States. However, on November 21, 2024, the European Union initiated an antidumping proceeding concerning imports of fused alumina, which includes alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains produced via the sol-gel method, originating in the People’s Republic of China.11 The status of the investigation is still ongoing, with provisional measures scheduled for July 18, 2025, and with possible definitive measures scheduled for January 17, 2026.12 Information on nonsubject countries According to GTA, the leading exporter for artificial corundum, a category that includes ceramic abrasive grains and out-of-scope products, is China, which accounted for 73.3 percent of global exports in 2024 (table 7.10). Various European countries were the next largest exporters of artificial corundum, accounting for between 2.0 and 4.0 percent of global exports in 2024. Specifically, the Netherlands accounted for 4.0 percent, followed by France and Germany (2.7 percent each), Hungary (2.1 percent), and Slovenia (2.0 percent). 11 European Commission, “Case AD720 - Fused alumina,” Trade Defence Investigations, accessed July 2, 2025, https://tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/investigations/case-view?caseId=2757; Petition, vol. 1, pp. 31- 32. Note that this scope also contains conventional fused alumina abrasive grains. Conference transcript, p. 54 (Mydlarz). In the United States, there are currently orders in place on “Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide” from China, which includes conventional fused abrasive grains. WTO, “Trade Remedies,” accessed July 2, 2025, https://trade- remedies.wto.org/en/antidumping/investigations/measures/usa-a-570-882-1. 12 European Commission, “Case AD720 - Fused alumina,” Trade Defence Investigations, accessed June 9, 2025, https://tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/investigations/case-view?caseId=2757. 7.13 Table 7.10 Artificial corundum: Global exports by exporter and period Quantity in 1,000 pounds; value in 1,000 dollars Exporting country Measure 2022 2023 2024 United States Quantity 44,393 31,677 24,979 China Quantity 1,922,772 1,856,253 2,027,782 Netherlands Quantity 159,876 67,140 111,839 France Quantity 89,689 72,707 75,691 Germany Quantity 117,266 86,787 74,294 Hungary Quantity 65,754 40,154 58,670 Slovenia Quantity 82,508 40,785 54,531 Brazil Quantity 72,134 52,229 51,199 Italy Quantity 65,103 48,492 45,507 Ukraine Quantity 40,391 31,940 44,710 Canada Quantity 41,346 44,130 42,751 Belgium Quantity 21,906 42,772 29,205 All other exporters Quantity 277,292 153,124 124,258 All reporting exporters Quantity 3,000,430 2,568,192 2,765,416 United States Value 61,066 40,492 36,554 China Value 1,293,979 840,992 711,148 Netherlands Value 72,456 31,638 48,012 France Value 71,068 57,058 57,024 Germany Value 114,140 89,530 81,908 Hungary Value 42,024 25,376 31,238 Slovenia Value 40,514 21,427 25,637 Brazil Value 34,273 25,592 24,641 Italy Value 44,650 31,979 30,024 Ukraine Value 19,655 13,138 17,590 Canada Value 20,329 20,907 19,576 Belgium Value 14,116 16,845 11,537 All other exporters Value 133,174 105,248 81,010 All reporting exporters Value 1,961,443 1,320,222 1,175,897 Table continued. 7.14 Table 7.10 (Continued) Artificial corundum: Global exports by exporter and period Unit value in dollars per pound; share in percent Exporting country Measure 2022 2023 2024 United States Unit value 1.38 1.28 1.46 China Unit value 0.67 0.45 0.35 Netherlands Unit value 0.45 0.47 0.43 France Unit value 0.79 0.78 0.75 Germany Unit value 0.97 1.03 1.10 Hungary Unit value 0.64 0.63 0.53 Slovenia Unit value 0.49 0.53 0.47 Brazil Unit value 0.48 0.49 0.48 Italy Unit value 0.69 0.66 0.66 Ukraine Unit value 0.49 0.41 0.39 Canada Unit value 0.49 0.47 0.46 Belgium Unit value 0.64 0.39 0.40 All other exporters Unit value 0.48 0.69 0.65 All reporting exporters Unit value 0.65 0.51 0.43 United States Share of quantity 1.5 1.2 0.9 China Share of quantity 64.1 72.3 73.3 Netherlands Share of quantity 5.3 2.6 4.0 France Share of quantity 3.0 2.8 2.7 Germany Share of quantity 3.9 3.4 2.7 Hungary Share of quantity 2.2 1.6 2.1 Slovenia Share of quantity 2.7 1.6 2.0 Brazil Share of quantity 2.4 2.0 1.9 Italy Share of quantity 2.2 1.9 1.6 Ukraine Share of quantity 1.3 1.2 1.6 Canada Share of quantity 1.4 1.7 1.5 Belgium Share of quantity 0.7 1.7 1.1 All other exporters Share of quantity 9.2 6.0 4.5 All reporting exporters Share of quantity 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Official exports statistics under HS subheading 2818.10 as reported by various national statistical authorities in the Global Trade Atlas Suite database, accessed July 2, 2025. A.1 APPENDIX A FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES A.3 The Commission makes available notices relevant to its investigations and reviews on its website, www.usitc.gov. In addition, the following tabulation presents, in chronological order, Federal Register notices issued by the Commission and Commerce during the current proceeding. Citation Title Link 89 FR 95235, December 2, 2024 Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From China; Notice of Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/content /pkg/FR-2024-12-02/pdf/2024- 28126.pdf 89 FR 100465, December 12, 2024 Notice of Extension of the Deadline for Determining the Adequacy of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions: Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From the People's Republic of China https://www.govinfo.gov/content /pkg/FR-2024-12-12/pdf/2024- 29221.pdf 89 FR 102953, December 18, 2024 Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From China; Revised Schedule for the Subject Investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/content /pkg/FR-2024-12-18/pdf/2024- 30024.pdf 90 FR 3175, January 14, 2025 Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation https://www.govinfo.gov/content /pkg/FR-2025-01-14/pdf/2025- 00545.pdf 90 FR 3179, January 14, 2025 Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation https://www.govinfo.gov/content /pkg/FR-2025-01-14/pdf/2025- 00544.pdf 90 FR 8810, February 3, 2025 Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From China https://www.govinfo.gov/content /pkg/FR-2025-02-03/pdf/2025- 02122.pdf 90 FR 21893, May 22, 2025 Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination https://www.govinfo.gov/content /pkg/FR-2025-05-22/pdf/2025- 09245.pdf 90 FR 23359, June 2, 2025 Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From China; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/content /pkg/FR-2025-06-02/pdf/2025- 09863.pdf 90 FR 22698, May 29, 2025 Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From the People's Republic of China: Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Less-Than-Fair- Value Determination https://www.govinfo.gov/content /pkg/FR-2025-05-29/pdf/2025- 09665.pdf 90 FR 23319, June 2, 2025 Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value https://www.govinfo.gov/content /pkg/FR-2025-06-02/pdf/2025- 09935.pdf A.4 Citation Title Link 90 FR 38501, August 8, 2025 Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From China; Cancellation of Hearing for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations https://www.govinfo.gov/content /pkg/FR-2025-08-08/pdf/2025- 15064.pdf 90 FR 39366, August 15, 2025 Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value https://www.govinfo.gov/content /pkg/FR-2025-08-15/pdf/2025- 15568.pdf 90 FR 39367, August 15, 2025 Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination https://www.govinfo.gov/content /pkg/FR-2025-08-15/pdf/2025- 15569.pdf B.1 APPENDIX B CANCELLATION OF HEARING 38501Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 151 / Friday, August 8, 2025 / Notices (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) How might the agency 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 response. Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Abstract: The regulations at 30 CFR part 250, subpart E, pertain to oil and gas well-completion operations and are the subject of this collection. This request also covers the related Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) that BSEE issues to clarify, supplement, or provide additional guidance on some aspects of our regulations. The BSEE uses the information collected under subpart E to ensure that planned well-completion operations will protect personnel and natural resources. They use the analysis and evaluation results in the decision to approve, disapprove, or require modification to the proposed well- completion operations. Specifically, BSEE uses the information to ensure: • compliance with personnel safety training requirements; • crown block safety device is operating and can be expected to function to avoid accidents; • proposed operation of the annular preventer is technically correct and provides adequate protection for personnel, property, and natural resources; • blowout prevention equipment complies with the most recent WCR and API Standard 53; • well-completion operations are conducted on well casings that are structurally competent; and • sustained casing pressures are within acceptable limits. Title of Collection: 30 CFR part 250, subpart E, ‘‘Oil and Gas Well- Completion Operations.’’ OMB Control Number: 1014–0004. Form Number: None. Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection. Respondents/Affected Public: Potential respondents include Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulfur lessees and/or operators and holders of pipeline rights- of-way. Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: Currently there are approximately 550 Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulfur lessees and holders of pipeline rights-of-way. Not all the potential respondents will submit information in any given year, and some may submit multiple times. Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 5,898. Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 1.5 hours to 13 hours, depending on activity. Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 17,985. Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. Frequency of Collection: Generally submitted weekly, biennially, and on occasion, depending on the requirement. Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: We have identified no non-hour cost burdens associated with this collection of information. An agency may not conduct, or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Kenneth C. Stevens, Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authorities of the Director Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. [FR Doc. 2025–15086 Filed 8–7–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–VH–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–750 and 731– TA–1728 (Final)] Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From China; Cancellation of Hearing for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. DATES : August 5, 2025. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Keysha Martinez (202–205–2136), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing- impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : On May 22, 2025, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject investigations (90 FR 23359, June 2, 2025). On July 28, 2025, counsel for Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. filed a request that the Commission cancel the scheduled hearing for these investigations and indicated a willingness to respond to any Commission questions in lieu of an actual hearing. On August 1, 2025, counsel for Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. filed a request to appear at the hearing. No other parties submitted a request to appear at the hearing. Consequently, the public hearing in connection with these investigations, scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, August 7, 2025, is cancelled. Parties to these investigations should respond to any written questions posed by the Commission in their posthearing briefs, which are due to be filed on August 14, 2025. For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission’s notice cited above and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). Authority: This investigation is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: August 5, 2025. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2025–15064 Filed 8–7–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:29 Aug 07, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM 08AUN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 C.1 APPENDIX C SUMMARY DATA Table C.1 Ceramic abrasive grains: Summary data concerning the U.S. total market, by item and period Interim Item 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 2022–24 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 U.S. total market consumption quantity: Amount........................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Producers' share (fn1): U.S. producers: U.S. shipments............... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** U.S. producers: U.S. origin imports (fn2). *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** U.S. producers: Overall....................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Importers' share (fn1): China....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** All import sources............................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** U.S. total market consumption value: Amount........................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Producers' share (fn1): U.S. producers: U.S. shipments............... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** U.S. producers: U.S. origin imports (fn2). *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** U.S. producers: Overall....................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Importers' share (fn1): China....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** All import sources............................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of imports from: China: Quantity................................................... 472 655 805 134 163 ▲70.6 ▲38.9 ▲22.8 ▲21.5 Value....................................................... 2,918 4,377 5,192 908 941 ▲77.9 ▲50.0 ▲18.6 ▲3.7 Unit value................................................ $6.19 $6.68 $6.45 $6.78 $5.79 ▲4.3 ▲8.0 ▼(3.4) ▼(14.7) Ending inventory quantity......................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Nonsubject sources: Quantity................................................... 1,119 1,027 1,001 233 309 ▼(10.6) ▼(8.2) ▼(2.5) ▲32.7 Value....................................................... 12,746 12,145 11,895 2,752 3,770 ▼(6.7) ▼(4.7) ▼(2.1) ▲37.0 Unit value................................................ $11.39 $11.83 $11.89 $11.80 $12.19 ▲4.4 ▲3.8 ▲0.5 ▲3.2 Ending inventory quantity......................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** All import sources: Quantity................................................... 1,591 1,682 1,806 367 472 ▲13.5 ▲5.8 ▲7.3 ▲28.6 Value....................................................... 15,664 16,522 17,087 3,660 4,711 ▲9.1 ▲5.5 ▲3.4 ▲28.7 Unit value................................................ $9.85 $9.82 $9.46 $9.97 $9.98 ▼(3.9) ▼(0.3) ▼(3.6) ▲0.1 Ending inventory quantity......................... 582 529 515 529 483 ▼(11.5) ▼(9.1) ▼(2.6) ▼(8.7) U.S. producers': Practical capacity quantity............................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Production quantity....................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Capacity utilization (fn1)............................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** U.S. shipments (fn2): Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** U.S. shipments of imports of U.S. produced grains (fn2): Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Overall U.S. shipments (fn2): Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Export shipments: Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Table continued. C.3 Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted; Interim period is January through March Reported data Period change comparisons Calendar year Interim Calendar year Total Market Table C.1 Continued Ceramic abrasive grains: Summary data concerning the U.S. total market, by item and period Interim Item 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 2022–24 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 U.S. producers': Continued Ending inventory quantity.............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Inventories/total shipments (fn1)................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Production workers...................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Hours worked (1,000s)................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Wages paid ($1,000).................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Hourly wages (dollars per hour).................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Productivity (pounds per hour)...................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit labor costs............................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Net sales: Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Cost of goods sold (COGS)......................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Gross profit or (loss) (fn3)............................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** SG&A expenses........................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Operating income or (loss) (fn3)................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Net income or (loss) (fn3)............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit COGS................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Unit SG&A expenses.................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit operating income or (loss) (fn3)............ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit net income or (loss) (fn3)...................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** COGS/sales (fn1)......................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1).......... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Net income or (loss)/sales (fn1)................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Capital expenditures..................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Research and development expenses.......... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Total assets................................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** *** fn1.--Reported data are in percent and period changes are in percentage points. Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 508-compliant tables for these data are contained in parts 3, 4, 6, and 7 of this report. fn2.--U.S. producers’ overall U.S. shipments include both the domestically shipped grains reported by U.S. producers and the U.S. shipments of imports of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains that were incorporated into downstream products and re-imported into the United States. To avoid double counting, U.S. origin re-imports are not included in the import data presented in this report and the U.S. shipments of such imports are treated as U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments for purposes of apparent U.S. consumption. fn3.--Percent changes only calculated when both comparison values represent profits; The directional change in profitability provided when one or both comparison values represent a loss. Note.--Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” percent represent non-zero values less than “0.05” percent (if positive) and greater than “(0.05)” percent (if negative). Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. Period changes preceded by a “▲” represent an increase, while period changes preceded by a “▼” represent a decrease. C.4 Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted; Interim period is January through March Reported data Period change comparisons Calendar year Interim Calendar year Table C.2 Interim Item 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 2022–24 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 U.S. merchant market consumption quantity: Amount........................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Producers' share (fn1): U.S. producers: U.S. shipments............... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** U.S. producers: U.S. origin imports (fn2). *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** U.S. producers: Overall....................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Importers' share (fn1): China....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** All import sources............................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** U.S. merchant market consumption value: Amount........................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Producers' share (fn1): U.S. producers: U.S. shipments............... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** U.S. producers: U.S. origin imports (fn2). *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** U.S. producers: Overall....................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Importers' share (fn1): China....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** Nonsubject sources................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** All import sources............................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of imports from: China: Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Ending inventory quantity......................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Nonsubject sources: Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Ending inventory quantity......................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** All import sources: Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Ending inventory quantity......................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** U.S. producers': Commercial U.S. shipments (fn2): Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** U.S. shipments of imports of U.S. produced grains (fn2): Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Overall commercial U.S. shipments (fn2): Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Table continued. C.5 Ceramic abrasive grains: Summary data concerning the U.S. merchant market measured excluding both internal consumption and transfers to related firms, by item and period Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted; Interim period is January through March Reported data Period change comparisons Calendar year Interim Calendar year Merchant Market Table C.2 Continued Interim Item 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 2022–24 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 U.S. producers': Continued Commercial sales: Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Cost of goods sold (COGS)......................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Gross profit or (loss) (fn3)............................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** SG&A expenses........................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Operating income or (loss) (fn3)................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Net income or (loss) (fn3)............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit COGS................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit SG&A expenses.................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit operating income or (loss) (fn3)............ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit net income or (loss) (fn3)...................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** COGS/sales (fn1)......................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** ▲*** Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn1).......... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Net income or (loss)/sales (fn1)................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** fn1.--Reported data are in percent and period changes are in percentage points. Note.--Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” percent represent non-zero values less than “0.05” percent (if positive) and greater than “(0.05)” percent (if negative). Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. Period changes preceded by a “▲” represent an increase, while period changes preceded by a “▼” represent a decrease. C.6 Calendar year Interim Calendar year Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 508-compliant tables for these data are contained in parts 3, 4, 6, and 7 of this report. fn2.--U.S. producers’ overall commercial shipments include both the commercial domestically shipped grains reported by U.S. producers and the U.S. shipments of imports of U.S.- produced ceramic abrasive grains that were incorporated into downstream products and re-imported into the United States. To avoid double counting, U.S. origin re-imports are not included in the import data presented in this report and the U.S. shipments of such imports are treated as U.S. producers’ shipments for purposes of apparent U.S. consumption. fn3.--Percent changes only calculated when both comparison values represent profits; The directional change in profitability provided when one or both comparison values represent a loss. Ceramic abrasive grains: Summary data concerning the U.S. merchant market measured excluding both internal consumption and transfers to related firms, by item and period Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted; Interim period is January through March Reported data Period change comparisons Table C.3 Ceramic abrasive grains: Summary data concerning the U.S. merchant market measured excluding only internal consumption (fn1), by item and period Interim Item 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 2022–24 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 U.S. merchant market consumption quantity: Amount........................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Producers' share (fn2): U.S. producers: U.S. shipments............... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** U.S. producers: U.S. origin imports (fn3). *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** U.S. producers: Overall....................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Importers' share (fn2): China....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** All import sources............................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** U.S. merchant market consumption value: Amount........................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Producers' share (fn2): U.S. producers: U.S. shipments............... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** U.S. producers: U.S. origin imports (fn3). *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** U.S. producers: Overall....................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Importers' share (fn2): China....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Nonsubject sources................................. *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** All import sources............................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** U.S. importers' U.S. shipments of imports from: China: Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Ending inventory quantity......................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Nonsubject sources: Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Ending inventory quantity......................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** All import sources: Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Ending inventory quantity......................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** U.S. producers': Commercial U.S. shipments and transfers to related firms (fn3): Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** U.S. shipments of imports of U.S. produced grains (fn3): Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Overall commercial U.S. shipments and transfers to related firms (fn3): Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Table continued. Calendar year Interim Calendar year C.7 Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted; Interim period is January through March Reported data Period change comparisons Alternative Merchant Market Table C.3 Continued Ceramic abrasive grains: Summary data concerning the U.S. merchant market measured excluding only internal consumption (fn1), by item and period Interim Item 2022 2023 2024 2024 2025 2022–24 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 U.S. producers': Continued Commercial and transfer sales: Quantity................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Value....................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit value................................................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▼*** Cost of goods sold (COGS)......................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▲*** Gross profit or (loss) (fn4)............................ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** SG&A expenses........................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Operating income or (loss) (fn4)................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Net income or (loss) (fn4)............................. *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit COGS................................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Unit SG&A expenses.................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▲*** ▼*** ▲*** Unit operating income or (loss) (fn4)............ *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Unit net income or (loss) (fn4)...................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** COGS/sales (fn2)......................................... *** *** *** *** *** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** ▲*** Operating income or (loss)/sales (fn2).......... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** Net income or (loss)/sales (fn2)................... *** *** *** *** *** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** ▼*** fn2.--Reported data are in percent and period changes are in percentage points. fn1.--This table measures the merchant U.S. market using both commercial shipments or sales (i.e., to unrelated firms) and transfers to related firms. fn3.--U.S. producers’ overall commercial shipments and transfers to related firms include both the commercial domestically shipped grains reported by U.S. producers *** and the U.S. shipments of imports of U.S.-produced ceramic abrasive grains that were incorporated into downstream products and re-imported into the United States. To avoid double counting, U.S. origin re-imports are not included in the import data presented in this report and the U.S. shipments of such imports are treated as U.S. producers’ shipments for purposes of apparent U.S. consumption. fn4.--Percent changes only calculated when both comparison values represent profits; The directional change in profitability provided when one or both comparison values represent a loss. Note.--Shares and ratios shown as “0.0” percent represent non-zero values less than “0.05” percent (if positive) and greater than “(0.05)” percent (if negative). Zeroes, null values, and undefined calculations are suppressed and shown as “—“. Period changes preceded by a “▲” represent an increase, while period changes preceded by a “▼” represent a decrease. C.8 Reported data Period change comparisons Calendar year Interim Calendar year Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 508-compliant tables for these data are available upon request. Quantity=1,000 pounds; Value=1,000 dollars; Unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses=dollars per pound; Period changes=percent--exceptions noted; Interim period is January through March ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── === USITC Determination === 45958 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 24, 2025 / Notices 1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 2 90 FR 39366 and 39367 (August 15, 2025). 3 Commissioner Johanson determined that a U.S. industry is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains from China. 4 90 FR 38501, August 8, 2025. 1 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 website. 2 Commissioner Johanson voted to conduct full reviews. member application period; a lack of participation and low attendance at committee meetings; and a lack of interest in committee leadership roles or backfilling vacant positions. These ongoing recruitment, retention, and engagement challenges have resulted in the State spending a disproportionate amount of staff time trying to increase committee participation despite the overall decline in the committee’s overall effectiveness. After reviewing the State’s request and based on the good cause provided herein, the Department is waiving the alternative requirement found in the second paragraph of Section V.A.3.c of the August 2019 Notice. HUD notes the State’s efforts to try and form a successful citizen advisory group for its CDBG–MIT grants and, in alignment with Section III.A.6.a. of the Universal Notice, waives this requirement. However, if the State decides later that they do wish to work with a citizen advisory group, then the State can determine the cadence of the meetings and how the group would provide feedback to the grantee. This waiver only applies to the second paragraph of Section V.A.3.c as it relates to citizen advisory groups. The State must continue to follow the first paragraph of Section V.A.3.c as it relates to the availability and accessibility of the action plan, substantial amendments, and performance reports, as well as other citizen participation requirements in Section V.A.3. Bryan W. Horn, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. [FR Doc. 2025–18476 Filed 9–23–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210–67–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–750 and 731– TA–1728 (Final)] Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains From China; Determinations On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains from China, provided for in subheading 2818.10.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) and subsidized by the government of China.2 3 Background The Commission instituted these investigations effective November 25, 2024, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., Malvern, Pennsylvania. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of sol gel alumina-based ceramic abrasive grains from China were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on June 2, 2025 (90 FR 23359). The public hearing in connection with the investigations, originally scheduled for August 7, 2025, was cancelled. 4 The Commission made these determinations pursuant to §§ 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on September 19, 2025. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5669 (September 2025), entitled Sol Gel Alumina-Based Ceramic Abrasive Grains from China: Investigation Nos. 701–TA–750 and 731–TA–1728 (Final). By order of the Commission. Issued: September 19, 2025. Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer. [FR Doc. 2025–18449 Filed 9–23–25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701–TA–512 and 731– TA–1248 (Second Review)] Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From China; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews AGENCY : United States International Trade Commission. ACTION : Notice. SUMMARY : The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. DATES : August 4, 2025. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Juan Carlos Pena Flores (202 205–3169), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https:// www.usitc.gov). The public record for this proceeding may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background.—On August 4, 2025, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (90 FR 18704, May 1, 2025) of the subject five-year reviews was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting full reviews. 1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).2 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:42 Sep 23, 2025 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24SEN1.SGM 24SEN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1