U.S. International Trade Commission

Certain Aluminum Plate 

From South Africa

Investigation No. 731-TA-1056 (Final)

 Publication 3734 November 2004 

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Stephen Koplan, Chairman

Deanna Tanner Okun, Vice Chairman

Marcia E. Miller

Jennifer A. Hillman

Charlotte R. Lane

Daniel R. Pearson

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Staff assigned

Gail Burns, Investigator

Karl Tsuji, Industry Analyst

James Fetzer, Economist

Charles Yost, Accountant

Michael Diehl, Attorney

Diane Mazur, Supervisory Investigator

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

www.usitc.gov

Certain Aluminum Plate 

 From South Africa

Investigation No. 731-TA-1056 (Final)

Publication 3734 November 2004

i

C O N T E N T S

Page

Determination .................................................................. 1

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

Dissenting views of Chairman Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane . . . . . . 35

Part I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Organization of report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

U.S. market summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Previous and related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

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

The subject product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

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

U.S. market segments/channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-1

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-5

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

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

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

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

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and export shipments ................................. III-4

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of imports .................................... III-6

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-6

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

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

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

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

Part V: Pricing and related information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

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

C O N T E N T S

 Page

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

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

Operations on certain aluminum plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Capital expenditures, research and development expenses, and investment in productive

facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-7

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-8

Part VII: Threat considerations .................................................. VII-1

The industry in South Africa .................................................... VII-2

 U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-3

U.S. importers’ imports subsequent to June 30, 2004 ................................. VII-4

Dumping in third-country markets ................................................ VII-4

Appendixes

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

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

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

D. Questionnaire responses regarding the domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Price data-spot transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

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

published and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.
 1

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

 2

 Chairman Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane dissenting.

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1056 (Final)

CERTAIN ALUMINUM PLATE FROM SOUTH AFRICA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigation, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines,2

 pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. § 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened

with material injury, and the establishment of an industry in the United States is not materially retarded,

by reason of imports from South Africa of certain aluminum plate, provided for in subheading 7606.12.30

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

Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this investigation effective October 16, 2003, following receipt of a

petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Alcoa, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA. The final phase of the

investigation was scheduled by the Commission following notification of a preliminary determination by

Commerce that imports of certain aluminum plate from South Africa were being sold at LTFV within the

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

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

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

Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of June 15, 2004 (69 FR 33401). 

The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on October 5, 2004, and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

 1

 Whether the establishment of an industry is materially retarded is not at issue in this investigation.

 2 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane dissenting. See the Dissenting Views of Chairman Stephen Koplan

and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane. 

 3

 Petitioner and Respondents participated in the hearing and filed prehearing, posthearing, and supplemental

briefs, as well as final comments. 

 4

 Hulett accounted for *** percent of the volume of imports of the subject merchandise from South Africa in

2003. Confidential Staff Report (INV-BB-131 as revised by INV-BB-137) (“CR”) at Table IV-1, Public Staff PR

Report (“PR”) at Table IV-1. 

 5

 69 Fed. Reg. 60610, 60610-11 (Oct. 12, 2004). The Department of Commerce revised the definition of the

scope of the subject merchandise to clarify that product of a thickness of .249 inch was not included. See 68 Fed.

Reg. 64801, 64802 (Nov. 12, 2003) and Certain Aluminum Plate from South Africa, Inv. No. 731-TA-1056

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3654 (Dec. 2003) (“Preliminary Det.”) at 7-8. 

 6

 CR at II-5, PR at II-3.

 7

 CR at I-8, PR at I-6; Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at Exhibit 14 at 2-3.

 8

 CR/PR at I-3 and III-1. These three firms accounted for most of the U.S. production of certain aluminum plate

during the period of investigation (the period of investigation extends from the beginning of 2001 through the second

quarter of 2004). A fourth firm, McCook Metals, LLC, filed for bankruptcy on August 6, 2001. Its manufacturing

facility was subsequently closed and its assets liquidated. Most of its equipment was purchased but has not yet been

used by Pechiney. CR and PR at III-1 n.2. Although no data were received from McCook directly, Petitioner

provided data purportedly showing McCook’s total shipments during 2001 and 2002, reportedly based on

“McCook’s own records.” Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at 4 n.7. See CR and PR at III-1 n.2. 

 9

 CR/PR at Table III-1.

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in this investigation, we determine that an industry in the United States is not

materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of series 6000 aluminum alloy

rolled plate (“series 6000 plate”) from South Africa that are sold in the United States at less than fair

value (“LTFV”).1 2

I. BACKGROUND

The petition was filed on October 16, 2003 by domestic producer Alcoa, Inc. (“Alcoa” or

“Petitioner”). Participating as parties in this investigation were the South African producer Hulett

Aluminium (Pty) Ltd. (“Hulett”) and Empire Resources, Inc. (“Empire”), a U.S. importer of the subject

merchandise (collectively “Respondents”).3 4

Series 6000 plate is an aluminum alloy flat-surfaced, rolled product that is not less than .250 inch

(6.3 mm) in thickness and rectangular in cross section with or without rounded corners, whether in coils

or cut-to-length plate forms.5

 Strong and corrosion-resistant, series 6000 plate has a variety of end use

applications including mold applications, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, automotive goods,

and tools and fixtures.6

 A vast majority (up to 90 percent) of the series 6000 plate market is accounted for

by 6061 aluminum alloy, although there are many different alloys within the 6000 series.7

 

In addition to the Petitioner Alcoa, the current domestic industry for series 6000 plate consists of

Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. (“Kaiser”) and Pechiney Rolled Products, LLC (“Pechiney”). All

three producers provided questionnaire responses to the Commission.8

 Production facilities for series

6000 plate produced by Alcoa, Kaiser, and Pechiney are located in Iowa, Washington, and West Virginia,

respectively.9
 10 CR at II-5 to II-7; PR at II-3 to II-4; Transcript of October 5, 2004 Hearing (Revised and Corrected Copy)

(“Hearing Tr.”) at 20, 64-65 (Wetherbee), 180 (Bradford); Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 15; Petitioner’s

Posthearing Brief at Exh. B-3 (electronic file supporting Exh. B-3 provided in October 19, 2004 e-mails from ***);

Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 1 at 15-16; Kaiser’s October 13, 2004 submission (Statement of Keith

Harvey at 1-2).

 11 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 12 CR/PR at Table IV-5. 

 13 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 14 CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-4, Figure V-3; Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 2.

 15 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 16 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 17 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

 18 See, e.g., 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: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4)

customer and producer perceptions of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes and

production employees; and, where appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n. 4; Timken Co. v. United

States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996).

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

4

Demand for series 6000 plate generally declined from 2001 through 2003 but increased

dramatically beginning in late 2003 and continuing into 2004.10 While subject imports’ U.S. market share

increased somewhat from 2001 to 2002, and then declined from 2002 to 2003 and in interim 2004,

domestic production accounted for a large and increasing share of the U.S. market for series 6000 plate

over the entire period of investigation.11 The share of consumption represented by nonsubject imports fell

during the period.12 Imports from Russia accounted for the bulk of nonsubject imports.13 Prices for series

6000 plate fell as demand declined, but then rose sharply as demand increased toward the end of the

period.14

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

A. In General

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

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

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”15 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the “Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a [w]hole 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.”16 In turn, the 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 . . . .”17

The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product(s) in an investigation is a factual

one, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in characteristics

and uses” on a case-by-case basis.18 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission may consider

other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.19 The Commission looks
 20 Nippon Steel, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49. See also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979)

(Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion as to

permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article are

not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent

consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”).

 21 Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Commission may find single

like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at

748-752 (affirming Commission determination of six like products in investigations in which Commerce found five

classes or kinds).

 22 Preliminary Det. at 10-11 n.59 (citing Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada,

Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, and Ukraine, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-417-421 and

731-TA-952, 954, 956-59, 961, and 962 (Final), USITC Pub. 3546 (Oct. 2002); Ball Bearings from China, Inv. No.

731-TA-989 (Final), USITC Pub. 3593 (Apr. 2003)); Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from France, India,

Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and Korea, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-387-391 (Final) and 731-TA-816-821 (Final), USITC Pub.

3273 (Jan. 2000) at 5-7. 

 23 Preliminary Det. at 11 n.59 (citing Minivans from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-522 (Final), USITC Pub. 2529 at 6

(July 1992)) (“there is no clearer dividing line if the like product were defined to include minivans plus any other

category of vehicles. If we broadened the like product to include, for example station wagons, it is not clear that a

rational basis would exist for excluding passenger automobiles from the like product.”). Respondents contend that

the Commission had never articulated the continuum test described above prior to the Preliminary Determination in

this investigation, and that it therefore departed from its past practice. Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at Appendix at

4. As the Commission indicated, however, that approach was set out previously in Minivans from Japan, Inv. No.

731-TA-522 (Final), USITC Pub. 2529 at 6 (July 1992) (cited in Preliminary Det. at 11 n.59). 

 24 69 Fed. Reg. 60610, 60610-11 (Oct. 12, 2004). Specifically excluded from the scope are extruded aluminum

products and tread plate. Id. 

 25 CR at I-7, D-3, and Table I-1; PR at I-6, D-3, and Table I-1.

5

for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.20 Although the

Commission must accept the determination of the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) as to the

scope of the imported merchandise that has been found to be sold at LTFV, the Commission determines

what domestic product is like the imported articles Commerce has identified.21

As discussed below, we have considered in the present investigation whether to broaden the

domestic like product beyond the bounds of the scope to include aluminum sheet and/or other aluminum

plate products. Where the domestic like product corresponding to the scope consists of several or a series

of products, the Commission examines whether there are clear dividing lines among the products or

whether they comprise a continuum which is itself a single like product.22 When considering whether to

expand the like product beyond the scope to encompass a broader continuum, the Commission is faced

with determining where the continuum line ends.23

B. Product Description

In its notice of final determination of sales at less than fair value, Commerce defined the imported

merchandise within the scope of this investigation as: 6000 series aluminum alloy, flat surface,

rolled plate, whether in coils or cut-to-length forms, that is rectangular in cross section with or

without rounded corners and with a thickness of not less than .250 inches (6.3 millimeters). 6000

Series Aluminum Rolled Plate is defined by the Aluminum Association, Inc.24

The Aluminum Association defines series 6000 rolled aluminum plate as plate made of aluminum

alloys containing silicon and magnesium to form magnesium silicide, thus making the product heattreatable.25 Series 6000 plate is one of the strongest of the aluminum alloys, characterized by good
 26 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 27 CR at II-5, PR at II-3. 

 28 CR and PR at I-4, n.9.

 29 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 1-2.

 30 Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at Appendix at 8-27, Respondents’ Supplemental Brief at 1-5.

 31 During the preliminary phase of the investigation, Respondents asked the Commission to define the domestic

like product to include, alternatively, all aluminum plate and sheet products, all heat-treatable plate (series 2000,

6000, and 7000), and all aluminum plate (series 1000 through 7000). Respondents’ Postconference Brief at 3-25. 

The Commission declined to expand the domestic like product for purposes of the preliminary determination, but

expressed an intent to re-examine whether to include all aluminum plate in the domestic like product in the event of

a final phase investigation. 

 32 Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at Appendix at 12.

 33 Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at Appendix at 12.

6

formability, good welding characteristics, and high corrosion resistance.26 Series 6000 plate is primarily

used in mold applications, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, automotive goods, and tools and

fixtures.27 The Aluminum Association defines plate as a quarter-inch thick or more, in contrast to sheet

(.249 to .006 inch thick) and foil (less than .006 inch thick).28

C. Domestic Like Product

Petitioner contends that the Commission should define the domestic like product coextensive with

Commerce’s scope to include series 6000 plate only.29 Respondents have made three proposals to expand

the domestic like product beyond Commerce’s scope, which would alternately include: (1) all series

6000 plate and series 6000 sheet products; (2) series 5000 plate and series 6000 plate; and (3) all

aluminum plate (series 1000 through 7000).30 31 We examine each alternative proposed by Respondents

below. For the reasons discussed, we find a single domestic like product consisting of all domestically

produced series 6000 aluminum plate only. 

 

 1. Whether the Domestic Like Product Should Include Series 6000 Aluminum

Sheet

a. Arguments of the Parties

Respondents assert that there is no bright-line distinction between series 6000 sheet and plate

because, according to Respondents, the difference in thickness between the two is only .001 inch. They

state that although the domestic industry uses different terms to discuss plate and sheet, there are no

differences in substantive industry standards. They also contend that a statement by the Commission in

the preliminary determination that “differences in thickness appear to dictate different end uses” proves

nothing, because differences among plate of different thicknesses are as great as the difference between

plate and sheet.32 They state that the Commission’s finding in the preliminary determination that “[t]here

is some interchangeability between plate and sheet, but only at the upper end of the sheet thicknesses and

the lower end of plate thicknesses” requires the finding of a continuum and the inclusion of sheet in the

domestic like product.33 

Petitioner maintains that there is no cause to re-examine the Commission’s decision in the

preliminary determination not to expand the domestic like product to include sheet. It notes that in a

previous stainless steel sheet and strip investigation, the Commission declined to expand the like product
 34 Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief at 8 & n.25 (citing Certain Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from France,

Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-380-

382 and 731-TA-797-804 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3118 (Aug. 1998) and Acciai Speciali Terni S.r.L. v. United

States, 118 F. Supp.2d 1298 (CIT 2000)).

 35 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 11, Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief at 8.

 36 CR/PR at I-4 n. 9. 

 37 Hearing Tr. at 155-56 (Wetherbee, Cooper).

 38 CR at I-10, and Table I-2; PR at I-8, and Table I-2; Hearing Tr. at 156-57 (Wetherbee). 

 39 CR at II-5, PR at II-3.

 40 CR at I-10, PR at I-8.

 41 Transcript of November 6, 2003 Conference (Revised and Corrected copy) (“Conf. Tr.”) at 177-178 (Kahn).

 42 We are not persuaded by Respondents’ assertion that some of the differences observed between plate and sheet

are also found between plate products of different thicknesses. As noted previously, where Commerce’s scope

encompasses several products, such as here in terms of thickness, the Commission considers whether these products

comprise a continuum. In considering whether to expand the domestic like product, the Commission considers

whether the product is part of a broader continuum, where the continuum line ends, and whether a clear line is found

at a different point. Thus, depending on the circumstances, a difference observed between products inside and

outside the scope may provide a sufficient basis not to expand the domestic like product even if the same difference

exists between different products found within the scope. In any event, in the present investigation there are

differences between series 6000 plate and series 6000 sheet that are not observed between plate of different

(continued...)

7

to include plate, and that the Court of International Trade later affirmed.34 Petitioner states that the line

between plate and sheet is clear in definitions promulgated by the Aluminum Association, the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule, and the industry.35 

b. Analysis

Commerce’s definition of the scope of the merchandise subject to investigation is the starting

point for the Commission’s domestic like product analysis. The Commission may define the domestic

like product more broadly than the subject merchandise identified by Commerce, if the facts so warrant. 

We examine whether to include series 6000 aluminum sheet in the domestic like product using the

traditional six factor analysis. 

i. Physical Characteristics and Uses

Series 6000 aluminum plate and series 6000 aluminum sheet are flat-rolled, aluminum products. 

The Aluminum Association has developed industry standards that distinguish plate from sheet. Series

6000 plate is defined as equal to or greater than .250 inch in thickness, while series 6000 sheet ranges

from .249 inch to .006 inch.36 Although manufacturers have the ability to produce plate and sheet to

almost any thickness within these ranges, in practice producers manufacture series 6000 plate and sheet in

established thickness increments. The thinnest series 6000 plate is typically .250 inch, while the thickest

series 6000 sheet commonly produced is .190 inch, with the next-thickest series 6000 sheet increment

occurring at .150 inch.37

Series 6000 plate generally is handled and transported in a flat, rectangular form, while series

6000 sheet products may be handled and transported in flat or coil form.38 

Series 6000 plate is primarily used in mold applications, semiconductor manufacturing

equipment, automotive goods, and tools and fixtures.39 Series 6000 aluminum sheet is used in auto body

panels, truck and trailer sheet, and other applications.40 There may be some overlap in end uses between

sheet and plate at the highest thicknesses of sheet and lowest thicknesses of plate,41 but generally the

differences in thickness dictate different end uses.42 
 42 (...continued)

thicknesses.

 43 CR/PR at D-6. See CR/PR at D-11.

 44 Conf. Tr. at 177-178 (Kahn).

 45 Petitioner’s Postconference Brief at 10, CR at I-16, PR at I-12.

 46 CR/PR at I-4 n.9. 

 47 Petitioner’s Postconference Brief at 10. 

 48 CR at I-13, PR at I-10.

 49 CR at I-13, PR at I-10.

 50 CR at I-10 to I-11, PR at I-8.

 51 CR at I-11, PR at I-8.

8

ii. Interchangeability

Interchangeability between series 6000 sheet and plate is limited by differences in thickness, as

demonstrated by the generally different uses to which they are directed. End product design engineers

typically specify the appropriate gauge of the aluminum product to be used in a given application, which

further limits interchangeability.43 Any limited degree of interchangeability between series 6000 plate

and sheet occurs only at the upper end of sheet thicknesses and lower end of plate thicknesses.44

iii. Channels of Distribution

Series 6000 plate and sheet are sold through overlapping channels of distribution as both products

are sold to distributors. Due to differences in gauge and size, series 6000 plate and sheet require different

equipment to perform cutting and certain finishing processes before the plate or sheet is sold by the

distributor to the end user.45

 

iv. Producer and Customer Perceptions

Industry standards distinguish between series 6000 plate and sheet.46 Customers likely perceive

plate to be distinct from sheet, given that the two products generally are directed to different uses and

interchangeability is limited.47 Various producers of series 6000 sheet do not produce plate, and they use

production processes other than those used to make plate.48 Accordingly, these producers likely regard

series 6000 sheet as distinct from series 6000 plate. Other producers manufacture both series 6000 plate

and sheet, using mostly the same processes, and thus they likely regard the two products as similar.

v. Common Manufacturing Processes, Equipment and Production

Employees

As noted, several series 6000 sheet producers do not produce series 6000 plate, and they produce

those sheet products using manufacturing processes different from those used in the manufacture of series

6000 plate.49 Other aluminum sheet is manufactured in the same facilities and using some of the same

manufacturing processes as aluminum plate.50 This sheet undergoes cold rolling, unlike plate.51
 52 Petitioner’s Postconference Brief at 19.

 53 Respondents’ Postconference Brief at 24.

 54 Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at Exh. 1, Figure 6.

 55 Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at Appendix at 21. 

 56 Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at Appendix at 21-22.

 57 Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at Appendix at 23.

9

vi. Price

According to Petitioner, prices for series 6000 plate differ from those for sheet, as a result of the

different manufacturing or finishing processes.52 Respondents contend that there is no material price

difference between sheet and plate products within the same alloy and temper.53 The record shows that

prices for series 6061 aluminum plate were consistently higher than prices for series 6061 aluminum

sheet.54 

vii. Conclusion

The industry has established a specific thickness-based distinction between series 6000 aluminum

plate and sheet. To a large degree, these distinctions result in different end uses and limited

interchangeability between the two products. Some series 6000 sheet is manufactured by different

processes and in different facilities and by different production employees than is series 6000 plate. 

Other sheet and plate are produced by similar and sometimes common front-end manufacturing processes

and equipment, although sheet made in these facilities undergoes the additional process of cold-rolling. 

Producers and customers likely perceive sheet and plate to be distinct based on industry definitions, the

fact that the two are produced in different facilities or using some different processes, and because they

are directed to different uses, with series 6000 plate commanding higher prices. Series 6000 plate and

sheet are sold in overlapping channels of distribution. 

In sum, series 6000 plate and sheet differ in physical characteristics and uses, some

manufacturing facilities and processes, producer and customer perceptions, price, and there is limited

interchangeability between them. Given these differences, the record establishes a clear dividing line

between series 6000 plate and series 6000 sheet. Based on the above, we decline to expand the like

product beyond the scope of the investigation to include series 6000 aluminum sheet.

2. Whether the Domestic Like Product Should Include Series 5000 Aluminum

Plate

a. Parties’ Arguments

Respondents argue that the scope covers dozens of alloys and tempers and that the differences

between them are equal to or greater than the differences between alloys and tempers in the 6000 series

and those in the 5000 series.55 They assert that the series 6000 alloys range in yield strength from 7 to 55,

compared to a range in yield strength of 6 to 59 for series 5000 alloys, and that the two products overlap

in this respect.56 Respondents assert that there is some interchangeability between plate in the two series,

because plate in both the 5000 and 6000 series is used in tool and mold applications.57 Respondents assert

that there is a significant overlap in the channels of distribution through which series 5000 and 6000 plate

are sold. They assert that the production process is mostly the same for plate in the two series, with the

exception that only series 6000 plate is passed through additional equipment to impart additional strength
 58 Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at Appendix at 25-26.

 59 Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at Appendix at 26.

 60 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 4-5.

 61 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 8-9.

 62 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 63 CR/PR at D-3 to D-4.

 64 CR at I-7, PR at I-6.

 65 CR at I-7, PR at I-5 to I-6.

 66 Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at Appendix at 21-22; CR/PR at D–4, D-6.

 67 CR at I-8 & n.26, D-4, D-6; PR at I-6 & n.26, D-4, D-6.

 68 CR/PR at D-4 to D-6.

 69 CR/PR at D-4.

 70 See CR/PR at D-4 to D-6.

10

through heat treatment.58 Finally, Respondents assert that series 5000 plate is sold at a small premium

over series 6000 plate.59

Petitioner notes that the technical requirements pertaining to alloying agents are different between

series 6000 plate and other aluminum plate, and that series 6000 plate is heat-treatable whereas series

5000 plate is not.60 This distinction results in different uses and different manufacturing processes for the

two plate series. Petitioner contends that most series 6000 plate is sold through distributors

whereas most series 1000, 3000, and 5000 plate is sold directly to end users. It asserts that customers and

producers perceive series 6000 plate differently from non-heat treatable plate, stating that producers and

customers term non-heat treatable alloys “soft or common” alloys. Petitioner asserts that prices are

distinct between heat-treatable and non-heat treatable plate, “as well as for specific alloys within each of

these categories.”61 

b. Analysis

i. Physical Characteristics and End Uses

The physical characteristics of aluminum plate are a function of the alloying elements added to

the aluminum and the manufacturing techniques applied. The two major alloying elements of the 6000

series are magnesium and silicon, whereas the major alloying element for series 5000 is magnesium

only.62 The presence of silicon in addition to magnesium makes the 6000 series heat-treatable, whereas

the 5000 series is not.63 Heat-treatable alloys become significantly stronger when subjected to further

elevated temperature processing or thermal treatment.64 Non-heat treatable alloys can only be

strengthened by cold-working.65 

While heat-treatable alloys are generally stronger than non-heat treatable alloys, series 5000 plate

overlaps in strength with series 6000.66 Certain alloys in the 5000 series approach or meet in strength

series 6061 plate, which is harder than other series 6000 plate, and which accounts for up to 90 percent of

series 6000 plate production.67 However, the series 5000 plate that overlaps in strength with 6061 plate

typically cannot be produced in gauges over 1.5 inches, whereas series 6061 is commonly produced to

gauges of up to 6 inches.68 This subset of series 5000 plate is also limited to applications in which service

temperatures do not exceed 150 degrees Fahrenheit, due to risk of cracking.69 Moreover, while some

series 5000 plate is as strong as series 6000 plate, most is not.70
 71 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 72 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 73 CR at II-5, D-6, D-11; PR at II-3, D-6, D-11.

 74 CR/PR at D-6, D-11, D-16; Hearing Tr. at 15 (Wetherbee).

 75 CR/PR at D-6 to D-8, D-11, D-16. See Hearing Tr. at 15 (Wetherbee) (distinct markets for series 5000 and

6000 plate).

 76 CR/PR at Table I-4.

 77 CR/PR at Table I-4. 

 78 CR/PR at D-15.

 79 CR/PR at D-11, D-12, D-16; Hearing Tr. at 15 (Wetherbee).

 80 CR/PR at D-11, D-14 , D-15.

 81 CR/PR at Table I-1.

11

The two series both offer good welding characteristics and good corrosion resistance.71 They also

differ, however, in that only series 5000 plate offers good salt water corrosion resistance and high

toughness at low temperatures, while series 6000 plate offers superior formability.72

Although the two series share certain broadly defined physical characteristics, the differences

between them result in different uses. Series 6000 plate is most commonly used in mold applications,

semiconductor manufacturing equipment, automotive goods, and tools and fixtures (generally

characterized by Respondent Empire as “value-added applications”), whereas leading uses for series 5000

plate are “general,” transport, and marine applications, as well as uses in appliances and welded pressure

vessels.73

ii. Interchangeability

Interchangeability is limited by the fact that, generally, product engineers specify the alloy and

temper required in the aluminum plate product.74 Some interchangeability is possible where the chemistry

and physical properties of the plate are not critical, but such instances are apparently infrequent.75

iii. Channels of Distribution

The portion of series 6000 plate sold by U.S. producers through distributors was high, ranging

from *** percent to *** percent over the three calendar years of the period of investigation.76 For series

5000 plate, only *** percent to *** percent of U.S.-producer sales were to distributors.77 Generally,

distributors cut series 6000 plate into smaller pieces as required by end users, whereas series 5000 plate is

sold in larger finished sizes that do not require cutting.78

iv. Producer and Customer Perceptions

Petitioner indicates that producers and customers perceive series 6000 plate and series 5000 plate

to be distinct due to differences in end uses and low interchangeability.79 Importers provided comments

that generally were consistent with those of Petitioner.80 In addition, two domestic producers of series

6000 plate do not produce series 5000 plate, providing a further indication that at least two producers

regard the two products as distinct.81
 82 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 83 CR/PR at Tables I-1 & III-2.

 84 CR at I-10 to I-12, D-8 to D-10; PR at I-8 to I-9, D-8 to D-10.

 85 CR at I-11 to I-12, PR at I-9.

 86 CR/PR at D-12, D-13, D-16. 

 87 CR/PR at D-12, D-13.

 88 CR/PR at D-13.

 89 CR/PR at D-13.

 90 CR/PR at D-12, D-13, D-16.

 91 CR/PR at Table I-5.

12

v. Common Manufacturing Processes, Facilities, and Employees

Domestic producers Kaiser and Pechiney do not produce series 5000 plate.82 Accordingly, nearly

*** of series 6000 plate produced in the United States is not produced in the same facilities or using the

same production employees used to make series 5000 plate.83 

Alcoa, which produces both series 5000 and 6000 plate, reports that many of the production

processes for series 5000 and 6000 plate are generally the same, with the exception that only the latter

product undergoes heat treatment.84 Heat treatment involves solution heat treatment, quenching, and age

hardening.85 Producers and an importer indicated that heat treatment adds considerably to production

costs.86 

vi. Price

Series 5000 plate generally is sold based on “conversion pricing,” described as “[m]etal values

plus a fabrication premium.”87 Series 6000 plate, and some series 5000 plate, is sold at market prices

instead.88 As a result, prices for series 5000 plate more closely track metal prices than do prices for series

6000 plate.89 Market participants reported that prices were generally higher for series 6000 plate

 than series 5000 plate.90 Average unit values of U.S.-produced material, however, are approximately the

same for plate in the two series.91

vii. Conclusion

Series 5000 and 6000 plate differ in their major alloying elements, with the results that only the

latter is heat-treatable and that the two series are directed to different uses. Interchangeability between

them generally is limited to unusual situations in which the physical characteristics of the plate are not

critical. The vast majority (about 90 percent) of series 6000 plate is sold through distributors, whereas the

bulk of series 5000 plate (two-thirds or more) is sold directly to end users. Producers and customers

generally perceive the two products as distinct. Most series 6000 plate is produced in facilities that do not

produce series 5000 plate. For that series 6000 plate which is made in the same facility as series 5000

plate, production processes for the two series largely overlap, although only series 6000 plate undergoes

heat treatment. Prices are reportedly higher for series 6000 plate than series 5000 plate, although average

unit values are similar. In sum, on most of the six like product factors there are significant distinctions

between series 6000 and series 5000 plate. Accordingly, we decline to expand the domestic like product

to include series 5000 plate.
 92 Preliminary Det. at 14.

 93 Respondents’ Supplemental Brief at 1.

 94 Series 1000, 3000, and 4000 plate accounted for 9.0 percent of domestic production of non-heat treatable

aluminum plate in 2003. Figure derived from CR/PR at Table I-5.

 95 Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at Appendix at 18-19. In their supplemental brief, Respondents state that in the

prehearing brief they merely conceded differences in “demand” characteristics, but not “supply” characteristics. 

Respondents’ Supplemental Brief at 2. We read Respondents’ prior remarks to concede important differences in

production and price, not just uses.

 96 Respondents’ Supplemental Brief at 2-3.

 97 Respondents’ Supplemental Brief at 4-5.

 98 Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief at 5.

 99 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 4.

13

3. Whether the Domestic Like Product Definition Should Include All

Aluminum Plate 

a. Parties’ Arguments

In the preliminary phase of this investigation, Respondents urged the Commission to expand the

domestic like product to include all aluminum plate (series 1000 through 7000). The Commission

declined to broaden the like product for purposes of the preliminary determination, but indicated an intent

to re-examine the issue in any final determination.92 In the final phase of the investigation, Respondents

argued that the real issue before the Commission was whether to include series 2000, 5000, and 7000

plate in the domestic like product because there is little domestic production of series 1000, 3000, and

4000 plate.93 Although the volume of domestic production of plate in series 1000, 3000, and 4000 is

small in relation to the production volume of non-heat treatable aluminum plate, each series is relevant to

our analysis of whether there exists a relatively unbroken continuum of aluminum plate products that

would warrant expansion of the domestic like product.94 In any event, as discussed below, consideration

of plate in these small-volume series does not ultimately alter our like product determination. 

Respondents stated that they “do not dispute” Commission findings in the preliminary

determination that series 2000 and 7000 plate are distinct from series 6000 plate in terms of uses,

production, and price.95 Respondents contend, however, that there is “substantial supply substitutability”

among series 2000, 6000, and 7000 plate. Respondents assert that a maker of series 6000 plate must

make substantial additional investments in order to produce series 2000 and 7000 plate because greater

controls are required. They mention, however, that a producer of 2000 and 7000 plate can produce series

6000 plate without expensive modifications. They assert that ***.96 They also assert that lower demand

for series 2000 and 7000 plate in 2001 and 2002 had a direct impact on the profitability of Alcoa’s

production of series 6000 plate, because assertedly high fixed costs previously allocated to plate from all

three series were now allocated in greater degree to series 6000 plate. According to Respondents, the

integrated nature of production and profits among series 2000, 6000, and 7000 plate shows that they

should be treated as a single domestic like product.97

Petitioners assert that there is no need to address whether to include series 2000 and 7000 plate in

the domestic like product given that Respondents did not dispute the Commission’s preliminary

determination findings that plate in those series were used “almost exclusively in aerospace applications,

produced under very controlled conditions and testing requirements, and commanded . . . price[s] . . .

roughly two to three times that of 6000 series plate . . . .”98 As to the remaining aluminum plate, Petitioner

notes that series 6000 plate is heat-treatable whereas other plate (series 1000, 3000, 4000, and 5000) is

not.99
 100 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 4-5.

 101 Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief at 6-7. Petitioner also states that evidence submitted by Respondents relating

to interchangeability in products offered by European producers is irrelevant to the Commission’s domestic like

product determination. Id. at 7-8.

 102 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 8-9.

 103 CR at I-7, D-3, D-4, D-8; PR at I-5 to I-6, D-3, D-4, D-8.

 104 CR/PR at D-4, D-6, D-7.

 105 CR at Table I-1, II-5, D-3 to D-8, D-11; PR at Table I-1, II-3, D-3 to D-8, D-11.

 106 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 107 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 108 CR/PR at Table I-1.

14

According to Petitioners, uses for non-heat treatable plate differ from uses for series 6000

plate.100 Petitioner states that end product design engineers typically determine the product performance

requirements and specify the appropriate alloy/temper/product form and size of the aluminum plate to be

used to achieve those characteristics. Petitioner contends that there is no evidence that series 5000 plate

and series 6000 plate are used in the same tool and mold applications.101 Petitioner distinguishes the

manufacturing processes involved in the production of series 6000 plate from those used to make the nonheat treatable alloys. It also contends that most series 6000 plate (95 percent) is sold through distributors

whereas most series 1000, 3000, and 5000 plate (78 percent) is sold directly to end users. Petitioner

asserts that prices are distinct between heat-treatable and non-heat treatable plate, “as well as for specific

alloys within each of these categories.”102 

c. Analysis

i. Physical Characteristics and Uses

The Aluminum Association has grouped aluminum plate into seven series based on the primary

alloying elements (if any). The physical characteristics of aluminum plate are primarily a function of the

alloying elements it contains, and the manufacturing processes it undergoes. The alloying elements in

series 6000 plate distinguish it from plate in the other series.

Series 6000 plate is one of only three series that is heat-treatable. Series 2000, 6000, and 7000

plate is heat-treatable, whereas series 1000, 3000, 4000, and 5000 plate is not. This important

transformation allows heat-treatable plate to be strengthened by further processing at elevated

temperatures or thermal treatment. In contrast, non-heat treatable plate can only be strengthened by coldworking and generally does not reach the strengths that are achievable with heat-treatable alloys.103 Heattreatable plate is stronger than non-heat treatable plate, with the exception of certain series 5000 plate.104

Non-heat treatable plate is seldom directed to the same uses as series 6000 plate.105 Accordingly, series

6000 plate is distinct in physical characteristics and uses from not only series 5000 plate (for the reasons

described above), but also from non-heat treatable plate in general. 

Series 6000 plate also differs in physical characteristics and uses from other heat-treatable plate. 

Series 6000 plate is characterized by moderate strength, good formability, good corrosion resistance, and

good welding characteristics.106 Series 2000 plate is not corrosion resistant, has high strength, and has

good welding characteristics.107 Series 7000 plate is the highest-strength alloy, has high toughness, is not

weldable, and has moderate corrosion resistance.108 

These differences in physical characteristics result in generally different uses for plate in the three

heat-treatable series. Leading uses of series 6000 plate are mold applications, semiconductor
 109 CR at II-5, PR at II-3.

 110 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 111 CR at I-15, D-6, D-11; PR at I-10, D-6, D-11; Hearing Tr. at 15 (Wetherbee).

 112 CR/PR at D-6.

 113 CR at I-7, D-3, D-6 to D-8, D-11, D-12; PR at I-6, D-3, D-6 to D-8, D-11, D-12. 

 114 CR/PR at D-5 to D-8.

 115 Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief at 5; Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at Appendix at 18-19; CR/PR at D-7;

Hearing Tr. at 15 (Wetherbee).

 116 CR/PR at Table I-4.

 117 CR/PR at Table I-4.

 118 CR/PR at Table I-4.

 119 CR/PR at D-11, D-12.

15

manufacturing equipment, automotive goods, and tools and fixtures.109 Series 2000 plate is directed to

heavy vehicle applications and airframe structures, whereas series 7000 plate is used in highly stressed

parts and airframe structures.110

ii. Interchangeability

End product design engineers generally specify the product performance requirements they

require as well as the alloy, temper, product form, and size of the aluminum plate to be used.111

Customers purchase aluminum alloy plate according to specifications set by the Aluminum Association,

government, industry groups, and customers themselves.112 The great variety of alloys and tempers

available indicates that the market seeks products with highly specialized performance characteristics. 

That specialization strictly limits interchangeability between series 6000 plate and other plate.

Interchangeability between series 6000 plate and non-heat treatable plate is limited by their

physical characteristics, in particular, strength.113 Non-heat treatable alloys are called “soft” and

“common” alloys and, with the exception of the 5000 series, they are seldom used for series 6000 plate

applications because of their low strengths.114 There is also at most only limited interchangeability

between series 6000 plate on the one hand, and series 2000 and 7000 on the other.115 

iii. Channels of Distribution

Series 6000 plate and other aluminum plate are sold through overlapping channels of distribution,

but only series 6000 plate was sold principally to distributors during each year of the period of

investigation. The share of series 6000 plate sold to distributors ranged from *** percent to *** percent

per year during 2001 to 2003.116 For series 5000 plate, sales to distributors accounted for between ***

percent to *** percent of shipments during 2001 to 2003, whereas for combined series 2000 and 7000

plate, the share accounted for by distributors ranged from *** percent to *** percent.117 The combined

share of series 1000, 3000, and 4000 plate sold to distributors was *** percent in 2001, but *** percent

and *** percent in 2002 and 2003, respectively.118 Distributors tend to specialize in either heat-treatable

or non-heat treatable plate, given their different uses.119 

iv. Producer and Customer Perceptions

As noted, customers frequently specify the precise alloy and temper required, indicating that

customers do not regard series 6000 plate as substitutable with other plate. Petitioner and Kaiser indicate
 120 CR/PR at D-6, D-7, D-11 to D-12. 

 121 CR/PR at D-14 to D-15.

 122 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 123 CR at I-10 to I-12, PR at I-8 to I-9.

 124 CR at I-12, PR at I-9, Conference Tr. at 58-60 (Wetherbee). See CR at I-10 n.33, PR at I-8 n.33.

 125 The Commission found that series 2000 and 7000 plate were produced under more stringent and costly

controls in the Preliminary Determination. Respondents did not dispute that finding during the final phase of the

investigation. Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at Appendix at 18-19. ***. CR/PR at ***. 

 126 CR/PR at D-10.

 127 CR/PR at Tables C-1 and C-6.

 128 CR/PR at D-12, D-13.

 129 CR/PR at D-12, D-13.

 130 CR/PR at D-12 to D-13, D-16, D-19.

16

that producers and customers perceive that each plate alloy has distinct end uses.120 With few exceptions,

comments supplied by other market participants (importers) were generally consistent with those of

Petitioner.121

v. Common Manufacturing Processes, Facilities, and Production

Employees

There is a partial overlap in the production facilities used to make series 6000 plate on the one

hand, and other aluminum plate on the other. Kaiser does not produce non-heat treatable plate. Series

5000 plate, which makes up the bulk of non-heat treatable plate production, is made by only one producer

(Alcoa) of series 6000 plate, whereas two domestic producers of series 6000 plate also manufacture series

1000, 3000, and 4000 plate. All three domestic producers manufacture plate in series 2000 and 7000.122 

With the important exception of heat-treatment (described above), all aluminum plate alloys

generally undergo the same basic processes.123 Nevertheless, certain differences are associated with the

production of the various plate series. The soaking pit used to prepare ingots for further shaping is lined

with ceramic materials that typically become contaminated by the elements used in a specific alloy,

requiring either that the furnace be dedicated to a particular alloy or that the furnace be prepared for

processing a different alloy, which requires a substantial investment of time and capital.124 In addition,

series 2000 and 7000 plate are produced under more stringent controls than is series 6000 plate, and

requires *** than does series 6000 plate, resulting in higher production costs.125 In the case of series 7000

plate, these additional controls contribute to 44-percent higher production costs for plate in the .250- to

1.500-inch gauge range, relative to series 6000 plate of the same gauges.126 The per unit cost of goods

sold was substantially higher for series 2000 and 7000 plate than for series 6000 plate.127

vi. Price

Non-heat treatable aluminum plate generally is sold based on “conversion pricing,” as described

previously, whereas heat-treatable plate (and some series 5000 plate) is sold at market prices.128 As a

result, prices for non-heat treatable plate more closely track metal prices than do prices for series 6000

plate.129 Market participants report that prices were generally higher for heat-treatable plate than for nonheat treatable plate.130 Average unit values (“AUVs”) for series 6000 plate were higher than AUVs for

series 5000 plate throughout the period of investigation, and, except in 2003, were also higher than AUVs
 131 CR/PR at Figure I-1, Table I-5.

 132 Petitioner’s Postconference Brief at 32 and Exh. I-4.

 133 CR/PR at Figure I-1, Table I-5.

 134 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to

include in the industry all domestic production of the domestic like product, whether toll-produced, captively

consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market. See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp.

673, 681-84 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

 135 Current known U.S. producers are Alcoa, Kaiser, and Pechiney. CR/PR at Table III-1. 

 136 No related parties issues were presented in this investigation.

17

for series 1000, 3000, and 4000 plate.131 In contrast, prices for series 2000 and 7000 plate were

substantially higher than prices for series 6000 plate.132 AUVs for series 2000 and 7000 plate were nearly

double the AUVs for series 6000 plate.133

vii. Conclusion

As indicated previously, where the Commission is considering whether to expand the domestic

like product, the issue before the Commission is where the continuum line ends. 

The dividing line between series 6000 plate and other aluminum plate is clear, contrary to the

suggestion that series 6000 plate merely forms part of a broader continuum of aluminum plate products. 

For the reasons given above, series 6000 plate is distinct in many respects from all non-heat treatable

plate. Although series 5000 plate is more similar to series 6000 plate in physical characteristics than are

other non-heat treatable plate series, the two products still differ in terms of uses, producer and customer

perceptions, channels of distribution, and price, and they have only limited interchangeability. Series

6000 plate also differs from series 2000 and 7000 plate in physical characteristics, uses, producer and

customer perceptions, and price. There is only limited interchangeability between series 6000 plate and

series 2000 and 7000 plate. All aluminum plate is sold through overlapping channels of distribution,

although only series 6000 plate was principally sold to distributors in each calendar year of the period of

investigation. 

Given these distinctions between series 6000 plate and all other aluminum plate, a clear dividing

line exists between the two. Expanding the domestic like product to include all aluminum plate would

encompass not a relatively seamless continuum, but rather one divided between heat-treatable and nonheat treatable plate. Another dividing line would appear between series 2000 and 7000 plate on the one

hand, and all other plate on the other, given that the former is directed largely to airframe structures,

incurs higher manufacturing costs, and is priced more than two times higher than other plate. For these

reasons, we determine not to define the domestic like product to include all aluminum plate.

Accordingly, based on the reasons detailed above, we find a single domestic like product

consisting of all domestically produced series 6000 aluminum plate, coextensive with the scope. 

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The domestic industry is defined in the Act as “producers as a [w]hole 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.”134 Consistent with our domestic like product finding in the

final phase, we define the domestic industry to include all domestic producers of series 6000 plate.135 136
 137 Negligibility is not an issue in this investigation. Subject imports from South Africa accounted for more than

three percent of the volume of all series 6000 plate imported into the United States in the most recent twelve-month

period for which data are available preceding the filing of the petition. Preliminary Det. at 17 n.102. See CR/PR at

Table IV-2.

 138 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b).

 139 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination” but shall “identify each [such] factor . . . [a]nd explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). See also Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

 140 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 141 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 142 Id.

 143 The captive consumption provision (19 U.S.C. §1677(7)(C)(iv)) is not at issue in this investigation because the

domestic industry’s internal consumption and transfers to related firms amounted to less than *** tons per year. 

CR/PR at Table III-3.

 144 CR at II-5; PR at II-3.

 145 Hearing Tr. at 64, 128-129 (Wetherbee).

 146 CR at I-8, PR at I-6.

 147 CR at I-8 n.26, PR at I-6 n.26.

 148 CR at II-5 to II-7; PR at II-3 to II-4; Hearing Tr. at 20, 64-65 (Wetherbee), 180 (Bradford); Petitioner’s

Prehearing Brief at 15; Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at Exh. B-3 (electronic file supporting Exh. B-3 provided in

October 19, 2004 e-mails from ***; Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 1 at 15-16; Kaiser’s October 13, 2004

(continued...)

18

IV. NO MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS137

In the final phase of antidumping investigations, the Commission determines whether an industry

in the United States is materially injured by reason of the imports under investigation.138 In making this

determination, the Commission must consider the volume of 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.139 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not

inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”140 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.141 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.”142

A. Conditions of Competition143

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis whether the domestic industry is

materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports. 

Demand for series 6000 aluminum plate is derived from the demand for the products that it is

used to produce, including mold applications, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, automotive

goods, and tools and fixtures.144 Alcoa indicated that overall demand for series 6000 plate was the sum of

demand in approximately 15 to 20 distinct market segments.145 As much as 90 percent of the market is

comprised of 6061 aluminum alloy.146 The 6061 product is widely available, is sold in standard sizes

through distributors, and has a variety of applications.147

Domestic demand for series 6000 plate generally was weak and declining during most of the

period of investigation, but then increased sharply beginning at the end of 2003 and continuing into

2004.148 149 The record indicates that declining demand derived from generally weak economic conditions
 148 (...continued)

submission (Statement of Keith Harvey at 1-2). Petitioner indicated that demand increased somewhat from 2001 to

2002 and again in 2003 (Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 29), but data provided by Petitioner indicated that demand

declined over that period (Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at Exh. B-3) (data in Exh. B-3 and supporting electronic file

analyzed at CR at II-7, PR at II-4). 

 149 Petitioner asserted that the increase in demand observed in interim 2004 would be short-lived because it was

driven by a series of “one-time ‘bumps’ in demand.” Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 24. Petitioner indicated that

these events accounted for *** of the increase in its shipments in interim 2004 over interim 2003 (Petitioner’s

October 14, 2004 submission at Exh. 4), but only about one-third of the increase in market demand overall (Hearing

Tr. at 119 and at 17-19 (Wetherbee)). Petitioner also indicated that demand is the sum of numerous discrete market

segments (Hearing Tr. at 64, 128-129 (Wetherbee)), and thus it does not appear unusual that demand in certain

segments would be higher than previously during a given time period. Moreover, the industry press forecast

increases in demand even after the occurrence of the specific events identified by Petitioner. Respondents’

Posthearing Brief at Exh. 2. Accordingly, we view the “one-time bumps” asserted by Petitioner as too small to

demonstrate that the reported growth in demand is transitory.

 150 CR at II-5 to II-7, PR at II-3 to II-4.

 151 From 2001 to 2003, orders were down 7 percent for tools and fixtures, 20 percent for molds, 6 percent for

precision machinery, 9 percent for aerospace, 11 percent for semiconductor equipment, and up 12 percent for

medical equipment. CR at II-7, PR at II-4.

 152 CR at II-7, PR at II-4.

 153 Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 2.

 154 Hearing Tr. at 93-94, 128-129 (Wetherbee); Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at attachment entitled “Questions

from Commissioners” at 11.

 155 CR at II-6; PR at II-4; Hearing Tr. at 91 (Malashevich), 93-94, 128-29 (Wetherbee).

 156 Because we find no evidence of a unique business cycle with respect to series 6000 plate, we decline

Petitioner’s request to depart from our normal practice and lengthen the period of investigation to include the year

2000. See Timken Co. v. United States, 321F.Supp.2d 1361, 1372 (CIT 2004) (business cycle defined as “recurrent

expansion and contraction of economic activity.”). The Commission generally examines the most recent three years

of data, plus data from part of the most current year. Silicon Metal From Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-991 (Final),

USITC Pub. 3584 (March 2003) at 11 n.68 (citing, inter alia, Kenda Rubber Industrial Co. v. United States, 630 F.

Supp. 354, 359 (CIT 1986)). We find no basis to depart from our past practice in this investigation. In the same

vein, we reject Respondents’ request to gather data from the third quarter of 2004. The Commission requested that

final phase investigation questionnaires be returned by the parties by August 18, 2004, and thus did not seek third

quarter data. E.g., excerpt of producers’ questionnaire found at Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 9. The

Commission generally declines to gather data from a quarter that ends close to the date of the Commission’s vote in

order to ensure the orderly analysis of the data collected, to allow the parties adequate time to comment on the data

(continued...)

19

in the United States, which resulted in lower manufacturing activity.150 Annual indices for orders reported

by the National Tooling Machining Association showed declines from 2001 to 2003 in five of six major

end-use sectors.151 An average of these indices, weighted according to Alcoa’s estimates of the share of

aluminum plate sold to each of these end-use sectors, fell by an average of *** percent from 2001 to

2003, and then were projected to increase by *** percent in 2004 over 2003.152 Industry reports confirm

these trends.153

We find no evidence of a unique business cycle with respect to series 6000 plate. Although

Petitioner urged the Commission to make such a finding, it also indicated that demand for series 6000

plate is the aggregate of demand in numerous discrete end-use segments, which fluctuate independently

of each other.154 Despite requests to do so by the Commission, Petitioner was unable to identify the

length of any business cycle for series 6000 plate, or indicate where the industry was currently positioned

with respect to any such cycle.155 Accordingly, we do not find this industry to be characterized by a

regular and measurable business cycle.156 157
 156 (...continued)

gathered, as well as to mitigate the burden placed on the market participants. 

 157 Petitioner and Respondents indicated that general economic activity is the primary factor influencing demand

for series 6000 plate in the U.S. market. CR at II-5 to II-6, PR at II-3 to II-4, Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at

attachment entitled “Questions from Commissioners” at 11. To the extent that demand for series 6000 plate changes

as a result of changes in general economic activity in the United States, that condition is taken into account in our

discussion of changes in demand over the period of investigation. 

 158 CR/PR at III-1.

 159 CR/PR at III-1 & n.2, VI-1 n.4.

 160 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 161 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 162 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 163 CR at II-12 to II-16, PR at II-7 to II-11. Accord Hearing Tr. at 23 (Wetherbee).

 164 CR at II-12, PR at II-7.

 165 CR at II-12, PR at II-7.

 166 CR at II-16, PR at II-11.

 167 CR/PR at Table II-6.

 168 CR at II-17; PR at II-11 to II-12; Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 2, March 2003 CRU Monitor at 4.

 169 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 170 CR/PR at Table II-1.

20

The U.S. market is supplied by domestic production, subject imports from South Africa, and

nonsubject imports. There are currently three producers of series 6000 aluminum plate in the United

States: Alcoa, Kaiser, and Pechiney.158 McCook Metals filed for bankruptcy in 2001 and shortly

thereafter closed its manufacturing facility and liquidated its assets.159 Although ***.160 As indicated in

the following discussion of volume, subject imports were present throughout the period of investigation. 

Nonsubject imports, most of which were accounted for by Russia, were present but declining throughout

the period of investigation. Nonsubject import market share fell from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent

in 2002, and to *** percent in 2003.161 Nonsubject import market share was lower at *** percent in

interim 2004 compared to *** percent in interim 2003.162

Subject and domestic series 6000 plate are highly interchangeable.163 In their questionnaire

responses, two of three responding domestic producers indicated that domestic product and subject

imports of series 6000 plate are “always” used interchangeably.164 The remaining responding producer

and all four responding importers indicated that the domestic product and subject imports are at least

“frequently” used interchangeably.165 

Nonsubject imports are less interchangeable with domestic series 6000 plate. All responding

producers and importers indicated that nonsubject and domestic product were used interchangeably

“frequently” or “sometimes.”166 Purchasers generally ranked Russian plate, which makes up the bulk of

nonsubject plate, as inferior to domestic plate on most measures, and consistently ranked Russian plate

superior only on price.167 Market participants cited inconsistent quality and unreliable delivery times as

problems found in Russian plate, although there was some evidence that the quality of the Russian

product improved during the period of investigation.168

Purchasers most frequently ranked “quality” as the most important factor in purchasing decisions,

whereas price was the factor most frequently identified as next-most important.169 A smaller number of

purchasers ranked availability and delivery performance as the most- or second-most important factor.170

All ten responding purchasers ranked “delivery time” and “reliability of supply” as very important factors
 171 CR/PR at Table II-2, Hearing Tr. at 98 (Wetherbee).

 172 CR/PR at Table II-2.

 173 CR/PR at Table II-2.

 174 Hearing Tr. at 98 (Wetherbee).

 175 CR at II-5 n.11, PR at II-3 n.11.

 176 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 177 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 178 Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at Attachment 1.

 179 We received no data directly from McCook in this investigation. CR/PR at III-1 n.2. According to Alcoa, it

received data from McCook during the course of a due diligence review including the volume and value of

McCook’s shipments of series 6000 plate during 2001 and 2002. CR/PR at III-1 n.2. We generally decline to rely

on isolated data from a given producer. Where data from a producer pertain to some statutory factors but not others,

the inclusion of those data undermines our ability to derive meaningful comparisons, therefore yielding a confusing

picture of the state of the industry. 

Moreover, the reliability of the McCook figures is suspect. McCook did not prepare them according to the

instructions that the Commission provided to other questionnaire respondents. Nor did McCook certify as to their

accuracy, as required by statute. 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(b). In addition, none of the data appear to pertain to 2002,

although Alcoa asked the Commission to adjust 2002 figures on the basis of the McCook data. Nor do the purported

shipment figures distinguish between U.S. shipments and exports. Finally, the only seemingly relevant pages

submitted contain a comparison of McCook and Alcoa data, casting doubt on whether the pages were prepared by a

McCook representative. 

We also note that we do not attribute McCook’s entry into bankruptcy to subject imports. McCook’s

Chairman indicated that subject imports did not contribute to the firm’s entry into bankruptcy, and McCook

produced many products other than series 6000 plate. Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 6 (Declaration of

Michael Lynch), Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at Attachment 1, CR/PR at VI-1 n.4. McCook filed for bankruptcy

on August 6, 2001, before most of the decline in prices that would occur later and seemingly too early for subject

imports to have exerted any significant adverse effect (as we found they did not over the entire period of

investigation). 

 180 CR/PR at Table III-2.

21

in purchasing decisions.171 Similarly, all ten ranked “product consistency” and “quality meets industry

standards” as very important.172 Nine ranked “price” as very important, and one ranked “price” as

somewhat important.173 The Commission received testimony by a representative of Petitioner concurring

that quality (producing to specifications) was the most important factor in purchasing decisions, followed

by delivery and availability, then followed by price.174

Despite the record evidence indicating that demand fell after 2001, and the parties’ agreement as

to that fact, our data show increases in apparent U.S. consumption, which is a function of supply as well

as demand during the period of investigation.175 Based on the reliable data available to us, apparent U.S.

consumption of series 6000 plate was 41,521 short tons in 2001, 51,406 short tons in 2002, and 58,017

short tons in 2003.176 Apparent U.S. consumption was 28,576 short tons during interim 2003, compared

to 43,104 short tons in interim 2004.177

Increases in apparent consumption from 2001 to 2002 are likely overstated, however, because we

lack reliable data from a former domestic producer – McCook Metals – which may have produced not

insubstantial quantities of series 6000 plate during 2001, and small quantities in 2002.178 179 Remaining

increases in apparent U.S. consumption were driven by several factors influencing supply, as described

below. 

Domestic producers sharply increased production throughout the period of investigation. 

Domestic production was 26,371 short tons during 2001, 30,242 short tons during 2002, and 41,177 short

tons during 2003.180 Domestic production was 19,037 short tons during interim 2003 and increased to
 181 CR/PR at Table III-2.

 182 Petitioner estimates that McCook shipped very small quantities in 2002, but the limited McCook documents

available to us do not indicate any shipments in 2002. CR/PR at III-1 n.2, Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at 4 n.7 and

Attachment 1. As noted, we lack reliable figures as to the market share formerly held by McCook. 

 183 Hearing Tr. at 124-25 (Wetherbee), CR/PR at III-4 n.5. 

 184 The Commission received testimony from a Petitioner witness that demand for aerospace aluminum plate

declined by 40 to 45 percent after September 11, 2001. Hearing Tr. at 124-25 (Wetherbee). From 2001 to 2003, the

domestic industry’s production of series 2000 and 7000 plate fell by *** percent, while its production of series 6000

plate increased by *** percent. CR/PR at Tables C-1 and C-6. Various domestic producers acknowledged shifting

production among series 2000, 6000, and 7000 plate as market conditions warranted. Hearing Tr. at 16

(Wetherbee), CR at II-2, Table III-2 nn.2-3, III-4 n.5, III-5 & n.6; PR at II-2, Table III-2 nn.2-3, III-4 & nn.5-6. 

 185 CR/PR at Table III-5.

 186 Purchasers reported being placed on allocation, receiving smaller quantities than requested, or having orders

decline in 2004. Purchaser questionnaire responses at question III-23. Industry publications report higher orders,

higher prices, tightening supplies, and longer lead times beginning in 2004. Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at Exh.

2. 

 187 CR at V-4, PR at V-3. Alcoa reported that its lead time was approximately 12 weeks during 2002-2003. CR

at V-4, PR at V-3, Hearing Tr. at 137-139 (Wetherbee).

 188 Purchaser questionnaire responses at question III-23. One purchaser reported such practices in mid-2003. Id. 

 189 Hearing Tr. at 138-139 (Wetherbee). 

 190 CR/PR at V-3.

 191 Spot sales accounted for *** percent of ***’s sales during 2003. Final phase importer questionnaire response

of ***. *** accounted for *** percent of sales of subject imports during 2003. CR/PR at Table IV-1. 

 192 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)( i).

22

more than double that amount (39,629 short tons) in interim 2004.181 Contributing to increases in

reported production was the exit of McCook Metals in 2001, as the remaining domestic producers

competed to attain market share formerly held by McCook.182 In addition, orders for series 2000 and

7000 plate declined steeply after 2001, particularly after September 11, 2001, due to much lower aircraft

production.183 Rather than idling capacity, it appears that domestic producers shifted production capacity

to the production of series 6000 plate in order to cover high yearly fixed costs.184 These increases in the

production of series 6000 plate, as well as a significant reduction in domestic producers’ U.S.

inventories,185 each contributed to higher apparent U.S. consumption. 

Despite the steady and substantial increases in domestic production, the industry was unable to

meet increased demand in 2004.186 Purchasers reported that, prior to the increase in demand, the average

lead time for domestic product was about 8 weeks, compared to about 14 weeks for subject merchandise,

and 13 weeks for nonsubject merchandise.187 In 2004, purchasers were placed on allocation, denied

quantities requested, or delivered smaller quantities than requested.188 By May-June of 2004, lead times

for domestic suppliers had increased to approximately 18 to 24 weeks.189

In 2003, approximately *** percent of domestic product was sold on the spot market, with the

remainder sold under short-term contracts,190 while about *** percent of subject imports were sold on the

spot market, and the rest under short-term (and some long-term) contracts.191

B. Volume

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

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

production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”192
 193 CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 194 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 195 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 196 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 197 CR/PR at Table IV-5. 

 198 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 199 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 200 *** questionnaire response. See CR/PR at Tables III-2 and VI-2. 

 201 CR/PR at Table C-1.

23

The volume of subject imports increased from *** short tons in 2001 to *** short tons in 2002

before declining *** to *** short tons in 2003. The volume of subject imports was also lower at ***

short tons in interim 2004 compared to *** short tons in interim 2003.193

Thus, while the volume of subject imports may be characterized as increasing overall from 2001 to 2003,

the increase occurred from 2001 to 2002 and subject import volume decreased thereafter. Subject

imports’ U.S. market shares show the same trends. Subject imports’ U.S. shipment volume relative to

consumption in the United States increased from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002, but then

returned to near 2001 levels in 2003 at *** percent.194 The subject imports’ market share was *** percent

in interim 2004 compared to *** percent in interim 2003.195 

Subject imports did not take market share from U.S. producers. The domestic industry’s market

share steadily increased from 56.2 percent in 2001 to 60.8 percent in 2002 and to 67.4 percent in 2003. 

Likewise, the domestic industry held a 75.6 percent share in interim 2004 as compared to 63.0 percent in

the first half of 2003.196 Nonsubject import market share declined from *** percent in 2001 to ***

percent in 2002, and to *** percent in 2003. Nonsubject imports held a *** percent market share in the

first half of 2004 as compared to *** percent for the same period in 2003.197 Thus, any gain in U.S.

market share by the subject imports was not at the expense of U.S. producers. Rather, subject imports

largely replaced nonsubject import volumes and gained market share from those imports. 

Subject import volume relative to production in the United States increased from *** percent in

2001 to *** percent in 2002 before falling below 2001 levels to *** percent in 2003. Subject import

volumes relative to production were *** percent in interim 2004 compared to *** percent in the first half

of 2003.198 Nonsubject import volume relative to production in the United States declined from

*** percent in 2001, to *** percent in 2002, and further to *** percent in 2003. Nonsubject imports

relative to production were *** percent in interim 2004 compared to *** percent for the same period in

2003.199

The above data show that the volume of subject imports was significant in absolute terms over the

period of investigation. However, the overall increase in subject import volume must be viewed in the

context of prevailing conditions that included a domestic industry that increased production and gained

market share during each successive year of the period of investigation, and in interim 2004 compared to

interim 2003. Of particular note are the conditions that prevailed from 2001 to 2002, the only time frame

during which the volume of subject imports increased (whether in absolute terms, market share, or as a

share of domestic production). Even during this one-year period of increasing subject imports, the

domestic industry increased shipments and gained 4.5 percentage points in market share.200 Meanwhile,

nonsubject imports lost *** percentage points in market share.201 Accordingly, subject imports did not

take market share from the domestic industry between 2001 and 2002, or at any other time during the

period of investigation. 

Petitioner argued that the Commission should give much less weight to the import volumes in

interim 2004, contending that the volume of subject imports was heavily influenced by the filing of the
 202 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 13-14.

 203 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I).

 204 Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 4 and at Exh. 4.

 205 As noted above, from 2002 to 2003, the volume of U.S. shipments of subject imports declined in an absolute

sense from *** short tons to *** short tons, in market share from *** percent to *** percent, and relative to

production from *** percent to *** percent. CR/PR at Tables IV-3, IV-5, and IV-6.

 206 Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 3.

 207 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 208 CR at I-4 n.9, I-6 to I-7 (text and notes), D-3 to D-7, D-11; PR at I-4 n.9, I-5 to I-6 (text and notes), D-3 to D7, D-11; Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 4-5; Respondents’ Prehearing Brief at 21 and Exh. 14. 

 209 CR at II-12 to II-16, PR at II-7 to II-11.

 210 CR/PR at Tables II-1 and II-2.

 211 CR/PR at V-3.

24

petition in this investigation.202 We do not find that the volume of subject imports declined significantly

as a result of the pendency of this investigation.203 The volume of subject imports was declining prior to

the filing of the petition on October 16, 2003, consistent with a business plan previously considered and

adopted by Hulett.204 On a yearly basis, the volume of U.S. shipments of subject imports declined slightly

from 2002 to 2003.205 On a monthly basis, export volumes by Hulett began to fall prior to the filing of the

petition during each month from July to October of 2003.206 Accordingly, we do not give less weight to

data, including volume data, for the post-petition period.

In sum, while we find the volume of subject imports to be significant in an absolute sense, U.S.

producers increased production, shipments, and market share throughout the period of investigation.

Therefore, we do not find the volume significant relative to U.S. consumption. Furthermore, as described

below, we do not find that the subject imports caused significant adverse effects on the prices for the

domestic product, or adversely affected the domestic industry. 

C. Price Effects of Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of the subject

imports, the Commission shall consider whether –

 (I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as

compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and

 (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

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

degree.207

As discussed above, series 6000 plate is largely produced in standard sizes and is generally

produced to industry alloy and temper specifications,208 and there is a high degree of fungibility between

domestic product and subject imports.209 Quality was most frequently cited as the primary factor in

purchasing decisions in responses to purchasers’ questionnaires, but price and delivery reliability/lead

times were also ranked as very important factors.210 Approximately *** percent of domestic production is

sold on the spot market, and the remainder by short-term contracts.211 In contrast, spot sales account for
 212 Final phase importer questionnaire response of *** at question III-B-4. See also preliminary phase importer

questionnaire response of *** at question III-B-4 and final and preliminary phase questionnaire responses of Samuel

at question III-B-4. 

 213 CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-4.

 214 CR at V-6, PR at V-4.

 215 CR at V-6, PR at V-5.

 216 CR at II-11 to II-12, PR at II-7.

 217 CR/PR at Tables II-1 and II-2.

 218 CR at II-11 to II-12, PR at II-7.

 219 CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-4. Respondents urged the Commission, in comparing prices, to segregate sales on

the spot market from those made under contract. We are not persuaded that the comparisons urged by Respondents

are a better measure of underselling and its effects than those reported in Tables V-1 to V-4 because the record does

not establish that prices are different for sales on the spot market than for sales by short term contract, or that prices

offered in the one setting do not influence prices in the other. In any regard, when prices are compared according to

Respondents’ suggestion, underselling still predominates. CR/PR at Tables E-1 to E-8. In the sole notable departure

from the data reported in Tables V-1 to V-4, most comparisons on the spot market show overselling in 2004, but

these comparisons involve a much smaller volume of subject imports than do the comparisons based on contract

sales. CR/PR, compare Tables E-1 to E-4 with Tables E-5 to E-8.

 220 Production by U.S. producers increased from 26,371 short tons in 2001, to 30,242 short tons in 2002, and to

41,177 short tons in 2003. CR/PR at Table III-2. U.S. commercial shipments by U.S. producers increased from ***

short tons in 2001, to *** short tons in 2002, and to *** short tons in 2003. CR/PR at Table III-3.

 221 CR at V-6, Tables V-1 to V-4, Figure V-3; PR at V-5, Tables V-1 to V-4, Figure V-3. Despite the price

increases late in the period of investigation, prices were lower in the second quarter of 2004 than during the first

quarter of 2001. CR at V-6, PR at V-5.

25

only about *** percent of subject import sales, with short-term contracts accounting for most of the

remaining subject import sales.212

The Commission collected quarterly weighted-average price information from U.S. producers and

importers from January 2001 through June 2004 on four series 6000 plate products.213 Pricing data

reported by U.S. producers accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. producers’ commercial

shipments and *** percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports during 2003.214 Subject imports 

undersold the domestic product in all quarterly price comparisons with U.S.-produced series 6000 plate,

by margins ranging from 4.9 percent to 24.2 percent.215 According to both Respondents and ***,

underselling by subject imports was explained at least in part by longer lead times for the subject imports

compared to the domestic product.216 Lead times were cited by all purchasers as a very important factor

in purchasing decisions.217 The South African producer reportedly offered 3 to 5 percent discounts

because of its longer lead times.218 Nevertheless, this discount does not account for all of the price

difference and, based on the record evidence, we find underselling by the subject imports to be

significant.219 

Despite the existence of such underselling, and a decline in prices for the domestic product over

most of the period of investigation, the record does not indicate that subject imports had a significant

adverse impact on domestic prices. Rather, the evidence indicates that the price depression was due in

large measure to factors other than the subject imports, most notably declining demand, coupled with

increases in U.S. producers’ production and shipments of series 6000 plate despite weak demand.220

Prices for the domestic product fell from January 2001 to December 2003, and then increased during the

first and second quarters of 2004.221 These price declines are attributable to widely reported weak and

declining demand for series 6000 plate, as well as to sharply increased supply, as U.S. producers
 222 CR/PR at Tables III-2, III-3, III-5, VI-2.

 223 CR at II-5 to II-6, PR at II-3 to II-4.

 224 CR at II-7, PR at II-4.

 225 CR at II-7, PR at II-4, Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at Exh. B-3 (electronic file supporting Exh. B-3 provided

in October 19, 2004 e-mails from ***).

 226 Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 2. 

 227 CR/PR at Figure V-4.

 228 The volume of subject imports fell from 2002 to 2003, and the volume of nonsubject imports fell during each

successive year of the period of investigation. CR/PR at Table IV-3. 

 229 Hearing Tr. at 16, 124-25 (Wetherbee); CR at II-2, III-4 n.5, III-5 & n.6, and Table III-2 nn.2-3; PR at II-2, III4 & nn.5-6, and Table III-2 nn.2-3. 

 230 CR/PR at Tables C-1 and C-6.

 231 Although market participants confirmed various allegations that the domestic industry lost sales due to

competition with subject imports (CR at V-17 to V-23, PR at V-7 to V-11), the aggregate volume of those lost sales

was relatively small in relation to the size of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments. Compare CR/PR Table V-5

(***) with CR/PR Table III-3 (domestic industry’s U.S. shipments totaled 93,685 short tons during 2001 through

2003). The value of the confirmed lost sales was only about *** percent of the value of U.S. producer’s domestic

shipments from 2001 to 2003. Compare CR/PR at Tables III-3 and V-5 (the figure is an estimate because some

purchasers adjusted the value of the alleged lost sale). Moreover, the domestic industry increased U.S. shipments

(continued...)

26

increased shipments (both from production and inventories) to this declining market.222 Domestic

producers and most importers agreed that demand decreased after 2001, as a result of economic

conditions, until 2004.223 As demand recovered at the end of 2003 and continued to strengthen in the first

half of 2004, prices recovered. As noted, an estimate of changes in demand for series 6000 plate was

prepared based on indices for orders published by the National Tooling Machining Association and

estimates of demand for series 6000 plate by end-use sector.224 Based on those data, demand is estimated

to have fallen by *** percent between 2001 and 2003, and is projected to increase by *** percent in 2004

over 2003.225 Industry reports similarly indicated that the major reason for the falling prices from 2001

through 2003 was the downturn in the economy and the declining demand for series 6000 plate.226

Indeed, evidence on the record confirms, for example, that declines in series 6000 plate prices from 2001

through the latter part of 2003 tracked lower demand in the semiconductor manufacturing market

segment.227 Declining demand in the major end use segments explains observed price declines in

significant part.228

The record also indicates that U.S. producers’ increases in production, shipments, and sales of

series 6000 plate, even as demand was declining, contributed in large measure to the falling prices. As

noted above, the same manufacturing facilities used to produce series 6000 plate can be used to produce

series 2000 and 7000 plate. After September 11, 2001, U.S. producers were faced with a drastic

reduction in demand in the aerospace sector, the primary end-use sector for series 2000 and 7000 plate,

and shifted some production formerly used for these two series to series 6000 plate in order to contain

their high fixed costs, which are characteristic of this industry.229 Indeed, the record indicates that

production of series 2000 and 7000 plate dropped by *** percent from 2001 to 2003, while production of

series 6000 plate grew by *** percent from 2001 to 2003 and by *** percent from 2002 to 2003.230 Thus,

increased U.S. supply in the market, despite clear record evidence that demand was declining, also

contributed to the drop in U.S. prices. 

Moreover, various trends in the data run counter to what would be expected if subject imports

were contributing significantly to observed price declines. The domestic industry increased market share

throughout the period of investigation, even though subject imports undersold the domestic product at

absolute volume levels that can be described as significant when viewed in isolation.231 Prices for
 231 (...continued)

and gained market share during each successive calendar year of the period of investigation, indicating that

anecdotal evidence of lost sales was not representative of the overall experience in the market. 

 232 Consistent with our other observations, subject imports’ volume and market share fell in 2003 compared to

2002, and such imports generally undersold the domestic product by smaller margins in 2003 than in 2002, yet prices

for the domestic like product continued to fall. CR/PR at Tables IV-3, IV-5, V-1 to V-4, Figure V-3. 

 233 *** questionnaire response; CR at V-4, VI-9; PR at V-3 to V-4, VI-4.

 234 We do not view reports of price leadership, however, to be themselves decisive or determinative (compare

Nucor Corp. v. United States, 318 F.Supp.2d 1207, 1257 (CIT 2004) (Commission “not required to evaluate if price

leadership was the reason why underselling may have decreased or increased in its consideration of underselling”)). 

 235 CR at V-4, PR at V-3.

 236 CR at VI-9, PR at VI-4, *** questionnaire response.

 237 CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-4, Figure V-3; Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 2.

 238 CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-4, Figure V-3; Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 2.

 239 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 240 E.g., Posthearing Brief of Petitioners at 4-6, citing SAA comments on 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I).

27

domestically produced products examined in our price comparisons increased substantially in 2004,

despite the fact that subject imports undersold those products by margins that generally were higher than

in 2003, and in volumes that were generally higher or comparable to volumes in 2003.232 

In addition, market participants identified domestic producers as price leaders much more

frequently than they identified subject imports, even though subject imports were, based on our data,

generally lower in price.233 234 Seven out of ten purchasers named Alcoa as the price leader.235 U.S.

producers also described price competition among themselves. ***, in explaining why it lowered its

prices to certain customers to remain competitive, only mentioned imports from South Africa in *** out

of *** instances, and competitive conditions in the market generally in *** out of *** instances, but

named competition with *** U.S. producers (***) as the reason in *** of instances.236

We conclude that lower demand, coupled with increasing domestic supply from U.S. producers,

drove prices for the domestic like product lower from 2001 to 2003, and trends in the data contradict the

suggestion that subject imports contributed to price declines in significant part. Although domestic prices

fell and underselling by subject imports occurred at the same time, we find that subject imports did not

adversely affect prices for the domestic product to a significant degree. 

Nor do we find that subject imports prevented price increases that otherwise would have

occurred. U.S. producers implemented multiple price increases in interim 2004, even though the subject

imports continued to undersell the domestic product (for pricing products 1 through 4, underselling was

often by higher margins and in greater or comparable volumes in 2004 than in 2003).237 These price

increases contributed importantly to a positive operating income for U.S. producers in interim 2004,

compared to operating losses experienced in interim 2003. The domestic industry’s ability to realize such

price increases in the face of a significant volume of lower-priced subject imports is not consistent with a

finding that subject imports were restricting the U.S. producers’ ability to raise prices. The record

indicates that as demand rose and supply shortages began to occur, domestic producers announced

numerous price increases during interim 2004, and there is no evidence that they were forced to roll back

any of those announcements.238 Unit costs of goods sold (COGS) fell during each successive year of the

period of investigation, and were lower in interim 2004 than interim 2003.239 From 2001 to 2003, COGS

increased as a percentage of total net sales as a result of lower prices, which, however, we do not attribute

to subject imports in significant part.

Petitioners argue that the pendency of the investigation accounts for the domestic industry’s

ability to realize price increases, and that we should therefore discount the 2004 data in our analysis.240

We decline to do so as we do not find that the domestic industry’s price increases are attributable to any
 241 Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 2 (CRU excerpts).

 242 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). See also SAA at 851, 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.” Id. at 885.).

 243 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). See also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Invs. Nos. 701-

TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 (Feb. 1999) at 25 n.148.

 244 The statute instructs the Commission to consider the “magnitude of the dumping margin” in an antidumping

proceeding as part of its consideration of the impact of imports. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii) (V). In its final

affirmative determination, Commerce determined dumping margins as 3.51 percent for Hulett and 3.51 percent for

“All Others.” 69 Fed. Reg. at 60611.

 245 CR/PR at Table C-1. For the reasons explained above, we do not place less weight on post-petition data. 

 246 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 247 CR/PR at Table C-1.

28

significant degree to the filing of the petition or the pendency of the investigation. The domestic

industry’s series 6000 plate price increases in interim 2004 were part of a general increase in prices for

flat-rolled aluminum products as demand rose sharply.241 As noted above, we find no evidence that

exporters were reducing shipments in response to the petition.

In sum, although the record indicates significant underselling by subject imports during the

period of investigation, subject imports have not depressed or suppressed domestic prices to a significant

degree. Accordingly, we find that subject imports have not had significant adverse effects on domestic

prices during the period of investigation.

D. Impact

In examining the impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, we consider all relevant

economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.242 These factors include

output, sales, inventories, capacity utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, profits,

cash flow, return on investment, ability to raise capital, and research and development. 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.”243 244

By most measures the domestic industry’s performance was strong and improving during the

period of investigation, including output, sales, capacity utilization, market share, productivity, and

various employment indicators despite falling demand during most of the period of investigation. Unit

sales values and profits posed important exceptions to these trends through 2003, but these measures

improved substantially during interim 2004 compared to interim 2003.245 We attribute the industry’s

performance on these two measures to falling prices for the domestic like product, a circumstance we do

not attribute in significant part to subject imports.

 Domestic production increased 56.1 percent between 2001 and 2003 (from 26,372 short tons to

41,177 short tons), and was 108.2 percent higher during interim 2004 than during interim 2003 (39,629

short tons as compared to 19,038 short tons).246 Despite increases in production capacity between 2001

and 2003, and higher production capacity in interim 2004 compared to interim 2003, capacity utilization

rates increased from 50.6 percent in 2001 to 72.8 percent in 2003, and were 105.6 percent in interim 2004

compared to 62.3 percent in interim 2003.247

The domestic industry’s U.S. shipment volumes increased 67.4 percent between 2001 and 2003

(from 23,356 short tons to 39,092 short tons) and the domestic industry shipped 32,567 short tons in the

first half of 2004 as compared to 18,011 short tons in the same period in 2003, an increase of 80.8
 248 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 249 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 250 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 251 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 252 From 2001 to 2003, hours worked, hourly wages, and wages paid increased by 25.2 percent, 29.2 percent, and

61.7 percent, respectively. Similarly, comparing interim 2004 to interim 2003, hours worked, hourly wages, and

wages paid increased by 49.5 percent, 15.6 percent, and 72.8 percent, respectively. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 253 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 254 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 255 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 256 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 257 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 258 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 259 The domestic industry’s return on investment was 6.0 percent in 2001, negative 2.0 percent in 2002, negative

4.3 percent in 2003, negative 2.1 percent in interim 2003, and positive 3.4 percent in interim 2004. CR/PR at Table

VI-5.

 260 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

29

percent.248 The value of the domestic industry’s net U.S. shipments increased 35.1 percent from 2001 to

2003, and was 96.8 percent higher in interim 2004 than in interim 2003.249 On a unit-value basis,

however, values decreased 19.3 percent between 2001 and 2003, but increased 8.8 percent in interim

2004 as compared to interim 2003.250 Domestic inventories as a share of total sales fell from 29.9 percent

in 2001 to 4.7 percent in 2003, but were 10.0 percent in interim 2004 as compared to 6.1 percent in

interim 2003.251 

Employment indicators showed gains throughout the period of investigation, with the number of

production workers, hours, hourly wages, and wages paid all increasing. The number of production

workers increased from 148 in 2001 to 212 in 2003, and was 163 in interim 2003 as compared to 242 in

interim 2004. Hours worked, hourly wages, and wages paid were each higher in 2003 than in 2001, and

higher in interim 2004 than in interim 2003.252 Productivity increased by 24.8 percent from 2001 to 2003,

and was 39.2 percent higher in interim 2004 than in interim 2003.253

The industry’s financial performance generally fell from a positive position in 2001 to a negative

posture in 2002 and 2003. During interim 2004, however, the domestic industry’s financial performance

returned to positive results. Operating income was $7.5 million in 2001 but turned to operating losses of

$3.5 million in 2002 and $8.3 million in 2003. In interim 2004, however, the domestic industry generated

operating income of $4.4 million compared to operating losses of $3.8 million in interim 2003.254

Operating income on a per-unit basis followed the same trend, falling from a positive $302 per short ton

in 2001 to operating losses of $102 per short ton in 2002 and losses of $194 per short ton in 2003.255 In

interim 2004, operating income was $126 per short ton compared to operating losses of $192 per short ton

in interim 2003.256 Similarly, operating margins decreased from positive 7.9 percent in 2001 to negative

3.1 percent in 2002, and negative 6.3 percent in 2003.257 The domestic industry’s operating income in

interim 2004 was a positive 3.7 percent of net sales compared to negative 6.2 percent in interim 2003.258

The domestic industry’s return on investment followed a similar pattern.259 

Of three domestic producers of series 6000 plate, operating losses during the period of

investigation were reported by *** companies in 2001, *** in 2002, *** in 2003, and *** in interim

2004.260 Both capital expenditures and research and development expenses increased between 2001 and
 261 CR/PR at Table VI-4.

 262 CR/PR at Table VI-4.

 263 The Act directs the Commission to focus on the domestic industry “as a whole,” not on individual firms in the

industry. See, e.g., Timken Co. v. United States, — F. Supp. 2d—, Slip Op. 04-17 (February 25, 2004) at 13 n. 2

(“The purpose of the antidumping statute . . . is to protect United States industries not specific corporations from

unfair behavior by foreign competitors.”); Calabrian Corp. v. United States, 794 F. Supp. 377, 385-86 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1992) ( “This Court has repeatedly affirmed . . . .that ‘Congress intended the ITC determine whether or not the

domestic industry (as a whole) has experienced material injury due to the imports. This language defies the

suggestion that the ITC must make a disaggregated analysis of material injury.’” quoting Copperweld Corp. v.

United States, 682 F. Supp. 552, 569 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988) (other citations omitted)). Cf. Altx Inc. v. United States,

Slip Op. 02-65 at 17 (Ct. Int’l Trade July 12, 2002) (“[T]he statutory directive to analyze the industry "as a whole"

compels an evaluation of all material factors raised by the parties that would render a more accurate reading of the

health of the industry.”).

 264 As noted earlier, we do not find persuasive Alcoa’s argument that the increase in demand toward the end of the

period was transitory and due to certain one-time events.

 265 CR/PR at Tables IV-5 and VI-2.

 266 CR/PR at Tables IV-5, V-1 to V-4, and VI-2.

 267 While we consider the industry as a whole, we note that the industry’s losses are due primarily to ***, which

had sharply higher “Other factory costs,” attributable to accrued pension and other post-employment benefit costs,

than did the other producers. CR at Table VI-2, VI-5 n.10; PR at Table VI-2, VI-2 n.10. 

 268 We reject the domestic industry’s request to place less weight on post-petition data. We do not find that the

pendency of the investigation has affected the domestic industry’s performance given our other findings that the

filing of the petition did not have significant effects on the volume of subject imports or prices for the domestic

product.

 269 We do not attribute Kaiser’s entry into bankruptcy to subject imports in significant part. As noted, we do not

find that subject imports depressed prices for series 6000 plate to a significant degree, and any lost sales volumes

experienced by Kaiser as a result of competition with subject imports appear minimal at most. Public statements by

(continued...)

30

2003, but were highest in 2002.261 Capital expenditures were lower in interim 2004 than in interim 2003,

but the reverse was true of research and development expenditures.262

Taken as a whole,263 the domestic industry performed well by measures of output, net sales,

capacity, capacity utilization, market share, productivity, and employment indicators throughout the

period of investigation. The domestic industry’s unit sales values and profits declined from a positive

performance in 2001 to lower values and losses in 2002 and 2003, before experiencing higher values and

positive operating income in interim 2004 compared to interim 2003. The domestic industry’s

profitability trend line generally followed that of prices, which declined over the period of investigation

until recovering sharply in 2004. Lower demand and increasing domestic supply drove prices down from

2001 through 2003, as described above. As demand strengthened at the end of 2003 and into 2004,264

prices and profits rose markedly. 

Subject imports have not had a demonstrable adverse impact on the domestic industry. As we

noted earlier, the one-year (2001 to 2002) increase in subject imports was at the expense of nonsubject

imports, not the domestic industry, and it did not contribute in a significant manner to the domestic

industry’s sharply poorer financial performance over the same years (falling from a positive operating

margin of 7.9 percent to an operating loss of 3.1 percent from 2001 to 2002).265 Similarly, in 2003, the

subject imports decreased both in absolute volume and market share, and generally undersold the

domestic like product by smaller margins than during the previous years, yet the domestic industry’s

financial performance only worsened (to an operating loss of 6.3 percent).266 267 Subject imports

continued to undersell the domestic product in interim 2004, yet the domestic industry increased prices

and recovered to a substantial degree.268 269
 269 (...continued)

Kaiser attribute its entry into bankruptcy to causes other than subject imports. CR/PR at Table III-1 n.2. Products

other than series 6000 plate made up the majority of Kaiser’s sales. CR/PR at VI-1 n.6, Kaiser Form 10-K for 2003

at 7-12 (Trentwood facility one of various operated by Kaiser)).

 270 19 U.S.C. § 1677d(b) and 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 271 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii). An affirmative threat determination must be based upon “positive evidence

tending to show an intention to increase the levels of importation.” Metallverken Nederland B.V. v. United States,

744 F. Supp. 281, 287 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), citing American Spring Wire Corp. v. United States, 590 F. Supp.

1273, 1280 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1984); see also Calabrian Corp. v. United States, 794 F. Supp. 377, 387-88 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1992), citing H.R. Rep. No. 98-1156 at 174 (1984).

 272 CR/PR at Figure IV-1.

 273 Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 4 and at Exh. 4.

 274 CR/PR at Table VII-1.

 275 CR/PR at Table VII-1. Hulett projects capacity utilization rates of *** percent and *** percent in 2004 and

2005, respectively. Id. 

 276 CR at II-4, VII-4 to VII-5; PR at II-3, VII-3.

31

In light of our finding that subject imports have not suppressed or depressed prices to a

significant degree, the lack of correlation between subject imports and any financial performance declines

experienced by the domestic industry, and the overall positive condition of the domestic industry at the

end of the period of investigation, we do not find that subject imports have had a significant adverse

impact on the domestic industry.

V. NO THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS

Section 771(7)(F) of the Act directs the Commission to determine whether an industry in the

United States 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.”270 The Commission may

not make such a determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition,” and considers the threat

factors “as a whole.”271 In making our threat determination, we have considered all factors that are

relevant to this investigation. 

We find that the increase in volume and market share of subject imports does not indicate a

likelihood of substantially increased subject imports. Subject import volume increased in absolute terms

and in market share from 2001 to 2002, but fell from 2002 to 2003, and were lower still in interim 2004

compared to interim 2003. Importers’ order-book sales declined slightly from the end of the last quarter

of 2003 to the end of the second quarter of 2004, whereas order-book sales for the domestic industry

increased by a factor of 3 or more over the same period.272 Hulett’s business plan, prepared and adopted

prior to the filing of the petition, called for reduced reliance on the North American market and increased

shipments to third-country markets.273 The share of Hulett’s total shipments directed to the U.S. market

fell slightly from 2002 to 2003, and was lower in interim 2004 than in interim 2003.274 

Nor does the record support a conclusion that unused production capacity or any imminent

increases in production capacity in South Africa will lead to substantially increased imports in the

imminent future. Hulett operated at a high capacity utilization rate in 2003 (*** percent) and in interim

2004 (*** percent), and thus lacks significant unused capacity.275 Hulett’s ability to increase capacity is

constrained by its heat-solution furnace capacity, which it has no plans to increase, and which would

require 30 months or longer to implement.276 Nothing in the record indicates the potential for product

shifting, given that Hulett’s capacity to produce series 6000 plate is limited by its heat treatment solution
 277 CR/PR at Table VII-1.

 278 CR/PR at Table VII-2.

 279 Figure derived from CR/PR at Tables VII-2, C-1.

 280 Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 2 (e.g., Oct. 2004 issue at 4).

 281 Industry publications report higher orders, higher prices, tightening supplies, and longer lead times beginning

in 2004. Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 2. Purchasers reported being placed on allocation, receiving

smaller quantities than requested, or having orders decline in 2004. Purchaser questionnaire responses at question

III-23. Prices rose in 2004. CR/PR at Tables V-1 to V-4, Figure V-3.

 282 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)(IX).

32

furnace. We are not aware of any antidumping duty findings or remedies against the subject South

African plate in other markets. 

Nor do we find that inventory levels indicate a likelihood of substantially increased imports in the

imminent future. Hulett’s ratios of inventories to production and to total shipments declined by more than

*** between 2001 and 2003, and remained very low in the interim periods.277 The ratios of U.S.

importers’ inventories to imports and to U.S. shipments declined sharply between 2001 and 2003, and

were lower still in interim 2004 compared to interim 2003.278 The total inventory of subject merchandise

held by U.S. importers at the end of the second quarter of 2004 amounted to less than *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption during interim 2004.279

Given that subject imports did not cause significant negative price effects during the period of

investigation, we do not find it likely that subject imports will have significant adverse price effects in the

imminent future. As discussed above, although subject imports were consistently lower priced than the

domestic like product, there was no evidence that subject imports were depressing or suppressing U.S.

prices to any significant degree. Price declines from 2001 through 2003 are attributable to other causes,

and sharp price increases in 2004 were not suppressed by subject imports. While it was not practicable to

obtain questionnaire data for the third quarter of 2004, industry publications project strong prices for the

imminent future and U.S. producers have implemented price increases in third-quarter 2004.280 In short,

there is nothing in the record to indicate that price declines are imminent, or that the lack of a correlation

between the price of subject imports and domestic prices will change. Our finding that there is no

likelihood of substantially increased subject import volumes further supports our conclusion that subject

imports will continue not to have significant price effects in the imminent future.

In addition, the domestic industry is not vulnerable to material injury by reason of subject imports

from South Africa. As discussed above, the domestic industry performed well by most measures,

increasing capacity and production despite falling demand and prices from 2001 to 2003. The domestic

industry’s investment in additional capacity and its increased market share place it in a favorable position

to benefit from higher demand and prices which materialized late in the period of investigation and appear

likely to continue for the imminent future. In 2004, as demand rose sharply, prices increased

dramatically, supply shortages were reported, and the tight market conditions were forecast to continue

into 2005.281 Although the domestic industry experienced negative financial returns through 2003, it has

returned to profitability in interim 2004 based on conditions that appear likely to continue in the imminent

future. 

We do not find that subject imports are likely to have an actual or potential negative effect on the

domestic industry's existing development and production efforts. Finally, we find no evidence of any

other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate a probability that the subject imports will materially injure

the domestic industry.282 On the contrary, the health of the industry before us supports our finding that it

is not threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports. 

Given the lack of likely volume or price effects and the domestic industry’s generally positive 

condition, and based upon our consideration of all of the relevant statutory factors, we do not find that

material injury by reason of subject imports from South Africa is imminent in the absence of an
33

antidumping duty order. Accordingly, we find that the domestic industry producing series 6000 plate is

not threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from South Africa.

CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, we determine that an industry in the United States is not materially

injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of series 6000 plate from South Africa that

are sold in the United States at less than fair value.

 283 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b).

 284 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)(i). The Commission may also “consider such other economic factors as are relevant to

the determination” but shall “identify each [such] factor . . . [a]nd explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)(ii); see also Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

 285 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 286 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 287 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

35

DISSENTING VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN STEPHEN KOPLAN AND 

COMMISSIONER CHARLOTTE R. LANE

Based on the record developed in this investigation, Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane

determine, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b))(the Act), that an

industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of certain aluminum plate from

South Africa that have been found by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in the United

States at less than fair value (LTFV). We concur with the majority’s findings with respect to domestic

like product, domestic industry and conditions of competition, except as noted herein; however, we write

separately to provide our analysis of the statutory factors regarding material injury.

I. MATERIAL INJURY ANALYSIS

A. General Legal Standards

In the final phase of antidumping investigations, the Commission determines whether an industry

in the United States is materially injured by reason of the imports under investigation.283 In making its

determination, the Commission must consider the volume of 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.284 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not

inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”285 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.286 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.”287

For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the domestic certain aluminum plate industry

is materially injured by reason of less than fair value imports from South Africa.

B. Conditions of Competition

One significant condition of competition over the period of review is that a domestic producer,

McCook Metals, ceased production of the subject product during the period of investigation. The

Commission was unable to obtain data directly from McCook. The Petitioner, Alcoa, has provided data

concerning sales of the subject product by McCook over the period of investigation. While these data are

not directly comparable to questionnaire data provided to the Commission by importers and surviving

domestic producers, the impact of McCook’s exit from the industry should not be overlooked. To some

extent, particularly with regard to apparent domestic consumption, employment, domestic industry market

share and subject import market share, the survivor bias attributable to McCook’s departure from this

industry has distorted the observed trends in the industry. 

Domestic producers and importers generally reported that demand for the subject product had

declined since 2001, although two importers and two domestic producers reported that demand has
 288 Confidential Staff Report (“CR”) at II-5, Public Staff Report (“PR”) at II-3. 

 289 Even if the demand at a given price for certain aluminum plate in the U.S. market remains the same or

decreases, the apparent consumption (quantity demanded) of certain aluminum plate may increase due to an increase

in the supply of certain aluminum plate from domestic or foreign sources to the U.S. market. CR at II-5, n. 11, PR at

II-3, n. 11.

 290 Staff calculation from ***, CR at II-7, PR at II-4. 

 291 CR at II-4, PR at II-3.

 292 Calculated from data in CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 293 In 2003, plate up to 2 inches in thickness accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. shipments of

subject imports from South Africa and *** percent of U.S. shipments by domestic producers. CR/PR at Table I-3. 

 294 CR at II-17, PR at II-13.

 295 CR at V-6, n. 17, PR at V-5, n. 17.

 296 CR at V-15, PR at V-7.

36

increased during 2004.288 289 Data presented by Petitioners indicate that orders (in constant dollars) in a

majority of end use industries declined from 2001 to 2003.290 Yet reported U.S. shipments by responding

importers and surviving domestic producers increased dramatically over the same period. Some of the

increased shipments may be due to declining prices for 6000 series aluminum plate. However, demand

for the subject aluminum plate is likely relatively unresponsive to changes in price.291 It would be

unreasonable to conclude that U.S. consumption of certain aluminum plate increased by 39.7 percent

from 2001 to 2003, in response to a decline in average unit value of 14.7 percent, over a period in which

domestic producers and importers reported declining demand.292 Rather, apparent U.S. consumption

presented in the Staff Report Table C-1 (calculated by summing up U.S. shipments reported by

responding importers and surviving domestic producers) is understated in 2001 because of the closure of

McCook Metals. Furthermore, the observed increases in shipment volume and market share reported by

the surviving domestic producers, and presented in Staff Report Table C-1, are overstated due to the

omission of McCook’s data from Table C-1. 

Subject imports are highly substitutable for the domestic product. As discussed in the majority

opinion, almost all 6000 series aluminum plate is of a single alloy, 6061. Sales of subject product from

South Africa, like sales of the domestic product, are predominately to distributors rather than to end users. 

There is no indication in the record that sales of subject product from South Africa are to different types

of end use customers than product from domestic producers. Subject imports from South Africa are

predominantly available only up to two inches in thickness. This size range accounts for approximately

*** of sales by domestic producers.293 

Petitioner alleged that certain aluminum plate from Russia, the major nonsubject source, is not

comparable to the domestic product in quality. Respondents asserted that nonsubject imports from Russia

are of adequate quality, but are inferior in reliability of delivery.294 The fact that subject product from

South Africa is more substitutable for the domestic like product than are nonsubject imports is supported

by the observed correlations between the prices for subject imports and domestic products (0.91 to 0.95

for the four pricing products for which data were collected),295 and between prices for domestic products

and the average unit value of certain aluminum plate imported from Russia (0.66 to 0.79).296 

Four factors were reported by all responding purchasers to be very important in making

purchasing decisions. These are delivery time, product consistency, quality meeting industry standards,

and reliability of supply. A majority of responding purchasers ranked subject product from South Africa

comparable to the domestic product in product consistency and quality meeting industry standards. While

a majority rated domestic product superior in delivery time and reliability of supply, some purchasers

ranked the subject product from South Africa as comparable (in one case superior) to domestic product. 

In contrast, all responding purchasers ranked nonsubject product inferior in all four of these factors. 
 297 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i). 

 298 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 299 Id.

 300 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 301 CR/PR at Table III-3.

 302 Petitioner supplied data on sales of certain aluminum plate by McCook Metals. As McCook’s sales data were

not separated into domestic and export sales, U.S. shipments may be overstated. However, export shipments

accounted for a small share of sales by other responding domestic producers. If these sales data are used as a proxy

for U.S. sales in the same year, then calculated shipments by domestic producers increased *** percent between

2001 and 2003, and market share held by domestic producers increased from *** percent to *** percent. Over the

same period of time, market share held by subject imports from South Africa increased from *** percent to ***

percent. See CR/PR at Table C-9. 

 303 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

37

We therefore conclude that subject imports from South Africa are more highly substitutable for

the domestic like product than are imports from nonsubject sources. One additional indication that

subject imports from South Africa are more substitutable for the domestic product than nonsubject

imports is the fact that from 2001 to 2003, subject imports successfully displaced nonsubject imports in

the U.S. market.

C. Volume of Subject Imports

With respect to the volume of the subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(I) of the Act provides that

the “Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that

volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the Untied States, is

significant.”297

Subject imports from South Africa increased *** percent by quantity from 2001 to 2003, during a

period in which a majority of responding producers and importers reported declining demand.298 Over the

same period of time, nonsubject imports declined *** percent by quantity.299 As domestic producer

McCook ceased production and nonsubject imports declined, subject imports from South Africa captured

an increasing share of the U.S. market.300 The surviving domestic producers reported increases in U.S.

shipments from 2001 to 2003 of 67.4 percent, but as previously discussed, much of this increase replaced

idled domestic production at McCook Metals.301 If shipments by McCook are taken into account,

increases in the volume of shipments and market share held by domestic producers is much smaller and

the rate of increase of subject import market share is much larger.302 In contrast, over a period in which

overall demand was generally perceived to be declining, subject imports increased shipment quantity and

market share. 

The above data are evidence that the volume of subject imports, both in absolute and relative

terms, was significant over the period of review. 

D. Price Effects of Subject Imports

With respect to the price effects of the subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Act provides

that, in evaluating the price effects of the subject imports, the Commission shall consider whether - 

(I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with

the price of domestic like products of the United States, and

(II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant degree or

prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.303
 304 Subject imports from South Africa undersold the comparable domestic product in 56 out of 56 periods for

which comparisons were possible. CR/PR at Tables V-1-V-4. 

 305 CR/PR at Tables V-1-V-4.

 306 CR/PR appendix E. 

 307 CR/PR at Tables E-1-E-8.

 308 CR at II-2, n. 3, PR at II-1, n. 3.

 309 Hulett Aluminum Ltd. Prehearing Brief, Exhibit 1, Figure 6.

 310 CR/PR at Figure V-7.

38

Shipments of subject imports and market share increased because of their lower price for a

competitive product. Aggregated sales (sales under contract plus spot sales) of the subject product from

South Africa undersold the comparable domestic product in every period for which comparisons were

possible.304 Respondents asserted that subject product from South Africa was priced 3 percent to 5

percent below the price of a comparable domestic product, because of the longer lead time from South

Africa. However, all but two of the observed margins were greater than 5 percent, and most were more

than 10 percent.305 

Respondents urged the Commission not to compare sales under contract to sales in the spot

market. However, the overwhelming majority of sales by both domestic producers and importers of the

subject product from South Africa are sold to distributors. Most sales by domestic producers are sales in

the spot market, and most sales by importers of the subject product from South Africa are under shortterm contract. Further, *** unable to separate sales under contract from sales in the spot market. 

Therefore, for this comparison, sales by *** in each quarter were allocated between spot sales and

contract sales according to the overall annual sales volume in each type of transaction. The result in

many cases is that price comparisons are calculated on a relatively small volume of sales. Domestic sales

quantity under contract is estimated to be as low as *** tons in one comparison, and the quantity of

subject imports from South Africa under spot sales is as low as *** tons in another comparison. Volumes

this low may not be representative of the overall market for a product.306

Even if the analysis is performed separately for sales under contract and sales in the spot market, subject

imports from South Africa undersold the comparable domestic product in the vast majority of

comparisons, and the instances in which subject imports were priced higher than domestic products in one

channel of distribution are predominantly after the filing of this case.307 

Certain aluminum plate is largely a standardized product. The vast majority is of a single alloy,

6061. For this reason the subject product is predominantly sold to distributors rather than to end users,

unlike other heat-treatable aluminum alloy plate.308 Because the subject product

from South Africa is perceived as more substitutable for the domestic product than is nonsubject product,

sales of subject product from South Africa have a larger impact on prices for the domestic product than

would sales of less-substitutable nonsubject product. 

Respondents have argued that the similarity between price trends for subject aluminum plate and

nonsubject aluminum sheet are evidence that factors other than subject imports are responsible for

changes in these prices. Respondents presented a chart depicting the average unit value of 6061

aluminum plate and 6061 aluminum coil (nonsubject sheet).309 Although there is some similarity in the

trends, the average unit value of plate declines relative to the average unit value of sheet from the first

quarter of 2001 through the third quarter of 2003, indicating that some other factor not common to the

6000 series aluminum sheet market depressed U.S. market prices for 6000 series aluminum plate over this

time period. Similarly, Commission staff presented indices of weighted-average prices of domestic prices

for specific subject plate products and for the average unit value of 6061 aluminum coil.310 Relative

prices for these specific products also declined relative to the average unit value for 6061 aluminum coil. 

Prices for these products in interim 2004 were still below the price levels observed in the first quarter of
 311 The statute instructs the Commission to consider the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” in an antidumping

proceeding as part of its consideration of the impact of subject imports. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii)(V). In its

final affirmative determination, Commerce determined dumping margins as 3.51 percent for Hulett and 3.51 percent

for “All others.” 69 Fed. Reg. At 60611. 

 312 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 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.” Id. at 885).

 313 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Invs. Nos. 701-

TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 at 25 n. 148 (Feb. 1999).

 314 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 315 Id.

39

2001, even though the average unit value of 6061 aluminum coil was above the level observed in the first

quarter of 2001, and plate and sheet are produced from the same raw materials. 

Because of the nature of purchases in the industry, and the lack of written records, Commission

staff were unable to confirm many of the lost sales and lost revenues allegations. However, a number of

the allegations were confirmed, and in other instances, purchasers agreed with the general circumstances

alleged, but were unable to confirm the exact price and quantity. 

In sum, the record indicates that prior to the filing of this case, subject imports from South Africa

undersold the comparable domestic product in every period for which comparisons could be made, at

margins that cannot be explained away by longer lead time. Because the subject product is highly

substitutable for the domestic product, this had the effect of depressing prices for the domestic like

product. Accordingly, we find that subject imports have had significant adverse effects on domestic

prices during the period of review. 

E. Impact of Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry311

In examining the impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, we considered all

relevant economic factors that bore on the state of the industry in the United States.312 These factors

included output, sales, inventories, capacity utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity,

profits, cash flow, return on investment, ability to raise capital, and research and development. No single

factor was dispositive and all relevant factors were considered “within the context of the business cycle

and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”313

We find that subject imports have had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry’s

performance. As noted, during a period of relatively flat overall demand, subject imports depressed

prices in the U.S. market. During the period of review, one of four domestic producers ceased production

and another entered bankruptcy. Of the three surviving domestic producers, none reported operating

losses in 2001, *** reported operating losses in 2002, and *** reported operating losses in 2003. As a

whole, the three surviving domestic producers went from operating profits of 7.9 percent in 2001 to

operating losses of 6.3 percent in 2003.314

Demand for certain aluminum plate has increased in 2004. As a result of this increase in demand,

as well as a decline in the volume and increase in the price of subject imports from South Africa, the

financial performance of the domestic producers has improved. In interim 2004, *** domestic producer

reported operating losses, and the industry as a whole earned operating income of 3.7 percent.315

Although this is an improvement over interim 2003 as well as an improvement over operating income

ratios for 2002 and 2003, it is still less than half of the 2001 level. Also, while some of this improvement

can be attributed to increased demand, the improvement is at least partly due to the decline in the volume

of subject imports. We attribute the decline in volume and increase in sales prices of subject imports from

South Africa since the
 316 CR/PR at Table VI-5.

 317 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 318 CR/PR at Table VI-5.

 319 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 320 CR/PR at Table VI-5. 

 321 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

40

fourth quarter of 2003, as being largely due to the pendency of this case. 

Financial indicators of the domestic industry’s performance declined over the period of review. 

Operating income for the domestic industry fell from $7.5 million in 2001 to a loss of $8.3 million in

2003.316 Unit operating income per short ton also declined, going from $302 in 2001 to negative $194 in

2003.317 Return on investment declined from 6 percent in 2001 to negative 4.3 percent in 2003.318 

Similar to the improvement in interim 2004 as measured by operating income ratio to sales, unit

operating income in interim 2004 improved slightly to $126 per short ton, representing only 42 percent of

the 2001 level of $302 per short ton.319 Furthermore, the 2004 improvement in return on investment to

3.4 percent is far below the 2001 level of 6.0 percent.320 Average unit values per short ton of U.S. sales in

interim 2004 are barely above the 2002 price levels and are still $440 per ton below the 2001 price

levels.321 These 2004 improvements, which occurred in an improving economy, are still low, and are

attributable to pricing pressure from subject imports. We also attribute the improvement of these

financial indicators since the fourth quarter of 2003, as being at least partly due to the pendency of this

case and the decrease in subject import shipments.

Prices for certain aluminum plate have been depressed by imports of the subject product from

South Africa that were sold in the U.S. market at LTFV. Prices for specific plate products for which the

Commission collected pricing information remain below levels observed in the beginning of the period,

even though average unit values for nonsubject coil have rebounded to levels above that observed in the

first quarter of 2001. 

In sum, the industry’s financial performance has deteriorated significantly as prices have been

depressed by subject imports. Therefore, we find that the domestic industry producing certain aluminum

plate is materially injured by reason of subject imports from South Africa.
 1

 A complete description of the imported product subject to this investigation is presented in The Subject Product

section located in Part I of this report. 

 2 Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation since the Commission’s preliminary determination are presented

in app. A.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

This investigation results from a petition filed on October 16, 2003, by Alcoa, Inc. (“Alcoa”),

Pittsburgh, PA, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with

further material injury by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of certain aluminum plate1

from South Africa. Information relating to the background of this investigation is provided below.2

Effective date Action Federal Register citation

October 16, 2003 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission;

Commission institutes investigation

68 FR 61012; October 24,

2003

November 12, 2003 Initiation of investigation by Commerce 68 FR 64081; November 12,

2003

December 1, 2003 Commission’s preliminary determination 69 FR 53734; September 2,

2004

May 21, 2004 Commerce’s preliminary determination 69 FR 29262; May 21, 2004

May 21, 2004 Scheduling of final phase of Commission’s investigation 69 FR 33401; June 15, 2004

October 5, 2004 Commission’s hearing1 NA

October 12, 2004 Commerce’s final determination 69 FR 60610

November 5, 2004 Commission’s vote NA

November 18, 2004 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce NA

1 App. B contains a list of witnesses who appeared at the hearing.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

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
I-2

 producers of domestic like products, but only in the context of production

operations within the United States; and. . . may consider such other economic

factors as are relevant to the determination regarding whether there is material

injury by reason of imports.

Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that--

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the

Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the

merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute

terms or relative to production or consumption in the United

States is significant.

. . .

In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on

prices, the Commission shall consider whether . . . (I) there has

been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise

as compared with the price of domestic like products of the

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

otherwise depresses prices to a significant degree or prevents

price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a

significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under

subparagraph (B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within

the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition

that are distinctive to the affected industry) all relevant

economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the

industry in the United States, including, but not limited to

. . . (I) actual and potential declines in output, sales, market

share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization

of capacity, (II) factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual

and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories,

employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and

investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects on the

existing development and production efforts of the domestic

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more

advanced version of the domestic like product, and (V) in [an

antidumping investigation], the magnitude of the margin of

dumping.

Information on the subject merchandise, alleged margins of dumping, and domestic like product

is presented in Part I. Information on conditions of competition and other relevant economic factors is

presented in Part II. Part III presents information on the condition of the U.S. industry, including data on

capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. The volume and pricing of imports of the

subject merchandise are presented in Parts IV and V, respectively. Part VI presents information on 

the financial experience of U.S. producers. Information obtained for use in the Commission’s

consideration of the question of threat of material injury is presented in Part VII.
 3 See Part III for information regarding the U.S. producers.

 4 See Part VII for information regarding Hulett’s South African operations.

 5 See Part IV for information regarding the U.S. importers.

 6

 Also presented in appendix C (table C-9) are data concerning the U.S. market for certain aluminum plate to

include the year 2000 and incorporate available information regarding an extinct U.S. producer (see Part III for a

discussion of McCook Metals).

 7 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Aluminum Plate from South Africa, 69

FR 60610, October 12, 2004. Commerce's period of investigation was October 1, 2002, through September 30,

2003. Id, 60611. Because Hulett did not have sufficient home market sales, Commerce determined that the third

country market of Taiwan was viable and used third country sales as a basis for normal value for Hulett. Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Aluminum Plate from South Africa, 69 FR

29264, May 21, 2004.

I-3

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

Trade in the U.S. market for certain aluminum plate totaled more than $177 million during 2003. 

The domestic industry producing certain aluminum plate accounted for more than two thirds of U.S.

apparent consumption during the period of investigation (January 2001-June 2004), and consisted of three

U.S. producers: Alcoa, Inc. (“Alcoa”); Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. (“Kaiser”); and Pechiney

Rolled Products, LLC (“Pechiney”).3

 Hulett Aluminum (Pty) Ltd. is the sole South African producer of

certain aluminum plate.4

 Empire Resources, Inc. (“Empire”) is *** U.S. importer of certain aluminum

plate from South Africa.5

SUMMARY DATA

A summary of data collected in this investigation for the U.S. market of certain aluminum plate

(6000 series) is presented in appendix C, table C-1. Tables C-2 and C-3 present data regarding the U.S.

market for non-heat treatable aluminum plate (series 1000, 3000, 4000, and 5000). Tables C-4 and C-5

present data regarding the U.S. market for combinations of certain aluminum plate and non-heat treatable

aluminum plate. Tables C-6 and C-7 present data regarding the U.S. market for heat treatable aluminum

plate (series 2000, 6000, and 7000), and table C-8 presents U.S. market data for all aluminum plate.6

Producer data are based on questionnaire responses of the three U.S. producers. U.S. import data were

compiled using data submitted in response to the Commission’s questionnaires by U.S. importers. 

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Certain aluminum plate has not been the subject of any prior antidumping or countervailing duty

investigations in the United States.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SALES AT LTFV

On October 12, 2004, the Commission received notification of Commerce’s final determination

that certain aluminum plate from South Africa is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at

LTFV. Commerce’s weighted-average dumping margin for Hulett and all other manufacturers/exporters

is 3.51 percent ad valorem.

7
 8

 69 FR 60610-60611.

 9

 The Aluminum Association, Inc. defines sheet and plate as follows: Where the rolling process is stopped

determines whether the final product will be plate (a quarter-inch thick or more), sheet (0.249 to 0.006 inch), or foil

(less than 0.006 inch). http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/The_Industry/-Sheet,_Plate/

-Sheet,_Plate.htm

 10 The normal trade relations tariff rate imposed on this product is 3.0 percent ad valorem. Imports under this

subheading that are products of South Africa are eligible to receive duty-free entry under the Generalized System of

Preferences (“GSP”).

 11 Certain Aluminum Plate From South Africa, Inv. No. 731-TA-1056 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3654,

December 2003, p. 17. 

 12 Id, p. 14. 

 13 During the preliminary phase investigation, respondents also argued that (a) there is no clear dividing line

between sheet and plate as evidenced by the fact that there is a 0.001 inch difference between the two products (i.e.,

0.249 inch sheet and 0.250 inch plate) and that the manufacturing process, the manufacturing equipment, and the

channels of distribution are identical except for the thickness of the product, and (b) all the heat-treatable alloys (i.e.,

series 2000, 6000, and 7000 aluminum plate) are appropriately included in the domestic like product as there is no

“clear dividing line” between series 2000, series 6000, and series 7000 aluminum plate, the mere presence of a

different alloying element does not create such a clear line, the petition lists “machined parts” and “tool and mold

applications” as end uses for all three series of aluminum plate, and at least 50 percent of aluminum plate is sold

through distributors and that many of those distributors sell 2000, 6000, and 7000 series aluminum plate. Certain

Aluminum Plate From South Africa, Inv. No. 731-TA-1056 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3654, December 2003, pp. I8 and I-10. The Commission declined to expand the domestic like product to include aluminum sheet or 2000 and

7000 series plate. Id, pp. 10 and 17.

I-4

THE SUBJECT PRODUCT

Commerce has defined the scope of this investigation as follows:8

6000 series aluminum alloy, flat surface, rolled plate, whether in coils or cut-to-length

plate forms, that is rectangular in cross section with or without rounded corners and with

thickness of not less than .250 inch (6.3 millimeters). 6000 series aluminum rolled plate

is defined by the Aluminum Association, Inc.9

 Excluded from the scope of this

investigation are extruded aluminum products and tread plate.

The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (“HTS”) under subheading 7606.12.30 (statistical reporting number 7606.12.3030).10

THE DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic products that are “like” the

subject imported product is based on a number of factors, including (1) physical characteristics and uses;

(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and 

producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and, where appropriate, (6) price. For purposes of its

preliminary determination, the Commission found a single domestic like product consisting of all

domestically produced 6000 series aluminum plate.11

The Commission stated that it intended to collect additional information and to revisit the issue as

to whether heat-treatable and non-heat treatable plate should be characterized as a continuum of products

without clear dividing lines.12 13 During the final phase of this investigation, respondents argued that the
 14 Respondents’ prehearing brief, like product appendix, pp. 8-26.

 15 Comments from questionnaire responses regarding the differences and similarities between non-heat treatable

aluminum plate (series 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000 and 7000), and certain aluminum plate (series 6000) in terms

of the Commission’s like product factors are presented in app. D. In commenting on the draft questionnaires,

respondents withdrew their request that the Commission collect data on heat-treatable aluminum plate of the 2000

and 7000 series. June 2, 2004, comments on draft questionnaires, p. 16. Respondents also indicated that they did

not dispute the Commission’s preliminary like product determination regarding heat-treatable alloys and “thus no

longer press the argument that 2000 series and 7000 series plate should be included in the domestic like product.” 

Respondents’ prehearing brief, like product appendix, pp. 18-19.

 16 For historical reasons, the domestic industry’s gauge line for distinguishing sheet from plate has been 0.250

inch. Although Alcoa’s sheet products of thickness ranging up to 0.249 inch, some may be available even up to

0.250 inch for certain alloys–e.g., its Bulk Transport Sheet of alloy 5454. Alcoa, Inc., “Bulk Transport Sheet–BTS,

Technical Data” found at http://www.alcoa.com/mill_products/catalog/pdf/bulktransportBTS.pdf. Alcoa officials

testified that "(t)heoretically you can buy sheet at .249 gauge. Realistically the market and what the consumers buy

breaks at about .190 gauge." Hearing transcript, pp. 155-156 (Wetherbee).

 17 “Sheet and Plate: Products and Applications,” The Aluminum Association, 2003, found at 

http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/The_Industry/-Sheet,_Plate/-Sheet,_Plate.htm, retrieved

November 7, 2003.

 18 This numbering system, adopted by the Aluminum Association in 1954, is the standard method for alloy

identifications.

 19 Rhea Berk, Howard Lax, William Prast, and Jack Scott, Aluminum: Profile of the Industry (New York: Metals

Week, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1982), pp. 64-65.

 20 The terms "heat-treatable" and "heat-treated" in common industry usage would be referring to the same group

of aluminum alloys - primarily the 2xxx, 6xxx and 7xxx series of wrought alloys and a comparable series of cast

alloys - and are similar but not synonymous. The terms are typically a short hand version of the terms "solution

heat-treatable" and "solution heat-treated". (These terms refer to an operation where the aluminum alloy product is

heated to ~900-1000 F so that the alloying elements (typically Cu, Zn or Mg2Si) go into solid solution in the

aluminum matrix and then are available for precipitation into the desired particle size and distribution to increase

strength, toughness, etc.) "Heat-treatable" would be the more generic term referring to the capability of the alloy to

(continued...)

I-5

domestic like product should include series 6000 aluminum sheet and series 5000 aluminum plate.14

Information regarding the Commission’s domestic like-product factors is set forth below.15

Physical Characteristics and Uses

The Aluminum Association has developed industry standards that define aluminum plate as flatsurfaced, rolled product, whether in coils or cut-to-length forms, that is rectangular in cross section, with

or without rounded corners, and with a thickness (gauge) not less than 0.250 inch (6.35 millimeters).16

Aluminum plate has numerous end uses, particularly heavy-duty ones in the aerospace, machinery, and

transportation markets. Aluminum plate forms the skins of jets and spacecraft fuel tanks. It is used for

storage tanks and containers in many industries, and because aluminum is actually stronger at cold

temperatures, it is especially useful in holding cryogenic materials. In addition, aluminum plate provides

structural sections for rail cars and large ships, and armor protection for military vehicles.17

Aluminum can be combined with other elements such as copper, manganese, silicon, magnesium,

and zinc to form alloys, and these additional elements impart varying mechanical, electrical, and thermal

properties. Aluminum alloys are categorized by a numbering system that broadly describes their

chemical composition.18 Each alloy is assigned a four-digit number. The first digit denotes the alloy

series or principal alloying metal. The second digit indicates modification of the original alloy or

impurity limits. The third and fourth digits identify the exact alloy composition in the series.19

Aluminum alloys are either heat-treatable or non-heat treatable, depending on their chemical

composition.20 Non-heat treatable plate can only be strengthened by strain (through cold-working)
 20 (...continued)

respond to the solutionizing treatment to improve the material's properties. The term "heat-treated" would refer to

the situation where the "solutionizing" treatment had already been performed. October 19, 2004, e-mail from ***.

 21 “Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys,” found at http://www.tpub.com/air/1-24.htm, retrieved November 7, 2003.

 22 A temper designation system, unique for aluminum alloys, was developed by the Aluminum Association. The

basic temper designations are single letters which follow the alloy designations and include: as fabricated “F”,

annealed “O”, strain-hardened “H” solution heat treated “W” and thermally treated to produce stable tempers other

than F, O, or H “T”. Rhea Berk, Howard Lax, William Prast, and Jack Scott, Aluminum: Profile of the Industry

(New York: Metals Week, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1982), p. 65.

 23 Due to required capital investment and higher production costs, the heat-treatment process adds to the final

price of heat-treated products.

 24 “Aluminum-Magnesium-Silicon (6000) Alloys,” Key to Metals, http://www.key-to-metals.com/Article74.htm,

retrieved November 14, 2003.

 25 Conference transcript, pp. 20, 21 (Wetherbee), and 30 (Venema); and hearing transcript, p. 23 (Wetherbee).

 26 Conference transcript, pp. 21, 27, and 105-106 (Wetherbee and Venema); and hearing transcript, p. 22

(Wetherbee). Alloy 6061 is known for its brazeability (i.e., ready acceptance of an applied coating). Additionally,

alloy 6061 is stronger than other 6000 series aluminum alloys, is workable, and has a high resistance to corrosion. 

Alloy 6061 is widely available, as it is sold in standard sizes through distributors.

 27 Hearing transcript, pp. 64, and 93-94 (Wetherbee).

 28 Hearing transcript, p. 193 (Kaplan).

 29 Petitioner’s posthearing brief, exhibit B-3.

I-6

applied to the plate, either by rolling or pulling. Heat-treatable alloys become significantly stronger when

subjected to further processing at elevated temperatures (annealing). For example, commercially pure

aluminum has a tensile strength of about 13,000 psi which can be doubled by rolling or other coldworking processes. However, some alloys become up to four times stronger than pure aluminum (within

the strength range of structural steel)21 through heat treatment. Heat-treatable aluminum alloys are

stronger than those that are non-heat treatable. Heat-treated alloys are further denoted by their

metallurgical condition or the sequence of basic treatments used to produce various tempers.22

The three heat-treatable series, 2000 series aluminum plate, 6000 series aluminum plate (the

subject product), and 7000 series aluminum plate, are the strongest of the aluminum alloys.23 These

alloys vary as to their major alloying elements and, in addition, the amount of other minor alloying

elements have substantial effects on the alloy’s properties, especially strength, corrosion resistance,

machinability, and response to heat treatment. The addition of minor alloying elements typically involves

a trade-off– one property may be improved at the expense of another. For example, the main alloying

elements of 6000 series aluminum plate are magnesium and silicon; the addition of other metals

such as copper or zinc improves the strength without substantial loss of corrosion resistance, and lead and

bismuth are sometimes added to improve machinability.24 The key characteristics and uses of the various

aluminum alloy series are shown in table I-1.

Plate of 6000 series alloys is regarded by the petitioner as a commodity-type product that all

suppliers provide in standard dimensions and specifications, largely through distributors.25 The principal

alloy in this series, accounting for the vast majority (or even 90 percent), of the 6000 series market, is the

6061 aluminum alloy.26 According to petitioner, there are approximately 20 different end-use segments for

aluminum plate of 6000 series alloys, including tooling plate, injection-mold plate, jigs and fixtures,

vacuum chambers for manufacturing semiconductors, and various tooling parts.27 Among the end uses

mentioned by respondents are pressure vessels and semiconductor manufacturing equipment.28

Petitioner provided estimates of the principal end uses for certain aluminum plate, which are presented

below:29
I-7

Table I-1

Aluminum alloys: Characteristics and uses

Alloying 

designation

Major alloying

elements

U.S. producer Key characteristics Key uses

Non-heat treatable:

1000 Pure (> 99

percent)

aluminum

Alcoa

Pechiney

• high corrosionresistance

• high thermal and

electrical conductivity

• excellent workability

and formability1

• chemical applications

• electrical applications

3000 Manganese Alcoa

Pechiney

• high corrosionresistance

• high formability

• readily welded, brazed,

and soldered

• medium strength 

• heat-transfer applications

• cooking utensils

• builder’s hardware

• chemical equipment

4000 Silicon Alcoa

Pechiney

• good flow

characteristics,

suitable for forgings

• medium-high strength

• low thermal expansion

• high wear resistance

• aircraft pistons

• brake cylinders

5000 Magnesium Alcoa

Alcan

• high corrosionresistance, even in salt

water

• good welding

characteristics

• very high toughness,

even at very low

temperatures

• moderate strength 

• marine applications

• buildings, bridges, and

other structures

• storage tanks, cryogenic

tanks, and pressure

vessels

• railroad rolling stock

Heat treatable:

2000 Copper Alcoa

Kaiser

Pechiney

• high strength,

especially at elevated

temperatures

• good welding

characteristics

• not corrosion-resistant

• heavy-vehicle applications

• airframe structures

6000 Magnesium and

silicon

Alcoa

Kaiser

Pechiney

• high corrosionresistance

• moderate strength

 good welding 

characteristics

• good formability

• tooling and molds 

• machined parts

• vehicle and marine frames

• railroad rolling stock

• semiconductormanufacturing equipment

components

7000 Zinc Alcoa

Kaiser

Pechiney

• highest-strength alloy

• high toughness

• not weldable

• moderate corrosionresistance

• airframe structures

• highly stressed parts

1 Workability is the relative ease to which an aluminum alloy can be shaped through mechanical operations (e.g., rolling,

extruding, forging, etc.). Formability is the relative ease to which an aluminum alloy can be shaped through plastic deformation

(e.g., bending).

Source: The Aluminum Association Inc., Aluminum Alloy, December 1998; United Aluminum Corp., “Glossary,” found at

http://www.unitedaluminum.com/ua/english/glossary.asp; Aluminum Welding Procedures, found at

http://www.weldingengineer.com; and Aluminum Standards and Data, 2003 edition (September 21, 2004), e-mail from ***.
 30 Petitioner's prehearing brief, p. 11. 

 31 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 8.

 32 Ninety-nine percent of metallic aluminum is derived from bauxite. Bauxite is first refined (processed) into

alumina (aluminum oxide) which is then shipped to smelters where the alumina is smelted into metallic aluminum

through an electrolytic process. Major bauxite-producing countries include Australia, Guinea, Brazil, and Jamaica. 

Alcoa and Kaiser are fully integrated with multinational operations from ore mining through plate production. 

“Aluminum and Bauxite,” Mineral Information Institute, found at http://www.mii.org/Minerals/photoal.html,

retrieved November 17, 2003, and “Mining and Primary Processing: Process Description,” Energy Solution Center,

found at http://www.energysolutionscenter.org/HeatTreat/MetalsAdvisor/aluminum/

mining_and_primary_processing/mining_and_primary_process_description.htm, retrieved November 17, 2003. 

Pechiney ***. October 25, 2004, e-mail from ***.

 33 According to petitioner, it is not uncommon to designate a furnace for a particular alloy type “because of the

additional costs associated with the flushing or because the filtration equipment and or degassing requirements are

different between the heat treatable and non-heat treatable alloys. The furnace brick reline is typically only made

when a failure occurs or, when the extent of the brick life has run out, which can be years.” September 17, 2004, 

e-mail from Lynn Kamarck, Hogan & Hartson.

 34 “Sheet and Plate: Products and Applications,” The Aluminum Association, 2003, found at 

http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/The_Industry/-Sheet,_Plate/-Sheet,_Plate.htm, retrieved

November 7, 2003.

I-8

* * * * * * *

Aluminum sheet form is typically handled and transported in coils, while aluminum plate is

typically handled and transported in flat (cut-to-length) form.30 Reported end uses for aluminum sheet are

automotive body panels, bumpers, brazing, stampings, boat sheet, cable wrap, beverage can stock, lamp

base stock, residential siding sheet, rigid container stock, truck and trailer sheet, Venetian blindsheet,

aerospace fuselage skins, stringers, and ribs.31

The Production Process

The production process begins with the melting of pure aluminum and/or aluminum scrap in

furnaces (which can be powered by natural gas or electricity).32 33 Alloying metals are added and the

molten aluminum is treated to remove impurities. The molten aluminum is then transferred to molds

where it solidifies into a rolling ingot (typically about 6 feet wide, 20 feet long, and more than 2 feet

thick). Oxide impurities that form on the surface of the rolling ingot, from its exposure to the atmosphere

during solidification, are mechanically removed by shaving off this outside skin in a process called

scalping, which results in a smooth, blemish-free surface. After scalping, the ingots are prepared for

further shaping by heating to temperatures as high as 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit in large furnaces called

soaking pits.

The hot ingot is then fed into a breakdown mill where it is rolled back and forth, reversing

between the rolls until the thickness has been reduced down to a few inches. When aluminum is passed

between rolls under pressure, it becomes thinner, and longer in the direction in which it is moving. This

simple process is the basis for producing aluminum’s most widely used forms: plate, sheet, and foil. 

Aluminum can be flat-rolled and re-rolled until it reaches the desired thickness or gauge. Where the

rolling process is stopped determines whether the final product will be plate (a quarter-inch thick or

more), sheet (0.006 to 0.249 inch), or foil (less than 0.006 inch).34

After hot rolling, certain aluminum alloys may be reheated (annealed) to soften the metal and

permit further reduction in thickness. The metal is heated at varying temperatures and cycle times

depending on the alloy and end use. Partial annealing is often used in the fabrication process to relieve

internal stresses that build up during rolling and also to achieve desired metallurgical properties. Coils

are brought to the cold mill after annealing (or in some cases directly from the hot line) for further rolling
 35 During the cold-rolling process, the gauge of aluminum products can be reduced significantly. For example,

cold-rolling can reduce lower-gauged plate (0.25 inch) to aluminum rolled products of 0.006 inch gauge or lower.

 36 According to the petitioners, there is a difference between the 6000 series in terms of the heat treatment that

plate and sheet receive before being sold to the customer. Ninety-nine percent of 6061 series plate is sold as heattreated finished product while “a lot more” of 6061 sheet is sold as “heat-treatable,” meaning the customer would

purchase the sheet (most likely in coils), bend it into shape, and then heat treat it. Conference transcript, p. 114

(Wetherbee).

 37 “Heat Treatable Aluminum Alloys,” Key to Metals, found at http://www.key-to-metals.com/

PrintArticle.asp?ID=39, retrieved November 13, 2003.

 38 Conference transcript, pp. 53-57 (Wetherbee).

 39 Id, pp. 58-59 (Wetherbee).

 40 Id, pp. 135-136 (Bradford).

 41 Id, pp. 29-30 and pp. 56-57 (Wetherbee). 

 42 Id, pp. 29-30 and pp. 57-58 (Wetherbee).

 43 Hearing transcript, p. 48 (Wetherbee).

 44 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 12. Respondents also noted that the scope does not even require the

product to pass through the solution heat treatment furnace because the scope covers “heat-treatable” aluminum plate

as opposed to “heat-treated.” Id, p. 11.

I-9

to even thinner gauges. The cold mill is primarily designed to produce light-gauge heat-treatable

products (sheet).35 After cold rolling, the aluminum sheet may be heat-treated, stretched to maximize

flatness and to relieve tension, stenciled, slit, or sheared to various widths, lengths, or shapes depending

on customer requirements.

The heat-treatment process used to increase the strength of heat-treatable (2000, 6000, and 7000

series) aluminum alloys occurs in three-steps: solution heat treatment, quenching, and age hardening.36

The first step, solution heat treatment at an elevated temperature, is designed to strengthen the alloy by

evenly dispersing the alloying elements throughout the plate. This is followed by a rapid quenching, usually

in water, which momentarily “freezes” the structure and for a short time, renders the alloy very workable. 

Finally, by heating the alloy for a controlled time period at slightly elevated temperatures, even further

strengthening is possible and properties of the alloy are stabilized–this is age hardening. With a proper

combination of solution heat treatment, quenching, and age hardening, the highest-strength aluminum alloys

can be obtained.37

Except for heat treatment, the production process for aluminum plate is basically the same for all alloy

series. Different alloy series technically can be produced on the same equipment, but processing and

temperature-control requirements differ among the various alloy series.38 Further, the soaking-pit furnace is

lined with ceramic materials that typically becomes contaminated by the alloying metals in the aluminum-alloy

rolling ingot.39 Respondents reported that there are set procedures undertaken to minimize process time to

switch between casting several different alloys.40 For heat-treatable alloys, different alloy series technically

can also be annealed in the same heat-treatment furnace, but metallurgical-treatment requirements differ

among alloy series.41 Due to these differences in processing-control requirements, along with economic

considerations, producers may dedicate certain production equipment for a specific alloy series.42 More

specifically, for 6000 series (heat-treatable) alloys versus 5000 series (non-heat treatable) alloys, roughly onehalf of the production process is different, according to the petitioner–i.e., the alloy additions, heat treating,

and aging steps.43

Respondents argued that all alloy series are produced using essentially the same manufacturing

equipment and workers and that all that is necessary to produce a heat-treatable series is to pass the

product through one additional furnace.44 Petitioner argued that non-heat-treatable aluminum plate

products are very different from heat-treatable products starting with the chemical composition of the
 45 Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 16-21. Petitioner also stated that the manufacturing controls on the

production of heat-treatable aluminum plate are much greater than those for non-heat-treatable aluminum plate. Id,

p. 24.

 46 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 7.

 47 Norandal USA Inc. and Ormet Aluminum Mill Products Corp. are exceptions, having the smelting capacity to

produce primary aluminum.

 48 Examples include Coastal Aluminum Rolling Mills, EKCO Products, Precision Coil Inc., and United

Aluminum.

 49 Respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 19-20.

 50 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 20.

 51 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 6.

I-10

alloy.45 Petitioner maintained that plate of non-heat-treatable aluminum alloys (i.e., 1000, 3000, and 5000

series aluminum plate) gains its strength through cold working and loses its strength through heat

treatment, whereas heat-treatable aluminum alloy products gain their strength through solution heattreatment or a combination of heat-treatment and cold-working.46

In addition to the domestic producers of subject aluminum plate that also produce aluminum

sheet, there are several smaller aluminum sheet producers in the United States who do not otherwise

produce aluminum plate. The smaller sheet producers with melting operations are generally nonintegrated firms that lack the capabilities to smelt primary aluminum from the alumina.47 Rather, they are

remelters that purchase aluminum scrap and primary aluminum ingots as the raw-material inputs to the

melting furnaces. The casting processes for the smelters and remelters are similar. Sheet producers

lacking melting operations are either re-rollers of purchased primary aluminum ingots or cold rollers of

hot-rolled sheet, and perform additional operations such as coating and slitting.48 A variety of U.S.

producers offer aluminum plate and sheet in a wide range of alloy compositions and gauges, as shown in

table I-2.

Interchangeability

 

U.S. producers and the principal importer of South African certain aluminum plate reported that

their products are “always” or “frequently” used interchangeably. During the preliminary phase of this

investigation, respondents cited examples of series 5000 plate interchangeability with series 6000

aluminum plate.49 Because the strength of heat-treatable aluminum plate is greater, petitioner argued that

the products have different end uses and interchangeability of the two products is uncommon.50

Reportedly, end-product design engineers determine the product performance requirements they desire

and specify the appropriate alloy/temper/product form and size of the aluminum plate to be used to meet

the desired performance criteria.51 Data relating to U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced and South African

certain aluminum plate during 2003 by thickness are presented in table I-3. 

Table I-3

Certain aluminum plate: U.S. shipments by thickness, 2003

* * * * * * *
 52 Hearing transcript, pp. 24 and 105 (Wetherbee).

 53 Respondent’s prehearing brief, p. 29.

I-11

Table I-2

Aluminum sheet: U.S. producers of aluminum sheet, by alloy series and gauge range

Producer and forms 6000 series 5000 series 2000 series 7000 series

Gauge range (inch)

Producers of both sheet and plate:

 Alcan Aluminum Corp. (1

)

 Alcoa Inc.

 Coils:

 Flat-sheets: 0.020 -0.249

0.007 - 0.040

0.125 - 0.250

0.010 - 0.126

0.006 - 0.249 0.006 - 0.249

 Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.

 Coils:

 Flat-sheets:

0.008 - 0.130

0.008 - 0.249 

0.008 - 0.130

0.008 - 0.249 

0.008 - 0.130

0.008 - 0.249 

 Pechiney Rolled Products (1

) (1) (1)

Producers of sheet, but not plate:

 Coastal Aluminum Rolling Mills 0.006 - 0.008 0.006 - 0.010

 Commonwealth Aluminum 0.008 - 0.250 0.008 - 0.250

 Ekco Products 0.006 - 0.030

 Erickson Metals Corp.--

 Coils and flat-sheets: 0.006 - 0.125 0.006 - 0.125

 Nichols Aluminum 0.008 - 0.100

 Ormet Aluminum Mill Products--

 Coils and flat-sheets: 0.006 - 0.125

 Precision Coil Inc.--

 Coils and flat-sheets: 0.006 - 0.165 0.006 - 0.165

 United Aluminum Corp. 0.006 - 0.160 0.006 - 0.160 0.006 - 0.160

 Vulcan Inc.--

 Coils and flat-sheets: 0.025 - 0.125

 Wise Alloys LLC 0.007 - 0.013

 1 Not available.

Note– Other domestic firms producing aluminum sheet, but of alloy series other than those above, include ALSCO

Metals Co., Jupiter Aluminum Corp., J.W. Aluminum Co., Norandal USA Inc., and Republic Foil (Gulf Aluminum

rolling Mill Co.). Further information was not readily available about ARCO Aluminum Inc., Logan Aluminum (jointventure between Alcan and ARCO), and RJR Packaging (RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.).

Source: Compiled from individual company Internet websites, and from staff telephone interviews with company

representatives.

Customer and Producer Perceptions

In the final phase of this investigation, petitioner testified that imports of 6000 series aluminum

alloy plate from South Africa are of good quality and competitive with the domestic product and it has 

reliable delivery.52 Respondents noted, however, that their lead time is longer than those of the

petitioner.53 5000 series plate is reportedly perceived as being a lower-strength, less-machinable grade,
 54 Appendix D, pp. 6 and 13. 

 55 Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 9.

 56 Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 23. For these reasons, petitioner stated that the two product types are

priced separately in the market. Heat-treated product, with its tighter manufacturing controls and additional heattreated processing step, is generally priced higher than non-heat-treated product. Id, p. 25.

 57 Petitioner's prehearing brief, p. 12. 

 58 According to the respondents, the dividing line between what must be cut with a plate saw and what can be cut

using shears or a cut-to-length line is not at 0.25 inch (the cutoff between sheet and plate), but at lower gauge; a

sheet of gauge 0.19 inch, for example, must be cut with a plate saw. Respondents’ posthearing brief, p. 2.

I-12

and primarily used for general fabrication or marine-grade type requirements.54 Non-heat treatable alloys

are called “soft or common” alloys and with the exception of series 5000, are seldom used for plate

applications because of their low strengths.55 Appendix D presents additional producer and purchaser

comments regarding perceptions of concerning various like product comparisons.

Channels of Distribution

Channels of distribution for U.S-produced and imported aluminum plate are shown in table I-4. 

Both U.S. producers and importers sold the vast majority of series 6000 aluminum plate to distributors

during the period of investigation. Petitioner maintained that because distributors tend to specialize on

distinct products and end-use markets, the distributors that purchase and sell non-heat treatable aluminum

plate are different from those that deal in heat-treatable aluminum plate.56 Petitioner argued that for sheet

products, distributors have equipment that slits or shears coils into sizes and shapes.57 The respondents

argued that sheet and plate did not require distributors to employ different processing equipment. 58 For

non-heat-treatable aluminum plate, U.S.-produced product was sold principally to end users.

Table I-4

Aluminum plate: Shares of shipments by channels of distribution, 2001-03, January-June 2003,

and January-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Price

Average unit values for heat-treatable and non-heat treatable aluminum plate and sheet are

presented in table I-5 and figure I-1. Generally, certain aluminum plate (series 6000) commanded a

premium price when compared to the non-heat-treatable products, ranging from 2 to 33 percent more in

average unit value during 2003, and was priced less than series 2000 and 7000 aluminum plate by a range

of 52 to 119 percent. Pricing practices and prices reported for certain aluminum plate in response to

Commission questionnaires are presented in Part V of this report.

Table I-5

Aluminum plate: U.S. shipments, 2003

* * * * * * *
I-13

Figure I-1

Aluminum plate: U.S. producers’ average unit values, by alloy series, 2001-03, January-June 2003,

and January-June 2004

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 1 See table I-1.

 2

 Conference transcript, p. 32 (Cooper).

 3

 Conference transcript, pp. 87-89 (Cooper). However, counsel for petitioner has also indicated that both

domestic producers and subject imports *** customer segments. Petitioner's prehearing brief, p. 15, fn. 32. In

particular, they indicate that *** and that the remaining ***. Petitioner's prehearing brief, pp. 19-20.

 4

 Petitioner indicated that U.S. producers have unused capacity with which to increase production in the event of

a price change in the near future, and that the high capacity utilization rate in interim 2004 reflects a unique bump in

demand coupled with supply restrictions which are unlikely to recur. Petitioner’s prehearing brief, p. 17. However,

respondents indicated that these bumps have no significance. Respondents' posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 17.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET SEGMENTS/CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

Both U.S. producers and importers sell certain aluminum plate mostly to distributors.1

 One U.S.

producer, Alcoa, reported selling over 95 percent of its certain aluminum plate (6000 series) to

distributors.2

 Alcoa also limits its sales to distributors who it feels are committed to the market and have

the equipment capable of servicing downstream customers to the level it feels is necessary to support the

market for certain aluminum plate.3

 While *** reporting U.S. producers reported selling certain

aluminum plate nationally, Empire, the principle importer of product from South Africa sells certain

aluminum plate to specific regions of the U.S. market: ***. All but one of the reporting importers ***

sell certain aluminum plate nationally.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

Domestic Production

Based on available information, U.S. certain aluminum plate producers are likely to respond to

changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced certain

aluminum plate to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to the moderate degree of

responsiveness of supply are the existence of alternate markets, the existence of some inventories, and

some ability to switch production between certain aluminum plate and other products moderated by a 

lack of availability of unused capacity. 

Industry capacity

U.S. producers’ reported capacity utilization for certain aluminum plate increased from 50.6 

percent to 72.9 percent between 2001 and 2003, and increased from 62.3 percent during January-June

2003 to 105.6 percent during January-June 2004. This level of capacity utilization would indicate that

U.S. producers do not have unused capacity with which they could increase production of certain

aluminum plate in the event of a price change.4

Alternative markets

U.S. producers’ exports of certain aluminum plate increased from *** percent of shipments in

2001 to *** percent of shipments in 2003 and fell from *** percent during January-June 2003 to ***

percent during January-June 2004. These data indicate that U.S. producers have some ability to divert

shipments to or from alternative markets in response to changes in the price of certain aluminum plate.
 5

 Conference transcript, pp. 78-79 (Venema), and 58 (Wetherbee) .

 6 See, e.g., conference transcript, pp. 164, 166 (Shor), and 171 (Bradford).

II-2

Inventory levels

 U.S. producers’ inventories as a percentage of total shipments declined from *** percent in 2001

to *** percent in 2003 and then increased from *** percent during January-June 2003 to *** percent

during January-June 2004. These data indicate that U.S. producers have some ability to use inventories as

a means of increasing shipments of certain aluminum plate to the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

 U.S. producers have some ability to switch production between certain aluminum plate and other

products. *** reported producing products other than certain aluminum plate on the same production

machinery and by the same production workers. Equipment used to produce series 2000 and 7000 plate

may be used to produce certain aluminum plate (series 6000). However, while the machinery used to roll

certain aluminum plate can be used to roll other aluminum plate products, equipment used for heat

treating certain aluminum plate would have to be upgraded and go through the product qualification

process before it could be used to heat treat other products, such as series 2000 and series 7000 aluminum

plate.5

 Also, the melting furnace used for certain aluminum plate cannot be used to melt aluminum plate

made from other aluminum alloys.

Subject Imports

Based on available information, the South African producer is likely to respond to changes in

demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of certain aluminum plate to the U.S. market. 

The main contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of supply are existence of

alternate markets and inventories moderated by the unavailability of unused capacity6

 and limited ability

to produce alternate products. 

Industry capacity

The South African producer’s reported capacity utilization for certain aluminum plate increased

from *** percent to *** percent between 2001 and 2003 and from *** percent to *** percent between

interim 2003 and interim 2004. This level of capacity utilization would indicate that the South African

producer has little unused capacity with which it could increase production of certain aluminum plate in

the event of a price change.

Alternative markets

 The South African producer’s shipments of certain aluminum plate to markets other than the

United States decreased from *** percent of shipments in 2001 to *** percent of shipments in 2003 and

increased from *** percent of shipments to *** percent of shipments between interim 2003 and interim

2004. These data indicate that the South African producer has the ability to divert shipments to or from

alternative markets in response to changes in the price of certain aluminum plate.
 7

 Acquisition of a new heat-treat furnace could take two and a half years. Conference transcript, pp. 170-171

(Bradford).

 8

 Conference transcript, pp. 188-189 (Bradford).

 9

 Petitioner's posthearing brief, exhibit B-2.

 10 ***.

 11 Even if the demand at a given price for certain aluminum plate in the U.S. market remains the same or

decreases, the apparent consumption (quantity demanded) of certain aluminum plate may increase due to an increase

in the supply of certain aluminum plate from domestic or foreign sources to the U.S. market. 

 12 Conference transcript, p. 152 (Kaplan).

II-3

Inventory levels

 The South African producer’s inventories as a percentage of shipments decreased from ***

percent of its shipments in 2001 to *** percent in 2003 and decreased from *** percent to *** percent

between interim 2003 and interim 2004. These data indicate that the South African producer has some

ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of certain aluminum plate to the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

The South African producer has a limited ability to switch production between certain aluminum

plate and other products. Hulett cannot easily switch production from other products to certain aluminum

plate (series 6000) as its production of certain aluminum plate is limited by its heat solution furnace

capacity and it does not produce other heat-treated products.7

 While Hulett could switch production from

certain aluminum plate (series 6000) to series 2000 and 7000 aluminum plate in about a year, the series

2000 and 7000 aluminum plate would not be commercially viable until after a long qualifying process.8

U.S. Demand

Based on available information, certain aluminum plate consumers are likely to respond to

changes in the price of certain aluminum plate with small changes in their purchases of certain aluminum

plate. The main contributing factors to the low degree of responsiveness of demand are that Alcoa and

Empire do not take prices of substitute goods into account when determining the price they charge for

certain aluminum plate and the low cost share reported for molds and semiconductor equipment (***).

Demand Characteristics

Demand for certain aluminum plate depends on the demand for the products it is used to produce. 

Producers and importers reported in their questionnaire responses that end uses of certain aluminum plate

include tooling plate, mold plate, jigs and fixtures, semiconductor equipment, and miscellaneous machine

parts. ***.9

 ***.10

All responding producers and two of three responding importers indicated that demand for certain

aluminum plate has decreased since 2001.11 However, two producers and two importers indicated that

demand has been increasing in 2004. Most responding producers and importers indicated that the

principal factor affecting demand was the economy. One producer and two importers also indicated that

demand in the aircraft or aerospace market has influenced demand. 

Respondents indicated that while demand follows the business cycle, it has been particularly

sensitive to changes in demand for semiconductor equipment.12 Although they are unable to estimate

what share of sales of certain aluminum plate are purchased by the semiconductor industry, Empire
 13 Respondents’ postconference brief, exhs. 1 and 3.

 14 See excerpts from the CRU Monitor in respondents’ postconference brief, exh. 17.

 15 See excerpts from the CRU Monitor in respondents' posthearing brief, exh. 1, pp. 15-16.

 16 Conference transcript, p. 45 (Wetherbee).

 17 Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 41-42.

 18 Id.

 19 Hearing transcript, p. 128-129 (Wetherbee).

 20 Hearing transcript, p. 20, 129 (Wetherbee).

 21 Hearing transcript, p. 232 (Kaplan).

 22 Petitioner's posthearing brief, exhibit B-3.

 23 Id.

 24 Staff calculation using ***.

 25 Specifically, one purchaser stated that cast plate could be substituted in machining applications and mold plate

could be substituted by the mold manufacturing industry. Another purchaser stated that extrusions could be

(continued...)

II-4

indicated that its customers identified the semiconductor industry as one of the most important end uses of

the certain aluminum plate they sell.13 Respondents also cited industry sources which indicate that

changes in demand for general engineering plate have been impacted by changes in the vacuum chamber

business for the semiconductor market.14 Respondents also cited industry sources as evidence that

demand declined during 2001 to 2003 following a period of strong demand 2000 and then there was a

significant and sustained increase in demand beginning in the end or 2003 and continuing to the present.15

However, petitioner indicated that the principal factor affecting demand was the economy,16 and

that while some certain aluminum plate is purchased by the semiconductor industry, there is little, if any,

link between declining activity in the semiconductor industry and aluminum plate pricing.17 Petitioner

indicated that evidence of there being little or no link is that the price trend of cast plate, which is used by

the semiconductor industry, remained flat between 2000 and 2003.18

Petitioner also indicated that certain aluminum plate has a business cycle determined by a

weighted average of the performance in market of the end use products for certain aluminum plate, each

with a different business cycle.19 Petitioner indicated that this business cycle can vary from three to ten

years and was last at its peak in 2000.20 Respondents indicated it would be difficult to draw any

conclusion about a repeatable business cycle without peak to peak or trough to trough data and without

information specific demand and supply drivers over a long period of time.21

Annual index data for orders (in constant dollars) of six end use industries published by the

National Tooling Machining Association and provided by petitioner show that orders fell between 2001

and 2003 in five of the six end use industries (tools and fixtures (7 percent), molds (20 percent), precision

machinery (6 percent), aerospace machining and fabrication (9 percent), and semiconductor

manufacturing equipment (11 percent), while sales increased in the medical equipment industry (12

percent).22 According to the data, sales in all of these industries increased between 2003 and 2004, by

amounts ranging from 5 percent to 74 percent.23 An average of this index weighted by the share of

aluminum plate sold to each of these industries estimated by *** fell by *** percent between 2001 and

2003 and increased by *** percent between 2003 and 2004.24

Substitute Products

Three of four responding importers, two of three responding producers, and eight purchasers

indicated that there are substitutes for certain aluminum plate. Examples of substitutes cited by producers

and importers included 2000, 5000, and 7000 series aluminum plate, 2024 and 7075 rolled plate, tool

steel, carbon steel, stainless steel, extruded aluminum plate, extruded bar, flat bar, mold plate, cast plate,

cast tool, composites, plastics, and jig. Substitutes listed by purchasers included cast bar and plate; mold

plate; extruded plate and bar; series 2000, 5000, and 7000 aluminum plate; composites and plastics;

carbon steel; and stainless steel.25 Three of four responding importers, but no responding producer and
 25 (...continued)

substituted when dimensional stability and flatness were not critical and the customer does not order by ASTM

specification; and that cast tool and jig could be substituted when strength is not an issue (such as foundry core

boxes). A third purchaser stated that 6061 extruded plate and rectangular bar and cast plate could be substituted for 

tooling, jigs, fixtures, structural and machine parts; and 2024 and 7075 rolled plate could be substituted in molds,

high strength structural and machine parts. A fourth purchaser stated that some machine shops are substituting

extruded flat bar priced at $1.45 per pound for certain aluminum plate priced at $2.30. A fifth purchaser stated that

other materials such as carbon and stainless steel and composites and plastics could be substituted in tanks and 

fabricated/machined parts.

 26 Conference transcript, p. 81 (Cooper) and p. 185 (Kaplan and Kahn).

 27 All of the responding purchasers were distributors; firms were asked to report cost share data only if they were

end users. 

II-5

only one of six responding purchasers indicated that changes in the prices of these substitute products

have affected the price of certain aluminum plate. Both the petitioner and respondents indicated that there

are substitute products for certain aluminum plate, but that they do not take prices of substitute goods into

account when determining the price they charge for certain aluminum plate.26

Cost Share

*** reported that the cost share was 10 percent for molds and for semiconductor equipment; it did

not know the cost shares for jig/fixtures and miscellaneous machined parts, the other end uses for the

certain aluminum plate it manufactures. No importers or purchasers provided data concerning cost

share.27 

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported certain aluminum plate depends upon

such factors as relative prices, quality (e.g., grade standards, reliability of supply, defect rates, etc.), and

conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and delivery dates, payment

terms, product services, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there is high level of

substitutability between domestically produced certain aluminum plate and certain aluminum plate

imported from South Africa.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Purchasers were asked a variety of questions to determine what factors influence their decisions

when buying certain aluminum plate. Information obtained from their responses indicates that both

quality and price are important factors. 

As indicated in table II-1, while price was named by only one of ten responding purchasers as the

number one factor generally considered in deciding from whom to purchase certain aluminum plate, it

was named by five purchasers as the number two factor and the number three factor by the three other

responding purchasers. Also, as indicated in table II-2, all but one of the responding purchasers indicated

that price was a “very important” factor in their purchase decisions. However, only one of the ten

responding purchasers indicated that their firm would “always” purchase the certain aluminum plate that

is offered at the lowest price. Five responding purchasers indicated that the lowest-priced certain

aluminum plate “sometimes” will win a sale and the remaining four reported “usually.”
II-6

Table II-1

Certain aluminum plate: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions as reported by U.S.

purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Quality1 61 0

Price2

 15 3

Availability3 22 2

Delivery performance4 12 3

Traditional supplier5 00 2

 1 Includes one instance of “product quality” and one instance of “quality, meeting industry specs” for the number

one factor.

 2 Includes one instance of “cost” and one instance of “pricing competitiveness” for the number two factor.

 3 Includes one instance of “product availability” for the number two factor.

 4 Includes one instance of “delivery” and one instance of “leadtime” for the number two factor; one instance of

“delivery and delivery performance” and one instance of “delivery leadtime” for the number three factor.

 5 Includes one instance of “traditional supplier-support long term relationship ” and one instance of “relationship”

for the number three factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table II-2

Certain aluminum plate: Importance of factors used in purchasing decisions, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Delivery time 10 0 0

Product consistency 10 0 0

Quality meets industry standards 10 0 0

Reliability of supply 10 0 0

Availability 9 1 0

Price 9 1 0

Discounts offered 7 3 0

Extension of credit 4 6 0

Packaging 3 7 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 3 5 2

Delivery terms 2 7 1

U.S. transportation costs 2 6 2

Minimum quantity requirements 1 7 2

Product range 1 8 1

Technical support/service 1 9 0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 28 Conference transcript, p. 22 (Wetherbee).

 29 Conference transcript, pp. 186-188 (Kahn).

 30 Conference transcript, p. 187 (Kahn).

 31 November 19, 2003, staff telephone interview with ***. 

 32 Id.

 33 One of the two producers that responded that U.S.-produced and South African imports of certain aluminum

plate are “always” used interchangeably indicated that their response was for sizes of certain aluminum plate that can

be produced in South Africa.

 34 This does not includes the response of one importer who responded “always-frequently.”

II-7

Quality was named by six of the ten responding purchasers as the number one factor generally

considered in deciding from whom to purchase certain aluminum plate, while one other responding

purchaser indicated that it was the number two factor. All responding purchasers indicated that quality

meeting industry standards and product consistency were “very important” factors in their purchasing

decisions although only three responding purchasers indicated that quality exceeding industry standards

was a “very important” factor in their purchasing decision. Purchasers named a number of factors they

consider in evaluating quality including: meeting Aluminum Association standards, dimensional and

surface adherence to specifications, product consistency, surface condition and quality, machinability,

meeting or exceeding commercial dimensional tolerances (thickness, width, length, flatness), dimensional

stability, packaging, line marking (stenciling), and composition.

Nine of ten purchasers reported that they required suppliers of at least 80 percent their 2003

purchases to become certified or prequalified. Only one of ten purchasers reported that since 2001 one or

more suppliers have failed in their attempts to qualify certain aluminum plate. This purchaser indicated

that unnamed mills have passed their standards but failed to meet their customer’s standards.

In addition, all ten responding purchasers indicated that reliability of supply and delivery time

were “very important” factors used in their purchasing decisions and nine of ten responding purchasers

indicated that availability was a “very important” factor. Six of ten responding purchasers indicated that

availability and delivery performance were one of the three highest factors used in their purchasing

decisions.

All responding purchasers indicated that since 2001 some of their suppliers of certain aluminum

plate have placed them on allocation, declined to accept quantities requested in orders, delivered less than

the quantity promised, or otherwise departed from the normal course of supply they have come to expect. 

One purchaser indicated that all suppliers are currently allocating production. Of the other nine

responding purchasers, *** were named by all nine purchasers; *** was named by five purchasers; and

*** were named by one purchaser. Most purchasers indicated that these practices have occurred since the

middle of 2003. Five of ten responding purchasers indicated that since 2001 some of their suppliers of

certain aluminum plate have been unable to meet timely shipping commitments.

The petitioner indicated that if certain aluminum plate is of high enough quality to pass

specification, it competes almost exclusively on the basis of price.28 However, respondents indicated that

sales also depend on factors such as customer service and lead times.29 Hulett indicated that it typically

discounts the certain aluminum plate it sells by 3 to 5 percent off the price sold by domestic producers

because its lead times are usually longer.30 ***.31 ***.32

Comparisons of Domestic Products and Subject Imports

As shown in table II-3, two of three responding domestic producers indicated that U.S.-produced

and South African imports of certain aluminum plate are “always” used interchangeably.33 The one

remaining responding U.S. producer and four responding importers indicated that U.S.-produced and

South African imports of certain aluminum plate are “frequently” used interchangeably.34
 35 This includes the response of one importer who responded “sometimes-never.”

 36 In its questionnaire response in the preliminary phase of this investigation, this producer indicated that U.S.

companies have greater product size capabilities than South Africa or others, sometimes have better availability for

standard and non-standard sizes, and sometimes have better quality than other companies.

II-8

Table II-3

Certain aluminum plate: Perceived degree of interchangeability of product produced in the United

States and in other countries 

Country pair

Number of U.S. producers

reporting

Number of U.S. importers

reporting

AF S NAF S N

U.S. vs. South Africa 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0

U.S. vs. Russia 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0

U.S. vs. other 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0

South Africa vs. Russia 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 0

South Africa vs. Other 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0

Russia vs. other 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0

Note.–A=always; F=frequently; S=sometimes; N=never.

This tabulation does not include ambiguous answers submitted by importer ***. These ambiguous responses

included “A-F” for U.S. vs. South Africa, “N-S” for U.S. vs. Russia, “A, (N)” for U.S. vs. other and South Africa vs.

other.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 As shown in table II-4, all three responding domestic producers and one of three responding

importers indicated that differences in product characteristics or sales conditions between U.S.-produced

and South African imports of certain aluminum plate are “sometimes” a significant factor in their firm’s

sales of certain aluminum plate. One remaining responding importer indicated that differences in product

characteristics or sales conditions between U.S.-produced and South African imports of certain aluminum

plate are “frequently” a significant factor in their firm’s sales, while the other remaining responding

importer indicated that differences in product characteristics were “never” a factor.35 

One producer *** indicated that factors that limit or preclude interchangeable use for certain

aluminum plate from all sources included surface appearance, availability, thickness tolerances, flatness

tolerances, and certification and that differences in quality, product range, availability, and customer

relationships were “sometimes” significant factors in their firm’s sales.36 Another producer indicated that

interchangeability could be limited by differences in quality in terms of flatness, surface condition, and

stability when cut.

One importer indicated that technical support, reliability of delivery, and general availability were

superior for imports from South Africa. It also indicated that although lead times on product from South

Africa may be longer, its lead times have often been more reliable, particularly in the last year (2003). It

also noted that there are some products that it currently cannot provide to the market from South Africa

such as plate wider than 2 inches.

As shown in table II-5, eight of nine responding purchasers indicated that certain aluminum plate

produced in the United States is at least “frequently” used in the same applications as certain aluminum 
II-9

Table II-4

Certain aluminum plate: Perceived significance of differences other than price between product

produced in the United States and in other countries

Country pair

Number of U.S. producers

reporting

Number of U.S. importers

reporting

AF S NAF S N

U.S. vs. South Africa 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1

U.S. vs. Russia 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0

U.S. vs. other 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0

South Africa vs. Russia 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0

South Africa vs. Other 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0

Russia vs. other 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0

Note.–A=always; F=frequently; S=sometimes; N=never.

This tabulation does not include ambiguous answers submitted by importer ***. These ambiguous responses

included “S,N” for U.S. vs. South Africa, “A,F” for South Africa vs. Russia, “A,S” for Russia vs. other, and “A,

(S,N)” for U.S. vs. other and Russia vs. other.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table II-5

Certain aluminum plate: Usage in same applications of product produced in the United States and

in other countries

Country pair

Number of U.S. purchasers reporting

AF S N

U.S. vs. South Africa 5 3 1 0

U.S. vs. Russia 3 2 1 0

U.S. vs. other 1 3 3 0

South Africa vs. Russia 1 3 2 0

South Africa vs. other 2 3 2 0

Russia vs. other 3 2 1 0

Note.–A=always; F=frequently; S=sometimes; N=never.

This tabulation does not include an ambiguous answer submitted by ***. This ambiguous response was “A/B” for

U.S. vs. other.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 37 However in response to another question, one of these seven purchasers indicated that nonsubject aluminum

plate from South Africa “always” meets minimum quality specifications and another indicated that it “sometimes”

meets minimum quality specifications.

II-10

plate produced in South Africa, with five purchasers indicating “always” and three purchasers indicating

“frequently.”

Eight of ten responding purchasers indicated that either they or their customers sometimes

specifically order certain aluminum plate from one country over other sources of supply. Many of the

these purchasers indicated that their customers prefer domestically produced certain aluminum plate. 

Four of ten responding purchasers indicated that there are certain grades/types/sizes of certain aluminum

plate available from only a single source. Two of these purchasers indicated that wide aluminum plate is

only available from Alcoa and Pechiney.

In their questionnaire responses, all ten responding purchasers indicated that U.S.-produced

certain aluminum plate at least “usually” meets minimum quality specifications, with five purchasers 

indicating that this was “always” the case. Eight of ten responding purchasers indicated that imported 

subject certain aluminum plate “usually” meets minimum quality specifications.37 One of the two

remaining purchasers indicated that this was “always” true and the other indicated that it is “sometimes”

true. Three of four responding purchasers indicated that imported nonsubject certain aluminum plate

from Russia “sometimes” meets minimum quality specifications, with the remaining responding

purchaser indicating that this was “usually” the case.

As indicated in table II-6, for the factors (except for lower price) that almost all responding

purchasers indicated were “very important” in their purchasing decisions (see table II-2), at least one half

of purchasers indicated that U.S.-produced certain aluminum plate was at least “comparable” to certain

aluminum plate produced in South Africa. In addition, at least one-half of responding purchasers

indicated that with regard to delivery time and reliability of supply, U.S.-produced certain aluminum plate 

was “superior” to certain aluminum plate produced in South Africa. However, seven of nine 

responding purchasers indicated that with regard to lowest price, U.S.-produced certain aluminum plate

was “inferior” to certain aluminum plate produced in South Africa.

Comparisons of Domestic Products and Nonsubject Imports

In their questionnaire responses, all responding producers and importers indicated that U.S.-

produced and nonsubject imports of certain aluminum plate are either “frequently” or “sometimes” used

interchangeably. All responding producers indicated that differences in product characteristics or sales

conditions between U.S.-produced and imports from nonsubject countries of certain aluminum plate were

at most “sometimes” a significant factor in their firm’s sales of certain aluminum plate, while all

responding importers indicated that these differences were at least “sometimes” a significant factor. Five

of six responding purchasers indicated that imports of certain aluminum plate from Russia were at least 

“frequently” used in the same applications as certain aluminum plate produced in the United States, 

while six of seven responding purchasers indicated this was either “frequently” or “sometimes” true for

imports from other non-subject countries.

As indicated in table II-6, for the factors (except for lower price and discounts offered) that all

responding purchasers indicated were “very important” in their purchasing decisions (see table II-2), all

purchasers indicated that U.S.-produced certain aluminum plate was “superior” to certain aluminum plate

produced in Russia. In addition, two out of four responding purchasers responded that with regard to

discounts offered, U.S.-produced certain aluminum plate was “superior” to certain aluminum plate 

produced in Russia. Also, with regard to lowest price, all four responding purchasers indicated that U.S.-

produced certain aluminum plate was “inferior” to certain aluminum plate produced in Russia.
 38 Conference transcript, p. 35 (Cooper).

 39 Conference transcript, p. 35 (Cooper).

 40 Conference transcript, p. 64 (Wetherbee).

 41 Conference transcript, p. 175 (Kahn).

II-11

Table II-6

Certain aluminum plate: Comparisons by country of origin

Factor

 U.S. vs South

Africa

U.S. vs Russia South Africa vs.

Russia

SC I SC I SC I

Availability 441400310

Delivery terms 5 3 1 3 1 0 2 2 0

Delivery time 6 2 1 4 0 0 2 1 1

Discounts offered 243211211

Extension of credit 0 8 0 0 4 0 0 4 0

Lower price 0 2 7 0 0 4 2 1 1

Minimum quantity requirements 171211040

Packaging 0 9 0 3 1 0 0 3 1

Product consistency 270400301

Quality meets industry standards 270400301

Quality exceeds industry standards 270400310

Product range 710310022

Reliability of supply 630400121

Technical support/service 710400040

Lower U.S. transportation costs 1 8 0 2 2 0 0 4 0

Note-- S=Product for first country is superior, C= Product for first country is comparable, I= Product for

first country is inferior.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The petitioner indicated that certain aluminum plate from Russia has not achieved a high enough

quality level to compete with U.S.-produced or South African produced certain aluminum plate.38 It 

claimed that this is demonstrated by the fact that while all of its customers have purchased South African

product, none have purchased Russian material.39 It also indicated that Russian imports have inconsistent

quality.40 Respondents indicated that based on market feedback that they received from their customers,

Russian imports of certain aluminum plate are adequate in quality, but are often sold at a discount because

of the unreliability of delivery.41
 42 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

 43 Petitioner agreed with staff's estimate of the domestic supply elasticity. Petitioners' prehearing brief, p. 18, fn.

41. Respondents used the staff's estimate of the domestic supply elasticity in their COMPAS analysis. Respondents' prehearing

brief, exh. 1, p. 12.

 44 Petitioner agreed with staff's estimate of the U.S. demand elasticity. Petitioners' prehearing brief, p. 18, fn. 41. 

Respondents used the staff's estimate of the U.S. demand elasticity in their COMPAS analysis. Respondents'

prehearing brief, exh. 1, p. 12. However, in their posthearing brief, respondents indicated that "demand is somewhat

more elastic than staff estimated, as indicated by the ability of the U.S. market to absorb the surging volume of

product produced and sold by the U.S. industry through 2003," although they did not quantify how much more

elastic they felt demand was. Respondents' posthearing brief, exhibit 1, p. 4

II-12

Comparisons of Subject Imports and Nonsubject Imports

In their questionnaire responses, all responding producers indicated that subject South African

imports and imports of certain aluminum plate from nonsubject sources are at least “sometimes” used

interchangeably, while all responding importers indicated that these differences were either “frequently”

or “sometimes” used interchangeably. All responding producers indicated that differences in product

characteristics or sales conditions between South African imports and imports of certain aluminum plate

from nonsubject sources were “sometimes” a significant factor in their firm’s sales of certain aluminum

plate, while all responding importers indicated that these differences were either “frequently” or 

“sometimes” a significant factor. All responding purchasers indicated that Russian imports of certain

aluminum plate were either at least “sometimes” used in the same applications as certain aluminum plate 

imported from South Africa.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses elasticity estimates for certain aluminum plate.

U.S. Supply Elasticity42

The domestic supply elasticity for certain aluminum plate measures the sensitivity of the quantity

supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of certain aluminum plate. The elasticity

of domestic supply depends on several factors including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which

producers can alter capacity, producers’ ability to shift to production of other products, the existence of

inventories, and the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced certain aluminum plate. Analysis

of these factors earlier indicates that the U.S. industry is likely to be able to somewhat increase or

decrease shipments to the U.S. market; an estimate in the range of 5 to 10 is suggested.43

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for certain aluminum plate measures the sensitivity of the overall

quantity demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of certain aluminum plate. This estimate depends

on factors discussed earlier such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute

products, as well as the component share of the certain aluminum plate in the production of any

downstream products. Based on the available information, the aggregate demand for certain aluminum

plate is likely to be inelastic; a range of -0.5 to -0.75 is suggested.44

 
 45 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change.

 46 Respondents' prehearing brief, exh. 1, pp. 10, 12.

 47 Petitioners' prehearing brief, p. 18, fn. 41.

II-13

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.45 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

(e.g., chemistry, appearance, etc.) and conditions of sale (availability, sales terms/discounts/promotions,

etc.). Respondents indicated that a substitution elasticity in the range of 2 to 4 was more appropriate due

to unavailability of subject imports in thicknesses greater than 2 inches.46 Petitioners suggested that a

substitution elasticity in the range of 5 to 10 was more appropriate in light of evidence supporting the

high degree of interchangeability between U.S. and the commodity nature of the product.47 Although

most evidence indicates high substitutability between domestic and South African certain aluminum plate,

some evidence suggests limits to substitutability, such as unavailability of subject imports in thickness

greater than 2 inches mentioned by respondents. Considering this and other information, the elasticity of

substitution between U.S.-produced certain aluminum plate and imported certain aluminum plate is likely

to be in the range of 3 to 5. 
 1

 Since the Commission’s preliminary determination, Alcan, Inc. acquired Pechiney’s then-ultimate corporate

parent (Pechiney S.A) in a tender offer that was completed in December 2003. Pechiney producer questionnaire

response, section I-4.

 2

 An additional U.S. producer of certain aluminum plate, McCook Metals, LLC (“McCook”) of Chicago, IL, filed

for bankruptcy on August 6, 2001. Subsequently, the McCook aluminum plate manufacturing facility was closed

and its assets liquidated. The majority of McCook’s assets were purchased, but not yet utilized, by Pechiney. 

Hearing transcript, p. 21 (Wetherbee). During the preliminary phase of this investigation, petitioner estimated

McCook’s U.S. commercial shipments of certain aluminum plate to be ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh.

II-3. During this final phase investigation, petitioner has submitted internal McCook data provided to Alcoa during

the course of a due diligence review indicating that McCook’s shipments of certain aluminum plate were ***. 

Petitioner’s posthearing brief, p. 4, fn. 7, and attachment 1. The Commission did not receive data directly from

McCook.

Petitioner argued that McCook’s exit from the certain aluminum plate market in the United States

demonstrates further the material injury that the industry has experienced during the period examined. Hearing

transcript, p. 23 (Wetherbee). Respondents argued that McCook’s exit from the certain aluminum plate industry was

not caused by U.S. imports from South Africa. In fact, respondents point to McCook’s filing of an antitrust action

against Alcoa in which it alleged that after Alcoa’s acquisition of Reynolds Metals Co., it exerted too much market

power in the high-purity aluminum market and would thereby raise the cost of aluminum. Respondents’

postconference brief, exh. 19. Respondents also argued that McCook manufactured 2000 and 7000 series aluminum

plate for the aerospace industry and not certain aluminum plate. Finally, respondents point to accounting and

management concerns at McCook as other reasons for the company’s financial trouble. Id., p. 36. 

III-1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

Information presented in this section of the report is based on (except as noted) the questionnaire

responses of three firms, Alcoa, Kaiser, and Pechiney.1

 These firms are believed to account for all known

U.S. production of certain aluminum plate during the period January 2001-June 2004.2

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producers’ questionnaires to all three firms identified in the petition as U.S.

producers of certain aluminum plate. Table III-1 presents the list of U.S. producers with each company’s

U.S. production location, share of U.S. production in 2003, and position on the petition.
 3

 U.S. producers reported that the increased production activity is attributable to increased demand for aerospace

alloys. E-mail from Lynn Kamarck, Hogan & Hartson L.L.P., September 2, 2004.

 4

 Petitioner argued that the domestic industry's high capacity utilization rate during January-June 2004 reflected a

unique "bump" in domestic demand coupled with supply constrictions that occurred in the first half of the year, and

that those events are unlikely to recur. Petitioner's prehearing brief, p. 17, and hearing transcript, pp. 18-19

(Wetherbee). Petitioner provided quantities associated with the bumps in demand (increases in volume of shipments

(continued...)

III-2

Table III-1

Certain aluminum plate: U.S. producers, U.S. production locations, shares of U.S. production in

2003, and positions on the petition

Firm Production location

Share of

production

(percent)

Position on the 

petition

Alcoa1 Bettendorf, IA *** Petitioner

Kaiser2 Spokane, WA *** Support

Pechiney3 Ravenswood, WV *** ***

 1 Alcoa, headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA, is the global leader in the production of primary aluminum, fabricated

aluminum, and alumina and is active in all major aspects of the industry including mining, refining, smelting,

fabricating, and recycling of aluminum. Alcoa Manufacturing (GB) Ltd., Inc., located in West Midlands, England,

and Alcoa Trasformazioni, S.r.l., located in Venice, Italy, are Alcoa facilities that manufacture certain aluminum plate

in Europe.

 2

 Kaiser, headquartered in Houston, TX, voluntarily filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on February 12,

2002, citing “significant near-term debt maturities at a time of unusually weak aluminum industry business

conditions, depressed prices, and a broad economic slowdown that was further exacerbated by the events of

September 11 . . . burdened by asbestos litigation and growing legacy obligations for retiree medical and pension

costs.” Kaiser press release, February 12, 2002. ***.

 3

 During January 2001-August 2003, Pechiney was a wholly owned subsidiary of Pechiney Metals Corp. of

Stamford, CT, which was the wholly owned U.S. subsidiary of Pechiney, S.A. of Paris, France. On September 12,

2003, Alcan, Inc., a Canadian producer of aluminum products, and Pechiney agreed to merge, which based on total

revenue, would make it the largest aluminum producer in the world. On September 29, 2003, the U.S. Department

of Justice, Antitrust Division, approved the Alcan-Pechiney merger, but required the newly merged corporation to

divest its aluminum rolling mill located in Ravenswood, WV. Alcan press release, September 29, 2003. On March

4, 2004, the State of West Virginia moved to intervene in the proceedings. On March 15, the Department of Justice

filed a brief opposing West Virginia’s motion, and on May 26, 2004, the Justice Department and Alcan signed a

revised agreement which provided for either the sale of the Ravenswood, WV facility, or the execution of a

proposed aluminum rolled-products spin-off that would satisfy the judgment. On September 28, 2004, Alcan

announced the registration of a new spin-off company, Novelis, domiciled in Canada, which would include Alcan’s

aluminum plate (series 5000) production facility in Oswego, NY. Pechiney’s Ravenswood, WV rolling mill is not

included in the new company. ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Data on U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization are presented in table III-2. 

Total U.S. capacity increased from 2001 to 2003 by 8.6 percent. The capacity volume of the U.S. industry

was slightly lower than apparent U.S. consumption of certain aluminum plate in 2003. Total U.S.

production of certain aluminum plate increased by 56.1 percent from 2001 to 2003, and more than doubled

during January-June 2004 when compared to the same period in 2003.3

 Capacity utilization increased by

22.1 percentage points from 2001 to 2003; production exceeded capacity during January-June 2004.4
 4

 (...continued)

related to: (1) big screen televisions, (2) U.K. customers during Alcoa's sister-company equipment failure, and (3)

the war in Iraq and Afghanistan) which amounted to *** short tons and accounted for approximately *** percent of

the change in apparent consumption during January-June 2004 when compared to the same period in 2003. 

Petitioner's October 14, 2004 submission, exhibit 4.

III-3

Table III-2

Certain aluminum plate: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2001-03,

January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

Item

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Capacity (short tons):

 Alcoa *** *** *** *** ***

 Kaiser *** *** *** *** ***

 Pechiney *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 52,069 56,569 56,569 30,535 37,535

Production (short tons):

 Alcoa *** *** *** *** ***

 Kaiser1 *** *** *** *** ***

 Pechiney *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 26,371 30,242 41,177 19,037 39,629

Capacity utilization (percent):

 Alcoa2 *** *** *** *** ***

 Kaiser3 *** *** *** *** ***

 Pechiney *** *** *** *** ***

 Average 50.6 53.5 72.8 62.3 105.6

 1 ***. E-mail from ***, Kaiser Aluminum, September 14, 2004.

 2

 ***. E-mail from Lynn Kamarck, Hogan & Hartson L.L.P., September 2, 2004.

 3 ***. Email from ***, Kaiser Aluminum, August 30, 2004. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 5

 On March 23, 2001, Alcoa issued a press release, entitled “Alcoa Expanding Aerospace Plate Capacity,” which

stated that Alcoa planned to increase its capacity for aerospace and tooling plate by 30 percent in order to meet

growing global demand (including potentially supplying Airbus in the production of its new double decker 550-

passenger jetliner, the A380). Specifically, the plan called for nearly $90 million to expand aerospace plate capacity

at the Davenport, IA aluminum rolling facility. It was reported that after the downturn in the airline industry after

the events of September 11, 2001, Alcoa has continued with the capacity expansion, albeit at a slower pace. It was

originally planned to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2002. William Ryberg, “Alcoa Taking Off,” The Des

Moines Register, July 13, 2003. See also Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 35. Petitioner reported that ***. Email from Lynn Kamarck, Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., September 10, 2004. 

 6

 ***, response to producers’ questionnaire, section II, II-9. 

 7

 ***.

 8

 ***. See petitioner’s postconference brief, p. 38 and exh. II-18.

III-4

*** capacity to produce certain aluminum plate during the period examined.5

 *** reported a ***

short ton or *** percent increase in capacity from 2001 to 2003 as a result of ***. *** reported that

capacity to produce certain aluminum plate is constrained by production equipment, specifically the

furnaces used to heat-treat the aluminum plate. ***.

*** reported not experiencing any plant closings, relocations, or prolonged shutdowns during the

period examined. ***.

*** reported producing products other than certain aluminum plate (series 6000) on the same

production machinery and by the same production workers. 6

***.7 ***.8

The domestic producers reported *** toll agreements *** U.S. production of certain aluminum

plate in U.S. foreign trade zones.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ U.S. SHIPMENTS AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

As detailed in table III-3, the volume of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of certain aluminum plate

increased by 67 percent from 2001 to 2003, and increased by more than 80 percent during January-June

2004 when compared to the same period in 2003. The value of their U.S. shipments also increased by 35

percent during 2001-03, and by about 97 percent from January-June 2003 to January-June 2004. ***

reported internal consumption or transfers to related firms of certain aluminum plate. Such shipments were

small, less than *** tons. *** reported export shipments, which were made to ***. 
III-5

Table III-3

Certain aluminum plate: U.S. producers’ shipments, by type, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and

January-June 2004

Item

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Quantity (short tons)

Commercial shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 23,356 31,237 39,092 18,011 32,567

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

 Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Value ($1,000)

Commercial shipments *** *** ***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 89,352 104,958 120,724 55,893 109,970

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

 Total shipments *** *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per short ton)

Commercial shipments $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Internal consumption *** *** *** *** ***

Transfers to related firms *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments 3,826 3,360 3,088 3,103 3,377

Export shipments *** *** *** *** ***

 Average *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 9

 ***’s producers’ questionnaire responses, section II-4.

 10 ***.

III-6

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES OF IMPORTS

*** reported that they did not import certain aluminum plate during the period of investigation.9

*** reported that it directly imported certain aluminum plate during the period examined. Table III-4

presents *** direct imports of certain aluminum plate ***,10 along with its U.S. production. ***.

Table III-4

Certain aluminum plate: *** production and imports, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June

2004

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Data on end-of-period inventories of certain aluminum plate for the period examined are presented

in table III-5. From 2001 to 2003, U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories decreased by 72.9 percent.

Table III-5

Certain aluminum plate: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and

January-June 2004

Item

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Inventories (short tons) 7,420 3,366 2,012 2,424 6,928

Ratio to production (percent) 28.1 11.1 4.9 6.4 8.7

Ratio to U.S. shipments (percent) 31.8 10.8 5.1 6.7 10.6

Ratio to total shipments (percent) *** *** *** *** ***

Note.--January-June ratios are calculated using annualized production and shipment data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Data provided by U.S. producers on the number of production and related workers (“PRWs”)

engaged in the production of certain aluminum plate, the total hours worked by such workers, and wages

paid to such PRWs during the period for which data were collected in this investigation are presented in

table III-6. From 2001 to 2003, the number of PRWs decreased by 8.3 percent, hours worked decreased by

16.4 percent, wages paid increased by 15.5 percent, hourly wages increased by 38.1 percent, productivity

increased by 86.7 percent, and unit labor costs decreased by 26.0 percent.
III-7

Table III-6

Certain aluminum plate: Average number of production and related workers producing certain

aluminum plate, hours worked, wages paid to such employees, and hourly wages, productivity, and

unit labor costs, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

Item

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

PRWs (number) 148 210 212 163 242

Hours worked (1,000) 326 440 408 212 317

Wages paid ($1,000) 10,537 15,175 17,039 7,892 13,638

Hourly wages $32.32 $34.49 $41.76 $37.23 $43.02

Productivity (short tons per 1,000 hours) 80.9 68.7 100.9 89.8 125.0

Unit labor costs (per short ton) $399.56 $501.79 $413.80 $414.55 $344.14

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 1

 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition, along with firms that, based on a

review of proprietary data provided by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) (formerly the

U.S. Customs Service), may have imported certain aluminum plate since 2001.

 2

 ***.

 3

 Empire reported that ***. Official Commerce data regarding imports from South Africa under statistical

reporting number 7606.12.3030 are as follows: 1,483 short tons in 2001; 3,126 short tons in 2002; 12,827 short tons

in 2003; 5,869 short tons in January-June 2003; and 5,631 short tons in January-June 2004. Both the Commerce

data and Empire questionnaire data depict an increasing trend of imports from 2001 to 2003. 

 4

 Respondents argued that the volume of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries has exceeded that of imports

from South Africa during the period examined and that specifically, U.S. import volumes from Russia are

significant. Respondents’ postconference brief, pp. 43-44. U.S. imports of certain aluminum plate from Russia as

compiled from responses to the Commission’s questionnaires are presented in table IV-2.

Alcoa maintained that it does not know where the U.S. imports from Russia have gone in the U.S. market

and who the end users are. It stated that there is a perception in the marketplace that Russian plate is of inferior

quality. Conference transcript, pp. 61-62 (Malashevich). Empire stated that a majority of the customers it contacted

reported that certain aluminum plate from Russia was ***. However, ***, a U.S. importer of certain aluminum plate

from Russia and a ***, stated that “Russian aluminum plate is not as high a quality level as that of South African

and/or U.S. production,” RUSAL importer questionnaire response (preliminary), section III-B-15.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

The Commission sent importer questionnaires to 16 firms believed to be importers of certain

aluminum plate, as well as to all three U.S. producers.1

 Usable questionnaire responses were received

from nine companies, *** are believed to account for all U.S. imports of certain aluminum plate from

South Africa.2

 Questionnaire respondents are located in Connecticut, Illinois (2), New Jersey (2), New

York, Ohio, Texas, and Canada. Data for U.S. imports from South Africa are compiled using the

questionnaire responses of Empire and ***.3

*** U.S. importer entered the subject product into or withdrew it from foreign trade zones or

bonded warehouses. Table IV-1 lists all responding U.S. importers of certain aluminum plate and their

quantity of imports, by source, in 2003.

Table IV-1

Certain aluminum plate: Reported U.S. imports, by importer and by source of imports, 2003

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTS

Table IV-2 shows that the volume of U.S. imports of certain aluminum plate from South Africa

increased by *** percent from 2001 to 2003. The value of U.S. imports from South Africa increased by

*** percent from 2001 to 2003. The volume of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries decreased by ***

percent from 2001 to 2003.4

 The largest annual increase in U.S. imports of certain aluminum plate from

South Africa occurred from 2001 to 2002 with the volume increasing by *** percent. During the same

period, imports from nonsubject countries increased by *** percent. 
IV-2

Table IV-2

Certain aluminum plate: U.S. imports, by source, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June

2004

Source

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Quantity (short tons)

South Africa *** *** *** *** ***

Russia *** *** *** *** ***

All others *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 19,598 23,344 19,114 9,581 10,017

Value ($1,000)

1

South Africa *** *** *** *** ***

Russia *** *** *** *** ***

All others *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 57,567 62,807 48,167 23,679 26,144

Unit value (per short ton)

South Africa $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Russia *** *** *** *** ***

All others *** *** *** *** ***

 Average 2,937 2,691 2,520 2,472 2,610

Share of quantity (percent)

South Africa *** *** *** *** ***

Russia *** *** *** *** ***

All others *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

South Africa *** *** *** *** ***

Russia *** *** *** *** ***

All others *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Landed, duty-paid.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 5

 Respondents’ prehearing brief, pp. 7 and 16.

IV-3

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data on apparent U.S. consumption of certain aluminum plate are presented in table IV-3. From

2001 to 2003, the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption of certain aluminum plate increased by 39.7

percent and increased by 50.8 percent between the interim periods. From 2001 to 2003, the value of

apparent U.S. consumption increased by 19.2 percent, and increased by 63.0 percent between the interim

periods. 

Table IV-3

Certain aluminum plate: U.S. shipments of domestic product and imports by source, and apparent

U.S. consumption, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

Item

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 23,356 31,237 39,092 18,011 32,567

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 South Africa *** *** *** *** ***

 Russia *** *** *** *** ***

 All other countries *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports 18,166 20,169 18,925 10,565 10,538

Apparent U.S. consumption 41,521 51,406 58,017 28,576 43,104

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 89,352 104,958 120,724 55,893 109,970

U.S. shipments of imports from--

 South Africa *** *** *** *** ***

 Russia *** *** *** *** ***

 All other countries *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports 59,252 59,463 56,382 29,907 29,914

Apparent U.S. consumption 148,604 164,421 177,106 85,800 139,884

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. Producers’ and Importers’ Order Book Sales

During the final phase of this investigation, respondents argued that domestic demand exceeds

domestic capacity to supply certain aluminum plate, and that U.S. producers have placed customers on

allocation.5

 As shown in table IV-4 and figure IV-1, total order book sales of U.S. producers, as of the
IV-4

end of the quarter in April-June 2004, were *** short tons; order book sales of importers totaled *** short

tons. ***. 

Table IV-4

Certain aluminum plate: U.S. producers’ and importers’ order book sales, as of the end of the

quarter, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure IV-1

Certain aluminum plate: U.S. producers’ and importers’ order book sales, as of the end of the

quarter, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

U.S. MARKET SHARES

Data on U.S. market shares for certain aluminum plate are presented in table IV-5. From 2001 to

2003, the U.S. producers gained 11.1 percentage points of market share based on quantity and 8.0

percentage points based on value. U.S. imports from South Africa captured *** percent of U.S. market

share in terms of volume in 2003, a *** gain over 2001. U.S. imports from nonsubject sources were ***

percent in 2003, a decline of *** percentage points from 2001. 
IV-5

Table IV-5

Certain aluminum plate: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, 2001-03, January-June

2003, and January-June 2004

Item

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Quantity (short tons)

Apparent U.S. consumption 41,521 51,406 58,017 28,576 43,104

Value ($1,000)

Apparent U.S. consumption 148,604 164,421 177,106 85,800 139,884

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 56.2 60.8 67.4 63.0 75.6

U.S. imports from--

 South Africa *** *** *** *** ***

 Russia *** *** *** *** ***

 All other countries *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports 43.8 39.2 32.6 37.0 24.4

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 60.1 63.8 68.2 65.1 78.6

U.S. imports from--

 South Africa *** *** *** *** ***

 Russia *** *** *** *** ***

 All other countries *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports 39.9 36.2 31.8 34.9 21.4

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
IV-6

RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Data on the ratio of imports to U.S. production of certain aluminum plate are presented in 

table IV-6.

Table IV-6

Certain aluminum plate: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to production, 2001-

03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

Item

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Quantity (short tons)

U.S. production 26,372 30,242 41,177 19,038 39,629

U.S. imports from--

 South Africa *** *** *** *** ***

 All other countries *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports 19,598 23,344 19,114 9,581 10,017

Ratio of imports to U.S. production (percent)

U.S. imports from--

 South Africa *** *** *** *** ***

 All other countries *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports 74.3 77.2 46.4 50.3 25.3

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

Raw materials made up about *** percent of the cost of goods sold for domestic producers of

certain aluminum plate in 2003. Pure aluminum is the main raw material for producing certain aluminum

plate. The average monthly spot price of aluminum ingot as measured by the London Metal Exchange

(LME) fell from $0.73 per pound in January 2001 to $0.58 per pound on average August 2001, fluctuated

between $0.58 per pound and $0.65 per pound until July 2004, and then rose to $0.78 per pound in April

2004 (see figure V-1). The 3-month forward price for pure aluminum followed a similar trend.

Figure V-1

Aluminum Ingot: LME spot and 3 month forward prices, by month, January 2001-August 2004

Source: London Metal Exchange

Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

Transportation costs for certain aluminum plate from South Africa to the United States in 2003

(excluding U.S. inland costs) are estimated to be approximately 5.7 percent of the total cost for certain

aluminum plate. These estimates are derived from official import data and represent the transportation

and other charges on imports valued on a c.i.f. basis, as compared with customs value.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

U.S. inland transportation costs for certain aluminum plate comprise a small portion of the cost of

both the U.S. and imported product. Producers and importers report that transportation costs make up

from 1 to 4 percent of the total cost of certain aluminum plate.
 1

 Petitioner's prehearing brief, pp. 34-35.

 2 Id., p. 35.

 3

 Hearing transcript, p. 188 (Bradford) and e-mail from with Susan Lee, Arnold & Porter, October 21, 2004.

 4 Id.

V-2

 Exchange Rates

Quarterly data reported by the International Monetary Fund indicate that the nominal and real

values of the South African rand generally depreciated relative to the U.S. dollar from the first quarter of

2001 to the first quarter of 2002 and then appreciated through the second quarter of 2004 (figure V-2). 

Overall, the nominal value of the South Africa rand appreciated 18.4 percent relative to the U.S. dollar

from first quarter of 2001 to second quarter of 2004. The real value of the South Africa rand appreciated

34.8 percent vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar in that time period.

Figure V-2

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and read exchange rates between the South African rand

and the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2001-2004

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, September 2004.

Petitioner indicated that *** despite a "massive" appreciation of the Rand against the U.S. dollar,

***.1

 Petitioner argued that this willingness to sell *** indicates a determination on the part of Hulett to

"buy" market share at the expense of the U.S. industry and that there is no reason to believe that they

would not resume this behavior in the absence of antidumping duties.2

 Respondents argued that the

strengthening of the Rand against the U.S. dollar reduces both the effectiveness of U.S. market for them

and their price flexibility.3

 They also argued that U.S. dollar prices that resulted in high profitability two

years ago would obviously not be as profitable today.4
 5

 Conference transcript, pp. 84-85 (Wetherbee).

 6

 Conference transcript, pp. 83-87 (Wetherbee).

 7

 Conference transcript, pp. 149-150 (Kahn).

 8

 Conference transcript, p. 150 (Kahn) .

 9

 Two purchasers named both Hulett and Empire as price leaders.

 10 Hearing transcript, p. 24 (Wetherbee).

 11 Hearing transcript, pp. 90-91 (Wetherbee), p. 116-117 (Leibowitz).

 12 Hearing transcript, p. 52 (Wetherbee).

 13 Hearing transcript, p. 180 (Bradford).

V-3

PRICING PRACTICES

 Producers and importers reported using transaction-by-transaction negotiation, contracts for

multiple shipments, or a combination of these methods for their sales of certain aluminum plate. All three

reporting producers indicated they mostly sell certain aluminum plate through spot sales although about

*** percent of sales are through short-term contracts of one year or less. Of the three responding

importers, two firms reported that *** percent of their sales were on a short-term contract basis with the

remainder on a spot basis, and one reported that it sells only on a spot basis. 

All reporting producers and importers sell certain aluminum plate on a delivered basis and

indicated that the seller usually arranges for transportation. One of three reporting producers indicated

that most of its sales were produced to order, while the other two producers’ sales were divided between

produced to order and from inventory. Two of four reporting importers indicated that most of their sales

were produced to order while two indicated that most of their sales were from inventory. Producers

reported lead times ranging from 1 to 30 days from inventory and ranging from about 2 to 4 months

produced to order, while importers reported lead times ranging from 7 to 19 days from inventory and

ranging from 4 to 6 months produced to order. Average lead times reported by purchasers were 8 weeks

for domestic product, 14 weeks for South African product, and 13 weeks for product from nonsubject

countries. Eight of nine purchasers noted that lead times have been extended in 2004 with several noting

product shortages and allocations.

Alcoa indicated that while it can immediately ship many types of certain aluminum plate from

inventory to existing customers, new customers may have to wait 8 to 12 weeks for their order to be

shipped.5

 It also indicated that its lead times increased in mid-2002 and early 2003 due to lower

productivity and morale issues at their Davenport facility.6

 Empire indicated that importers of certain

aluminum plate typically have longer lead times than domestic producers.7

 It indicated that its lead times

are usually 10 to 12 weeks.8

Eight of ten responding purchasers indicated that they considered some firms to be price leaders

in the certain aluminum plate market between January 2001 and June 2004. Alcoa was named by seven

of the purchasers, Kaiser and either Empire or Hulett were named by five of the purchasers,9

 Pechiney

was named by two purchasers, and Alcan, British Aluminum, and Charleston Aluminum were all named

by one purchaser. Two purchasers indicated that Empire lead prices down in 2002, but also named Alcoa

and Kaiser as price leaders.

Alcoa indicated that Hulett is recognized in the industry by their customers, as well as

competitors, as the downward price leader.10 However, Alcoa also indicated that today Hulett has moved

from being a low-priced discount supplier to a comparably priced supplier and then to being the price

leader in the marketplace with some of the highest prices in the marketplace.11 Alcoa also indicated that

Kaiser has never really been seen as a low price leader.12 Hulett indicated that, "you've heard about the

price increases. We've always followed Alcoa's lead."13 Empire indicated that Kaiser mounted a sales
 14 Hearing transcript, p. 205 (Kahn).

 15 Conference transcript, p. 187 (Kahn).

V-4

effort to recapture market share and was surprisingly a price leader at some point during the period of

investigation (but not consistently) leading prices lower.14

Sales Terms and Discounts

One producer and all importers reported selling on a net 30 basis. The other two producers 

reported discounts of 1 percent for early payment of accounts. Two of three reporting producers and one

of five reporting importers indicated that they offered quantity discounts. Empire indicated that it

typically discounts the certain aluminum plate it sells by 3 percent to 5 percent off the price sold by

domestic producers because of its longer lead times.15

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of certain aluminum plate to provide

quarterly data for the total quantity and value of certain aluminum plate that was shipped to unrelated

customers in the U.S. market. Data were requested for the period January 2001 to June 2004. The

products for which pricing data were requested are as follows:

Product 1.–0.25" x 48.5" x 144.5" 6061-T651 finished tooling plate

Product 2.--0.375" x 48.5" x 144.5" 6061-T651 finished tooling plate

Product 3.--0.5" x 48.5" x 144.5" 6061-T651 finished tooling plate

Product 4.--0.75" x 48.5" x 144.5" 6061-T651 finished tooling plate

Three U.S. producers and two importers provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested

products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. These prices are

presented below (tables V-1 through V-4 and figure V-3). Pricing data reported by these firms accounted

for *** percent of U.S. producers’ reported shipments of certain aluminum plate and *** percent of U.S.

shipments of subject imports from South Africa in 2003.

Table V-1

Certain aluminum plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 1 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table V-2

Certain aluminum plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 21 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table V-3

Certain aluminum plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 3 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *
 16 Respondents argued that meaningful price comparisons can only be made from comparing pricing from spot

market transactions. Hearing transcript, pp. 229-231 (Shor). See Appendix E for spot and contract sales price data.

The subject imported product was priced below the domestic product in 46 of 55 instances where spot prices for

domestic certain aluminum plate and imported South African certain aluminum plate could be compared, and in 54

of 56 instances where contract prices for domestic certain aluminum plate and imported South African certain

aluminum plate could be compared.

 17 Correlations between prices for domestic products 1, 2, 3, and 4 and their corresponding subject South African

pricing products were 0.94, 0.95, 0.94, and 0.91, respectively. These correlations do not necessarily imply causation

and these price trends may track one another for reasons having nothing to do with each other’s prices, such as

macroeconomic trends, or prices of other substitute or downstream goods.

 18 Respondents’ prehearing brief, exh. 1, p. 13.

 19 Id., p. 13.

 20 Conference transcript, p. 160 (Kaplan).

 21 Respondents’ prehearing brief, exh. 1, p. 15.

V-5

Table V-4

Certain aluminum plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 4 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2

Certain aluminum plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic and imported products 1-4, by

quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Prices of both U.S.-produced certain aluminum plate and subject imported certain aluminum plate

from South Africa fell from January 2001 to December 2003 and then increased in the first quarter of

2004. Prices of domestic product continued to increase through the second quarter of 2004 while the

price trends for subject imports from South Africa were mixed. The weighted-average sales prices of the

four U.S.-produced products were *** to *** percent lower in the second quarter of 2004 than in the first

quarter of 2001. Weighted-average prices of the four products imported from South Africa were *** to

*** percent lower in the second quarter of 2004 than in the first quarter of 2001.16

Price Comparisons

The subject imported product was priced below the domestic product in all instances where prices

for domestic certain aluminum plate and imported South African certain aluminum plate could be

compared. Margins of underselling averaged 11.3 percent, ranging from 4.9 percent to 24.2 percent.17

Respondents argued that certain plate prices are highly correlated with exogenous supply and

demand drivers.18 In terms of demand, respondents indicated that the price of certain aluminum plate is

responsive to changes in end uses such as general manufacturing as tool plate, other industry and

manufacturing applications, and the semiconductor industry;19 and changes in the prices of nonsubject

imports from Russia.20 In terms of supply, respondents indicated that the price of certain aluminum plate

is responsive to changes in the price of its main raw material (aluminum ingot) and supply-side

substitution with end uses for series 2000 and 7000 aluminum plate (aircraft and parts).21

Respondents argued that demand for certain aluminum plate has been particularly sensitive to

changes in demand for semiconductor equipment. They suggested that demand for semiconductor

equipment can be represented by semiconductor equipment billings and an eight month lag of a

semiconductor stock price index (SOXX index). Figure V-4 compares the prices of U.S.-produced
 22 Respondents estimated a 0.8 correlation between a monthly publicly available pricing series of 6061 aluminum

plate and monthly values of semiconductor equipment billings. Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 37, fn. 39. In

their prehearing brief, respondents estimated a 0.74 correlation using data from January 2000 to August 2004. 

Respondents' prehearing brief, exh. 1, p. 14, fn. 13.

 23 In their prehearing brief, respondents estimated a 0.8 correlation between a monthly publically available pricing

series of 6061 aluminum plate and monthly values of SOXX index lagged 8 months using data from January 2000 to

August 2004. Respondents' prehearing brief, exh. 1, p. 14, fn. 13.

 24 The estimated correlation between the prices for U.S. produced products 1-4 and the current value (with no lag)

of the SOXX index ranged from 0.70 to 0.74.

 25 In their prehearing brief, respondents estimated a 0.68 correlation between a monthly publically available

pricing series of 6061 aluminum plate and monthly values of the industrial production index for machinery from

January 2000 to August 2004. Respondents' prehearing brief, exh. 1, p. 14, fn. 13. In their posthearing brief,

respondents indicated that the correlation between the price of 6061 aluminum plate and the industrial production

index as a whole is "quite high," estimating the correlation to be 0.64 (or 0.88 using a six month lag). Respondents'

posthearing brief, exh. 1, pp. 12, 14. Also in their posthearing brief, respondents argue that since demand for certain

aluminum predates its actual use in a fabricated or final product, a 6-month lag may be most appropriate correlation

to consider for production indices to capture changes in demand for certain aluminum plate. Respondents'

posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 14.

V-6

products 1-4, semiconductor billings, and an eight month lag of the SOXX index. Correlations between

the price of U.S.-produced product 1-4 and semiconductor billings ranged from 0.68 to 0.82,22 while

correlations between the four pricing products and an eight month lag of the SOXX index ranged from

0.88 to 0.92.23 24

Figure V-4

Certain aluminum plate: Price indices of weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic product 1-4,

semiconductor equipment billings, and SOXX index lagged 8 months, by quarters, January 2001-

June 2004

* * * * * * *

Respondents also suggested that demand for machinery products and nonsubject imports of

certain aluminum plate from Russia may have impacted the U.S. market for certain aluminum plate. 

Figure V-5 compares the prices of U.S.-produced products 1-4 with the industrial production index of 

machinery and the average unit value (AUV) of Russian imports of certain aluminum plate. Correlations

between the price of U.S.-produced products 1-4 and the industrial production index of machinery range

from 0.67 to 0.77 while correlations with the AUV of certain aluminum plate imported from Russia range

from 0.66 to 0.79.25

Figure V-5

Certain aluminum plate: Price indices of weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic product 1-4,

unit values of Russian imports of subject plate, and industrial production index for machinery, by

quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Respondents also indicated that supply factors such as prices for aluminum ingot and production

of aircrafts and parts. They suggested that prices for aluminum ingot can be represented by spot and

forward prices of aluminum ingot and supply of aircraft and parts can be represented by an industrial

production index of aircraft and parts. Figure V-6 compares the prices of U.S.-produced products 1-4 and
 26 In their prehearing brief, respondents estimated a 0.59 correlation between a monthly publically available

pricing series of 6061 aluminum plate and the LME spot price of aluminum ingot and a 0.54 correlation with the

LME 3-month forward price using data from January 2000 to August 2004. Respondents' prehearing brief, exh. 1, p.

15, fn. 17.

 27 In their prehearing brief, respondents estimated a 0.68 correlation between a monthly publically available

pricing series of 6061 aluminum plate and the industrial production index. Respondents' prehearing brief, exh. 1, p.

15, fn. 16.

 28 Respondent's prehearing brief, exh. 1, p. 16.

 29 In their prehearing brief, respondents estimated a 0.87 correlation between a publically available pricing series

of 6061 aluminum plate and the using data from the first quarter of 2000 to the second quarter of 2004. 

Respondents' prehearing brief, exh. 1, p. 17.

 30 Petitioner’s posthearing brief, response to Commissioners questions 1-6 and exh. A-7.

 31 Petitioner did not provide quantities for any of its lost revenue allegations. It indicated that, “petitioner was

unable to provide all of the details of a number of transactions listed due to the informal manner in which the

industry operates and the fact that many price negotiations are concluded over the phone rather than in writing.” 

(continued...)

V-7

spot price for aluminum ingot and industrial production index for aircraft and parts. Correlations between

the price of U.S.-produced product 1-4 and spot and 3-month forward prices of aluminum ingot 

ranged from 0.12 to 0.22,26 while correlations between the four pricing products and the industrial

production index for aircraft and parts ranged from 0.84 to 0.94.27

Figure V-6

Certain aluminum plate: Price indices of weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic product 1-4,

spot price of aluminum ingot, and industrial production index for aircraft and parts, by quarters,

January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Respondents indicated that subject plate pricing has evolved similarly to aluminum products that

are not under investigation, in particular aluminum coil.28 Figure V-7 compares the prices of U.S.-

produced products 1-4 and the price of 6061T aluminum coil. Correlations between the price of U.S.-

produced product 1-4 and spot and 3-month forward prices of aluminum ingot ranged from 0.57 to 0.62.29

However, comparing quarterly price differences between aluminum plate and aluminum coil and annual

data for subject import market share (with a one quarter lead), petitioner suggested that these price

differences were greatest when subject imports were not a significant factor in the U.S. market.30

Figure V-7

Certain aluminum plate: Price indices of weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic product 1-4

and price of 6061 T aluminum coil, by quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

The Commission requested U.S. producers of certain aluminum plate to report any instances of

lost sales or revenues they experienced due to competition from imports of certain aluminum plate from

South Africa since January 2000. Of the two responding non-petitioning U.S. producers, one reported

that prices had either been reduced or price increases had been rolled back. The 22 usable lost sales

allegations totaled $*** and involved *** pounds of certain aluminum plate and 10 lost revenues

allegations of unknown total value and total quantity.31 Staff attempted to contact all purchasers named in
 31 (...continued)

Petition, pp. 30-31. ***.

 32 Staff telephone interview with ***, November 4, 2003.

V-8

allegations and received responses from 10 purchasers; a summary of the information obtained follows

(tables V-5 and V-6).

Table V-5

Certain aluminum plate: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

Table V-6

Certain aluminum plate: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations

* * * * * * *

*** disagreed with the lost revenue allegation involving his company, stating that his company’s

purchase history with their domestic suppliers was reviewed for the time period from October 1, 2002 to

June 30, 2003 and they found no occurrences of orders entered with any of these suppliers at the $*** per

pound price level.

*** disagreed with both lost sales allegations stating “I quote several pieces of business like this

every month. I do not have the means to determine which specific pieces of business the U.S. producer is

referencing or even if we received orders on these examples.”

*** agreed with the lost sales allegation involving *** pounds.

*** stated regarding the lost revenues allegations “we have many conversations with our

domestic suppliers regarding competitive situations in the marketplace. We have no recollection or

supporting paperwork to confirm or not to confirm your referenced pricing scenario.”

Although in *** response on *** indicated that *** “disagreed” with the allegation involving lost

sales of *** pounds of aluminum plate on *** further indicated that, “I have no recollection of this. I

purge my files monthly and have no record of anything like this.”

*** disagreed with two lost sales allegations, but agreed with another lost sales allegation and a

lost revenue allegation. He disagreed with the two lost sales allegations on *** since his company’s

records do not indicate any sales were lost on that date. However, he agreed that the import price was in

the $*** per pound range at that time. He also agreed that *** placed an order with *** for aluminum

plate at $*** per pound on ***. However, he indicated that the order was *** pounds instead of the ***

pounds indicated in the allegation.

*** indicated that he did not recognize the individual alleged lost sales and lost revenues, but that

the quantities mentioned are similar to the amounts he would typically purchase from the named source

over a year.32 Also, he indicated that the alleged lost sales prices for representative transactions were

similar to accepted import prices close to the dates of the alleged lost sales allegations. However, he

indicated that no representative transactions were close to the date of the lost revenue allegation.

*** stated the following, “Our ***. Our ability to compete in this market segment is very much

dependent upon the quality of the materials we purchase. For many years we considered *** to be the

industry’s premier quality plate.” 

Hulett produces a plate product whose quality meets and often exceeds ***’s product. “The

Hulett quality has increased our productivity. Furthermore, Hulett has become the plate preferred by

many of our customers.”
 33 October 24, 2003, staff telephone interview with ***. ***.

V-9

*** added, “The costing of Hulett materials has allowed us and our customers to capture and

maintain business that otherwise would have moved offshore. One of our customers produces the ***. 

The quality and pricing of Hulett product allowed him for a period of time to successfully compete with

***. However, the customer has now has lost the business. Hulett quality, costing, our *** and our

customer’s technology could not compete with the *** product. This customer for the year *** was our

largest account. I would like to add that *** also benefitted by this particular piece of business. To meet

the demanding delivery schedules of this business we *** and Hulett products. Our level of business

with *** was greatly enhanced by this particular piece of business. Hulett’s plate made this possible.”

*** agreed with the lost sales allegation. He added, “it should be mentioned that prior to orders

being placed offshore, domestic producers were given the option to quote back a number that could be

considered competitive.”

*** agreed with one lost sales allegation, disagreed with another, and indicated that he could not

“make a determination” with regard to a lost revenue allegation. He disagreed with an allegation

involving ***, indicating that *** only purchased *** pounds through *** and estimated that they will

purchase less than *** pounds for the entire year. He also indicated that the initial price offered by the

import sources was $*** per pound and that, as the market for 6061 plate softened, the number was

lowered and was closer in line with the $*** per pound that was alleged. He indicated that the initial

domestic quote was $*** with a $***. *** also agreed with a lost sales allegation involving *** pounds. 

In regard to the lost revenue allegation, he indicated that *** could not make a determination with the

given information. However, he indicated that the price differential between imports and domestically

produced 6x aluminum plate was about $*** at the time of the allegation.

*** disagreed with the lost sales allegation involving ***, indicating that his company has no

record of the allegation nor was there a sale or contract to match the quantity in the allegation. A follow

up phone call with staff confirmed that *** disagreed with the lost sales allegation on that date, even if

the actual quantity was different.33

*** agreed with the lost revenue allegation involving ***. He indicated that approximately ***,

Hulett started to sell *** at 60 to 70 cents per pound cheaper than the domestic mills (such as Alcoa and

Kaiser) and that Hulett’s plate was far superior to other imports which have little overall impact even

when they were priced lower. He indicated that domestic mills lowered their prices in response and these

lower prices, devalued his inventory, and hurt his profitability.

*** agreed with the lost sales allegation and one of the lost revenue allegations involving ***. In

regard to one of the lost revenue allegations, he indicated that in the *** (the lost allegation was in the

***, a $*** per pound bid would have allowed *** to “participate in the buy.” According to ***, Empire

was below the $*** per pound level and ***’s average pricing of $*** per pound resulted in a zero

participation in *** purchase. In regard to the lost sales allegation, *** indicated that the pricing was

correct and corresponded to contract pricing for *** customers.

*** disagreed with the lost sale allegations and the lost revenue allegation involving ***. 

However, in regard to the lost revenue allegation, he stated that, “there is insufficient information to

comment.” In regard to one of the lost sales allegations, he stated that “This inquiry cannot be traced

specifically to an order. Were an order placed, it would have shipped to ***.” ***, the domestic producer

who made the allegation, indicated that in *** with respect to series 6000 aluminum plate products ***. 

In this program, *** indicated that *** per pound. *** indicated that during the time period of the lost

revenue allegations involving ***, Hulett product was priced about $*** per pound to $*** per pound. 

In regard to the other lost sales allegation, *** stated that it was difficult to recall specific transactions and

that his office neither received or requested pricing from the source offering 6xxx South African

aluminum plate in the volume or import price cited.
V-10

*** disagreed with the lost revenue allegation involving his company. He indicated that he

checked his invoices for the general period of time regarding subject material and determined that his

company’s cost to be substantially higher than the referenced import price in the allegation. 

*** agreed with the three lost sales allegations. However, he stated that the correct quantities for

two of the allegations were *** pounds each, much higher than the *** pounds alleged. In addition, the

actual rejected U.S. prices were higher than those reported in the allegations as were the accepted import

prices.
 1

 Kaiser filed for bankruptcy protection during the first quarter of 2002, attributing it to the firm’s liquidity and

cash flow problems arising in late 2001 and early 2002 as well as to increases in liabilities relating to asbestos

litigation, pension, medical, and other post employment benefits. Kaiser is operating as debtor-in-possession. See

Kaiser, 2003 Form 10-K, note 1, “Reorganization Proceedings,” and note 5, “Property, Plant, and Equipment,” to

Kaiser’s Consolidated Financial Statements, found at Internet site http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/

54291/00005429104000006/kacc_10k-4qtr2003.pdf, retrieved on September 14, 2004. 

 2

 Alcan acquired Pechiney, including the plant at Ravenswood, WV, in December 2003. As a merger condition,

the U.S. Department of Justice mandated the spin-off of the Ravenswood plant by the combined Alcan-Pechiney

entity. Alcan press release, September 29, 2003. That divestiture has not been completed at this time. Staff

telephone interview with ***. Reportedly, Alcan has not found a willing and qualified buyer of the Ravenswood

plant, described as historically unprofitable. See correspondence between the U.S. Department of Justice and

interested parties, found at Internet site http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f202800

/allcomments.htm, retrieved on May 18, 2004.

 3

 Each has a ***. ***.

 4

 McCook Metals produced 6000 series aluminum plate and sheet (and other aluminum series plate and sheet) at

McCook, IL. It filed for bankruptcy protection in August 2001 and the assets were ultimately liquidated. 

Respondents’ posthearing brief, exh. 6. Pechiney ***. Staff telephone interview with *** of Alcan, October 18,

2004.

 5

 Alcoa produced plate in *** aluminum series; Kaiser produced *** series; and Pechiney produced *** heattreatable series and ***.

 6

 U.S. producers were asked to list other products that they produced in the same facilities as certain aluminum

plate, and provide the share of net sales in 2003. Alcoa reported that certain aluminum plate accounted for ***

percent of sales while aluminum plate produced in series other than 6000 accounted for *** percent, aluminum 6000

series sheet accounted for *** percent while aluminum sheet accounted for *** percent. Kaiser reported that 6000

series plate accounted for *** percent of sales; 7000 series plate and 2000 series plate accounted for *** percent and

*** percent, respectively; 7000 and 2000 series sheet together accounted for *** percent; 6000 series sheet

accounted for *** percent; and tread plate accounted for *** percent. Pechiney reported that aerospace plate

accounted for *** percent of sales; “high mag products” accounted for *** percent; brazing sheet accounted for ***

percent; and “common alloy group” accounted for *** percent of sales.

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Three firms, Alcoa, Kaiser,1

 and Pechiney,2 provided usable financial data on their U.S.

operations producing certain aluminum plate.3

 These reported data are believed to represent all or nearly

all of U.S. certain aluminum plate production in the periods examined.4

The three responding U.S. firms reported that they made aluminum plate in other series5 and they

produce other types of aluminum rolled products, such as sheet, in the same facilities in which they

produce certain aluminum plate.6

 These other products accounted for the majority of the firms’

production and sales. 

OPERATIONS ON CERTAIN ALUMINUM PLATE

In the preliminary phase of this investigation, each of the three reporting U.S. producers stated it

does not maintain a product-line income statement solely for 6000 series aluminum plate and, therefore,

allocated most of the costs of producing certain aluminum plate from its total operations that include other

products. As certain aluminum plate varies relative to total volume and/or revenue or to other products

that share the firm’s cost pool, it may result in a change in costs allocated to it. This is the case also with
 7

 Producers’ questionnaire response of ***, att. 2. Also, in the preliminary phase of this investigation, *** raw

materials were restated to cost, as requested in the Commission’s questionnaire. Note 1 to table VI-1, November 24,

2003 staff report (INV-AA-182). 

 8

 September 7, 2004 staff telephone interview with ***. 

 9

 E-mail to staff from ***, October 4, 2004. The growing legacy obligations for retiree medical and pension costs

was one of several reasons stated by Kaiser in its bankruptcy filing in 2002. Kaiser’s 2003 form 10-K, p. 1 (see note

1, earlier). 

 10 *** has not provided Commission staff with an explanation of changes in these cost categories.

VI-2

respect to the original cost and book value of property, plant, and equipment. *** reconciled its

questionnaire response to its internal statements for aluminum flat products.7

There are minor differences between the data reported in this final phase of the investigation and

data reported in the preliminary phase of the investigation in 2001 and 2002 in that ***. 

Results of U.S. firms’ operations on certain aluminum plate are presented in table VI-1. 

The quantity and value of sales rose between 2001 and 2002, between 2002 and 2003, as well as

between January-June 2003 and the same period in 2004. Between 2001 and 2003, the value of sales did

not rise at a rate that was commensurate with sales quantity because unit sales values fell by about 19

percent. Cost of goods sold (COGS) increased in value and as a ratio of sales value between 2001 and

2003, but declined on a per-unit basis between the two years, reflecting the decline in per-unit other

factory costs, accounted for by ***. The average unit value of COGS declined slightly between JanuaryJune 2003 and the same period in 2004 as the decrease in per-unit other factory costs, led by ***, offset

the increases in per-unit raw materials and direct labor, accounted for by ***. The industry recorded an

operating loss in 2002 and 2003 but recorded an operating profit in January-June 2004 because of the

increase in sales volume, average unit sales value, and lower average unit other factory costs. Those

positive factors were greater than the increased average unit value of raw materials and direct labor

(accounted for by a large increase in *** unit labor costs). 

With respect to direct labor costs, *** explained that differences between periods reflect

changes made to restructure manning levels and hours of production shifts within its plant. *** lower

cost workforce was replaced by its *** higher cost workforce.8

 Affecting both direct labor and other

factory costs, ***; *** in 2003.9

 The unit value of *** direct labor costs (table VI-2) increased between

January-June 2003 and the same period in 2004, leading to the increase in the industry’s average unit

value for this cost category; these costs were much lower during January-June 2003 compared with full

year 2003. The unit value of *** other factory costs decreased between the two interim periods, leading

to a lower average unit value for the industry in this cost category. The unit value of *** other factory

costs were much higher during January-June 2003 compared with full year 2003.10
VI-3

Table VI-1

Certain aluminum plate: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and

January-June 2004 

Item

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Quantity (short tons)

Total net sales1 24,833 34,295 42,532 19,796 34,714

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales1 94,750 114,856 131,372 61,239 117,198

COGS:

 Raw materials2 34,037 48,580 57,228 26,039 52,060

 Direct labor3 8,656 11,663 14,665 6,650 12,577

 Other factory costs3 41,427 55,341 63,933 30,573 45,447

 Total COGS 84,120 115,584 135,826 63,262 110,084

Gross profit or (loss) 10,630 (728) (4,454) (2,023) 7,114

SG&A expenses 3,135 2,777 3,800 1,768 2,757

Operating income or (loss) 7,495 (3,505) (8,254) (3,791) 4,357

Interest expense 673 1,000 868 455 577

Other expense 4,529 3,825 501 275 (83)

Other income 545 466 656 236 579

Net income or (loss) 2,838 (7,864) (8,967) (4,285) 4,442

Depreciation 9,030 11,472 9,627 4,814 6,496

Cash flow 11,868 3,608 660 529 10,938

Ratio to total net sales (percent)

COGS:

 Raw materials 35.9 42.3 43.6 42.5 44.4

 Direct labor 9.1 10.2 11.2 10.9 10.7

 Other factory costs 43.7 48.2 48.7 49.9 38.8

 Total COGS 88.8 100.6 103.4 103.3 93.9

Gross profit or (loss) 11.2 (0.6) (3.4) (3.3) 6.1

SG&A expenses 3.3 2.4 2.9 2.9 2.4

Operating income or (loss) 7.9 (3.1) (6.3) (6.2) 3.7

Table continued on following page.
 11 Kaiser stated that its sales ***. See November 4, 2003, e-mail from ***. 

 12 Kaiser’s 2003 Form 10-K attributes the decline in the profitability of its segment producing sheet and plate to

the fall in U.S. demand, particularly after September 11, 2001, and increased operating costs due to a lag in the

ability to scale back costs to reflect a revised product mix. 

VI-4

Table VI-1--Continued

Certain aluminum plate: Results of operations of U.S. producers, 2001-03, January-June 2003,

and January-June 2004

Item

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Unit value (per short ton )

Total net sales1 $3,815.56 $3,349.06 $3,088.78 $3,093.50 $3,376.15

COGS:

 Raw materials 1,370.66 1,416.53 1,345.53 1,315.37 1,499.70

 Direct labor 348.58 340.08 344.80 335.93 362.31

 Other factory costs 1,668.26 1,613.68 1,503.17 1,544.40 1,309.20

 Total COGS 3,387.50 3,370.29 3,193.50 3,195.70 3,171.22

Gross profit or (loss) 428.07 (21.23) (104.72) (102.19) 204.93

SG&A expenses 126.25 80.97 89.34 89.31 79.42

Operating income or (loss) 301.82 (102.20) (194.07) (191.50) 125.51

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses 0 *** *** *** ***

Data 3 3 3 3 3

1

 ***

2

 *** produce the aluminum input that is rolled to produce certain aluminum plate, although *** reported some purchases of

ingot to supplement its production. *** purchases ingot to roll into plate. ***. 3

 Differences in the value reported when compared to the prehearing staff report are attributable to ***. Revised *** producer

questionnaire response, October 12, 2004.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, unless otherwise noted.

Table VI-2 presents data on total net sales, COGS, SG&A, and operating income on a firm-byfirm basis.

Table VI-2

Certain aluminum plate: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firms, 2001-03, January-June

2003, and January-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Kaiser’s sales volume increased between 2001 and 2002 by *** percent as well as between 2002

and 2003 when it increased by *** percent.11 Although Kaiser stated that the North American demand for

series 6000 plate was roughly flat in 2002 as compared to the prior year,12 it stated that its shipments

increased because it ***. Kaiser’s questionnaire data indicate that its average unit sales values fell

between 2001 and 2003 by *** percent (*** percent between 2001 and 2002 and by *** percent between

2002 and 2003), but increased between interim 2003 and interim 2004 by *** percent, and that its total

sales value increased between each of the periods examined because of the increase in volume. Kaiser
 13 November 5, 2003, e-mail from Lynn Kamarck, counsel to Alcoa.

 14 Respondents’ prehearing brief, pp. 30-31 and exh. 1, pp. 17-18, tables 8-11. The substituted numbers, although

mathematically correct, are no replacement for the actual costs of ***. Respondents also prepared proforma sales

and cost statements for the industry and by firm for the third quarter and fourth quarter of 2004. Respondents’

posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 18 and tables 1-5. These estimates and the proforma statements are not reliable for

several reasons, including: (1) the announced price increases, used to calculate sales values, may not be realized and

may not reflect actual transaction values; (2) price increases and estimated sales volumes do not reflect sales

discounts, returns, and allowances; (3) use of a broad producer price index (PPI) may not reflect actual cost

experience of a small subset of U.S. producers; (4) there is no matching of revenues and costs associated with those

revenues (a basic principle of GAAP) other than cobbling together two sets of estimates from disparate sources. 

 15 E-mail to staff from ***, October 12, 2004.

 16 PBGC news release, “PBGC protects pensions of hourly workers at Kaiser Aluminum,” October 5, 2004, found

at Internet site http://www.pbgc.gov/news/press_areleases/2004/pr05_03.htm, retrieved on October 8, 2004. 

VI-5

claimed that it ***. It should be noted that Alcoa’s sales volume increased by *** but the unit value of its

sales fell by *** percent between 2001 and 2002, and its sales volume increased by by *** percent while

the unit value of its sales declined by *** percent between 2002 and 2003. Alcoa stated that its sales

increased in 2002 compared to 2001, as it ***.13 Pechiney’s sales volume increased by *** percent

between 2001 and 2002, and by another *** percent between 2002 and 2003 even as the unit value of its

sales fell by *** percent between 2001 and 2002, and by *** percent between 2002 and 2003.

In their prehearing brief, respondents prepared revised industry profit and loss statements by

adjusting *** labor and overhead costs to the combined average unit value of such costs of ***. Because

***, respondents’ proformas show increased industry profitability.14 As noted earlier, *** amended its

PRW-related data , direct labor, and other factory costs to restate wages paid and labor costs: accrued

expenses for non-active workers were extracted from the PRW data and were reclassified from direct

labor to other factory costs in the product line income statement;15 neither change resulted in a change to

total COGS. Based on the revised data, *** unit labor costs are *** than those of ***, and while the

average unit value of its other factory costs was *** in 2001 and 2002, it was *** in 2003 and JanuaryJune 2004. The average unit value of *** in 2003. With regard to pensions, the Pension Benefit

Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) recently assumed responsibility for the Kaiser Aluminum Pension Plan, which

covered approximately 9,600 hourly workers represented by the United Steelworkers of America as of

September 30, 2004. The PBGC previously had assumed responsibility for Kaiser’s salaried and inactive

workers; Kaiser sponsors five other defined benefit plans that remain ongoing.16

Changes in the operating income of these firms are further evidenced by a variance analysis that

shows the effects of prices and volume on total net sales and of costs and volume on their total costs. The

variance analysis is shown in table VI-3
VI-6

Table VI-3

Certain aluminum plate: Variance analysis on results of operations, 2001-03, and January-June

2003-04

Item

Calendar year January-June

2001-03 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales:

 Price variance (30,912) (15,999) (11,070) 9,812

 Volume variance 67,534 36,105 27,586 46,147

 Total net sales variance 36,622 20,106 16,516 55,959

Cost of goods sold:

 Cost variance 8,251 590 7,519 850

 Volume variance (59,957) (32,054) (27,761) (47,672)

 Total cost of goods variance (51,706) (31,464) (20,242) (46,822)

Gross profit variance (15,084) (11,358) (3,726) 9,137

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance 1,569 1,553 (356) 343

 Volume variance (2,234) (1,195) (667) (1,332)

 Total SG&A variance (665) 358 (1,023) (989)

Operating income variance (15,749) (11,000) (4,749) 8,148

Summarized as:

 Price variance (30,912) (15,999) (11,070) 9,812

 Net cost/expense variance 9,820 2,143 7,163 1,193

 Net volume variance 5,342 2,856 (842) (2,857)

Note.–Unfavorable variances are shown in parenthesis; all others are favorable. The data are comparable to changes in

operating income as presented in table VI-1; variances for internal consumption and transfers are not material and are not

presented.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

This analysis shows that the decrease in operating income between each of the full year periods

was primarily because prices declined (an unfavorable price variance) faster than costs declined (a

favorable net cost/expense variance). Between January-June 2003 and the same period in 2004,

increasing prices and decreased costs were the primary causes of the increased operating income.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES,

AND INVESTMENT IN PRODUCTIVE FACILITIES

The responding firms’ data on capital expenditures and their research and development (“R&D”)

expenses used in the production of certain aluminum plate are shown in table VI-4.

Table VI-4

Certain aluminum plate: Value of capital expenditures and R&D expenses of U.S. producers, by

firms, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

* * * * * * *
 17 In this formula, sales divided by total assets is a general measure of a firm’s ability to generate sales in relation

to total assets, considering that the firm has investment in its cash, inventories, accounts receivable, as well as in its

productive assets. ROI may be considered as a measure of the firm’s ability to generate profits from existing current

and fixed assets, and ROI may be used as one factor in management decisions for allocating resources to a particular

product line within the overall business. 

 18 For petitioners’ comments on the ROI analysis, see hearing transcript, pp. 45-46 (Malashevich).

VI-7

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,

and sale of certain aluminum plate to compute return on investment (ROI) for 2001-03 and for the two

half-year periods in 2003 and 2004. The data for total net sales and operating income are from table 

VI-1. Operating income was divided by total net sales, resulting in the operating income ratio. Total net

sales was divided by total assets, resulting in the asset turnover ratio. The operating income ratio was

then multiplied by the asset turnover ratio, resulting in ROI;17 the expanded form of this equation shows

how the profit margin and total assets turnover ratio interact to determine the return on investment.

The industry’s total assets and its ROI are presented in table VI-5. The total assets utilized in the

production, warehousing, and sales of certain aluminum plate increased on average from 2001 to 2003,

largely attributable to larger values in cash and book value of property, plant, and equipment of ***. The

combined operating income18 decreased between 2001 and 2002, and fell again between 2002 and 2003

(table VI-1), and ROI followed the trends in the operating income ratio. Total assets decreased *** while

operating income increased between January-June 2003 and the same period in 2004, resulting in an

increase in ROI.

Table VI-5

Certain aluminum plate: Value of assets used in the production, warehousing, and sale, and return

on investment, calendar years 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

Item

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Value ($1,000)

Accounts receivable, net 11,046 10,757 12,534 10,090 15,222

Inventories (finished goods) 8,760 8,271 6,314 5,232 5,088

Inventories (raw materials, work-in-process) 25,809 22,526 19,755 18,374 20,711

Original cost of property, plant, and equipment 128,104 150,994 147,997 123,339 137,604

Book value of property, plant, and equipment 52,524 65,317 63,086 50,894 59,345

Other assets1 27,215 67,107 90,850 97,895 28,785

Total assets 125,354 173,978 192,539 182,485 129,151

Total net sales 94,750 114,856 131,372 61,239 117,198

Operating income or (loss) 7,495 (3,505) (8,254) (3,791) 4,357

Return on investment (percent)

2 6.0 (2.0) (4.3) (2.1) 3.4

1

 Includes such items as cash, prepaid expenses, deferred taxes, and goodwill. *** 

2

 Calculated by multiplying the operating income ratio times the asset turnover ratio (discussed earlier), or dividing operating

income by total assets.

Note: ROI for a full year is not comparable with an interim period ROI. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
VI-8

An industry producing aluminum plate by various manufacturing techniques is classified in

NAICS code 331315. Data for this category are not contained in the Risk Management Association’s

(RMA) Annual Statement Studies, and comparisons between the questionnaire data and RMA data are not

possible.

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual or potential negative effects of

imports of certain aluminum plate from South Africa on their firms’ growth, investment, and ability to

raise capital or development and production efforts (including efforts to develop a derivative or more

advanced version of the product). Their responses regarding actual and anticipated effects are as follows: 

***

“Yes. ***. First, we have had a detrimental impact on our sales and profit, ***, as a result of (a)

sales we believe we have lost to South African series 6000 plate and (b) the lower overall market

price for series 6000 plate due to pricing practices of such South African series 6000 plate. 

Second, we have *** to produce series 6000, series 2000, and series 7000 aluminum plate. The

***. In particular, the market share that we have lost to plate produced in South Africa, as well as

the reduction in market price for series 6000 aluminum plate, detrimentally impacted our return

estimates and caused us to ***. Were it not for the impact of South African imports, we may

have *** already.”

***

***

***

“Yes. Lower revenue to maintain market share. Until the filing of this case, *** had been

experiencing negative effects from South Africa, which depressed our selling prices and

profitability. Our firm was forced to lower selling prices to maintain market share, in turn

lowering the profitability of this product. The Commerce Department’s preliminary finding of

dumping by Hulett served to assist in reversing these trends and in restoring more reasonable

pricing and a resumption of ***.”
 1

 Section 771(7)(F)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii)) provides that “The Commission shall consider

[these factors] . . . as a whole in making a determination of whether further dumped or subsidized imports are

imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension

agreement is accepted under this title. The presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to

consider . . . shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the determination. Such a determination

may not be made on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition.”

VII-1

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS

Section 771(7)(F)(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)) provides that--

In determining whether an industry in the United States is threatened

with material injury by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of the

subject merchandise, the Commission shall consider, among other

relevant economic factors1

--

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be

presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the

subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a

subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement), and

whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial

increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the

likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export

markets to absorb any additional exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of

imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of

substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices

that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on

domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the

foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise,

are currently being used to produce other products,

(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
 2

 Section 771(7)(F)(iii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(iii)) further provides that, in antidumping

investigations, “. . . the Commission shall consider whether dumping in the markets of foreign countries (as

evidenced by dumping findings or antidumping remedies in other WTO member markets against the same class or

kind of merchandise manufactured or exported by the same party as under investigation) suggests a threat of material

injury to the domestic industry.”

 3

 Hulett reported that it produces certain aluminum plate (6061 and 6082 series aluminum plate) ***. Hulett’s

foreign producers’ exporter questionnaire response (att. A).

 4

 Hulett adopted a business plan in the third quarter of 2003 that called for increased exports to the *** markets in

order to diversify its export markets. Reportedly, the company, already operating at near capacity, reduced exports

to the U.S. market in 2003 and January-June 2004 (and projected decreases in 2004 and 2005), reflecting the

implementation of its business plan. Hulett’s foreign producers’ exporter questionnaire response (att. A), and

(continued...)

VII-2

 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

Subsidies are not relevant to this investigation; information on the volume and pricing of imports

of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV and V; and information on the effects of imports of the

subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing development and production efforts is presented in Part

VI. Information on inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the

potential for “product-shifting;” any other threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in

third-country markets, follows.

THE INDUSTRY IN SOUTH AFRICA

The Commission requested data from one firm, Hulett Aluminum (Pty), Ltd. (“Hulett”), which

was listed in the petition and accounted for all certain aluminum plate production in South Africa during

the period examined. Table VII-1 presents data for reported production and shipments of certain

aluminum plate for South Africa as reported by Hulett. 

Table VII-1

Certain aluminum plate: South Africa’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories, 2001-03, January-June 2003, January-June 2004, and projections for 2004 and 2005

* * * * * * *

Hulett reported that *** percent of its total sales in the most recent fiscal year were sales of

certain aluminum plate.3

 In 2003, *** percent of Hulett’s total shipments of certain aluminum plate 

were exported to the United States, while *** percent of its shipments of certain aluminum plate were to

other export markets such as ***.4

 From 2001 to 2003, Hulett’s volume of shipments exported to the
 4

 (...continued)

respondents' prehearing brief, p. 17, fn. 10; and respondents' posthearing brief, exhibit 4.

 5

 Hulett reported that its capacity data are based upon ***. Hulett’s foreign producers’ exporter questionnaire

response in the preliminary phase, section II-7. Hulett reported that ***. Hulett’s foreign producers’/exporters’

questionnaire response (att. A).

 6

 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 46. Hulett explained that to install new SHTFs, and thereby increase its

capacity, would require approximately 30 months from planning to implementation. Id. at exh. 2.

 7

 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 10.

 8

 Hulett reported that ***. Hulett’s foreign producers’/exporters’ questionnaire response (att. A).

An article in the South African financial press reported that Hulett was considering construction of a new

aluminum rolling mill. See “Hulett Looks Over Sites for its New Rolling Mill,” March 14, 2003, Business Day,

provided in exh. II-17 of petitioner’s postconference brief. ***. Respondents’ postconference brief, exh. 2

(Declaration of Frank Bradford). See also, conference transcript, p. 173. (Bradford).

 9

 ***. Staff telephone interview with ***, September 1, 2004.

 10 Respondents’ postconference brief, exh. 2 (***).

VII-3

United States increased by *** percent, and its volume of shipments exported to other world markets rose

by *** percent. When comparing the interim (January through June) periods of 2003 and 2004, Hulett’s

exports to the United States fell by *** short tons, or by *** percent, while exports to other world

markets increased *** percent. From 2001 to 2003, Hulett’s volume of home market shipments of certain

aluminum plate increased ***, and continued to increase in the first six months of 2004.

Hulett’s reported capacity remained unchanged from 2001 to 2003 and is projected to remain

steady in 2004 and 2005.5

 Hulett reported that its capacity is constrained by its solution heat treatment

furnace (“SHTF”) and it has no plans to install additional SHTFs or otherwise expand its capacity.6

Hulett reported that it is currently producing certain aluminum plate at capacity and has been for some

time. It maintains that there is no intention to shift exports from the third-country markets it has

development ***. Reportedly, such a shift would be inconsistent with Hulett’s business strategy to

diversify market and currency risk. Moreover, Hulett reported that there are no planned plant expansions,

and any expansion project would have a lead time of at least 30 months.7

Hulett’s production increased from 2001 to 2003 by *** percent, and is projected to further

increase in 2004 by an additional *** percent; ***-percent rise is projected in 2005 over 2003.8

 Empire 

is Hulett’s *** U.S. importer of certain aluminum plate.9

Hullett reported that ***.10

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Reported inventories held by U.S. importers of subject merchandise from South Africa and

nonsubject countries are shown in table VII-2.

Table VII-2

Certain aluminum plate: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2001-03,

January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

* * * * * * *
VII-4

U.S. IMPORTERS’ IMPORTS SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE 30, 2004

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of certain aluminum plate from South Africa after June 30, 2004. *** reported that it had

arranged for the importation of *** short tons of certain aluminum plate from South Africa subsequent to

June 30, 2004. 

DUMPING IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

There is no indication that certain aluminum plate from South Africa has been the subject of any

import relief investigations in any other countries.
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

29262 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Notices 

Service Type/Location: Commissary Shelf 

Stocking, Custodial & Warehousing, 

McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas. 

NPA: None Currently Authorized. 

Contract Activity: Defense Commissary 

Agency, Fort Lee, Virginia. 

Service Type/Location: Janitorial/Grounds 

Maintenance, U.S. Army Reserve Center, 

Hot Springs, Arkansas. 

NPA: None Currently Authorized. 

Contract Activity: Department of the Army.

Patrick Rowe, 

Deputy Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 04–11526 Filed 5–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6353–01–P

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting 

of the Massachusetts Advisory 

Committee 

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 

the provisions of the rules and 

regulations of the U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights, that a conference call of the 

Massachusetts Advisory Committee will 

convene at 1 p.m. and adjourn at 2 p.m., 

Wednesday, May 26, 2004. The purpose 

of the conference call is to update 

Advisory Committee members on 

planning status and finalize logistical 

issues for forum on educational issues 

in Lynn, Massachusetts. 

This conference call is available to the 

public through the following call-in 

number: 1–800–955–9331, access code: 

23836822. Any interested member of the 

public may call this number and listen 

to the meeting. Callers can expect to 

incur charges for calls not initiated 

using the supplied call-in number or 

over wireless lines, and the Commission 

will not refund any incurred charges. 

Callers will incur no charge for calls 

using the call-in number over land-line 

connections. Persons with hearing 

impairments may also follow the 

proceedings by first calling the Federal 

Relay Service at 1–800–977–8339 and 

providing the Service with the 

conference call number and access code 

number. 

To ensure that the Commission 

secures an appropriate number of lines 

for the public, persons are asked to 

register by contacting Aonghas StHilaire of the Eastern Regional Office, 

202–376–7533 (TTY 202–376–8116), by 

4 p.m. on Tuesday, May 25, 2004. 

The meeting will be conducted 

pursuant to the provisions of the rules 

and regulations of the Commission.

Dated at Washington, DC , May 14, 2004. 

Ivy L. Davis, 

Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. 04–11468 Filed 5–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

Request for Duty-Free Entry of 

Scientific Instrument or Apparatus

ACTION: Proposed collection; comment 

request. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burdens, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on the 

continuing information collections, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before July 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 

14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; phone(202) 

482–0266 or via the Internet at 

dHynek@doc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to: Gerald Zerdy, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, FCB Suite 

4100W, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

phone (202) 482–1660, fax (202) 482–

0949.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract: The Departments of 

Commerce and Homeland Security 

(‘‘DHS’’) are required to determine 

whether nonprofit institutions 

established for scientific or educational 

purposes are entitled to duty-free entry 

under the Florence Agreement of certain 

scientific instruments they import. Form 

ITA–338P enables: (1) DHS to determine 

whether the statutory eligibility 

requirements for the institution and the 

instrument are fulfilled, and (2) 

Commerce to make a comparison and 

finding as to the scientific equivalency 

of comparable instruments being 

manufactured in the United States. 

Without the collection of the 

information, DHS and Commerce would 

not have the necessary information to 

carry out the responsibilities of 

determining eligibility for duty-free 

entry assigned by law. 

II. Method of Collection: The 

Department of Commerce distributes 

Form ITA–338P to potential applicants 

upon request. The applicant completes 

the form and then forwards it to the 

DHS. Upon acceptance by DHS as a 

valid application, the application is 

transmitted to Commerce for processing. 

III. Data:

OMB Number: 0625–0037. 

Form Number: ITA–338P. 

Type of Review: Extension-Regular 

Submission. 

Affected Public: State or local 

governments; Federal agencies; 

nonprofit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

60. 

Estimated Time per Response: 2 

hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 120. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost:

$152,640 ($2,640 for respondents and 

$150,000 for Federal government). 

IV. Request for Comments: Comments 

are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record.

Dated: May 18, 2004. 

Madeleine Clayton, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–11595 Filed 5–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–791–819] 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Aluminum Plate From South Africa

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary 

determination of sales at less than fair 

value. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Notices 29263

1The Section D supplemental response was filed 

on May 11, 2004, but not received in time to be 

used for purposes of the preliminary determination. 

Accordingly, for purposes of the preliminary 

determination, we used the original Section D 

questionnaire response dated April 30, 2004.

2See the discussion of home market viability in 

the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section of this notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) preliminarily 

determines that certain aluminum plate 

from South Africa is being, or is likely 

to be, sold in the United States at less 

than fair value, as provided in section 

733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on this preliminary 

determination. We will make our final 

determination not later than 75 days 

after the preliminary determination.

DATES: Effective Date: May 21, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4007 or (202) 482–

4929, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Since the initiation of this 

investigation (Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Investigation: Certain Aluminum 

Plate from South Africa, 68 FR 64081 

(November 12, 2003)) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’), the following events have 

occurred. 

On December 1, 2003, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(ITC) preliminarily determined that 

there is a reasonable indication that 

imports of certain aluminum plate from 

South Africa are materially injuring the 

United States industry (see ITC 

Investigation No. 731–TA–1056 

(Publication No. 3654)). 

On December 5, 2003, we selected the 

largest producer/exporter of certain 

aluminum plate from South Africa as 

the mandatory respondent in this 

proceeding. For further discussion, see 

the December 5, 2003, Memorandum to 

Louis Apple, Director Office 2, from The 

Team Re: Selection of Respondent. Also 

on December 5, 2003, we issued the 

antidumping questionnaire to Hulett 

Aluminium (Pty) Limited (‘‘Hulett’’). 

During the period January through 

May 2004, the Department received 

responses to sections A through D of the 

Department’s original and supplemental 

questionnaires from Hulett.1

On February 13, 2004, the petitioner 

made an allegation that Hulett sold 

certain aluminum plate in a third 

country market at prices below the cost 

of production (COP). On March 4, 2004, 

the Department initiated a cost 

investigation of Hulett’s third country 

sales (see the March 4, 2004, 

Memorandum to the File Re: Petitioner’s 

Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 

Production for Hulett Aluminium (Pty) 

Limited). 

On March 9, 2004, the Department 

extended the time limit for the 

preliminary results in this review until 

May 13, 2004. See Notice of 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Aluminum Plate 

from South Africa, 69 FR 10980. 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is 6000 series aluminum 

alloy, flat surface, rolled plate, whether 

in coils or cut-to-length forms, that is 

rectangular in cross section with or 

without rounded corners and with a 

thickness of not less than .250 inches 

(6.3 millimeters). 6000 Series 

Aluminum Rolled Plate is defined by 

the Aluminum Association, Inc. 

Excluded from the scope of this 

investigation are extruded aluminum 

products and tread plate. 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is currently classifiable 

under subheading 7606.12.3030 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTS). Although the HTS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, our written 

description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

October 1, 2002, through September 30, 

2003. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of certain 

aluminum plate from South Africa to 

the United States were made at less than 

fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), we compared the 

export price (‘‘EP’’) to the normal value 

(‘‘NV’’), as described in the ‘‘Export 

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice, below. In accordance with 

section 777A(d)(1)(A)(I) of the Act, we 

compared POI weighted-average EPs to 

weighted-average NVs.

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced and sold by the respondent in 

the third country market during the POI 

that fit the description in the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section of this notice to 

be foreign like products for purposes of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared 

U.S. sales to sales made in the third 

country market, where appropriate.2

Where there were no sales of identical 

merchandise in the third country market 

made in the ordinary course of trade to 

compare to U.S. sales, we compared 

U.S. sales to sales of the most similar 

foreign like product made in the 

ordinary course of trade. In making the 

product comparisons, we matched 

foreign like products based on the 

physical characteristics reported by the 

respondents in the following order of 

importance: alloy, temper, gauge, width, 

and length.

Date of Sale 

Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s 

regulations states that the Department 

will normally use the date of invoice, as 

recorded in the exporter’s or producer’s 

records kept in the ordinary course of 

business, as the date of sale. However, 

the Department may use a date other 

than the date of invoice if the alternative 

better reflects the date on which the 

material terms of sale (e.g., price and 

quantity) are established. On February 

6, March 5, and March 22, 2004, the 

petitioner submitted letters to the 

Department arguing that the dates of 

either the framework agreement or the 

release order more accurately reflect the 

date on which the material terms of sale 

were established for the majority of the 

reported U.S. and third country sales 

transactions than does the invoice date. 

At the Department’s request, Hulett 

submitted additional information on 

April 2, 2004. We found that this 

documentation, subject to verification, 

demonstrated that the quantity of 

aluminum plate ultimately sold changes 

significantly between the time the 

framework agreements and release 

orders are established and the time the 

commercial invoices are issued. 

Therefore, we have used the reported 

U.S. and third country invoice dates as 

the dates of sale for purposes of the 

preliminary determination. 

Export Price 

We used EP methodology, in 

accordance with section 772(a) of the 

Act, because the subject merchandise 

was sold directly by the producer/

exporter in South Africa to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States prior to importation and 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) 

methodology was not otherwise 

indicated. 

We based EP on the packed price to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. In accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made 

29264 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Notices 

3Where NV is based on constructed value (‘‘CV’’), 

we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the 

sales from which we derive selling expenses and 

profit for CV, where possible.

deductions for movement expenses, 

including, where appropriate, foreign 

inland freight, warehousing, foreign 

brokerage and handling, international 

freight, and marine insurance. We 

added billing adjustments to EP, where 

appropriate. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability 

In order to determine whether there is 

a sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product is equal to or 

greater than five percent of the aggregate 

volume of U.S. sales), we compared 

Hulett’s volume of home market sales of 

the foreign like product to the volume 

of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, 

in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) 

of the Act. Because Hulett’s aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product was less than five 

percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. 

sales for the subject merchandise, we 

determined that the home market was 

not viable for Hulett. However, we 

determined that the third country 

market of Taiwan was viable, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) 

of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to 

section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, we have 

used third country sales as a basis for 

NV for Hulett. 

B. Level of Trade 

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act 

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

sales at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) 

as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at 

different LOTs if they are made at 

different marketing stages (or their 

equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). 

Substantial differences in selling 

activities are a necessary, but not 

sufficient, condition for determining 

that there is a difference in the stages of 

marketing. Id., see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa,

62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 

1997) (‘‘Plate from South Africa’’). In 

order to determine whether the 

comparison sales were at different 

stages in the marketing process than the 

U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution 

system in each market (i.e., the ‘‘chain 

of distribution’’), including selling 

functions, class of customer (‘‘customer 

category’’), and the level of selling 

expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 

the Act, in identifying levels of trade for 

EP and comparison market sales (i.e., 

NV based on either home market or 

third country prices 3), we consider the 

starting prices before any adjustments. 

For CEP sales, we consider only the 

selling activities reflected in the price 

after the deduction of expenses and 

profit under section 772(d) of the Act. 

See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 

States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314–1315 (Fed. 

Cir. 2001).

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. sales to sales of the foreign 

like product in the comparison market 

at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sale 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP or 

CEP sales to sales at a different LOT in 

the comparison market, where available 

data make it practicable, we examine 

whether a LOT adjustment is warranted 

under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 

Finally, for CEP sales only, if a NV LOT 

is more remote from the factory than the 

CEP LOT and there is no basis for 

determining whether the difference in 

LOTs between NV and CEP affects price 

comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment 

was practicable), the Department shall 

grant a CEP offset, as provided in 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate 

from South Africa, 62 FR at 61731. 

We obtained information from the 

respondents regarding the marketing 

stages involved in making the reported 

foreign market and U.S. sales, including 

a description of the selling activities 

performed for each channel of 

distribution. 

In both the U.S. and Taiwan markets, 

Hulett sold the subject merchandise 

through one channel of distribution. In 

the U.S. market, Hulett sold to a longstanding customer which distributes 

Hulett’s products in the United States. 

In Taiwan, Hulett similarly sold to a 

distributor, but employed a selling agent 

to assist with negotiation, translation 

and formalization of contracts, for 

which Hulett paid it a commission. 

Hulett also incurred certain marketing 

and technical support expenses 

associated with being a new entrant into 

the Taiwan market during the POI. 

Because of these differences in selling 

activities and associated selling 

expenses, we determined that U.S. and 

third country sales were made at two 

different LOTs. However, as there is 

only one LOT in the third country 

market, we have no basis on which to 

determine that a LOT adjustment is 

warranted pursuant to section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 

C. Calculation of Normal Value 

We calculated NV based on CIF or 

C&F prices to unaffiliated customers. 

We made deductions, where 

appropriate, from the starting price for 

movement expenses, including inland 

freight, warehousing, brokerage and 

handling, international freight, and 

marine insurance, under section 

773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, 

we made adjustments under section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410 for differences in circumstances 

of sale for imputed credit, warranty, and 

advertising expenses. We also made an 

adjustment to NV to account for 

commissions paid in the third country 

but not in the U.S. market, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e). As 

the offset for third country 

commissions, we applied the lesser of 

third country commissions or U.S. 

indirect selling expenses. We 

disallowed an adjustment claimed for 

certain technical services expenses 

because they appear to be indirect rather 

than direct selling expenses based on 

Hulett’s description in its response. See 

the May 13, 2004, Memorandum to the 

File: Calculations for the Preliminary 

Determination of Certain Aluminum 

Plate from South Africa. 

Furthermore, we made an adjustment 

for differences in costs attributable to 

differences in the physical 

characteristics of the merchandise in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also 

deducted third country packing costs 

and added U.S. packing costs in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. 

D. Cost of Production 

1. Calculation of COP 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated COP based on 

the sum of Hulett’s cost of materials and 

fabrication for the foreign like product, 

plus amounts for general and 

administrative expenses (‘‘G&A’’), and 

interest expenses, where appropriate. 

We relied on the COP information 

provided by Hulett in its questionnaire 

responses. 

2. Test of Third Country Prices 

On a product-specific basis, we 

compared the weighted-average COPs to 

third country sales of the foreign like 

product during the POI, as required 

under section 773(b) of the Act, in order 

to determine whether sales had been 

made at prices below the COP. The 

prices were exclusive of any applicable 

movement charges, commissions, direct 

and indirect selling expenses. In 

determining whether to disregard third 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Notices 29265

country sales made at prices below the 

COP, we examined, in accordance with 

sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, 

whether such sales were made (1) 

within an extended period of time in 

substantial quantities, and (2) at prices 

which did not permit the recovery of 

costs within a reasonable period of time.

3. Results of the COP Test 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the 

Act, where less than 20 percent of a 

respondent’s sales of a given product are 

made at prices below the COP, we do 

not disregard any below-cost sales of 

that product because we determine that 

in such instances the below-cost sales 

were not made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more 

of a respondent’s sales of a given 

product are at prices less than the COP, 

we disregard those sales of that product, 

because we determine that in such 

instances the below-cost sales represent 

‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an 

extended period of time in accordance 

with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In 

such cases, we also determine whether 

such sales are made at prices which 

would not permit recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of 

the Act. 

The results of our cost test for Hulett 

indicated that less than 20 percent of 

third country sales of any given product 

were at prices below COP. We therefore 

retained all sales in our analysis and 

used them as the basis for determining 

NV. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. 

Decline of the U.S. Dollar Against the 

South African Rand 

On April 9, 2004, the petitioner filed 

a letter with the Department requesting 

that we alter our normal calculation 

methodology to account for the 

significant decline of the U.S. dollar 

against the South African rand (SAR) 

over the course of the POI. The 

petitioner claimed that the combination 

of the following facts in this case may 

result in a distorted margin calculation 

when the Department’s standard 

methodology is used: (1) Hulett’s U.S. 

and third country prices were both 

denominated in dollars; (2) Hulett’s 

costs were recorded in SAR; and (3) 

Hulett’s third country prices remained 

relatively stable over the POI, rather 

than having been adjusted to take into 

account the decline in the value of the 

dollar. As a result of Hulett’s failure to 

adjust its third country sales prices to 

take this decline into account, the 

petitioner contended that a 

disproportionate amount of Hulett’s 

sales would be below cost toward the 

end of the POI. Consequently, the 

petitioner proposed three alternate 

methods for addressing this problem: (1) 

Disregard Taiwan as a comparison 

market based on a finding that sales to 

it are unrepresentative or based on ‘‘a 

particular market situation,’’ and use CV 

as the basis for NV, (2) divide the POI 

into monthly segments for purposes of 

price and cost comparisons, or (3) adjust 

the prices using an index of the 

exchange rates applicable over the POI. 

On April 22, 2004, Hulett submitted 

comments arguing that the petitioner’s 

claims are without merit. Specifically, 

Hulett maintained that: (1) There is no 

basis for the Department to ignore its 

statutory mandate to use sales to a 

viable third country market as NV in 

this case; (2) the petitioner provides no 

evidence that prices to Taiwan or the 

United States differ significantly over 

the POI to justify employing a monthly 

comparison methodology; and (3) the 

proposed indexing methodology is 

inconsistent with the statute. Citing 

Torrington Co. v. United States, 832 F. 

Supp. 379, 392 (CIT 1993), Hulett 

concluded that the key issue in an 

antidumping proceeding is ascertaining 

differences between home market or 

third country prices and U.S. prices, 

rather than differences between the 

returns realized by the exporter on sales 

made in the two markets.

Our preliminary calculations show 

that no Taiwan sales need to be 

disregarded as a result of the cost test, 

and that no currency conversions for 

Taiwan sales prices for comparison to 

U.S. sales prices are necessary because 

they are already denominated in U.S. 

dollars. Therefore, we preliminarily find 

no basis for departing from our standard 

calculation methodology, as claimed by 

the petitioner. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we will verify all information relied 

upon in making our final determination. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) 

of the Act, we are directing U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

suspend liquidation of all imports of 

subject merchandise that are entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. We will instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted-average 

amount by which the NV exceeds the 

EP, as indicated in the chart below. 

These suspension of liquidation 

instructions will remain in effect until 

further notice. The weighted-average 

dumping margins are as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer 

Weightedaverage 

margin

percentage 

Hulett Aluminium (Pty.) Limited 4.33

All Others .................................. 4.33

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

determination. If our final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine before the later of 120 

days after the date of this preliminary 

determination or 45 days after our final 

determination whether these imports 

are materially injuring, or threaten 

material injury to, the U.S. industry. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties in this 

proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

Public Comment 

Case briefs for this investigation must 

be submitted to the Department no later 

than seven days after the date of 

issuance of the sales and cost 

verification reports in this proceeding. 

Rebuttal briefs must be filed five days 

from the deadline date for case briefs. A 

list of authorities used, a table of 

contents, and an executive summary of 

issues should accompany any briefs 

submitted to the Department. Executive 

summaries should be limited to five 

pages total, including footnotes. Section 

774 of the Act provides that the 

Department will hold a public hearing 

to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs, 

provided that such a hearing is 

requested by an interested party. If a 

request for a hearing is made in this 

investigation, the hearing will 

tentatively be held two days after the 

rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. Parties should 

confirm by telephone the time, date, and 

place of the hearing 48 hours before the 

scheduled time. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

29266 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Notices 

1The petitioners are Sanford LLP, Musgrave 

Pencil Company, Rose-Moon Inc., and General 

Pencil Company.

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days of the publication of this notice. 

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. 

We will make our final determination 

no later than 75 days after the 

preliminary determination. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of 

the Act.

Dated: May 13, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–11576 Filed 5–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–827] 

Certain Cased Pencils From the 

People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results and 

partial rescission of antidumping duty 

administrative review. 

SUMMARY: On January 13, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results and 

rescission in part of the 2001–2002 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

cased pencils (pencils) from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC). The 

period of review (POR) is December 1, 

2001, through November 30, 2002. We 

have now completed the 2001–2002 

administrative review of the order. In 

our final results, based on our analysis 

of comments received, we amended the 

preliminary results of review. For 

details regarding these changes, see the 

section of this notice entitled ‘‘Changes 

Since the Preliminary Results.’’ The 

final results are listed below in the 

‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section.

DATES: Effective Date: May 21, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Stolz, Christopher Zimpo, or Magd 

Zalok, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4, 

Group II, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 

482–4474, (202) 482–2747 and (202) 

482–4162, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 13, 2004, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results and rescission in 

part of the administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on pencils from 

the PRC. See Certain Cased Pencils from 

the People’s Republic of China; 

Preliminary Results and Rescission in 

Part of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 69 FR 1965 

(January 13, 2004) (Preliminary Results). 

We invited parties to comment on our 

Preliminary Results. On February 17, 

2004, and February 23, 2004, we 

received case briefs and rebuttal briefs, 

respectively, from the petitioners,1

China First Pencil Company, Ltd./Three 

Star Stationery Industry Corp. (CFP/

Three Star), Orient International 

Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., 

Ltd. (SFTC), and Shandong Rongxin 

Import & Export Company Ltd. 

(Rongxin) (formerly called Kaiyuan 

Group Corporation).

The Department has conducted this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by this order are 

shipments of certain cased pencils of 

any shape or dimension (except as 

noted below) which are writing and/or 

drawing instruments that feature cores 

of graphite or other materials, encased 

in wood and/or man-made materials, 

whether or not decorated and whether 

or not tipped (e.g., with erasers, etc.) in 

any fashion, and either sharpened or 

unsharpened. The pencils subject to the 

order are classified under subheading 

9609.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Specifically excluded from the scope of 

the order are mechanical pencils, 

cosmetic pencils, pens, non-cased 

crayons (wax), pastels, charcoals, 

chalks, and pencils produced under 

U.S. patent number 6,217,242, from 

paper infused with scents by the means 

covered in the above-referenced patent, 

thereby having odors distinct from those 

that may emanate from pencils lacking 

the scent infusion. Also excluded from 

the scope of the order are pencils with 

all of the following physical 

characteristics: (1) Length: 13.5 or more 

inches; (2) sheath diameter: not less 

than one-and-one quarter inches at any 

point (before sharpening); and (3) core 

length: not more than 15 percent of the 

length of the pencil. 

Although the HTSUS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Partial Rescission 

The Department preliminarily 

rescinded this review with respect to 

Tianjin Custom Wood Processing Co., 

Ltd. (TCW) because TCW reported that 

it did not export subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POR. See

the Preliminary Results; see also; TCW’s 

February 21, 2003, response to the 

Department’s questionnaire. TCW’s 

claim that it did not export subject 

merchandise during the POR is 

supported by U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) data. Moreover, there 

is no evidence on the record of this 

segment of the proceeding indicating 

that TCW exported subject merchandise 

during the POR. Therefore, we are 

rescinding this review with respect to 

TCW. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

administrative review are addressed in 

the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(Decision Memorandum) from Holly A. 

Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, to James J. 

Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated May 12, 2004, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

A list of the issues which parties have 

raised and to which we have responded, 

all of which are in the Decision 

Memorandum, is attached to this notice 

as an Appendix. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this review and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in the 

Central Record Unit, room B–099 of the 

main Department of Commerce 

building. In addition, a complete 

version of the Decision Memorandum

can be accessed directly on the 

International Trade Administration’s 

Web site at www.ia.ita.doc.gov. The 

paper copy and the electronic version of 

the Decision Memorandum are identical 

in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received and the results of 

verification, we adjusted certain factors 

of production information that we used 

31346 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 107 / Thursday, June 3, 2004 / Notices 

1Hulett initially filed its deadline extension 

request on May 20, 2004, but subsequently revised 

it on May 27, 2004.

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record.

Dated: May 27, 2004. 

Madeleine Clayton, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–12508 Filed 6–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Census Bureau 

Current Population Survey (CPS)—

Unemployment Insurance Supplement

ACTION: Proposed collection; comment 

request. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other federal agencies to take 

this opportunity to comment on 

proposed or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before August 2, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at DHynek@doc.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument(s) and instructions should 

be directed to Dennis Clark, Census 

Bureau, FOB 3, Room 3340, 

Washington, DC 20233–8400, (301) 763–

3806.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The Census Bureau plans to request 

clearance for the collection of data via 

a Supplemental Survey of 

Unemployment Insurance Non-Filers to 

be conducted in conjunction with the 

January, May, July, and November 2005 

CPS. Title 13, United States Code, 

Section 182, and Title 29, United States 

Code, Sections 1–9, authorize the 

collection of the CPS information. The 

Supplemental Survey of Unemployment 

Insurance Non-Filers is sponsored by 

the Department of Labor. 

This supplement, which was last 

conducted in August 1993, will provide 

the Department of Labor with better 

information on how often unemployed 

individuals chose not to apply for 

unemployment benefits and their 

reasons for not doing so. Analysis from 

the survey data will be used by the 

Department of Labor to help improve 

the U. S. unemployment insurance 

system. 

II. Method of Collection 

The unemployment insurance 

information will be collected by both 

personal visit and telephone interviews 

in conjunction with the regular CPS 

interviewing during January, May, July, 

and November of 2005. All interviews 

are conducted using computer-assisted 

interviewing. 

III. Data 

OMB Number: Not available. 

Form Number: There are no forms. 

We conduct all interviews on 

computers. 

Type of Review: Regular. 

Affected Public: Households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

6,000 (total for all 4 months). 

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 

minute. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 100. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: The 

only cost to respondents is that of their 

time. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

Legal Authority: Title 13, U.S.C., 

Section 182, and Title 29, U.S.C., 

Sections 1–9. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized or 

included in the request for the Office of 

Management and Budget approval of 

this information collection; they also 

will become a matter of public record.

Dated: May 27, 2004. 

Madeleine Clayton, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–12510 Filed 6–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–791–819] 

Notice of Postponement of Final 

Antidumping Duty Determination: 

Certain Aluminum Plate From South 

Africa

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

Effective Date: EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 

2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson, Office 

2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import 

Administration-Room B099, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–4007 or (202) 482–4929, 

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 21, 2004, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

published the Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less-ThanFair-Value: Certain Aluminum Plate 

from South Africa, 69 FR 29262. The 

final determination of this investigation 

is currently due no later than July 27, 

2004. Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), on May 27, 2004, Hulett 

Aluminium (Pty) Limited (‘‘Hulett’’), the 

sole South African respondent, 

requested that the Department postpone 

its final determination in the 

investigation until 135 days after the 

date of the publication of the 

preliminary determination in the 

Federal Register.1 In addition, in 

accordance with section 19 CFR 

351.210(e)(2), Hulett requested that the 

Department extend the application of 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 107 / Thursday, June 3, 2004 / Notices 31347

2Because 135 days from the date of publication 

of the preliminary determination (October 3, 2004) 

falls on a weekend, the Departments’s final determination will be postponed until October 4, 

2004, the first business day thereafter.

the provisional measures prescribed 

under section 733(d) of the Act to not 

more than six months.

Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures 

Section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act 

provides that a final determination may 

be postponed until not later than 135 

days after the publication of the 

preliminary determination, if, in the 

event of an affirmative determination, a 

request for such postponement is made 

by exporters which account for a 

significant proportion of exports of the 

subject merchandise. The Department’s 

regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), 

require that request by respondents for 

postponement of a final determination 

be accompanied by a request for 

extension of provisional measures from 

a four-month period to not more than 

six months. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.210(b), because (1) our preliminary 

determination is affirmative, (2) the 

requesting exporter accounts for a 

significant proportion of exports of the 

subject merchandise, and (3) no 

compelling reasons for denial exist, we 

are granting Hulett’s request and are 

fully extending the due date for the final 

determination by 60 days, until no later 

than October 4, 2004.2 Suspension of 

liquidation will be extended 

accordingly.

Dated: May 27, 2004. 

Jeffrey May, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–12605 Filed 6–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–884] 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Color 

Television Receivers From the 

People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 736(a) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the 

Department of Commerce is issuing an 

antidumping duty order on certain color 

television receivers from the People’s 

Republic of China.

DATES: Effective Date: June 3, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina 

Itkin or Elizabeth Eastwood, Office of 

AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0656 or (202) 482–

3874, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Scope of Order 

For purposes of this order, the term 

‘‘certain color television receivers’’

(CTVs) includes complete and 

incomplete direct-view or projectiontype cathode-ray tube color television 

receivers, with a video display diagonal 

exceeding 52 centimeters, whether or 

not combined with video recording or 

reproducing apparatus, which are 

capable of receiving a broadcast 

television signal and producing a video 

image. ‘‘Incomplete’’ CTVs are defined 

as unassembled CTVs with a color 

picture tube (i.e., cathode ray tube), 

printed circuit board or ceramic 

substrate, together with the requisite 

parts to comprise a complete CTV, when 

assembled. Specifically excluded from 

this order are computer monitors or 

other video display devices that are not 

capable of receiving a broadcast 

television signal. 

The color television receivers subject 

to this order are currently classifiable 

under subheadings 8528.12.2800, 

8528.12.3250, 8528.12.3290, 

8528.12.4000, 8528.12.5600, 

8528.12.3600, 8528.12.4400, 

8528.12.4800, and 8528.12.5200 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive, and parts or 

imports of assemblages of parts that 

comprise less than a complete CTV. 

Antidumping Duty Order 

On May 27, 2004, the International 

Trade Commission (the ITC) notified the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) of its final determination 

pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

that the industry in the United States 

producing CTVs is materially injured by 

reason of less-than-fair-value imports of 

subject merchandise from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC). Therefore, in 

accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the 

Act, the Department will direct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

assess, upon further advice by the 

Department, antidumping duties equal 

to the amount by which the normal 

value of the merchandise exceeds the 

export price of the merchandise for all 

relevant entries of CTVs from the PRC. 

These antidumping duties will be 

assessed on all unliquidated entries of 

CTVs from the PRC entered, or 

withdrawn from the warehouse, for 

consumption on or after November 28, 

2003, the date on which the Department 

published its Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Postponement of Final 

Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 68 FR 66800 (Nov. 28, 2003). 

Section 733(d) of the Act states that 

instructions issued pursuant to an 

affirmative preliminary determination 

may not remain in effect for more than 

4 months except where exporters 

representing a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise 

extend that 4-month period to not more 

than 6 months. In this investigation, the 

6-month period beginning on the date of 

the publication of the preliminary 

determination ends on May 25, 2004. 

Furthermore, section 737 of the Act 

states that definitive duties are to begin 

on the date of publication of the ITC’s 

final injury determination. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 733(d) of the 

Act and our practice, we will instruct 

CBP to terminate the suspension of 

liquidation and to liquidate, without 

regard to antidumping duties, 

unliquidated entries of CTVs from the 

PRC entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

May 26, 2004, and before the date of 

publication of the ITC’s final injury 

determination in the Federal Register. 

See Notice of Amended Antidumping 

Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar From 

France, Germany, Italy, Korea, and the 

United Kingdom, 68 FR 58660, 58661 

(Oct. 10, 2003). Suspension of 

liquidation will continue on or after this 

date. 

On or after the date of publication of 

the ITC’s notice of final determination 

in the Federal Register, CBP will 

require, at the same time as importers 

would normally deposit estimated 

duties on this merchandise, cash 

deposits for the subject merchandise 

equal to the estimated weighted-average 

antidumping duty margins listed below. 

The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries 

of the subject merchandise except for 

entries from the exporters that are 

identified individually below.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 15, 2004 / Notices 33401

1For purposes of this investigation, the 

Department of Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise as ‘‘6000 series aluminum alloy, flat 

surface, rolled plate, whether in coils or cut-tolength forms, that is rectangular in cross section 

with or without rounded corners and with a 

thickness of not less than .250 inches (6.3 

millimeters). 6000 Series Aluminum Rolled Plate is 

defined by the Aluminum Association, Inc. 

Excluded from the scope of this investigation are 

extruded aluminum products and tread plate.’’

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 2,400. 

Status: New.

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.

Dated: June 10, 2004. 

Camille E. Acevedo, 

Associate General Counsel for Legislation and 

Regulations.

[FR Doc. 04–13434 Filed 6–14–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1056 (Final)] 

Certain Aluminum Plate From South 

Africa

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission.

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of 

an antidumping investigation. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of antidumping investigation No. 

731–TA–1056 (Final) under section 

735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

U.S.C. § 1673d(b)) (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 less-than-fair-value imports 

from South Africa of certain aluminum 

plate, provided for in subheading 

7606.12.30 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States.1

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of the 

investigation, hearing procedures, and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 21, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D.J. 

Na (202–708–4727), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background.—The final phase of this 

investigation is being scheduled as a 

result of an affirmative preliminary 

determination by the Department of 

Commerce that imports of certain 

aluminum plate from South Africa are 

being sold in the United States at less 

than fair value within the meaning of 

section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). 

The investigation was requested in a 

petition filed on October 16, 2003, by 

Alcoa, Inc. Pittsburgh, PA. 

Participation in the investigation 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 this 

investigation as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

section 201.11 of the Commission’s 

rules, no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. A 

party that filed a notice of appearance 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigation 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 

investigation. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in the final phase of this 

investigation available to authorized 

applicants under the APO issued in the 

investigation, 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 investigation. A party 

granted access to BPI in the preliminary 

phase of the investigation 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 this 

investigation will be placed in the 

nonpublic record on September 21, 

2004, and a public version will be 

issued thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.22 of the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the final 

phase of this investigation beginning at 

9:30 a.m. on October 5, 2004, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Requests to appear at the 

hearing should be filed in writing with 

the Secretary to the Commission on or 

before September 27, 2004. A nonparty 

who has testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on September 29, 

2004, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 

207.24 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

days prior to the date of the hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party 

who is an interested party shall submit 

a prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.23 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is September 28, 2004. Parties 

may also file written testimony in 

connection with their presentation at 

the hearing, as provided in section 

207.24 of the Commission’s rules, and 

posthearing briefs, which must conform 

with the provisions of section 207.25 of 

the Commission’s rules. The deadline 

for filing posthearing briefs is October 

12, 2004; witness testimony must be 

filed no later than three days before the 

hearing. In addition, any person who 

has not entered an appearance as a party 

to the investigation may submit a 

written statement of information 

pertinent to the subject of the 

investigation on or before October 12, 

2004. On October 29, 2004, 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 November 2, 2004, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.30 of the Commission’s 

33402 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 15, 2004 / Notices 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

investigation must be served on all other 

parties to the investigation (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: This investigation is being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: June 8, 2004. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–13359 Filed 6–14–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 332–460] 

Foundry Products: Competitive 

Conditions in the U.S. Market

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission.

ACTION: Institution of investigation and 

scheduling of hearing. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2004.

SUMMARY: Following receipt on May 4, 

2004 of a request from the U.S. House 

Committee on Ways and Means under 

section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1332(g)), the Commission 

instituted investigation No. 332–460, 

Foundry Products: Competitive 

Conditions in the U.S. Market.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

(1) Project Leader, Judith-Anne 

Webster (202–205–3489 or judithanne.webster@usitc.gov) 

(2) Deputy Project Leader, Deborah 

McNay (202–205–3425 or 

deborah.mcnay@usitc.gov) 

The above persons are in the 

Commission’s Office of Industries. For 

information on legal aspects of the 

investigation, contact William Gearhart 

of the Commission’s Office of the 

General Counsel at 202–205–3091 or 

william.gearhart@usitc.gov. Media 

should contact Peg O’Laughlin at 202–

205–1819 or 

margaret.olaughlin@usitc.gov. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). 

Background: As requested by the 

Committee, the Commission will 

investigate the current competitive 

conditions facing producers in the U.S. 

foundry industry in the U.S. market. 

The investigation will include an 

overview of the industry together with 

a detailed analysis of selected key

iron-, steel-, aluminum-, and copperbased cast products which are 

representative of the major segments of 

the foundry industry. The Commission’s 

report will provide information for the 

most recent five-year period, to the 

extent possible, regarding the following: 

1. A profile of the U.S. foundry 

industry. 

2. Trends in U.S. production, 

shipments, capacity, consumption, and 

trade in foundry products, as well as 

financial conditions of domestic 

producers. 

3. A profile of major foreign industries 

including, but not necessarily limited 

to, Brazil and China. 

4. A description of relevant U.S. and 

foreign government policies and 

regulations affecting U.S. and foreign 

producers as identified during the 

investigation by the producers and 

consumers of foundry products, 

including appropriate investment, tax, 

and export policies; environmental 

regulations; and worker health and 

safety regulations. 

5. A comparison of various factors 

affecting competition between U.S. and 

foreign producers-such as the 

availability and cost of raw materials, 

energy, and labor; level of technology 

and changes in the manufacturing 

process; pricing practices; 

transportation costs; technical advice 

and service; and an analysis of how 

these factors affect the industry. 

6. An analysis of the purchasing 

patterns and practices of downstream 

industries. As requested by the 

Committee, the Commission will 

provide its report not later than May 4, 

2005. 

Public Hearing: A public hearing in 

connection with this investigation is 

scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on 

October 14, 2004, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building, 500 E Street, SW, Washington, 

DC. Requests to appear at the public 

hearing should be filed with the 

Secretary, no later than 5:15 p.m., 

September 24, 2004, in accordance with 

the requirements in the ‘‘Submissions’’

section below. In the event that, as of 

the close of business on September 24, 

2004, no witnesses are scheduled to 

appear, the hearing will be canceled. 

Any person interested in attending the 

hearing as an observer or nonparticipant may call the Secretary (202-

205–2000) after September 24, 2004, to 

determine whether the hearing will be 

held. 

Statements and Briefs: In lieu of or in 

addition to participating in the hearing, 

interested parties are invited to submit 

written statements or briefs concerning 

this investigation in accordance with 

the requirements in the ‘‘Submissions’’

section below. Any prehearing briefs or 

statements should be filed not later than 

5:15 p.m., September 30, 2004; the 

deadline for filing post-hearing briefs or 

statements is 5:15 p.m., October 22, 

2004. 

Submissions: All written submissions 

including requests to appear at the 

hearing, statements, and briefs should 

be addressed to the Secretary, United 

States International Trade Commission, 

500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 

20436. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.8); 

any submission that contains 

confidential business information must 

also conform with the requirements of 

section 201.6 of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

201.6). Section 201.8 of the rules require 

that a signed original (or a copy 

designated as an original) and fourteen 

(14) copies of each document be filed. 

In the event that confidential treatment 

of the document is requested, at least 

four (4) additional copies must be filed, 

in which the confidential information 

must be deleted. Section 201.6 of the 

rules requires that the cover of the 

document and the individual pages be 

clearly marked as to whether they are 

the ‘‘confidential’’ or ‘‘nonconfidential’’

version, and that the confidential 

business information be clearly 

identified by means of brackets. All 

written submissions, except for 

confidential business information, will 

be made available for inspection by 

interested parties. 

In their hearing testimony and written 

submissions, interested parties should 

provide information regarding the six 

topics in the ‘‘Background’’ section of 

this notice and any other relevant 

information relating to competitive 

conditions in the U.S. foundry market. 

The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

60610 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Notices 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census 

(Census Bureau) proposes to expand its 

Current Industrial Reports survey, 

MQ315A, Apparel, to include the 

production of socks. The survey 

currently provides estimates for a 

number of types of garments but does 

not include socks. Because of interest 

among some policymakers to measure 

the economic impact of imported socks 

on domestic producers, the Census 

Bureau anticipates appropriated funds 

being made available in its Fiscal Year 

2005 budget for the collection of data on 

socks. If funds are made available, we 

will add socks to the survey for the 2004 

reference year and manufacturers of 

socks will be asked to provide data on 

the quantity and value of socks they 

shipped, by fiber type and size category. 

If funds are not made available, we will 

not expand the survey to include 

producers of socks but will conduct the 

survey with its current definitions and 

coverage. We expect the survey mailing 

to occur at the end of December 2004.

DATES: Written comments on this notice 

must be submitted on or before 

November 12, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to the Director, U.S. Census Bureau, 

Room 2049, Federal Building 3, 

Washington, DC 20233.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy 

M. Dodds, Assistant Division Chief, 

Census and Related Programs, 

Manufacturing and Construction 

Division, on (301) 763–4587 or by email at judy.m.dodds@census.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Census Bureau is authorized to conduct 

surveys necessary to furnish current 

data on subjects covered by the major 

censuses authorized by Title 13, United 

States Code (U.S.C.), Section 182. Data 

collected in the MQ315A survey is 

within the general scope, type, and 

character of inquiries covered in the 

Economic Census authorized by Title 

13, U.S.C., Section 131. The Census 

Bureau is also authorized to collect and 

publish quarterly statistics relating to 

domestic apparel and textile industries 

(Title 13, U.S.C., Section 81). The 

MQ315A is conducted quarterly but has 

an annual mailing which normally 

collects information from small 

producers. For survey 2004 we would 

include all producers of socks in this 

annual supplement to the quarterly 

survey. 

Published estimates from the 

MQ315A, Apparel, are used by a variety 

of private business and trade 

associations. They are a major source of 

information about industries that may 

be impacted by foreign trade. At the 

present time, manufacturers of socks are 

not included in the MQ315A survey. 

This one-time expansion of MQ315A to 

include socks will result in quantity and 

value data for policymakers studying 

the industry. 

Taking into consideration any 

comments we receive, we will make the 

decision whether or not to expand the 

survey for 2004 based on our budget 

status at the time of the survey mailing 

in December. As stated previously, if 

funds are not available and we decide 

not to expand the survey, we will 

conduct the annual supplemental 

mailing of the MQ315A, Apparel, with 

its existing OMB approval using the 

current definitions and industry 

coverage. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with, a 

collection of information subject to 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), unless that 

collection of information displays a 

current valid Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) control number. In 

accordance with the PRA, 44 U.S.C., 

Chapter 35, the OMB approved the 

Current industrial Reports—‘‘MQ315A, 

Apparel’’, under OMB Control Number 

0607–0395. The total burden hours 

associated with OMB Control Number 

0607–0395 are 14,956 hours. We will 

provide copies of each form upon 

written request to the Director, U.S. 

Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233–

0001.

Dated: October 5, 2004. 

Charles Louis Kincannon, 

Director, Bureau of the Census.

[FR Doc. 04–22854 Filed 10–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–791–819] 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Aluminum Plate From South Africa

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final determination of 

sales at less than fair value. 

SUMMARY: On May 21, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value of certain aluminum 

plate from South Africa. The period of 

investigation is October 1, 2002, through 

September 30, 2003. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes in the margin calculations. 

Therefore, the final determination 

differs from the preliminary 

determination. The final weightedaverage dumping margin for the 

investigated company is listed below in 

the section entitled ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 12, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson, AD/

CVD Enforcement Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4007 or (202) 482–

4929, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Final Determination 

We determine that certain aluminum 

plate from South Africa is being, or is 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

less-than-fair-value (LTFV), as provided 

in section 735 of the Act. 

Case History 

The preliminary determination in this 

investigation was published on May 21, 

2004. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Aluminum Plate 

from South Africa, 69 FR 29262 

(Preliminary Determination). 

During the period May 24—27 and 

June 7—11, 2004, we conducted the 

sales and cost verifications, 

respectively, of the questionnaire 

responses of Hulett Aluminium (Pty) 

Ltd. (Hulett), the sole respondent in this 

case. 

On June 3, 2004, we postponed the 

final determination until October 4, 

2004. See Notice of Postponement of 

Final Antidumping Duty Determination: 

Certain Aluminum Plate from South 

Africa, 69 FR 31346. On June 21, 2004, 

the petitioner, Alcoa Inc., requested a 

hearing. We received case and rebuttal 

briefs on July 28, 2004, and August 10, 

2004, respectively, from the petitioner 

and Hulett. On August 23, 2004, the 

petitioner withdrew its request for a 

hearing. 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is 6000 series aluminum 

alloy, flat surface, rolled plate, whether 

in coils or cut-to-length forms, that is 

rectangular in cross section with or 

without rounded corners and with a 

thickness of not less than .250 inches 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Notices 60611

(6.3 millimeters). 6000 Series 

Aluminum Rolled Plate is defined by 

the Aluminum Association, Inc. 

Excluded from the scope of this 

investigation are extruded aluminum 

products and tread plate. 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is currently classifiable 

under subheading 7606.12.3030 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTS). Although the HTS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, our written 

description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is October 

1, 2002, through September 30, 2003. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case briefs by 

parties to this proceeding and to which 

we have responded are listed in the 

Appendix to this notice and addressed 

in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ (Decision 

Memorandum) from Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, to Jeffrey May, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated October 4, 2004, 

which is adopted by this notice. Parties 

can find a complete discussion of the 

issues raised in this investigation and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum, which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit, room 

B–099 of the main Commerce Building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received and our findings at 

verification, we have made certain 

changes to the margin calculations. For 

a discussion of these changes, see the 

‘‘Margin Calculations’’ section of the 

Decision Memorandum.

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by the respondent for use in 

our final determination. We used 

standard verification procedures 

including examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, and 

original source documents provided by 

the respondent. 

Final Determination Margins 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin 

(percent) 

Hulett Aluminium (Pty) Ltd. ........ 3.51 

All Others .................................... 3.51 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(5)(A), we have based the ‘‘all 

others’’ rate on the dumping margin 

found for the producer/exporter 

investigated in this proceeding, Hulett. 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of certain 

aluminum plate from South Africa that 

are entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

May 21, 2004, the publication date of 

the preliminary determination in the 

Federal Register. CBP shall continue to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond based on the estimated 

weighted-average dumping margin 

shown above. The suspension of 

liquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

our determination. As our final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine within 45 days whether 

these imports are causing material 

injury, or threat of material injury, to an 

industry in the United States. If the ITC 

determines that material injury or threat 

of injury does not exist, the proceeding 

will be terminated and all securities 

posted will be refunded or canceled. If 

the ITC determines that such injury 

does exist, the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

officials to assess antidumping duties on 

all imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of return/

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the 

Act.

Dated: October 4, 2004. 

Jeffrey May, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

Appendix—Issues in the Decision 

Memorandum

Comments 

Comment 1: Decline of the U.S. Dollar 

Against the South African Rand. 

Comment 2: Offsets for Non-Dumped 

Comparisons. 

Comment 3: SACD Storage Fee.

[FR Doc. E4–2573 Filed 10–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–337–806] 

Individually Quick Frozen Red 

Raspberries From Chile; Extension of 

Time Limit for the Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time 

limit. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is extending the time limit for the final 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

individually quick frozen red 

raspberries from Chile. The period of 

review is December 31, 2001, through 

June 30, 2003. This extension is made 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 12, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cole 

Kyle or Yasmin Bordas, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; at 

telephone (202) 482–1503 and (202) 

482–3813, respectively. 

Background 

On August 6, 2004, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) 

published the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on individually 

quick frozen red raspberries from Chile 


B-1

APPENDIX B

LIST OF WITNESSES APPEARING AT

THE COMMISSION’S HEARING
 
B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Certain Aluminum Plate from South Africa

Inv. No.: 731-TA-1056 (Final)

Date and Time: October 5, 2004 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with this investigation in the Main Hearing Room (room

101), 500 E Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioner (Lewis E. Leibowitz, Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.)

Respondents (Michael T. Shor, Arnold & Porter LLP)

In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping Duties:

Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Alcoa Mill Products

Alcoa Inc.

Local 105, United Steelworkers Union

Kaiser Aluminum

Robert Wetherbee, President, Alcoa Mill Products

Leighton Cooper, Marketing Manager, Consumer and

Industrial Products, Alcoa Inc.
B-4

In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping Duties (continued):

Greg Venema, Metallurgical Engineering Aerospace

Technical Specialist, Alcoa Inc.

Skip McGill, President, Local 105, United Steelworkers

Union

Bruce Malashevich, President, Economic Consulting

Services

Sabina Neuman, Senior Economist, Economic

Consulting Services

Lewis E. Leibowitz )

) – OF COUNSEL

Lynn G. Kamarck )

In Opposition to the Imposition of

 Antidumping Duties:

Arnold & Porter LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Hulett Aluminum (Pty) Limited (“Hulett”)

Empire Resources, Inc. (“Empire”)

Frank Bradford, Director, Sheet and Plate Products,

Hulett

Nathan Kahn, President and CEO, Empire

Richard Boltuck, Vice President, Charles River Associates
B-5

In Opposition to the Imposition of

 Antidumping Duties (continued):

Seth Kaplan, Vice President, Charles River Associates

Michael T. Shor )

Susan G. Lee ) – OF COUNSEL

Lawrence A. Schneider )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Lewis E. Leibowitz, Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.)

Respondents (Michael T. Shor, Arnold & Porter LLP)

C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-3

Table C-1

Certain aluminum plate (series 6000): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June

2004

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; and period changes=percent, except where noted) 

Item

Calendar year January-June Period changes

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004 2001-2003 2001-2002 2002-2003

J-J 2003-

J-J 2004

U.S. consumption quantity: 41,521 51,406 58,017 28,576 43,104 39.7 23.8 12.9 50.8

Producers’ share1 56.2 60.8 67.4 63.0 75.6 11.1 4.5 6.6 12.5

Importers’ share:1

South Africa *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total 43.8 39.2 32.6 37.0 24.4 -11.1 -4.5 -6.6 -12.5

U.S. consumption value: 148,604 164,421 177,106 85,800 139,884 19.2 10.6 7.7 63.0

Producers’ share1 60.1 63.8 68.2 65.1 78.6 8.0 3.7 4.3 13.5

Importers’ share:1

South Africa *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total 39.9 36.2 31.8 34.9 21.4 -8.0 -3.7 -4.3 -13.5

U.S. imports from--

South Africa *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

All sources

Quantity 18,166 20,168 18,925 10,565 10,538 4.2 11.0 -6.2 -0.3

Value 59,252 59,463 56,382 29,907 29,914 -4.8 0.4 -5.2 0.0

Unit value 3262 2948 $2,979 $2,831 $2,839 -8.7 -9.6 1.0 0.3

Ending inventory 2,954 5,177 3,351 3,706 2,153 13.4 75.3 -35.3 -41.9

U.S. producers’--

Capacity quantity 52,069 56,569 56,569 30,535 37,535 8.6 8.6 0.0 22.9

Production quantity 26,372 30,242 41,176 19,038 39,629 56.1 14.7 36.2 108.2

Capacity utilization1 50.6 53.5 72.8 62.3 105.6 22.1 2.8 19.3 43.2

U.S. shipments:

Quantity 23,356 31,237 39,092 18,011 32,566 67.4 33.7 25.1 80.8

Value 89,352 104,958 120,724 55,893 109,970 35.1 17.5 15.0 96.8

Unit value 3826 3360 $3,088 $3,103 $3,377 -19.3 -12.2 -8.1 8.8

Export shipments: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ending inventory quantity 7,420 3,366 2,012 2,424 6,928 -72.9 -54.6 -40.2 185.8

Inventories/total shipments1 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Production workers 148 210 212 163 242 43.2 41.9 1.0 48.5

Hours worked (1,000 hours) 326 440 408 212 317 25.2 35.0 -7.3 49.5

Wages paid (1,000 dollars) 10,537 15,175 17,039 7,892 13,638 61.7 44.0 12.3 72.8

Hourly wages $32.32 $34.49 $41.76 $37.23 $43.02 29.2 6.7 21.1 15.6

Productivity (lbs. per hour) 80.9 68.7 100.9 89.8 125.0 24.8 -15.0 46.8 39.2

Unit labor costs $400 $502 $414 $415 $344 3.6 25.6 -17.5 -17.0

Net sales:

Quantity 24,832 34,295 42,532 19,796 34,714 71.3 38.1 24.0 75.4

Value 94,750 114,856 131,372 61,239 117,198 38.7 21.2 14.4 91.4

Unit value 3816 3349 $3,089 $3,094 $3,376 -19.0 -12.2 -7.8 9.1

COGS 84,120 115,584 135,826 63,262 110,083 61.5 37.4 17.5 74.0

Gross profit or (loss) 10,630 (728) (4,454) (2,023) 7,115 (2

) (2) -511.8 (2)

SG&A expenses 3,135 2,777 3,800 1,768 2,757 21.2 -11.4 36.8 55.9

Operating income 7,495 (3,505) (8,254) (3,791) 4,358 (2

) (2) -135.5 (2)

Capital expenditures 695 1,777 1,133 800 418 63.0 155.7 -36.2 -47.8

Unit COGS 3387 3370 $3,194 $3,196 $3,171 -5.7 -0.5 -5.2 -0.8

Unit SG&A expenses 126 81 $89 $89 $79 -29.2 -35.9 10.3 -11.1

Unit operating income 302 -102 $(194) $(192) $126 (2

) (2) -89.9 (2)

COGS/sales1 88.8 100.6 103.4 103.3 93.9 14.6 11.9 2.8 -9.4

Operating income or 

(loss)/sales1 7.9 (3.1) (6.3) (6.2) 3.7 -14.2 -11.0 -3.2 9.9 1

 Period changes are in percentage points.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
C-4

Table C-2

Non-heat-treatable aluminum plate (series 1000, 3000, 4000, and 5000): Summary data concerning the U.S.

market, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

*******

Table C-3

Non-heat-treatable aluminum plate (series 5000): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2001-03,

January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

*******

Table C-4

Aluminum plate (series 1000, 3000, 4000, 5000, and 6000): Summary data concerning the U.S. market,

2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

*******

Table C-5

Aluminum plate (series 5000 and 6000): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2001-03, January-June

2003, and January-June 2004

*******

Table C-6

Heat-treatable aluminum plate (series 2000 and 7000): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2001-03,

January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

*******

Table C-7

Heat-treatable aluminum plate (series 2000, 6000, and 7000): Summary data concerning the U.S. market,

2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

*******

Table C-8

All aluminum plate (series 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, and 7000): Summary data concerning the

U.S. market, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

*******

Table C-9

Certain aluminum plate (series 6000): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2000-03, January-June

2003, and January-June 2004

*******
D-1

APPENDIX D

QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES REGARDING THE DOMESTIC LIKE

PRODUCT

 1

 *** comments consisted of copies of pages from 2003 Aluminum Standards and Data, March 2003, pp. 1-6-11,

and 7-3-11, and 7-16-17.

D-3

The Commission's questionnaires in this final phase investigation requested comments regarding

the differences and similarities between non-heat-treatable aluminum plate (series 1000, 3000, 4000, and

5000) and certain aluminum plate (series 6000) in terms of the Commission’s like product factors,

including (1) characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) manufacturing processes; (4) channels of

distribution; (5) customer and producer perceptions; and (6) price. The following comments were

received:1

NON-HEAT-TREATABLE ALUMINUM PLATE (SERIES 1000, 3000, 4000, AND 5000) 

Characteristics and Uses

*** “Alloys in the 6XXX series are heat treatable and the other referenced alloys are not,

will distinguish the characteristics of 6XXX alloys. Alloys in the 6XXX series contain Silicon and

Magnesium in approximate proportions to form Magnesium silicide (Mg2Si), thus making them heat

treatable. The other series mentioned in the question do not. The most common alloy in the 6XXX series

is 6061. The Magnesium-Silicon alloys are widely used as medium strength alloys that have good

weldability, formability, corrosion resistance and immunity to stress corrosion cracking. Common end

use applications include general engineering machined tooling plate, jigs/fixtures, molds, automotive

parts, electronic base assemblies, and medical devices.

The other referenced series, because they are not heat-treatable, have sharply differing uses. The

technical characteristics are also considerably different.

The 1XXX series are aluminum of 99% or higher purity. Unlike the 6XXX series, Fe and Si are

major impurities. These impurities can cause degradations in the formability or electrical and thermal

conductivity efficiencies. These alloys are especially good in electrical, chemical storage, heat transfer

and architectural applications. Excellent corrosion resistance, high thermal and electrical conductivity,

low mechanical properties and excellent workability characterize these alloys. Moderate increases in

strength may be obtained by work hardening or cold working up to 80% (H18 Temper). Cold working is

a process where the gauge is reduced by either rolling or stretching at room temperature. This work

hardening process causes an increase in the strength of the material.

The 3XXX series alloys contain Manganese as the major alloying element and are considered

non-heat treatable. Manganese can only be added to about 1.5% maximum to be effective. These alloys

are used to produce cooking utensils, chemical storage equipment, heat exchangers, storage tanks, tread

plate and architectural panels. The 3XXX series is also capable of being cold worked to around 80% to

increase the strength.

Alloys in the 4XXX series like 6XXX alloys, contain Silicon as the major alloying element;

however, the Silicon content in the 4XXX alloys is approximately 10 or 20 times higher than the 6XXX

alloys. The 4XXX alloys do not have any appreciable Magnesium content, which is another difference

with the 6XXX alloys. The presence of Magnesium produces oxides that reduce the weldability of the

4XXX alloys. The relatively high Silicon content causes a substantial lowering of the melting point

without causing brittleness. For these reasons, the 4XXX series alloys are used principally as welding

rod filler wire or in brazing filler applications where a lower melting temperature than the parent

aluminum alloy is required. The 4XXX alloys are also considered non-heat treatable and generally not

produced in plate form.

The 5XXX series alloys are predominately alloyed with Magnesium in contrast to 6XXX alloys,

which are alloyed with Magnesium and Silicon in approximate proportions. Magnesium is one of the

most widely used elements for alloying aluminum. Adding Magnesium will result in a moderate to high
D-4

strength non-heat treatable alloy. Alloys in this family will experience significant increases in strength

when cold worked. Limitations on the amount of cold work and safe operating temperatures (less than

150 degrees F) are necessary for the higher Magnesium containing alloys to avoid stress corrosion

cracking. Alloys in this group have good weldability and excellent resistance to corrosion in marine

applications. Typical applications include welded pressure vessels, cryogenic tanks, ballistic applications

and marine vessels.

Table 1. below is shown to highlight the chemical composition differences between the heat

treatable 6XXX alloys and the non-heat treatable 1XXX, 3XXX, 4XXX and the 5XXX alloys. To

simplify the analysis, the popular alloys within each series have been chosen for comparison to alloy

6061, which is the most common 6XXX alloy in the United States. The table clearly shows there is no

overlap in composition between the 6XXX alloys and the others. The elements shown in bold highlight

the major differences between the alloy series.

Table 1. Aluminum Association Registered Composition Limits

(Shown as percent Max unless specified by a range)

Alloy SI FE CU MN MG CR ZN TI

6061 0.4 - 0.8 0.7 0.15 - 0.40 0.15 0.8 - 1.2 0.04 - 0.35 0.25 0.15

1100 0.95 Si + Fe 0.05 – 0.20 0.05 - - - - 0.10 - - 

1145 0.55 Si + Fe 0.05 0.05 0.05- - - 0.05 0.03 

3003 0.60 0.7 0.05 – 0.20 1.0 - 1.5 - - - - 0.10 - -

3004 0.30 0.7 0.25 1.0 – 1.5 0.8- 1.3 - - 0.25 - -

4043 4.5 – 6.0 0.8 0.30 0.05 0.05 - - 0.10 0.20

4047 11.0 – 13.0 0.8 0.30 0.15 0.10 - - 0.20 - -

5083 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.40 – 1.0 4.0 – 4.9 0.05 – 0.25 0.25 0.15

5456 0.25 0.40 0.10 0.50 – 1.0 4.7 – 5.5 0.05 – 0.20 0.20 0.15 

Figure 1 shows that alloy 6061 has the highest yield strength of the alloy temper combinations in

the comparison. The 1XXX and 3XXX series alloys, even when cold worked by 80% to a H18 temper,

are not capable of achieving equivalent strengths. The 5XXX alloys do have the capability of achieving

nearly equivalent yield strengths; however, they are limited to service temperatures of 150 degrees F or

less to prevent stress corrosion cracking problems. In addition, the 5XXX HXXX temper products are

typically not produced in gauges over 1.50” unlike 6061, which is commonly made up to 6.00” because it

doesn’t require cold rolling.

For the non-heat treatable alloys at intermediate or softer tempers, the workability of the alloys is

better but at the expense of machinability. Comparing the higher strength alloys such as 6061 to 5083,

alloy 6061 has better machinability and gas weldability with higher strengths. To completely characterize

the difference, the yield strengths shown below in Figure 1 must be considered. End users have to

balance the physical characteristics and desired mechanical properties when selecting an alloy temper

combination.”
D-5

*** “Alloys of 5000 series aluminum plate contain magnesium as the principal alloying

element. As a group, these alloys are noteworthy for their excellent resistance to general corrosion, but

their resistance to stress corrosion is rated as good. These alloys have lower strength than all the heat

treatable alloys. The machinability of these alloys is considered poor. Arc welding performance is

considered excellent, while gas welding requires special techniques for proper welding. Typical end uses

for 5000 series aluminum alloy plate include welded pressure vessels and marine applications.

Alloys of 6000 series plate contain magnesium and silicon as their principal alloying elements. 

As a group, these alloys have higher strength than 5000 series aluminum plate alloys. The 6000 series

alloys have a good resistance to general corrosion and have superior resistance to stress corrosion than the

5000 series plate alloys. The 6000 series aluminum alloys have excellent weld capability for both Gas

and Arc type welding. Typical end uses for 6000 series aluminum alloy plate are in general engineering

applications.

Alloys of 2000 series aluminum plate contain copper as the principal alloying element. As a

group, these alloys are noteworthy for their excellent strengths at elevated and cryogenic temperatures

and creep resistance at elevated temperature. These alloys have only fair corrosion resistance but good

machinability and are generally only weldable by the resistance methods. Typical end uses fo4 2000

series aluminum plate include aircraft and truck structurals.

Alloys of 7000 series aluminum plate contain zinc as the principal alloying element and

magnesium and copper as minor elements. They are among the highest strength aluminum alloys. The

corrosion resistance of these alloys varies depending on temper condition. The 7000 series aluminum

plate alloys have good machinability and are weldable only by the resistance methods. Typical end uses

for 7000 series aluminum plate alloys are aircraft structurals.”
D-6

*** “DIFFERENCES.--Chemistry – Alloying elements (which generally are less than 5%

of chemical composition) differ i.e.: Alloys in 3000 Series contain Manganese and Alloys in the 5000

Series contain Magnesium; AA 6000 Series are alloyed with Silicon and Magnesium; and Alloys in the

1000 Series are substantially unalloyed (minimum 99% aluminum). Physical Properties--Alloys AA

1XXX, AA 3XXX, and most AA 5XXX tend to have lower ultimate tensile strength and yield than heattreated Alloys AA 6XXX. End Uses--Alloys AA 1XXX and 3XXX are mostly used in applications for

which strength is not the main requirement; strength is a typical requirement of applications involving

heat-treated AA 6XXX Alloys. Alloy AA 5XXX materials, we understand, are used in general purpose

applications including electronic cabinetry as well as in transport, including over-the-road and marine

applications (particularly those alloys with higher magnesium content). AA 6XXX could be used for

many of these same applications.

SIMILARITIES.--Chemistry--Most formulations consist of minimum 95% aluminum. 

Physical Properties–(a) Several grades of 5XXX plate may be produced (i.e. Alloy AA 5083 and Alloy

AA 5456) with physical properties overlapping those of Alloy AA 6061, T-651 Plate and (b) Various

grades of plate are similar in appearance. End Uses--We are aware that in some applications, e.g. lift

truck equipment or in applications where the chemistry or physical properties may not be critical, various

grades are interchangeable, particularly the 5XXX and 6XXX series. Further, in overseas markets, i.e. in

Europe and the Far East, we understand that plate in Alloys AA 5XXX is frequently substituted for Alloy

AA 6XXX plate due to cost considerations. We are not familiar with 4XXX series plate and our

responses therefore do not cover same.”

*** “Series 6000 has much higher strength than common alloy plate.” 

*** “1,3, 5000 series plates are generally softer than 6000 series. Exception: certain high mg plates

(5086, 5083, 5456) 6000 series which can be in the same ”strength” park, if delivered in H tempers.” 

*** “Too wide to describe as you have put together too many different alloys.”

*** “High magnesium content; good resistance to corrosion; used for marine and industrial

 vehicles (boats, tanker trucks, dump trucks).”

Interchangeability

*** “There is considerable interchangeability within the 6XXX series alloy of aluminum

rolled plate, but almost none between the heat treatable 6XXX (T temper) series alloys and the non-heat

treatable (H1, H2 or H3 temper) 1XXX, 3XXX, 4XXX or 5XXX alloys discussed above.

For the most part, end product design engineers determine the product performance requirements

they desire and specify the appropriate alloy/temper/product form and size of the aluminum plate to be

used to meet the desired performance criteria. Aluminum alloy, product physical properties, chemical

compositions, manufacturing guidelines and test procedures are specified by either Aluminum

Association publications such as the Aluminum Standards and Data, Government heat treat specifications

such as AMS 2772, Government industry specifications such as AMS QQ-A-250 or customer material

specifications. Customers will usually purchase a product by specifying on their purchase order the

required specifications. In most cases, there will be a combination of industry standards, government

and/or customer specifications referenced. 
D-7

T temper applies to products that are thermally treated, with or without supplementary strain

hardening, to produce stable tempers.

O applies to wrought products that are annealed to obtain the lowest strength temper.

H1 applies to products that are strained hardened to obtain the desired strength without

supplementary thermal treatment. The numbers following the H in the temper designate the

degree of strain hardening.

H2 applies to products that are strain hardened more than the desired final amount and then

reduced in strength to the desired level by partial annealing. The number following in the temper

designates the degree of strain hardening remaining after the product has been annealed. For

those alloys (5XXX) that can age soften at room temperature, the H2 tempers have the same

minimum tensile strength as the corresponding H3 tempers. For other alloys, the H2 tempers

have the same minimum tensile strength as the corresponding H1 temper with slightly higher

elongation.

H3 applies to products that are strain hardened and whose mechanical properties are stabilized

either by a low temperature thermal treatment or as the result of the heat introduced during

fabrication. This temper designation is only used for alloys that age soften if they are not

thermally stabilized. The digits after the 3 indicate the degree of strain hardening remaining

after the stabilization treatment.

The distinctions in material specifications and tempers serve very much as a bright line

distinguishing the heat treatable 6XXX series from the non-heat treatable 1XXX, 3XXX, 4XXX and

5XXX alloy series discussed.”

*** “Generally the differences in strength and machinability between the 5000 series and any

of the heat treatable alloys limits interchangeability for general engineering plate applications. Generally,

the differences in strength, corrosion resistance and weldability between 7000 and 6000 series aluminum

alloy plate limits interchangeablility.”

*** “Strength – Several formulations of high magnesium Alloys (i.e.: Alloys AA 5083 and

 AA 5456) may be produced with physical properties overlapping those of Alloy AA 6061 Plate, and as a

result of these overlapping properties could be substituted for alloy AA 6xxx series.

Dimensional Precision and Flatness – We understand that both the dimensional tolerances and

flatness typically required by users of Alloy AA 6061 Plate can be replicated in other Alloys.

Corrosion Resistance – We understand that Aluminum Substrates in general are selected in part

due to superior corrosion resistance. Alloys in the 5XXX series are usually best suited for marine

applications in which corrosion resistance is a major consideration.

Machineability – Our customers advise us that many Alloys are equally machineable, with the

selection of Alloy usually dependant upon the final application; i.e. in applications in which strength is

required Alloys in the 6000 series may be selected whereas for more general use Alloys in the AA 1XXX

or AA 3XXX series may suffice, and may be selected due to cost considerations. 5xxx series as well as

other alloys including 6xxx series may be used for general purpose applications, and are likely

interchangeable were it not for pricing considerations.”

*** “No interchangeability with common alloy plate.” 
D-8

*** “In the U.S. market it is not interchanable, except some limited areas; thinner (.250-.313) gaugers. 

High MG alloys.”

*** “Depends upon application.”

*** “None.”

*** “Non-heat treatable and heat-treatable are different products. Non-heat treatable plates

have lower strength than heat-treatable. They differ in their strengths, wetnesses, formability and

durability as pertains to their end use. Heat-treat plate is more costly to produce and commands higher

price than non-heat-treat.” 

Manufacturing Processes

*** “The fabrication sequences used for producing 6XXX heat treatable alloys are very

different than those required to produce the 1XXX, 3XXX, 4XXX & 5XXX non-heat treatable alloys. 

The fabrication of heat treatable 6XXX alloys is comprised of numerous process steps requiring a

combination of thermal and mechanical operations. The thermal process and deformation processes used

to produce both heat treatable and non-heat treatable alloys are dictated by the individual composition of

the alloy being processed. 

Below in Table 2 is a summary of the primary fabrication steps and relative differences between

seven non-heat treatable products and 6061 T651. Fabrication steps for 4XXX series are omitted because

this product is not produced in plate form. To keep from disclosing proprietary information, some of the

details have been normalized by using the times or temperatures for 6061 as a baseline.

Upon close examination of the data in Table 2, it is clear that the most significant difference

between 6061 and the 1XXX, 3XXX and 5XXX alloy temper combinations, is the requirement for 6061 to

receive a solution heat treatment and quench followed by artificial aging. By contrast, the non-heat

treatable alloys receive their strengths through a combination of hot rolling, cold rolling and partial

annealing. Partial annealing decreases the strength of the non-heat treatable alloys.

While heat-treatable and non-heat treatable alloys receive several similar process steps, they show

significant differences in how those processes affect the different products. The first fabrication step

showing a significant difference is the casting process. Non-heat treatable alloys show a marked tendency
D-9

for the ingot to crack during the DC casting process (line A). For this particular comparison, the 5XXX

alloys are 5 to 9 times more likely to crack than alloy 6061 because of the high Mg content in the 5XXX

series. If an ingot cracks during the casting process, it is not usable for rolling; therefore it must be

scrapped, remelted and recast, resulting in lost dollars, capacity and resources.

From line B it can be seen that time required to preheat a 5XXX alloy can be from 17% to 33%

higher than for alloy 6061. Longer times are required to dissolve the high concentrations of Mg, which

result from the DC casting process. After the ingots have been homogenized or preheated, they are ready

for hot rolling to an intermediate or final gauge. 

Line C, from Table 2, shows the allowable hot rolling temperature range for each of the

discussion alloys. The table shows that the allowable range for the 5XXX alloys is 25% tighter than for

alloy 6061 and 50% tighter than the 1XXX and 3XXX alloys. The tighter temperature control for the

5XXX series alloys is necessary because depending on the hot mill exit gauge vs. finish gauge, rolling

temperature controls may be required to achieve the final properties. This temperature control isn’t as

critical for the 1XXX, 3XXX or 6XXX alloys because these non-heat treatable alloys receive additional

temper rolling and the heat-treatable alloys are solution heat treated to achieve their final properties.

From line D, it can be seen that alloy 6061 is the only alloy in the comparison table that does not

receive a rough saw operation prior to the subsequent solution heat-treat operation. Rough side sawing to

remove edge cracks from the hot rolling operation is necessary for the non-heat treatable alloys because

these products are subjected to various degrees of cold deformation through cold rolling in the next

operation. If these cracks are not removed prior to rolling, the plates may be scrapped for excessive edge

cracks that propagate during the subsequent cold rolling.

 Unlike the heat treatable alloys, the non-heat treatable alloys must also be cold worked to achieve

an increase in strength as shown in line E. Caution must be noted that for plate products, it is not

common to produce thick non-heat treatable products because of the difficulty associated with cold

rolling large cross sections and non-uniformities in through thickness mechanical properties. 

Lines F and G show that alloy 6061 is the only alloy solution heat treated and quenched in the

comparison group. During the solution heat treat process, the plate is heated to a temperature within a

few degrees of melting. At these high temperatures the solute or soluble alloy elements (Mg & Si) are

dissolved into the aluminum matrix at super saturated concentration levels. At the completion of the

thermal cycle, the plate is spray water quench to lock the solute in solution. In subsequent aging

operations, the solute precipitation will be controlled to optimize the properties. By looking at the

solution heat-treat properties of 6061 from Figure 1, it can be seen that 6061 when heat-treated can

achieve yield strength properties 17%-62% higher than through cold rolling, without the significant loss

in elongation or formability associated with the non-heat treatable cold worked products.

The next significant difference between the heat treatable 6061 and the non-heat treatable alloys

is the need for an edge trim or side shear (line H) prior to stretching. Again, during the cold rolling

process, the plate is getting harder and harder as the amount of cold deformation increases. During cold

rolling, cracks will typically arise on the edge of the plate. These edge cracks act as stress risers and must

be removed prior to final stretch to prevent plate breakage. Plate breakage during stretching may also

cause equipment damage. 

Line I shows the relative amounts of final stretch the various comparison products receive to

either achieve their final properties (5083 HXXX), degree of flatness (1XXX, & 3XXX) or elimination of

residual stresses and flatness (6061). Depending on the alloy temper or product form, the purpose of the

final stretch may be different.

After stretching, some of the non-heat treatable alloys may be partially annealed (line J) to

achieve a softer H2X type temper. Partial annealing may be performed to reduce the strength because the

amount of cold work or deformation required to get to the final gauge caused an excessive increase in

strength or may be done to increase the formability of the final product. During this annealing process,

strain energy trapped in the micro structure is relieved.
D-10

By contrast, for 6061 and other heat treatable alloys, the final thermal operation is artificial aging

(line K). By carefully controlling the time and temperature of the aging practice, the size, shape and

distribution of precipitated particles can be controlled to achieve a balance in strength, corrosion

resistance or other desirable product characteristic.

The last fabrication step prior to final sampling and testing is the surface finish operation (line L). 

Alloy 6061 is currently the only plate product that receives a surface polish finish. The surface finish is

applied as a cosmetic uniformity treatment only and became a commercial trend in the late 1980’s across

the aluminum industry.

To complete the product comparison, line M is included to show the minimum typical test

requirements for the various products. The largest difference is in the test direction of the tensile

specimens. The heat treatable 6061 products are tested in the LT or Long Transverse direction. The LT

direction is parallel to the width direction of the rolled plate. The non-heat treatable products are tested in

the L or Longitudinal direction. The L direction is parallel to the length direction of the rolled plate. In

addition, the non-heat treatable H116 tempers typically require a mastmassis corrosion test to simulate

salt-water marine exposure.

In conclusion, the product comparison provided throughout this analysis clearly shows that the

heat treatable alloy 6061 has very different processing and testing requirements than the non-heat

treatable 1XXX, 3XXX, 4XXX or 5XXX alloys. Fundamentally, the physical metallurgy required to

achieve the maximum strength in a heat treatable alloy is very different than what is required for a nonheat treatable alloy. The chemical composition differences, thermal or mechanical processing, and the

final or end product use requirements dictate, which alloy temper combination, will meet the

requirements.”

*** “The 2000, 6000, and 7000 series aluminum alloy plates generally follow the same

manufacturing process sequence on the same equipment and with the same labor applied. The process is

as follows: cast rectangular ingot, scalp ingot surfaces, hot roll to near finish gauge, solution heat treat,

stretch straighten to finis gauge, precipitation harden (some 2000 series alloy tempers omit this process),

saw, inspect and pack. The 5000 series aluminum alloy plate follow a different manufacturing process

sequence not utilizing the solution heat treat equipment. The process is as follows: cast rectangular

ingot, scalp ingot surfaces, hot roll to temper thickness ~20% above finish gauge for some tempers, cold

roll to finish thickness, stretch straighten, partial anneal/stabilize, saw, inspect and pack. For products

between the gauge range of 0.25 to 1.5 inches thick the standard manufacturing cost for 7000 series is

approximately 44% greater than 6061 product.”

*** “Series 6000 is a heat-treated product whereas common alloys are a cold wrought product.”

*** The heat-treatable process requires sophisticated heat-treating (quenching) facilities and

technological discipline. Non heat-treatable products require much lower level facilities and knowledge.”

*** “Different due to heat treat and non heat treat.”

*** “Hot-rolled and cut to length.”

*** “Different inputs, chemical composition, different equipment, technology and manufacturing

expertise.”
D-11

Channels of Distribution

*** “While both non-heat-treatable plate are sold through distributors, distributors tend to specialize

based on products and markets served. While 95 percent of all 6000 series plate is sold through

distribution, only 22 percent of 1000, 3000, and 5000 series plate is sold through distributors. 78 percent

of 1-3-5000 series plate is sold directly to end-users.”

*** “Heat treatable plate product is sold primarily through a distribution network.”

***

ALLOYS

END USE/

CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS

CHANNELS OF

DISTRIBUTION

AA 1000 & 3000

Series

General purposes, conformance to specifications

for chemistry and physical properties.

Through both distributors

and direct sales to users and

fabricators by producers.

AA 5000 Series General, Marine and Transport-related

applications. Customers expect conformance to

specifications including chemistry, physical

properties, flatness and dimensional integrity.

Through both distributors

and direct sales to users and

fabricators by producers.

AA 6000 Series Machining applications including vacuum chamber

assemblies and other value-added applications. 

Customers expect performance to specifications

including chemistry, physical properties, and

particularly insofar as flatness, stability and

dimensional integrity are concerned.

Principally through

Distributors.

AA 4000 Series No data known. No data known.

*** “End use of 6000 is tooling plate sold through distribution, i.e., metal stock lists.” 

*** “Non-heatable products can be sold more easily to producers as this areas bigger users are normal

(trailer, rail road car); the majority of products is sold to distributors.”

*** “Are the same (generally).”

*** “Distributors.”

*** “Distributors and end users/manufacturers.”

Customer and Producer Perceptions

*** “Each plate alloy has very distinct end uses. And, as noted by the Commission in its

preliminary determination, the aluminum industry classifies aluminum alloys according to their chemical

composition through a numbering system, incorporating far narrower dividing lines than simply heattreatable and non-heat-treatable plate. Because of this, customer and producer perceptions are very

different between the different series of aluminum plate. Non-heat-treatable alloys are called “soft or

common” alloys and, with the exception of series 5000, seldom used for plate applications because of

their low strengths. For example, a customer that requires 6000 series plate for automotive parts or

electronic base assemblies would have a very distinct perception of series 3000 plate, and would not
D-12

perceive the two products as substitutable. As for the 4000 series alloys, they are not even produced in

plate form.”

*** “Heat treatable plate products and non-heat treatable plate products have very little

commonality in how they are produced, priced or sold. Generally heat treatable plate products are used in

applications requiring higher strengths, enhanced corrosion resistance and/or better machinability.”

*** “With respect to marketing, from our discussions with customers we understand that

market perception is that channels of distribution are more controlled for heat-treated products than for

common alloy plate. This may be due to fewer competitors in the heat-treated sector affording

manufacturers the ability to exert greater control over the market and to limit channels of distribution. 

This is particularly manifest in times of buoyant demand during which many distributors find available

quantities of heat-treated plate to be limited.”

 

*** “Series 6000 is a highly technical product used in close tolerance specifications.” 

*** “6000 series plate generally sold to distributors while this is true for non-heat-treatable products

too, some can be sold to producers, directly form rolling mills.”

*** “Marketing channels for distributors vary based on the markets they serve. End users will

have applications for either non-heat treatable or heat-treatable and are likely to use one or the other in the

end product.”

*** “Application specific.”

Price

*** “Historically, there has always been a distinction in price for heat-treatable and non-heat

treatable plate, as well as for specific alloys within each of these categories. Because of the higher level

of technology, different equipment, and different technical expertise required for heat-treatable plate,

making it more costly to manufacture, the pricing has always been higher than lower-technology non-heat

treatable plate.” 

*** “Due to the extra manufacturing costs and the above attributes heat treatable plate products

generally demand a higher price.”

*** “Many common alloys i.e. Alloys AA 1xxx and AA 3xxx and many AA 5xxx Series products are

sold on the basis of conversion pricing; i.e.: Metal values plus a fabrication premium. For Alloys AA

6000 and some higher magnesium AA 5000 Series Plate a fixed price is frequently the norm. For

example, recent prices for Alloy AA 6061 Plate were in the vicinity of USD 2.25/Lb. whereas Alloy AA

5052 Material in thickness .250” was available at Mid-West metal price plus a premium of USC 48/Lb. 

At the same time, Marine-Grade Alloys such as AA 5083 and AA 5456 are likely to be sold on a fixed

price basis, similar to products in the AA 6000 Series. During 2004, as prices for AA 6061 Plate

escalated more rapidly than other products, one of our customers chose to finalize a long-term contract for

Alloy AA 5083 instead of Alloy AA 6061, which had previously been supplied. Pricing for the Alloy

AA 5083 Plate was about USD 1.53/Lb. whereas the pricing for Alloy AA 6061 at the time was about

20% higher, with the prospect of delays in delivery for the heat-treated products. In general, therefore,

the more common AA 5xxx series alloys tend to respond immediately to changes in the underlying metal

values whereas alloy AA 6xxx heat treated products and some high magnesium alloy AA 5xxx products

respond more slowly, or lag the metal price changes.”
D-13

*** “Price of 6000 does not follow ingot plus conversion formula like common alloys. Price is

based on market demand.”

*** “Due to the characteristics and uses the two product groups sells at different prices. The

difference can be 20/70 percent per pound.” 

*** “Each alloy and application has a different price.”

*** “5000 series is normally less expensive because it is not heat treated; wide widths are sold for

higher prices.”

*** “Due to the different inputs and manufacturing processes and the higher strength achieved in the

heat-treatable products, pricing for heat-treatable products is higher than non-heat-treatable products.”
D-14

NON-HEAT-TREATABLE SERIES 5000 ALUMINUM PLATE AND 

CERTAIN ALUMINUM PLATE (SERIES 6000)

Characteristics and Uses

***.–Same responses as for non-heat-treatable aluminum plate (series 1000, 3000, 4000, and 5000).

*** “5000 series plate is used in applications such as machine industry, whereas 6000 series

is not. 6000 series is used as basic engineering material in U.S. market.” 

*** “5000 plates in cold formed tempers (H 32-38) are comparable in mechanical properties. The

structure good plate however preferred in the areas of main use (aircraft, tool).”

PURCHASERS

*** “Both products can be used for general tooling plate requirements; however 6061 plate provides

a better combination of strength, hardness, machinability, and corrosion resistance for general tooling

requirements than a 5000 series plate product can provide. If the primary requirements are exceptional

resistance to corrosion and/or good weldability, a 5000 series plate can be a better option in applications

where higher strength is not a requirement (i.e. marine grade applications).”

*** “6061 high strength & machinability. 5000 low strength- formability-cosmetic end use.”

*** “6061 is harder and used for machined parts. 5052 is used in sign and architectural

applications.”

*** “Our primary end use for 5000 series plate is marine. 6000 series plate end uses include various

general engineering applications, electronic, semiconductor, etc.”

*** “5000 aluminum series cannot be heat treated while 6000 series can. Heat treat allows end use

requiring strength characteristics.”

*** “5000 plate- marine applications; armored vehicles/armor plate; weldable

structure. 6000 plate- non-structural aircraft parts; auto parts; military vehicles; tooling.”

Interchangeability

*** “Not common across applications, rare cases may exist.”

*** “None in relation to use of material. The chemistry and mechanical properties are different and

end products are typically used for different applications. There may be some exception depending on

application.”
D-15

PURCHASERS

*** “6061 plate is generally perceived as the most widely used and economical grade of tooling plate

available, providing a good combination of strength, hardness, machinability, and resistance to corrosion. 

There is perception in the industry related to the surface finish/condition of most 6061 plate products. 

Alcoa's Type 200 6061 tooling plate has a polished surface to eliminate surface imperfections from the

rolling and handling process. Kaiser and Empire (South Africa-Hullett) provide their plate with a

“brushed” surface finish for the same reason. There are a number of customers that prefer either of these

two surface finishes as opposed to a traditional hot rolled surface condition supplied by other mills. 5000

series plate is perceived as being a lower strength, less machinable grade, primarily used for general

fabrication or marine grade type requirements.”

*** “If specs or alloys are not a prerequisite, customers will go with the less expensive plate.”

*** “We target different business when selling this product (i.e. 6061- machine shops/5052- sign and

s/m shops.).”

*** “5000 series plate has lower strength characteristics and would not be considered for most

general engineering applications.”

*** “5000 aluminum series cannot be heat treated while 6000 series can. Heat 

treat allows end use requiring strength characteristics.”

Manufacturing Processes

*** “6000 is heat treated; 5000 is not heat treated.”

*** “Different inputs; different manufacturing processes and different equipment/production lines.”

Channels of Distribution

*** “Both alloys are primarily distribution for U.S.”

*** “Distributors tend to specialize based on product and markets served. Approximately 95

percent of *** sales of 6000 series plate are made through distributors. In contrast, on 22 percent of ***

sales of 5000 series plate are through distributors. Generally, this is because most 6000 series plate is cut

into smaller pieces by distributors for end-users, while most 5000 series plate is purchased and used in

larger, finished sizes that do not require cutting by distributors. There are some distributors that are more

highly specialized in some forms of 5000 series plate due to their unique end-customer base.”

*** “Both alloys are primarily distribution for United States.” 

*** “To distributors, end users, manufacturers. However, service in different markets and

applications.”
D-16

Customer and Producer Perceptions

*** “Because of the differing physical and performance characteristics and different intended

end-uses of 5000 series and 6000 series plate, these products are suitable for different applications and

hence have different customer perceptions. Some customers may perceive 5000 series to be easier to

manufacture, less technical in nature, less critical in its intended applications. For 6000 series, in most

cases customer drawings or specifications identify what alloy is required. There are very few instances

where end users can be convince to buy something different than what they have specified for the end-use

application.”

*** “Marketing channels for distributors are different depending on the product mix. End

users/manufacturers will have requirement for specific alloys and strength.”

Price

*** “Historically, there has always been a distinction in price for heat-treatable and non-heat

treatable plate, as well as for specific alloys within each of these categories. Because of the higher level

of technology, different equipment, and different technical expertise required for heat-treatable plate,

making it more costly to manufacture, the pricing has always been higher than lower-technology nonheat-treatable plate. To illustrate, we estimate that for a producer of 5000 series to become capable of

producing 6000 series plate, it would require an investment of $100 million and a 24- to 30-month lead

time. This investment (and the higher production costs) would accordingly be reflected in the higher

price for the 6000 series plate.”

*** “5000 series is usually lower in price.”

*** “6000 alloy is typically priced higher than 1000, 3000, 4000, and 5000 alloys. Pricing is

related to quality and end application for finished product. Which product qualifies to be used based on

specifications. Additionally, on the production side, the time, effort and cost to produce 6000 alloy is

more expensive than for 1000, 3000, 5000 series. We do not supply 4000 series products.” 

*** “Both products can be considered “commodity” type products and are available from a number 

of global sources. Specific price points for 1/2"" thick plate in each grade for the mid 2003 time frame

would be- 5052-H32 plate $1.21-1.25/#, and 6061 plate $1.32-1.51/#.”

*** “Current cost: 1/4" thick- 5052 $1.88 per lb. 6061-T651 $2.06 per lb.”

*** “5052 .248-.249 gauge $1.04-$1.20 vs. 6061 250" $2.20-$2.30.”

*** Typically 5000 series plate will cost less than 6000 series plate.”

*** “6000 series normally carries a premium to 5000 series due to the manufacturing process.”

*** “5xxx plate- generally priced from 2001-03 @$1.45-1.55/lb. 6061 plate commands a generally

higher price.”
D-17

NON-HEAT-TREATABLE ALUMINUM SHEET (SERIES 5000, .248-.249 IN. THICKNESS)

Characteristics and Uses

*** “The numerous factors that draw a bright line between 6000 series plate and 5000 are

detailed in prior responses and are incorporated in this response by reference. These distinctions apply

equally to 5000 series material that is slightly less than .250" in thickness.”

“The difference between heat treatable and non-heat treatable plate are very significant and

mandate separate treatment. To lump 5000 series sheet products with 6000 series plate would be even

more unsupportable. The distinction as to product form is well established by definitions promulgated by

Aluminum Association. According to that definition, plate is “a rolled product that is rectangular in cross

section with a thickness NOT less than 0.25 inch with sheared or sawed edges.” Any product that

otherwise might meet this definition, but having thickness less than 0.25 inch must, by definition, be

partof another product form not relevant to this investigation. There is clearly a “bright line” between

plate and sheet products.”

***.–Same response as for non-heat-treatable aluminum plate (series 1000, 3000, 4000, and 5000).

PURCHASERS

*** “Same general response as in II-5 (a), however, the 5000 series sheet in the .249

thickness is generally leveled and cut to length from coil stock and used more for general sheet

fabrication applications such as appliances, RV/Truck Trailer/Transportation type end uses as opposed to

tooling and structural components.”

*** “6061 high strength & machinability. 5000 low strength- formability-cosmetic end use.”

*** “Both are general line. 5000 series is used for corrosion resistance. 6000 is used for commercial

applications where strength or machining are needed.”

*** “6061 is harder and used for machined parts. 5052 is used in sign and architectural

applications.”

*** “Our primary end use for 5000 series plate is marine. 6000 series plate end uses include various

general engineering applications, electronic, semiconductor, etc.”

*** “5000 aluminum series cannot be heat treated while 6000 series can. Heat treat allows end use

requiring strength characteristics.”

Interchangeability

*** “None in relation to use of material. The chemistry mechanical properties are different and

end products are used for different application. Unlikely there would be any exception.” 

Manufacturing Processes

*** “Different inputs, different manufacturing processes, and different equipment/production

lines.” 
D-18

Channels of Distribution

*** “To distributors, end users, manufacturers. However, serving very different markets and

applications.”

Customer Perceptions

*** “Marketing channels for distributors are different depending on end application and markets

being serviced. End users/manufacturers will have requirements fro specific alloys, strengths and

dimensions.”

*** “The Aluminum Association’s specifications define the break in the lines between sheet and plate

as 0.250 inches thickness and about for plate and below 0.250 inches for sheet. Thus, customers consider

aluminum of 0.250 inches or greater to be a different product than aluminum having a lower thickness. 

This distinction is mirrored in the tariff schedules, where there is a break between products having

thickness less than and greater than 0.250 inches.

The industry has established a specific thickness-based distinction between sheet and plate...we

do not find that plate and sheet are a continuum of products and we decline to expand the like product

beyond the scope of the investigation to include all aluminum sheet.” 

Price

*** “6000 series aluminum plate is typically priced above 5000 series sheet. Price is related

toquality and also thickness. In this case with plates normally having a premium over sheet. Additionally,

on the production side, the time, effort and cost to produce 6000 series plates is more expensive that for

5000 series sheets.”

PURCHASERS

*** “6061 plate is generally perceived as the most widely used and economical grade of tooling plate

available, providing a good combination of strength, hardness, machinability, and resistance to corrosion. 

There is perception in the industry related to the surface finish/condition of most 6061 plate products. 

Alcoa's Type 200 6061 tooling plate has a polished surface to eliminate surface imperfections from the

rolling and handling process. Kaiser and Empire (South Africa-Hullett) provide their plate with a

“brushed” surface finish for the same reason. There are a number of customers that prefer either of these

two surface finishes as opposed to a traditional hot rolled surface condition supplied by other mills. 5000

series plate is perceived as being a lower strength, less machinable grade, primarily used for general

fabrication or marine grade type requirements.”

*** “We target different business when selling this product (i.e. 6061- machine shops/5052- sign and

s/m shops.).”

*** “5000 series plate has lower strength characteristics and would not be considered for most

general engineering applications.”

*** “5000 aluminum series cannot be heat treated while 6000 series can. Heat treat allows end use

requiring strength characteristics.”
D-19

*** “Perception is 6xxx series is for more general applications. 5xxx is more specialized.”

Channels of Distribution

*** “Aluminum in sheet form (below 0.25 inches), is typically handled and transported in coils,

while aluminum plate is typically handled and transported in flat form. This difference in form leads to

differences in services provided by distributors for each type of product, and the equipment required to

perform those services.

Since plate is typically sold in standard stocked sizes, distributors saw these larger plates into a

variety of smaller square and rectangular sizes for their end customers. This cut-to-size processing

requires investment by each distributor in plate saws, capable of precision cutting tolerances. By contrast,

for sheet products, distributors have equipment that slits or shears the coils into sizes and shapes for

specific and widely-varying end-user requirements. This equipment includes cut-to-length lines or shears

for shearing to size individual sheets.

Thus, the channels of distribution for plate and sheet require different equipment to be employed

by distributors, and require different relationships with end-users. Some distributors may be involved in

both product lines, but if they are they must have different equipment and selling strategies for plate and

sheet.”

Price

*** “This product is most typically purchased in coiled form and then leveled and cut to length into

sheet product. It is also purchased on an import basis both in sheet and coiled forms. Price for this

product in the mid 2003 time frame was $1.06-1.08/#. 6061 plate in a 1/4" thickness would have been in

the 1.35-1.51/# range for the same time period.”

*** “Current cost: .249 thick- 5052-H32 $1.322 per lb. 1/4 thick 6061-T651 $2.06 per lb.”

*** “Series 5000 is typically 33 percent less than 6000.”

*** “5052 .248-.249 gauge $1.04-$1.20 vs. 6061 250" $2.20-$2.30.”

*** “Typically 5000 series plate will cost less than 6000 series plate.”

*** “6000 series normally carries a premium to 5000 series due to the manufacturing process.”

E-1

APPENDIX E

PRICE DATA-SPOT AND CONTRACT SALES
 
E-3

Table E-1

Certain aluminum plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. spot prices and quantities of domestic and

imported product 1 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table E-2

Certain aluminum plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. spot prices and quantities of domestic and

imported product 2 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table E-3

Certain aluminum plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. spot prices and quantities of domestic and

imported product 3 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table E-4

Certain aluminum plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. spot prices and quantities of domestic and

imported product 4 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure E-1

Certain aluminum plate: Weighted-average spot f.o.b. prices of domestic and imported products 1-

4, by quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table E-5

Certain aluminum plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. contract prices and quantities of domestic and

imported product 1 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table E-6

Certain aluminum plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. contract prices and quantities of domestic and

imported product 2 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table E-7

Certain aluminum plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. contract prices and quantities of domestic and

imported product 3 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table E-8

Certain aluminum plate: Weighted-average f.o.b. contract prices and quantities of domestic and

imported product 4 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *
E-4

Figure E-2

Certain aluminum plate: Weighted-average contract f.o.b. prices of domestic and imported

products 1-4, by quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *