U.S. International Trade Commission

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

COMMISSIONERS

Irving A. Williamson

Deanna Tanner Okun

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Karen Laney-Cummings

Director, Office of Industries

Charlotte R. Lane

Daniel R. Pearson, Chairman

Dean A. Pinkert

Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman

Project Leader

Cynthia B. Foreso, Office of Industries

cynthia.foreso@usitc.gov

Deputy Project Leader

Eric Land, Office of Industries

eric.land@usitc.gov

Principal Authors

Jeffrey Clark, Vincent DeSapio, Cynthia Foreso, Gerald Houck, Eric Land,

Phillip Stone, Karl Tsuji, and Stephen Wanser

Special Assistance From:

Walker Pollard, Office of Economics

Diane Bennett and Sharon Greenfield, Office of Industries

Under the direction of:

Robert Carr, Chief

Natural Resources and Metals Division
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

January 2008

www.usitc.gov

Publication 3982

Advice Concerning Possible Modifications

to the U.S. Generalized System of

Preferences, 2007 Review of

Additions and Removals

Investigation No. 332--493

CLASSIFIED BY: United States Trade Representative, Letter Dated September 6, 2007

DECLASSIFIED BY: United States Trade Representative, Letter Dated September 6, 2007

NOTICE

THIS REPORT IS A PUBLIC VERSION OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE

UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE ON DECEMBER 18, 2007. ALL

CONFIDENTIAL NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION AND CONFIDENTIAL

BUSINESS INFORMATION HAS BEEN REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH

ASTERISKS (***).

ABSTRACT

This report contains the advice of the United States International Trade Commission

(Commission) to the President regarding the probable economic effect of certain proposed

additions to, or removals from, the list of eligible articles under the provisions of the

Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) on the U.S. industries producing like or directly

competitive articles and on U.S. consumers. The articles and their Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) subheadings for the proposed additions are: adipic acid, 2917.12.10; certain

plywood veneered panels, 4412.39.5030; certain unwrought aluminum in coils, 7601.10.30

and 7601.20.30; hollow profiles, of aluminum alloys, 7604.21.00; and manganese metal

powder, 8111.00.4910. The articles and their HTS subheadings for the proposed removals

are: from India, certain other organo-inorganic compounds, 2931.00.90; and from Brazil,

PET film, 3920.62.00. 

CONTENTS

Page

Abstract i

Chapter 1: Introduction and summary of findings . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

Product and country coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

Analytical approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

Summary of findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

Chapter 2: Adipic acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

Addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

Probable economic effect advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

Profile of U.S. industry and market, 2002!06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

GSP import situation, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

Position of interested parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

Chapter 3: Certain plywood veneered panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

Addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

Probable economic effect advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

Profile of U.S. industry and market, 2002!06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

GSP import situation, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

Position of interested parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

Chapter 4: Certain unwrought aluminum, in coils . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

Addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

Probable economic effect advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

Profile of U.S. industry and market, 2002!06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

GSP import situation, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

Position of interested parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

Chapter 5: Hollow profiles, of aluminum alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

Addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

Probable economic effect advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

Profile of U.S. industry and market, 2002!06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

GSP import situation, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

Position of interested parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

Chapter 6: Manganese metal powder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

Addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

Probable economic effect advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

Profile of U.S. industry and market, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

GSP import situation, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3

Position of interested parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
Contents–Continued

Page

Chapter 7: Certain other organo-inorganic compounds . . . . 7-1

Removal (India) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

Probable economic effect advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

Profile of U.S. industry and market, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3

GSP import situation, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

Position of interested parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5

Chapter 8: PET film . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

Removal (Brazil) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

Probable economic effect advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

Profile of U.S. industry and market, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2

GSP import situation, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

Position of interested parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biblio-1

Appendixes:

A. USTR Request Letter and Letter to Withdraw Petitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Notice of Investigation and Notice to Withdraw Petitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Calendar of Witnesses for October 16, 2007 Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Model for Evaluating the Probable Economic Effects of Changes in the GSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Tables:

1-1 HTS subheadings, products, rates of duty, and probable economic effect advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

2-1 Adipic acid: U.S. producers, employment, shipments, trade, consumption, and 

capacity utilization, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

2-2 Adipic acid: U.S. imports and share of U.S. consumption, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

2-3 Adipic acid (HTS subheading 2917.12.10): U.S. imports for consumption, by principal

sources, 2002&06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2-4 Adipic acid: U.S. exports of domestic merchandise, by market, 2002-06,

January-June 2006 and January-June 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

3-1 Certain plywood veneered panels: U.S. producers, employment, shipments, trade,

consumption, and capacity utilization, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3-2 Certain plywood veneered panels: U.S. imports and share of U.S. consumption, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

3-3 Certain plywood veneered panels: (HTS subheading 4412.39.5030):

U.S. imports for consumption, by principal sources, 2002–06, January-June 2006

and January-June 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

3-4 Certain plywood veneered panels: U.S. exports of domestic merchandise,

by market, 2002-06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

4-1 Certain unwrought aluminum, in coils: U.S. producers, employment, shipments, trade,

consumption, and capacity utilization, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
Contents–Continued

Page

Tables&Continued

4-2 Certain unwrought aluminum, in coils: U.S. imports and share of U.S. consumption,

2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

4-3 Certain unwrought aluminum, in coils (HTS subheadings 7601.10.30 and 7601.20.30):

U.S. imports for consumption, by principal sources, 2002&06, January-June 2006

and January-June 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

4-4 Certain unwrought aluminum (HTS subheading 7601.10.30): U.S. imports for consumption,

by principal sources, 2002–06, January-June 06 and January-June 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

4-5 Certain unwrought aluminum (HTS subheading 7601.20.30): U.S. imports for consumption,

by principal sources, 2002–06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

5-1 Hollow profiles, of aluminum alloys: U.S. producers, employment, shipments, trade,

consumption, and capacity utilization, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

5-2 Hollow profiles, of aluminum alloys: U.S. imports and share of U.S. consumption, 2006 . . . . . . . 5-3

5-3 Hollow profiles, of aluminum alloys (HTS subheading 7604.21.00): U.S. imports for

consumption, by principal sources, 2002–06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007 . . . . 5-5

5-4 Hollow profiles, of aluminum alloys: U.S. exports of domestic merchandise, by market,

2002-06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

6-1 Manganese metal powder: U.S. producers, employment, shipments, trade, consumption, and

capacity utilization, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

6-2 Manganese metal powder: U.S. imports and share of U.S. consumption, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4

6-3 Manganese metal powder (HTS subheading 8111.00.49.10): U.S. imports for consumption,

by principal sources, 2002–06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6

7-1 Certain other organo-inorganic compounds: U.S. producers, employment, shipments, trade,

consumption, and capacity utilization, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3

7-2 Certain other organo-inorganic compounds: U.S. imports and share of U.S. consumption, 2006 . . 7-4

7-3 Certain other organo-inorganic compounds (HTS subheading 2931.00.90): U.S. imports for

consumption, by principal sources, 2002–06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007 . . . . 7-7

7-4 Certain other organo-inorganic compounds: U.S. exports of domestic merchandise,

by market, 2002–06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8

8-1 PET film: U.S. producers, employment, shipments, trade, consumption, and capacity

utilization, 2002–06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2

8-2 PET film: U.S. imports and share of U.S. consumption, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

8-3 PET film (HTS subheading 3920.62.00): U.S. imports for consumption, by principal

sources, 2002–06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5

 1

 The information in these chapters is for the purpose of this report only. Nothing in this report should be

construed to indicate how the Commission would find in an investigation conducted under any other

statutory authority.

 2

 See app. A for the USTR request letter; on November 26, 2007, the USTR informed the Commission

that the petition for HTS subheadings 2613.10.00 and 2613.90.00 (molybdenum ores and concentrates) and 

3204.17.90 (certain synthetic organic pigments) were withdrawn by the petitioners and that the Commission

was not to provide advice on those HTS subheadings (see app. A for the letter from USTR). See app. B for

the Commission’s Federal Register notice instituting the investigation and the notice withdrawing the three

HTS subheadings. The Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 16, 2007 in

Washington, DC. See app. C for the calendar of witnesses for the public hearing.

1-1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction and Summary of Findings

Introduction1

This report provides probable economic effect advice concerning the proposed addition or

removal of certain articles from the list of articles eligible for duty-free treatment under the

provisions of the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), as requested by the United

States Trade Representative (USTR).2

 Specifically, the report provides advice as to the

probable economic effect on U.S. industries producing like or directly competitive articles,

and on consumers, of the proposed addition to or removal from the list of eligible articles.

Product and country coverage

As requested by the USTR, advice is provided on the proposed addition of the following

articles (provided for in the noted U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings):

adipic acid (2917.12.10); certain plywood veneered panels (4412.39.5030); certain

unwrought aluminum in coils (7601.10.30 and 7601.20.30); hollow profiles, of aluminum

alloys (7604.21.00); and manganese metal powder (8111.00.4910). Advice is also provided

on the proposed removal of the following articles (provided for in the noted HTS

subheadings): certain other organo-inorganic compounds (2931.00.90) from India, and PET

film (3920.62.00) from Brazil.
 3

 The probable economic effect advice, to a degree, integrates and summarizes the data provided in other

sections of each product write-up with particular emphasis on the price sensitivity of import supply and

demand. For example, if the price elasticity of demand in the United States for imports from the beneficiary

countries and the price elasticity of supply for the eligible foreign suppliers are both relatively high, then the

elimination of even a moderate level tariff would suggest the possibility of large increases in imports from

the beneficiary countries. 

It should be noted that the probable economic effect advice with respect to changes in import levels

is presented in terms of the degree to which GSP modifications could affect the level of U.S. trade with the

world. Consequently, if GSP beneficiary countries supply a very small share of the total U.S. imports of a

particular product or if imports from beneficiary countries readily substitute for imports from developed

countries, then the overall effect on U.S. imports could be minimal. See app. D for a brief textual and

graphic presentation of the model used to evaluate the probable economic effect of changes in the GSP

program.

 4

 U.S. export data for certain subject products are not included as the products are part of a large basket

category and are, therefore, overstated. Estimates of U.S. exports, if any, are provided in the “Profile of U.S.

industry and market, 2002–06” section. 

 5

 The Commission developed the probable economic effect coding system to ensure consistency in its

advice and has used the coding system in a wide range of investigations.

1-2

Analytical approach

The probable economic effect advice presented in this report is based on the short- to nearterm (1 to 5 years) impact of the proposed GSP-eligibility modifications.3

 Partialequilibrium modeling was used to estimate the probable economic effect of changes in the

GSP program for the selected products on total U.S. imports of these products, competing

U.S. industries, and U.S. consumers. The model used in this study is a nonlinear, imperfect

substitutes model. Unless otherwise noted, the Commission used the petitions submitted to

the USTR, testimony presented at a public hearing, written submissions from interested

parties, other information published in government and industry reports, and staff economic

and industry expertise to provide a description of the subject products and the qualitative

analysis of actual market conditions for the subject products. For the most part, trade data

presented in this report are from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.4

U.S. production data were estimated by the Commission industry analysts. Elasticities were

also estimated by Commission industry analysts based on relevant product and market

characteristics. Data cover the period 2002 through 2006.

The Commission’s probable economic effect advice relates to the impact of the additions or

removals on U.S. imports, industries, and consumers and uses the coding system shown

below:5
 6

 The U.S. consumer may be a firm or a person receiving an intermediate good for further processing or

an end user receiving a final good.

1-3

ADDITIONS:

Level of total U.S. imports:

Code A: Little or no increase (less than 6 percent).

Code B: Moderate increase (6 to 15 percent).

Code C: Significant increase (over 15 percent).

Code N: No impact.

U.S. industry and employment:

Code A: Little or no adverse impact–little or no decrease in production or

producers’ shipments (less than 6 percent).

Code B: Significant adverse impact–significant proportion of workers

unemployed, declines in output and profit levels, and departure of firms;

effect on some segments of the industry may be substantial even though

they are not industry wide (6 to 15 percent).

Code C: Substantial adverse impact to substantial unemployment, widespread

idling of productive facilities; substantial declines in profit levels; effects

felt by the entire industry (over 15 percent).

Code N: None–there is no domestic industry producing the subject product.

U.S. consumer:6

Code A: The bulk of duty rate reduction (greater than 75 percent) is expected to

be absorbed by the foreign suppliers. The price U.S. consumers pay is

not expected to fall significantly.

Code B: Duty rate reduction is expected to benefit both the foreign suppliers and

the domestic consumer (neither absorbing more than 75 percent).

Code C: The bulk of duty rate reduction (greater than 75 percent) is expected to

benefit the U.S. consumer.

Code N: None.
1-4

REMOVALS:

Level of total U.S. imports:

Code X: Little or no decrease (less than 6 percent).

Code Y: Moderate decrease (6 to 15 percent).

Code Z: Significant decrease (over 15 percent).

Code N: No impact.

U.S. industry and employment:

Code X: Little or negligible beneficial impact– little or no increase in production

or producers’ shipments (less than 6 percent).

Code Y: Significant beneficial impact–significant increase in number of workers

employed, increases in output and profit levels; effect on some segments

of the industry may be significant but the beneficial effect is not felt

industry wide (6 to 15 percent).

Code Z: Substantial beneficial impact–substantial employment increases,

widespread increases in production, substantial increases in profit levels;

beneficial impact on the industry as a whole (over 15 percent).

Code N: None.

U.S. consumer:

Code X: The bulk of duty rate increase (greater than 75 percent) is expected to be

absorbed by the foreign suppliers.

Code Y: Duty rate increase is expected to increase costs for both the foreign

suppliers and the domestic consumer (neither receiving more than 75

percent of the increase).

Code Z: The bulk of duty rate increase (greater than 75 percent) is expected to be

passed on to the U.S. consumer.

Code N: None.
1-5

Summary of Findings

* * * * * * *

Table 1-1: HTS subheadings, products, rates of duty, and probable economic effect advice

*******

 1

 The petitioner is Rhodia Poliamida e Especialidades, Ltda. (Brazil).

2-1

CHAPTER 2

Adipic Acid

Addition1

HTS subheading Short description Col. 1 rate of

duty as of

1/1/07

(percent ad

valorem)

Like or directly

competitive article

produced in the

United States on

Jan. 1, 1995?

2917.12.10a Adipic acid 6.5 Yes

 a This HTS subheading was removed from eligibility under the provisions of the GSP in 2003. The current

petition seeks to re-add the HTS subheading to the list of eligible articles, stating that the market has changed

substantially since the 2003 removal.

Adipic acid is a synthetic organic aliphatic dicarboxylic acid principally derived from the

oxidation of cyclohexane. Adipic acid is used primarily to make nylon 6,6, which in turn

is used in the production of industrial and apparel fabrics, carpets, and engineering resins.

Other uses include the production of polyurethane foam, esters for use as plasticizers and

synthetic lubricants, food additives, baking powders, and adhesives. 

Probable economic effect advice

* * * * ***
 2

 Solutia, Inc., “Solutia Poised to Emerge From Bankruptcy,” September 26, 2007. 

2-2

Profile of U.S. industry and market, 2002–06

There are currently two U.S. producers of adipic acid, Invista (formerly a DuPont subsidiary)

and Solutia. In 2006, a third U.S. producer of adipic acid, Inolex, exited the industry after

shutting down its Hopewell, VA, plant, which accounted for 2 percent of domestic

production. Solutia announced on September 26, 2007, that it will emerge from bankruptcy

protection by the end of 2007.2

 Shipments of adipic acid, along with imports and exports,

have increased in the 2002–06 period (table 2-1), and world demand for the product is

expected to grow at an average of 2 percent per year for the next few years. Approximately

80 percent of domestically produced adipic acid is used captively to manufacture nylon 6,6

fibers and resins with the remainder sold in the merchant market. Canada, the leading U.S.

import source for adipic acid, accounted for more than 70 percent of adipic acid imports

throughout the period; Canada and Brazil together supplied more than 86 percent of imports.

Table 2-1 Adipic acid: U.S. producers, employment, shipments, trade, consumption, and capacity

utilization, 2002–06

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Producers (number) ................. 33332

Employment (1,000 employees) ........ (a) (a) (a) (a) (a)

Shipments (1,000 dollars)

b . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** ***

Exports (1,000 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66,911 84,080 95,478 115,122 182,115

Imports (1,000 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,448 47,701 43,941 56,721 75,925

Consumption (1,000 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** ***

Import-to-consumption ratio (percent) . . *** *** *** *** ***

Capacity utilization (percent) . . . . . . . . . 90 90 90 90 90

 a

 Not available.

 b Data for 2006 are estimated by Commission staff.
 3

 Except as noted, information provided in this section is derived from the petition filed with the USTR as

well as testimony and written submissions of interested parties to the Commission in connection with this

investigation.

2-3

GSP import situation, 2006

Brazil was the only GSP-eligible source of imports of adipic acid in 2006 (table 2-2).

Rhodia, a French firm with subsidiaries worldwide, produces adipic acid in Brazil. The U.S.

subsidiary, Rhodia Inc., imports adipic acid from the Brazilian subsidiary and sells it in the

U.S. market. 

Other GSP-eligible countries are potential sources of adipic acid imports. India and Ukraine

recently exported the product to the U.S. market: India in 2005; Ukraine in 2002, 2003, and

2005. 

Table 2-2 Adipic acid: U.S. imports and share of U.S. consumption, 2006

Item Imports

Percent

 of total

imports

Percent 

of GSP

imports

Percent 

of U.S.

consumption

1,000

dollars

Grand total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,925 100 (a

) ***

Imports from GSP-eligible countries:

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,535 13 100 ***

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,535 13 100 ***

 a Not applicable.

Position of interested parties3

Petitioner.–In its petition to the USTR requesting that this HTS subheading be readded to the

GSP, Rhodia Poliamida e Especialidades Ltda. claims that the U.S. Congress intended to

extend GSP benefits to developing countries without regard to the nationality of the

company ownership. Therefore, it is irrelevant, according to Rhodia, that it is a Frenchowned company. Rhodia contends that imports of adipic acid from Brazil will benefit U.S.

consumers without adversely affecting the U.S. industry. Rhodia asserts that U.S. consumers

of adipic acid cannot rely on domestic producers, which captively consume approximately

80 percent of their adipic acid production. Rhodia claims that the U.S. producers have

declared force majeure multiple times from 2004 to 2006, and have been increasing their

exports of adipic acid to capitalize on higher prices outside the U.S. market.

Brazilian exports of adipic acid to the U.S. market meet demand not satisfied by domestic

producers, according to Rhodia. U.S. imports from Brazil accounted for about 1 percent of

total U.S. apparent consumption in 2006 and 4 percent of the 2006 U.S. merchant market for
2-4

adipic acid. According to Rhodia, the surge in U.S. imports in 2005 resulted from North

American production disruptions after hurricanes in the United States and a prolonged strike

at Invista’s Ontario, Canada plant. 

Rhodia claims that the U.S. industry is not vulnerable. In addition to its strong captive

consumption, a significant portion of Invista’s merchant market sales are to DuPont on a

sole-source basis, meaning that they are not open to competition for at least the next few

years, according to Rhodia. While Solutia claims that U.S. demand for nylon 6,6 fiber is

declining due to changes in the carpeting industry, Rhodia asserts that Solutia has invested

in increased capacity for a different downstream product (nylon 6,6 resin) such that Solutia’s

overall captive demand for adipic acid will increase. Rhodia also claims that Solutia recently

announced price increases for both its adipic acid and nylon industrial fibers due to “strong

market demand.” Finally, Rhodia asserts that the earlier bankruptcy filing by Solutia is not

germane since it resulted from legacy liabilities, not imports.

Support.– Two domestic companies, Chemtura Corporation and Rohm and Haas Co., support

the petition for GSP treatment of adipic acid. They claim that GSP treatment will help

ensure access to an alternative source to protect their supply chains. They also claim that

their downstream businesses are dependent on a reliable and competitively priced supply of

adipic acid.

Opposition. – Invista and Solutia oppose the addition of adipic acid to the GSP for four

reasons: (1) the granting of duty-free treatment to a country that has a world-class, state-ofthe-art production facility would be contrary to the intent of the GSP program; (2) unilateral

preferential treatment afforded under the GSP should not be extended to Brazil, one of the

world’s 10 largest economies, because Brazil does not receive duty-free treatment under the

GSP programs of other industrialized countries; (3) the increased exports of adipic acid to

the U.S. market would have an inconsequential impact on the development of the Brazilian

economy; and (4) the U.S. industry is particularly vulnerable to imports because such a small

share of the industry is open to the merchant market. According to Invista, because imports

already supply one-third of the U.S. merchant market, allowing a world-class producer

greater access to the merchant market would further erode the U.S. industry’s share and

potentially damage the two remaining U.S. producers. 

While they note that the market has been changing, Invista and Solutia claim that the

changes have made the U.S. industry more vulnerable. The U.S. textile and apparel and

carpeting industries, traditionally the major markets for adipic acid, have undergone some

retrenchment and will continue to do so. The companies state that the U.S. textile and

apparel industry, including carpets, is switching to alternative fibers, thus reducing demand

for nylon fibers made from adipic acid. 

U.S. producers are being subjected to a cost-price squeeze, according to Invista and Solutia.

Low-priced imports have prevented the domestic industry from raising prices sufficiently

to cover rising input costs. Although the domestic producers acknowledge their growing

exports, they claim that these have been driven by declining captive consumption. They

contend that the primary export market, China, is expanding its own adipic acid industry,

which will prevent the domestic producers from continuing to sell large volumes of adipic

acid there. U.S. producers claim that Rhodia’s ability to sell its nitrous oxide abatement (i.e.,

carbon credits) gives the Brazilian operation a cost advantage that negates any need for dutyfree treatment under the GSP.
2-5

Table 2-3 Adipic acid (HTS subheading 2917.12.10): U.S. imports for consumption, by principal

sources, 2002–06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007

January-June

Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 2007 

In Dollars

Canada 46,076,519 42,110,946 33,814,328 16,827,974 55,499,465 30,528,625 30,947,933

Brazil 4,607,684 5,259,127 8,675,137 15,404,518 9,534,640 6,130,737 6,115,041

Germany 0 2,209 0 6,706,647 4,082,099 1,964,230 2,421,768

Korea 0 4,367 128,740 938,600 3,772,395 710,118 797,099

Singapore 0 0 0 8,495,555 1,378,235 1,378,235 0

France 120,188 0 1,223,742 5,572,087 1,019,847 399,384 0

Italy 0 0 0 803,214 266,811 266,811 0

Taiwan 0 12,780 65,443 131,110 122,332 122,332 0

Japan 459,932 204,221 0 119,643 83,363 83,363 43,345

China 0 0 33,824 75,264 71,680 52,186 0

All other 183,646 107,754 0 1,646,559 93,935 93,935 129,954

Total 51,447,969 47,701,404 43,941,214 56,721,171 75,924,802 41,729,956 40,455,140

Imports from GSP-eligible countries:

Brazil 4,607,684 5,259,127 8,675,137 15,404,518 9,534,640 6,130,737 6,115,041

India 0 0 0 12,302 0 0 0

Ukraine 171,433 65,580 0 786,505 0 0 0

Total 4,779,117 5,324,707 8,675,137 16,203,325 9,534,640 6,130,737 6,115,041

Source: Official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Table 2-4 Adipic acid: U.S. exports of domestic merchandise, by market, 2002–06, January-June 2006 and

January-June 2007

January-June

Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 2007 

In Dollars

China 2,201,321 4,987,362 2,320,267 91,316 50,494,369 13,326,585 37,741,300

Japan 17,988,619 16,679,850 27,909,689 37,003,215 36,236,562 15,633,475 20,353,683

Argentina 10,795,287 19,055,661 27,072,909 18,163,757 32,743,543 13,719,526 15,998,780

Turkey 2,986,078 431,576 0 7,711,220 15,511,813 6,352,509 8,281,527

Canada 7,784,063 12,007,016 3,241,192 36,769,309 15,129,807 6,966,447 948,536

Singapore 6,214,942 2,577,143 5,589,199 1,192,840 7,549,268 0 2,680,000

Taiwan 4,501,682 6,688,502 8,706,327 1,184,684 4,645,038 2,851,893 5,814,327

Mexico 2,733,862 3,366,570 3,869,561 3,040,943 4,007,544 1,237,699 2,815,018

Belgium 56,857 69,372 90,800 585,600 3,812,790 744,348 4,390,130

United Kingdom 39,740 0 953,895 0 2,217,640 1,342,640 1,433,600

All other 11,608,475 18,217,329 15,724,491 9,379,101 9,766,252 3,816,432 9,931,604

Total 66,910,926 84,080,381 95,478,330 115,121,985 182,114,626 65,991,554 110,388,505

Source: Official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

 1

 The petitioner is Urupanel, S.A. (Uruguay).

 2

 ***, telephone interview by Commission staff, October 3, 2007.

3-1

CHAPTER 3

Certain Plywood Veneered Panels

Addition1

HTS subheading Short description Col. 1 rate of

duty as of

1/1/07

(percent ad

valorem)

Like or directly

competitive article

produced in the

United States on

Jan. 1, 1995?

4412.39.5030a Certain other plywood veneered panels

consisting solely of sheets of wood,

each ply not exceeding 6 mm in

thickness

5.1 Yes

 a This HTS subheading was a new breakout as of January 1, 2007. Prior to 2007, these products were classified

under HTS subheading 4412.19.50, which became duty free under the provisions of the GSP for least developed

developing beneficiary countries as of July 1, 1997.

Plywood veneered panels are composed of thin sheets of wood (veneer) that are glued

together under high heat and pressure. The subject plywood veneered panels are sheets of

wood with at least one outer ply of long leaf pine (Pinus palustris), short leaf pine (Pinus

echinata), southern yellow pine (loblolly pine) (Pinus taeda), slash pine (Pinus ellioti), pitch

pine (Pinus rigida), or Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana); these woods are also referred to

generally as southern yellow pines. The subject softwood plywood veneered panels are used

primarily for structural purposes in residential construction and remodeling as well as in the

production of furniture.

Probable economic effect advice

* * * ** * *

Profile of U.S. industry and market, 2002–06

The U.S. industry producing veneered products ***.2 Demand for softwood veneer depends

heavily on the construction industry (mainly residential), which consumes nearly 48 percent

of total U.S. softwood veneer production. As with other industries producing construction

materials, the industry producing softwood veneer follows the trends of housing starts and

is impacted by overall economic conditions. While housing starts had been strong for
 3

 Based on official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development.

 4

 Although the official import data show China as a major U.S. import source from 2002 through 2004,

this may be due to a misclassification of imports. 

3-2

several years, steep declines have occurred in 2007, with October 2007 rates 15.9 percent

below October 2006 levels.3

 Nearly all U.S. consumption of the subject products is

accounted for by domestic production (table 3-1); U.S. imports of the subject products

account for a negligible share of the U.S. market. Canada is the leading U.S. import

supplier, followed by Brazil.4

 

Table 3-1 Certain plywood veneered panels: U.S. producers, employment, shipments, trade,

consumption, and capacity utilization, 2002–06

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Producers (number)

a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 45 45 45 45

Employment (1,000 employees)

a . . . . . 36 37 39 42 42

Shipments (1,000 dollars)

b . . . . . . . . . . 4,490,029 4,575,879 5,285,875 5,288,107 5,300,000

Exports (1,000 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,050 10,676 16,637 14,773 16,011

Imports (1,000 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . 833 2,558 3,484 554 505

Consumption (1,000 dollars) . . . . . . . . 4,478,812 4,567,761 5,272,422 5,273,888 5,284,494

Import-to-consumption ratio (percent) (

c

) (c) (c) (c) (c)

Capacity utilization (percent) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** ***

a

 Data derived from the U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufacturers, Industry Statistics, 2005. Data

for producers include all softwood plywood veneers and employment data are for production workers. b

 Data derived from the U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufacturers, Value of Product Shipments and

currently include all softwood plywood veneers. c

 Less than 0.5 percent.

GSP import situation, 2006

Currently, imports under this HTS subheading are not eligible for duty-free treatment under

the provisions of the GSP except from countries classified as least developed developing

countries (LDDBCs); Brazil (the largest GSP-eligible supplier) and Uruguay (the petitioner)

are not classified as LDDBCs. U.S. import data show that Brazil was the only GSP-eligible

country exporting the subject products to the U.S. market in the 2002–06 period (table 3-2).

In its petition, the government of Uruguay noted that it exports these products to the U.S.

market; however, U.S. imports from Uruguay do not appear in official U.S. import data. 
 5

 Except as noted, information provided in this section is derived from the petition filed with the USTR as

well as testimony and written submissions of interested parties to the Commission in connection with this

investigation.

3-3

Table 3-2 Certain plywood veneered panels: U.S. imports and share of U.S. consumption, 2006

Item Imports

Percent

 of total

imports

Percent 

of GSP

imports

Percent 

of U.S.

consumption

1,000

dollars

Grand total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505 100 (a

) (b)

Imports from GSP-eligible countries:

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 38 100 (b

)

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 38 100 (b

)

 a Not applicable.

 b

 Less than 0.5 percent.

Brazil is currently ranked second in the world in forest area coverage. Although Brazil does

not have a reliable inventory of its forest resources, most of which are located in the Amazon

region, estimates indicated that in 2006, total forest area was approximately 483 million

hectares. Nearly 447 million hectares were native forests (under both private and public

ownership), and another 6 million hectares were planted forests (plantations). Eucalyptus

made up 65 percent of the planted forests; the remaining 35 percent were pine plantations.

It is estimated that 60 percent of Brazilian plywood in 2000 was produced from tropical

wood, the remainder from other wood (particularly pine, which is a subject product) from

the planted forests in the south of the country. Pine plywood and combi-plywood (with face

and back of tropical veneer and core of pine veneer) are now the major types of plywood

produced in Brazil and their role is continuing to increase due to the growing availability of

materials from the fast-growing pine plantations. The Brazilian lumber industry (including

producers of the subject products) is composed of nearly 10,000 companies, mostly smallscale mills. The United States is a large consumer of Brazilian tropical lumber, as is China,

the Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal.

Urupanel (Uruguay), the petitioner, began operations in 2004, producing pine and eucalyptus

plywood primarily slated for export to the United States; such exports to the United States

under this HTS subheading began in late 2007, according to official U.S. statistics.

However, according to Urupanel, ***. 

Position of interested parties5

Petitioner.– In its petition to the USTR, Urupanel stated that duty-free access to the U.S.

market for the requested product will benefit Urupanel, the Uruguayan people, and the U.S.

industry producing the same or similar products. The petition further states that because

Urupanel’s primary customers are U.S. companies that use the products as inputs, their costs

would be lower as a result of importing less expensive merchandise.
3-4

No statements were received by the Commission in support of, or in opposition to, the

proposed modifications to the GSP considered for this HTS subheading.

Table 3-3 Certain plywood veneered panels: (HTS subheading 4412.39.5030): U.S. imports for

consumption, by principal sources, 2002–06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007

January-June

Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

In Dollars

Canada 217,320 1,105,869 745,395 364,144 314,535 189,748 59,015

Brazil 0 45,792 158,198 190,206 190,766 34,639 188,076

China 615,431 1,406,471 2,559,7010000

Norway 0 0 20,807 0 0 0 0

Total 832,751 2,558,132 3,484,101 554,350 505,301 224,387 247,091

Imports from GSP-eligible countries:

Brazil 0 45,792 158,198 190,206 190,766 34,639 188,076

Total 0 45,792 158,198 190,206 190,766 34,639 188,076

Source: Official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
3-5

Table 3-4 Certain plywood veneered panels: U.S. exports of domestic merchandise, by market, 2002–06,

January-June 2006 and January-June 2007 

January-June

Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

In Dollars

Dominican

Republic 2,403,369 755,840 1,110,502 2,775,710 4,050,433 2,428,723 2,397,146

Mexico 4,969,341 5,506,453 4,807,525 1,976,826 2,999,024 1,094,105 2,612,351

Guadeloupe 178,932 289,013 1,733,630 1,992,713 2,215,003 1,122,286 268,143

Barbados 677,461 353,413 2,139,414 1,414,684 1,546,537 830,863 541,370

Grenada Islands 261,542 330,199 939,200 1,738,702 979,282 446,135 64,440

Trinidad &

Tobago 868,854 533,244 2,016,499 1,935,386 944,185 518,336 148,061

St Lucia Is 349,573 786,067 825,757 778,783 935,569 438,556 378,887

Bahamas 147,965 197,020 1,059,992 446,788 917,350 441,861 522,173

St. Vincent &

Grenadines 11,533 45,113 149,787 580,812 260,809 147,978 17,877

Jamaica 74,184 71,872 486,078 342,616 258,753 132,783 103,309

All other 2,107,119 1,807,588 1,368,986 789,707 904,354 517,316 1,250,192

Total 12,049,873 10,675,822 16,637,370 14,772,727 16,011,299 8,118,942 8,303,949

Source: Official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

 1

 The petitioner is the government of the Arab Republic of Egypt.

4-1

CHAPTER 4

Certain Unwrought Aluminum, in Coils

Addition1 

HTS subheading Short description Col. 1 rate of

duty as of

1/1/07

(percent ad

valorem)

Like or directly

competitive article

produced in the

United States on

Jan. 1, 1995?

7601.10.30a

7601.20.30a

Aluminum, not alloyed; of uniform

cross section throughout its length, the

least cross-sectional dimension of

which is not greater than 9.5 mm, in

coils

Aluminum, alloyed; of uniform cross

section throughout its length, the least

cross-sectional dimension of which is

not greater than 9.5 mm, in coils

2.6

 2.6

Yes 

Yes

 a HTS subheadings 7601.10.30 and 7601.20.30 became duty free under the provisions of the GSP for least

developed developing beneficiary countries as of July 1, 1997.

The subject products are light aluminum coils that can be made from both hot- or cold-rolled

aluminum sheet. The coils are often rolled to thinner gauges or anodized, depending on the

final end-use application. End-use applications include construction-related demand

(architectural and lighting applications), transportation-related demand (passenger cars and

commercial trucks and trailers), packaging, and foil. 

Probable economic effect advice

* * * ** * *
 2

 Egyptalum Web site. http://www.egyptalum.com.eg (accessed November 19, 2007).

 3

 USGS, “Aluminum,” 2005, 5–18.

4-2

Profile of U.S. industry and market, 2002–06

According to industry sources, there are approximately five U.S. manufacturers of the

subject coiled aluminum rolled products (table 4-1). After declining from 2002 through

2004 because of decreased construction-related demand, U.S. consumption of flat-rolled

aluminum increased strongly in 2005–06 as demand, particularly in the commercial segment

of the market, began an upturn. In addition, during 2005–06, transportation-related demand

also increased as did demand for electrical lighting applications and for architectural or

decorative applications in commercial construction.

Table 4-1 Certain unwrought aluminum, in coils: U.S. producers, employment, shipments, trade,

consumption, and capacity utilization, 2002–06

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Producers (number) ................. 55555

Employment (1,000 employees) ........ (a

) (a) (a) (a) (a)

Shipments (1,000 dollars)

b . . . . . . . . . . . . 99,358 84,364 44,685 57,427 57,000

Exports (1,000 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637 566 779 1,186 1,664

Imports (1,000 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,892 1,731 3,563 4,360 12,994

Consumption (1,000 dollars) .......... 101,613 85,529 47,469 60,601 68,330

Import-to-consumption ratio (percent) . . 3 2 8 7 19

Capacity utilization (percent) .......... (

a

) (a) (a) (a) (a)

 a Not available. b Data for shipments figures are derived from the U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufactures, except for

2006, which are staff estimates. 

GSP import situation, 2006

In 2006, there were no U.S. imports from any GSP-eligible countries (table 4-2); however,

there were imports from GSP-eligible countries in 2002–04. Egypt has only one known

producer of the subject products, Egypt Aluminum Co. (Egyptalum), which is majority state

owned. Products produced in Egypt include ingots, slabs, sheets, billets, plates, and wire.

In 2004, the output of its hot rolling mill was expected to reach 120,000 metric tons per year

of hot rolled aluminum and its cold-rolled mill was expected to reach 60,000 metric tons per

year of cold-rolled aluminum in 2004.2

 Egyptalum’s hot rolling mill is reported to be

equipped with modern technology. Egypt’s total production of primary unwrought aluminum

rose from 191,000 metric tons in 2001 to an estimated 244,000 metric tons in 2005.3

 Nearly

40 percent of Egyptalum’s output is sold domestically, with export markets in Europe

(principally Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands) and other Arab nations together accounting
 4

 Egyptalum, “Egyptalum Stake Offer in the Stock Market On Hold,” April 4, 2006.

 5

 Egyptalum Web site. http://www.egyptalum.com.eg (accessed November 19, 2007).

 6

 Teo, “China’s Citic Expects to Win Pact to Build 270,000 tpy Egyptian Al Smelter,” September 13,

2006.

 7

 Kinch, “Brazil’s CBA Plans to Raise Aluminum Capacity,” June 13, 2006.

 8

 Ibid.

 9

 Ibid. 

 10 Arent Fox on behalf of Companhia Brasileira de Aluminio, written submission to the USITC, October

24, 2007, 3.

4-3

for the remaining 60 percent.4 In 2006, the government of Egypt sold 17 percent of

Egyptalum to the public on the Cairo stock market. This was in addition to the 8 percent of

the company that had been sold to the public in 1997.5

In September 2006, China’s Citic Group announced that it expected to secure an $800

million contract to build a 270,000 metric ton per year aluminum smelter for Egyptalum in

a region northeast of Cairo.6

 Smelter construction would begin in late 2007 or early 2008

and would be accomplished in three stages, (by nearly 90,000 metric tons each year).

Completion of the smelter is expected in 2012 and should boost the company’s total annual

smelter capacity to 500,000 metric tons, from less than 250,000 metric tons at the start of

2006.

Brazil was the principal GSP-eligible supplier of imports of certain unwrought aluminum to

the United States in 2005, supplying 92 percent of such imports and 1 percent of total

imports in that year. Brazil could increase its exports to the U.S. market with capacity

increases based on its abundant supply of raw materials. Although there were no U.S.

imports from Brazil in 2006 or in the first half of 2007, Brazil’s primary aluminum producer,

Cia. Brasileira de Aluminio (CBA), announced plans to increase its annual smelter capacity

to 470,000 metric tons.7

 The company is 100 percent self-sufficient in supplies of bauxite

and alumina, key raw materials in the production of primary aluminum, producing 2.5

million metric tons of bauxite per year. The company planned to finish completion of a 3

million metric ton per year bauxite mine in Brazil in 2007, and a new 900,000 metric ton per

year bauxite mine in Brazil will be brought onstream in a few years.8

Brazil’s primary aluminum output (including rolled products) grew to 1.6 million metric tons

in 2006, an increase of 7 percent over the previous year due to new capacity brought

onstream by CBA and Alcoa.9

 Brazil’s production of rolled aluminum products increased

by 30 percent from 2003 through 2005 to 304,000 metric tons.10
 11 Except as noted, information provided in this section is derived from the petition filed with the USTR

as well as testimony and written submissions of interested parties to the Commission in connection with this

investigation.

4-4

Table 4-2 Certain unwrought aluminum, in coils: U.S. imports and share of U.S. consumption, 2006

Item Imports

Percent

 of total

imports

Percent 

of GSP

imports

Percent 

of U.S.

consumption

1,000

dollars

Grand total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,944 19 (a

) 22

Imports from GSP-eligible countries:

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 (a

) (a) (a)

 a

Not applicable.

Position of interested parties11

Petitioner.–In its petition to the USTR in favor of granting GSP status for products under

HTS 7601.1030 and 7601.2030, the government of the Arab Republic of Egypt argues that

its products meet the GSP’s value-added requirements.

Support.–In its submission to the Commission, the Companhia Brasileira de Aluminio

(CBA), a Brazilian producer of aluminum products, stated that granting GSP status for these

products would have no adverse economic effect on U.S. industries producing like or

directly competitive products, and will greatly benefit U.S. consumers. According to the

company, although CBA serves the flat-rolled and billets segments of the U.S. market, it

does not ship significant volumes of the subject products into the United States. Imports of

these products from GSP-eligible countries appear to be zero or de minimis. According to

CBA, this is principally due to fierce price competition from Chinese exports. 
4-5

Table 4-3 Certain unwrought aluminum, in coils (HTS subheadings 7602.10.30 and 7601.20.30): U.S.

imports for consumption, by principal sources, 2002–06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007

January-June

Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 2007 

In Dollars

United Kingdom 41,171 0 11,452 31,409 6,725,512 2,996,001 5,933,177

Germany 2,099,331 366,800 527,285 3,448,156 3,697,303 1,470,770 1,417,602

China 0 0 26,470 571,418 1,498,927 489,005 604,523

Belgium 0 0 0 0 611,795 231,534 126,304

France 444,287 266,131 68,091 0 201,748 31,492 691,518

Japan 0 0 46,020 83,678 143,775 72,176 0

Canada 227,309 234,548 39,250 25,826 34,781 26,069 6,066

Korea 0 0 0 14,925 30,548 30,548 110,935

Argentina 2,041 0 1,737,4410000

Australia 0 20,811 25,874 81,058 0 0 0

All other 78,380 842,728 1,081,594 103,880 0 0 14,001

Total 2,892,519 1,731,018 3,563,477 4,360,350 12,944,389 5,347,595 8,904,126

Imports from GSP-eligible countries:

Argentina 2,041 0 1,737,4410000

Brazil 0 0 93,853 47,810 0 0 0

Egypt 0 59,668 0 0 0 0 0

Ghana 0 0 826,7810000

India 9,620 2,929 0 4,410 0 0 0

Venezuela 31,122 81,054 37,312 0 0 0 0

Total 42,783 143,651 2,695,387 52,220000

Source: Official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
4-6

Table 4-4 Certain unwrought aluminum (HTS subheading 7601.10.30): U.S. imports for consumption,

by principal sources, 2002–06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007

January-June

Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 2007 

In Dollars

United Kingdom 0 0 0 0 6,657,126 2,966,608 5,923,357

Japan 0 0 0 5,778 107,289 72,176 0

Canada 177,504 234,548 39,250 0 34,781 26,069 6,066

Germany 126,441 0 0 918,418 2,149 0 81,525

Argentina 0 0 1,737,4410000

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 104,662

Hong Kong 0 0 3,7980000

Korea 0 0 0 0 0 0 110,935

All Other: 450,209 242,623 867,163 56,070 0 0 8,150

Total 754,154 477,171 2,647,652 980,266 6,801,345 3,064,853 6,234,695

Imports from GSP-eligible countries:

Ghana 0 0 826,7810000

India 9,620 2,929 0 4,410 0 0 0

Brazil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Argentina 0 0 1,737,4410000

Total 9,620 2,929 2,564,222 4,410000

Source: Official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
4-7

Table 4-5 Certain unwrought aluminum (HTS subheading 7601.20.30): U.S. imports for consumption,

by principal sources, 2002–06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007

January-June

Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 2007 

In Dollars

Germany 1,972,890 366,800 527,285 2,529,738 3,695,154 1,470,770 1,336,077

China 0 0 26,470 571,418 1,498,927 489,005 499,861

Belgium 0 0 0 0 611,795 231,534 126,304

France 15,452 26,437 68,091 0 201,748 31,492 691,518

United Kingdom 41,171 0 11,452 31,409 68,386 29,393 9,820

Japan 0 0 46,020 77,900 36,486 0 0

Korea 0 0 0 14,925 30,548 30,548 0

Argentina 2,041 0 0 0 0 0 0

Australia 0 20,811 25,874 81,058 0 0 0

Hong Kong 0000000

All Other 106,811 839,799 210,633 73,636 0 0 5,851

Total 2,138,365 1,253,847 915,825 3,380,084 6,143,044 2,282,742 2,669,431

Imports from GSP-eligible countries:

Egypt 0 59,668 0 0 0 0 0

Brazil 0 0 93,853 47,810 0 0 0

Argentina 2,041 0 0 0 0 0 0

Venezuela 31,122 81,054 37,312 0 0 0 0

Total 33,163 140,722 131,165 47,810000

Source: Official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

 1

 The petitioner is Aluminios del Uruguay, S.A.

 2

 Rand Baldwin, president, Aluminum Extruders Council, Wauconda, IL, telephone interview with

Commission staff, September 13, 2007.

5-1

CHAPTER 5

Hollow Profiles, of Aluminum Alloys

Addition1 

HTS subheading Short description Col. 1 rate of

duty as of

1/1/07

(percent ad

valorem)

Like or directly

competitive article

produced in the

United States on

Jan. 1, 1995?

7604.21.00a Hollow profiles, of aluminum alloys 1.5 Yes 

 a HTS subheading 7604.21.00 became duty free under the provisions of the GSP for least developed

developing beneficiary countries as of July 1, 1997.

Hollow aluminum alloy shapes are produced through the remelting of aluminum raw ingots

and scrap into billets, which are then either rolled, extruded, drawn, forged, or formed to

produce aluminum shapes. The shapes are heat treated to meet the quality requirements

according to final use. The shapes are then used by customers to manufacture constructionrelated products (primary and secondary doors and windows), commercial and passenger

transportation equipment (aircraft, passenger cars, trucks, and trailers), consumer durable

goods (furniture and appliances), and capital equipment, and are also used in miscellaneous

industry applications (electrical machinery and equipment). In 2006, construction-related

applications accounted for 40 percent of U.S. demand, transportation applications accounted

for 30 percent, and consumer durables accounted for 7 percent.2

 

Probable economic effect advice

* * * ** * *
 3

 Ibid.

 4

 Ibid.

5-2

Profile of U.S. industry and market, 2002–06

According to the Aluminum Extruders Council, there are nearly 150 producers of extruded

aluminum hollow shapes in the United States, including most of the major U.S. and

international unwrought aluminum producers.3

 Leading producers of hollow shapes

operating in the United States include units of Alcoa Inc., Alcan, Noranda Aluminum, and

Hydro Aluminum. 

From 2002 through 2006, U.S. demand for hollow extruded profiles increased strongly due

to strength construction-related demand (particularly in commercial construction), consumer

durable demand, and commercial transportation demand, as low interest rates and solid

economic growth stimulated capital investment by manufacturers in the United States and

foreign markets.4

 As a result, U.S. shipments increased during 2002-06 by 29 percent,

imports by over 200 percent, and consumption by 45 percent (table 5-1).

Table 5-1 Hollow profiles, of aluminum alloys: U.S. producers, employment, shipments, trade,

consumption, and capacity utilization, 2002–06

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Producers (number) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 150 150 150 150

Employment (1,000 employees) . . . . . . 40-50 40-50 40-50 40-50 40-50

Shipments (1,000 dollars)

a . . . . . . . . . . 1,200,000 1,250,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,550,000

Exports (1,000 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,019 31,752 28,711 36,088 50,714

Imports (1,000 dollars) ............ 102,183 133,854 151,621 234,675 342,710

Consumption (1,000 dollars) . . . . . . . . 1,273,164 1,352,102 1,422,910 1,498,587 1,841,996

Import-to-consumption ratio (percent) 8 10 11 16 19

Capacity utilization (percent) ....... (b

) (b) (b) (b) (b)

 a Estimated by the staff based on data supplied by Aluminum Extruders Council.

 b Not available.

GSP import situation, 2006

U.S. imports from GSP-eligible countries have generally increased during 2002–06, with

Brazil and Colombia accounting for 35 percent and 31 percent respectively of such imports.

However, GSP-eligible countries account for only 4 percent of total U.S. imports of the

subject products (table 5-2).
 5

 Aluminios del Uruguay S.A., petition submitted to the USTR, 1.

 6

 Ibid., 2.

 7

 Ibid. 

 8

 Ibid., 3.

 9

 Kinch,, “Brazil’s CBA Plans to Raise Aluminum Capacity,” June 13, 2006.

5-3

Table 5-2 Hollow profiles, of aluminum alloys: U.S. imports and share of U.S. consumption, 2006

Item Imports

Percent

 of total

imports

Percent 

of GSP

imports

Percent 

of U.S.

consumption

1,000

dollars

Grand total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342,710 19 (a

) 19

Imports from GSP-eligible countries:

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,567 4 100 1

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,458 1 35 (b

)

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,955 1 31 (b

)

 a

 Not applicable.

 b Less than 1 percent.

Aluminios del Uruguay S.A (the petitioner) is Uruguay’s largest producer of aluminum

shapes. The company principally produces hollow shapes for the manufacture of doors and

windows for buildings. Other uses for its aluminum shapes include transportation equipment

and bicycles. Aluminios produces aluminum shapes through an extrusion process.5

 The

company remelts aluminum ingots and scrap into extrusion billets, which are then processed

in a press to obtain aluminum shapes. The final shapes also receive a heat treatment to meet

quality requirements, and may also be anodized or painted, depending on the final use. 

According to Aluminos, its production of hollow aluminum shapes decreased in the 2004-06

period by 30 percent to 1,700 short tons, and it operated at 80 percent capacity during the

period.6

 The firm will consider increasing capacity utilization 95 percent capacity if GSP

status is granted.7

 Total exports of hollow aluminum shapes by Aluminios decreased by 62

percent from 2004 through 2006 from 401 short tons to 648 short tons ($2.2 million) with

exports to the United States declining by 78 percent to 72 short tons ($285,000). The United

States accounted for 11 percent of Aluminos’total exports in 2006.8

 Exports to Mercosur

nations accounted for 64 percent of Aluminios del Uruguay’s total exports in 2006. 

Brazil was the principal supplier of GSP-eligible imports of hollow aluminum shapes to the

United States in 2006 and could increase its exports to the U.S. market with capacity

increases based on abundant raw materials. In 2007, Brazilian primary aluminum producer,

Cia. Brasileira de Aluminio (CBA), announced plans to increase its annual primary smelter

capacity to 470,000 metric tons.9

 The company is 100 percent self-sufficient in supplies of

bauxite and alumina, key raw materials in the production of primary aluminum, producing
 10 Ibid.

 11 Ibid.

 12 Companhia Brasileira de Aluminio, written submission to the USITC, October 24, 2007, 3.

 13 Except as noted, information provided in this section is derived from the petition filed with the USTR

as well as testimony and written submissions of interested parties to the Commission in connection with this

investigation.

5-4

2.5 million metric tons of bauxite per year. The company planned to finish a 3 million

metric ton per year bauxite mine in Brazil in 2007, and a new 900,000 metric ton per year

bauxite mine in Brazil will be brought onstream in a few years.10 

Brazil’s primary aluminum output grew to 1.6 million metric tons in 2006, an increase of 7

percent over the previous year, due to new capacity brought onstream by CBA and Alcoa.11

Brazil’s production of extruded aluminum shapes increased by 11 percent in the 2003–05

period to 127,000 metric tons.12

Position of interested parties13

Petitioner.–In its petition to the USTR in favor of granting GSP status for products under

HTS subheading 7604.21.00, Aluminios del Uruguay S.A. noted that this item is the only

item under HTS 7604 that does not receive duty-free benefits under GSP rules. All

aluminum profiles, with the exception of hollow aluminum profiles, currently receive GSP

status. The company argues that since the hollow aluminum shapes that it produces,

principally for use in the manufacture of doors and windows, are used with other aluminum

shapes as part of an entire system, it is critically important that all aluminum shapes receive

the same duty-free treatment. The company hopes to increase its production level and more

actively participate in the U.S. market with the granting of GSP status.

Support.--In its submission to the Commission, Companhia Brasileira de Aluminio (CBA),

a Brazilian producer of aluminum products, stated that granting GSP status for these

products would have no economic effect on U.S. industries producing like or directly

competitive products, and will greatly benefit U.S. consumers. According to the company,

although CBA serves the flat-rolled and billets segments of the U.S. market, it does not ship

significant volumes of the subject products into the United States. According to CBA, this

is principally due to fierce price competition from Chinese exports. According to CBA,

imports of aluminum hollow shapes from Uruguay and Brazil account for a de minimis share

of imports, and total imports of aluminum hollow shapes from all GSP-eligible countries

account for only about 4 percent of total imports.
5-5

Table 5-3 Hollow profiles, of aluminum alloys (HTS subheading 7604.21.00): U.S. imports for consumption, by

principal sources, 2002–06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007

January-June

Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

In Dollars

China 10,517,846 29,379,939 41,795,752 114,211,083 199,122,948 92,840,528 93,316,873

Canada 58,141,243 59,043,450 66,493,092 74,989,923 84,827,154 46,606,482 35,526,829

Germany 8,499,912 9,889,666 11,465,509 11,843,685 16,789,122 7,611,898 9,487,311

Mexico 13,126,541 14,386,200 5,735,187 3,025,329 6,349,243 1,894,647 6,145,520

Italy 1,092,786 2,262,119 3,656,130 3,787,208 4,923,325 2,377,411 1,778,173

Brazil 101,824 55,368 2,558,753 3,456,684 4,457,616 1,869,064 2,051,918

Colombia 1,102,357 2,161,288 1,556,620 4,470,147 3,954,923 1,250,003 2,838,800

Hong Kong 365,024 894,059 1,448,599 2,605,860 3,860,244 2,319,296 752,219

Switzerland 236,929 1,953,903 1,572,768 1,403,617 2,324,009 902,378 1,476,620

Greece 0 484,576 1,364,857 1,375,539 1,959,586 746,569 1,154,293

All other 8,998,994 13,343,337 13,974,222 13,505,439 14,141,412 6,157,461 9,421,577

Total 102,183,456 133,853,905 151,621,489 234,674,514 342,709,582 164,575,737 163,950,133

Imports from GSP-eligible countries:

Brazil 101,824 55,368 2,558,753 3,456,684 4,457,616 1,869,064 2,051,918

Colombia 1,102,357 2,161,288 1,556,620 4,470,147 3,954,923 1,250,003 2,838,800

Ecuador 30,155 0 844,522 1,044,460 1,415,011 212,053 1,210,677

Indonesia 0 0 46,148 389,582 961,688 567,652 122,603

Panama 1,721,801 1,510,115 614,647 613,869 623,857 292,309 42,096

Uruguay 0 471,131 806,172 472,843 392,949 350,449 0

Venezuela 569,835 1,356,487 1,343,241 824,586 333,586 57,954 0

Dominican

Republic 1,740,093 1,463,435 526,179 290,127 327,869 148,309 80,828

India 0 156,592 407,225 228,001 97,011 16,796 0

Sierra Leone 0 0 0 0 2,702 0 0

All Other 228,635 149,352 78,072 42,524 0 0 72,467

Total 5,494,700 7,323,768 8,781,579 11,832,823 12,567,212 4,764,589 6,419,389

Source: Official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
5-6

Table 5-4 Hollow profiles, of aluminum alloys: U.S. exports of domestic merchandise, by market,

2002–06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007

January-June

Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

In Dollars

Canada 12,172,103 15,698,530 21,566,792 23,379,272 22,501,466 12,046,605 10,641,512

Mexico 12,655,240 9,863,600 1,205,438 5,259,423 19,998,704 8,286,589 11,556,358

Costa Rica 291,748 665,443 1,246,647 473,766 1,294,045 443,965 537,958

Singapore 25,181 62,357 172,034 482,543 1,087,879 596,154 404,598

United Kingdom 465,496 742,678 863,177 883,377 686,341 362,035 596,671

Italy 207,194 28,296 13,478 86,720 589,059 80,603 286,241

Belgium 37,150 6,230 375,636 62,058 504,170 504,170 0

Taiwan 169,360 315,362 35,142 447,577 452,942 146,949 119,699

Japan 181,740 404,290 288,343 70,187 390,076 59,732 540,811

Romania 0 0 0 0 354,827 0 0

All other 2,813,550 3,965,459 2,944,659 4,943,177 2,854,288 1,596,945 8,541,568

Total 29,018,762 31,752,245 28,711,346 36,088,100 50,713,797 24,123,747 33,225,416

Source: Official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
 1

 The petitioner is Manganese Metal Co., Ltd. (MMC), (Republic of South Africa).

 2

 A form of manganese powder is used to produce high-density manganese briquettes for the steel

industry. Powder imported for that purpose, however, has contained less than 99.5 percent manganese and

would not qualify for the proposed change in tariff treatment. Imports of such powder are classified under

HTSUS statistical subheading 8111.00.4990 and are not included in tables in this report. Manganese Metal

Company has indicated that it intends to stop production of such powder. V. Mroczka, attorney for MMC

and ***, interviewed by Commission staff, September 21, 2007.

6-1

CHAPTER 6

Manganese Metal Powder

Addition1

HTS subheading Short description Col. 1 rate of

duty as of

1/1/07

(percent ad

valorem)

Like or directly

competitive article

produced in the

United States on

Jan. 1, 1995?

8111.00.4910a Manganese metal powderb 14.0 Yes

 a

 HTS subheading 8111.00.4910 became duty free under the provisions of the GSP for least developed

developing beneficiary countries as of July 1, 1997.

 b The subject product is “Unwrought manganese: Powder containing at least 99.5 percent by weight

manganese.” Powders are products of which 90 percent or more by weight passes through a sieve having a mesh

aperture of 1 mm.

Manganese is a metal that is used as an alloying addition in the production of iron, steel, and

aluminum. In powder form, the principal applications are in the production of aluminum

alloys, primarily aluminum sheet used for the production of aluminum beverage cans and for

the manufacture of welding products such as welding rods and flux-cored welding wire. The

most common method of adding manganese to molten aluminum is the addition of

manganese-aluminum briquettes or tablets containing 75 to 85 percent of manganese metal

powder, with the balance being aluminum powder. The manufacture of such briquettes is

the largest single application for manganese metal powder. Other applications for

manganese metal powder include direct use in aluminum production by pneumatic injection

and use in welding rod and wire.2

Manganese metal powder is produced by crushing and grinding manganese metal flake that

has been stripped from cathodes where it is deposited in an electrolytic process. Manganese

metal powder is packaged in bulk containers of 2,000 to 3,000 pounds, in metal drums, or

in paper sacks typically containing 50 pounds each. 
 3

 Eramet Marietta is a division of Eramet, a large mining and metals firm headquartered in France.

 4

 DLA Piper on behalf of Eramet Marietta Inc., written submission to the USITC, September 26, 2007, 5. 

 5

 DLA Piper on behalf of Eramet Marietta Inc., written submission to the USITC, October 24, 2007,

exhibit 5.

 6

 Shieldalloy was the only U.S. producer of manganese-aluminum briquettes, other than Eramet.

6-2

Probable economic effect advice

* * * ** * *

Profile of U.S. industry and market, 2002–06

Manganese metal powder is produced by crushing and grinding manganese metal flake.

While there are no producers of manganese flake in the United States, one U.S. company,

Eramet Marietta,3

 formerly (prior to 2001) a producer of flake, now produces manganese

powder from imported flake, primarily from China. Manganese metal powder produced by

Eramet is primarily consumed internally to produce manganese-aluminum briquettes for the

aluminum industry. Eramet also sells manganese metal powder on the merchant market.4

From 2002 through 2005, Eramet’s sales of powder *** percent of its production. Eramet

*** in 2006.5

 See table 6-1 for industry data.

In 2006, another company, Shieldalloy, ceased U.S. production of manganese-aluminum

briquettes, resulting in a decline in U.S. imports of manganese metal powder from China.6

Imported manganese metal powder is used in direct injection in aluminum production and

the manufacture of welding rod and wire.

Table 6-1 Manganese metal powder: U.S. producers, employment, shipments, trade, consumption, and

capacity utilization, 2002–06

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Producers (number) ................ 11111

Employment (number) ............. (a

) (a) (a) (a) (a)

Shipments (1,000 dollars)

b . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** ***

Exports (1,000 dollars) ............. (c

) (c) (c) (c) (c)

Imports (1,000 dollars) ............. (d

) (d) 14,155 10,015 8,433

Consumption (1,000 dollars) ......... (d

) (d) *** *** ***

Import-to-consumption ratio (percent) (

d

) (d) *** *** ***

Capacity utilization (percent) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** ***

 a ***.

 b

 Commission staff estimates of the value of manganese metal powder produced by Eramet for internal use in the

production of manganese-aluminum briquettes.

 c

 Export data are not available because there is no statistical line for manganese metal powder. Exports are

believed to be negligible.

 d

 Not available.
 7

 MMC, a unit of BHP Billiton Group, is 51 percent owned by Samancor Manganese, which in turn is 60

percent owned by BHP Billiton and 40 percent by Anglo American plc, large international mining firms with

headquarters in the United Kingdom. MMC is 49 percent owned by Delta plc, a mid-sized industrial firm

with headquarters in the United Kingdom. 

 8

 MMC closed a second plant in South Africa in February 2006. Vinson & Elkins on behalf of

Manganese Metal Co., petition submitted to the USTR, October 3, 2007, 4.

 9

 MMC permanently exited the U.S. market for manganese-aluminum briquettes in 2006. Vinson &

Elkins on behalf of Manganese Metal Co., testimony before the USTR GSP Subcommittee, October 3, 2007.

 10 BHP Billiton, Annual Report 2006,.30.

 11 Manganese Metal Co., Ltd., petition submitted to USTR, October 3, 2007, 14.

 12 USITC hearing transcript, October 16, 2007, 16.

 13 Vinson & Elkins on behalf of Manganese Metal Co., testimony before the USTR GSP Subcommittee,

October 3, 2007, exhibit 1. MMC also reported shipments to “Other”; ***

 14 USGS, “Manganese,” citing TEX Report, May 29, 2006.

 15 *** and ***, telephone interview by Commission staff, September 17, 2007.

6-3

GSP import situation, 2006

The only GSP-eligible country that has an industry producing manganese powder is South

Africa (table 6-2). There is one South African firm, MMC (the petitioner),7

 which produces

manganese metal powder in a single location.8

 MMC is an integrated producer, starting with

manganese ore and producing manganese metal flake and powder, and manganese-aluminum

briquettes.9

MMC has a capacity of 27,000 metric tons per year of manganese metal,10 with the capacity

to convert *** metric tons into powder.11 MMC stated that it intends to limit its production

of powder to 18,000 metric tons per year for the 2007–08 period.12 MMC’s sales of powder

in the United States ***13

China was the dominant source of U.S. imports from non-GSP-eligible countries.

Reportedly, there were 156 producers of manganese metal in China in 2005, with total

annual production of 569,000 metric tons and capacity to produce 1.1 million metric tons of

manganese metal.14 The capacity of Chinese producers to convert manganese metal flake

into powder is not available. 

Because of concerns about potential workplace hazards of selenium, some consumers,

welding product producers in particular, prefer product that is selenium-free. MMC uses a

selenium-free process to produce manganese metal flake and its downstream products,

powder and manganese-aluminum briquettes; therefore, the residual content of selenium in

MMC products is very low or undetectable. Most producers of manganese metal in China

use a selenium dioxide technology, which lowers production costs but results in a slight

residual selenium content in the product. Importers of Chinese manganese metal powder,

however, claim that there are Chinese sources of low-selenium powder that meet most

welding specifications.15 
 16 Except as noted, information provided in this section is derived from the petition filed with the USTR

as well as testimony and written submissions of interested parties to the Commission in connection with this

investigation.

6-4

Table 6-2 Manganese metal powder: U.S. imports and share of U.S. consumption, 2006

Item Imports

Percent

 of total

imports

Percent 

of GSP

imports

Percent 

of U.S.

consumption

1,000

dollars

Grand total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,433 100 (a

) ***

Imports from GSP-eligible countries:

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,808 81 100 ***

South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,808 81 100 ***

 a Not applicable.

Position of interested parties16

Petitioner.– MMC, as the only producer of manganese metal powder in South Africa, is the

only company whose product would be affected by the proposed change. MMC claims that

no U.S. producer actively sells electrolytic manganese powder to U.S. customers and that

the sole producer of manganese metal powder in the United States, Eramet, only produces

manganese metal powder to be used captively in its production of manganese-aluminum

briquettes.

MMC states that manganese-aluminum briquettes are a distinct product, separate from

manganese powder. According to MMC, even though both products are used in the

aluminum industry to add manganese, aluminum plants have been designed around the use

of either briquettes or powder and switching between these two products is not commercially

realistic. MMC indicates that the cost to install equipment for the injection of powder is

stated to be $5 million per facility (i.e., $1 million per furnace for a facility containing 5

furnaces). Therefore, MMC maintains that because the only U.S. producer, Eramet, does not

sell powder, there can be no adverse economic effect on U.S. industries producing like or

directly competitive articles.
6-5

MMC further states that, again because of the lack of sales to U.S. consumers of

domestically produced manganese metal powder, the current 14 percent duty puts U.S.

consuming industries at a disadvantage with their international competitors. MMC asserts

that any economic effect of lifting the duties will be positive for U.S. consumers of

manganese metal powder.

Opposition.–Eramet Marietta Inc., Marietta, OH (Eramet), states that it is the only remaining

U.S. producer of manganese metal powder, which it primarily uses internally for the

production of manganese-aluminum briquettes. Eramet claims that contrary to MMC’s claim

that no U.S. producer actively sells electrolytic manganese powder, it sells manganese metal

powder to consumers in the United States. Eramet indicates that it has *** unused powder

production capacity and ***

Eramet asserts that the Commission, in considering the impact on Eramet as a U.S. producer

of manganese metal powder, should include the probable impact on Eramet’s operations

producing manganese-aluminum briquettes. Eramet states that it considers the market for

these two aluminum hardeners to be a single market because producers of aluminum alloys

can choose between using manganese powder and using manganese-aluminum briquettes

(which contain manganese powder). Eramet maintains that, with the current market level

of $2 per pound of manganese powder, a savings of 14 percent from the duty elimination

would increase the possibility of loss of market share from briquettes to powder.

Eramet claims that the elimination of the duty on powder from South Africa will have a

significant negative effect on its production and sales of manganese metal powder and

manganese aluminum briquettes. To meet the lower prices offered by MMC, Eramet states

that it would be forced to lower its prices on sales of both powder and briquettes, resulting

in lower revenue and earnings. Eramet states that this could result in the shutdown of the

company’s manganese grinding and briquetting operations and thereby threaten the

continued viability of its overall special metals operations, of which the sales of manganesealuminum briquettes represented about *** percent of its total revenues in 2006.

Eramet asserts that U.S. consumers will be negatively affected if granting GSP-eligibility for

manganese powder results in the closure of Eramet’s operations producing manganese

powder and manganese-aluminum briquettes since Eramet is the only remaining U.S.

producer of these products.
6-6

Table 6-3 Manganese metal powder (HTS subheading 8111.00.4910): U.S. imports for consumption, by

principal sources, 2002–06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007

January-June

Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 2007 

In Dollars

South Africa (a

) (a) 6,545,951 7,884,030 6,808,309 3,547,619 4,103,686

China (a

) (a) 7,484,311 2,131,146 1,624,823 1,483,660 2,150,372

Germany (a

) (a) 125,106 0 0 0 0

Total (a

) (a) 14,155,368 10,015,176 8,433,132 5,031,279 6,254,058

Imports from GSP-eligible countries:

South Africa (a

) (a) 6,545,951 7,884,030 6,808,309 3,547,619 4,103,686

Total (a

) (a) 6,545,951 7,884,030 6,808,309 3,547,619 4,103,686

 a

 These data are not available.

Source: Official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
 1

 The petitioner is Stannica LLC (Baton Rouge, LA).

7-1

CHAPTER 7

Certain Other Organo-Inorganic

Compounds

Removal (India)1 

HTS subheading Short description Col. 1 rate of

duty as of

1/1/07

(percent ad

valorem)

Like or directly

competitive article

produced in the

United States on

Jan. 1, 1995?

2931.00.90a Other non-aromatic organo-inorganic

compounds

3.7 Yes

 a This HTS subheading is currently eligible for duty-free treatment under the provisions of the GSP for all GSPeligible contries.

This HTS subheading covers a large range of products with many end uses. Organoinorganic compounds contain at least one carbon atom bonded to an atom other than carbon,

oxygen, or nitrogen. The organo-inorganic compounds in this HTS subheading are

nonaromatic, meaning that they do not contain a benzene ring structure. Organo-inorganic

compounds containing a carbon-sulfur bond are covered in HTS heading 2930 and are

excluded from this subheading. Uses for chemicals in this category vary widely and include

applications such as pharmaceuticals, heat stabilizers for plastics, pesticides, and marine

paints.

Pharmaceutical products make up the majority of U.S. imports under this subheading. Some

members of the bisphosphonates class of drugs for treating osteoporosis and other bone

diseases fall under this subheading (e.g., alendronate, which is marketed by Merck under the

trade name FOSAMAX®). In 2006, 75.8 percent of the total imports for this HTS 
 2

 This pharmaceutical tariff elimination agreement resulted from the Uruguay Round of WTO

negotiations in 1994, whereby the participating countries agreed to update periodically the list of covered

products, so that newly developed pharmaceuticals could be added to the list of products accorded duty-free

treatment. The list can be found in the Pharmaceutical Appendix to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States. Other the the United States, the other primary participating countries are the European Union,

Switzerland, Japan, and Canada, who have likewise conferred duty free treatment on pharmaceutical

chemical trade on a multilateral basis. Imports of qualified products from non-participating WTO members

into those countries are also accorded duty free treatment under most-favored-nation rules, even though

exports from the participating WTO members to non-participants need not be treated in a reciprocal manner.

 3

 USITC hearing transcript, October 16, 2007, 83 and 43.

7-2

subheading were imported free of duty under the Pharmaceutical Zero-for-Zero Agreement.2

Almost all of the subject imports from Ireland, the greatest source of U.S. imports under this

subheading, are pharmaceuticals.

This subheading also includes some leading pesticides, such as glyphosate, which is

marketed by Monsanto under the trade name Roundup. Glyphosate is one of the largestselling pesticides worldwide. Monsanto’s U.S. patent for glyphosate expired in 2000, and

Monsanto and other companies currently produce the chemical in the United States and

overseas.

Some of the organo-tin compounds whose molecules contain an atom of tin bonded to at

least one carbon atom, are used in the production of heat stabilizers for polyvinyl chloride

(PVC) plastics. These heat stabilizers are added in small amounts (typically less than 1

percent by weight) to PVC to prevent degradation of the plastic during the molding or filmblowing process. Organo-tin heat stabilizers are most often used in clear PVC films used in

meat packaging and other packaging applications.3

Other less common chemicals in this HTS subheading include organo-silicon, organoaluminums, organo-magnesiums, and organo-lithiums. These compounds are most often

used as catalysts in the production of plastics and other chemicals.

Probable economic effect advice

* * * ** * *
 4

 Bureau van Dijk, Orbis Companies Database.

 5

 Monsanto, Annual Report 2006.

 6

 Industry official, e-mail message to Commission staff.

7-3

Profile of U.S. industry and market, 2002–06

Because this HTS subheading covers such a broad range of mostly unidentified chemicals

from different segments of the chemical industry, it is not possible to obtain official accurate

estimates of U.S. production, employment, consumption, and capacity utilization for these

products (table 7-1). 

Table 7-1 Certain other organo-inorganic compounds: U.S. producers, employment, shipments, trade,

consumption, and capacity utilization, 2002–06

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Producers (number)

a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 19 19 19 19

Employment (1,000 employees) ........ (b

) (b) (b) (b) (b)

Shipments (1,000 dollars)

c . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,130,000 1,130,000 1,130,000 1,130,000 1,130,000

Exports (1,000 dollars) .............. 438,823 633,194 760,394 716,379 771,574

Imports (1,000 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,406,773 1,505,187 1,237,110 1,261,010 1,316,101

Consumption (1,000 dollars) . . . . . . . . . . 2,097,950 2,001,993 1,606,716 1,674,631 1,674,527

Import-to-consumption ratio (percent) .. 1 1 1 1 1

Capacity utilization (percent) ......... (b

) (b) (b) (b) (b)

 a Staff estimates. 

 b

 Not available.

 c

 Data for shipments are estimated by the staff based on products that could be identified as being in this HTS

basket category; however, since not all products could be identified, data are likely underestimated. 

At least two companies in the United States produce the pesticide glyphosate: Monsanto

Company of St. Louis, MO, and NuFarm Americas, Inc. of Burr Ridge, IL. Monsanto had

total revenues of $7.3 billion and 17,500 employees in 2006. NuFarm Americas had $26.4

million in revenues and 121 employees in the same year.4

 Commission staff has been unable

to determine what percentages of revenues and employees for the two companies are

attributable to glyphosate. It is likely that glyphosate sales are a much larger percentage of

revenue for NuFarm Americas than for Monsanto, since more than one-half of Monsanto’s

revenue comes from sales of seeds, not from crop protection chemicals.5

Arkema, Inc., of Philadelphia, PA, also produces products covered in this HTS subheading.

***. The petitioner, Stannica LLC, Baton Rouge, LA, is a joint venture between Albemarle

and Arkema. ***.6
 7

 GTIS, World Trade Atlas Database.

 8

 Ibid.

 9

 Ibid..

 10 Industry official, telephone interview by Commission staff, several dates.

7-4

GSP import situation, 2006

In 2006, India accounted for about 49 percent of total U.S. imports under this HTS

subheading from GSP-eligible countries, with Brazil being the second largest GSP-eligible

source (table 7-2). Although U.S. imports from India under HTS subheading 2931.00.90

fluctuated in the 2002–06 period, U.S. imports from all GSP-eligible sources increased by

78 percent. 

Table 7-2 Certain other organo-inorganic compounds: U.S. imports and share of U.S. consumption,

2006

Item Imports

Percent

 of total

imports

Percent 

of GSP

imports

Percent 

of U.S.

consumption

1,000

dollars

Grand total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,316,101 100 (1

) 79 2

Imports from GSP-eligible countries:

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,965 1 100 12

 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,338 (3) 49 (2,3)

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,001 (3

) 37 (2,3)

 1 Not applicable.

 2

 Commission staff estimated the domestic production based on products that could be identified as being in this

HTS category, so the value for U.S. consumption derived from domestic production likely is understated.

 3

 Less than 0.5 percent.

India’s total exports for HTS subheading 2931.00, which is a larger group of chemicals that

includes those chemicals covered under HTS subheading 2931.00.90, were valued at $33.1

million in 2006.7

 The United States was the largest market destination of Indian exports for

this HTS subheading, accounting for 27.4 percent of such exports.8

 Other large markets for

Indian exports include the United Kingdom, Italy, and Germany.9

 ***.10
 11 USITC hearing transcript, October 16, 2007, 126.

 12 Ibid.

 13 DeKieffer & Horgan on behalf of Gulbrandsen Chemicals, written submission to the USITC, September

26, 2007, 5.

 14 Except as noted, information provided in this section is derived from the petition filed with the USTR

as well as testimony and written submissions of interested parties to the Commission in connection with this

investigation.

7-5

India has at least one producer of organo-tin compounds. However, this Indian producer,

Gulbrandsen Chemicals, claims that it produces different organo-tin compounds than the

ones produced and sold by the petitioner.11 Gulbrandsen states that it only sells dibutyltin

oxide and monobutyltin trichloride in the United States. ***.12 Gulbrandsen also claims that

imports of organo-tin compounds from India currently only have a small share of the U.S.

market, ***.13

Position of interested parties14

Petitioner.– Stannica LLC, a U.S. manufacturer of organo-tin compounds, is requesting the

removal of India from GSP eligibility for HTS subheading 2931.00.90. Stannica is

concerned about organo-tin imports produced in Bharuch, India by Gulbrandsen, a U.S.

company. Specifically, Stannica asserts that the duty exemption that Gulbrandsen’s imports

from India receive under the GSP have allowed Gulbrandsen to gain market share by

lowering prices. Stannica states that the GSP waiver for organo-tin compounds from India

does not directly aid U.S. users of organo-tin compounds and is harmful to Stannica’s

competitiveness.

Stannica claims that Gulbrandsen is importing tetrabutyltin, tetraoctyltin, dibutyltin oxide,

and a mixture of monobutyltin trichloride and dibutyltin dichloride from India. Stannica

states that these chemicals are key raw materials in the production of heat stabilizers used

in processing rigid PVC pipe, siding, and other PVC products.

Stannica maintains that the elimination of GSP preferences for India, which will require

Gulbrandsen to pay the tariff on its organo-tin imports, will allow Stannica to compete more

effectively against Gulbrandsen’s current attempt to gain market share through aggressive

pricing. According to Stannica, its improved competitiveness in the organo-tin market will

encourage continued investment in their Axis, AL, manufacturing facility.

According to Stannica, its cost of production has increased in recent years, primarily due to

the increase in the price of tin, which has risen by 75 percent in the last 12 months. Stannica

asserts that labor rates have escalated just marginally and that its labor rates are much higher

than those of Gulbrandsen’s production in India. Stannica states that overhead rates for its

organo-tin business have increased with increased absorption of fixed costs from other

nonrelated businesses that are being rationalized.
7-6

Opposition.– Gulbrandsen Chemicals, Inc., a manufacturer and supplier of chemical

intermediates, fine chemicals, and catalysts to the chemical industry, opposes the revocation

of GSP eligibility for products imported from India under HTS 2931.00.90. Gulbrandsen

states that it is incorporated in South Carolina and has production facilities in Orangeburg,

SC, and Mujpur, India. Gulbrandsen’s facility in India employs *** workers producing

aluminum chloride and organo-tin compounds. 

Gulbrandsen states that the removal of GSP eligibility for India would not benefit the U.S.

industry. Gulbrandsen claims that the organo-tin products imported from India are not the

same products as the ones sold by the domestic producer Stannica. *** Gulbrandsen states

that it has never encountered Stannica selling these two products in the U.S. market.

Gulbrandsen maintains that since the organo-tin products imported from India and the

products produced by Stannica do not compete against one another, the removal of GSP

eligibility for India would not benefit the domestic industry.

Gulbrandsen further claims that its imported organo-tin products have too small of a share

of the U.S. market to represent a competitive threat to Stannica. Gulbrandsen estimates that

its share of the organo-tin market was *** percent in 2006. It estimates Stannica’s share of

the market at *** percent for the same year. Gulbrandsen states that its small market share

has decreased in the past 2 years due to the loss of a major customer.

According to Gulbrandsen, its Indian facility does not provide a cost advantage that would

make it a threat to domestic producers. Gulbrandsen’s Indian facility is small compared to

Stannica’s production facility and does not benefit from the economies of scale enjoyed by

Stannica. Additionally, Gulbrandsen maintains that costs associated with India’s poor

infrastructure and international shipping offset any advantage that Gulbrandsen’s Indian

facility might gain due to low labor costs.

According to Gulbrandsen, the removal of GSP benefits for imports of organo-tin products

from India would harm U.S. customers for these product and ultimately hurt U.S. consumers.

Gulbrandsen states that organo-tin compounds used to produce PVC stabilizers and catalysts

are low-value-added products with thin margins. Gulbrandsen further states that imposing

the 3.7 percent ad valorem tariff on the products could force the firm to withdrawn from the

organo-tin market and that this in turn would adversely impact its customers because the

market presently has few other suppliers.

Gulbrandsen claims that its imports of organo-tin products from India are consistent with the

goals of the GSP program—to encourage production in developing countries and import

products into the United States without harming the domestic industry. Gulbrandsen states

that in 2006 imports of organo-tin products from India were far below the competitive need

limitations of GSP.
7-7

Table 7-3 Certain other organo-inorganic compounds (HTS subheading 2931.00.90): U.S. imports for

consumption, by principal sources, 2002–06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007

January-June

Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

In Dollars

Ireland 1,231,561,412 1,302,971,841 968,689,062 980,862,708 981,375,184 401,021,543 432,050,962

China 14,234,844 17,364,870 31,732,919 53,827,549 102,331,553 60,989,472 87,432,164

Germany 46,801,688 75,709,064 83,695,867 85,783,012 83,404,771 42,099,173 52,987,736

United

Kingdom 42,428,129 40,605,630 58,469,830 35,114,597 47,689,775 23,026,325 22,398,275

Japan 16,009,256 20,316,552 31,844,767 29,911,326 27,169,969 12,801,041 13,957,100

Italy 21,462,674 13,670,339 5,499,444 13,333,923 14,160,569 6,339,409 5,289,568

Canada 5,149,579 6,795,538 8,543,323 15,228,791 13,253,777 5,488,277 3,643,225

Sweden 794,450 2,136,668 3,037,715 0 7,476,945 7,430,745 0

France 6,193,586 5,513,505 8,830,303 7,507,610 6,915,242 4,485,262 5,885,865

India 4,750,632 3,179,901 3,776,848 3,308,091 6,265,774 2,741,008 2,638,419

All other 17,386,920 16,923,316 32,990,293 36,132,716 26,057,758 15,614,578 21,992,720

Total 1,406,773,170 1,505,187,224 1,237,110,371 1,261,010,323 1,316,101,317 582,036,833 648,276,034

Imports from GSP-eligible countries:

India 4,750,632 3,179,901 3,776,848 3,308,091 6,265,774 2,741,008 2,638,419

Brazil 196,812 2,452,742 2,378,572 1,994,715 4,811,127 2,757,712 608,000

Russia 407,236 514,131 681,123 437,710 955,142 353,486 649,150

South

Africa

1,220,262 1,538,390 974,479 684,524 642,845 495,909 6,973

Turkey 45,792 545,006 50,112 59,968 240,990 165,028 0

Argentina 713,281 930,690 8,853,525 18,114,853 76,295 65,853 339,883

Kyrgyzstan 0 0 0 0 48,776 48,776 0

Egypt 0 0 0 28,106 10,159 10,159 9,339

Ukraine 9,850 5,070 0 42,334 4,374 0 0

Peru 0 774,179 89,0620000

All other 0 0 1,541,362 116,991000

Total 7,343,865 9,940,109 18,345,083 24,787,292 13,055,482 6,637,931 4,251,764

Source: Official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
7-8

Table 7-4 Certain other organo-inorganic compounds: U.S. exports of domestic merchandise, by market,

2002–06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007

January-June

Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 2007

In Dollars

Belgium 67,997,348 150,432,161 166,285,417 147,137,676 174,553,281 87,201,167 112,997,404

Australia 17,224,683 50,361,345 97,547,122 80,912,191 84,528,203 27,740,119 7,376,039

Argentina 27,636,776 33,126,302 65,780,530 85,470,543 76,448,428 37,955,108 20,803,132

Canada 40,884,230 57,423,244 42,099,596 42,465,279 52,955,807 28,372,171 42,560,492

Japan 39,589,411 42,249,489 42,838,322 41,324,395 46,126,589 23,749,289 26,026,538

Taiwan 26,639,590 29,991,419 31,511,298 34,230,276 39,433,810 19,631,752 20,367,656

Netherlands 15,764,471 16,151,220 25,618,140 30,614,342 37,424,302 19,350,494 18,733,006

Korea 24,249,390 27,427,513 36,286,489 22,513,873 36,317,860 21,593,160 11,775,554

China 20,053,993 28,691,632 33,896,262 42,144,612 29,452,303 15,101,563 16,068,952

Malaysia 25,155,986 34,906,977 13,874,211 33,834,372 27,015,715 12,124,677 3,327,811

All other 133,627,620 162,432,621 204,656,665 155,731,483 167,318,199 84,078,466 84,726,408

Total 438,823,498 633,193,923 760,394,052 716,379,042 771,574,497 376,897,966 364,762,992

Source: Official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
 1

 The petitioners are DuPont Teijin Films (Wilmington, DE), Mitsubishi Polyester Film (Greer, SC),

Toray Plastics America (N. Kingston, RI), and SKC, Inc. (Mt. Olive, NJ).

8-1

CHAPTER 8

Pet Film

Removal (Brazil)1

HTS subheading Short description Col. 1 rate of

duty as of

1/1/07

(percent ad

valorem)

Like or directly

competitive article

produced in the

United States on

Jan. 1, 1995?

3920.62.00a PET filmb 4.2 Yes

 a India was removed from GSP eligibility for this HTS subheading in 1998 and Thailand was removed from

GSP eligibility in 2003. In addition, antidumping orders are currently in place for PET film from Korea (original

order date 6/5/91; continued date 10/20/2005) and Taiwan (order date 7/1/2002). Antidumping and

countervailing duty orders are currently in place for PET film from India (order date 7/1/2002). 

 b Excludes biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate film intended for use in capacitors, classified under

HTS subheading 9902.25.76.

PET film is a high-performance, flexible material produced from molten polyethylene

terephthalate polymer, which is a linear, thermoplastic polyester resin. The end product is

usually available in rolls of varying widths up to several feet, and in thicknesses ranging

from an ultrathin 2 microns (8 gauge) to 350 microns (1,400 gauge). PET film can be

semi-rigid to rigid, depending on its thickness, and is very lightweight. It is strong and

impact resistant as well as naturally colorless and transparent. PET film has a combination

of physical and chemical properties suitable for a myriad of applications, including food

packaging, adhesive tapes, and plastic cards of many types (including “smart cards”),

electrical motor insulation, wire, cable, capacitors, microfilm, X-ray film, instant films, ink

jet photo paper, overhead projector film, audio and video tape, and computer storage media.

Domestically produced PET film is consumed captively as well as sold on the merchant

market to downstream converters that fabricate the film into finished products, to

distributors, directly to end-use consumers, or exported. 

Probable economic effect advice

* * * ** * *
8-2

Profile of U.S. industry and market, 2002–06

Of the eight domestic PET film producers, only four (the petitioners) are believed to sell

significant volumes into the merchant market. Three domestic producers manufacture PET

film for internal use only, and the one remaining producer, Terphane Holding Corporation

(“Terphane,” also the company producing PET film in Brazil) is reported to be limiting its

production to a niche product (“ultra thin” PET film). Approximately 75 percent of industry

capacity is slated for the merchant market and about 25 percent for captive use. Production

lines for PET film are designed to run at full capacity to achieve maximum efficiency and

cost competitiveness. 

From 2002 through 2006, there was a considerable amount of restructuring by merchant

producers because of changing patterns in demand. Specifically, the demand for PET film

for magnetic and photographic applications declined owing to the growing preference for

digital media. However, packaging and industrial applications have been a growth area for

PET film, and this growth is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Table 8-1

presents industry data.

Table 8-1 PET film: U.S. producers, employment, shipments, trade, consumption, and capacity

utilization, 2002–06

Item 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Producers (number) ................ 88888

Employment (employees)

a . . . . . . . . . . . 3,000 3,100 2,650 2,500 2,300

Shipments (1,000 dollars)

b . . . . . . . . . . . 1,100,000 1,300,000 900,000 930,000 975,000

Exports (1,000 dollars)

c ............. 140,000 105,000 125,000 120,000 110,000

Imports (1,000 dollars) ............. 239,605 249,336 290,159 362,652 383,782

Consumption (1,000 dollars)

a . . . . . . . . 1,199,605 1,444,336 1,065,159 1,172,652 1,248,782

Import-to-consumption ratio (percent)

a 20 17 27 31 31

Capacity utilization (percent)

a . . . . . . . . 85 88 92 86 92

a

 Estimated by Commission staff, based on partial information/data adequate for estimation with a moderately

high degree of confidence. b

 Shipments to the merchant market. This does not include domestic production that is captively consumed. c

 Exports are estimated by Commission staff as the Schedule B subheading is a basket category covering

products in addition to PET film. 
8-3

GSP import situation, 2006

Brazil was the eighth largest source of U.S. imports of PET film in 2006, and the second

largest GSP-eligible source. The value of imports of PET film from Brazil increased by 549

percent in the 2002-06 period, from $2.0 million to $13.2 million. However, in 2006 Brazil

accounted for less than 4 percent of total U.S. imports of PET film, and 23 percent of imports

from GSP-eligible countries (table 8-2).

Table 8-2 PET film: U.S. imports and share of U.S. consumption, 2006

Item Imports

Percent

 of total

imports

Percent 

of GSP

imports

Percent 

of U.S.

consumption

1,000 dollars

Grand total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383,783 100 (a

) 31

Imports from GSP-eligible countries:

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45,693 12 100 4

Thailandb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,248 3 29 1

Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,180 3 29 1

Indiac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,778 2 19 (d

)

Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,170 1 11 (d

) a

 Not applicable.

b GSP-eligibility for PET film from Thailand was removed as of July 1, 2004.

c

 GSP-eligibility for PET film from India was removed as of July 1, 1998.

d

 Less than 0.5 percent. 

According to publicly available information, Terphane, the sole Brazilian producer, expects

60 percent of its production will be exported to the United States and Latin America. There

have been no quality issues raised concerning the Brazilian product, and Terphane describes

itself as a leading manufacturer with more than 30 years of experience producing film.
 2

 Except as noted, information provided in this section is derived from the petition filed with the USTR as

well as testimony and written submissions of interested parties to the Commission in connection with this

investigation.

 3

 Wilmer Hale on behalf of Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America, SKC Inc., and

Toray Plastics (America) Inc., written submission to the USITC, October 24, 2007, 1–2.

 4

 Ibid., 5.

 5

 Ibid., 5.

 6

 Miller & Chevalier on behalf of Terphane Holding Corp., written submission to the USITC, October 24,

2007, 2.

 7

 Ibid.

8-4

Position of interested parties2

Petitioner.– The four firms that petitioned for the removal of imports of PET film from

Brazil from GSP eligibility were: DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of

America, SKC, Inc., and Toray Plastics (America), Inc. (“petitioners”). The petitioners

maintain that although “imports from Brazil currently make up a relatively small percentage

of total domestic consumption,” these imports “negatively impact U.S. producers due to the

price sensitivity of sales in the U.S. market.”3

 The petitioners also state that Brazil was the

“sixth largest source of U.S. PET film imports, accounting for nearly 5.6 percent of total

U.S. imports for the year.”4

 Petitioners also maintain that the domestic industry is “very

price- and import-sensitive” and a “small quantity of low-priced imports can drag down

prices throughout the market.”5

 

Opposition.–Although Terphane states that it imports PET film from its facility in Brazil, it

is the “only U.S. domiciled and owned commercial producer of PET film in the United

States.”6

 Terphane states that it has only two production facilities (Brazil and New York)

and “is the sole producer of PET film in Brazil and in South America.”7

 Terphane produces

PET film primarily for the packaging segment of the market, with a lesser share going to

industrial uses, and it sells its product only in the United States and in South America.

Terphane maintains that its 1 percent of U.S. PET film production capacity is not a

competitive threat to the petitioners, which control (counting both their U.S. and foreign

plants) more than 98 percent of the U.S. merchant market. Terphane also stated that it is not

the firm that is driving prices in the U.S. merchant market, as it primarily fills the role of

secondary supplier of product to its customers that use either petitioners’ production or

imports from primarily Asian sources as their primary sources of PET film.
8-5

Table 8-3 PET film (HTS subheading 3920.62.00): U.S. imports for consumption, by principal sources,

2002–06, January-June 2006 and January-June 2007

January-June

Country 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 YTD 2007 YTD

In Dollars

Korea 41,135,807 47,484,316 64,156,183 74,774,651 71,090,096 34,471,862 33,254,057

Japan 42,096,062 48,366,593 55,766,769 56,995,694 55,814,172 28,280,753 17,556,714

China 19,321,785 16,818,510 22,632,948 36,618,748 42,143,577 24,065,000 23,914,107

Canada 18,993,252 21,472,098 24,900,294 33,052,648 40,663,380 21,895,930 20,672,657

United Kingdom 20,519,700 17,951,564 20,984,877 37,750,205 35,165,907 23,929,449 9,738,044

Taiwan 8,938,019 13,315,423 11,748,773 12,797,958 14,558,006 6,095,131 10,323,947

Thailand 24,858 5,399,616 15,091,012 18,925,923 13,247,514 6,727,325 6,266,748

Brazil 2,029,545 6,709,656 8,283,371 9,088,957 13,180,266 6,808,811 6,210,754

Italy 11,539,028 14,051,908 15,890,794 13,494,054 12,647,666 7,499,480 4,158,272

Belgium 3,892,692 1,973,392 1,890,011 5,412,610 12,628,990 5,955,608 480,428

All other 71,114,639 55,812,818 48,814,172 63,741,050 72,642,924 38,974,092 36,356,878

Total 239,605,387 249,355,894 290,159,204 362,652,498 383,782,498 204,703,441 168,932,606

Imports from GSP-eligible countries:

Thailand 24,858 5,399,616 15,091,012 18,925,923 13,247,514 6,727,325 6,266,748

Brazil 2,029,545 6,709,656 8,283,371 9,088,957 13,180,266 6,808,811 6,210,754

India 17,840,701 12,070,146 9,436,029 10,002,048 8,777,542 4,947,782 3,575,883

Indonesia 14,783,718 10,379,531 5,756,424 4,637,234 5,170,336 2,221,379 2,993,654

Turkey 3,770 8,627 0 975 4,920,522 2,808,793 1,914,827

Philippines 0 48,452 0 45,582 199,747 113,654 25,389

Argentina 0 97,977 13,824 0 68,576 32,284 4,113

Colombia 0 0 94,127 9,933 67,895 41,126 0

Pakistan 0 0 0 0 53,350 0 0

South Africa 0 0 0 0 6,545 6,545 0

All other 229,574 5,106 4,871 59,033 1,169 0 6,306,842

Total 34,912,166 34,719,111 38,679,658 42,769,685 45,693,462 23,707,699 27,298,210

Source: Official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Biblio-1 

Bibliography

Aluminios del Uruguay S.A. “Petition for addition,” submitted to the Office of the United States

Trade Representative, June 22, 2007. 

Arent Fox on behalf of Companhia Brasileira de Aluminio. Written submission to the U.S.

International Trade Commission in connection with inv. No. 332-493, Advice Concerning Possible

Modifications to the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, 2007 Review of Additions and

Removals, October 24, 2007.

BHP Billiton. Annual Report 2006.

Bureau van Dijk. Orbis Companies Database. https://orbis.bvep.com (accessed October 24, 2007).

Companhia Brasileira de Aluminio. Written submission to the U.S. International Trade Commission

in connection with inv. No. 332-493, Advice Concerning Possible Modifications to the U.S.

Generalized System of Preferences, 2007 Review of Additions and Removals, October 24, 2007.

DeKieffer & Horgan on behalf of Gulbrandsen Chemicals. Written submission to the United States

International Trade Commission, in connection with inv. No. 332-493, Advice Concerning Possible

Modifications to the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, 2007 Review of Additions and

Removals, September 26, 2007.

DLA Piper on behalf of Eramet Marietta Inc. Petition submitted to the U.S. Trade Representative,

June 22, 2007.

DLA Piper, on behalf of Eramet Marietta Inc. Written submission to the U.S. International Trade

Commission, in connection with inv. No. 332-493, Advice Concerning Possible Modifications to the

U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, 2007 Review of Additions and Removals, September 26,

2007.

DLA Piper, on behalf of Eramet Marietta Inc. Written submission to the U.S. International Trade

Commission, October 24, 2007.

Edelstein, D.L., “Copper.” Mineral Commodity Summaries, various years.

Egyptalum. “Egyptalum Stake Offer in the Stock Market On Hold; Expansion Continues,” April 4.

2006. http://www.egyptalum.com.eg/.

Global Trade Information Service, Inc. (GTIS). World Trade Atlas Database, (accessed October 24,

2007).

Kinch, Diana.."Brazil's CBA Plans to Raise Aluminum Capacity." American Metal Market, June 13,

2006. http://amm.com/2006-06-12__12-54-08.html.
Biblio-2 

Miller & Chevalier on behalf of Terphane Holding Corporation. Written submission to the U.S.

International Trade Commission, in connection with inv. No. 332-493, Advice Concerning Possible

Modifications to the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, 2007 Review of Additions and

Removals, Submitted to the U.S. International Trade Commission, October 24, 2007.

Monsanto. Annual Report 2006, http://monsanto.com/pdf/pubs/2006/2006AnnualReport.pdf..

Solutia Inc. “Solutia Poised to Emerge From Bankruptcy After Reaching Settlement With All Major

Constituents in Chapter 11 Case (September 26).” St. Louis, 2007. http://investor.solutia.com.

Stannica LLC. Written submission to the United States Trade Representative, June 22, 2007.

Teo, Vivian. “China's Citic Expects to Win Pact to Build 270,000 tpy Egyptian Al Smelter.”

American Metal Market, September 13, 2006. http://amm.com/2006-09-13__20-50-57.html.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). “Aluminum.” 2005 Minerals Yearbook. http://minerals.usgs.gov/

minerals/ pubs/ commodity/aluminum/alumimyb05.pdf.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). “Manganese.” 2005 Minerals Yearbook.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) hearing transcript in connection with inv. No. 332-

493, Advice Concerning Possible Modifications to the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, 2007

Review of Additions and Removals, October 16, 2007.

United States Trade Representative (USTR) GSP Subcommittee hearing transcript in connection with

the 2007 GSP Review, October 3, 2007.

Vinson & Elkins on behalf of Manganese Metal Company (Pty) Ltd. Petition submitted to the United

States Trade Representative, October 3, 2007.

Vinson & Elkins, on behalf of Manganese Metal Company (Pty) Ltd.“ Written submission to the

U.S. International Trade Commission, in connection with inv. No. 332-493, Advice Concerning

Possible Modifications to the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences, 2007 Review of Additions and

Removals, September 26, 2007.

Vinson & Elkins on behalf of Manganese Metal Company (Pty) Ltd. Victors. Mroczka. Testimony

before the United States Trade Representative GSP Subcommittee, in connection with inv. No.

332-493, Advice Concerning Possible Modifications to the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences,

2007 Review of Additions and Removals, October 3, 2007.

Vinson & Elkins on behalf of Manganese Metal Company (Pty) Ltd. Written submission to the U.S.

International Trade Commission, October 24, 2007.

Wilmer Hale on behalf of of Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America, SKC, Inc.,

and Toray Plastics (America), Inc. Written submission to the U.S. International Trade Commission, in

connection with inv. No. 332-493, Advice Concerning Possible Modifications to the U.S. Generalized

System of Preferences, 2007 Review of Additions and Removals, October 24, 2007.

Wilmer Hale on behalf of of Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America, SKC, Inc.,
Biblio-3 

and Toray Plastics (America), Inc. Written submission to the U.S. International Trade Commission,

September 24, 2007.

Wilmer Hale on behalf of of Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America, Toray

Plastics (America), Inc. and SKC, Inc. Petition submitted to the U.S. Trade Representative, June 22,

2007. 

APPENDIX A

USTR Request Letter and Letter to

Withdraw Petitions

A-1

EXECUTIVE OFFICE O F T H E PRESIDENT 

THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

WASHINGTON, D.C 

The Honorable Daniel Pearson 

Chairman 

United States International Trade 

500 E Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20436 

Commission 

Dear Chairman Pearson: 

a563 

.-...--..-...---.....--*..--..--..~ 

Office of the 

Secretary 

Int'l Trade Commission 

SEP 0 4 2007 

The Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) has recently decided and wi31 

announce in the Federal Register to accept certain product petitis 

for the 2007 Annual Review for modification of the Generalized System 

of Preferences (GSP). For the most part, modifications to the GSe- - 

program which may result from this review will be announced in the 

spring of 2008, and become effective in the summer of 2008. In this 

connection, I am making the requests set out below. 

In accordance with sections 503 (a) (1) (A) , 503 (e) and 131 (a)of the 

Trade Act of 1974, as amended ("the 1974 Act"), and pursuant to the 

authority of the President delegated to the United States Trade 

Representative (USTR) by sections 4(c) and 8(c) and (d) of Executive 

Order 11846 of March 31, 1975, as amended, I hereby notify the 

Commission that the articles identified in Part A of the enclosed 

annex are being considered for designation as eligible articles for 

purposes of the GSP, or in some cases for eligibility for all GSP 

beneficiaries (rather than only for Least Developed Beneficiaries) as 

set forth in 503(a) (1) (A) of the 1974 Act. I further notify the 

Commission that the articles listed in Part B of the enclosed annex 

are being considered for removal from eligibility for duty-free 

treatment under the GSP program from the specified countries.' 

In accordance with sections 503(a) (1) (A) , 503(e) and 131(a) of the 

1974 Act, and under authority delegated by the President, pursuant to 

section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, I request that the 

Commission provide its advice, with respect to the articles identified 

in Part A of the enclosed annex, as to the probable economic effect on 

United States industries producing like or directly competitive 

articles and on consumers of the elimination of United States import 

duties for all beneficiary developing countries under the GSP program. 

Under authority delegated by the President, pursuant to section 332(g) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, I further request, with respect to articles 

listed in Part B of the enclosed annex, that the Commission provide 

its advice as to the probable economic effect on U.S. industries 

producing like or directly competitive articles and on consumers of 

the removal from eligibility for duty-free treatment under the GSP 

program for such articles from the specified countries. 

P 

' Consideration of petitions for competitive need limitation 

waivers may be addressed at a later date with a separate request 

letter. 
Commissioner Pearson 

Page Two 

I would greatly appreciate it, if the requested advice could be 

provided by no later than 90-104 days from receipt of this letter. To 

the extent possible, I would also appreciate it if the probable 

economic effect advice and statistics (profile of the United States 

industry and market and United States import and export data) and any 

other relevant information or advice was provided separately and 

individually for each Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

subheading for all the cases in these requests. 

I direct you to mark as "Confidential" those portions of the 

Commission's report and related working papers that contain or provide 

a basis for determining the Commission's advice on the probable 

economic effect on United States industries producing like or directly 

competitive articles and on consumers. All other parts of the report 

are unclassified, but the overall classification marked on the front 

and back covers of the report should be "Confidential" to conform with 

the confidential sections contained therein. All business confidential 

information contained in the report should be clearly identified. 

When the Commission's confidential report is provided to my Office, the 

Commission should issue, as soon as possible thereafter, a public 

version of the report containing only the unclassified information , with any business confidential information deleted. 

The Commission's assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

Susan C. Schwab 
Annex 

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) subheadings listed below have been 

accepted as product petitions for the 2007 Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Annual Review 

for modification of the (GSP). The tariff nomenclature in the HTS for the subheadings listed 

below are definitive; the product descriptions in this list are for informational purposes only 

(except in those cases where only part of a subheading is the subject of a petition). The 

descriptions below are not intended to delimit in any way the scope of the subheading. The HTS 

may be viewed on http://www.usitc.sov/tata/index.htm. 

Case : HTS Brief Description Petitioner 

No. : Subheading : 

A. Petitions for addition of a product to the list of elisible products for the Generalized 

System of Preferences. 

2007-01 

2007-02 

2007-03 

2007-04 

2007-05 

2007-06 

2007-07 

2007-08 

2007-09 

2613.10.00 

2613.90.00 

2917.12.10 

3204.17.90 

4412.39. 50301 

7601.10.30 

7601.20.30 

7604.21.00 

8111.00.49.102 

Molybdenum ores and concentrates, 

roasted 

Molybdenum ores and concentrates, 

other 

Adipic acid 

Other synthetic organic pigments 

and coloring preparations 

Other plywood sheets, not exceeding 

6mm in thickness, with at 

1 outer ply of certain pines 

Certain unwrought aluminum, not alloyed, 

of uniform cross section throughout its 

length 

Certain unwrought aluminum, alloys, of 

uniform cross section throughout its length 

Certain aluminum bars, rods, and profiles 

of aluminum alloys, hollow profiles 

Certain unwrought manganese and articles 

thereof, including waste and scrap 

Government of Mongolia 

Government of Mongolia 

Rhodia Poliamida e 

Especialidades Ltda 

(Brazil) 

Pinturas INCA S.A. 

(Uruguay) 

Urupanel S.A. 

(Uruguay) 

Government of Arab 

Republic of Egypt 

Government of Arab 

Republic of Egypt 

Aluminios del Uruguay, 

S.A. (Uruguay) 

Manganese Metal 

Company, Lt, 

(Republic of South 

Africa) 

B. Petitions to remove duty-free status from a beneficiarv developins countrv for a product 

on the list of elisible articles for the Generalized System of Preferences 

2007-10 2931.00.90 Certain other organo-inorganic compounds Stannica LLC 

(India) (Baton Rouge, LA) 

2007-11 3920.62.00 Polyethylene terephthalate 

film, sheet and strip (PET film) 

(Brazil) 

Dupont Teijin Films 

Wilmington, DE) 

Mitxubishi Polyester 

Film 

(Greer, SC) 

Toray Plastics 

(&ne r i ca ) 

(N. Kingston, RI) 

SKC Inc. 

(Mt. Olive, NJ) 

If implemented, would require creation of a new 8-digit HTS line. 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508 

NOV 2 6 2007 

Ms. Lyn M. Schlitt 

Director, Office of External Relations 

U.S. International Trade Commission 

Room 7 16 

500 E Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20436 

2 -.% ; 

Dear Ms. Schlitt: 

Ambassador Susan C. Schwab has asked me to advise the U.S. International Trade Commis-sion 

(USITC) of the petitioners' withdrawal of the following petitions to add articles for duty-frce 9 treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences program: 

w xa - * 

1. Accepted case 2007-0 1,261 3.10.00 Molybdenum ores, roasted 

2. Accepted case 2007-02,2613.90.00 Molybdenum ores, other 

3. Accepted case 2007-04, 3204.17.90 Other synthetic organic pigments and coloring 

preparations 

These tariff lines will no longer need to be included in the USITC study as to the probable 

economic effect on U.S. industries producing like or directly competitive articles, which was 

requested on September 4,2007 (see attached letter). 

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Meredith Broadbent 

Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for 

Industry, Market Access and Telecommunications 

Attachment 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 29506 

I+ --..-- - 

SEfV4 2007 

The Honorable 

United States 

commission 

500 E Street, 

Washington, D 

. Chairman 

Daniel Pearson 

International Trade 

S.R. 

C. 20436 

Dear Chairman Pearson: 

The Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) has recently decided and will 

announce in the Federal Register to accept certain product petitions 

for the 2007 Annual Review for modification of the Generalized System 

of Preferences (GSP). For the most part, modifications to the GSP 

program which may result from this review will be announced in the 

apring-ofF,-abJ become etrective 'i'n-the--summer of 2008 I 

connection, I am making the requests set out below. 

- --- .- -- -- -. - -- In this 

In accordance with sections .503(a) (1) (A), 503(e) and 13l(a)Of the 

Trade Act of 1974, as amended ("the 1974 Act"), and pursuant to the 

authority of the President delegated to the United States Trade 

Reeresentative '(WSTKJ by"'Se'Cfions' 4'(C) "'and' 8 (%r'"and' (d)' 'of Ex&cutive 

Order 11846 of March 31, 1975,'as amended, I hereby notify the 

Commission that the articles identified in Parr. A of the enclosed 

annex are being considered for designation as eligible articles for 

purposes of the GSP, or in some cases for eligibility for all GSP 

beneficiaries .(rather than only for Least Developed Beneficiaries) as 

set forth in 503(a) (1) (A) of the 1974 Act. , 1 further notify the 

Commission that the articles listed in Part B of the enclosed annex 

are being considered for removal from eligibility for duty-free 

treatment under the GSP program from the specified c0untries.l 

1x1 accordance with sections 503 (a) (1) (A) , 503 (e) and 131(a) of the 

1974 Act, and under authority delegated by the President, pursuant to 

section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 1 request that the 

Commission provide its advice, with respect to the articles identified 

in Part A of the enclosed annex, as to the probable economic effect on 

United States industries producing like or directly competitive 

articles and on consumers of the elimination of United States import 

duties for all beneficiary developing countries under the GSP program. 

Under authority delegated by the President, pursuant to section 332(g) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, I further request, with respect to articles 

listed in Part B of the enclosed annex, that the Commission provide 

its advice as to the probable economic effect on U.S. industries 

producing like or directly competitive articles and on consumers of 

the removal from eligibility for duty-free treatment under the GSP 

program for such articles from the specified countries. 

Consideration of petitions for competitive need limitation 

waivers may be addressed at a later date with a separate request 

letter. 
commissioner Pedrson 

Page TWO 

I would greatly appreciate it, if the requested advice could be 

provided by no later than 90-104 days from receipt of this letter. 

the extent possible, I would also appreciate it if the probable 

economic effect advice and statistics (profile of the United States 

industry and market and United States import and export data) and any 

other: relevant information or advice was provided separately and 

individually for each Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

subheading for all the cases in these requests. 

-- .(. . - -7 - 

TO 

I direct you to mark as "Confidential" those portions of the 

Commission's report and related working papers that contain or provide 

a basis for determining the Commission's advice on the probable 

economic effect on United States industries producing like or directly 

competitive articles and on consumers. All other parts of the report 

are unclassified, but the overall classification marked on the front 

and back covers of the report should be "Confidential1' to conform with 

the confizentiarsections contained therein. All business confidential 

information contained in the report should be clearly identified. 

When the Commissianls confidential report is provided to my OfPice, the 

Commission should issue, as soon as possible thereafter, a public 

version of the report containing only the unclassified information,,, 

The Commission's assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. 

.-- "- "-.r ..-..,.. ~ , _.I.I_ 

- , with any confidential info~atibi;l' .. , ... , ... 

Sincerely, 

Susan C. Sch'wab 
hex __, -... 

The Harmonized Tariff SChedUh Of the United States (HTSI subheadings listed below have been 

accepted as product petitions for the 2007 Generalized System of Ptefeteneea (GSP) Annual Review 

for VodificatiOn of the (GSP). 

below are definitive; the product descriptions in this li-t are for informational puqwsea only 

(except in those cases where Only pact Of a subheading is the subject of a petition). 

descriptions below ate not intended to delimit in any way the scope of thr subheading. The HTS 

my be viewed on ntto://wwu.usifc.aovLfatadi.ndPx.htm. 

- 

The tariff nomenclature in the HTS for the subheadings listau 

The 

case : HTS Brief Description Petitioner 

NO. : Subheading z 

A. petitipns for addition Of a eraduet to the list Of eliaible dtOdu6ts for the Generalized 

System of Preferences . 

2007-01 2613.10.00 Molybdenum ores end Cancentratre, 

roasted 

2007-02 2613.90.00 Molybdenum ore@ and concentrates, 

other 

Government of Mongolia 

Government of Mongolia 

--_.-.._.,.,..*... ".I..._. .. . . .. .. . . .. _. . Adipic acid Rhodia Poliamida e , 

2007-03 2917.12-10 

Eepecislidades Ltda 

(Brazil) 

2907-04 3204.17.90 Other aynthetic organic pigments Pisturse INCA SA. 

and colering pzepaiatlona (Uruguay) 

2007-05 4412:39.50301. Other plywood sheets:-not excee&irrg,, ' '' ,Urnpanel. 9.k. 

6zm in thickness, with at (Uruguay) 

1 outer ply of certain pines 

2007-06 7601.10.30 Certain unwrought aluminum, not alloyed, Government of Arab 

of uniform cross section throughout its Republic of Egypt 

length 

2007-07 7601.20.30 . Certain unwrought aluminum alloys, of Government of Arab 

uniform cross section throughout ita length Republic of Egypt 

2007-08 7604.21.00 Certain aluminum barn, rods, and profiles Aldnios del Uruguay, 

of aluminum alloys, hollow pzofiles S.A. (Urltgudy) 

2007-09 8111.00.49.10* Certain unwrought manganese and articles Nanganere.Metal 

thereof, including waste and scrap COmp=Yr Lt, 

(Republic of South 

Africa) 

8, 

2007-10 2931.00.90 Certain other 'organa-inorganic compounds starnica LLC 

petitions t-ove dutv-free status fZOm d beneficiarv develooina Counttv for a,uroduct on the list of elisible articles for th.e Generalized System of Preferences. 

( India 1 [Baton ROUgO, LA) 

2007-11 3920.62.00 

(srazil) 

Polyethylene terephthalate 

film, sheet and strip (PET film) 

Dupont Teijiri Film 

Wilmington, DE) 

Mitxubishi Polyester 

(Greer, $e) 

Totay Plastics 

(America) 

(N. Kingston, RI) 

SXC rnc. 

Film, 

(dt. Olive, NJ) 

' If implernented, would require creation of a new +digit HT5 line. 
APPENDIX B

Notice of Investigation and Notice to

Withdraw Petitions 

B-1

53604 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 19, 2007 / Notices 

can be obtained by contacting the TDD 

terminal at 202–205–1810. 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-ONLINE) at 

http://edis.usitc.gov. Persons with 

mobility impairments who will need 

special assistance in gaining access to 

the Commission should contact the 

Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

Background: As requested by the 

Committee, the Commission will 

conduct an investigation under section 

332(g) and prepare a report regarding 

the effects of animal health, sanitary, 

and food safety measures on beef trade 

between the United States and its major 

trading partners. The Commission’s 

report will cover the period 2002–2007, 

to the extent data are available. 

As requested by the Committee, the 

Commission will include the following 

information in its report, to the extent 

possible: (1) An overview of the U.S. 

and global markets for beef, including 

production, consumption, exports, and 

imports; (2) information on animal 

health, sanitary, and food safety 

measures facing U.S. and other major 

beef exporters in major destination 

markets; (3) information on other 

barriers to U.S. beef exports in major 

destination markets, including high 

tariffs, quotas, and import licensing and 

distribution systems; and (4) a 

qualitative and, to the extent possible, 

quantitative analysis of the economic 

effects of foreign animal health, 

sanitary, and food safety measures on 

U.S. beef exports. The Commission 

expects to deliver the report to the 

Committee by June 6, 2008. 

Public Hearing: A public hearing in 

connection with this investigation will 

be held at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC, beginning at 9:30 a.m. 

on November 15, 2007. Requests to 

appear at the public hearing should be 

filed with the Secretary, no later than 

5:15 p.m., October 18, 2007, in 

accordance with the requirements in the 

‘‘Written Submissions’’ section below. 

In the event that, as of the close of 

business on October 18, 2007, no 

witnesses are scheduled to appear at the 

hearing, the hearing will be canceled. 

Any person interested in attending the 

hearing as an observer or nonparticipant 

may call the Secretary to the 

Commission (202–205–2000) after 

October 15, 2007, for information 

concerning whether the hearing will be 

held. 

Written Submissions: In lieu of or in 

addition to participating in the hearing, 

interested parties are invited to submit 

written statements and briefs 

concerning this investigation. All 

written submissions, including requests 

to appear at the hearing, statements, and 

briefs, should be addressed to the 

Secretary. Pre-hearing briefs and 

statements should be filed not later than 

5:15 p.m., October 22, 2007; and posthearing briefs and statements should be 

filed not later than 5:15 p.m., November 

23, 2007. All other submissions should 

be filed not later than 5:15 p.m., 

February 29, 2008. 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). Section 201.8 

requires that a signed original (or a copy 

so designated) and fourteen (14) copies 

of each document be filed. In the event 

that confidential treatment of a 

document is requested, at least four (4) 

additional copies must be filed, in 

which the confidential information 

must be deleted (see the following 

paragraph for further information 

regarding confidential business 

information). The Commission’s rules 

authorize filing submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means only to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the rules (see Handbook 

for Electronic Filing Procedures, http:// 

www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg

_notices/rules/documents/

handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). 

Persons with questions regarding 

electronic filing should contact the 

Secretary (202–205–2000). 

Any submissions that contain 

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 201.6 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 ‘‘non-confidential’’

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 in the Office of the 

Secretary to the Commission for 

inspection by interested parties. 

In its request letter, the Committee 

states that it intends to make the 

Commission’s report available to the 

public, in its entirety, and asked that the 

Commission not include any 

confidential business information in the 

report it sends to the Committee. 

Consequently, the report that the 

Commission sends to the Committee 

will not contain any such information. 

Any confidential business information 

received by the Commission in this 

investigation and used in preparing the 

report will not be published in a manner 

that would reveal the operations of the 

individual or firm supplying the 

information. 

Issued: September 13, 2007. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–18407 Filed 9–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 332–493] 

Advice Concerning Possible 

Modifications to the U.S. Generalized 

System of Preferences, 2007 Review of 

Additions and Removals 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of investigation and 

scheduling of hearing. 

SUMMARY: Following receipt on 

September 6, 2007 of a request from the 

United States Trade Representative 

(USTR) under section 332(g) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332 (g)), 

the Commission instituted investigation 

No. 332–493, Advice Concerning 

Possible Modifications to the U.S. 

Generalized System of Preferences, 2007 

Review of Additions and Removals. 

DATES: September 25, 2007: Deadline for 

filing requests to appear at the public 

hearing. 

September 26, 2007: Deadline for 

filing pre-hearing briefs and statements. 

October 16, 2007: Public hearing. 

October 24, 2007: Deadline for filing 

post-hearing briefs and statements and 

other written submissions. 

December 19, 2007: Transmittal of 

report to USTR. 

ADDRESSES: All Commission offices, 

including the Commission’s hearing 

rooms, are located in the United States 

International Trade Commission 

Building, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Information may be obtained from 

Cynthia B. Foreso, Project Leader, Office 

of Industries (202–205–3348 or 

cynthia.foreso@usitc.gov) or Eric Land, 

Deputy Project Leader, Office of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 19, 2007 / Notices 53605 

Industries (202–205–3349 or 

eric.land@usitc.gov). For more 

information on legal aspects of the 

investigation, contact William Gearhart 

of the Commission’s Office of the 

General Counsel (202–205–3091 or 

william.gearhart@usitc.gov). The media 

should contact Margaret O’Laughlin, 

Office of External Relations (202–205–

1819 or margaret.olaughlin@usitc.gov). 

Hearing-impaired individuals may 

obtain information on this matter by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal at 202–205–1810. 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–ONLINE) at 

http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/ 

edis.htm. 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. 

Background: As requested by the 

USTR, in accordance with section 

503(a)(1)(A), 503(e), and 131(a) of the 

Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 

U.S.C. 2463(a)(1)(A), 19 U.S.C. 2151(a)), 

and pursuant to section 332(g) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)), 

the Commission will provide advice as 

to the probable economic effect on U.S. 

industries producing like or directly 

competitive articles and on consumers 

of the elimination of U.S. import duties 

for all beneficiary developing countries 

under the GSP program on articles 

provided for in HTS subheadings 

2613.10.00, 2613.90.00, 2917.12.10, 

3204.17.90, 4412.39.5030, 7601.10.30, 

7601.20.30, 7604.21.00, and 

8111.00.4910. Also, as requested by 

USTR, pursuant to section 332(g) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, the Commission will 

provide advice as to the probable 

economic effect on U.S. industries 

producing like or directly competitive 

articles and on consumers of the 

removal from eligibility for duty-free 

treatment under the GSP program of 

articles provided for in HTS 

subheadings 2931.00.90 from India and 

3920.62.00 from Brazil. As requested by 

the USTR, the Commission will provide 

its advice no later than December 19, 

2007. The USTR indicated that those 

sections of the Commission’s report and 

related working papers that contain the 

Commission’s advice will be classified 

as ‘‘confidential.’’

Public Hearing: A public hearing in 

connection with this investigation will 

be held beginning at 9:30 a.m. on 

October 16, 2007 at the United States 

International Trade Commission 

Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, 

DC. All persons have the right to appear 

by counsel or in person, to present 

information, and to be heard. Persons 

wishing to appear at the public hearing 

should file a letter with the Secretary, 

United States International Trade 

Commission, 500 E St., SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, not later than 

the close of business (5:15 p.m.) on 

September 25, 2007, in accordance with 

the requirements in the ‘‘Submissions’’

section below. 

Written Submissions: In lieu of or in 

addition to participating in the hearing, 

interested parties are invited to submit 

written statements or briefs concerning 

these investigations. 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. Pre-hearing 

briefs and statements should be filed not 

later than 5:15 p.m., September 26, 

2007; and post-hearing briefs and 

statements and all other written 

submissions should be filed not later 

than 5:15 p.m., October 24, 2007. 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). Section 201.8 

of the rules requires 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 (see the following 

paragraph for further information 

regarding confidential business 

information). The Commission’s rules 

do not authorize filing submissions with 

the Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the rules (see Handbook 

for Electronic Filing Procedures, http:// 

www.usitc.gov/secretary/ 

fed_reg_notices/rules/documents/ 

handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). 

Persons with questions regarding 

electronic filing should contact the 

Secretary (202–205–2000). 

Any submissions that contain 

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 201.6 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 in the Office of the 

Secretary to the Commission for 

inspection by interested parties. 

The Commission may include some or 

all of the confidential business 

information submitted in the course of 

these investigations in the report it 

sends to the USTR. As requested by the 

USTR, the Commission will publish a 

public version of the report, which will 

exclude portions of the report that the 

USTR has classified as confidential as 

well as any confidential business 

information. 

Issued: September 12, 2007. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–18408 Filed 9–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Importer of Controlled Substances; 

Notice of Application 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(i), the 

Attorney General shall, prior to issuing 

a registration under this Section to a 

bulk manufacturer of a controlled 

substance in schedule I or II and prior 

to issuing a registration under 21 U.S.C. 

952(a) authorizing the importation of 

such substances, provide manufacturers 

holding registrations for the bulk 

manufacture of the substance an 

opportunity for a hearing. 

Therefore, in accordance with 21 CFR 

1301.34(a), this is notice that on October 

10, 2006, Lannett Company 

Incorporated, 9001 Torresdale Avenue, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19136, 

made application by letter and 

subsequent renewal on February 19, 

2007 to the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) for registration as 

an importer of the basic classes of 

controlled substances: 

Drug Schedule 

Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370) ..... I 

Methylphenidate (1724) ................ II 

Morphine (9300) ........................... II 

The company plans to import the 

basic classes of controlled substances 

for analytical testing on a formulated 

product for submission to U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA) for generic 

product approval. 

Any manufacturer who is presently, 

or is applying to be, registered with DEA 

to manufacture such basic classes of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices 68591 

Name of Committee: Literature Selection 

Technical Review Committee. 

Date: February 28–29, 2008. 

Open: February 28, 2008, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. 

Agenda: Administrative reports and 

program discussion. 

Place: National Library of Medicine, 

Building 38, Board Room, 2nd Floor, 8600 

Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894. 

Closed: February 28, 2008, 11 a.m. to 5 

p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate journals 

as potential titles to be indexed by the 

National Library of Medicine. 

Place: National Library of Medicine, 

Building 38, Board Room, 2nd Floor, 8600 

Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894. 

Closed: February 29, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 2 

p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate journals 

as potential titles to be indexed by the 

National Library of Medicine. 

Place: National Library of Medicine, 

Building 38, Board Room, 2nd Floor, 8600 

Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894. 

Contact Person: Sheldon Kotzin, MLS, 

Associate Director, Division of Library 

Operations, National Library of Medicine, 

8600 Rockville Pike, Bldg. 38/Room 2W06, 

Bethesda, MD 20894, 301–496–6921, 

Sheldon_Kotzin@nlm.nih.gov. 

Any interested person may file written 

comments with the Committee by forwarding 

the statement to the Contact Person listed on 

this Notice. The statement should include the 

name, address, telephone number and, when 

applicable, the business or professional 

affiliation of the interested person. 

In the interest of security, NIH has 

instituted stringent procedures for entrance 

into the building by non-government 

employees. Persons without a government 

I.D. will need to show a photo I.D. and sign 

in at the security desk upon entering the 

building. 

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.879, Medical Library 

Assistance, National Institutes of Health, 

HHS) 

Dated: November 27, 2007. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy, NIH. 

[FR Doc. 07–5929 Filed 12–04–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

Center for Scientific Review; Notice of 

Closed Meetings 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 

is hereby given of the following 

meetings. 

The meetings will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy. 

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel; Kidney 

Monitoring and Therapeutics Small Business 

Review. 

Date: December 18, 2007. 

Time: 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Krystyna E. Rys-Sikora, 

PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center 

for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4016J, 

MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–451–

1325, ryssokok@csr.nih.gov. 

This notice is being published less than 15 

days prior to the meeting due to the timing 

limitations imposed by the review and 

funding cycle. 

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel; 

Hematopoietic Stem Cells. 

Date: December 20, 2007. 

Time: 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Delia Tang, MD, Scientific 

Review Administrator, Center for Scientific 

Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Room 4126, MSC 7802, 

Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435–2506, 

tangd@csr.nih.gov. 

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel; 

Nanotechnology in Heart, Lung and Blood. 

Date: January 16–17, 2008. 

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 

(Virtual Meeting). 

Contact Person: Alexandra M. Ainsztein, 

PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Center 

for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5144, 

MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–451–

3848, ainsztea@csr.nih.gov. 

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 

93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 

93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, 

93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National 

Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: November 28, 2007. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory 

Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 07–5926 Filed 12–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 332–493] 

Advice Concerning Possible 

Modifications to the U.S. Generalized 

System of Preferences, 2007 Review of 

Additions and Removals 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Change in scope of 

investigation. 

SUMMARY: Following receipt of a letter 

on November 26, 2007, from the United 

States Trade Representative (USTR) 

advising of the withdrawal of petitions 

requesting the addition of the following 

three articles to the list of articles 

eligible for duty-free treatment under 

the Generalized System of Preferences 

(GSP) program, the Commission has 

terminated its investigation with respect 

to those three articles and will not 

provide probable economic effect advice 

with respect to those articles: 

Molybdenum ores and concentrates, 

roasted (HTS subheading 2613.10.00, 

USTR accepted case 2007–01); 

Molybdenum ores and concentrates, 

other (HTS subheading 2613.90.00, 

USTR accepted case 2007–02); and 

Other synthetic organic pigments and 

coloring preparations (HTS subheading 

3204.17.90, USTR accepted case 2007–

04). 

The Commission expects to transmit 

its report to the USTR providing its 

advice with respect to the remaining 

articles that are the subject of the 

USTR’s request for advice by December 

19, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: All Commission offices, 

including the Commission’s hearing 

rooms, are located in the United States 

International Trade Commission 

Building, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. All written 

submissions should be addressed to the 

Secretary, United States International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. The public 

record for this investigation may be 

viewed on the Commission’s electronic 

docket (EDIS) at http://www.usitc.gov/ 

secretary/edis.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Information may be obtained from 

Cynthia B. Foreso, Project Leader, Office 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

68592 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 5, 2007 / Notices 

of Industries (202–205–3348 or 

cynthia.foreso@usitc.gov) or Eric Land, 

Deputy Project Leader, Office of 

Industries (202–205–3349 or 

eric.land@usitc.gov). For more 

information on legal aspects of the 

investigation, contact William Gearhart 

of the Commission’s Office of the 

General Counsel (202–205–3091 or 

william.gearhart@usitc.gov). The media 

should contact Margaret O’Laughlin, 

Office of External Relations (202–205–

1819 or margaret.olaughlin@usitc.gov). 

Hearing-impaired individuals may 

obtain information on this matter by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal at 202–205–1810. 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–ONLINE) at 

http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/ 

edis.htm. 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. 

Background: The Commission 

instituted the investigation on 

September 12, 2007, following receipt of 

a letter from the USTR on September 6, 

2007. Notice of institution of the 

investigation and the scheduling of a 

public hearing (which was held on 

October 16, 2007) was published in the 

Federal Register of September 19, 2007 

(72 F.R. 53604). The notice indicated 

that the Commission would provide 

advice with respect to the addition of 

nine articles and advice with respect to 

the removal of two articles. The 

Commission will provide its advice 

with respect to the addition of the six 

remaining articles and removal of the 

two articles by December 19, 2007. The 

deadline for filing written submissions 

in this investigation was October 24, 

2007. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 30, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–23560 Filed 12–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Notice is hereby given that on 

November 28, 2007, a proposed Consent 

Decree was lodged with the United 

States District Court for the Southern 

District of Florida in the case United 

States v. Losada, et al., No. 07–10027 

(S.D. Fla.) 

The United States of America 

(‘‘United States’’), on behalf the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration of the Department of 

Commerce, filed a complaint against 

defendants Losada and the vessel 

‘‘Androw’’ under the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act (‘‘NMSA’’), 16 U.S.C. 

1431, et seq., seeking damages and 

response costs for Defendants’

destruction of natural resources in the 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

(the ‘‘Sanctuary’’). 

Under the proposed Consent Decree, 

Losada will pay $5,000, and agrees not 

to operate a vessel or fish within the 

Sanctuary for a period of five years. The 

settlement amount is based the 

defendant’s ability to pay. In exchange 

for the payment, the plaintiff covenants 

not to sue the defendants for damages 

and response costs under NMSA with 

respect to the site of the grounding. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating the proposed Consent Decrees. 

Comments should be addressed to the 

Assistant Attorney General, 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, and either e-mailed to 

pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to: United 

States v. Losada, et al., No. 07–10027 

(S.D. Fla.), referencing DOJ case number 

90–5–1–1–09107. 

The proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined at the Office of the United 

States Attorney for the Southern District 

of Florida, 99 N.E. 4th Street, Miami, 

Florida. During the public comment 

period, the Consent Decree may also be 

examined on the following Department 

of Justice Web site, http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

proposed Consent Decree may also be 

obtained by mail from the Consent 

Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a 

request to Tonia Fleetwood 

(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no. 

(202) 514–0097, phone confirmation no. 

(202) 514–1547. In requesting a copy 

from the Consent Decree Library, please 

enclose a check payable to the ‘‘U.S. 

Treasury’’ or, if by e-mail or fax, forward 

a check in that amount to the Consent 

Decree Library at the stated address, in 

the amount of $2.75 (25 cents per page 

reproduction cost). 

Henry S. Friedman, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. 07–5937 Filed 12–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request 

November 29, 2007. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) 

hereby announces the submission the 

following public information collection 

request (ICR) to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). 

A copy of this ICR, with applicable 

supporting documentation; including 

among other things a description of the 

likely respondents, proposed frequency 

of response, and estimated total burden 

may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov 

Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain or by contacting 

Darrin King on 202–693–4129 (this is 

not a toll-free number) / e-mail: 

king.darrin@dol.gov. 

Interested parties are encouraged to 

send comments to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: Brian A. Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk 

Officer for the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS), Office of Management and 

Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 

20503, Telephone: 202–395–7316 / Fax: 

202–395–6974 (these are not a toll-free 

numbers), e-mail: 

OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov within 

30 days from the date of this publication 

in the Federal Register. In order to 

ensure the appropriate consideration, 

comments should reference the OMB 

Control Number (see below). 

The OMB is particularly interested in 

comments which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

C-1

APPENDIX C

Calendar of Witnesses for the October 16,

2007 Hearing
C-2
C-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Advice Concerning Possible Modifications to the U.S.

Generalized System of Preferences, 2007 Review of

Additions and Removals

Inv. No.: 332-493

Date and Time: October 16, 2007 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with this investigation in the Main Hearing Room (room

101), 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

ORGANIZATION AND WITNESS: PRODUCT:

PANEL 1

Manganese Metal Powder

Vinson & Elkins

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Manganese Metal Company (Pty) Ltd. (“MMC”)

Cellierus (Blikkies) Blignaut, Marketing Manager, MMC

Victor S. Mroczka ) – OF COUNSEL

DLA Piper US LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Eramet Marietta Inc. (“Eramet”)

John W. Vorberger, Sales & Marketing Manager, Special

Products, Eramet

Clifford E. Stevens, Jr. ) – OF COUNSEL

ORGANIZATION AND WITNESS: PRODUCT:

PANEL 1 (continued)
C-4

Adipic Acid

Williams Mullen

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Rhodia Poliamida e Especialidades Ltda.

Rhodia, Inc.

Steven R. Powis, Business Director, Polyamide

Intermediates - North America, Rhodia, Inc.

James R. Cannon, Jr. ) – OF COUNSEL

Hogan & Hartson LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

INVISTA S.à r.l. (“INVISTA”)

Kevin Kenaley, Business Manager, Nylon Intermediates

North America, INVISTA

Mary Vane, Director, Trade and Business Development,

INVISTA

Richard A. Kisiel, General Manager, Nylon Intermediates,

Solutia Inc.

Craig A. Lewis ) – OF COUNSEL

ORGANIZATION AND WITNESS: PRODUCT:

PANEL 2

Molybdenum Ores
C-5

Arent Fox LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Climax Molybdenum Company (a subsidiary of

Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.)

John M. Gurley ) – OF COUNSEL

Certain Synthetic Organic Pigments

Color Pigments Manufacturers Association, Inc. (“CPMA”)

Alexandria, VA

J. Lawrence Robinson, President, CPMA

David Klebine, President, Apollo Colors Inc.

Daniel Van Kampen, Director, Specialty Colorants

and Distributor Sales, Flint Group Pigments

Certain Unwrought Aluminum Products

Arenft Fox LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Companhia Brasileira de Alumínio (“CBA”)

Myles Getlan ) – OF COUNSEL

ORGANIZATION AND WITNESS: PRODUCT:

PANEL 2 (continued)

Organo-Tin Compounds

deKieffer & Horgan

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of
C-6

Gulbrandsen Chemicals, Inc. (“Gulbrandsen”)

Donald E. Gulbrandsen, Chief Executive Officer,

Gulbrandsen

Merritt R. Blakeslee ) – OF COUNSEL

-END-
D-1

APPENDIX D

Model for Evaluating Probable Economic

Effects of Changes in GSP Status
D-2
 1

 For derivations, see Paul S. Armington, “A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of

Production,” IMF Staff Papers, vol. 16 (1969), pp. 159-176, and J. Francois and K. Hall, “Partial Equilibrium

Modeling,” in J. Francois and K. Reinert, eds., Applied Methods for Trade Policy Analysis, A Handbook

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 

D-3

MODEL FOR EVALUATING THE

PROBABLE ECONOMIC EFFECT OF CHANGES IN GSP STATUS

This appendix presents the method used to analyze the effects of immediate tariff elimination for

selected products on total U.S. imports of affected products, competing U.S. industries, and U.S.

consumers. First, the method is introduced. Then the derivation of the model for estimating changes in

imports, U.S. domestic production, and consumer effects is presented.

Introduction

Commission staff used partial equilibrium modeling to estimate probable economic effects (PE)

of immediate tariff elimination and tariff addition on total U.S. imports, competing U.S. industries, and

U.S. consumers. The model used in this study is a nonlinear, imperfect substitutes model.1

 Trade data

were taken from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. production data were

estimated by USITC industry analysts. Elasticities were estimated by industry analysts in consultation

with the assigned economist based on relevant product and market characteristics. Trade and production

data used were for 2006, and tariff rates used were for 2006.

The following model illustrates the case of granting a product GSP duty-free status. The

illustration is for a product for which domestic production, GSP imports, and non-GSP imports are

imperfect substitutes, and shows the basic results of a tariff removal on a portion of imports. 
D-4

Sb

S′

b

Db

Q

P

Qb Q′

b

A

B

Sn

Dn

Q

P

Q′

n Qn

Pn

B A

D′

n

Sd

Dd

Q

P

Q′

d Qd

B A

D′

d

Pd P′

b

P′′ b

Pb

Figure D-1

U.S. markets for GSP beneficiary imports (panel a), domestic production (panel b), and nonbeneficiary

imports (panel c)

Consider the market for imports from GSP beneficiary countries illustrated in fig. D-1, panel (a). 

The line labeled is the U.S. demand for imports D from GSP beneficiary countries, the line labeled b

S is the supply of imports from GSP beneficiary countries with the tariff in place, and the line labeled b

S′ is the supply of imports from GSP beneficiary countries without the tariff (i.e., the product is b

receiving duty-free treatment under GSP). Point A is the equilibrium with the tariff in place, and point 

is the equilibrium without the tariff. and are equilibrium quantities at and , respectively. Qb Q′

b

P and are equilibrium prices at and , and is the price received by GSP-beneficiary b P′b P′′ b

producers when the tariff is in place. The difference between and denotes the tariff, . Pb P′′ b t

In the model, a tariff reduction leads to a decrease in the price of the imported good and an

increase in sales of the good in the United States. The lower price paid for the import in the United States

leads to a reduction in the demand for U.S. production of the good, as well as for imports from non-GSP
 2

 The product grouping consists of similar goods from different sources. For example, goods i, j, and k would

indicate three similar goods from three different sources. See Armington (1969) for further discussion of the

concept.

 3

 Armington (1969), p. 167.

 4

 Ibid., p. 168.

D-5

q bq p

p

i i

i = ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟

−

σ

σ

(1)

countries. These demand shifts, along with supply responses to the lower demand, determine the

reduction in U.S. output and non-GSP imports. 

The changes that take place in panel (a) lead to the changes seen in panels (b) and (c), where the

demand curves shift from and to and , respectively. Equilibrium quantity in the Dd Dn D′

d D′n

market for domestic production moves from to , and in a similar manner for the market for Qd Q′

d

nonbeneficiary imports, equilibrium quantity falls from to . Qn Q′

n

Derivation of Import, U.S. Production, and Consumer Effects

The basic building blocks of the model are shown below. Armington shows that if consumers

have well-behaved constant elasticity of substitution (CES) utility functions, demand for a good in a

product grouping can be expressed as follows:

where denotes quantity demanded for good in the U.S. market;2

 is the price of good in the U.S.

market; is the elasticity of substitution for the product grouping; is the demand for the aggregate

product (that is, all goods in the product grouping); is a price index for the aggregate product (defined

below); and is a constant.3 As Armington states, the above equation “... can be written in a variety of

useful ways.”4 One of these useful ways can be derived as follows. The aggregate price index is p

defined as
D-6

p bp i i

i

= ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ − −

∑ σ σ σ 1

1

1

. (2)

q kpA A = η (3)

Kp bk p

p

si i i A si

A

ε σ

σ η

σ − =

+

0. (4)

In addition the aggregate quantity index can be defined as q

where is a constant and is the aggregate dema k nd elasticity for the product grouping (natural sign). A η A

Substituting equation (3) into equation (1) yields

q bkp p

p

i iA A i = ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟

−

σ η

σ

.

Further manipulation and simplification yields

q bk p

p

i iA

i

A

=

+ σ σ η

σ

( )

,

which establishes the demand for in terms of prices, elasticities, and constants. qi

The supply of each good in the product grouping is represented in constant supply elasticity form:

q Kp i si i si = ε ,

where is a constant and is the price elasticity of supply for good . Ksi ε si

Excess supply functions are set up for each good in the product grouping with the following

general form:

The model is calibrated using initial trade and production data and setting all internal prices to unity in the

benchmark calibration. It can be shown that calibration yields for the good so that K bk si i A = σ i

th
D-7

p

p

p

i

i

si

A

ε

σ η

σ − =

+

0 . (4N)

equation (4) can be rendered as

If there are goods, the model consists of equations like (4 n n N) plus an equation for the price

aggregator , which are solved simultaneously in prices by an iterative technique. p

For the case of adding a product to the list of products eligible for GSP duty-free treatment, the

equations are as follows:

[ ] p t for imports from GSP beneficiary countries, p

p

b

b

sb

A

( ) 1 0 +− =

+ ε σ η

σ

p for imports from nonbeneficiary countries, p

p n

n

sn

A

ε

σ η

σ − =

+

0

p for U.S. domestic production, and p

p d

d

sd

A

ε

σ η

− = σ

+

0

for the price aggregator. p bp i i

i bnd

= ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ −

=

−

∑ σ σ σ 1

1

1

, ,

The prices obtained in the solution to these equations are used to calculate trade and production values,

and resulting percentage changes in total imports and domestic production are computed relative to the

original (benchmark) import and production values. 

Consumer effects

Consumer effects are estimated in terms of the portion of the duty reduction that is passed on to

U.S. consumers on the basis of the import demand and supply elasticity estimates. The formula for

determining the division of the duty savings between U.S. consumers and foreign exporters is

approximated by , where is the percenta SV ge of duty savings retained by exporters ii

ii si

= −

η

( ) η ε
 5

 At any given vector of prices, such as at the benchmark equilibrium, is the own price ηη σ ii i A i = −− S S ( ) 1

elasticity of demand from imports from source , where is the share of total expenditures on the product

grouping spent on good at that vector of prices. See Armington, p. 175. 

D-8

from source , is the own price elasticity of demand,5 ηii and is the price elasticity of supply from ε si

source . An “A” code indicates that more than 75 percent of the duty savings are retained by foreign

exporters , and less than 25 percent passed through to U.S. consumers. A “B” code η

η ε

ii

ii si − >

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠ 0 75 . ⎟

covers the range between 75 percent and 25 percent . A “C” code covers the 0 75 0 25 . . > − >

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ η

η ε

ii

ii si

case where less than 25 percent of the duty savings are retained by foreign exporters and more than 75

percent of the savings are passed through to U.S. consumers . η

η ε

ii

ii si − <

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠ 0 25 . ⎟

The default assumption for the probable effect on consumers is a “B” code. This assumption

reflects the possibility that short-run supply elasticities may be less than perfectly elastic and the world

supply price may rise in the short run in the face of increased demand when U.S. duties are reduced. In

the long run, unless there are extraordinary market structure circumstances, supply elasticities are likely to

be perfectly elastic for any one product considered in isolation, implying that a “C” code for the consumer

effects is probably more appropriate in the long run in most cases. “A” and “C” codes for consumer

effects are assigned when analysts have information indicating that they are appropriate.