Certain Activated Carbon 

From China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1103 (Final)

Publication 3913 April 2007

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Daniel R. Pearson, Chairman

Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman

Deanna Tanner Okun

Charlotte R. Lane

Irving A. Williamson

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Staff assigned

Jim McClure, Investigator

Philip Stone, Industry Analyst

Steve Trost, Economist

Charles Yost, Accountant

David Fishberg, Attorney

Steve Hudgens, Senior Statistician

George Deyman, Supervisor Investigator

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

www.usitc.gov

Certain Activated Carbon 

From China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1103 (Final)

Publication 3913 April 2007
 
Contains Business Proprietary Information

i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

Previous investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

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

The subject product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Manufacturing facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

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

U.S. market segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-2

U.S. supply ............................................................... II-2

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-6

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6

Comparisons of domestic products, subject imports, and nonsubject imports ............ II-12

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-14

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-14

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-14

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-14

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

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

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, capacity utilization, shipment, inventory, 

and employment data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

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

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

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

Negligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

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

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3
Contains Business Proprietary Information

ii

CONTENTS–Continued

Page

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

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

Raw materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Transportation costs to the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

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

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-8

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

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

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

Operations on CAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Actual negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Anticipated negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

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

The industry in China .......................................................... VII-1

Nonsubject producers/exporters .................................................. VII-3

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-4

Imports subsequent to December 31, 2006 .......................................... VII-4

Antidumping duty orders in third-country markets ................................... VII-5

Appendixes

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

B. Calendar of the public hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

D. Producer, importer, and purchaser comments regarding differences and similarities 

 between reactivated carbon and certain activated carbon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Trade and financial information on reactivated carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

Note. – Information that would reveal confidential information of individual concerns may not be

published and, therefore, has been identified by the use of asterisks.
 1

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

 2

 For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is certain activated carbon defined as a powdered,

granular, or pelletized carbon product obtained by “activating” with heat and steam various materials containing

carbon, including but not limited to coal (including bituminous, lignite, and anthracite), wood, coconut shells, olive

stones, and peat. The thermal and steam treatments remove organic materials and create an internal pore structure in

the carbon material. The producer can also use carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in place of steam in this process. The vast

majority of the internal porosity developed during the high temperature steam (or CO2 gas) activated process is a

direct result of oxidation of a portion of the solid carbon atoms in the raw material, converting them into a gaseous

form of carbon. 

This definition covers all forms of activated carbon that are activated by steam or CO2, regardless of the raw

material, grade, mixture, additives, further washing or post-activation chemical treatment (chemical or water

washing, chemical impregnation or other treatment), or product form. Unless specifically excluded, this definition

covers all physical forms of certain activated carbon, including powdered activated carbon (“PAC”), granular

activated carbon (“GAC”), and pelletized activated carbon.

Excluded from this definition are chemically-activated carbons. The carbon-based raw material used in the

chemical activation process is treated with a strong chemical agent, including but not limited to phosphoric acid, zinc

chloride sulfuric acid or potassium hydroxide, that dehydrates molecules in the raw material, and results in the

formation of water that is removed from the raw material by moderate heat treatment. The activated carbon created

by chemical activation has internal porosity developed primarily due to the action of the chemical dehydration agent. 

Chemically activated carbons are typically used to activate raw materials with a lignocellulosic component such as

cellulose, including wood, sawdust, paper mill waste and peat.

To the extent that an imported activated carbon product is a blend of steam and chemically activated

carbons, products containing 50 percent or more steam (or CO2 gas) activated carbons are within this definition, and

those containing more than 50 percent chemically activated carbons are outside this definition. This exclusion

language regarding blended material applies only to mixtures of steam and chemically activated carbons.

Also excluded from this definition are reactivated carbons. Reactivated carbons are previously used

activated carbons that have had adsorbed materials removed from their pore structure after use through the

application of heat, steam and/or chemicals.

Also excluded from this definition is activated carbon cloth. Activated carbon cloth is a woven textile

fabric made of or containing activated carbon fibers. It is used in masks and filters and clothing of various types

where a woven format is required.

Any activated carbon meeting the physical description of subject merchandise provided above that is not

expressly excluded from this definition is included within the definition. 

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1103 (Final)

CERTAIN ACTIVATED CARBON FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigation, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. § 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of

imports from China of certain activated carbon,2

 provided for in subheading 3802.10.00 of the

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

(Commerce) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).
2

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this investigation effective March 8, 2006, following receipt of a

petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Calgon Carbon Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, and

Norit Americas, Inc., Marshall, TX. The final phase of the investigation was scheduled by the

Commission following notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of certain

activated carbon from China were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act

(19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigation

and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the

Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the

notice in the Federal Register of November 16, 2006 (71 FR 66793). The hearing was held in

Washington, DC, on February 27, 2007, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to

appear in person or by counsel.
 1

 Confidential Report (“CR”) at I-6 and I-11-I-12, Public Report (“PR”) at I-5 and I-8-I-9. Activated carbon also

may be produced via chemical activation; such activated carbon is excluded from the scope of this investigation. 

Chemical activation generally is used to produce a high pore volume in cellulose-based raw material such as wood or

peat. Chemically activated carbon primarily is used in vapor phase applications such as automobile emissions

canisters, and in certain solvent recovery applications. CR at I-8-I-9, PR at I-6-I-7.

 2

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

 3

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

 4

 CR at I-8-I-10, PR at I-6-I-8. Coconut-based certain activated carbon is used primarily in the gold mining and

cigarette filter industries, as well as being a price premium product for home water filters. Petitioners’ Posthearing

Brief at Exh. 1, p. 32 and Exh. 10.

 5

 CR at I-10, PR at I-7.

 6

 CR at I-6, PR at I-5.

 7

 On January 26, 2006, Petitioners in the instant investigation filed a petition alleging that an industry in the

United States was materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV imports of “activated

carbon” from China, which included both steam activated and chemically activated carbon in the proposed scope of

investigation. As a result of that filing, the Commission instituted investigation No. 731-TA-1102 (Preliminary):

Activated Carbon from China. See Notice of Initiation, Activated Carbon from China, 71 Fed. Reg. 5688 (Feb. 2,

2006). Subsequently, on February 15, 2006, Petitioners withdrew their petition at Commerce. Commerce had not

initiated an investigation by that date, and the Commission discontinued its investigation effective that date. See

Notice of Withdrawal of Petition, Activated Carbon from China, 71 Fed. Reg. 9155 (Feb. 22, 2006).

 8

 Only Cherishmet Inc., a U.S. importer of subject merchandise from China, filed a brief in the final phase of this

investigation. In that brief, Cherishmet discussed only domestic like product issues.

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in this investigation, we determine that an industry in the United States is

materially injured by reason of imports of certain activated carbon imported from China that have been

found by the Department of Commerce to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”).

I. BACKGROUND

Certain activated carbon is black carbon material obtained by “activating” various materials

containing high levels of carbon, including coal, wood, and coconut shells, by heating in the presence of

steam or carbon dioxide.1

 The thermal treatments remove organic materials and create an internal pore

structure in the carbon material. The pores adsorb (trap) contaminants in liquids or gasses. Adsorption of

contaminants removes organic compounds from the surrounding air, gas, or liquid streams, thus helping

to purify the stream.2

 Coal-based certain activated carbon is used widely by municipal water treatment

authorities to remove undesirable tastes and odors from drinking water and to eliminate contaminants

from industrial waste water.3

 Other uses of coal-based certain activated carbon include removing color

and impurities from food and chemicals, as well as removing mercury and dioxins from flue gas

emissions.4

 Certain activated carbon is non-toxic and has no adverse environmental effects, although

once activated carbon has been used, it may take on the toxicity of adsorbed materials.5

 Certain activated

carbon is sold in three basic forms: powdered, granular, and pelletized.6

The antidumping duty petition in this investigation was filed on March 8, 2006.7 Petitioners are

Calgon Carbon Corporation (“Calgon”) and Norit Americas Inc. (“Norit”). No respondents appeared at

the hearing in the final phase of this investigation.8
 9

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A) (2000).

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 11 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

 12 See, e.g., NEC Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon

Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3

(Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on

the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number

of factors including: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4)

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

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

States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission may

consider other factors relevant to a particular investigation. The Commission looks for clear dividing lines among

possible like products, and disregards minor variations. See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91

(1979); Torrington Co., 747 F. Supp. at 748-49.

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

 14 Nippon Steel, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49. See also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

classes or kinds).

4

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

A. In General

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

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

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”9

 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a [w]hole of a domestic like

product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”10 In turn, the Act defines “domestic like

product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses

with, the article subject to an investigation . . . .”11

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

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

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.12 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.13 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.14

Although the Commission must accept the determination of Commerce as to the scope of the imported

merchandise allegedly sold at LTFV, the Commission determines what domestic product is like the

imported articles Commerce has identified.15
5

B. Product Description

Commerce’s final determinations define the imported merchandise within the scope of this

investigation as:

The merchandise subject to this investigation is certain activated

carbon. Certain activated carbon is a powdered, granular or pelletized carbon

product obtained by “activating” with heat and steam various materials

containing carbon, including but not limited to coal (including bituminous,

lignite and anthracite), wood, coconut shells, olive stones, and peat. The

thermal and steam treatments remove organic materials and create an internal

pore structure in the carbon material. The producer can also use carbon dioxide

gas (CO2) in place of steam in this process. The vast majority of the internal

porosity developed during the high temperature steam (or CO2 gas) activation

process is a direct result of oxidation of a portion of the solid carbon atoms in

the raw material, converting them into a gaseous form of carbon.

The scope of this investigation covers all forms of activated carbon that

are activated by steam or CO2, regardless of raw material, grade, mixture,

additives, further washing or post-activation chemical treatment (chemical or

water washing, chemical impregnation or other treatment), or product form. 

Unless specifically excluded, the scope of this investigation covers all physical

forms of certain activated carbon, including powdered activated carbon

(“PAC”), granular activated carbon (“GAC”), and pelletized activated carbon.

Excluded from the scope of the investigation are chemically-activated

carbons. The carbon based raw material used in the chemical activation process

is treated with a strong chemical agent, including but not limited to phosphoric

acid, zinc chloride sulfuric acid or potassium hydroxide, that dehydrates

molecules in the raw material by moderate heat treatment. The activated

carbon created by chemical activation has internal porosity developed primarily

due to the action of the chemical dehydration agent. Chemically activated

carbons are typically used to activate raw materials with a lignocellulosic

component such as cellulose, including wood, sawdust, paper mill waste and

peat.

To the extent that an imported activated carbon product is a blend of

steam and chemically activated carbons, products containing 50 percent or

more steam (or CO2) gas activated carbons are within this scope, and those

containing more than 50 percent chemically activated carbons are outside the

scope. This exclusion language regarding blended material applies only to

mixtures of steam and chemically activated carbons.

Also excluded from this scope are reactivated carbons. Reactivated

carbons are previously used activated carbons that have had adsorbed materials

removed from their pore structure after use through the application of heat,

steam and/or chemicals.
 16 72 Fed. Reg. 9508, 9509 (Mar. 2, 2007) (emphasis in original).

 17 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 4.

 18 ***, an importer of subject merchandise from China, did not enter an appearance in this case ***. ***. ***. 

Id. The Commission is unable ***. The Commission has repeatedly stated that when an item is within Commerce’s

scope, the domestic like product must include the domestically produced counterpart, or the most similar counterpart

to that imported item. See Artists’ Canvas from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1091 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3777

(May 2005) at 5-6 (“Because kits are included within the scope, even if there were no domestic production the

Commission would still have to find the next ‘most similar’ article to such kits that is domestically produced . . . .”);

Certain Lined Paper School Supplies , Inv. Nos. 701-TA-442-443 (Preliminary) and 731-TA-1095-1097

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3811 (October 2005) at 15 n.50; Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products from Australia,

India, Japan, Sweden, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-965, -971-72, -979, and -981 (Final), USITC Pub. 3536

(September 2002) at 10, n.31 and USITC Pub. 3437 (November 2001) (Preliminary) at 5 & n.20 (“...it is the role of

Commerce, not the Commission, to determine the scope of the subject merchandise.”) and

 The Commission has consistently stated that it does not have the authority to

“exclude” from its determination products that are included within the scope. 

See, e.g., Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile, Inv. Nos. 701-

TA-416 and 731-TA-948 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3441 at n.14 (July 2001),

citing Sony Corp. of America v. United States, 712 F. Supp. 978, 983-84 (Ct.

Int’l Trade 1989); Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No.

731-TA-683 (Final), USITC Pub. 2825, at I-7 n.17 (Nov. 1994), citing Sandvik

AB v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1322, 1333 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989), aff’d, 904

F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

See also, e.g., Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from China, Germany, and Turkey, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-

(continued...)

6

Also excluded from the scope is activated carbon cloth. Activated

carbon cloth is a woven textile fabric made of or containing activated carbon

fibers. It is used in masks and filters and clothing of various types where a

woven format is required.

Any activated carbon meeting the physical description of subject

merchandise provided above that is not expressly excluded from the scope is

included within this scope. The products under investigation are currently

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (“HTSUS”)

subheading 3802.10.00. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.16

C. Domestic Like Product

 In general there are three types of activated carbon: (1) carbon that has been activated using

thermal processing (“certain activated carbon”); (2) carbon that has been reactivated (“reactivated

carbon”), typically using thermal processing; and (3) carbon that has been activated chemically. Only the

first of these, certain activated carbon, is covered by the scope of this investigation.

 In the preliminary phase of this investigation, the Commission found one domestic like product

consisting of certain activated carbon, coextensive with Commerce’s scope of investigation. Petitioners

argue that the Commission should once again find one domestic like product consisting of certain

activated carbon.17 Cherishmet argues that the Commission should define the domestic like product to

include certain activated carbon, reactivated carbon, and chemically activated carbon.18
 18 (...continued)

1099-1101 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3832 (January 2006) at 10-11; Certain Lined Paper School Supplies , Inv.

Nos. 701-TA-442-443 (Preliminary) and 731-TA-1095-1097 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3811 (October 2005) at 8,

n.23.

 19 See, e.g., CIAC’s Postconference Brief at 9.

 20 CR at I-15, PR at I-12.

 21 CR at II-8, PR at II-5.

 22 CR at II-9, PR at II-5. Third-party reactivated carbon is never used in drinking water applications.

7

1. Whether the Domestic Like Product Should Be Defined More Broadly Than

the Scope to Include Reactivated Carbon

For purposes of the preliminary determination, no party argued that the domestic like product

should be defined more broadly than the scope to include reactivated carbon.19 Nevertheless, because

both Petitioners and Respondents presented arguments during the preliminary phase of this investigation

regarding whether reactivated carbon is within the domestic like product, the Commission applied its

traditional six factor domestic like product analysis and found a clear dividing line between certain

activated carbon and reactivated carbon. The Commission collected additional data on reactivated carbon

for the final phase of this investigation. No new information has emerged in the final phase of this

investigation that calls into question our earlier decision not to broaden the like product to include

reactivated carbon. Based on our traditional six factor like product analysis, we define the domestic like

product to be certain activated carbon, coextensive with Commerce’s scope of investigation. 

Physical Characteristics and Uses

Reactivated carbon is made by thermally or chemically removing chemical species adsorbed onto

used activated carbon.20 It appears that reactivated carbon and activated carbon cannot be physically

distinguished within the same type or form of carbon (i.e., pelletized, powdered, granulated, etc.), and that

both have the same general end use: to trap contaminants in liquids or gases through adsorption.

Interchangeability

Interchangeability between certain activated carbon and reactivated carbon is limited. Due to

contamination and liability concerns, most reactivated carbon can be used only in its original application.

Moreover, while some reactivated carbon is pooled for use in the same types of applications to which 

virgin product is directed, most purchasers are unwilling to buy reactivated carbon made from activated

carbon that had been previously used by another end user. When asked to compare CAC and reactivated

carbons, a majority of responding purchasers confirmed that either they were not interchangeable at all, or

were not interchangeable for that purchaser’s desired end uses.21 Additionally, third-party reactivated

carbons can never be used in certain beverage applications and food grade applications.22 Although

activated carbons can be used in any applications that use reactivated carbons, reactivated carbons are

frequently limited to their original application, and are used only as a cost-saving measure.
 23 CR at I-14, PR at I-10.

 24 CR at I-14-15, PR at I-10-I-11.

 25 CR at D-17-D-20, PR at D-3 (summarizing questionnaire response data).

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

 27 Transcript of the Commission’s February 27, 2007 hearing (“Hearing Tr.”) at 43 (Luberda).

 28 CR at I-15-16, PR at I-11-I-12.

 29 CR at II-5, PR at II-3. *** reported that reactivated carbon accounts for *** percent of production by the

personnel that produces certain activated carbon.

8

Channels of Distribution

Even though almost all domestic producers of certain activated carbon market and sell reactivated

carbon, the channels of distribution for the two products differ. Over *** percent of domestically

produced certain activated carbon and reactivated carbon is sold to end users.23 However, certain

activated carbon is sold on the commercial market to a variety of end users; in contrast, a significant

amount of reactivation is performed for, and the end product returned to, the original user of the product,

or produced (reactivated) and consumed internally by end users who have their own on-site reactivation

facilities.24

Customer and Producer Perceptions

While some customers perceive reactivated carbon to be identical to low-grade virgin activated

carbons, as previously discussed, some end users accept only virgin activated carbon, and numerous other

end users use only their own reactivated carbons due to contamination concerns. Many customers do not

perceive reactivated carbons to be the equivalent of virgin activated carbons, hence their reluctance or

inability to accept reactivated carbons.25 Moreover, although both Petitioners activate and reactivate

carbons, they produce the two in separate facilities and market activated and reactivated carbons as

distinct products.26 In practice, customers specify whether they want activated carbon or reactivated

carbon, and no producer would provide reactivated carbon as a substitute for virgin activated carbon

without the permission of the customer.27

Common Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes and Production Employees

No significant producer of activated carbon reactivates in the same facility or on the same

equipment due to concerns that spent carbon could contaminate the virgin activated carbon.28 Generally,

CAC and reactivated carbon do not use the same employees, although *** reported that some of its

production personnel will occasionally work on reactivating carbon.29

The evidence is mixed with regard to differences in the production processes. Petitioners state

that reactivated carbon does not require the production of char from the raw materials, and that the

organic compounds removed during activation are different than the adsorbed compounds removed

during reactivation. Cherishmet argues that the processes are almost identical, although it acknowledges

minor differences between the two processes regarding what is being carbonized, and that reactivated

carbon needs to be blended with virgin activated carbon to make up for carbon lost in the reactivated

carbon production process.
 30 CR at II-9, PR at II-6.

 31 CR at II-9, PR at II-6.

 32 Petitioners state that the Commission has never included refurbished or used products within the same like

product as new products. Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 1 p. 25 (response to Commissioner Williamson’s

question) citing Certain Telephone Systems and Subassemblies Thereof from Japan and Taiwan, Inv. Nos 731-TA426 and 428 (Final), USITC Pub. 2237 (Nov. 1989) (finding that refurbished telephone equipment was not a part of

the like product encompassing telephone systems and subassemblies based primarily on the lack of production

related activity by the refurbishers. Additionally, Petitioners cite Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin from

India, Indonesia, and Thailand, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-439 and 731-TA-1077, 1078, 1080 (Final), USITC Pub. 3769 at 6-

7 (May 2005), in which the Commission determined that the domestic like product for bottle-grade PET resin did not

include post-consumer recycled or post-industrial recycled bottle-grade PET resin, both of which were not included

in the scope. Petitioners acknowledge Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA825-826 (Final), USITC Pub. 3300 at 4-5 (May 2000) in which the Commission included both virgin and

regenerated material within the same domestic like product without opposition, but distinguish the case based on the

fact that both virgin and regenerated polyester staple fiber were included in the scope of the investigation, and there

were no significant concerns of contamination with this material. We note that the Commission has not adopted a

separate approach to recycled or refurbished products, and we therefore analyze these products on a case-by-case

basis.

 33 The new information on the record, primarily purchaser responses, generally supports our determination not to

include reactivated carbons within the domestic like product definition. While a number of purchasers indicated that

virgin certain activated carbon and reactivated carbon are interchangeable, these responses were in part related to the

re-use of the activated carbon by the same entity. CR/PR at App. D. As noted, most purchasers are unwilling to

purchase reactivated carbon that was first used by a different entity.

9

Price

There are also significant differences in price between the two products.30 Reactivated carbon

sells at much lower prices than does certain activated carbon, approximately 10 to 20 percent cheaper

than virgin CAC, according to several purchasers.31

Conclusion

 Despite similarities in physical characteristics and uses, we continue to find, on balance, a clear

dividing line between certain activated carbon and reactivated carbon based on limited interchangeability,

and differences in channels of distribution, manufacturing facilities and equipment, customer and

producer perceptions, and price.32 The record in the final phase of this investigation has not changed so

as to warrant a departure from the definition we adopted in the preliminary phase, that is, a single

domestic like product corresponding to Commerce’s scope of investigation. 33

2. Whether the Domestic Like Product Should Be Defined More Broadly Than 

the Scope to Include Chemically Activated Carbon

In the preliminary phase of this investigation, the Commission declined to define the domestic

like product more broadly than the scope to include chemically activated carbon. In its preliminary

determination, the Commission applied its traditional six-factor like product analysis and determined that

certain activated carbon and chemically activated carbon, within the same type or form, possess similar

physical characteristics and share the same basic end use: to trap contaminants in liquids or gases through

adsorption. However, differences in chemical and steam activation, and the raw material activated, create
 34 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 35 United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 681-84 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96 F.3d

1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

 36 As discussed infra, Acticarb ceased production in 2005, while Cal Pacific Carbon ***.

 37 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

10

differences in pore structure and pore size. Chemically activated carbon is more effective in vapor phase

applications in the automobile industry, its primary market. 

Interchangeability is limited. Certain activated carbon does not currently compete with

chemically activated carbons in the domestic automobile market, despite the much higher prices paid for

chemically activated carbon in that market. Although chemically activated carbon is theoretically

interchangeable with certain activated carbon for certain applications, as a practical matter, the higher

price of chemically activated carbon severely limits competition. While both types of carbon are sold

primarily to end users, certain activated and chemically activated carbon cannot be said to share the same

channels of distribution because the products are generally sold to different end users in different

industries. Although the record was mixed with respect to customer and producer perceptions, it

indicated that the products do not share the same manufacturing facilities, equipment, employees, and

production processes. Prices for certain activated carbon and chemically activated carbon differ

substantially. On these bases, in our preliminary determination, we defined the domestic like product as

certain activated carbon, coextensive with the scope of the investigation. 

There is no new information on the record in the final phase of this investigation to warrant a

departure from the definition we adopted in the preliminary phase of this investigation. Accordingly, for

the reasons stated in our preliminary determination, we continue to find in the final phase of this

investigation a single like product corresponding to Commerce’s scope of investigation. 

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The domestic industry is defined as the “producers as a [w]hole of a domestic like product, or

those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the

total domestic production of the product.”34 In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general

practice has been to include in the industry all domestic production of the domestic like product, whether

toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market.35 Based on our finding that

the domestic like product is certain activated carbon, we find that the domestic industry consists of all

known domestic producers of certain activated carbon. The five firms that comprise the domestic

industry are Calgon; Norit; California Carbon; Acticarb Tailored Products, LLC; and Cal Pacific

Carbon.36 Calgon and Norit reportedly account for *** domestic production of certain activated carbon.

A. Related Parties

We must determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from

the domestic industry pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). Subsection 1677(4)(B) allows the

Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are

related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers.37 Exclusion

of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each

investigation.
 38 CR/PR at Table IV-1. ***. CR/PR at Table IV-1.

 39 CR/PR at Table III-I.

 40 CR/PR at III-2.

 41 CR/PR at Table IV-I.

 42 Hearing Tr. at 22 (O’Brien).

 43 CR at III-3, PR at III-2.

 44 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 45 Consistent with her practice in past investigations and reviews, Vice Chairman Aranoff does not rely on

individual-company income margins in assessing whether a related party has benefitted from importation of subject

merchandise. Rather, she determines whether to exclude a related party based principally on its ratio of subject

imports to domestic shipments and whether its primary interests lie in domestic production or importation.

 46 CR/PR at III-3.

11

 In the preliminary phase of this investigation, the Commission addressed whether appropriate

circumstances existed to exclude domestic producers Calgon, Norit, and California Carbon. Although the

Commission found that the three were related parties ***, the Commission determined not to exclude any

domestic producer from the domestic industry.

In the final phase of this investigation, Petitioners continue to argue that appropriate

circumstances do not exist to exclude any domestic producer from the domestic industry. Petitioners,

which in the aggregate, account for over *** percent of domestic production of activated carbon, maintain

that their primary interests lie in domestic production rather than importation of subject merchandise, and

that their imports are insubstantial in comparison to their U.S. production. Respondents presented no

arguments regarding related parties in the final phase of this investigation.

Calgon, Norit, *** reported that they imported certain activated carbon over the period of

investigation.38 Moreover, Calgon *** affiliated with Chinese producers of certain activated carbon. 

These *** domestic producers accounted for 100 percent of the reported domestic production of certain

activated carbon in 2006.39

Calgon is a related party due to its imported subject merchandise. Calgon accounted for ***

percent of reported domestic production of certain activated carbon in 2006.40 It is a Petitioner and the

*** domestic producer of certain activated carbon. Calgon is also affiliated with ***.41 Calgon stated

that it began importing subject merchandise from China after customers urged it to do so in the face of

low prices from China.42 Its ratio of subject imports to domestic production was *** percent in 2006.43

Calgon’s operating *** as a ratio of net sales ***.44 

Based on the data, Calgon’s interests appear to lie more in domestic production than in

importation. Calgon’s financial performance was *** during most of the POI; however, it had a more

pronounced *** in its financial performance during the period of investigation. Therefore, we do not find

that Calgon’s domestic production operations derived such significant financial benefit from subject

imports as to warrant excluding it from the domestic industry.45 Moreover, no party has argued that

Calgon should be excluded from the domestic industry. On these grounds, we do not find that

appropriate circumstances exist to exclude Calgon from the domestic industry.

Norit is a related party due to its imported subject merchandise. Norit accounted for *** percent

of reported domestic production of certain activated carbon in 2006.46 It is a Petitioner and the ***

domestic producer of certain activated carbon. The ratio of its subject imports to its production never
 47 CR at III-4, PR at III-3.

 48 CR/PR at Table VI-2.

 49 Norit states that it did not benefit from its imports of subject merchandise, which were ***; rather, Norit

claims to have benefitted from the filing of the antidumping case in 2006. Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 21-22.

 50 CR at III-4, PR at III-3. California Carbon produced *** pounds of CAC in 2006.

 51 CR at III-4 n. 22, PR at III-3, n. 22. *** percent of California Carbon’s operations were used for ***. CR at

III-4, PR at III-3.

 52 We note that no party has argued that California Carbon should be excluded from the domestic industry.

 53 Negligibility, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24), is not an issue in this investigation. The petition was filed on

March 8, 2006. Based on official Commerce statistics, subject imports from China accounted for approximately

58.7 percent of total imports of certain activated carbon between March 2005 and February 2006, the most recent 12-

month period for which data were available that preceded the filing of the petition. CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 54 In the final phase of this investigation, Respondents presented no arguments addressing whether the domestic

industry is being materially injured “by reason of” the imports under investigation.

 55 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b).

 56 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

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

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

12

rose above *** percent during the period of investigation, and was *** percent in 2006.47 Norit’s

operating ***.48 

Based on the data, Norit’s interests appear to lie in domestic production. Its domestic production

operations do not appear to have benefitted financially from the subject imports, as it imported *** while

experiencing ***.49 Moreover, no party has argued that Norit should be excluded from the domestic

industry. We do not find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude Norit from the domestic

industry.

California Carbon accounted for only *** percent of domestic production of certain activated

carbon in 2006.50 California Carbon ***. Additionally, it is ***. ***.51

We determine to exclude California Carbon from the domestic industry due to its ***. We

conclude that California Carbon’s principal interest lies in ***. However, because ***, our decision to

exclude California Carbon from the domestic industry does not materially affect the data set that we

analyzed in reaching our determination.52

In sum, we do not find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude Calgon or Norit from the

domestic industry. We exclude California Carbon from the domestic industry. Accordingly, we conclude

that the domestic industry consists of all known producers of certain activated carbon, except California

Carbon.

53

IV. MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF LESS THAN FAIR VALUE IMPORTS FROM

CHINA54

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

industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of the imports under investigation.55 In

making this determination, the Commission must consider the volume of imports, their effect on prices

for the domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but

only in the context of U.S. production operations.56 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which
 57 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 58 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 59 Id.

 60 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 61 CR/PR at Table C-1. Because official Commerce import statistics include chemically activated carbon, which

is outside the scope of this investigation, staff netted out the chemically activated carbon using proportions gathered

from questionnaire data to derive total apparent consumption of certain activated carbon.

 62 CR at II-7-II-8, PR at II-4-II-5.

 63 While Commissioner Okun concurs that demand for certain activated carbon increased over the period of

investigation, she notes that this demand may have been driven in part by the availability of low priced virgin certain

activated carbon. This may have resulted in end users deciding to purchase increased quantities of virgin product

instead of reactivating used product. CR at E-16, PR at E-7. The price increases achieved in 2006 also may explain

the *** decline in apparent U.S. consumption for certain activated carbon as reactivation of used carbon is a viable

alternative for many customers. CR at II-7, PR at II-4. See also Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 7 (page 1)

(noting that virgin carbon price increases make reactivated carbon an economical alternative).

 64 See Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 28. In general, Petitioners state that new mercury emissions standards

could have a significant effect on the demand for certain activated carbon, but posit that it is unlikely that this effect

will be felt in the foreseeable future as the first stage of the implementation of the new standard will not occur until

2010 with the final implementation not occurring until 2018. CR at II-8, PR at II-3; Hearing Tr. at 143 (Thompson).

13

is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”57 In assessing whether the domestic industry is

materially injured by reason of subject imports, we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the

state of the industry in the United States.58 No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are

considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to

the affected industry.”59

A. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

The following conditions of competition are pertinent to our analysis of the impact of certain

activated carbon imports from China on the domestic industry.

1. Demand Conditions

Apparent U.S. consumption of certain activated carbon increased by *** percent by quantity over

the period of investigation.60 Apparent U.S. consumption of certain activated carbon increased from ***

in 2003, to *** in 2004, and to *** in 2005, before declining *** in 2006.61 Market participants that

responded to the Commission’s questionnaires generally agreed that demand for certain activated carbon

rose over the period of investigation.62 63 Petitioners state that demand for certain activated carbon is

expected to grow moderately over the next several years due to new regulations governing clean air and

water, the increased popularity of bottled waters and other beverages, and new mercury emissions

standards for coal utilities.64 

2. Supply Conditions

The Commission received questionnaire responses from three domestic producers of certain

activated carbon, two of which are Petitioners, Calgon and Norit. Petitioners account for approximately
 65 CR at III-1, PR at III-1. The petition identified five firms that produced activated carbon during 2003-2006. 

In addition to Petitioners, California Carbon, ***, produced *** pounds of certain activated carbon in 2006,

accounting for *** percent of domestic production. CR at III-4, PR at III-3. The petition also lists Acticarb Tailored

Products, LLC, which stopped producing certain activated carbon in October 2005 and is not currently in operation,

and Cal Pacific Carbon, ***.

 66 CR/PR at Tables III-2-III-3.

 67 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 68 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 69 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 70 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 71 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 72 CR at IV-4, n. 6, PR at IV-2, n.6.

 73 CR at I-6, IV-1, PR at I-5, IV-1.

 74 CR at IV-1, n.4, PR at IV-1, n.4. *** percent of nonsubject imports were coal- and peat-based and were

produced by domestic producer *** operations in Europe. CR/PR at Table IV-1, Hearing Tr. at 118 (Wruble).

 75 Calgon’s U.S. shipments of certain activated carbon in 2006 were distributed as follows: ***. CR at III-2,

n.9, PR at III-2, n.9. Norit’s U.S. shipments of certain activated carbon in 2006 were distributed as follows: ***. 

CR at III-3, n.18, PR at III-3, n.18.

 76 Shipments of subject certain activated carbon from China in 2006 were distributed as follows: 58.6 percent

granular, 23.5 percent powdered, and 17.9 percent pelletized. CR at IV-1, PR at IV-1. Shipments of nonsubject

certain activated carbon in 2006 were distributed as follows: 89.5 percent granular, 9.6 percent powdered, and 0.9

percent pelletized. CR at IV-2, PR at IV-1.

14

*** percent of reported U.S. production of certain activated carbon.65 Calgon is the *** producer of

certain activated carbon, and Norit is the ***, accounting for *** and *** percent of reported domestic

production in 2006, respectively.66

Approximately *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of certain activated carbon went to

end users in each year of the period of investigation, with the rest going to distributors.67 A higher share

of importers’ U.S. shipments of subject certain activated carbon went to distributors, with shipments to

end users accounting for between 66 percent and 74 percent of U.S. imports from China during the period

of investigation.68

Throughout the period of investigation, the principal suppliers of activated carbon to the U.S.

market were the domestic producers.69 The next largest suppliers were importers of subject

merchandise.70 The remaining portion of the market was supplied by imports of certain activated carbon

from nonsubject countries.71 Based on official Commerce data, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Indonesia, and

Thailand were the largest sources for non-subject imports of activated carbon over the period examined,

accounting for nearly *** percent of U.S. certain activated carbon imports in 2006.72

During the period of investigation, all of the certain activated carbon produced domestically, and

virtually all of the certain activated carbon imported from China, were coal-based.73 Almost all of the

certain activated carbon imports from nonsubject countries, *** percent in 2006, were coconut-based.74 

Domestic producer *** produces mainly *** certain activated carbon, *** domestic producer ***

produces mainly *** certain activated carbon.75 Shipments of subject imports and nonsubject imports are

mainly *** certain activated carbon.76

As a share of total U.S. consumption, domestically produced certain activated carbon fell from

*** percent in 2003, to *** percent in 2004, and to *** percent in 2005, before increasing to *** percent
 77 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 78 CR/PR at Table C-1. In 2006, domestic producer Calgon was *** importer of subject merchandise,

accounting for *** percent of subject imports. CR/PR at Table IV-1.

 79 CR/PR at Table C-1. In 2006, domestic producer Calgon was *** importer of nonsubject merchandise,

accounting for *** percent of nonsubject imports. CR/PR at Table IV-1. *** of Calgon’s imports from nonsubject

sources were coconut-based. CR at IV-1, PR at IV-1.

 80 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 81 CR/PR at Table III-2. 

 82 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 30; Hearing Tr. at 30 (Hudgens), 71 (Thompson), 141 and 173 (O’Brien). 

Calgon states that a ***. CR at II-4, PR at II-4.

 83 CR at V-1, PR at V-1.

 84 CR at V-1, PR at V-1.

 85 CR at V-1, PR at V-1.

 86 CR at II-17-18, PR at II-10. 

 87 CR/PR at Table II-6. Eighteen of 26 responding purchasers, and 13 of 26 responding importers reported that

they are “always” or “frequently” interchangeable. ***. *** U.S. Importers’ Questionnaire Response at 5.

15

in 2006.77 Subject imports from China, as a share of total U.S. consumption, rose from *** percent in

2003 to *** percent in 2004, before declining *** to *** percent in 2005, and falling to *** percent in

2006.78 As a share of total U.S. consumption, total nonsubject imports increased from *** percent in

2003, to *** percent in 2004, and to *** percent in 2005, before declining to *** percent in 2006.79

Approximately *** of domestic producers’ production capacity was dedicated to export during the

period.80 

U.S. producers’ reported capacity utilization for certain activated carbon rose from *** percent in

2003 to *** percent in 2006.81 Given the capital intensive nature of certain activated carbon production

and the highly integrated nature of the production process, Petitioners assert that activated carbon plants

are designed for, and depend on, running at full capacity, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, except for

scheduled maintenance shutdowns.82

Another supply condition relevant to the domestic industry is the increasing cost of raw materials

and energy. Coal is the principal input in the production of domestic producers’ certain activated carbon,

accounting for *** percent of Norit’s total costs and *** percent of Calgon’s total costs.83 The price of

coal rose significantly over the period.84 Electricity and natural gas, also used in the production process

of certain activated carbon, accounted for an increasing share of total cost of goods sold because of rising

energy costs over the period.85

3. Substitutability

 The majority of responding market participants reported that domestically produced certain

activated carbon and subject imports are generally interchangeable.86 *** domestic producers originally

responded that they are “always” interchangeable, while a large majority of responding purchasers, and

half of the responding importers reported that they are “always” or “frequently” interchangeable.87

Petitioners assert that subject imports have been able to penetrate virtually all markets for coal-based
 88 Hearing Tr. at 48 (O’Brien). The only application in which subject imports do not participate is in some

specialty respirator applications for the U.S. military. Id.

 89 Moreover, it does not appear that subject imports have been unable to penetrate certain markets due to

municipalities enacting their own “Buy American” regulations for certain activated carbon. When asked about this

issue, only three of 32 purchasers stated that some of their sales (representing five percent to 20 percent of their total

purchases) were limited to domestically produced certain activated carbon by law, while four purchasers also stated

that a certain percentage of their purchases were limited to domestically produced certain activated carbon due to the

requirements of their customers. CR at II-11, PR at II-7. 

 90 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at Exh. 1, p.1. (Response to Commissioner Okun’s Question), and Exh. 6.

 91 CR/PR at Table II-6. Six out of 11 responding purchasers, and nine out of 17 responding importers reported

that they are “sometimes” or “never” interchangeable. 

 92 CR at II-18, PR at II-10-II-11. In 2006, coconut-based certain activated carbon accounted for *** percent of

all reported nonsubject imports. CR at IV-1, n. 4, PR at IV-1, n. 4.

 93 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 31-33.

 94 CR at I-9, PR at I-7.

 95 CR at I-9, PR at I-7, Hearing Tr. at 53 (Rester) and 54-55 (O’Brien). Petitioners testified that coal-based

carbons are not used in the gold mining and cigarette filter markets, and there is little competition with coal-based

carbons in the upscale home filter market due to the premium nature and price of the coconut-based product. 

Hearing Tr. at 54-55 (O’Brien). These three markets account for approximately *** percent of ***. Petitioners’

Posthearing Brief at Exh. 10.

 96 CR at IV-2, PR at IV-1. Less than *** percent of Calgon’s sales of coconut-based certain activated carbon

was sold to customers that also purchased coal-based certain activated carbon. CR at IV-2, PR at IV-1.

16

steam-activated carbon.88 89 The majority of coal-based activated carbon, either domestically produced or

imported from China, is used in the United States for water treatment (drinking and waste water), while

the remaining coal-based certain activated carbon is used in a variety of applications in food, chemical,

pharmaceutical, gas/air, and other industries.90

Reports were mixed as to the extent to which domestically produced certain activated carbon and

nonsubject imports are interchangeable. *** domestic producers reported that they are “always”

interchangeable, while a majority of responding purchasers and importers reported that they are only

“sometimes” or “never” interchangeable.91 The most commonly stated reason for this lack of

interchangeability was the unavailability in the United States of domestically produced coconut-based

certain activated carbon.92

Notwithstanding *** that nonsubject imports were “always” interchangeable with domestically

produced certain activated carbon, Petitioners subsequently argued that nonsubject coconut-based certain

activated carbon and coal-based certain activated carbon are not direct substitutes for one another, and are

not “completely” interchangeable.93 The record indicates that they have different physical structures.94

Specifically, coconut-based activated carbon usually has greater hardness and smaller pore sizes, making

coconut-based carbons better suited than coal-based carbons for certain applications like gold mining, 

cigarette filters, and specialty-oriented home water filter producers that price their filters as premium

products.95 Additionally, ***.96

B. Volume of Subject Imports

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

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

production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”
 97 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I); SAA at 854. 

 98 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I).

 99 Vice Chairman Aranoff has considered “whether any change in the volume, price effects, or impact of

[subject] imports . . . is related to the pendency of the investigation . . . .” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I). Like her

colleagues, she observes that various indicators of the domestic industry’s trade and financial performance generally

declined from 2003 through 2005, but improved in 2006, concurrent with the filing of the petition. See CR and PR

at Table C-1 (providing data as to the quantity, value, and average unit value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, as

well as the industry’s market share, COGS to net sales ratio, and operating income (or loss) to net sales ratio). The

Vice Chairman concludes that the changes are related to the pendency of the investigation. Not only do the changes

observed in 2006 represent a reversal of the trends exhibited over the previous three years, but there is record

evidence that the investigation was considered an important market factor in industry circles. The petition was the

subject of various articles in the trade press, including some expressly warning that higher prices would result. 

Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 7. The record also includes ***. Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 7. 

Furthermore, the quantity of subject merchandise from China ***. Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at Exhibit 1. Based

on this record evidence, the Vice Chairman joins her colleagues in determining that changes in the volume, price

effects, and impact of subject imports in 2006 are related to the pendency of the investigation. 

The Vice Chairman declines, however, to “reduce the weight accorded to [the post-petition] data,” as she

might have in her discretion under the statute. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I). In her view, the *** improvement of the

domestic industry in 2006, after declines in previous years, confirms other record evidence of the causal link

between the volume and price effects of subject imports and the material injury experienced by the domestic

industry. Moreover, the 2006 data are indicative of the continuing injurious effect of subject imports, even if the

effect is somewhat less than in some prior years. While various industry performance indicators improved in 2006

over 2005, several critical measures remained depressed in 2006 compared to 2003, including the domestic

industry’s market share, its COGS to net sales ratio, and its operating income (or loss) to net sales ratio. CR/PR at

Table C-1. Consistent with those indicators, subject import volumes declined to *** in 2006 compared to 2005 and

2004, subject imports generally continued to undersell the domestic product, prices for the domestic product

generally remained flat, and confirmed instances of lost sales due to competition from subject imports continued

***. CR/PR at Tables IV-5 and V-6 and Figures V-2 to V-4.

17

We find that subject import volume was significant during the period examined both in absolute

terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States, and that the increase in volume

was also significant.97

The Commission collected annual data for the period January 2003 to December 2006. As

indicated above, the petition in this investigation was filed on March 8, 2006. The 2006 data indicate that

the domestic industry’s condition improved *** as domestic prices increased almost immediately after the

petition was filed, while the volume of subject imports declined rapidly after preliminary duties were

announced by Commerce in October 2006. We find that the improvements in the domestic industry in

2006 were related to the pendency of this investigation. While the 2006 data are pertinent and continue to

show injury, we find that the trends from 2003 through 2005, prior to the pendency of this investigation

and the imposition of preliminary duties by Commerce in 2006, more clearly reflect the impact of

unrestrained subject imports on the domestic industry. We therefore give less weight to the 2006 data for

purposes of our material injury analysis.98 99

In absolute terms, the volume of subject imports increased by *** percent from 2003 to 2005,

from *** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in both 2004 and 2005, before declining *** to *** pounds in
 100 CR/PR at Table C-1. Official Commerce import statistics include chemically activated carbon, which is

outside the scope of this investigation. In order to derive imports of certain activated carbon, Commission staff

revised these figures downward using as a guide the proportions of certain activated carbon and chemically activated

carbon reported in importer questionnaires. See, e.g., CR/PR at Table C-1.

 101 CR/PR at Table IV-7.

 102 CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 103 CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 104 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 105 CR/PR at Table IV-10.

 106 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 107 CR/PR at Table C-1. Nonsubject imports’ share of the quantity of total apparent consumption was ***

percent in 2003.

18

2006.100 As a ratio to U.S. production, subject imports increased from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent

in 2005, before declining to *** percent in 2006.101

The share of the quantity of U.S. apparent consumption held by subject imports increased by ***

percentage points from 2003 to 2005, rising from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2004, before

decreasing *** percent in 2005, and falling to *** percent in 2006.102 As the market share held by

subject imports rose from the start of the period of investigation, the share held by the domestic industry

fell. While total apparent U.S. consumption increased by *** percent from 2003 to 2005, the share of the

quantity of apparent U.S. consumption represented by U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments declined from ***

percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2004, and then to *** percent in 2005, an overall decrease of ***

percentage points from 2003 to 2005.103 The share of the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption

represented by U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments rose to *** percent in 2006.104

The volume of nonsubject imports and their U.S. market share also increased over the period

examined.105 The volume of nonsubject imports of certain activated carbon measured by quantity

increased from *** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2004 and further to *** pounds in 2005, before

falling to *** pounds in 2006.106 Nonsubject imports’ share of total apparent consumption increased from

*** percent in 2003, to *** percent in 2004, and rose to *** percent in 2005, an overall increase of ***

percentage points from 2003 to 2005, before declining to *** percent in 2006.107

While nonsubject imports increased absolutely and as a share of the quantity of apparent U.S.

consumption, these increases do not diminish the significance of the increase of subject imports both

absolutely and relative to consumption. In absolute terms, the volume of subject imports was at least 150

percent of the volume of nonsubject imports over the entire period. Moreover, as explained above, there

is limited substitutability of nonsubject coconut-based imports with the coal-based domestic production

and subject imports. Thus, while the increases in subject import volumes and market share came

primarily at the expense of the domestic industry, increases in the nonsubject imports reflect increased

demand for the coconut-based product for its specific end uses. Accordingly, we find that the volume,

and the increase in volume, of subject imports are significant both in absolute terms and relative to

consumption and production in the United States. 

C. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

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

the Commission shall consider whether – 
 108 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 109 CR/PR at Table II-6.

 110 CR at II-10, PR at II-6. Despite the importance of price, the record does indicate that non-price factors can

affect purchasing decisions. Other factors listed by the majority of purchasers as very important in their purchasing

decisions include product availability, delivery terms and times, product consistency, quality, and reliability of

supply. CR/PR at Table II-3.

 111 CR/PR at Table II-2. Eight purchasers reported that price was the third most important factor in purchasing

decisions. Twenty out of 32 purchasers reported that quality/meets specifications was the most important factor.

 112 CR/PR at Table II-3.

 113 CR/PR at Table II-4 (18 of 21 purchasers).

 114 CR at II-15, PR at II-11. Seventeen of 30 responding purchasers reported that they “always” or “usually”

purchase the lowest-priced product.

 115 CR at II-15, PR at II-11.

 116 CR at II-15, PR at II-11.

 117 The Commission collected data on the following types of certain activated carbon: (1) Granular activated

carbon that is steam activated from coal (bituminous or lignite), unwashed, no more than 15 percent greater than 8

mesh and no more than 4 percent under 30 mesh, iodine no. 900 mg/g min, moisture 2% max; (2) Granular activated

carbon that is steam activated from coal (bituminous or lignite), unwashed, no more than 5 percent greater than 12

mesh and no more than 4 percent under 40 mesh, iodine no. 1000 mg/g min, moisture 2% max; and (3) Powder

activated carbon that is steam activated from coal (bituminous or lignite), unwashed, particle size 90% min, 325

mesh, iodine no. 700 mg/g min, moisture 5% max. CR at V-5, PR at V-3.

19

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

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

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

significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.108

The record indicates that subject imports of certain activated carbon from China were generally

substitutable for the domestic like product.109 It is generally agreed that as long as certain activated

carbon meets the specifications required for an end use in question, price is the largest single factor

affecting purchasing decisions.110 Price was identified by numerous purchasers as either the most

important or second most important factor affecting purchasing decisions.111 A large majority of

responding purchasers also listed price as “very important” in their purchasing decisions.112 By and large,

purchasers found product from China and the United States to be fairly comparable, except in price,

where almost all purchasers reported that the domestic product was inferior – higher in price – to imports

from China.113

A majority of responding purchasers reported that they “always” or “usually” purchase the

lowest-priced product.114 Twelve of fourteen responding producers indicated that they had increased

shipments of certain activated carbon from China over the last four years, while six of these purchasers

indicated that purchases of domestically produced certain activated carbon have decreased during this

same time period.115 Price was the most commonly given reason for these trends.116

U.S. producers and importers provided quarterly pricing data for three types of certain activated

carbon.117 Three U.S. producers and 21 importers provided usable pricing data, although not all firms
 118 CR at V-6, PR at V-4. Certain activated carbon is sold on both a spot and a contract basis. CR at V-4, PR at

V-3.

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

 120 CR/PR at Tables V-1, V-2, V-3. 

 121 CR/PR at Tables V-1, V-2, V-3.

 122 CR/PR at Tables V-1, V-2, V-3.

 123 Commissioner Lane disagrees that there is no clear trend in price movement and finds that there is an

indication of meaningful price depression particularly in the pricing data for 2003 through 2005, before the pendency

of this investigation. Although quarterly pricing data shows variability both upward and downward from quarter to

quarter, prices still trended downward and weighted average annual prices displayed a reasonably steady downward

trend. Prices of product 2 ***. Product 1 is the ***. Even though there is both upward and downward price

movement on a quarterly basis, Commissioner Lane believes that the data show a downward trend in prices which is

reflective of price depression.

 124 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 125 We note that the price of subject imports rose significantly during 2006, particularly in the last two quarters. 

The Chinese price for Product 1 was $*** per pound in the last quarter of 2006 compared to $*** per pound in the

last quarter of 2005; the Chinese price for Product 2 was $*** per pound in the last quarter of 2006 compared to

$*** per pound in the last quarter of 2005; and the Chinese price for Product 3 was $*** per pound in the last

quarter of 2006 compared to $*** per pound in the last quarter of 2005. CR/PR at Tables V-1, V-2, V-3. As

discussed in volume, we give less weight to the 2006 data for purposes of our material injury analysis as we find that

the improvement evident in the pricing data for 2006 are related to the pendency of the investigation.

20

reported pricing for all three products.118 By quantity, pricing data reported by responding firms

accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. commercial shipments of U.S.-produced certain

activated carbon and approximately 41.8 percent of U.S. commercial shipments of certain activated

carbon produced in China.119

The quarterly price comparison data for Products 1 through 3 showed substantial and consistent

underselling by subject imports throughout the period. From 2003-2005, subject imports undersold the

domestic like product in 34 of the 36 quarters.120 In 2006, during the pendency of this investigation,

subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 11 of the 12 quarters, albeit at smaller margins in

the last two quarters after the filing of the petition. For all three products, the margins of underselling

were almost all in double digits, and ranged as high as 58.3 percent.121 Based on the foregoing, we find

that there has been significant price underselling of the domestic like product by subject imports.

We have also considered movements in certain activated carbon domestic prices over the period

of investigation. The Commission’s pricing data for Products 1 and 3 show fluctuations within a band,

while pricing data for Product 2 show a decrease in domestic prices.122 We find pricing movements have

varied with no clear trend. Therefore, we do not find evidence that subject imports are depressing

domestic prices to a significant degree.123

We do find, however, that subject imports have prevented domestic price increases that otherwise

would have occurred to a significant degree. The domestic industry’s cost of goods sold (“COGS”) as a

share of net sales increased steadily throughout the period of investigation from *** percent in 2003 to

*** percent in 2005, before falling somewhat to *** percent in 2006.124 We would have expected

domestic producers to raise prices as costs increased in a market with rising demand over the period of

investigation. However, these data indicate that as the domestic industry’s costs increased, and

significant volumes of lower priced subject imports entered the U.S. market, the domestic producers were

unable to raise their prices to cover increasing costs. We therefore find evidence of price suppression in

the form of a cost-price squeeze.125
 126 CR at V-12, PR at V-9.

 127 CR at V-13, PR at V-9. Despite numerous confirmed lost sales in 2006, Petitioners provided information on

***. Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 1, pp. 7-8. Petitioners note that in each case Chinese competitors did not

participate in the bidding process, and that ***.

 128 CR at V-13, PR at V-9. 

 129 In its final affirmative determination for subject certain activated carbon from China, Commerce calculated a

weighted-average dumping margin of 62.08 percent for Jacobi Carbons AB, 73.60 percent for 20 specific exporters,

78.89 percent for Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd., and a China-wide rate of 228.11 percent applicable to all other

exporters. Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Certain Activated Carbon from China,

72 Fed. Reg. 9508 (March 2, 2007).

 130 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission

considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in

some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing

difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”). SAA at 885.

 131 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-

TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 at 25 n.148 (Feb. 1999).

21

Confirmed lost sales and lost revenues provide additional support for our finding that subject

imports have taken sales from U.S. producers and have suppressed prices to a significant degree. 

Petitioners provided *** lost sales allegations and *** lost revenue allegations from 2003-2005. 

Commission staff confirmed $*** in total lost sales and $*** in annual lost revenue.126 Petitioners

alleged an additional *** lost sales that took place during 2006. Commission staff confirmed $*** of

those lost sales.127 By and large, price was the reason given for choosing the Chinese product. Many of

the lost sales were to municipal water treatment facilities which, in many cases, must accept the lowestpriced product that meets its required standards.128 These confirmed lost sales and revenues support a

finding that competition from subject imports prevented domestic producers from raising prices to cover

increases in costs, even as demand increased over the period of investigation.

For the foregoing reasons, we find that subject imports have had a significant adverse price effect

on the U.S. industry. 

D. Impact of the Subject Imports129

Section 771(7)(C)(iii) provides that the Commission, in examining the impact of the subject

imports on the domestic industry, “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry.”130 These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity utilization, market

share, employment, wages, productivity, profits, cash flow, return on investment, ability to raise capital,

research and development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor is dispositive and all

relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition

that are distinctive to the affected industry.”131

Consistent with our findings that the volume of subject imports and the increases in that volume

were significant, and that there was significant underselling and price suppression, we find that subject

imports are having a significant adverse impact on the domestic certain activated carbon industry. 
 132 As discussed above, under the post-petition effects provision we give less weight to the data for 2006.

 133 ***, Calgon contends that it was forced to begin importing certain activated carbon from China because its

customers urged it to do so in the face of extremely low prices from China. Hearing Tr. at 22 (O’Brien). Calgon has

stated that it was conscious not to undercut prices for its domestic production to the extent possible, and notes that its

subject imports ***. Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 56. Moreover, ***. Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at Exh. 2. 

 134 Production increased from *** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2004, fell to *** pounds in 2005, before

increasing to *** pounds in 2006. CR/PR at Table III-2.

 135 U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments by quantity declined from *** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in 2004, and

then to *** pounds in 2005, before increasing to *** pounds in 2006. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments by value

declined from $*** in 2003 to $*** in 2004, and then to $*** in 2005, before increasing to $*** in 2006. CR/PR at

Table III-2.

 136 CR/PR at III-2. Due to the capital-intensive nature of the production process, certain activated carbon plants

are designed to run continuously at full capacity, except for scheduled maintenance shutdowns. Petitioners’

Prehearing Brief at 30; Hearing Tr. at 30 (Hudgens), and 173 (O’Brien). Despite increasing demand for certain

activated carbon throughout the period of investigation, low-priced competition from Chinese imports has forced

U.S. producers to reduce prices (or not raise them) to maintain volumes, rather than cut sales. Hearing Tr. at 30

(Hudgens). By 2005, contract prices could not ***. In 2006, due to the pendency of this investigation, the domestic

industry was ***. Compare Tables V-1-V-3 with Table VI-1.

 137 The average number of production workers decreased irregularly from *** in 2003 to *** in 2005, before

increasing *** to *** in 2006. Hours worked decreased irregularly from *** in 2003 to *** in 2005, and continued

to fall to *** in 2006. CR/PR at Table III-2. 

 138 CR/PR at Table III-2.

 139 CR/PR at Table C-1. *** decreased from $*** in 2003 to $*** in 2004, then fell to *** in 2005, before

increasing to $*** in 2006. CR/PR at Table VI-1. 

 140 CR/PR at Table VI-1. 

22

Industry data show declining overall trends, which are most evident in the financial data, until 2006, after

the petition in this investigation was filed.132 133

Regarding trade data, we note that performance indicators were mixed over the period examined. 

U.S. producers’ production of certain activated carbon decreased irregularly from 2003 to 2005, but

increased in 2006.134 Even though domestic consumption of certain activated carbon increased ***

percent from 2003 to 2005, domestic producers’ total shipments of certain activated carbon declined by

*** percent by quantity and *** percent by value, before both increased in 2006.135 Overall industry

capacity fell from 2003 to 2005, before increasing in 2006, while capacity utilization rose irregularly from

*** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2005, and then increased to *** percent in 2006.136 The average

number of production and related workers and hours worked for certain activated carbon experienced an

overall decline from 2003 to 2006.137 Wages paid increased *** from 2003 to 2005.138 

Many of the domestic industry’s consolidated financial indicators declined overall from 2003-

2005, before recovering only somewhat in 2006. *** fell steadily by *** percent from 2003 to 2005, and

was *** percent lower in 2006 than in 2003.139 The domestic industry’s *** fell by *** percentage points

from 2003 to 2005, and was *** percentage points lower in 2006 than in 2003. Operating margins

declined from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2004, and fell further to *** percent in 2005, before

increasing to *** percent in 2006.140
 141 CR/PR at Table VI-1. Net sales measured by quantity decreased from *** pounds in 2003 to *** pounds in

2004, and to *** pounds in 2005, before increasing to *** pounds in 2006. Net sales measured by value decreased

from $*** in 2003 to $*** in 2004, and to $*** in 2005, before increasing to $*** in 2006. CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 142 As we have noted previously, the decline in the volume of subject imports coincided with the imposition of

preliminary duties and the modest improvement in the financial condition of the domestic industry coincided with

the decline in subject imports.

 143 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 144 We note that capital expenditures for the domestic industry increased from $*** in 2003 to $*** in 2005,

before increasing to $*** in 2006. CR/PR at Table VI-5. This level of capital expenditures is relatively low

considering the embedded investment in plant and equipment of this industry and its related depreciation expenses. 

With the exception of 2006, capital expenditures were ***. CR/PR at Tables VI-1 and VI-5. Moreover, a portion of

the domestic industry’s capital expenditures was for the purposes of ***. CR at VI-9-VI-10, PR at VI-3. Research

and development expenses decreased from $*** in 2003 to $*** in 2005 and increased *** to $*** in 2006. CR/PR

at Table VI-5.

 145 Commissioner Lane has found that domestic prices also exhibited a small but measurable degree of price

depression from 2003 through 2005, prior to the filing of the petition initiating this investigation.

23

Net sales measured by quantity and value decreased by *** percent and *** percent, respectively,

from 2003 to 2005.141 From 2005 to 2006, net sales by quantity increased by *** percent, and increased

by value by *** percent. Despite domestic consumption declining *** from 2005 to 2006, the domestic

industry was able to increase both its prices and quantities of sales as the volume of low-riced subject

imports declined.142

As discussed previously, COGS as a ratio to net sales increased steadily from 2003 to 2005. 

COGS was *** percent of net sales in 2003, and increased steadily to *** percent of net sales in 2005,

before declining to *** percent of sales in 2006.143 Declines in U.S. industry performance indicators

occurred as subject imports entered the U.S. market in increased and significant volumes, and gained

market share almost exclusively at the expense of the domestic industry.144 At the same time, subject

imports undersold the domestic like product, typically by double-digit margins, and suppressed domestic

prices to a significant degree. In a period of rising raw material and energy costs, domestic producers

were not able to raise prices sufficiently to cover these costs.

We conclude that subject imports had an adverse impact on the condition of the domestic industry

during the period of investigation. We find that the absolute and relative volume, and the increase in

volume of subject imports, as well as the underselling by the subject imports, are significant. As subject

imports captured market share, they suppressed domestic prices to a significant degree, causing declines

in the domestic industry’s financial performance.145 From 2003-2005, ***, ***, and net sales measured

by both quantity and value, declined as the domestic industry lost market share, and it was not until 2006

that any of these financial indicators began to improve. This modest improvement in 2006 occurred when

the domestic industry was able to (1) raise prices after the filing of the petition in this investigation, and

(2) gain market share because of the reduction of the volume of low-priced Chinese imports after the

imposition of the preliminary duty deposits by Commerce.

We find that the record contains substantial evidence showing that subject imports had a causal

connection to the injury experienced by the domestic industry. While we have given reduced weight to

post-petition data in 2006 for the purpose of evaluating levels and trends of unrestrained subject imports

and their relationship to levels and trends of injury to the domestic industry, record evidence for the

period of time after the petition was filed and after preliminary duties were imposed further supports the

finding that subject imports were a cause of material injury to the domestic industry. After the filing of

the petition, prices in the domestic market increased. Moreover, after the preliminary affirmative

determination was made by Commerce, the quantity of subject imports declined. The combination of
 146 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 147 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 148 444 F.3d at 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

 149 Bratsk, 444 F.3d at 1375.

 150 Bratsk, 444 F.3d at 1375.

 151 For a full discussion of our views on the applicability of Bratsk, see our Views in the Remand Determination

for Silicon Metal from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-991 (Final) (Second Remand), USITC Pub. 3910 (March 2007). 

For a full discussion of Chairman Pearson’s views on the applicability of Bratsk, see his Separate and Additional

Views in Silicon Metal from Russia. For a full discussion of Commissioner Okun’s views of the applicability of

Bratsk, see her Separate and Dissenting Views in Certain Lined Paper School Supplies from China, India, and

Indonesia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-442-443, 731-TA-1095-1097 (Final), USITC Pub. 3884 (Sept. 2006).

24

these two events brought about significant improvements for the domestic industry. Domestic producers

not only were able to increase prices but also were able to expand production and sales volume, and the

financial position of the domestic industry improved.146

Nonsubject imports were in the U.S. market throughout the period of investigation. However,

nonsubject import volume actually declined in 2006, even as subject imports declined in the U.S. market

due to the pendency of this investigation.147 The simultaneous drop in the volume of both subject imports

and nonsubject imports in 2006 is explained by the fact that subject imports and nonsubject imports

primarily are sold for different end uses. Likewise, the AUV and pricing data on the record show that the

prices of the nonsubject imports typically are much higher, ***. Given that the primary cause of material

injury to the domestic industry was the intense price suppression caused by low-priced subject imports,

this suggests that nonsubject imports were not a factor affecting prices. Thus, removing subject imports

from the U.S. market allowed the domestic industry to capture both higher prices and additional sales

volumes. This pattern further indicates that subject imports were a significant factor suppressing prices

over the period of investigation.

We find that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subject imports of

certain activated carbon from China that are found to be sold in the United States at less than fair value.

V. Application of the Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States Replacement/Benefit Test

Having reached an affirmative determination by application of the statutorily-mandated factors,

the Federal Circuit’s decision in Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States requires that we turn to an

additional analysis which can, in some circumstances, negate an affirmative determination.148 The

Federal Circuit directed the Commission to undertake an “additional causation inquiry” whenever certain

triggering factors are met: “whenever the antidumping investigation is centered on a commodity product,

and price competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the market.”149 The additional

inquiry required by the Bratsk panel, which we refer to as the Bratsk replacement/benefit test, is “whether

non-subject imports would have replaced the subject imports without any beneficial effect on domestic

producers.”150

We respectfully disagree with the Bratsk panel that the statute requires any analysis beyond that

already included in our discussion of volume, price, and impact above.151 The statutory scheme 

contemplates that an industry may be facing difficulties from a variety of sources, including nonsubject

imports and other factors, but the existence of injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative

determination if the subject imports themselves are making more than a minimal or tangential
 152 See SAA at 851-52, 885.

 153 H.R. Rep. No. 317, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. at 47 (“Any such requirement has the undesirable result of making

relief more difficult to obtain for those industries facing difficulties from a variety of sources, precisely those

industries that are most vulnerable to subsidized or dumped imports.”).

 154 Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

 155 SAA at 883-85, 889-90.

 156 Wooden Bedroom Furniture From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1058 (Final), USITC Pub. 3742 (Dec. 2004) at 27,

n. 222.

 157 See Silicon Metal from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-991 (Second Remand), USITC Pub. 3910 (Mar. 2007), at 3-

8 (articulating the standard).

 158 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun discern two possible interpretations of the Bratsk opinion, which

differ substantially. The so-called “replacement/benefit test” is noted above. The second one is that Bratsk is a

further restatement of the causation approach prescribed by Gerald Metals. Under this interpretation, the Bratsk

decision stands to remind the Commission of its obligation under Gerald Metals that the Commission may not satisfy

the “by reason of” causation requirement by showing that subject imports contributed only “minimally or

tangentially to the material harm.” In other words, the Bratsk Court’s relatively short discussion of the underlying

determination may not have established a new and rigid replacement/benefit test. Rather, the Court may have

discussed the triggering factors as a reminder that the Commission, before it makes an affirmative determination,

must satisfy itself that it has not attributed material injury to factors other than subject imports. See Separate and

Additional Views of Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning Bratsk

Aluminum v. United States in, Sodium Hexametaphosphate from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1110 (Preliminary),

USITC Pub. 3912 (April 2007). We have included this analysis in the Commission’s affirmative causation analysis.

25

contribution to material injury.152 The legislative history further clarifies that the dumped imports need

not be the “principal” cause of material injury and that the “by reason of” standard does not contemplate

that injury from dumped imports be weighed against injury from other factors, such as nonsubject

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.153 Thus, once the Commission

establishes the existence of a causal link between subject imports and material injury, the existence of

other concurrent causes is legally irrelevant to its determination.

Similarly, the statute does not permit the Commission to reach a negative determination based on

the likely ineffectiveness of an order. Indeed, the purpose of the statute is not to bar or eliminate subject

imports from the U.S. market or award subject import market share to U.S. producers, but is meant

instead to “level [] competitive conditions” by imposing a duty on subject imports and thus enabling the

domestic industry to compete against fairly traded imports.154 The statutory scheme in fact contemplates

that subject imports may remain in the U.S. market after an order is imposed and even that the industry

afterwards may continue to suffer material injury.155 As the Commission has previously explained,

[N]othing in the statute or case law requires (or allows) us to consider the likely

effectiveness of a dumping order in making our injury determination. The

possibility that non-subject imports will increase in the future after an

antidumping order is imposed is ... not relevant to our analysis of whether

subject imports are currently materially injuring the industry.156

The Commission has a well established approach to addressing causation.157 However, we apply

the Bratsk replacement/benefit test to our analysis because the Federal Circuit has directed us to do so,

notwithstanding that, in our considered view, this test is not required by, or consistent with, the statute.158
 159 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 30-35. In its preliminary determination, the Commission invited the parties in

any final phase determination to comment on the applicability of Bratsk to the facts of this investigation. 

 160 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 35. 

 161 No producers/exporters from nonsubject countries responded to the Commission’s request for information.

CR at VII-3, PR at VII-3. 

 162 The most significant source of nonsubject coconut-based certain activated carbon is Southeast Asia,

specifically Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Indonesia, India and Thailand. *** percentage of nonsubject imports were

coal- and peat-based and were produced by domestic producer *** operations in Europe. CR/PR at Table IV-1,

Hearing Tr. at 118 (Wruble).

 163 It is improper to assume that because goods are interchangeable for defining the domestic like product, they

are “commodities” for purposes of assessing causation, which is the function of the Bratsk test. See Bic Corp v.

United States, 964 F. Supp. 391, 397, 399 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1997) (“[L]ike product, cumulation and causation are

functionally different inquiries because they serve different statutory purposes . . . . As a result, each inquiry

requires a different level of fungibility. Hence the record may contain substantial evidence that two products are

fungible enough to support a finding in one context (e.g., one like product), but not in another (e.g., cumulation or

causation.”).

 164 CR at I-9, PR at I-7.

 165 CR at I-9 - I-10, PR at I-7, Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at Exhs. 6 & 10.

 166 Hearing Tr. at 55 (O’Brien). The process of recovering gold from mined ore involves the adsorption of gold

on activated carbon. The extra hardness of coconut-based activated carbon helps to reduce the loss of gold that may

occur when the activated carbon particles break into smaller pieces. CR at I-9-I-10, PR at I-7. In cigarette filters,

(continued...)

26

Only Petitioners have provided arguments regarding the applicability of the Bratsk

replacement/benefit test to this investigation.159 As a threshold matter, Petitioners stated that the Bratsk

analysis is not required under the statute. Nevertheless, Petitioners argue that, in this investigation,

neither of the triggering factors are met. Even assuming that the triggering factors are met, Petitioners

state that nonsubject imports would not replace subject imports and that the domestic industry will benefit

from the imposition of an antidumping duty order on imports from China.160

A. The First Triggering Factor – Commodity Product161

The Bratsk panel referred to a “commodity product” as “meaning that it is generally

interchangeable regardless of its source.” The record in this investigation indicates that all types of

activated carbon, as defined by the scope, are not “interchangeable regardless of . . . source.” As

discussed in Conditions of Competition, all domestic production of certain activated carbon and virtually

all Chinese imports of certain activated carbon are coal-based. The vast majority, *** percent, of

nonsubject imports are of coconut-based certain activated carbon.162 Although it appears that coal-based

certain activated carbon is generally interchangeable, and that coconut-based certain activated carbon is

generally interchangeable, the record indicates that there is very little interchangeability between coalbased and coconut-based activated carbon.163

Information on the record indicates that coal-based and coconut-based activated carbons have

different physical structures.164 The smaller pore size, pore distribution, and the greater hardness of

coconut-based certain activated carbon make it most useful in applications that require removing very

small size impurities. As a result, coal-based and coconut-based activated carbon are generally directed to

different uses. The bulk of coal-based activated carbon is used in the processing of drinking water,

industrial wastewater and certain foods, as well as the filtration of air and gas, whereas coconut-based

activated carbon is *** to cigarette filters, home water filters, and gold mining.165 166 There is little
 166 (...continued)

coconut-based activated carbon is better suited than coal-based carbon at adsorbing chemicals that affect the flavor

of the cigarette. CR at I-10, PR at I-7. These two industries accounted for almost *** percent of *** sales of

coconut-based activated carbon in 2006. Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at Exh. 10.

 167 CR at I-9, n. 30, PR at I-7, n. 30. Coconut-based carbons intrinsically have finer pore structures that lead to

better trace removal capacities if one is targeting specific organic compounds. Also, coconut-based activated carbon

would typically have lower levels of leachables (water soluble ash) than coal-based activated carbon, which is

desirable to home water filter manufacturers. CR at I-9, n. 30, PR at I-. Home water filters accounted for ***

percent of *** sales of coconut-based activated carbon in 2006. Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at Exh. 10.

 168 Hearing Tr. at 56 (O’Brien).

 169 CR at IV-2, PR at IV-1.

 170 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 171 No importer with the exception of *** provided the Commission with usable pricing data on nonsubject

imports. Calgon accounted for more than *** of certain activated carbon nonsubject imports in 2006, ***, and

provided the Commission with information related to its nonsubject imports, including pricing data.

27

competition with coal-based carbons in the upscale home filter market due to the premium nature and

price of the coconut-based product.167 Coconut-based activated carbon is largely directed to the

aforementioned markets where customers are willing to pay a price premium for this product, because in

many other applications coconut-based activated carbon performs worse than coal-based activated

carbon.168

The limited interchangeability of coconut-based and coal-based activated carbons is further

confirmed by record evidence indicating a lack of customer overlap for the two products. ***.169 This

shows that coconut- and coal-based activated carbons are being sold to different markets, demonstrating

limited substitutability between the two.

For the purpose of the first triggering factor for the Bratsk replacement/benefit test, we find that

certain activated carbon is not a “commodity” product.

B. The Second Triggering Factor – Whether Price Competitive Nonsubject Imports

Are a Significant Factor in the Market

We find that the second triggering factor, price competitive nonsubject imports, is also not

present, providing additional support for our view that the Bratsk replacement/benefit test is not

applicable to this investigation.

With respect to the issue of whether nonsubject imports were a significant factor in the market,

we note that nonsubject imports were present in the market in each year of the period of investigation. 

Imports from nonsubject sources increased from *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity in

2003, to *** percent in 2004, and then to *** percent in 2005, before declining to *** percent in 2006.170

As a share of total imports, nonsubject imports increased from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in

2004, and then to *** percent in 2005, before declining to *** percent in 2006. Based on the foregoing,

we find that nonsubject imports were significant in the market for purposes of the Bratsk

replacement/benefit test.

However, we find that nonsubject imports were not price-competitive in the market.171 Given the

record evidence that activated carbon is not a “commodity” product, and that coconut-based activated

carbon is used primarily in specialty applications for which customers are willing to pay a price premium,

coconut-based and coal-based activated carbon do not compete on the basis of price. Moreover, the

average unit values (“AUVs”) of nonsubject imports were consistently higher than both the AUVs of

subject imports and domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of certain activated carbon in every year of the
 172 CR/PR at Table IV-2 and Table C-1. We are mindful that the use of AUVs for establishing price trends may

present product mix issues in that values may reflect different merchandise rather than differences in price. See

Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 287 F.3d 1365, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In this investigation, the higher

AUVs for coconut-based activated carbon supports our finding that coal-based and coconut-based activated carbons

are not commodities, and shows that customers are willing to pay a price premium for the coconut-based activated

carbon because it is better suited than coal-based activated carbon for their required applications. The AUV

comparison is confirmed by ***, allowing us to give the AUV data additional weight in this investigation.

 173 In determining whether nonsubject imports are price competitive in this investigation, Commissioner Pinkert

has primarily analyzed whether nonsubject imports are price competitive with the domestic like product, although he

has also taken into account relative pricing levels for nonsubject and subject imports.

 174 CR at V-1, n. 1, PR at V-1, n. 1, Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at Exh. 4.

 175 CR/PR at V-1.

28

period of investigation.172 173 The AUVs of imports from nonsubject countries ranged from *** than the

AUVs of subject imports. Additionally, these nonsubject AUVs were higher than the AUVs of domestic

producers’ U.S. shipments of certain activated carbon by *** over the period of investigation. The

differences in AUVs reflect the market reality that coconut-based certain activated carbon is priced

significantly higher in the United States than coal-based activated carbon.

Moreover, a comparison of Calgon’s prices for sales of its imported nonsubject coconut-based

certain activated carbon to prices for domestic producers’ U.S. shipments and imported certain activated

carbon from China confirms the differences shown by the AUVs. These data indicate that the selling

prices of Calgon’s coconut-based certain activated carbon from nonsubject countries were ***.174

Moreover, for Product 1, the price of Calgon’s coconut-based certain activated carbon from nonsubject

countries ***. For product 3, the price of Calgon’s coconut-based certain activated carbon from

nonsubject countries ***. For product 2, the price of Calgon’s coconut-based certain activated carbon

from nonsubject countries ***. Although Product 2 accounts for *** of Calgon’s sales of nonsubject

certain activated carbon, Product 2 accounted for *** of sales of domestically produced certain activated

carbon.175 

Moreover, as discussed above, and consistent with our finding that certain activated carbon is not

a “commodity” product, as the Bratsk panel defined that term, Calgon has provided evidence that there is

*** between its customers that purchase its coal-based certain activated carbon and its customers that

purchase its coconut-based certain activated carbon. This indicates that customers are purchasing either

coconut-based or coal-based activated carbon for a specific application, for which one or the other is

better suited based on their physical structures, and are not choosing between the two based on price. 

Accordingly, we do not find that the second triggering factor identified in Bratsk to be present.
 176 Bratsk, 444 F.3d 1375. Nevertheless, even if both triggering factors were present, we would not find that

nonsubject imports “would have replaced subject imports without any beneficial effect on domestic producers.” 

Bratsk, 444 F.3d at 1375. Throughout the period, imports of certain activated carbon from China exceeded

nonsubject imports by a significant amount. To replace subject imports in the U.S. market, nonsubject imports

would have needed to increase between 50 percent to 83 percent per year of the period of investigation. The limited

information on the record regarding capacity utilization rates of activated carbon producers in nonsubject countries,

as well as the capital intensive nature of the industry, does not indicate that nonsubject imports have the additional

capacity to replace subject imports. CR/PR at Table IV-2, CR at VII-3, n. 6, PR at VII-3, n. 6. Currently, China and

the United States supply nearly all of the imports of coal-based certain activated carbon world-wide, and the only

other significant exporter of coal-based certain activated carbon, Australia, exported no activated carbon to the

United States in 2006, and does not have the capacity to replace the portion of Chinese production currently

dedicated to the U.S. market. CR at VII-4, PR at VII-4.

As discussed previously, the Commission gave reduced weight to post-petition data in 2006 for the purpose

of evaluating levels and trends of unrestrained subject imports and their relationship to levels and trends of injury to

the domestic industry. This does not mean that we find the 2006 data to be unreliable. In fact, the 2006 data support

our finding of a causal link between subject imports and injury to the domestic industry. After the filing of the

petition and imposition of preliminary duties, the quantity of subject imports fell, prices increased, and the financial

position of the domestic industry improved. Moreover, even after subject imports declined in the U.S. market in

2006 due to the pendency of this case, nonsubject imports in the United States not only did not increase to replace

the subject imports, but declined as well. CR/PR at Table C-1. The simultaneous drop in the volume of both subject

imports and nonsubject imports in 2006 is not surprising, given that the they are sold primarily for different end uses.

Finally, the record demonstrates that even if some replacement of subject imports by nonsubject imports

could occur, the domestic industry would still benefit from the order. The AUV and pricing data on the record show

that if nonsubject imports replaced the volume of Chinese imports, the prices of the nonsubject imports would likely

be much higher, *** based on data reported during the period of investigation. Given that the primary cause of

material injury to the domestic industry was the intense price suppression caused by low-priced subject imports, the

record evidence shows that if all of the subject imports were replaced by nonsubject imports, the domestic industry

would benefit from ***.

 177 Chairman Pearson and Commissioners Okun and Williamson do not join the previous footnote. They do not

apply the replacement/benefit test of Bratsk given their conclusion that neither of the two triggering factors is met.

 178 Vice Chairman Aranoff joins her colleagues’ analysis as to the replacement/benefit test, as expressed in

footnote 176. She finds, in addition, that the partial recovery of the domestic industry in 2006, concurrent with the

filing of the petition is further evidence that nonsubject imports would not have replaced subject imports without any

beneficial effect on domestic producers. Her views as to reasons for that partial recovery are explained in footnote

99 above.

29

Because we find that neither Bratsk triggering factor is present in this investigation, we therefore

are not required to address “whether non-subject imports would have replaced subject imports without

any beneficial effect on domestic producers.” 176 177 178

CONCLUSION

 For the reasons stated above, we determine that an industry in the United States is materially

injured by reason of subject imports of certain activated carbon from China that are found to be sold in

the United States at less than fair value.

 1

 For purposes of this investigation, the Department of Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as

follows:

“Certain activated carbon is a powdered, granular, or pelletized carbon product obtained by “activating”

with heat and steam various materials containing carbon, including but not limited to coal (including bituminous,

lignite, and anthracite), wood, coconut shells, olive stones, and peat. The thermal and steam treatments remove

organic materials and create an internal pore structure in the carbon material. The producer can also use carbon

dioxide gas (CO2) in place of steam in this process. The vast majority of the internal porosity developed during the

high temperature steam (or CO2 gas) activated process is a direct result of oxidation of a portion of the solid carbon

atoms in the raw material, converting them into a gaseous form of carbon. 

The scope of this investigation covers all forms of activated carbon that are activated by steam or CO2,

regardless of the raw material, grade, mixture, additives, further washing or post-activation chemical treatment

(chemical or water washing, chemical impregnation or other treatment), or product form. Unless specifically

excluded, the scope of this investigation covers all physical forms of certain activated carbon, including powdered

activated carbon (“PAC”), granular activated carbon (“GAC”), and pelletized activated carbon.

Excluded from the scope of the investigation are chemically-activated carbons. The carbon-based raw

material used in the chemical activation process is treated with a strong chemical agent, including but not limited to

phosphoric acid, zinc chloride sulfuric acid or potassium hydroxide, that dehydrates molecules in the raw material,

and results in the formation of water that is removed from the raw material by moderate heat treatment. The

activated carbon created by chemical activation has internal porosity developed primarily due to the action of the

chemical dehydration agent. Chemically activated carbons are typically used to activate raw materials with a

lignocellulosic component such as cellulose, including wood, sawdust, paper mill waste and peat.

To the extent that an imported activated carbon product is a blend of steam and chemically activated

carbons, products containing 50 percent or more steam (or CO2 gas) activated carbons are within this scope, and

those containing more than 50 percent chemically activated carbons are outside this scope. This exclusion language

regarding blended material applies only to mixtures of steam and chemically activated carbons.

Also excluded from the scope are reactivated carbons. Reactivated carbons are previously used activated

carbons that have had adsorbed materials removed from their pore structure after use through the application of

heat, steam and/or chemicals.

Also excluded from the scope is activated carbon cloth. Activated carbon cloth is a woven textile fabric

made of or containing activated carbon fibers. It is used in masks and filters and clothing of various types where a

woven format is required.

Any activated carbon meeting the physical description of subject merchandise provided above that is not

expressly excluded from the scope is included within this scope. The products under investigation are currently

classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) subheading 3802.10.00. Although

HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this

investigation is dispositive.” 72 F.R. 9508, March 2, 2007.

 2 Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation are presented in app. A.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

This investigation results from a petition filed by Calgon Carbon Corp. (“Calgon”), Pittsburgh,

PA, and Norit Americas, Inc. (“Norit”), Marshall, TX, on March 8, 2006, alleging that an industry in the

United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of less-than-fair-value

(“LTFV”) imports of certain activated carbon (“CAC”)1

 from China. Information relating to the

background of the investigation is presented in the tabulation on the following page.2
 3

 The list of witnesses appearing at the hearing is presented in app. B.

 4

 The term activated carbon refers to both CAC (which can also be referred to as steam-activated carbon) and

chemically activated carbon (“CHAC”).

 5

 71 FR 5688, February 2, 2006.

 6

 71 FR 9155, February 22, 2006.

 7

 ***.

 8

 In the preliminary phase investigation, the Commission collected data concerning CHAC and considered

respondent parties’ arguments that CHAC should be included in the “domestic like product.” Ultimately, after due

consideration, the Commission determined that CHAC was not included in the “domestic like product.” Certain

Activated Carbon from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1103 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3852, May 2006, 

pp. 7-11.

 9

 In addition to collecting CAC data in the final phase of this investigation, the Commission collected data

concerning reactivated carbon (“RAC”). Comments from producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire

respondents in this investigation concerning the differences and similarities between CAC and RAC are presented in

app. D. Trade and financial data concerning RAC are presented in app. E. Only one importer reported imports of

RAC during 2003-06. Details regarding these imports of RAC are presented in Part IV of this report, U.S. Imports,

Apparent Consumption, and Market Shares. 

I-2

Date Action

March 8, 2006 . . . . . Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission

investigation

April 4, 2006 . . . . . . Commerce’s notice of initiation

April 24, 2006 . . . . . Commission’s preliminary determination

October 11, 2006 . . . Commerce’s preliminary determination

November 16, 2006 . Commission’s scheduling of final phase investigation (71 FR 66793)

February 23, 2007 . . Commerce’s final determination (72 FR 9508; March 2, 2007)

February 27, 2007 . . Commission’s hearing3

March 29, 2007 . . . . Commission’s vote

April 16, 2007 . . . . . Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION

On January 26, 2006, petitioners in the instant investigation (Calgon and Norit) filed a petition 

alleging that an industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with material injury

by reason of LTFV imports of activated carbon4

 from China. As a result of that filing, the Commission

instituted investigation No. 731-TA-1102 (Preliminary): Activated Carbon from China.5

 Subsequently,

on February 15, 2006, petitioners withdrew their petition at Commerce and the Commission. Commerce

had not initiated its investigation by that date and the Commission discontinued its investigation effective

that date.6

SUMMARY DATA

A summary of data collected in the investigation concerning CAC is presented in appendix C,

table C-1. For table C-1, except as noted, CAC U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses

of three firms that accounted for virtually all of U.S. production during 2003-06.7 8 9

 U.S. imports are

based on official import statistics. 
I-3

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SALES AT LTFV

Commerce’s final LTFV margins are presented in table I-1. Final margins for individual

exporter/supplier(s) ranged from 62.08 percent to 78.89 percent, with the PRC-wide rate being 228.11

percent. 

Table I-1

CAC: Commerce’s final LTFV margins

Exporter Supplier(s)

Weighted-average

margin

(percent)

Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. Alashan Yongtai Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Changji Hongke Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Datong Forward Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemicals Co., Ltd.

Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant

Ningxia Guanghua Cherishment Activated Carbon Co., 

 Ltd.

Ningxia Luyuangheng Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

73.60

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd.

Datong Carbon Corp.

Datong Changtai Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Datong Forward Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Datong Fuping Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Datong Hongtai Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Datong Huanqing Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Datong Huibao Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Datong Kangda Activated Carbon Factory

Datong Runmei Activated Carbon Factory

Dushanzi Chemical Factory

Fangyuan Carbonization Co., Ltd.

Hongke Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Huairen Jinbei Chemical Co., Ltd.

Jiaocheng Xinxin Purification Material Co., Ltd.

Ningxia Guanghua Cherishment Activated Carbon Co., 

 Ltd.

Ningxia Guanghua A/C Co., Ltd.

Ningxia Honghua Carbon Industrial Corp.

Ningxia Luyuangheng Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Ningxia Pingluo Yaofu Activated Carbon Factory

Ningxia Tianfu Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Ningxia Yinchuan Lanqiya Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Nuclear Ningxia Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Pingluo Xuanzhong Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Shanxi Xuanzhong Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.

Xingtai Coal Chemical Co., Ltd.

Yuyang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

78.89

Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60

Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemicals Co., Ltd Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemicals Co., Ltd 73.60

Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd 73.60

Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant 73.60

Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising Corp. Da Neng Zhen Da Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Shanxi Bluesky Purification Material Co., Ltd.

73.60

Jacobi Carbons AB Datong Forward Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Datong Hongtai Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Datong Huibao Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

62.08

Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co., Ltd. Shanxi Xinhua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Tonghua Bright Future Activated Carbon Plant

Zuoyun Bright Future Activated Carbon Plant

228.11

Table continued on next page.
I-4

Table I-1–Continued

CAC: Commerce’s final LTFV margins

Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and Commerce Co.,

 Ltd.

Shanxi Xinhua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Tonghua Bright Future Activated Carbon Plant

Zuoyun Bright Future Activated Carbon Plant

228.11

Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co.,

 Ltd.

Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., 

 Ltd.

73.60

Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60

Ningxia Mineral and Chemical, Ltd. Ningxia Baota Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60

Shanxi DMD Corp. China Nuclear Ningxia Activated Carbon Plant 73.60

Shanxi DMD Corp. Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Shanxi Xinhua Chemical Co., Ltd.

Tonghua Xinpeng Activated Carbon Factory

73.60

Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd. Actview Carbon Technology Co., Ltd

Datong Forward Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Datong Tri-Star & Power Carbon Plant

Fu Yuan Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Jing Mao (Dongguan) Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Xi Li Activated Carbon Co., Ltd..

73.60

Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd. Datong Forward Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Ningxia Guanghua Chemical Activated Carbon Co.,

 Ltd.

Ningxia Tianfu Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

73.60

Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corp. Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemicals Co., Ltd.

Datong Tianzhao Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Ningxia Huinong Xingsheng Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Ningxia Yirong Alloy Iron Co., Ltd.

Ninxia Tongfu Coking Co., Ltd.

Shanxi Xiaoyi Huanyu Chemicals Co., Ltd.

73.60

Shanxi Sincere Industrial Datong Guanghua Activated Co.

Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., 

 Ltd.

Ningxia Pingluo County Yaofu Activated Carbon Factory

73.60

Shanxi Xuanzhong Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. Ningxia Pingluo Xuanzhong Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60

Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd. Datong Zuoyun Biyun Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Ningxia Xingsheng Coal and Active Carbon Co., Ltd.

Pingluo Yu Yang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

73.60

Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd. Hegongye Ninxia Activated Carbon Factory

Ningxia Pingluo County Yaofu Activated Carbon Plant

Yinchuan Lanqiya Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

73.60

United Manufacturing International (Beijing), Ltd. Datong Fu Ping Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemicals Co., Ltd.

Xinhua Chemical Co., Ltd.

73.60

Xi’an Shuntong International Trade & Industrials Co., Ltd. Datong Tri-Star and Power Carbon Plant

Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.

73.60

PRC-wide rate 228.11

Source: 72 FR 9508, March 2, 2007.
 10 In this section, the term activated carbon refers to both CAC (also referred to as steam-activated carbon) and

CHAC.

 11 Petition, p. 13.

 12 Ibid.

 13 Mesh numbers refer to holes sizes in sieves used to separate granular materials. For example, an 80 mesh has

sieve openings that are nominally 0.177 mm. Lower mesh numbers typically have larger-sized holes. See, Petition,

p. 12.

 14 Petition, p. 12.

 15 ***.

 16 Ibid.

 17 Ibid.

 18 Since the iodine number is relatively simple to measure, it is often used as a substitute for surface area

measurements, which require specialized equipment and highly trained technicians. Ibid.

I-5

THE SUBJECT PRODUCT

The imported CAC covered by the scope of this investigation is described in detail in the

“Background” section earlier in Part I. 

Physical Characteristics and Uses10

Activated carbon is a solid material comprised primarily of carbon that has been specially treated

to increase the porosity, and thus the surface area, of the material. The high surface area that results from

“activation” allows greater adsorption of chemical species onto the solid carbon. The surface area and

pore structure of activated carbon depend greatly on the raw materials and processing methods used. The

primary raw material for the production of activated carbon can be most any solid material that has a high

carbon content. Common raw materials for making activated carbon are coal, wood, coconut shells, olive

stones, and peat.11 In the United States and China, coal is the most often used raw material.12

Activated carbon is sold in three basic forms: powdered, granular, and pelletized. Powdered

activated carbon (“PAC”) is usually defined as being predominately material that passes through an 80

mesh.13 Granular activated carbon (“GAC”) has larger particles than PAC. The size range for GAC is

usually specified by two mesh numbers between which most of the material is retained. For example, an

8x30 GAC predominately contains particles that pass through an 8 mesh (2.38 mm sieve openings) but do

not pass through a 30 mesh (0.59 mm sieve openings).14 Pelletized activated carbon consists of uniformly

sized cylinders with typical diameters of 2 mm and lengths of 0.5 to 2 cm.15 The primary benefit of

pelletized activated carbon is that it produces a lower pressure drop over a fixed bed than GAC.16

Along with the size and shape of the activated carbon particles, factors that influence the

efficiency of activated carbon in a given application are surface area, pore size distribution, ash content,

and hardness.17 These properties depend on the raw materials used as well as the activation process. The

surface area and pore size distribution are related properties that determine how much of the desired

chemical species will adsorb onto the activated carbon. Two characteristics of a given activated carbon

sample that are related to the pore size distribution and surface area are the iodine number and the

molasses number. The iodine number measures the mass of iodine that is absorbed from a standard

solution by a given mass of activated carbon and is usually reported in units of milligrams of iodine

absorbed per gram of activated carbon.18 Since iodine is a small molecule, the iodine number indicates

the abundance of small diameter pores in the activated carbon. The molasses number measures the

efficiency with which a sample of activated carbon removes the color-inducing molecules from a mixture

of molasses and water. Since the molecules that give molasses its color are large relative to iodine, the
 19 Transcript of Commission’s March 30, 2006 conference (“Conference transcript”), p. 167 (Clark).

 20 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 11.

 21 Frederick S. Baker, Charles E. Miller, Albert J. Repik, and E. Donald Tolles, “Carbon, Activated,” KirkOthmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003, Section 10.

 22 Ibid.

 23 Thermally activated carbon is often referred to as steam-activated carbon. For purposes of this report, the term

“CAC” should be viewed as thermally/steam activated carbon.

 24 Petition, p. 72; Conference transcript, p. 29 (Thompson); *** importers’ questionnaire responses, Question II-7.

 25 In the preliminary phase of this investigation, some importers’ questionnaire responses and conference

testimony stated either that there are no differences in the physical characteristics of CHAC and CAC or that there is

as much variation among CACs as there is between CHACs and CACs. *** importers’ questionnaire responses,

Question II-7; Conference transcript, p. 107 (Kovach).

 26 Emissions canisters in automobiles capture gasoline vapors from the fuel tank while the engine is off. When

the engine is running, hot gases pass through the canister, remove the adsorbed gasoline vapors, and carry them to

the engine for combustion. The larger-sized pores in CHAC may allow it to perform better than CAC in this task. 

Conference transcript, p. 66 (Wruble).

 27 While the U.S. automobile makers predominately use CHAC at this time, CAC was used in this application

prior to the 1980s. Conference transcript, p. 67 (O’Brien). Some automakers outside the United States use coalbased CAC in this application. Conference transcript, p. 162 (Skeini).

I-6

molasses number measures the abundance of medium- to large-sized pores. A purchaser of activated

carbon chooses an appropriate pore size distribution based on the size (and chemical properties) of the

chemical species to be captured. Ash content of activated carbons varies greatly according to the raw

material used to produce it. Since the ash is inorganic material that cannot be “activated,” a higher ash

content reduces the effectiveness of a given mass of activated carbon. Manufacturers generally control

ash content by selecting low-ash starting materials. If a higher-ash raw material is used, it may be

subjected to an acid wash step to reduce the ash content after activation. Hardness is an important

property for specifying granular activated carbon. Harder activated carbons produce fewer fines during

shipping and use. In some applications, generation of fines can be problematic.19 Because CHAC is

generally made using wood, it has lower hardness than certain activated, coal-based, carbon. CHACs are

generally powdered or pelletized due to their lower hardness.20

The primary use for activated carbon is in the separation of small concentrations of chemical

species from liquid and gas streams. Because activated carbon has a low affinity for water but strongly

absorbs organic and sulfur-containing chemicals, it is widely used to remove undesirable tastes and odors

from drinking water and to eliminate contaminants from industrial waste water.21 In the processing of

foods (e.g., sugar, corn syrup, and vegetable oils), pharmaceuticals, and alcoholic beverages, activated

carbon is used to remove unwanted color and impurities. Activated carbon is also used in the chemical

process industries for solvent recovery. Applications of activated carbon in gas-phase systems include air

purification, automobile emissions reduction, and solvent vapor recovery.22

There are two activation processes for producing activated carbon: thermal processing23 and

chemical processing. (See subsequent section for a discussion of the production processes.) Petitioners

claim that the different processing methods produce different products that are used in separate

applications. In general, CHACs are wood-based carbons and have more large- and medium-sized pores

than coal-based CACs.24 25 According to the petitioners, this property makes CHACs more suitable for

certain applications, including emissions canisters that capture gasoline vapors from automobile fuel

tanks.26 27 CHACs may also retain some of the activating agent (usually phosphoric acid or zinc chloride)
 28 Conference transcript, p. 83 (Rester).

 29 Transcript of the Commission’s February 27, 2007 hearing (“Hearing transcript”), p. 53 (Rester) and p. 54

(O’Brien).

 30 Hearing transcript, pp. 54-55 (O’Brien) and petitioners’ posthearing brief, exh. 1, pp. 32-33. See also, exh. 10

of petitioners’ posthearing brief. In addition to these uses, *** of Calgon’s sales of coconut-based CAC. According

to Calgon: “***.” *** and hearing transcript, pp. 54-55 (O-Brien).

 31 Hearing transcript, p. 55 (O’Brien).

 32 Hearing transcript, pp. 54-55 (O’Brien).

 33 Hearing transcript, p. 50 (Thompson).

 34 U.S. EPA, http://www.epa.gov/mercuryrule/basic.htm, retrieved April 5, 2006.

 35 Conference transcript, p. 132 (Nelson).

 36 Thomas J. Feeley, III, Lynn A. Brickett, B. Andrew O’Palko, and James T. Murphy, “Field Testing of Mercury

Control Technologies for Coal-fired Power Plants,” U.S. Department of Energy/National Energy Technology

Laboratory, May 2005, http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/pubs/mercuryR%26D-v4-0505.pdf,

retrieved March 30, 2006.

 37 Ibid.

 38 ***.

 39 Norit America, Inc., Material Safety Data Sheet, Activated Carbon,

http://www.norit-americas.com/pdf/MSDS117_rev4.pdf, retrieved March 14, 2006.

I-7

that could leach out during processing and may make them unacceptable for certain applications such as

aquarium filters or pharmaceutical purification.28

CAC made from coconut shells typically has different properties from CAC made from coal. 

Specifically, coconut-based activated carbon usually has greater hardness and smaller pore sizes than

coal-based activated carbon.29 These differences may make coconut-based carbon better than coal-based

carbon for certain applications. In the United States, two industries for which coconut-based activated

carbon is preferred over coal-based activated carbon are gold mining and manufacturing filters for

cigarettes.30 The process of recovering gold from mined ore involves the adsorption of gold on activated

carbon. The extra hardness of coconut-based carbon helps to reduce the loss of gold that can occur when

the activated carbon particles break into smaller pieces.31 In cigarette filters, coconut-based carbon may

be better than coal-based activated carbon at adsorbing chemicals that affect the flavor of the cigarette.32

In other applications, these property differences may not be meaningful and either coconut- or coal-based

activated carbon could be used.33

One use of activated carbon that may increase in the future is the control of mercury emissions

from coal-fired power plants. In 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the

Clean Air Mercury Rule to cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. When fully

implemented in 2018, this regulation will reduce mercury emissions by nearly 70 percent.34 Many states

are also enacting limits for mercury emissions.35 To meet the final mercury emissions cap, it is likely that

a new mercury control technology will be needed.36 While still in the demonstration stage of

development, injection of powdered activated carbon into the flue gas from coal-fired plants has to this

point shown the most promise for meeting the mercury emissions cap,37 although other technologies will

compete for this demand.38

Activated carbon is non-toxic and has no adverse environmental effects.39 However, once the

activated carbon has been used, it may take on the toxicity of adsorbed materials. Like nearly all

powdered and granular materials, eye or skin exposure to activated carbon may cause mild irritation. 

Inhalation of the dust from powdered or granular activated carbon may cause irritation of the respiratory

tract. Activated carbon is generally packaged and stored in plastic bags at weights ranging from 25
 40 Conference transcript, p. 99 (Wruble).

 41 In this section, the term activated carbon refers to both CAC (also referred to as steam-activated carbon) and

CHAC.

 42 MeadWestvaco produces CHAC from wood. Norit also produced wood-based CHAC until January 2005.

 43 Petition, p. 71.

 44 ***.

 45 A rotary kiln consists of a long cylindrical combustion chamber that is slightly tilted from horizontal. The

material to be burned is added to the elevated end of the kiln. The tilt and rotation of the combustion chamber move

the material out the opposite end. Residence time is controlled by the feed and rotation rates.

 46 Petition, p. 14.

 47 A multiple hearth kiln consists of a vertical column with grates at various heights in the column. Solid

materials are fed into the top of the kiln and arms attached to a rotating center shaft push the material to the lower

grates. Steam and/or air are fed into the bottom of the kiln. The residence time of the solid material in the kiln is

determined by the rotation rate of the center shaft and by the feed rate, which controls the bed height on each grate.

 48 Petition, p. 14.

 49 Carbon dioxide, CO2, may also be used as an oxidizing agent.

I-8

pounds to 2,000 pounds. Bags of activated carbon are shipped either by rail or truck. Bulk delivery by

truck is also common.40

Manufacturing Facilities41

The process of making activated carbon differs based on the starting material used and whether

the carbon is thermally or chemically activated. The two most common methods for producing activated

carbon in the United States are thermal activation (also called steam activation) of coal, which is the

process that the petitioners, Calgon and Norit, use, and chemical activation of wood.42 A small amount of

wood-based CAC, ***, is produced domestically.43

Two commonly used processes for thermally activating coal are direct activation and

reagglomeration. These processes only differ in the initial treatment of the coal. In direct activation, the

coal is simply crushed to the desired size before undergoing subsequent processing steps. For

reagglomeration, the coal is first crushed, then mixed with a binder, such as coal tar or petroleum pitch,

and finally pressed into briquettes. These briquettes are crushed to the desired size before beginning the

carbonization and activation process. To make pelletized carbon in either of these processes, the crushed

starting material is mixed with a binder and extruded to produce cylinders that are typically 2 mm in

diameter and 0.5 to 2 cm in length.44

For both direct activation and reagglomeration, the crushed material is added to one or more

rotary kilns45 for the carbonization step. The raw material is heated in the kiln, in the absence of oxygen,

to approximately 400 degrees Celsius.46 During this step, the water and volatile organic compounds are

vaporized and removed from the kiln in the exhaust gases. The charred material is removed from the kiln

after approximately six hours, ready for the activation step.

In thermal activation, the carbonized material is transferred to a rotary kiln or multiple hearth

kiln.47 The kiln is maintained at a temperature of approximately 1,000 degrees Celsius.48 An oxidizing

agent, usually steam,49 is fed to the kiln. The high surface area of activated carbon is created in this step

as the reaction between steam and carbon removes much of the material and leaves a porous structure. 

Variables such as the pore size and surface area are controlled by the kiln temperature and residence time

of the material. After the activated carbon is removed from the kiln, it can be milled and screened to final

size and packaged for sale.
 50 In addition to phosphoric acid, other chemicals such as zinc chloride, sulfuric acid, or potassium hydroxide can

be used to chemically activate steam. Zinc chloride is no longer used in the United States because of environmental

concerns regarding zinc. Petition, p. 16.

 51 Baker et al., “Carbon, Activated,” op. cit., Sections 10 and 11.

 52 Petition, p. 17.

 53 Baker et al., “Carbon, Activated,” op. cit., Section 3.

 54 Ibid.

 55 Desorption is the process in which a molecule leaves the surface to which it is adsorbed.

 56 Conference transcript, p. 193 (Enniking).

 57 ***, reported that RAC is a substitute for CAC.

 58 As noted earlier, only one importer reported imports of RAC during 2003-06. Details regarding these imports

of RAC are presented in Part IV of this report, U.S. Imports, Apparent Consumption, and Market Shares. 

I-9

In the chemical activation of wood, an activating agent, typically phosphoric acid,50 is added to

sawdust before it is added to a rotary kiln. Both the carbonization process and the activation process take

place in this kiln. The activating agent extracts moisture, reduces tar formation, and generates an open

pore structure.51 The pores created by chemical activation are generally larger than the pores formed

during thermal activation.52 The yield of activated carbon is generally 50 percent by weight of the raw

material for chemical activation compared to 30 to 35 percent by weight for thermal activation.53

After activation, CACs and CHACs can be further treated depending on the application for which

it will be used. Two common treatments are acid washing, which is usually only used for CAC, and

impregnation with metals. Acid washing is often used for CACs that have a high ash content.54 Washing

the CAC with hydrochloric or other acids removes minerals and ash resulting in a higher purity product. 

Acid-washed CACs are often used in applications where process streams are acidic, such as purification

of corn syrup. For some speciality applications, the activated carbon, either thermally or chemically

activated, may be impregnated with metals or other chemicals. The impregnation gives the activated

carbon the ability to adsorb a particular impurity or catalyze a desired reaction.

In some instances, used CAC can be “reactivated.” Spent carbon is reactivated by heating it in a

kiln until the adsorbed species are desorbed55 or destroyed. RAC tends to have slightly lower activity

than virgin CAC. Reactivation is usually performed on granular or pelletized activated carbon and is

rarely used on powdered activated carbon. Reactivation is sometimes done by the end user and then

reused by the same user. However, there are some firms who take spent carbon from the end user,

reactivate it, and return it to the original user. In processes where environmentally regulated chemicals

are being captured on activated carbon, strict bookkeeping of the amount of regulated chemical produced

and how it is disposed of is required. For this reason, firms that reactivate carbon for a user usually

process the carbon as single batch and return the same carbon to the user. In some applications, such as

using activated carbon to capture molecules in the gas phase, there is little risk that residual species in

reactivated carbon will leach into the process. In these applications, it is possible for spent carbons from

different users to be mixed together, reactivated, and sold to yet another user as “pooled” RAC.56

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

Nearly all producer and importer questionnaire respondents reported that there was at least some

interchangeability between Chinese and U.S.-produced CAC. *** reported that there are no direct

substitutes for CAC.57 For importers, the most commonly mentioned substitute was RAC, which sells at a

lower price than CAC.58 In the preliminary phase of the investigation, six importers suggested CHAC as

a substitute in certain applications (e.g, water purification, decolorization, air treatment, etc.), although it

is perceived as commanding a higher price than CAC or RAC. More detailed information on
 59 For RAC, more than 90 percent of shipments by U.S. producers and the lone importer went to end users.

 60 Certain Activated Carbon from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1103 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3852,

May 2006, pp. 7-11.

 61 Coalition of Importers of Activated Carbon (“CIAC”) postconference brief, p. 9.

 62 Ibid.

 63 Certain Activated Carbon from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1103 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3852,

May 2006, pp. I-7-I-8.

I-10

interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions can be found in Part II of this report,

Conditions of Competition in the U.S. Market.

Channels of Distribution

For the most part, shipments of CAC by both U.S. producers and importers went to end users. 

Over *** percent of shipments by U.S. producers of CAC went to end users during the period examined,

while 66 to 74 percent of shipments of Chinese product by U.S. importers went to end users.59 More

detailed information on channels of distribution can be found in Part II of this report, Conditions of

Competition in the U.S. Market.

Price

Information with regard to prices of CAC is presented in Part V of this report, Pricing and

Related Information. 

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

As noted earlier, in the preliminary phase investigation, the Commission collected data

concerning CHAC and considered respondent parties’ arguments that CHAC should be included in the

“domestic like product.” Ultimately, after due consideration, the Commission determined that CHAC

was not included in the domestic like product, and defined the domestic like product as CAC, coextensive

with the scope of the investigation.60 For purposes of the preliminary determination, no party took the

position that the Commission should expand the domestic like product to include RAC.61 Nevertheless,

respondents argued that the reality is that RAC is part of the same domestic like product as CAC and

CHAC. 62 In its views in the preliminary phase investigation, the Commission offered the following

concerning RAC:

“Reactivated carbon is made by thermally or chemically removing chemical

species adsorbed onto used activated carbon.63 It appears that reactivated carbon and

activated carbon cannot be physically distinguished within the same type or form of

carbon (i.e., pelletized, powdered, granulated, etc.), and that both have the same use: to

trap contaminants in liquids or gases through adsorption. Nonetheless, interchangeability

between certain activated carbon and reactivated carbon is limited. Due to contamination

and liability concerns, most reactivated carbon can be used only in its original

application. Moreover, while some reactivated carbon is pooled for use in the same

application for which the virgin product was directed, many purchasers are unwilling to

buy reactivated carbon previously used by any other end-user. Additionally, reactivated
 64 Ibid., p. I-8. Conference transcript, pp. 164-166 (Clark); third-party RAC is never used in drinking water

applications.

 65 Certain Activated Carbon from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1103 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3852,

May 2006, pp. I-7, I-8.

 66 Ibid., II-2-II-3. According to one of CIAC’s witnesses at the preliminary conference, there is some overlap in

the equipment that can be used to produce activated and RACs. Specifically, the furnaces can be used to produced

both products, with some cleaning and adjustment necessary for switching between producing the two products. 

Conference transcript, p. 110 (Kovach). Although petitioners acknowledged that both activation and reactivation

occur in a furnace or kiln, they stated that activation and reactivation occur in separate facilities to avoid

contamination. One domestic producer, ***, stated that it uses the same machinery and employees to produce

activated and reactivated carbon. For that producer, however, reactivated carbon accounted for *** percent of

production using the common machinery and employees. Certain Activated Carbon from China, Investigation No.

731-TA-1103 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3852, May 2006, p. II-3.

 67 Petitioners stated that reactivated carbon does not require the production of char from the raw materials, and

that the organic compounds removed during activation are different from the adsorbed compounds removed during

reactivation. Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 23-24. Respondents argued that the processes are almost

identical, although they acknowledged minor differences between the two processes regarding what is being

carbonized, and that reactivated carbon needs to be blended with virgin activated carbon to make up for carbon lost

in the reactivated carbon production process. CIAC’s postconference brief, pp. 12-14.

 68 Certain Activated Carbon from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1103 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3852,

May 2006, p. II-4.

 69 Ibid., pp. 11-12.

I-11

carbons can never be used in certain beverage applications and food grade applications.64

Although activated carbons can be used in any applications that use reactivated carbons,

reactivated carbons are frequently limited to their original application, and are used only

as a cost-saving measure. Even though almost all domestic producers of certain activated

carbon market and sell reactivated carbon, the channels of distribution for the two

products differ. Certain activated carbon is sold on the commercial market to a variety of

end-users, much reactivated carbon is produced (reactivated) and consumed internally by

end-users.65 Moreover, because of contamination concerns, activation and reactivation

are performed in different facilities using different equipment.66 

Although the parties acknowledge differences in the production processes, the

parties disagree as to the importance of these differences.67 While some customers

perceive reactivated carbon to be identical to low-grade virgin carbons, as previously

discussed, some end-users accept only virgin activated carbon, and numerous other endusers use only their own reactivated carbons due to contamination concerns. There are

also significant differences in price between the two products.68 Reactivated carbon sells

at much lower prices than does certain activated carbon. For the reasons discussed

above, we find a clear dividing line between certain activated carbon and reactivated

carbon for purposes of the preliminary phase of this investigation.”69

At the hearing in this investigation, the Commission raised questions as to whether the domestic

like product should be expanded to include RAC. In response, petitioners, in their domestic like product

analysis, stated:

“That analysis shows that under the Commission’s six-part test, reactivated

carbon is not like the subject imports. Reactivated carbon is made from different raw

materials than CAC (virgin coal vs. contaminated CAC), has different important physical
 70 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, pp. 3-4. See also, exh. 1, pp. 17-22 and pp. 25-29, petitioners’ postconference

brief, pp. 19-25, and petitioners’ prehearing brief, pp. 3-18.

I-12

characteristics than CAC (contamination), is produced on different equipment in different

facilities than CAC, has limited interchangeability with CAC, is perceived as different

from CAC due to the potential for contamination, is distributed differently than CAC, and

is priced differently than CAC.

Reactivated carbon was excluded from the scope because there are no imports of

reactivated carbon from China and the product does not directly compete with CAC other

than in exceptional circumstances. As a result, the Commission should follow its practice

of not expanding the like product to include a non-scope downstream product like

reactivated carbon.”70
 1

 ***.

 2

 Ibid.

 3

 Eight of the responding purchasers also reported purchasing RAC.

 4

 ***’s purchaser questionnaire response, section IV-5.

 5

 *** also produce RAC. In this section, they are discussed as producers of CAC. The discussion of producers of

RAC refers to the six additional responding commercial producers. 

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET SEGMENTS

U.S. producers’ U.S. commercial shipments of CAC and RAC, as well as U.S. shipments of

imported CAC from China, are made primarily to end users. Types of end users include municipal water

treatment facilities for both drinking and waste water, food processing plants, chemical processing plants,

filter manufacturers, and reactivators. Data provided in the petitioners’ posthearing brief indicate that

***.1

 Calgon reported that ***.2 Most end users use CAC to filter contaminants, color impurities, and

odors out of water (potable and waste); food (for example, corn syrup); and chemicals. Reactivators use

virgin CAC to mix with their reactivated product. Staff received usable questionnaire responses from 34

purchasers of CAC.3

 These purchasers span the types of end users mentioned above. 

The two largest responding purchasers of CAC, ***, as well as several other purchasers, are also

reactivators of used CAC. As such they compete directly with each other and sometimes with producers

of CAC. As noted above, municipal water treatment plants account for a large share of the CAC market. 

In the municipal water treatment industry, sales are often determined by a bidding process where the

lowest bidder wins the contract (assuming that this bidder’s product can pass through the prequalification

process). Some of these plants limit their purchases to domestic products and others do extensive

performance-cost analyses. By and large, however, the lowest cost supplier will win the bid. Qualityrelated issues are often more important for other types of purchasers, including those in the food

processing industry and those in the filter manufacturing industry. According to ***, filters are ***.4

Due to the large municipal water treatment segment, some minor seasonality is present in the

market for CAC. Specifically, while purchases are made year-round, municipal water treatment plants

generally try not to have CAC replaced during the summer months which see a high level of water usage. 

 Markets do not appear to be limited geographically, with *** responding producers of CAC and

four of six responding producers of RAC reporting nationwide sales. One remaining producer of RAC

reported sales to *** while the other reported selling ***. Seventeen of 27 responding importers also

reported nationwide sales of CAC, with another four reporting sales to at least four regions.

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

***5

 two responding U.S. producers of RAC, and eight of 18 responding importers of CAC

reported sales to both distributors and end users of CAC. Nine importers of CAC and the remaining three

responding U.S. producers of RAC, as well as the third responding producer of CAC, reported sales only

to end users. One importer of CAC reported sales only to distributors. *** of U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments of CAC were shipped directly to end users throughout the period for which data were

collected. Approximately *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of CAC, and *** percent of

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of RAC, went to end users in each year between 2003 and 2006. A

comparatively higher share of importers’ U.S. shipments of CAC went to distributors, with shipments to

end users accounting for between 66 and 74 percent of U.S. imports from China during the period 2003
II-2

to 2006. *** suggested that sales to distributors are often made at a discount due to the lower cost of

sales involved in such transactions. To the extent that this is true, it may place a downward bias on the

observed price of imported CAC, which is more frequently sold to distributors. Table II-1 presents

information on channels of distribution for U.S. producers of CAC and RAC as well as for U.S. importers

of CAC from China.

Table II-1

CAC and RAC: U.S. producers’ and U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by channels of distribution,

2003-06

Shipments

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of CAC (in short tons)

To distributors *** *** *** ***

To end users *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of RAC (in short tons)

To distributors *** *** *** ***

To end users *** *** *** ***

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of subject CAC (in short tons)

To distributors 16,021 20,065 23,327 20,851

To end users 37,298 45,863 45,439 59,135

Share of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of CAC (in percent)

To distributors *** *** *** ***

To end users *** *** *** ***

Share of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of RAC (in percent)

To distributors *** *** *** ***

To end users *** *** *** ***

Share of U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of subject CAC (in percent)

To distributors 30.0 30.4 33.9 26.1

To end users 70.0 69.6 66.1 73.9

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

Domestic Production

Based on available information, staff believes that U.S. producers of CAC are likely to respond to

changes in demand with moderate changes in shipments of U.S.-produced CAC to the U.S. market. A

small amount of unused capacity as well as limited ability to shift production to and from alternative

products suggest a low degree of responsiveness, while the existence of alternative markets, ***, and

moderately high inventories suggest a higher degree of responsiveness. 
 6

 See table III-2 for additional details concerning capacity and capacity utilization. 

 7

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 31.

 8

 Hearing transcript, p. 71 (Thompson).

 9

 See table III-2. 

 10 Conference transcript, p. 110 (Kovach).

II-3

Industry capacity

Total U.S. capacity fell *** from *** million pounds in 2003 to *** million pounds in 2006. 

U.S. producers’ reported capacity utilization for CAC rose from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in

2006. Overall, the level of capacity utilization indicates that U.S. producers of CAC have *** currently

available capacity with which they could increase production of CAC in the event of a price change.6

However, according to petitioners’ postconference brief, ***.7

 According to testimony at the hearing,

high levels of capacity utilization are necessary to keep costs low.8

Alternative markets

Overall, domestic producers’ exports fell *** between 2003 and 2005 but ***.9

 ***. *** level

of exports during the period indicates that domestic producers ***.

Inventory levels

Moderate inventories relative to total shipments indicate that U.S. producers are able to respond

to changes in demand simply by increasing shipments from inventory. According to questionnaire

responses, U.S. producers’ aggregate beginning inventories were *** percent of total shipments in 2006. 

Table III-2 presents complete inventory data for U.S. producers. 

Production alternatives

*** reported producing other products on the same equipment or machinery used to produce

CAC. *** reported that some production personnel will occasionally work on reactivating carbon. ***

reported that RAC accounts for *** percent of production by the personnel that produce CAC. ***

reported producing a small amount of CAC on the same machinery and using the same employees as does

production of RAC. This producer reported that RAC accounted for *** percent of production using this

machinery and these employees. Aside from this producer, no U.S. producers of RAC reported producing

any other product using the same equipment, machinery, or personnel as is used in the production of

RAC. Testimony by witnesses for the respondent parties during the staff conference indicated that the

same equipment (specifically, the furnace) can be used to both activate virgin carbon and reactivate

previously activated carbon with some cleaning and adjustment between production of the two products.10

Subject Imports

According to official Commerce statistics, U.S. imports of CAC from China as a share of total

U.S. imports of CAC (in terms of quantity) fell from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in 2006. U.S.

imports of CAC from China rose from *** million pounds in 2003 to *** million pounds in 2006. As a

share of total U.S. consumption, U.S. imports from China rose from *** percent in 2003 to *** percent in

2006. Based on available information, importers of CAC from China are likely to respond to changes
 11 In the preliminary phase of this investigation, one of 24 responding Chinese producers reported producing other

products using the same machinery, equipment, and/or employees as are used to produce CAC.

II-4

in demand with moderate to large changes in the quantity shipped to the U.S. market. A large response is

supported by the existence of alternative markets and moderate levels of inventory, while the response is

limited by a high capacity utilization rate and an inability to produce other products using the same

equipment with which CAC is produced. 

Industry capacity 

From 2003 to 2006, reported Chinese capacity grew from 36.8 million pounds to 55.1 million

pounds (see table VII-1). Production growth lagged slightly behind growth in capacity as capacity

utilization fell from 98.4 percent in 2003 to 91.7 percent in 2006. These data indicate that Chinese

suppliers of CAC have limited excess capacity with which they could increase production of CAC in the

event of a price change.

Alternative markets 

According to questionnaire responses from Chinese producers of CAC, exports to the United

States accounted for 41.5 percent of all exports of CAC from China in 2006, up from 37.7 percent in

2003. Total exports accounted for 75.9 percent of total shipments of Chinese-produced CAC in 2006,

down from 91.1 percent in 2003. Due to large existing export markets, Chinese producers have the

ability to divert product to or from other markets in response to relative changes in the price of CAC

between the United States and these other markets.

Inventory levels

Chinese producers’ inventories, as a share of total shipments, rose from 12.2 percent in 2003 to

17.4 percent in 2006. These data indicate that responding Chinese producers of CAC have some ability to

use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of CAC to the U.S. market. 

Production alternatives

Only one of 11 responding Chinese producers of CAC indicated that it produced other products

using the same equipment used to produce CAC.11 This foreign producer reported that CAC accounted

for 90 percent of production using this equipment. It appears that Chinese producers are constrained in

their ability to switch capacity to or from alternative products in the event of a change in demand for

CAC.

U.S. Demand

Based on available information, CAC consumers are likely to respond to changes in the price of

CAC with moderate to large changes in their purchases of CAC. The main contributing factor to the

responsiveness of demand is the availability of substitute products that can compete with CAC in many

end uses. Specifically, since reactivation of used carbon is a viable alternative for many customers, an

increase in the price of virgin CAC may lead to more widespread use of reactivated product. However,

the ability of end users to use reactivated product is not universal and many end users can use only virgin

CAC. In addition, a substantial increase in the price of CAC may lead to more direct competition with

the higher-priced CHAC which is a viable substitute for a number of end uses.
 12 ***’s importer questionnaire response, section III-B-15.

 13 Hearing transcript, p. 143 (Thompson).

 14 Only one of these two actually reported purchasing RAC.

II-5

Demand Characteristics

Available data indicate that apparent U.S. consumption of CAC rose from *** million pounds in

2003 to *** million pounds in 2006, an increase of *** percent.

When asked if demand for CAC had changed since 2003, *** responding *** producers of CAC,

four responding producers of RAC, 22 of 24 responding importers of CAC, and 12 of 23 responding

purchasers of CAC (including five of seven purchasers of RAC) reported that demand had increased

between 2003 and 2006. Two importers of CAC and 10 purchasers stated that demand had been

unchanged between 2003 and 2006 and one purchaser stated that demand had decreased. One U.S.

producer of CAC and one importer of CAC stated that demand has been growing consistently at 3 to 5

percent per year. The most commonly cited reason for the increase is stricter EPA regulations regarding

the treatment of water as well as the emission of pollutants. *** U.S. producers of CAC, as well as three

of four responding U.S. producers of RAC, 17 of 24 responding importers of CAC, and ten of 30

responding purchasers (including five of eight purchasers of RAC) anticipate further growth in demand

due to more stringent regulations on drinking water and the future restrictions on mercury emissions by

power plants. In general, all parties who had an opinion on the issue indicated that new mercury

emissions standards could have a significant effect on demand for CAC. While one importer reported

that the effect of the new standards is already being seen in higher demand and prices in the CAC

market,12 as noted at the hearing, the first stage of implementation will not occur until 2010 with the final

implementation of the new standards not occurring until 2018.13 It is therefore unlikely that a large effect

will be felt in the near future.

Substitute Products

*** reported that no direct substitutes exist. ***. Two U.S. producers of RAC reported that

substitutes exist. These producers of RAC listed biofiltration, thermal oxidizers, and air strippers as

potential substitutes. Fifteen of 28 responding importers of CAC reported that there are substitutes for

CAC. The most widely reported substitute was RAC, which was mentioned by 12 responding importers

of CAC. Six importers of CAC listed CHAC as a substitute. Thirteen of 34 responding purchasers of

CAC (including four of eight that also purchase RAC) reported that there are substitutes for CAC. Only

two of these 13 mentioned RAC.14 Other substitutes listed by responding parties were ion exchange

resins, zeolite, clay, activated alumina, activated coke, phosphoric acid, zinc chloride, decolorizing resin,

alum and anthracite (together), oxidants, ozone, potassium permanganate, and ferric chloride. 

While many potential substitutes were listed, it is clear that only RAC and the more expensive

CHAC are realistic substitutes for most end uses. Both RAC and CHAC are reported by importers of

CAC to be adequate substitutes in many applications in which CAC is used. However, as noted in Part I

of this report, reactivation is normally performed on granular or pelletized CAC and is rarely used on

powdered CAC. In addition, for end users such as potable water treatment facilities, only RAC resulting

from the reactivation of carbon from that specific customer can be used. Other customers can purchase

“pooled” RAC which can originate from a variety of sources. When asked to compare CAC to RAC,

purchasers had varying opinions. While some reported that the two were, by and large, interchangeable,

most reported either that they could not use RAC for their end uses or that the two were not

interchangeable. For end uses in the food, potable water, or medical industries, either virgin or customerspecific RAC is needed and pooled RAC cannot be used. When asked about the price differences,
 15 See app. E for more information concerning the price of RAC, and app. D for complete purchaser statements

concerning the comparability of CAC and RAC.

 16 Hearing transcript, pp. 44-45 (Luberda), and p. 111 (O’Brien).

 17 One purchaser, ***, reported that it purchases a high-grade Chinese-produced steam-activated CAC that

competes directly with domestic CHAC. According to ***’s purchaser questionnaire response, this grade is

substantially more expensive than most other grades of CAC. ***.

 18 Conference transcript, p. 174 (Nelson).

 19 Ibid., p. 119 (Jordan).

 20 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 16.

II-6

several purchasers suggested that RAC is approximately 10 to 20 percent cheaper than virgin CAC. 

However, as one purchaser pointed out, the less-effective RAC must be replaced more often in many

applications, thereby increasing the replacement costs associated with using RAC.15 In addition to the

factors discussed above, petitioners state that the production of reactivated carbon more closely resembles

a service rather than the production of a new product.16

While CHAC can often be used in the same applications as CAC, the price is substantially higher. 

In addition, for most applications that use CHAC (such as applications within the automotive industry),

CAC does not meet the required specifications.17

Cost Share

One producer reported that CAC accounts for ***. Other responding U.S. producers did not

provide any information on this issue. Responding importers of CAC reported a wide range of estimates

concerning the share of CAC costs in all end-use related costs. These estimates ranged from less than 1

percent to 90 percent for a variety of end uses. For the largest end use (water treatment), estimates of the

cost share attributable to CAC supplied by the treatment facilities themselves were normally in the range

of 5 to 10 percent of treatment costs (excluding any cost of the water itself). One purchaser in the food

products industry reported that CAC accounted for *** of the total cost of the products produced using

CAC.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

It is generally agreed that as long as CAC meets the specifications required for the particular end

use in question, then price is the largest single factor affecting purchase decisions. There may, however,

be some differences in quality between domestically produced CAC and CAC imported from China. 

During the staff conference for the preliminary phase of this investigation, representatives for the

respondent interested parties reported that U.S.-produced CAC is often more effective and therefore

requires less product for the same end use than Chinese-produced product.18 This sentiment was echoed

by some purchasers in their questionnaire responses. Some end users require CAC with a lower ash

content than is available with unwashed Chinese product. In such cases, the Chinese product must be

acid-washed to remove ash and meet the required specifications. According to an industry witness

appearing on behalf of respondent interested parties at the staff conference, such washing may increase

costs by 30 to 40 percent.19 Finally, many orders of granular CAC (***20) include removal of old product

along with installation of new product. Service costs, therefore, may influence the purchase decision

along with the cost of the CAC itself.
 21 CIAC postconference brief, pp. 25-26. 

 22 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 34. 

 23 None of these four purchasers reported purchasing RAC, which is almost always domestically produced.

II-7

While not Federally mandated in this industry, municipalities may enact their own “Buy

American” regulations to CAC. Respondents claim that a substantial portion (20 to 30 percent) of

municipal water treatment facilities purchase only U.S.-produced product.21 Petitioners state that they

believe these estimated percentages to be “overblown.” In addition, they report that many of these “Buy

American” policies are informal and could be ignored should price differences between domestic and

imported product become too great.22 When asked about the issue, three of 34 purchasers stated that

some of their sales were limited to domestic CAC by law. For these purchasers, such purchases

accounted for 5-20 percent of their total purchases. Four purchasers also stated that a certain percentage

of their purchases was limited to domestic CAC due to the requirements of their customers. Such

purchases accounted for 90 percent of all purchases for one purchaser and less than 10 percent for the

remaining three. Finally, five purchasers reported that some or all of their purchases were limited to

domestic CAC for “other” reasons. For four of these five purchasers, such purchases accounted for 100

percent of their CAC purchases. For two of these four purchasers, the “other” reason given to limit their

purchases to domestic sources was the superior quality of domestic CAC.23

Purchasers were asked to identify the three major factors considered by their firm in deciding

from whom to purchase CAC (table II-2). Twenty of the 32 responding firms reported that quality or

meeting specifications was the most important factor, whereas nine of the 32 reported that price was the

most important factor. No other factor was listed as “most important” by more than one purchaser. Price

was also listed as second most important by 14 purchasers and third by another eight, while quality was

listed as second by nine purchasers and third by one. Availability was listed as the most important factor

by one purchaser, the second most important factor by three purchasers, and the third most important

factor by 10 purchasers. Delivery or removal performance was listed as second most important by two

purchasers and as third most important by four more and product reliability/consistency was listed second

by two purchasers and third by two purchasers. No other factor received more than one vote.

When asked what factors determine the quality of CAC, purchasers provided a wide variety of

answers. Nine of 30 stated that the CAC must meet either firm or industry standards and specifications;

16 mentioned physical characteristics such as particle size, bulk density, moisture content, ash content,

hardness, iodine number, adsorption capacity, and dustiness; and six mentioned product performance

(often based on in-house testing). 

Purchasers were asked if they always, usually, sometimes, or never purchased the lowest-priced

CAC. Four purchasers reported always purchasing the lowest-priced product; 14 reported that they

usually purchased the lowest-priced product; nine reported only sometimes purchasing the lowest-priced

product; and four reported never purchasing the lowest-priced product. 
II-8

Table II-2

CAC: Most important factors in selecting a supplier, as reported by purchasers

Factor First Second Third

Price 9 14 8

Quality/meets specifications 20 9 1

Availability 1 3 10

Delivery/removal performance 0 2 4

Domestic supplier 1 0 0

Customer requires specific supplier 1 0 0

Reliability/consistency 0 2 2

Customer/technical service 0 0 1

Packaging 0 1 0

Extension of credit 0 1 0

Traditional supplier 0 0 1

References 0 0 1

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 15 factors in their purchasing decisions (table

II-3). Meeting industry standards was listed as very important by all 33 responding purchasers, while

product consistency was listed as very important by 32 of the responding purchasers, and reliability of

supply was listed as very important by 31 firms. Twenty-nine listed product availability as being very

important, while 26 reported that price was very important and 25 reported that delivery time was very

important. Price was listed as somewhat important by the remaining seven purchasers. 
II-9

Table II-3

CAC: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by purchasers

Factor

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Number of firms responding

Product availability 29 4 0

Delivery terms 19 12 2

Delivery time 25 7 1

Discounts offered 2 15 16

Extension of credit 6 13 14

Price 26 7 0

Minimum quantity requirements 4 14 14

Packaging 15 14 4

Product consistency 32 1 0

Quality meets industry standards 33 0 0

Quality exceeds industry

standards 11 16 6

Product range 4 21 8

Reliability of supply 31 1 1

Technical support/service 8 17 8

U.S. transportation costs 10 14 9

Note.--Not all purchasers responded for each factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison of U.S.-produced CAC compared to

CAC from China. Results are shown in table II-4. By and large, product from China and product from

the United States are fairly comparable. However, it is clear that the Chinese CAC is generally less

expensive, while the U.S. product is accompanied by superior technical support and may have more

reliable supply and lower delivery times. The U.S. product may also exhibit a greater degree of product

consistency. These patterns are consistent with statements made by suppliers concerning the differences

between U.S. and Chinese CAC.
 24 *** are not produced in the United States, but are available from China.

II-10

Table II-4

CAC: Comparisons of product by source country, as reported by purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs. China

SC I

Number of firms responding 

Product availability 5 13 3

Delivery terms 3 16 2

Delivery time 7 13 1

Discounts offered 1 15 4

Extension of credit 1 17 2

Lower price1 0 3 18

Lower U.S. transportation costs1 4 15 1

Minimum quantity requirements 2 18 1

Packaging 1 20 0

Product consistency 7 14 0

Product range 3 16 0

Quality meets industry standards 2 18 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 4 14 0

Reliability of supply 5 12 3

Technical support/service 13 8 0

1

 A rating of “S” on price and U.S. transportation costs indicates that the U.S. product has lower prices/costs than

the product from China.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s

product is inferior. 

Note.--Not all companies gave responses for all factors.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if certain grades, types, or sizes of CAC were

available from a single source. While *** of the three U.S. producers of CAC stated that certain grades

were only available from a single source or country, three of five responding U.S. producers of RAC and

14 of 28 responding importers of CAC stated that certain grades were only available from a single source

or country.24 Eight of the 32 responding purchasers of CAC also reported that certain grades of CAC

were not universally available. In general, purchasers that responded in the affirmative to this question

reported that coal-based pellets are only available from China and that coconut-based CAC (pelletized,

powdered, and granular) are not available in the United States and must be imported (primarily from
 25 According to testimony given at the hearing, “Coconut-based products are typically more expensive than coalbased products and are largely sold to a different customer base.” (Hearing transcript, p. 17 (Thompson)). These

assertions are supported in the petitioners’ posthearing brief by data presented in exh. 1, p. 32, which shows that ***,

and exh. 4, which shows that ***. 

 26 In the cases of failure to qualify by domestic producers, it is not clear whether the product in question was

produced in the United States or imported from China.

II-11

China, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines).25 They also noted that several high-quality grades are available

only from ***. 

When asked about trends in purchasing levels of CAC from different sources, 12 of 14

responding purchasers stated that they had increased shipments of CAC from China in the last four years. 

Six of these purchasers stated that their purchases of CAC from the United States decreased during the

same period. Price was the most commonly given reason for this pattern. Four of the 14 responding

purchasers also reported increased orders of U.S.-produced CAC.

In most cases, new suppliers of CAC must obtain certification before their product can be

purchased. When purchasers were asked if they required certification or prequalification for CAC, 28 of

the 32 responding purchasers reported that they required certification or prequalification for all of their

suppliers, one reported that it required certification for 75 percent of its purchases, and the remaining

three reported that they do not require certification or prequalification. According to purchaser responses,

prequalification normally entails certification from the National Sanitation Foundation and/or the

American Waste Water Association in addition to, in many cases, passing a series of in-house

performance tests. Due to the health-related nature of many of the end uses of CAC, maintaining

minimum standards of product quality and performance is essential in this industry.

Thirty of 32 responding purchasers of CAC reported factors they considered in qualifying a new

supplier. The most common factors considered included meeting required specifications, quality, price,

reliability of supply, customer service, and references regarding performance with other customers. The

time required to qualify a new supplier was reported by 14 purchasers and ranged from one month to one

year, with six purchasers reporting that qualification of new suppliers takes at least 6 months. A lengthy

prequalification process increases the cost of changing suppliers in the short term. Purchasers were asked

if any suppliers had failed to qualify their product or lost their approved status. Eleven responding

purchasers reported that suppliers had failed to qualify, mostly due to quality-related issues. Those that

failed included both domestic and Chinese suppliers.26

Purchasers were asked whether they or their customers were aware of, or based their purchases

on, the producer or the country of origin of CAC (table II-5). Overall, the manufacturer and country of

origin are commonly known by purchasers. In addition, country of origin appears to matter to a sizeable

share of their customers. However, the identity of the manufacturer normally does not make a difference

in purchasing decisions made by the customers of responding purchasers. 
 27 According to questionnaire responses, 18.1 percent of CAC imported from China is pelletized while only ***

percent of U.S.-produced CAC is pelletized. Pelletized CAC is similar in use to granular CAC and would normally

be used by low-volume users using smaller filters. With smaller filters, less pressure is required to pass the medium

through pelletized CAC than through granular CAC.

II-12

Table II-5

CAC: The role of producer and country of origin in purchaser and customer decisions

Always Usually Sometimes Never

Purchaser is aware of country of origin 28 3 3 0

Purchaser is aware of manufacturer 17 9 6 2

Purchaser’s customers are aware of/interested in the

country of origin 9 7 10 5

Purchaser’s customers make purchasing decision

based on manufacturer of CAC 2 2 13 9

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Nineteen of the 33 responding purchasers reported that they contacted at least two suppliers

before making a purchase, with five reporting that they send out bid packages to anywhere from 5 to 12

potential suppliers and one reporting that it publicly advertises for bids. Twelve purchasers reported that

they only contact the one supplier with which they have a long-term contract or relationship. Seventeen

of 33 responding purchasers reported changing suppliers since January 1, 2003. There is no distinct

pattern regarding country of origin in the reported changes. The annual bid process involved with many

sales of CAC means that suppliers are often changed to the new lowest bidder (assuming that the lowest

bidder passes prequalification).

Comparisons of Domestic Products, Subject Imports, and Nonsubject Imports

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked to report how frequently CAC from

different countries was used in the same applications (table II-6). 

*** responding U.S. producers of CAC, two of five responding U.S. producers of RAC, four of

26 responding importers of CAC, and 10 of 26 purchasers who reported having knowledge of both

Chinese and U.S.-produced CAC reported that Chinese and U.S. CAC are always interchangeable. Nine

importers of CAC, two producers of RAC, and eight purchasers reported that product from the two

countries is frequently interchangeable, while 13 importers of CAC and five purchasers reported that

product from China is sometimes interchangeable with U.S.-produced CAC. Three purchasers reported

that these products were never interchangeable. Importers of CAC, purchasers of CAC and RAC, and

producers of RAC also reported imperfect interchangeability between the United States, China, and nonsubject countries (primarily Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and India). The most-commonly stated reasons

for a lack of interchangeability include the unavailability in the United States of coconut-based CAC and

pelletized CAC.27 One importer of CAC also cited quality issues as the reason for imperfect

interchangeability (in that the Chinese product is of lower quality), and one purchaser cited inferior

delivery and availability on the part of the Chinese suppliers.
II-13

Table II-6

CAC: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived degree of interchangeability of products produced

in the United States and other countries1

Country

comparison

U.S. producers of CAC U.S. producers of RAC U.S. importers U.S. purchasers

A F S N 0 A F S N 0 A F S N 0 A FSN 0

U.S. vs.

China *** *** *** *** *** 2 2 0 0 1 4 9 13 0 0 10 8 5 3 0

U.S. vs.

Nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** 0 3 0 0 2 3 5 8 1 9 3 2 4 2 15

China vs.

Nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** 0 2 1 0 2 4 5 7 1 9 2 2 5 2 15

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if CAC produced in the United States and in other

countries is used interchangeably.

Note: “A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never, and “0” = No familiarity.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Producers of CAC and RAC and importers of CAC were also asked to assess how often

differences other than price were significant in sales of CAC from the United States, China, or nonsubject

countries (table II-7). 

Table II-7

CAC: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceptions concerning the importance of non-price

differences in purchases of CAC from the United States and other countries1

Country comparison

U.S. producers of CAC U.S. producers of RAC U.S. importers

AFSN0AFSN0AFSN0

U.S. vs. China *** *** *** *** *** 2 1 1 0 1 4 11 6 4 1

U.S. vs. Nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** 0 1 2 0 2 6 5 2 4 9

China vs. Nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** 0 1 2 0 2 3 6 2 4 11

 1 Producers and importers were asked if differences other than price between CAC produced in the United

States and in other countries are a significant factor in their firm’s sales of the product.

Note: “A” = Always, “F” = Frequently, “S” = Sometimes, “N” = Never, and “0” = No familiarity.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

*** responding producers of CAC, as well as four of 26 responding importers of CAC, reported

that non-price differences are never a factor in sales of CAC from the United States and China. Four

importers of CAC and two of five U.S. producers of RAC reported that such differences are always a

factor; 11 importers of CAC and one producer of RAC reported that such differences are frequently a

factor; and six importers of CAC and one producer of RAC reported that non-price differences were

sometimes a factor. Quality, availability, particular product characteristics, service, and technical support

were listed as factors other than price that may influence their purchase decisions. One importer of CAC

stated that U.S.-produced CAC is of higher quality. Several others stated that availability for “specialty”

products is superior for importers of Chinese CAC. The unavailability of pelletized CAC
II-14

from the United States was mentioned by three importers of CAC. With regard to nonsubject countries,

several importers of CAC noted that CAC made from coconut shells was available from only nonsubject

sources.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

U.S. Supply Elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity for CAC measures the sensitivity of the quantity of CAC supplied

by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of CAC. The elasticity of domestic supply depends

on several factors including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which producers can alter

production, producers’ ability to shift to production of other products, the existence of inventories, and

the availability of alternative markets for U.S.-produced product. Earlier analysis of these factors,

specifically the modest amount of unused capacity, *** exports, and sizeable inventories, indicates that

the U.S. industry has some ability to increase shipments to the U.S. market; an estimate in the range of 2

to 4 is suggested. 

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for CAC measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded to

a change in the U.S. market price of CAC. This estimate depends on factors discussed earlier such as the

existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as well as the component share of

CAC in the production of any downstream products. The only realistic substitute for CAC in most end

uses is RAC. While RAC is not as effective as CAC in many end uses, a large rise in the price in CAC

may bring about an increase in the use of RAC. While a movement into RAC in response to a price

increase is likely, total usage of all activated carbon and RAC will not be responsive to price changes as

there are few alternatives and the products are essential to many end uses (most notably, water treatment). 

For these reasons staff suggests an elasticity of demand in the range of -0.8 to -1.2. In other words, due to

the availability of a close substitute, purchasers may be sensitive to changes in the price of CAC. 

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution measures the extent to which the ratio of subject-country imports to

the domestic like product changes in response to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily

purchasers switch from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change. The

elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the domestic and

imported products. Product differentiation, in the case of CAC, depends upon such factors as quality,

consistency, availability, and reliability of supply. According to responding parties in this investigation,

domestic and subject CAC are interchangeable in most end uses. While some end users prefer or insist

upon domestic product, the elasticity of substitution is thought to be high—in the range of 4 to 6.
 1

 California Carbon ***.

 2

 Acticarb stopped producing in October 2005 and is not currently in operation. Petition, p. 3, n. 6. ***.

 3 Cal Pacific ***.

 4

 Petition, exh. General-1.

 5

 Petition, p. 3.

 6

 In response to a question from Commission staff as to whether the five firms named in the petition are the only

firms that actually activate carbon, counsel for CIAC stated:

“To our knowledge, that’s correct. Some of our clients also do what’s being characterized as

further processing, but they don’t include the activation step. There are others that are not

represented in the proceeding that also do some further processing that does not involve

activation.”

Conference transcript, p. 158 (Heckendorn).

 7

 ***. Calgon’s questionnaire. 

 8

 Calgon’s Pearlington facility was closed from August 27, 2005, through November 7, 2005, due to damage

caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In its postconference submission, CIAC argued that petitioner’s (Calgon)

claim that it is being materially injured by Chinese imports is “flatly unfounded,” noting that Calgon’s CEO, John

Stanik’s statements in conference calls held on October 26, 2005, and March 29, 2006, concerning the company’s

earnings in the third and fourth quarters of 2005, addressed the impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on Calgon’s

financial performance without mentioning subject imports. In part, Mr. Stanik stated:

(continued...)

III-1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§

1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the margins of dumping was presented earlier in this report

and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV

and V. Information, as it relates to CAC, on the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or

Part VI and (except as noted) is based on the questionnaire responses of three firms that accounted for

virtually all of U.S. production during 2003-06.

U.S. PRODUCERS

The petition identified five firms that produced CAC during 2003-06. In addition to Calgon and

Norit, California Carbon,1

 Acticarb Tailored Products, LLC (Acticarb),2 and Cal Pacific Carbon (Cal

Pacific)3

 were listed as producers of the subject product. Petitioners estimated the 2005 production of the

latter three firms to be nearly *** pounds compared with the combined Calgon and Norit production of

more than *** pounds.4

 Petitioners noted that they determined the “universe” of domestic producers in

the following manner.

“Principally as domestic producers of certain activated carbon, petitioners are aware of

the other producers in the market by virtue of directly competing with them in bids. 

Many companies that hold themselves out as domestic producers of certain activated

carbon are actually engaging in reactivation of used activated carbon or other postproduction processing of activated carbon that is imported or produced by other domestic

producers.”5 6

Calgon is headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA, with separate CAC and RAC production facilities

located in Catlettsburg, KY7

 and a CAC production facility in Pearlington, MS.8 It is *** of CAC in the
 8

 (...continued)

“Hurricanes Katrina and Rita both impacted the company’s sales and costs. Regarding sales, the

effects of the hurricanes were two-fold: Hurricane Katrina’s path was directly over our Pearl

River facility resulting in the plant being partially submerged under water. The consequence of

this was to shutdown the facility, which remains down today (October 26, 2005). This downtime

hindered our ability to meet some customer requests. The second effect was the effect that both

hurricanes had on customer carbon and service consumption. Many of our Gulf Coast industrial

and municipal customers experienced and continue to experience downtime in their operations.”

CIAC postconference brief, p. 43. 

 9

 In 2006, Calgon accounted for *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of CAC. ***.

 10 Conference transcript, p. 15 (O’Brien). Calgon Carbon (Tianjin) Co., Ltd., a Chinese producer/exporter of

subject product, is a subsidiary of Calgon.

 11 http://www.calgoncarbon.com/company/index.html, retrieved March 31, 2006. Calgon Carbon is selfdescribed as the world’s largest manufacturer of granular activated carbon, with production and operations in North

America, Europe, and Asia. Ibid.

 12 Conference transcript, p. 174 (Vander Schaaf).

 13 Certain Activated Carbon from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1103 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3852,

May 2006, p. 13.

 14 Calgon also ***.

 15 ***. Calgon questionnaire.

 16 Hearing transcript, pp. 22-23 (O’Brien).

 17 Conference transcript, pp. 26-27 (Thompson). Norit also has separate RAC production facilities in the United

States. Ibid. Norit closed its CHAC production facilities in Marshall, TX, in January 2005. Those facilities were

separate from the CAC production facilities. In addition to Norit, MeadWestvaco produced CHAC (but no CAC)

during the period examined. Additionally, MeadWestvaco ***.

 18 In 2006, Norit accounted for *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of CAC. ***. 

III-2

United States, accounting for *** percent of 2006 production,9

 and also has operations around the world,

including China.10 According to its website, Calgon, along with its European operation Chemviron

Carbon, is a “global manufacturer and supplier of granular activated carbon, innovative treatment

systems, value added technologies and services for optimizing production processes and safely purifying

the environment.”11 During the staff conference in the preliminary phase investigation, counsel for CIAC

stated that it was “appropriate to at least probe the issue of exclusion of Calgon as a related party” in view

of its imports from and operations in China;12 however, CIAC provided no further discussion of this

potential issue in its postconference submission. In its preliminary determination, the Commission chose

not to exclude Calgon as a related party.13 During 2003-06, Calgon’s imports of CAC from China were

the equivalent of ***, ***, ***, and *** percent, respectively, of its U.S. production.14 15 With respect to

its decision to import CAC from China, Calgon stated:

“Our customer base in the United States was encouraging us to purchase Chinese

material to supply them. They wanted to get the advantages of the low prices for Chinese

material while having Calgon’s technical support and quality assurance.

We had established relationships with a number of Chinese producers and we

would fulfill our customers’ requests, but it was very clear to us that whatever advantages

we might have in service and quality were secondary to price. If we did not sell them

Chinese material, we would lose the sale and other importers of Chinese carbon would

get the sale.”16

Norit is headquartered in Marshall, TX, with CAC production facilities located there as well as in

Pryor, OK.17 In 2006, Norit accounted for *** percent of U.S. production.18 Norit’s parent company,
 19 Conference transcript, p. 27 (Thompson).

 20 http://www.norit-ac.com/ retrieved April 3, 2006.

 21 Norit ***.

 22 California Carbon ***.

 23 California Carbon ***. California Carbon accounted for less than *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments of CAC. Of California Carbon’s shipments of its U.S.-produced product, ***. California Carbon also

***. During 2003-06, its *** pounds, respectively, which were the equivalent of ***. Additionally, California

Carbon is ***. Ibid. 

III-3

Norit NV, is located in the Netherlands and has production facilities there.19 According to its website,

Norit is:

“. . .the world’s largest producer of activated carbon and related services. With over 80

years of experience, NORIT has grown to produce well over 150 different types of

activated carbon products, enabling them to offer the most choices, precise fit and best

performance for any application. NORIT also offers activated carbon reactivation,

carbon change out services, and both granular and powdered carbon systems &

equipment.”20

Norit is also an importer of CAC from China. During 2003-06, Norit’s imports from China were the

equivalent of ***, ***, ***, and *** percent, respectively, of its U.S. production of CAC.21

California Carbon22 is located in Wilmington, CA, where it operates a small production facility

for CAC as well as a facility for RAC production. According to its ***, *** percent of its operations

were used for the production of ***. In 2006, California Carbon’s production of CAC amounted to ***

pounds, or *** percent of total U.S. production.23

Presented in table III-1 is a list of the U.S. CAC producers that responded to the Commission’s

producer questionnaire. Also presented is information concerning each company’s position on the

petition, production locations, and its share of reported 2006 domestic production of CAC. 
 24 Hearing transcript, pp. 29-30 (Hudgens).

III-4

Table III-1

CAC: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, and shares of reported

2006 production

Firm Position

Production

location (s)

Share of 2006

reported production

(percent)

Calgon Supports (Petitioner) Kentucky, Mississippi ***

Norit Supports (Petitioner) Oklahoma, Texas ***

California Carbon *** California ***

 Total 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, CAPACITY UTILIZATION, 

SHIPMENT, INVENTORY, AND EMPLOYMENT DATA

Table III-2 presents U.S. producers’ capacity, production, capacity utilization, shipment,

inventory, and employment data, for CAC. Capacity was below apparent U.S. consumption of CAC in

each of the years 2003-06. In testimony at the hearing in this investigation, petitioners indicated that

given the nature of the CAC production process, it behooves producers to operate at, or near, full

capacity. In this regard, they stated:

“. . . the nature of the production process requires high capacity utilization for the

domestic producers. Given the very high capital intensive nature of activated carbon

production and the highly integrated nature of the production process, the domestic

producers are designed for and depend on running at very high capacity utilization rates

to spread the high fixed cost over as much production volume as possible.

The domestic producers operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, except for

scheduled maintenance shutdowns. This condition of competition is particularly relevant

to the Commission’s analysis because as U.S. producers have experienced low priced

competition from Chinese imports they have been forced to reduce prices significantly to

maintain volumes rather than cut production.”24

With respect to their ability to add to capacity by restarting an idled production line, Calgon

stated:

“As I mentioned we have closed some of our production lines. One of them we

could restart. We’d have to make some capital investment to get it completely back into

operation. There are some environmental additions we need to make on the furnaces. If

we could see that the demand was going to be there and we could sell it at prices that

were attractive we would certainly consider investing to restart one of our production

lines. So we could, with that, absorb the growing demand that is in the U.S. Certainly

that would be something we would be considering. But as Ron mentioned, our Board of
 25 Hearing transcript, pp. 137-138 (O’Brien). Norit indicated that any capacity it might consider adding in the

future would be new capacity rather than the restart of an idled production line that would take roughly 18 months

from the time an environmental permit is obtained. Hearing transcript, p. 150 (Thompson) and petitioners’

posthearing brief, p. 6, fn. 5.

III-5

Directors obviously would be looking for some assurance that if we made that investment

we’d be able to generate a return.”25

Table III-2

CAC: U.S. capacity, production, capacity utilization, shipments, end-of-period inventories, and

employment-related indicators, 2003-06

* * * * * * *

 1

 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition and firms identified by U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) as possible importers.

 2

 One importer, ***, reported imports of RAC. ***.

 3

 Norit’s nonsubject CAC imports were coal- and peat-based and were produced at its operations in Europe. 

Hearing transcript, p. 118 (Wruble).

 4

 For 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, coconut-based imports from nonsubject sources accounted for ***,***, ***,

and *** percent, respectively, of all nonsubject imports reported by questionnaire respondents.

 5

 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exh. 1, pp. 32-33. See also, exh. 10 of petitioners’ posthearing brief.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, 

AND MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

The Commission sent importer questionnaires to 61 firms believed to be importers of CAC, as

well as to all U.S. producers.1

 Usable questionnaire responses were received from 25 companies that

imported CAC from China for all, or part, of the period 2003-06.2

 The 21 firms that reported imports of

Chinese CAC in 2006 accounted for 95.9 percent of total CAC imports (based on official statistics) from

China. The five largest responding importers of CAC from China were ***, collectively accounting for

61.0 percent of reported imports of activated carbon from China in 2006. In 2006, GAC, PAC, and

pelletized product accounted for 58.6, 23.5, and 17.9 percent, respectively, of shipments of Chinese CAC. 

Nearly all of the CAC imports from China were coal-based. 

Of the 25 companies reporting imports of CAC from China during 2003-06, nine also reported

imports from nonsubject sources. The nine firms accounted for virtually all of CAC imports (based on

official statistics) from nonsubject sources. With the exception of ***,3

 all of the CAC imports from

nonsubject sources were coconut-based.4

 *** of CAC imports from nonsubject sources in 2006. In

response to Commission questions at the hearing in this investigation concerning end uses of coconutbased CAC, Calgon stated:

“According to internal data from Calgon, cigarette filters and gold mining

account for ***, there is very little overlap in the ultimate end users of coconut- and coalbased CAC.

An analysis of Calgon’s sales of coal and coconut based carbons illustrates the

point. As indicated in these data, *** purchase exclusively coal-based CAC and ***

purchase exclusively coconut-based CAC. Of the remaining *** purchasers, *** are

distributors that purchase both coconut- and coal-based CAC. These distributors, like

Calgon, in turn resell to end users that generally purchase exclusively one or the other

CAC. Thus, of the *** customers that purchase CAC from Calgon, only *** of these

customers purchase both coconut- and coal-based CAC. Based on sales volume, only

*** of coconut-based CAC is sold to customers that also purchase coal-based CAC. 

Consequently, there is extremely limited overlap in the end uses of coconut- and coalbased CAC in the U.S. market. Hence, it would be unlikely that imports of coconutbased CAC would prevent the domestic industry from obtaining a benefit under the

order.”5

In 2006, GAC, PAC, and pelletized product accounted for 89.5, 9.6, and 0.9 percent, respectively,

of shipments of nonsubject CAC. A list of responding U.S. importers of CAC, the countries they import
 6

 Collectively, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Indonesia, India, and Thailand accounted for *** percent of U.S. CAC

imports in 2006. 

IV-2

from, and their shares of reported 2006 imports from China and nonsubject sources are presented in table

IV-1. 

Table IV-1

CAC: U.S. importers, countries they import from, and shares (in percent) of 2006 imports

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTS

U.S. imports (based on official statistics) of CAC are presented in table IV-2. In 2006, China was

the largest exporter of subject CAC to the United States, accounting for *** percent of total imports (on a

quantity basis) of CAC, followed (in order) by Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Indonesia, India, and Thailand.6

U.S. imports of CAC and shipments of those imports, as reported by importer questionnaire respondents,

are presented in table C-2. 

Table IV-2

CAC: U.S. imports, by sources, 2003-06, based on adjusted official Commerce statistics

* * * * * * *

Changes in importers’ operations since January 1, 2003 were reported by six firms and are

presented in table IV-3. 

Table IV-3

CAC: U.S. importers and changes in operations since January 1, 2003

* * * * * * *

NEGLIGIBILITY

The Tariff Act provides for the termination of an investigation if imports of the subject product

from a subject country are less than 3 percent of total imports, or, if there is more than one such country,

their combined share is less than or equal to 7 percent of total imports, during the most recent 12 months

for which data are available preceding the filing of the petition–in this case March 2005 to February 2006. 

The shares (in percent) of the total quantity of U.S. imports, by sources, are presented in table 

IV-4.
IV-3

Table IV-4

CAC: U.S. imports, by sources, and shares of total imports (in percent), March 2005-February

2006

Imports 

(1,000 pounds)

Share of total imports

(percent)

China 77,943 58.7

Nonsubject countries 54,839 41.3

 Total 132,782 100.0

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics, using proportions gathered from questionnaire data to

exclude imports of CHAC.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data on U.S. consumption of CAC are presented in table IV-5. The quantity of U.S. consumption

of CAC increased by *** percent from 2003 to 2006. The value of U.S. consumption of CAC increased

by *** percent from 2003 to 2006.

Table IV-5

CAC: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. imports, by sources, and apparent U.S. consumption, 

2003-06

* * * * * * *

U.S. MARKET SHARES

Market shares for CAC are presented in table IV-6. The U.S. producers’ market share of CAC

decreased irregularly from 2003 through 2006, both by quantity and value. 

Table IV-6

CAC: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2003-06

* * * * * * *

RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of imports to U.S. production of CAC is presented in table IV-7.

Table IV-7

CAC: Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production, by sources, 2003-06

* * * * * * *

 1

 ***

 2

 Petition, p. 13.

 3

 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 2.

 4

 Hearing transcript, p. 58 (Thompson). 

 5

 Petition, pp. 51-61.

 6

 These estimates are based on HTS subheading 3802.10.00.

 7

 *** also produce RAC. In this section, they are discussed only as producers of CAC. The discussion of

producers of RAC refers to the six additional responding commercial producers. *** is treated as a producer of both

CAC and RAC even though CAC ***.

 8

 The four responding producers of RAC that arrange for shipment of the product reported that transportation costs

accounted for 13-15 percent of total costs. 

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Materials

The production of CAC begins with materials that contain a high level of carbon. Such materials

include, but are not limited to, coal (bituminous, lignite, and anthracite), wood, coconut shells, olive

stones, and peat.1

 According to petitioners, coal is the raw material most widely used by both U.S. and

Chinese producers of CAC.2

 In the petitioners’ posthearing brief, Calgon reported that coal accounted 

for *** percent of total costs while Norit *** reported that coal accounted for *** percent of total costs.3

As shown in figure V-1, the price of coal has risen over the period for which data were collected

(although the price has leveled off in 2006). Prices in the third quarter of 2006 were 59 percent higher

than they were in the first quarter of 2003. During the hearing, however, petitioners pointed out that they

use a very specialized type of coal in the production of CAC.4

 The coal prices presented here, therefore

may not capture their true raw material costs. In addition, producers of CAC often engage in long-term

contracts for coal inputs. Such contracts will cause the actual price paid for coal inputs to differ from the

market price. Other raw materials used in the production of CAC include pitch, phosphoric acid, oxygen,

steam, and water.5

 Overall, raw materials accounted for *** percent of the cost of goods sold for CAC in

2006, up from *** percent in 2005 and *** percent in 2003. Electricity and natural gas are also used in

the production process of CAC and accounted for *** percent of the total costs of good sold in 2006, up

*** from *** percent in 2003.

Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

Transportation costs for CAC from China to the United States (excluding U.S. inland costs) in

2006 are estimated to be equivalent to approximately 20.0 percent of the customs value for product from

China, down from 24.4 percent in 2005. These estimates are derived from official import data and

represent the transportation and other charges on imports valued on a c.i.f. basis, as compared with

customs value.6

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Reported U.S. inland transportation costs for CAC were approximately *** percent for Calgon

and *** percent for Norit.7

 ***.8 Reported U.S. inland transportation costs ranged from 0 to 30 percent

for the 27 responding importers of CAC from China, with all but one reporting transportation costs of 20

percent or less, and 16 reporting costs of less than 10 percent.
 9

 Source: IMF International Financial Statistics. Downloaded from http://imfstatistics.org/imf/ifsBrowser.aspx,

March 5, 2007.

V-2

Figure V-1

Coal prices: Average domestic price of coal to industrial plants, January-March 2003 - JulySeptember 2006

Source: Quarterly Coal Reports (various issues, 2003-06), Table 25 - Average Price of Coal Receipts at Other

Industrial Plants. Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate Fuels, U.S.

Department of Energy. Available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/coal/qcrhistory.htm.

Producers and importers also were asked to estimate the percentage of their sales that occurred

within certain distance ranges. Norit reported shipping *** percent of its sales under 100 miles and

Calgon reported that *** percent of its sales were shipped less than 100 miles. California Carbon

reported that *** percent of its sales were shipped under 100 miles. Calgon reported shipping ***

percent of sales between 100 and 1,000 miles, Norit reported that *** percent of its sales were shipped

between 100 and 1,000 miles, and California Carbon reported that *** percent of its sales were shipped

between 100 and 1,000 miles. Finally, *** reported shipping *** percent of its sales more than 1,000

miles, *** reported that *** percent of its sales were shipped more than 1,000 miles, and California

Carbon reported that *** percent of its sales were shipped over 1,000 miles. One of six responding U.S.

producers of RAC reported no shipments made outside of 100 miles while the remaining five reported

that the majority (from 60 to 95 percent) of their shipments were further than 100 miles, with three

reporting that 30 percent or more were shipped outside of 1,000 miles. Six of 27 responding importers of

CAC reported shipping at least 50 percent of their sales more than 1,000 miles; 11 reported shipping at

least 50 percent of their sales between 100 and 1,000 miles; and 9 reported shipping at least 50 percent of

their sales less than 100 miles, with 3 of those shipping 100 percent of their sales less than 100 miles. 

Exchange Rates

From 2000 to June of 2005, the Chinese currency was pegged at 8.28 yuan per U.S. dollar. 

There was a small revaluation in the third quarter of 2005, raising the value of the Chinese currency to

8.14 yuan per dollar, after which the yuan was moved to a crawling peg against the dollar. The yuan

appreciated further into the fourth quarter of 2006, averaging 7.86 yuan per dollar during that quarter.9
V-3

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

CAC is sold on both a spot and a contract basis. *** U.S. producers of CAC reported that at least

*** percent of their sales were on a spot basis, with the remaining sales *** long- and short-term

contracts. Short-term contracts last *** while long-term contracts range from *** in length. The third

responding U.S. producer of CAC reported that *** sales were made on a spot basis. Five of six

responding U.S. producers of RAC reported that a majority of their commercial sales were on a contract

basis, with two reporting that over *** percent of their sales were on a long-term contract basis. The

remaining U.S. producer of RAC reported that *** percent of its sales were made on a spot basis. Seven

of 27 responding importers of CAC reported that 100 percent of their sales were on a spot basis, with six

more reporting that at least 50 percent of their sales were on a spot basis. Fourteen of the 27 responding

importers of CAC reported that more than half of their sales were made on a contract basis. Of those 14

importers of CAC, seven reported that most of their sales were on a long-term contract basis and seven

reported that most of their sales were on a short-term contract basis.

While *** reported having a price list for new customers, *** responding producers of CAC

reported that prices are determined primarily on a transaction-by-transaction basis and that many factors

influence the final price. *** reported that they ***. ***. *** reported ***. *** reported determining

price based on costs and standard margins while two reported basing prices on the market and the

remaining *** reported using either transaction-by-transaction negotiations or contracts for multiple

shipments. One U.S. producer of RAC reported that ***, while the remaining five reported no discount

policy. While a majority (18 of 28) of responding importers of CAC reported determining price on at

least some of their sales on a transaction-by-transaction basis, five reported using a price list for some

(usually the smaller) or all of their customers. Other importers of CAC determine prices based on costs

and standard margins or on previous bid prices. Fifteen responding importers of CAC reported giving

discounts based on, among other things, quantity, long-term orders, and early payment. The remaining 13

importers of CAC reported that they either do not give discounts or have no formalized discount policy.

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of CAC to provide quarterly data for

the total quantity and f.o.b. (U.S. point of shipment) value of CAC that was shipped to unrelated

customers in the U.S. market. Data were requested for the period January 2003 to December 2006. The

products for which pricing data were requested are defined as follows: 

Product 1.–Granular activated carbon that is steam activated from coal (bituminous, lignite, and

anthracite), unwashed, no more than 15 percent greater than 8 mesh and no more than 4 percent

under 30 mesh, iodine no. 900 mg/g min, moisture 2% max;

Product 2.– Granular activated carbon that is steam activated from coal (bituminous, lignite, and

anthracite), unwashed, no more than 5 percent greater than 12 mesh and no more than 4 percent

under 40 mesh, iodine no. 1000 mg/g min, moisture 2% max; and

Product 3.–Powder activated carbon that is steam activated from coal (bituminous, lignite, and

anthracite), unwashed, particle size 90% min, 325 mesh, iodine no. 700 mg/g min, moisture 5%

max.
 10 *** In addition, five U.S. producers of RAC also supplied prices for the reactivated counterparts to the products

listed here. These data are available in app. E.

 11 See Part VI of this report for more details concerning the ***.

V-4

Three U.S. producers of CAC and 21 importers of CAC from China provided usable pricing data

for sales of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all quarters.10 Tables V-1

through V-3 and figures V-2 through V-4 present f.o.b. (U.S. point of shipment) selling prices for the

three CAC products defined above produced and sold in the United States as well as for products

produced in China and imported into the United States. By quantity, pricing data reported by responding

firms in 2003 through 2006 accounted for *** percent of reported U.S. commercial shipments of U.S.-

produced CAC and 41.8 percent of reported U.S. commercial shipments of Chinese-produced CAC.

Price Trends

U.S. producers’ average prices for product 1 showed no discernable trend over the period for

which data were collected. While prices moved from quarter to quarter, no sustained rise or fall is

evident. Overall, prices for product 1 fell by *** percent between January-March 2003 and OctoberDecember 2006. Prices for product 2 fell by *** percent between January-March 2003 and OctoberDecember 2006. This decrease was punctuated by a ***-percent drop in July-September 2006 followed

by a ***-percent rise in the final quarter of the period. The outlying quarter corresponds to *** in that

quarter. ***. Prices for product 3, *** of the three pricing products, show little movement over the

sample until showing a *** upward trend in the fourth quarter of 2006. Overall, prices in OctoberDecember 2006 were *** percent higher than in January-March 2003. *** of this increase is due to the

price increase observed in the final quarter of 2006. ***. ***. ***.11
V-5

Table V-1

CAC: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 11

 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2003-December 2006

Period

United States China

Price

(per pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price

(per pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

2

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $*** *** $*** *** 34.2

 Apr.-June *** *** *** *** 26.7

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** 30.1

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** 27.1

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** 25.1

 Apr.-June *** *** *** *** 25.4

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** 28.8

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** 27.7

2005:

Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** 24.1

 Apr.-June *** *** *** *** 15.4

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** (7.8)

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** 43.5

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** 58.3

 Apr.-June *** *** *** *** 39.2

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** 37.7

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** 18.2

 1 Product 1.–Granular activated carbon that is steam activated from coal (bituminous, lignite, and anthracite),

unwashed, no more than 15 percent greater than 8 mesh and no more than 4 percent under 30 mesh, iodine no.

900 mg/g min, moisture 2% max.

 2

 Based on unrounded data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-6

Table V-2

CAC: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 21

 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2003-December 2006

Period

United States China

Price

(per pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price

(per pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

2

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $*** *** $*** *** 49.9

 Apr.-June *** *** *** *** 52.5

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** 48.7

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** 42.7

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** 50.5

 Apr.-June *** *** *** *** 49.7

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** 36.7

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** 41.3

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** 45.4

 Apr.-June *** *** *** *** 47.1

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** 38.7

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** 29.4

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** 52.5

 Apr.-June *** *** *** *** 57.7

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** 0.6

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** 18.8

 1

 Product 2.– Granular activated carbon that is steam activated from coal (bituminous, lignite, and anthracite),

unwashed, no more than 5 percent greater than 12 mesh and no more than 4 percent under 40 mesh, iodine no.

1000 mg/g min, moisture 2% max.

 2

 Based on unrounded data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-7

Table V-3

CAC: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 31

 and

margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2003-December 2006

Period

United States China

Price

(per pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price

(per pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

2

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $*** *** $*** *** 36.9

 Apr.-June *** *** *** *** 29.1

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** 33.1

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** (3.3)

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** 17.9

 Apr.-June *** *** *** *** 23.7

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** 23.4

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** 9.4

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** 19.9

 Apr.-June *** *** *** *** 16.6

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** 14.9

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** 11.9

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** 36.6

 Apr.-June *** *** *** *** 15.1

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** (3.2)

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** 0.1

 1 Powder activated carbon that is steam activated from coal (bituminous, lignite, and anthracite), unwashed,

particle size 90% min, 325 mesh, iodine no. 700 mg/g min, moisture 5% max.

 2

 Based on unrounded data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-8

Figure V-2

CAC: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic and imported product 1, by quarters, 

January 2003-December 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure V-3

CAC: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic and imported product 2, by quarters, 

January 2003-December 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure V-4

CAC: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices of domestic and imported product 3, by quarters, 

January 2003-December 2006

* * * * * * *

After rising unevenly by *** percent from January-March 2003 to July-September 2005, prices

of U.S. shipments of product 1 imported from China fell by *** percent in the ensuing two quarters. 

Prices then rebounded quickly through 2006 and in October-December 2006 were *** percent higher

than they were in January-March 2003. Prices of U.S. shipments of product 2 imported from China rose

irregularly from January-March 2003 to October-December 2005, increasing *** percent in that time. 

These prices declined in the next two quarters before rising through the end of 2006; overall, these prices

were *** percent higher at the end of the period as compared to the beginning. Prices of U.S. sales of

product 3 imported from China rose irregularly throughout the period and ended the period at a level ***

percent higher than they were in the beginning of the period. 

Price Comparisons

Prices of imports from China were lower than prices of U.S.-produced product 1 in all but one

quarter during the period for which data were collected; margins of underselling for product 1 ranged

from 15.4 to 58.3 percent. The average margin of underselling over the period for product 1 was 29.6

percent. In one quarter, the price of Chinese product 1 was 7.8 percent higher than the price of U.S.-

produced product 1. For product 2, prices of imports from China were lower than the prices of U.S.-

produced product in all quarters during the period for which data were collected. Margins of underselling

for product 2 ranged from 0.6 percent in July-September 2006 (a quarter in which the price of the U.S.-

produced product was *** due to ***) to 57.7 percent in April-June 2006. Margins for product 2 were

over 40 percent in 10 of the first 11 quarters of the period for which data were collected, but shrank

significantly in the last half of 2006. The average margin of underselling for product 2 over the entire

period was 41.4 percent. For product 3, the prices of product imported from China were below prices for

the U.S. product in 14 of 16 quarters. Over the entire period, margins of underselling ranged from 0.1 to

36.9 percent; the average margin of underselling for product 3 was 20.6 percent. In two quarters, the

Chinese product was priced 3.2 and 3.3 percent above the U.S. product. U.S.-produced product 3

accounted for *** percent of sales of product 3 in the United States over the period for which data were

collected.
 12 Petitioners provided information on *** (Petitioners posthearing brief, Responses to Commissioners questions,

pp. 7-8.) Petitioner notes that in each case, ***.

V-9

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

During the preliminary phase of this investigation, the petitioners provided a list of *** alleged

lost sales to Chinese competitors totaling $*** between January 2003 and December 2005. Staff

attempted to contact customers associated with $***, or approximately *** percent, of those lost sales. In

addition, petitioners alleged another $*** per year of lost revenues attributable to lower prices on retained

contracts caused by competition from Chinese producers. Staff was able to confirm $*** of the alleged

$*** in total lost sales, and *** of the alleged *** in annual lost revenue. Customers rejected the

allegation for various reasons in $*** of the total lost sales. In the largest of the rejected allegations

(accounting for $*** in lost sales), the purchaser stated that while a Chinese supplier did win the initial

bid, the supplied product did not pass quality tests and was replaced by domestically supplied CAC. Of

those contacted, staff was unable to obtain information on $*** in alleged lost sales and $*** in lost

revenue. In questionnaire responses submitted for the final phase of this investigation, domestic

producers alleged an additional 31 lost sales totaling $*** that took place during 2006. Staff was able to

confirm $*** of those lost sales while purchasers disagreed with *** alleged lost sales totaling $***. 

Staff was unable to obtain responses pertaining to $*** in alleged lost sales. Despite the large number of

“no” responses, the alleged lost sales in 2006 were overwhelmingly confirmed.12

By and large, price was the reason for choosing the Chinese product. Many of the lost sales were

to municipal water treatment facilities which, in many cases, must accept the lowest-priced product

provided that it meets the required standards. A few respondents indicated that while the lowest-priced

option was of Chinese product, the product did not pass initial tests or performed poorly upon use. As a

result, these purchasers have switched or plan to switch back to domestically produced CAC. Since most

of the alleged lost sales are from accounts with open annual bids, any bid lost to a supplier of Chinese

product, regardless of who won the contract the previous year, was counted as a lost sale. Information on

alleged lost sales and lost revenues can be seen in tables V-4, V-5, and V-6.

Table V-4 

CAC: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations, 2003-05

* * * * * * *

Table V-5

CAC: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations, 2003-05

* * * * * * *

Table V-6

CAC: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations, 2006

* * * * * * *

 1

 Staff verified Calgon’s questionnaire response, and the changes have been incorporated into the report. See

Memorandum to the Commission, INV-EE-014, February 15, 2007.

 2

 A third firm, ***, stated that it could not provide financial data on CAC, but did provide data for production,

shipment, and pricing. Differences between the aggregated data on shipments and sales were *** in 2006. *** data

are included in app. E, operations on RAC.

 3

 At the Commission’s hearing, personnel from Norit and Calgon testified that the firms were able to raise prices

and win back customers after the petition was filed and the preliminary duties were established. Hearing transcript,

pp. 68-69, 93-94 (Thompson and O’Brien). They cautioned that the improvement in financial results in 2006 was

“slight-to-modest” (hearing transcript, p. 70 (O’Brien)), partly because of the time lag between winning a bid and

shipment of material against the sale. Hearing transcript, p. 95 (O’Brien). Petitioners stated that their operating

profits have declined *** although the domestic industry experienced “modest improvement as a result of the

antidumping case” in 2006. Also, see petitioners’ posthearing brief, p. 13, exh. 1, pp. 4-5 (operating results), p. 11

(2006 improvement), and exh. 2 (operating results by firm). There would be an expected lag between winning bids

and gaining higher prices and improvement in operating results because such revenues would only be recognized at

the time of shipment in accordance with accounting principles of revenue recognition generally accepted in the

United States. 

 4

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 19. Also, see petitioners’ posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 41.

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. FIRMS

BACKGROUND

Two firms, Calgon1

 and Norit, provided production, shipment, and financial data on their

operations on CAC. Each of them reported on a calendar-year basis, and these data accounted for ***

U.S. production of CAC in 2006.2

OPERATIONS ON CAC

The results of U.S. firms’ operations on CAC (table VI-1) are briefly summarized here. Total net

sales quantities decreased irregularly between 2003 and 2006 although sales values and sales unit values

(representing the combined data of Calgon and Norit) increased *** between the two years. All three

metrics declined from 2003 to 2005, and then all three rebounded and approximated or exceeded 2003

values. The cost of raw materials and other factory costs (factory overhead) accounted for much of the

overall increase in the industry’s cost of goods sold (“COGS”) between 2003 and 2006 even though labor

and energy costs also rose. Selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses declined irregularly

between 2003 and 2006. The industry’s operating *** between 2005 and 2006, attributable to an increase

in the ***.3

Table VI-1

CAC: Results of operations of U.S. firms, 2003-06

* * * * * * *

In table VI-1, the data of *** differ in several important respects from those of ***: ***. These

differences were ascribed to several factors, including *** between the two firms.4

 ***. The raw

material input for the granular product reportedly is a harder (bituminous) coal that costs more than the
 5

 Both Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Thompson testified regarding coal costs. They stated that Calgon and Norit purchase

coal on long-term and shorter-term (one-to-two-year) contracts, and that coal purchase contracts increasingly have

price escalator clauses. Hearing transcript, pp. 56-58 (O’Brien and Thompson). Compare petitioners’ posthearing

brief, exh. 1, p. 23 *** with exh. 9 (EIA price series for Eastern coals by type of coal). Hence, any comparison with

reported spot market prices is not likely to be apt. 

 6

 Hearing transcript, pp. 59 and 99 (Thompson), pp. 60 and 99 (O’Brien), and p. 98 (Rester).

 7

 Hearing transcript, pp. 124-125 (Thompson) and pp. 126-127. 

 8

 For a discussion and price series of coal and natural gas, see petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 35-36 and

exh. 5. Also, see petitioners’ posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 2 (ratios of coal costs to total raw materials and COGS in

2006 by firm) and p. 23 (*** coal costs by type of coal). With respect to natural gas and electricity costs, see

petitioners’ posthearing brief, exh. 1, p. 40.

VI-2

soft (lignite) coal used to produce the powdered product;5

 ***.6 Norit and Calgon consume natural gas

during the production process, which has increased in cost,7

 and ***. 

Sales and cost data for operations on CAC on a firm-by-firm basis are shown in table VI-2.

Table VI-2

CAC: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, 2003-06

* * * * * * *

Raw materials and energy represent a large component of total COGS. The raw material costs of

CAC are chiefly composed of the costs of coal.8

 The ratio of raw material costs to total COGS, the ratio

of raw material costs to sales, and the average unit value of raw materials rose between 2003 and 2005,

but fell between 2005 and 2006. The ratio of energy costs to total COGS, the ratio of energy costs to

sales, and the average unit value of energy costs rose between 2003 and 2006. These data are shown in

table VI-3.

Table VI-3

CAC: Raw material and energy costs, by firm, 2003-06

* * * * * * *

Changes in the operating income of these firms are further evidenced by a variance analysis that

shows the effects of prices and volume on net sales and of costs and volume on their total costs. Because

the usefulness of the analysis may be diminished by the product mix and cost differences *** at the end

of table VI-4.

Table VI-4

CAC: Variance analysis on results of operations, 2003-06

* * * * * * *

This analysis shows that the decrease in the industry’s operating income between 2003 and 2006

of $*** generally was attributable to combined net cost/expense *** and lower sales volume that were

greater than the favorable price variance ***. However, the mix of favorable and unfavorable variances

*** differed considerably and shifted between the full calendar years, as depicted by the data in table 

VI-4.
 9

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 14. Also, see hearing transcript, pp. 16-18 (Thompson) and p. 21

(O’Brien).

 10 ***.

 11 Also, see hearing transcript, pp. 21 and 25 (O’Brien).

 12 ***.

VI-3

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES

*** reported capital expenditures and research and development (“R&D”) expenses for CAC that

are shown in table VI-5. It appears that the primary purpose of ***.9

Table VI-5

CAC: Capital expenditures and R&D expenses, by firm, 2003-06

* * * * * * *

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

The Commission’s questionnaire requested data on assets used in the production, warehousing,

and sale of CAC to compute return on investment (“ROI”) for 2003 to 2006. The data for total net sales

and operating income are from table VI-1. Operating income was divided by total net sales, resulting in

the operating income ratio. Total net sales was divided by total assets, resulting in the asset turnover

ratio. The operating income ratio was then multiplied by the asset turnover ratio, resulting in ROI; the

expanded form of this equation shows how the profit margin and assets turnover ratio interact to

determine the return on investment. These data and calculations are shown in table VI-6.

Table VI-6

CAC: Value of assets used in the production, warehousing, and sale, and return on investment,

2003-06

* * * * * * *

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual or anticipated negative effects

of imports of CAC from China on their firms’ growth, investment, and ability to raise capital or

development and production efforts (including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version

of the product). U.S. producer responses are presented on the following page. 

Actual Negative Effects10

Calgon: ***.11 ***.

Norit ***. 

Anticipated Negative Effects12

Calgon ***.

Norit ***. 

 1

 Of the eight firms, seven are producer/exporters, while one is an exporter only. ***.

 2

 Twenty-four firms, 19 of which exported CAC to the United States, provided useable data in the preliminary

phase of this investigation. The exports to the United States of these firms were equivalent to 56.4 percent of CAC

U.S. imports from China in 2005. ***. Seventeen firms noted that CAC represented 100 percent of their firm’s total

sales in 2005, with only two noting that it represented less than 50 percent. 

VII-1

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making threat determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(F)(i)). Information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented

in Parts IV and V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S.

producers’ existing development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on

inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for

“product-shifting;” any other threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in third-country markets,

follows.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Table VII-1 presents data provided by Chinese producers/exporters with respect to their CAC

operations in China. Eight firms, which exported CAC to the United States, provided useable data.1

 The

exports to the United States of these firms were equivalent to *** percent of CAC U.S. imports from

China in 2006. One firm noted that CAC represented 100 percent of its firm’s total sales in 2005, four

stated that CAC accounted for more than 90 percent of their sales, one firm reported CAC as 60 percent

of its sales, and one stated that CAC accounted for 30 percent of its sales.2
VII-2

Table VII-1

CAC: Chinese production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2003-06 and projected 2007-08

Item

Actual experience Projections

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Capacity 36,755 58,300 55,900 55,100 57,100 58,100

Production 36,155 47,296 52,095 50,551 50,131 51,992

End of period inventories 7,436 7,749 12,151 15,064 10,973 12,473

Shipments:

Internal consumption 0 4,951 6,991 8,478 6,920 6,920

Home market 5,389 8,158 6,701 12,325 12,049 12,750

Exports to--

The United States 20,839 32,854 27,038 27,209 19,321 19,487

European Union 19,940 22,426 21,378 13,055 21,092 23,132

Asia 11,388 14,674 13,318 22,110 24,824 27,146

All other markets 3,152 3,235 3,223 3,181 3,888 4,232

Total exports 55,320 73,188 64,957 65,555 69,125 73,997

Total shipments 60,709 86,298 78,649 86,358 88,094 93,667

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 98.4 81.1 93.2 91.7 87.8 89.5

Inventories to production 20.6 16.4 23.3 29.8 21.9 24.0

Inventories to total shipments 12.2 9.0 15.4 17.4 12.5 13.3

Share of total quantity of shipments:

Internal consumption 0.0 5.7 8.9 9.8 7.9 7.4

Home market 8.9 9.5 8.5 14.3 13.7 13.6

Exports to--

The United States 34.3 38.1 34.4 31.5 21.9 20.8

European Union 32.8 26.0 27.2 15.1 23.9 24.7

Asia 18.8 17.0 16.9 25.6 28.2 29.0

All other markets 5.2 3.7 4.1 3.7 4.4 4.5

All export markets 91.1 84.8 82.6 75.9 78.5 79.0

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 3

 Norit’s nonsubject CAC imports were coal- and peat-based and were produced at its operations in Europe. 

Hearing transcript, p. 118 (Wruble). 

 4

 For 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, coconut-based imports from nonsubject sources accounted for ***, ***, ***,

and *** percent, respectively, of all nonsubject imports reported by questionnaire respondents.

 5

 Questionnaires were sent to ***.

 6

 ***.

VII-3

NONSUBJECT PRODUCERS/EXPORTERS

As noted earlier in the report, the nine firms that reported imports of CAC from nonsubject

countries accounted for virtually all of CAC imports (based on official statistics) from those sources. 

With the exception of ***,3

 all of the CAC imports from nonsubject sources were coconut-based.4 *** of

CAC imports from nonsubject sources in 2006. No producers/exporters from nonsubject sources

responded to the Commission’s request for information.5 6

 With respect to the possibility of nonsubject

imports replacing Chinese imports in the event of an antidumping order, petitioners stated:

“The Commission should not assume that the imposition of antidumping duties will

necessarily lead to the replacement of Chinese imports by any third country source of

activated carbon. Petitioners’ assumption is that dumped Chinese imports will largely be

replaced by non-dumped Chinese imports at higher prices dictated by the discipline of the

order . . . To the extent that some replacement occurs from third countries, as discussed in

the body of the brief, it will be at higher, non-dumped prices or will be more expensive

coconut-based CAC. In either case, the industry will continue to benefit from any order.

. . .

In fact, the availability of such replacement material, particularly coal-based

carbons, is limited. NORIT and Calgon have world-wide sales networks and their

products are exported and sold to various countries. Those countries that require coalbased CAC and do not produce their own in sufficient quantity generally will purchase it

from either the United States or China, the two largest coal-based CAC producing

countries. To the extent that China exports more CAC to third countries rather than to

the United States as a result of this case, it will free current U.S. export production for the

U.S. market. 

Currently, China and the United States supply nearly all of the import needs for

coal-based CAC world-wide . . . coal-based products are basically produced in the United

States and China, and really, not any significance in volume outside of that, at least from

a bituminous coal standpoint.

NORIT also has a coal based operation in Germany from which it imports CAC to

the U.S. The only remaining coal-based operations in the world that export to a

significant degree is Australia, which has not been a large participant in the United States

market and does not have the capacity to replace the Chinese producers here. The record

does not identify any other major exporters of coal-based CAC, and there are no other

such coal-based CAC industries on the scale of those in the United States and China in

the world. 

. . .
 7

 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exh. 1, pp. 34-36.

 8

 Official Commerce statistics show that Australia accounted for 0.02 percent of total CAC imports in each year

for 2003, 2004, and 2005. No imports from Australia were reported in 2006.

VII-4

Production of activated carbon is non-existent in the Middle East, and production

in South and Central America is wood- and coconut-based. Production of activated

carbon in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, India and Sri Lanka is also

coconut-based – which is consistent with the data collected showing that all U.S. imports

from those countries reported by importers were coconut-based.”7 8

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Inventories of CAC as reported by U.S. importers are presented in table VII-2.

Table VII-2

CAC: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, 2003-06

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006

Imports from China:

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 20,331 25,683 27,721 21,734

Ratio to imports (percent) 34.6 34.3 35.0 28.6

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 35.7 36.4 36.6 25.8

Imports from all other sources:

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 6,777 11,462 17,859 17,470

Ratio to imports (percent) 32.0 28.8 34.4 35.4

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 33.5 33.4 43.2 38.4

Imports from all sources:

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 27,108 37,145 45,580 39,204

Ratio to imports (percent) 33.9 32.4 34.8 31.3

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 35.2 35.5 38.9 30.2

Note.--Ratios are based on firms that provided both inventory data and import and/or shipment data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

IMPORTS SUBSEQUENT TO DECEMBER 31, 2006

Importer questionnaire respondents reported that there were more than 7.2 million pounds of

Chinese CAC scheduled for delivery after December 31, 2006.
 9

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 5, responding to a question from the Commission staff. See also,

petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 11.

VII-5

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

An antidumping order was originally put into place covering imports of PAC from China (both

certain activated and chemically activated) into the European Union (EU) in June 1996, with an

antidumping rate of 66.8 percent. In June 2002, the EU set new antidumping duties of 323 Euros/ton

(@$0.18/lb.) on PAC imports from China, replacing the 66.8-percent duty set in June 1996.9

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 221 / Thursday, November 16, 2006 / Notices 66793 

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 8,500. 

Status of the proposed information 

collection: Extension of a currently 

approved collection. 

Authority: Section 3506 of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, 

as amended. 

Dated: November 8, 2006. 

Merrie Nichols-Dixon, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of 

Policy, Program and Legislative Initiative. 

[FR Doc. E6–19299 Filed 11–15–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[OR–050–1020–MJ; HAG 07–0021] 

John Day/Snake Resource Advisory 

Council; Meeting 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), Prineville District. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting—John 

Day/Snake Resource Advisory Council. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1103 (Final)] 

Certain Activated Carbon From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of 

an antidumping investigation. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of antidumping investigation No. 

731–TA–1103 (Final) under section 

735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act) to determine 

whether an industry in the United 

States is materially injured or 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
66794 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 221 / Thursday, November 16, 2006 / Notices 

1For purposes of this investigation, the 

Department of Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise as follows: 

‘‘Certain activated carbon is a powdered, 

granular, or pelletized carbon product obtained by 

‘‘activating’’ with heat and steam various materials 

containing carbon, including but not limited to coal 

(including bituminous, lignite, and anthracite), 

wood, coconut shells, olive stones, and peat. The 

thermal and steam treatments remove organic 

materials and create an internal pore structure in 

the carbon material. The producer can also use 

carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in place of steam in this 

process. The vast majority of the internal porosity 

developed during the high temperature steam (or 

CO2 gas) activated process is a direct result of 

oxidation of a portion of the solid carbon atoms in 

the raw material, converting them into a gaseous 

form of carbon. The scope of this investigation 

covers all forms of activated carbon that are 

activated by steam or CO2, regardless of the raw 

material, grade, mixture, additives, further washing 

or post-activation chemical treatment (chemical or 

water washing, chemical impregnation or other 

treatment), or product form. Unless specifically 

excluded, the scope of this investigation covers all 

physical forms of certain activated carbon, 

including powdered activated carbon (‘‘PAC’’), 

granular activated carbon (‘‘GAC’’), and pelletized 

activated carbon. 

Excluded from the scope of the investigation are 

chemically-activated carbons. The carbon-based 

raw material used in the chemical activation 

process is treated with a strong chemical agent, 

including but not limited to phosphoric acid, zinc 

chloride sulfuric acid or potassium hydroxide, that 

dehydrates molecules in the raw material, and 

results in the formation of water that is removed 

from the raw material by moderate heat treatment. 

The activated carbon created by chemical activation 

has internal porosity developed primarily due to 

the action of the chemical dehydration agent. 

Chemically activated carbons are typically used to 

activate raw materials with a lignocellulosic 

component such as cellulose, including wood, 

sawdust, paper mill waste and peat. 

To the extent that an imported activated carbon 

product is a blend of steam and chemically 

activated carbons, products containing 50 percent 

or more steam (or CO2 gas) activated carbons are 

within this scope, and those containing more than 

50 percent chemically activated carbons are outside 

this scope. 

Also excluded from the scope are reactivated 

carbons. Reactivated carbons are previously used 

activated carbons that have had adsorbed materials 

removed from their pore structure after use through 

the application of heat, steam and/or chemicals. 

Also excluded from the scope is activated carbon 

cloth. Activated carbon cloth is a woven textile 

fabric made of or containing activated carbon fibers. 

It is used in masks and filters and clothing of 

various types where a woven format is required. 

Any activated carbon meeting the physical 

description of subject merchandise provided above 

that is not expressly excluded from the scope is 

included within this scope. The products under 

investigation are currently classifiable under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 3802.10.00. Although 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written description of 

the scope of this investigation is dispositive.’’ 71 FR 

59721, October 11, 2006. 

threatened with material injury, or the 

establishment of an industry in the 

United States is materially retarded, by 

reason of less-than-fair-value imports 

from China of certain activated carbon, 

provided for in subheading 3802.10.00 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States.1

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of the 

investigation, hearing procedures, and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 11, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

McClure (202–205–3191), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—The final phase of this 

investigation is being scheduled as a 

result of an affirmative preliminary 

determination by the Department of 

Commerce that imports of certain 

activated carbon from China are being 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value within the meaning of section 733 

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The 

investigation was requested in a petition 

filed on March 8, 2006, by Calgon 

Carbon Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, and 

Norit Americas, Inc., Marshall, TX. 

Participation in the investigation and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the final phase of this 

investigation as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

section 201.11 of the Commission’s 

rules, no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. A 

party that filed a notice of appearance 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigation need not file an additional 

notice of appearance during this final 

phase. The Secretary will maintain a 

public service list containing the names 

and addresses of all persons, or their 

representatives, who are parties to the 

investigation. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in the final phase of this 

investigation available to authorized 

applicants under the APO issued in the 

investigation, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days prior to the hearing date specified 

in this notice. Authorized applicants 

must represent interested parties, as 

defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are 

parties to the investigation. A party 

granted access to BPI in the preliminary 

phase of the investigation need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the final phase of this 

investigation will be placed in the 

nonpublic record on February 12, 2007, 

and a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the final 

phase of this investigation beginning at 

9:30 a.m. on February 27, 2007, at the 

U.S. International Trade Commission 

Building. Requests to appear at the 

hearing should be filed in writing with 

the Secretary to the Commission on or 

before February 16, 2007. A nonparty 

who has testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on February 21, 

2007, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

§§ 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of 

the Commission’s rules. Parties must 

submit any request to present a portion 

of their hearing testimony in camera no 

later than 7 business days prior to the 

date of the hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party 

who is an interested party shall submit 

a prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.23 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is February 20, 2007. Parties may 

also file written testimony in connection 

with their presentation at the hearing, as 

provided in section 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules, and posthearing 

briefs, which must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.25 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is March 6, 

2007; witness testimony must be filed 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 221 / Thursday, November 16, 2006 / Notices 66795 

1The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)).

no later than three days before the 

hearing. In addition, any person who 

has not entered an appearance as a party 

to the investigation may submit a 

written statement of information 

pertinent to the subject of the 

investigation, including statements of 

support or opposition to the petition, on 

or before March 6, 2007. On March 22, 

2007, the Commission will make 

available to parties all information on 

which they have not had an opportunity 

to comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before March 26, 2007, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.30 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

§§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the 

investigation must be served on all other 

parties to the investigation (as identified 

by either the public or BPI service list), 

and a certificate of service must be 

timely filed. The Secretary will not 

accept a document for filing without a 

certificate of service. 

Authority: This investigation is being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to § 207.21 of the Commission’s 

rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 9, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–19404 Filed 11–15–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1105–1106 

(Preliminary)] 

Lemon Juice From Argentina and 

Mexico 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject investigations, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(Commission) determines, pursuant to 

section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there 

is a reasonable indication that an 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured by reason of imports 

from Argentina and Mexico of lemon 

juice, provided for in subheadings 

2009.31.40, 2009.31.60, and 2009.39.60 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States, that are alleged to be 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value (LTFV). 

Commencement of Final Phase 

Investigations 

Pursuant to § 207.18 of the 

Commission’s rules, the Commission 

also gives notice of the commencement 

of the final phase of its investigations. 

The Commission will issue a final phase 

notice of scheduling, which will be 

published in the Federal Register as 

provided in § 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules, upon notice from 

the Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) of affirmative preliminary 

determinations in the investigations 

under section 733(b) of the Act, or, if the 

preliminary determinations are 

negative, upon notice of affirmative 

final determinations in the 

investigations under section 735(a) of 

the Act. Parties that filed entries of 

appearance in the preliminary phase of 

the investigations need not enter a 

separate appearance for the final phase 

of the investigations. Industrial users, 

and, if the merchandise under 

investigation is sold at the retail level, 

representative consumer organizations 

have the right to appear as parties in 

Commission antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations. The 

Secretary will prepare a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to the investigations. 

Background 

On September 21, 2006, a petition 

was filed with the Commission and 

Commerce by Sunkist Growers, Inc., 

Sherman Oaks, CA, alleging that an 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured and threatened with 

material by reason of LTFV imports of 

lemon juice from Argentina and Mexico. 

Accordingly, effective September 21, 

2006, the Commission instituted 

antidumping duty investigation Nos. 

731–TA–1105–1106 (Preliminary). 

Notice of the institution of the 

Commission’s investigations and of a 

public conference to be held in 

connection therewith was given by 

posting copies of the notice in the Office 

of the Secretary, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, Washington, DC, 

and by publishing the notice in the 

Federal Register of September 27, 2006 

(71 FR 56550). The conference was held 

in Washington, DC, on October 13, 

2006, and all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in 

person or by counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determinations in these investigations to 

the Secretary of Commerce on 

November 6, 2006. The views of the 

Commission are contained in USITC 

Publication 3891 (November 2006), 

entitled Lemon Juice from Argentina 

and Mexico: Investigation Nos. 731–TA–

1105–1106 (Preliminary). 

Issued: November 9, 2006. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–19318 Filed 11–15–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–59,788] 

Ace Products, LLC, Newport, TN; 

Notice of Affirmative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration 

By letter dated October 3, 2006, a 

petitioner requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department of 

Labor’s Notice of Negative 

Determination Regarding Eligibility to 

Apply for Worker Adjustment 

Assistance, applicable to workers of the 

subject firm. The denial notice was 

signed on September 14, 2006, and 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56172). 

The initial investigation resulted in a 

negative determination based on the 

finding that imports of semi pneumatic 

and solid rubber tires did not contribute 

importantly to worker separations at the 


pwalker on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
9508 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 41 / Friday, March 2, 2007 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–904] 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Activated 

Carbon from the People’s Republic of 

China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: March 2, 2007. 

SUMMARY: On October 11, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published its preliminary 

determination of sales at less than fair 

value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the antidumping 

investigation of certain activated carbon 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’). The period of investigation 

(‘‘POI’’) is July 1, 2005, through 

December 31, 2005. We invited 

interested parties to comment on our 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV. Based on our analysis of the 

comments we received, we have made 

changes to our calculations for the 

mandatory respondents. The final 

dumping margins for this investigation 

are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Bertrand or Anya Naschak, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3207 or 482–6375, 

respectively. 

Final Determination 

We determine that certain activated 

carbon from the PRC is being, or is 

likely to be, sold in the United States at 

LTFV as provided in section 735 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at 

LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section of this 

notice. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Department published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on October 11, 2006. See 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Certain 

Activated Carbon from the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 59721 

(October 11, 2006) (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’). The Department 

conducted verification of Calgon Carbon 

(Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (‘‘CCT’’) and certain 

of its suppliers. As the Department 

determined in the Preliminary 

Determination that Jacobi Carbons AB 

(‘‘Jacobi AB’’) was the appropriate 

mandatory respondent in this case (see 

Preliminary Determination at 71 FR at 

59725), the Department conducted 

verification of Jacobi AB and certain of 

its suppliers. The Department also 

conducted verification of Jilin Province 

Bright Future Chemicals Co. Ltd. (‘‘JBF 

Chemical’’) and its affiliated company 

Jilin Province Bright Future Industry & 

Commerce Co. Ltd. (‘‘JBF Industry’’) 

(collectively, ‘‘Jilin Bright Future’’) and 

one of its suppliers, in both the PRC and 

the United States (where applicable), 

and Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon 

Co., Ltd., one of the separate rate 

applicants. See the ‘‘Verification’’

section below for additional 

information. 

We invited parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Determination. We received 

a case brief from Carbochem Inc. 

(‘‘Carbochem’’) on January 11, 2007. We 

received case briefs from respondents 

Jacobi AB and CCT on January 16, 2007. 

We also received a case brief from 

Calgon Carbon Corporation and Norit 

Americas Inc. (‘‘Petitioners’’), on 

January 12, 2007. We received rebuttal 

briefs on January 22, 2007, from the 

following companies: Jacobi AB, CCT, 

Jilin Bright Future, and Petitioners. All 

parties that timely requested a hearing 

in this case withdrew those requests 

prior to the submission of case briefs. 

Therefore, the Department did not hold 

a hearing in this case. 

On February 2, 2007, we invited 

parties to comment on the revised NME 

wage rate, to be used in the final 

determination of this investigation. No 

parties submitted comments on this 

issue. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum for the 

Final Determination in the Investigation 

of Certain Activated Carbon from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated 

February 23, 2007, which is hereby 

adopted by this notice (‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum’’). A list of the 

issues which parties raised and to 

which we respond in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum is attached to 

this notice as an Appendix. The Issue 

and Decision Memorandum is a public 

document and is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Main Commerce 

Building, Room B–099, and is accessible 

on the Web at http://www.trade.gov/ia. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received, we have made changes to the 

margin calculation for CCT, Jacobi AB 

and Jilin Bright Future as follows. 

CCT: 

We have made changes resulting from 

minor corrections and findings at CCT’s 

verifications. For a detailed analysis of 

CCT’s margin calculation see the Final 

Analysis Memorandum for CCT, dated 

February 23, 2007. 

Jacobi: 

We have made the following changes 

to Jacobi AB’s margin calculation: 

We have determined that it is 

appropriate to apply partial adverse 

facts available (‘‘AFA’’) to Jacobi for its 

reported factors of production supplied 

by Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon 

Co., Ltd.’s (‘‘NXGH’’). See below and 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 7. We have revised the 

application of facts available for one of 

Jacobi AB’s suppliers. In addition, we 

have made changes to Jacobi AB’s U.S. 

sales and factors of production resulting 

from minor corrections and findings at 

Jacobi AB’s verifications. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 19 

and Memorandum to the File from Anya 

L. Naschak: Jacobi Carbons AB, Tianjin 

Jacobi International Trading Co., Ltd., 

and Jacobi Carbons, Inc. Program 

Analysis for the Final Determination, 

dated February 23, 2007 (‘‘Jacobi Final 

Analysis Memorandum’’). For a detailed 

analysis of Jacobi AB’s margin 

calculation, see Jacobi Final Analysis 

Memorandum. Jilin Bright Future: 

As discussed in Comment 27 of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum, we 

have determined to apply total adverse 

facts available to Jilin Bright Future. We 

have assigned the PRC–wide margin of 

228.11 percent to Jilin Bright Future. 

In addition, the Department has made 

changes to its calculation of the truck 

freight surrogate value as described in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 3, and to the calculation of 

certain chemical inputs as described in 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 18. See also, Jacobi and CCT’s 

Final Analysis Memoranda. The 

Department has also revised the 

surrogate value for labor to $0.83, a the 

revised expected wage rate posted on 

the Department’s website on February 2, 

2007. Further, the Department 

determines that it is appropriate to 

apply the methodology described in the 

December 27, 2006 Federal Register 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 41 / Friday, March 2, 2007 / Notices 9509 

1We excluded the supplier NXGH of Jacobi as 

well as CCT’s suppliers who did not provide FOP 

information. 

Notice to this investigation. See Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 

4 and Final Modification; Calculation of 

the Weighted–Average Dumping Margin 

During an Antidumping Investigation, 

71 FR 77722 (December 27, 2006). 

Affiliation 

The Department preliminarily 

determined that Jacobi AB, Tianjin 

Jacobi International Trading Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Jacobi Tianjin’’), and Jacobi Carbons, 

Inc. (‘‘Jacobi US’’) (collectively, 

‘‘Jacobi’’) are affiliated with each other, 

and that Jacobi AB is the appropriate 

mandatory respondent in this case. See 

Memorandum to the File: Certain 

Activated Carbon from the People’s 

Republic of China: Affiliation and 

Treatment of Sales of Jacobi Tianjin 

International Trading Co., Ltd., Jacobi 

Carbons AB, and Jacobi Carbons, Inc., 

dated October 4, 2006, for further details 

regarding this issue. No comments were 

received on this issue and no 

information was placed on the record 

that would call into question the 

Department’s determination in this 

regard. Therefore, the Department 

continues to find that Jacobi AB, Jacobi 

Tianjin, and Jacobi US are affiliated and 

Jacobi AB is the appropriate mandatory 

respondent in this case. 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is certain activated carbon. 

Certain activated carbon is a powdered, 

granular, or pelletized carbon product 

obtained by ‘‘activating’’ with heat and 

steam various materials containing 

carbon, including but not limited to coal 

(including bituminous, lignite, and 

anthracite), wood, coconut shells, olive 

stones, and peat. The thermal and steam 

treatments remove organic materials and 

create an internal pore structure in the 

carbon material. The producer can also 

use carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in place of 

steam in this process. The vast majority 

of the internal porosity developed 

during the high temperature steam (or 

CO2 gas) activated process is a direct 

result of oxidation of a portion of the 

solid carbon atoms in the raw material, 

converting them into a gaseous form of 

carbon. 

The scope of this investigation covers 

all forms of activated carbon that are 

activated by steam or CO2, regardless of 

the raw material, grade, mixture, 

additives, further washing or post 

activation chemical treatment (chemical 

or water washing, chemical 

impregnation or other treatment), or 

product form. Unless specifically 

excluded, the scope of this investigation 

covers all physical forms of certain 

activated carbon, including powdered 

activated carbon (‘‘PAC’’), granular 

activated carbon (‘‘GAC’’), and 

pelletized activated carbon. 

Excluded from the scope of the 

investigation are chemically–activated 

carbons. The carbon–based raw material 

used in the chemical activation process 

is treated with a strong chemical agent, 

including but not limited to phosphoric 

acid, zinc chloride sulfuric acid or 

potassium hydroxide, that dehydrates 

molecules in the raw material, and 

results in the formation of water that is 

removed from the raw material by 

moderate heat treatment. The activated 

carbon created by chemical activation 

has internal porosity developed 

primarily due to the action of the 

chemical dehydration agent. Chemically 

activated carbons are typically used to 

activate raw materials with a 

lignocellulosic component such as 

cellulose, including wood, sawdust, 

paper mill waste and peat. 

To the extent that an imported 

activated carbon product is a blend of 

steam and chemically activated carbons, 

products containing 50 percent or more 

steam (or CO2 gas) activated carbons are 

within this scope, and those containing 

more than 50 percent chemically 

activated carbons are outside this scope. 

This exclusion language regarding 

blended material applies only to 

mixtures of steam and chemically 

activated carbons. 

Also excluded from the scope are 

reactivated carbons. Reactivated carbons 

are previously used activated carbons 

that have had adsorbed materials 

removed from their pore structure after 

use through the application of heat, 

steam and/or chemicals. 

Also excluded from the scope is 

activated carbon cloth. Activated carbon 

cloth is a woven textile fabric made of 

or containing activated carbon fibers. It 

is used in masks and filters and clothing 

of various types where a woven format 

is required. 

Any activated carbon meeting the 

physical description of subject 

merchandise provided above that is not 

expressly excluded from the scope is 

included within this scope. The 

products under investigation are 

currently classifiable under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 

3802.10.00. Although HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. Scope 

Comments 

We have addressed comments to the 

Scope in our Issues and Decision 

Memorandum and have determined not 

to revise the scope of this investigation 

other than to clarify that the exclusion 

for certain blended activated carbon 

only applies to mixtures of steam and 

chemically activated carbons. 

Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party: (A) withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department; (B) fails to provide such 

information in a timely manner or in the 

form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; 

(C) significantly impedes a 

determination under the antidumping 

statute; or (D) provides such information 

but the information cannot be verified, 

the Department shall, subject to 

subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. 

Section 776(b) of the Act states that if 

the administering authority finds that an 

interested party has not acted to the best 

of its ability to comply with a request 

for information, the administering 

authority may, in reaching its 

determination, use an inference that is 

adverse to that party. The adverse 

inference may be based upon: (1) the 

petition, (2) a final determination in the 

investigation under this title, (3) any 

previous review under section 751 or 

determination under section 753, or (4) 

any other information placed on the 

record. 

CCT: 

For this final determination, in 

accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the 

Act and 776(b) of the Act, we have 

determined that the use of adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) is appropriate for 

CCT’s suppliers that have been deemed 

uncooperative. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 20. As 

partial AFA, we are applying the 

weighted–average of the two highest 

calculated CONNUM–specific NVs 

selected from all of the cooperating 

suppliers1 of CCT andJacobi to all sales 

made by CCT of these suppliers 

products. See Memorandum to the File 

from Anya Naschak: Calculation of 

Adverse Facts Available Rate dated 

February 23, 2007. 

Jacobi: 

For this final determination, in 

accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the 

Act and 776(b) of the Act, we have 

determined that the use of adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) is appropriate for 

Jacobi’s reported factors of production 

supplied by Ningxia Guanghua 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
9510 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 41 / Friday, March 2, 2007 / Notices 

2We excluded the supplier NXGH of Jacobi as 

well as the CCT’s suppliers who did not provided 

FOP information. 

Activated Carbon Co., Ltd.’s (‘‘NXGH’’). 

See Issues and Decision Memorandum 

at Comment 7. As partial AFA, we are 

applying the weighted–average of the 

two highest calculated CONNUM–

specific NVs selected from all of the 

cooperating suppliers2 of CCT and 

Jacobi to all sales made by Jacobi of 

NXGH–produced products. See 

Memorandum to the File From Anya 

Naschak: Calculation of Adverse Facts 

Available Rate dated February 23, 2007. 

Jilin Bright Future: 

For the final determination, the 

Department is applying total adverse 

facts available to Jilin Bright Future. The 

Department is applying the facts 

otherwise available to Jilin Bright 

Future because it failed to provide 

verifiable factors of production data and 

misrepresented and misreported its 

production operations and factors of 

production, in accordance with sections 

776(a)(2)(A), (C) & (D) of the Act. 

Furthermore, in accordance with section 

776(b) of the Act, the Department found 

that Jilin Bright Future failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability to 

comply with the Department’s request 

for information, and, therefore, finds an 

adverse inference is warranted in 

determining the facts otherwise 

available. For a complete discussion of 

this matter, see Comment 27 of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by the respondents and one 

separate rate applicant for use in our 

final determination. See the 

Department’s verification reports on the 

record of this investigation in the CRU 

with respect to CCT, Jacobi, Jilin Bright 

Future, and Ningxia Huahui Activated 

Carbon Co., Ltd. For all verified 

companies, we used standard 

verification procedures, including 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, as well as original 

source documents provided by 

respondents. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we had selected India as the 

appropriate surrogate country to use in 

this investigation for the following 

reasons: (1) it is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at 

a similar level of economic development 

pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) 

we have reliable data from India that we 

can use to value the factors of 

production. See Preliminary 

Determination. For the final 

determination, we received no 

comments and made no changes to our 

findings with respect to the selection of 

a surrogate country. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non–marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the 

Department begins with a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assigned a 

single antidumping duty deposit rate. It 

is the Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), 

as amplified by Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’), and 

Section 351.107(d) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that CCT, Jacobi and Jilin Bright 

Future, and the separate rate applicants 

who received a separate rate (‘‘Separate 

Rate Applicants’’) in the Preliminary 

Determination demonstrated their 

eligibility for separate–rate status. For 

the final determination, we continue to 

find that the evidence placed on the 

record of this investigation by CCT, 

Jacobi and Jilin Bright Future, and the 

Separate Rate Applicants demonstrate 

both a de jure and de facto absence of 

government control, with respect to 

their respective exports of the 

merchandise under investigation, and, 

thus are eligible for separate rate status. 

We determined in the Preliminary 

Determination that Panshan Import and 

Export Corporation is not entitled to a 

separate rate. We received no comments 

on this issue and we continue to find 

that Panshan Import and Export 

Corporation is not entitled to a separate 

rate. 

The PRC–Wide Rate 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that certain 

companies and the PRC–wide entity did 

not respond to our requests information. 

In the Preliminary Determination we 

treated these PRC producers/exporters 

as part of the PRC–wide entity because 

they did not demonstrate that they 

operate free of government control. No 

additional information has been placed 

on the record with respect to these 

entities after the Preliminary 

Determination. The PRC–wide entity 

has not provided the Department with 

the requested information; therefore, 

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act, the Department continues to find 

that the use of facts available is 

appropriate to determine the PRC–wide 

rate. Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold–

Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel 

Products from the Russian Federation, 

65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). 

See also, ‘‘Statement of Administrative 

Action’’ accompanying the URAA, H.R. 

Rep. No. 103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) 

(‘‘SAA’’). We find that, because the 

PRC–wide entity did not respond to our 

request for information, it has failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability. The 

PRC wide entity includes Datong 

Huibao Activated Carbon Co., Ltd and 

its affiliated company Beijing Hibridge 

Trading Co., Ltd., who we preliminary 

determined was part of the PRC–wide 

entity as it was selected as a mandatory 

respondent and then withdrew. 

Therefore, the Department finds that, in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, an adverse 

inference is appropriate for the PRC–

wide entity. 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

a NME country are subject to 

government control and because only 

the companies listed under the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below 

have overcome that presumption, we are 

applying a single antidumping rate - the 

PRC–wide rate - to all other exporters of 

subject merchandise from the PRC. Such 

companies did not demonstrate 

entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., 

Synthetic Indigo from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). 

The PRC–wide rate applies to all entries 

of subject merchandise except for 

entries from the respondents which are 

listed in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below (except as 

noted). 

Corroboration 

At the Preliminary Determination, in 

accordance with section 776(c) of the 

Act, we corroborated our adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) margin using 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 41 / Friday, March 2, 2007 / Notices 9511 

information submitted by certain 

respondents. To assess the probative 

value of the total AFA rate it has chosen 

for the PRC–wide entity, the Department 

compared the final margin calculations 

of certain respondents in this 

investigation with the rate of 228.11 

percent from the petition, as used in the 

Preliminary Determination. We 

continue to find that the rate is within 

the range of the highest margins we 

have determined in this investigation. 

See Memorandum to the File: 

Corroboration of the PRC–Wide Facts 

Available Rate for the Final 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Activated 

Carbon from the People’s Republic of 

China, dated February 23, 2007 (‘‘Final 

Corroboration Memo’’). Since the record 

of this investigation contains margins 

within the range of 228.11 percent, the 

margin selected from the petition, we 

determine that the rate used in the 

Preliminary Determination continues to 

be relevant for use in this investigation. 

As discussed therein, we found that the 

margin of 228.11 percent has probative 

value. See Final Corroboration Memo. 

Accordingly, we find that the rate of 

228.11 percent is corroborated within 

the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. 

Combination Rates 

In its initiation notice, the Department 

stated that it would calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain Activated Carbon 

From the People’s Republic of China, 71 

FR 16757 (April 4, 2006) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’). Therefore, for the final 

determination, we have assigned a 

combination rate to respondents that are 

eligible for a separate rate. 

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

percentage weighted–average margins 

exist for the POI: 

Exporter Supplier WA Margin 

Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. ................................. Alashan Yongtai Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. ................................. Changji Hongke Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. ................................. Datong Forward Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. ................................. Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemicals Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. ................................. Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant 73.60 

Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. ................................. Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon 

Co., Ltd. 

73.60 

Beijing Pacific Activated Carbon Products Co., Ltd. ................................. Ningxia Luyuangheng Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Datong Carbon Corporation 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Datong Changtai Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Datong Forward Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Datong Fuping Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Datong Hongtai Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Datong Huanqing Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Datong Huibao Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Datong Kangda Activated Carbon Factory 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Datong Runmei Activated Carbon Factory 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Dushanzi Chemical Factory 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Fangyuan Carbonization Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Hongke Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Huairen Jinbei Chemical Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Jiaocheng Xinxin Purification Material Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Ningxia Guanghua Cherishment Activated 

Carbon Co., Ltd. 

78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Ningxia Guanghua A/C Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Ningxia Honghua Carbon Industrial Corporation 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Ningxia Luyuanheng Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Ningxia Pingluo Yaofu Activated Carbon Factory 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Ningxia Tianfu Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Ningxia Yinchuan Lanqiya Activated Carbon Co., 

Ltd. 

78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Nuclear Ningxia Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Pingluo Xuanzhong Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Shanxi Xuanzhong Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Xingtai Coal Chemical Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Calgon Carbon Tianjin Co., Ltd. ................................................................ Yuyang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 78.89 

Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. .............................................. Datong Juqiang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemicals Co., Ltd. ....................................... Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemicals Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. ......................... Datong Municipal Yunguang Activated Carbon 

Co., Ltd. 

73.60 

Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant .......................................................... Datong Yunguang Chemicals Plant 73.60 

Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation ................................... Da Neng Zheng Da Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising Corporation ................................... Shanxi Bluesky Purification Material Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Jacobi Carbons AB .................................................................................... Datong Forward Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 62.08 

Jacobi Carbons AB .................................................................................... Datong Hongtai Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 62.08 

Jacobi Carbons AB .................................................................................... Datong Huibao Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 62.08 

Jacobi Carbons AB .................................................................................... Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 62.08 

Jacobi Carbons AB .................................................................................... Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Company 

Limited 

62.08 

Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd. ............................................ Shanxi Xinhua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 228.11 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
9512 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 41 / Friday, March 2, 2007 / Notices 

Exporter Supplier WA Margin 

Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd. ............................................ Tonghua Bright Future Activated Carbon Plant 228.11 

Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Company, Ltd. ............................................ Zuoyun Bright Future Activated Carbon Plant 228.11 

Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd. ................ Shanxi Xinhua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 228.11 

Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd. ................ Tonghua Bright Future Activated Carbon Plant 228.11

Jilin Province Bright Future Industry and Commerce Co., Ltd. ................ Zuoyun Bright Future Activated Carbon Plant 228.11 

Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. ..................... Ningxia Guanghua Cherishmet Activated Carbon 

Co., Ltd. 

73.60 

Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. .............................................. Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Ningxia Mineral & Chemical Limited ......................................................... Ningxia Baota Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Shanxi DMD Corporation China Nuclear .................................................. Ningxia Activated Carbon Plant 73.60 

Shanxi DMD Corporation ........................................................................... Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Shanxi DMD Corporation ........................................................................... Shanxi Xinhua Chemical Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Shanxi DMD Corporation ........................................................................... Tonghua Xinpeng Activated Carbon Factory 73.60 

Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd. .......................................... Actview Carbon Technology Co., Ltd. 73.60

Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd. .......................................... Datong Forward Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd. .......................................... Datong Tri–Star & Power Carbon Plant 73.60 

Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd. .......................................... Fu Yuan Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd. .......................................... Jing Mao (Dongguan) Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Shanxi Industry Technology Trading Co., Ltd. .......................................... Xi Li Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd. .......................................................................... Datong Forward Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd. .......................................................................... Ningxia Guanghua Chemical Activated Carbon 

Co., Ltd. 

73.60 

Shanxi Newtime Co., Ltd. .......................................................................... Ningxia Tianfu Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation ................................................. Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemicals Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation ................................................. Datong Tianzhao Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation ................................................. Ningxia Huinong Xingsheng Activated Carbon 

Co., Ltd. 

73.60 

Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation ................................................. Ningxia Yirong Alloy Iron Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation ................................................. Ninxia Tongfu Coking Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Shanxi Qixian Foreign Trade Corporation ................................................. Shanxi Xiaoyi Huanyu Chemicals Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd. ............................................................ Datong Guanghua Activated Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd. ............................................................ Ningxia Guanghua–Cherishmet Activated Carbon 

Co., Ltd. 

73.60 

Shanxi Sincere Industrial Co., Ltd. ............................................................ Ningxia Pingluo County YaoFu Activated Carbon 

Factory 

73.60 

Shanxi Xuanzhong Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. ....................................... Ningxia Pingluo Xuanzhong Activated Carbon 

Co., Ltd. 

73.60 

Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd. .............................................................. Datong Zuoyun Biyun Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd. .............................................................. Ningxia Guanghua Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd. .............................................................. Ningxia Xingsheng Coal and Active Carbon Co., 

Ltd. 

73.60 

Tangshan Solid Carbon Co., Ltd. .............................................................. Pingluo Yu Yang Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd. .............................................................. Hegongye Ninxia Activated Carbon Factory 73.60 

Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd. .............................................................. Ningxia Pingluo County YaoFu Activated Carbon 

Plant 

73.60 

Tianjin Maijin Industries Co., Ltd. .............................................................. Yinchuan Lanqiya Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. ...................................... Datong Fu Ping Activated Carbon Co., Ltd. 73.60 

United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. ...................................... Datong Locomotive Coal & Chemical Co. Ltd. 73.60 

United Manufacturing International (Beijing) Ltd. ...................................... Xinhua Chemical Company Ltd. 73.60 

Xi’an Shuntong International Trade & Industrials Co., Ltd. ....................... DaTong Tri–Star & Power Carbon Plant 73.60 

Xi’an Shuntong International Trade & Industrials Co., Ltd. ....................... Ningxia Huahui Activated Carbon Company 

Limited 

73.60 

PRC–Wide Rate ........................................................................................ ................................................................................ 228.11 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the 

Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to continue 

to suspend liquidation of all entries of 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after October 11, 

2006, the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination. CBP shall 

continue to require a cash deposit or the 

posting of a bond equal to the estimated 

amount by which the normal value 

exceeds the U.S. price as shown above. 

These instructions suspending 

liquidation will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of our final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the 

ITC will determine whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 41 / Friday, March 2, 2007 / Notices 9513 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. This 

determination and notice are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

This determination and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: February 23, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Changes from the Preliminary 

Determination 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Whether to Clarify the 

Scope With Respect to Blended 

Products 

Comment 2: Whether to Exclude 

Carbochem Products from the Scope 

Comment 3: Whether to Correct Freight 

Ministerial Error 

Comment 4: Whether to Change the 

Department’s Zeroing Methodology 

Comment 5: Whether to Grant a By–

Product Offset for Activated Carbon 

Products 

Comment 6: Treatment of Non–

Production Electricity and Labor 

Company–Specific Issues 

Jacobi Issues 

Comment 7: Whether to Apply Total 

Adverse Facts Available to Jacobi 

Comment 8: Treatment of Powdered 

Activated Carbon Sold to the United 

States 

Comment 9: Whether to Recalculate 

Jacobi’s FOPs to Include By–products in 

the Denominator 

Comment 10: Whether to Apply 

Adverse Facts Available for DTFH 

Comment 11: Whether to Apply 

Adverse Facts Available to Jacobi’s 

Electricity and Labor 

Comment 12: Treatment of Impregnated 

Material at NXGH for which No Data 

Were Reported 

Comment 13: Whether to Impute 

Verification Findings of NXGH and 

DTHB to Jacobi’s Other Suppliers 

Comment 14: Treatment of Water 

Comment 15: Treatment of Packing and 

Factory Labor 

Comment 16: Valuation of Carbonized 

Material 

Comment 17: Valuation of Coal 

Comment 18: Valuation of Chemical 

Inputs 

Comment 19: Calculation of Indirect 

Selling Expense 

CCT Issues 

Comment 20: Whether to Continue to 

Apply Adverse Facts Available to 

Certain CCT Suppliers 

Comment 21: PXZ’s Pressroom Product 

Comment 22: Whether to Impute the 

Verification Findings of NXGH to CCT 

Comment 23: Production Denominator 

Comment 24: Calculation of Indirect 

Selling Expense 

Comment 25: U.S. Warehousing 

Expense 

Comment 26: Marine Insurance 

Jilin Issues 

Comment 27: Whether to Apply 

Adverse Facts Available to Jilin Bright 

Future 

[FR Doc. E7–3693 Filed 3–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–427–801) 

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 

France: Initiation of an Antidumping 

Duty Changed–Circumstances Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request for a 

changed–circumstances review from 

Societe Nouvelle de Fabrication 

Aeronautique S.A.S.U., SKF France 

S.A., and SKF Aerospace France S.A.S. 

and pursuant to section 751(b) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 

CFR § 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3), the 

Department of Commerce is initiating a 

changed–circumstances review of the 

antidumping duty order on ball bearings 

and parts thereof from France. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 2, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edythe Artman at (202) 482–3931 or 

Richard Rimlinger at (202) 482–4477, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published antidumping 

duty orders on ball bearings, cylindrical 

roller bearings, and spherical plain 

bearings and parts thereof from France 

on May 15, 1989. See Antidumping Duty 

Orders: Ball Bearings, Cylindrical Roller 

Bearings, Spherical Plain Bearings, and 

Parts Thereof From France, 54 FR 20902 

(May 15, 1989). The order on cylindrical 

roller bearings and parts thereof from 

France was revoked, effective January 1, 

2000. See Revocation of Antidumping 

Duty Orders on Certain Bearings From 

Hungary, Japan, Romania, Sweden, 

France, Germany, Italy, and the United 

Kingdom, 65 FR 42667 (July 11, 2000). 

The order on spherical plain bearings 

and parts thereof from France was also 

revoked, effective July 11, 2005. See 

Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof 

from France and Singapore: Revocation 

of Antidumping Duty Orders, 71 FR 

54468 (September 15, 2006). 

Societe Nouvelle de Fabrication 

Aeronautique S.A.S.U. (SNFA) and SKF 

France S.A. have participated in 

numerous administrative reviews of the 

order on ball bearings and parts thereof 

from France. On August 11, 2000, the 

Department revoked the order, effective 

May 1, 1999, with respect to sales of 

bearings by SNFA. See Antifriction 

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 

Bearings) and Parts Thereof from 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 

Romania, Singapore, Sweden and the 

United Kingdom; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Revocation of Orders in 

Part, 65 FR 49219 (August 11, 2000). 

On January 9, 2007, SNFA and SKF 

France S.A. and SKF Aerospace France 

S.A.S. (collectively SKF France) 

requested that the Department initiate 

and conduct a changed–circumstances 

review in order to determine that, for 

purposes of the order on ball bearings 

and parts thereof, SNFA is not a 

successor–in-interest to SKF France 

following SNFA’s acquisition by that 

company and that it is the successor–ininterest to the pre–acquisition SNFA. 

We did not receive any other 

comments. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by these orders 

are ball bearings (other than tapered 

roller bearings) and parts thereof. These 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES

B-1

APPENDIX B

CALENDAR OF THE PUBLIC HEARING

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

hearing:

Subject: Certain Activated Carbon from China

Inv. No.: 731-TA-1103 (Final)

Date and Time: February 27, 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, DC.

In Support of the Imposition of Antidumping Duties:

Kelley Drye Collier Shannon

 Washington, DC

 on behalf of

Calgon Carbon Corporation

NORIT Americas, Inc.

Ronald Thompson, President, NORIT Americas, Inc.

Timothy Wruble, National Account Manager, NORIT Americas, Inc.

Dennis Rester, Consultant, NORIT Americas, Inc.

Robert O’Brien, Senior Vice President, Calgon Carbon Corporation

William Aldridge, Business Development Manager, Calgon Carbon Corporation

Brad Hudgens, Economist, Georgetown Economic Services

David A. Hartquist )

R. Alan Luberda ) – OF COUNSEL

Mary T. Staley )

C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-3

Table C-1

CAC: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2003-06 

* * * * * * *
C-4

Table C-2

CAC: U.S. imports and U.S. shipments, by sources, 2003-06, based on questionnaire responses

Source

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China 58,706 74,816 79,131 76,054

Nonsubject countries 21,188 39,789 51,939 49,350

Total 79,894 114,605 131,069 125,404

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

China 18,225 25,592 24,953 24,848

Nonsubject countries 17,692 30,717 33,106 33,549

Total 35,917 56,309 58,059 58,397

Unit value (per pound)

1

China $0.31 $0.34 $0.32 $0.33

Nonsubject countries 0.84 0.77 0.64 0.68

Total 0.45 0.49 0.44 0.47

U.S. shipments quantity (1,000 pounds)

China 56,896 70,475 75,709 84,264

Nonsubject countries 20,208 34,268 41,365 45,457

Total 77,104 104,743 117,073 129,721

U.S. shipments value (1,000 dollars)

2

China 24,479 30,546 33,156 38,289

Nonsubject countries 20,800 30,873 39,078 44,990

Total 45,279 61,420 72,234 83,279

U.S. shipments unit value (per pound)

2

China $0.43 $0.43 $0.44 $0.45

Nonsubject countries 1.03 0.90 0.94 0.99

Total 0.59 0.59 0.62 0.64

 1 Landed, duty-paid.

 2

 F.o.b. point of U.S. shipment.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
D-1

APPENDIX D

PRODUCER, IMPORTER, AND PURCHASER COMMENTS 

REGARDING DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES BETWEEN

REACTIVATED CARBON AND CERTAIN ACTIVATED CARBON
D-2
D-3

The Commission requested producers, importers, and purchasers to describe the differences and

similarities between RAC and CAC with respect to: characteristics and uses; interchangeability;

manufacturing processes; channels of distribution; customer and producer perceptions; and price. The

responses follow:

Characteristics and Uses

* * * * * * *

Interchangeability

* * * * * * *

Manufacturing Processes

* * * * * * *

Channels of Distribution

* * * * * * *

Customer and Producer Perceptions

* * * * * * *

Price

* * * * * * *

E-1

APPENDIX E

TRADE AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION 

ON REACTIVATED CARBON
E-2
 1

 Nine firms reported they do not produce RAC. They are ***. 

 2

 ***.

 3

 Calgon, Norit, and California Carbon. ***.

 4

 All noncommercial production was internally consumed and there were no noncommercial inventory or

employment data reported.

E-3

RAC: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS,

 AND EMPLOYMENT

Eight producers generally believed to account for nearly all production in the commercial RAC

market and two non-commercial producers which reactivate for their own use provided useable data

concerning their RAC production.1 2

 Three of the eight firms producing RAC for the commercial market

are also producers of CAC.3

 Five of the firms producing for the commercial market also reported data on

tolling operations. In this industry, the toller provides a reactivation service to a tollee who is the end

user of the tolled product. Presented in table E-1 is a list of the U.S. RAC producers (both commercial

and noncommercial) that responded to the Commission’s producer questionnaire. Also presented is

information concerning each company’s position on the petition, production locations, and their share of

reported 2006 domestic production of RAC. 

Table E-2 presents commercial U.S. producers’ capacity, production, capacity utilization,

shipment, inventory, and employment data for RAC. Table E-3 presents tolling capacity, capacity

utilization, production, shipment, and employment data by U.S. producers of RAC. Table E-4 presents

U.S. producers’ non-commercial RAC capacity, production, capacity utilization, and shipment data.4
E-4

Table E-1

RAC: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, and shares of reported

2006 production

Firm Position

Production

location (s)

Share of 2006

reported production

(percent)

Commercial:

Calgon Supports Kentucky, Ohio ***

Norit Supports Texas ***

California Carbon *** California ***

American Carbon Services Supports New Jersey ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

 Total 100.0

Noncommercial:

*** *** *** ***

*** *** *** ***

 Total 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
E-5

Table E-2

RAC: Commercial U.S. producers’ capacity, production, capacity utilization, shipments, end-of-period inventories, and

employment-related indicators, 2003-06

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006

Capacity (1,000 pounds) 115,500 118,500 119,300 119,400

Production (1,000 pounds) 87,739 87,676 96,484 97,406

Capacity utilization (percent) 76.0 74.0 80.9 81.6

Commercial shipments:

Quantity (1,000 pounds) 79,958 89,289 92,783 93,362

Value (1,000 dollars) 29,252 32,293 34,187 37,736

Unit value (per pound) $0.37 $0.36 $0.37 $0.40

Internal consumption:

Quantity (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars) *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per pound) *** *** *** ***

Company transfers:

Quantity (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars) *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per pound) *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. shipments:

Quantity (1,000 pounds) 84,423 92,326 95,682 98,001

Value (1,000 dollars) 31,127 33,641 35,544 39,935

Unit value (per pound) $0.37 $0.36 $0.37 $0.41

Export shipments:

Quantity (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars) *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per pound) *** *** *** ***

Total shipments:

Quantity (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars) *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per pound) *** *** *** ***

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 44,441 38,818 40,061 39,852

Ratio of inventories to total shipments 

(percent) *** *** *** ***

Production and related workers (PRWs) 160 185 176 163

Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 339 389 364 337

Hours worked per worker 2,119 2,103 2,068 2,067

Wages paid to PRWs (1,000 dollars) 8,369 9,959 11,021 10,235

Hourly wages $24.69 $25.60 $30.28 $30.37

Productivity (pounds produced per hour) 242.4 215.6 254.4 276.5

Unit labor costs (per pound) $0.10 $0.12 $0.12 $0.11

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
 5

 The firms are: ***. ***. Differences between data reported in the trade and financial sections of the

Commission’s producers’ questionnaire primarily are attributable to ***, which provided trade data but did not

provide financial data.

 6

 These firms are: ***. ***.

 7

 Also, see petitioners’ posthearing brief, exh. 1, pp. 17-20.

E-6

Table E-3

RAC toll conversion: U.S producers’ capacity, production, capacity utilization, shipments, and

employment-related indicators, 2003-06

* * * * * * *

Table E-4

RAC: Non-commercial U.S. producers’ capacity, production, capacity utilization, and shipments,

2003-06

* * * * * * *

RAC: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Six U.S. firms provided usable financial data for each of their latest four fiscal years on their

commercial non-toll and toll operations on RAC.5

 These reported data are believed to represent nearly all

of U.S. RAC production in 2006. Also, two firms provided useable data on their non-commercial

operations wherein they reactivate and use RAC entirely within their own operations RAC.6

OPERATIONS ON RAC

Income-and-loss data for the U.S. industry’s RAC operations are presented separately for

commercial non-toll operations and tolling operations of RAC in tables E-5 and E-6, respectively, and

such data are combined in table E-7.7

Table E-5

RAC: Results of commercial non-toll operations of U.S. producers, 2003-06 

* * * * * * *

Table E-6

RAC: Results of commercial toll operations of U.S. producers, 2003-06 

* * * * * * *

Table E-7

RAC: Results of commercial non-toll and toll operations combined of U.S. producers, 2003-06 

* * * * * * *
 8

 ***. 

E-7

The responding firms’ data on their total assets used in the production, warehousing, and sale of

RAC, return on investment (ROI), and capital expenditures for RAC are shown in table E-8. 

Table E-8

RAC: Total assets, return on investment, and capital expenditures of U.S. producers, 2003-06

* * * * * * *

With respect to commercial operations, the Commission’s questionnaire requested firms to

explain any price relationship between virgin activated carbon and reactivated carbon. Their comments

are as follows:

***: “***.”

Calgon: “***”.

Norit: “***.”

***: “***”.

Both *** responded that there is a price relationship between CAC and RAC, and that a higher

price of CAC results in a higher price of RAC as well as giving rise to the possibility of expanding the

firms’ reactivation capacity.

With regard to toll conversion of RAC, the Commission’s questionnaire also requested

information on the customers, whether reactivation was dedicated (i.e., the customer provides carbon for

reactivation, and that material is segregated in storage, processed separately, and the same material is

returned to the customer upon reactivation), and whether there is a price relationship between tolled-RAC

and CAC. The firms responded follows: ***. 

The Commission’s questionnaire requested firms that reactivate the carbon that is used entirely

within their own operations (i.e., no commercial sales to or tolling performed on behalf of other firms) to

report certain limited data. Useable questionnaire responses were received from two firms: ***.8

 Data

for the non-commercial operations on RAC are presented in table E-9. However, these data should be

used with caution as they represent only estimates compiled for the specific purpose of responding to the

Commission’s questionnaire.

Table E-9

RAC: Non-commercial operations of U.S. firms, 2003-06

* * * * * * *

The Commission’s questionnaire requested firms and/or municipalities that filled out this section

to provide the names of its suppliers of CAC, whether the firm or municipality has its CAC tollprocessed, whether that toll-processing was dedicated, whether its RAC possessed a value, and whether

there is a price relationship between CAC and RAC. Both ***. Purchases of CAC of the ***.
E-8

RAC: PRICE DATA

In addition to the pricing data for CAC presented in Part V, the Commission requested U.S.

producers and importers of RAC to provide quarterly data for the total quantity and f.o.b. (U.S. point of

shipment) value of RAC that was shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market. Data were requested

for the period January 2003 to December 2006. The products for which pricing data were requested are

defined as follows: 

Product 1.–Granular reactivated carbon that is steam activated from coal (bituminous, lignite, and

anthracite), unwashed, no more than 15 percent greater than 8 mesh and no more than 4 percent

under 30 mesh, iodine no. 900 mg/g min, moisture 2% max

Product 2.– Granular reactivated carbon that is steam activated from coal (bituminous, lignite,

and anthracite), unwashed, no more than 5 percent greater than 12 mesh and no more than 4

percent under 40 mesh, iodine no. 1000 mg/g min, moisture 2% max

Product 3.–Powder reactivated carbon that is steam activated from coal (bituminous, lignite, and

anthracite), unwashed, particle size 90% min, 325 mesh, iodine no. 700 mg/g min, moisture 5%

max

Four U.S. producers of RAC, ***, provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested

products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products or all quarters. No imports of RAC from

China were reported. Table E-10 and figures E-1 through E-3 present f.o.b. (U.S. point of shipment)

selling prices for the three RAC products defined above produced and sold in the United States. Figures

E-1 through E-3 also show prices of domestic and imported CAC for comparison. By quantity, pricing

data reported by responding firms in 2003 through 2006 accounted for 29.5 percent of U.S. commercial

shipments of U.S.-produced RAC.

Table E-10

RAC: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic reactivated products 1, 2 and 3,

January 2003-December 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure E-1

CAC and RAC: Weighted-average prices of domestic, imported, and reactivated product 1, by

quarters, January 2003-December 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure E-2

CAC and RAC: Weighted-average prices of domestic, imported, and reactivated product 2, by

quarters, January 2003-December 2006

* * * * * * *

Figure E-3

CAC and RAC: Weighted-average prices of domestic, imported and reactivated product 3, by

quarters, January 2003-December 2006

* * * * * * *
E-9

Price Trends and Comparisons

U.S. producers’ average prices for reactivated product 1, ***, were *** and, aside from four

quarters in which certain activated product 1 from China undersold reactivated product 1, were *** for

both domestic CAC and subject imported CAC product 1. Overall, prices of reactivated product 1 rose by

*** percent between January-March 2003 and October-December 2006. On average, prices for

reactivated product 1 during the period were *** percent lower than domestic CAC product 1 and ***

percent lower than subject imported CAC product 1. Prices for reactivated product 2 were *** and stood

*** the price of U.S. shipments of CAC product 2 imported from China in *** during the period. 

Overall, prices for reactivated product 2 fell by *** percent between January-March 2003 and OctoberDecember 2006. On average, prices for reactivated product 2 during the period were *** percent lower

than domestic CAC product 2 and *** percent lower than subject imported CAC product 2. Prices for

reactivated product 3 show the greatest movement among reactivated products. After fluctuating in the

first two-and-a-half years of the period, prices of reactivated product 3 rose fairly steadily through the

second half of 2005 and 2006. Overall, prices in October-December 2006 were *** percent higher than

in January-March 2003. However, almost all of this increase is due to the price increase observed in the

final six quarters of the period. Prices for U.S.-produced reactivated product 3 were higher than subject

imports of CAC product 3 in eight of 16 quarters in the period. On average, prices for reactivated product

3 during the period were *** percent lower than domestic CAC product 3 and *** percent higher than

subject imported CAC product 3.